Featured Wisconsin Hybrid Tax- is it legal?

What a joke...the WI Legislature/WI DOT (and probably all the model legislation) appears to have gone to this US DOE page that gives a cursory, descriptive, public-facing discussion of hybrid cars and decided to make the included comments a "definition in law". Gotta laugh at these guys...

B

 

To start, the SAE may have defined definitions for mild and full hybrid. I'm just not $81 curious. J1715: Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) and Electric Vehicle (EV) Terminology - SAE International

Your first link is correct(well, the CR-Z should be listed as a mild hybrid) in its descriptions, and in placing the Prius in the full hybrid group. I think you may have misread the table there. The electrical power line isn't a measurement of the battery, but of the main traction motor. Peak electric power comes from the battery and the generator.

The second link is just wrong. The only mild hybrid on that list is the Lacrosse. The Mercedes and Audi are maybes simply because I know nothing about them. Another post for that site even uses the Accord as an example of a full hybrid. PHEV vs FHEV | Hybrid Auto

As for taxes, if the purpose of these taxes is to get non-plug in hybrids to pay "their fair share", then the law shouldn't looking at what type of hybrid it is, but the EPA rating of all efficient cars and trucks, no matter what method those cars use to save fuel.

 

I bet the 30mpg Silverado & Colorado owners would disagree with you.

 

If you want to make a difference, maybe you can send something like this to the Gov Ever's "Voice Your Opinion" page. It's long and wordy. I don't consider that a disadvantage. And if you send the IDENTICAL thing, I also don't think that's a disadvantage. If he sees an active, unified and organized community out there, especially this community that maybe tends to vote democratic, he may take notice. If he does hold up the fee and the legislature balks, maybe that will generate a little press and public notice for the issue. Again, step by step...

B
-----
Governor Evers,


I am a member of the community of hybrid-electric vehicle owners, specifically, gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle owners. I respectfully request that you instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee that is now being imposed on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles pending challenges to the legislative and WI DOT definitions that form the basis that justifies the fee, and to the processes and procedures WI DOT uses to select vehicles that will be charged the fee.

According to the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau Paper #696 dated May, 2019 and titled:

Hybrid-Electric Vehicle Fee Definition
(Transportation -- Transportation Finance)
[LFB 2019-21 Budget Summary: Page 408, #10]

You, as the recently elected Democratic governor of Wisconsin, proposed the following:

"Amend the definition of a hybrid-electric vehicle to mean a vehicle that is capable of using
both electricity and gasoline, diesel fuel, or alternative fuel to propel the vehicle. "

This definition is entirely arbitrary and unworkable. It does not provide guidance to citizens or to WI DOT as to which vehicles are and are not included as targets for the fee. In fact, every gas-only vehicle is covered by the definition in that they all use electricity to fire spark plugs to ignite gas to propel the vehicle. This means that the enforcement of the legislation is, by its nature arbitrary. On this basis, alone, the WI DOT should be instructed by you to stop collecting the hybrid-electric vehicle fee.

Subsequent issues in defining arbitrary subsets of targeted vehicles accrue from that basic, vague definition. According to the discussion point of Paper #696:

2. The U.S. Department of Energy states that two types of hybrids exist in today's U.S. automobile market:

"Mild hybrids - also called micro hybrids - use a battery and electric motor to help power the vehicle and can allow the engine to shut off when the vehicle stops (such as at traffic lights or in stopand-go traffic), further improving fuel economy. Mild hybrid systems cannot power the vehicle using electricity alone. These vehicles generally cost less than full hybrids but provide less fuel economy benefit than full hybrids"; and

"Full hybrids, have larger batteries and more powerful electric motors, which can power the vehicle for short distances and at low speeds. These vehicles cost more than mild hybrids but provide better fuel economy benefits."

and:

"3. The Department indicates under the proposed definition change, DOT would apply the additional registration fee only to full hybrids. DOT indicates that it would search the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a hybrid identification as only vehicles that have full hybrid capabilities would carry this hybrid VIN identification."

The definitions in discussion point 2 are not from any technical papers prepared by the US DOE, but are instead from instructional, public facing pages that encourage the adoption of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs). Reference:

Alternative Fuels Data Center: Hybrid Electric Vehicles

They are entirely unsuitable for use as "definitions in law". There are other, more precise sources that that define different types of hybrid-electric vehicles that do not support the statements of discussion point 2. Nonetheless, in discussion point 3, WI DOT apparently specifies that the stated definition for "full hybrids" will be the basis for applying the hybrid electric vehicle fee. This method of classification has little or no relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.

Discussion point 3 also states that WI DOT would "search the vehicle identification number (VIN) for a hybrid identification as only vehicles that have full hybrid capabilities would carry this hybrid VIN identification". This process has proven to be entirely opaque to citizen scrutiny. Requests to WI DOT to provide details on their VIN identification processes and procedures have gone unanswered. Citizen searches of VIN identification values for relevant vehicle models show inconsistent results. In addition, citizen evaluations of the VIN identification values show that some identical manufacturer and model vehicles across different years yield differing, potentially relevant VIN identification values. This means that the different classifications for different vehicles, with regard to imposition of the hybrid-electric vehicle fee, will not be "real", and will instead be feigned or arbitrary distinctions, in this case, model year.

Gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles exist on a continuum of energy efficiency that include small-engine turbos, vehicles that employ weight reduction, and vehicles that use alternative, but still taxed fuels, such as diesel. The imposition of the $75 fee on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles is entirely disparate, relative to the difference in efficiency classification, as to be wholly arbitrary both for vehicles generally considered hybrid-electric, and any other efficient vehicle.

"Equal protection requires that classification rest on real and not feigned differences, that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatment be not so disparate, relative to the difference in classification, as to be wholly arbitrary."

There appears to be no motor vehicle taxation exemption under the "Equal Protection Clause" for this type of arbitrarily targeted fee. On all points, the gas-only hybrid electric fee is inappropriate, unfair, and probably illegal.

Again, as a member of the gas-only hybrid-electric community, and an affected Wisconsin citizen, I request that you, as governor, instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee pending challenges to its implementation.

Sincerely,

 

Toyota/autos generally agree that taxes should be "technology neutral". So if you save MPG by building an Aluminum F150, or by making it hybrid, who cares? As long as they all fill-up at the same gas station, there is no basis to pick out a certain efficiency technology as for punitive treatment. So it is unfair to punish hybrids.

But if you instead say, and New Hampshire almost did this, if you say any vehcile over 25 MPG owes extra tax, in proportion to the EPA MPG, we may not like that policy, but it is not unfair to hybrid owners. Hybrids are not singled out for punishment in that scenario. That would be a modified miles-driven tax basis.

PS- USA Prii Hybrids now have a mix of Li and NIMH and I have lost track of which models have which. We consider them equal MPG but we really do not have a good head-to-head MPG comparison, to my knowledge

 

The form cuts me off after the link on the word which

 

You are correct that I misread that first page. But, putting on my techie hat and with further research, it appears that the 67hp/50KW that the Prius puts out is likely startup current (low RPM). I believe that at 5000 RPM, or running speed, the current is better derived from the "total hybrid power" of 82Kw, which gives 24Kw for electric when the gas engine's 57Kw is subtracted. This is in keeping with the expected output of the hybrid battery, probably in a "steady state" cruise of 21Kw. In almost all comparisons, the "mild hybrid" G1 Honda Insight only falls slightly below these numbers and reflects the .936 KwH vs 1.3 KwH differential between the battery capacities. I can actually pull about 100Kw out of my G1 battery under the right circumstances. Regardless of this, and the fact that the Prius ends up in the stated category because it has a 201 V battery (200V being the cutoff that specifically causes Prius inclusion as a "full hybrid"), the bottom line is that both the gas-only Prius (and family) and the G1 Insight (and family) demonstrate the same basic performance in terms of MPG for city and highway driving. The distinction of being able to roll start with electric only power is not really relevant to that.

It is basically not possible to have a simple set of designations for various classes of gas-only hybrids. That issue is further illustrated in the second link. Designating classes of hybrids apparently ends up in the eye of the beholder. And making it the basis for differentially charging an electric-hybrid vehicle fee is not justifiable. The New Hampshire idea is "fairer", but affects so many potential complainers, and shows the true nature of such a fee...taxing efficiency to promote fossil fuel use...that it would be a disaster. Hopefully it was in NH.

B

 

Of course they would, but if 30mpg is deemed efficient for this hypothetical, they are skirting road taxes just like a 30mpg Highlander hybrid.

 

Two things...
1) if you are getting cut off trying to communicate with Gov. Evers on his "Voice Your Opinion" page (guess they may not like long opinions), you can try emailing your opinion to:

[email protected]

2) I can't seem to edit the mistakes out of my posts after the fact. I wish I was always right the first time...oh well... I said I can get 100Kw out of my Insight's hybrid battery. It's actually 100+ amps. Standard engineer's mistake. Measured power is about 15Kw in hard acceleration circumstances.

B

and PS...yes I see I can edit if I do it soon after posting...Tnx

 

At some point several years ago, Prius Chat changed to a limited time for edits of posts.

 

12 hours now.

And yes, I have started a few edits just before that deadline, and had them bounced for pressing "Save
Changes'" a few seconds too late.

 

How about this to use to fit on Gov Ever's "Voice Your Opinion" page? You should edit as you see fit, but please, I recommend all WI members submit these comments to Gov Evers to show the commitment of our community:
---
Governor Evers,

I am a member of the community of hybrid-electric vehicle owners, specifically, gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle owners. I respectfully request that you instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee that is now being imposed on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles pending challenges to the legislative and WI DOT definitions that form the basis that justifies the fee, and to the processes and procedures WI DOT uses to select vehicles that will be charged the fee.

Other members of this community have contacted you about the poorly worded and unworkable legislative and WI DOT definitions being applied to hybrid-electric vehicles. They have also challenged the opaque and apparently arbitrary processes and procedures WI DOT is using to target vehicles for the $75 fee. The bottom line is that gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles exist on a continuum of energy efficiency that include small-engine turbos, vehicles that employ weight reduction, and vehicles that use alternative, but still taxed fuels, such as diesel. The imposition of the $75 fee on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles is entirely disparate, relative to the difference in efficiency classification, as to be wholly arbitrary both for vehicles generally considered hybrid-electric, and any other efficient vehicle.

"Equal protection requires that classification rest on real and not feigned differences, that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatment be not so disparate, relative to the difference in classification, as to be wholly arbitrary."

There appears to be no motor vehicle taxation exemption under the "Equal Protection Clause" for this type of arbitrarily targeted fee. On all points, the gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle fee is inappropriate, unfair, and probably illegal.

Again, as a member of the gas-only hybrid-electric community, and an affected Wisconsin citizen, I request that you, as governor, instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee pending challenges to its implementation.

Sincerely,
---

B

 

Here is a different focus for an argument to make to Gov Evers that will also hopefully fit in his "Voice Your Opinion" page. This is a little more specific for Prius owners, so please go at it! Again, edit as you see fit...

B
---
Governor Evers,

I am a member of the community of hybrid-electric vehicle owners, specifically, gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle owners. I respectfully request that you instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee that is now being imposed on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles. The fee is subject to successful challenge, being clearly inappropriate, unfair, and probably illegal under tax law:

"Equal protection requires that classification rest on real and not feigned differences, that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatment be not so disparate, relative to the difference in classification, as to be wholly arbitrary."

According to the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau's own analysis in "Paper #696" dated May, 2019:

Regarding a comparison between a 2017 gas-only Prius and a 2017 Honda Fit: "setting the additional hybrid-electric fee at $32 annually ($75 current fee - $43) would be more in line with the difference in state fuel taxes paid by a hybrid-electric vehicle compared to a conventional fuel-powered vehicle."

but, more critically:

"between two comparably-sized vehicles, one conventional and one fully hybrid-electric, the hybrid electric would typically pay less in fuel costs, including state fuel taxes. However, the same concept would hold for any consumer who makes a decision to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle when choosing between two conventional vehicles. That consumer would also pay less in fuel costs, including state taxes, than if the consumer had chosen the less fuel efficient vehicle."

The imposition of a $75 fee on gas-only hybrid-electric vehicles is entirely disparate, relative to the difference in efficiency classification, as to be wholly arbitrary both for vehicles generally considered hybrid-electric, and any other efficient vehicle.

There appears to be no motor vehicle taxation exemption under the "Equal Protection Clause" for this type of arbitrarily targeted fee. On all points, and as previously stated, the gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle fee is inappropriate, unfair, and probably illegal.

Other members of this community have already contacted you about the poorly worded and unworkable legislative and WI DOT definitions being applied to hybrid-electric vehicles. They have also challenged the opaque and apparently arbitrary processes and procedures WI DOT is using to target vehicles for the $75 fee.

All of these arguments are clear and compelling. So, again, as a member of the gas-only hybrid-electric community, and an affected Wisconsin citizen, I request that you, as governor, instruct the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WI DOT) to stop collecting the $75 hybrid-electric vehicle fee pending challenges to its implementation.

Sincerely,

 

We've gotten at least 2 "opinions" sent in from the G1 Insight community today. It would be great to get to at least 10 overall before tomorrow's (Oct 1) scheduled full implementation date. The more, the better! So PLEASE, send one in. If you're willing, please let us know that you did...!

B

 

I'm In Alabama they just passed a gas tax this year and any hybrid owners will pay extra for registration and tag fees due too the fact they wont be filling up as much........ in conclusion its highway robbery

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Some movement as a result of my WI DOT open records request, but it begs the question as to how these categorizations were arrived at:

All G1 Insights identified as "Full Hybrid" subject to the fee.
All gas-only Prius from 2001 to 2016 (and probably beyond) identified as "Full Hybrid" subject to the fee.
Chevy Malibu Eco is NOT subject to the "Full Hybrid" fee.

I'm seeking additional details about the VIN values and subsequent processes that generate these categorizations. The fight at this point is to equate G1 Insights with Malibu Ecos as both meet the WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau definition for mild hybrid. It'll be tougher to exempt gas-only Prius, but we'll see after more info on the categorization process is uncovered (or not). But there may be a way using to challenge the WI DOT process. After that, it will be arguments about "equal protection" as identified by the WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau, but that will undoubtedly take litigation. The equal protection arguments should be usable in any state. It might be possible to use the WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau's arguments as a "professional" opinion as to why equal protection should apply.

B

 

I just got my $160 bill for my v, last year it was $75.

Thanks Rethugs.

 

If you're up for it, you could contest it using the equal protection arguments. It doesn't cost much....

B

 

How about this to send on the MV1020 "Registration Correction Request" form? Please edit as appropriate and to best effect...

----

I request a correction to my vehicle registration to remove the additional registration fee of $75. On the basis of equal protection in matters of taxation, my vehicle is not subject to the additional $75 fee :

"Equal protection requires that classification rest on real and not feigned differences, that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made, and that the different treatment be not so disparate, relative to the difference in classification, as to be wholly arbitrary."

According to the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau's analysis in "Paper #696" dated May, 2019:

Regarding a comparison between a 2017 gas-only Prius and a 2017 Honda Fit: "setting the additional hybrid-electric fee at $32 annually ($75 current fee - $43) would be more in line with the difference in state fuel taxes paid by a hybrid-electric vehicle compared to a conventional fuel-powered vehicle."

but, more critically:

"between two comparably-sized vehicles, one conventional and one fully hybrid-electric, the hybrid-electric would typically pay less in fuel costs, including state fuel taxes. However, the same concept would hold for any consumer who makes a decision to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle when choosing between two conventional vehicles. That consumer would also pay less in fuel costs, including state taxes, than if the consumer had chosen the less fuel efficient vehicle."

The imposition of a $75 fee on my gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle is entirely disparate, relative to the difference in efficiency classification, as to be wholly arbitrary both for vehicles generally considered hybrid-electric, and any other efficient vehicle. There appears to be no motor vehicle taxation exemption under the "Equal Protection Clause" for this type of arbitrarily targeted fee. On all points, and as previously stated, the gas-only hybrid-electric vehicle fee is inappropriate, unfair, and probably illegal.

Please remove the additional registration fee of $75 from this registration application.

----

B

 

I commiserate with all of you having to face these Hybrid taxes.
Legal or not, I think they are totally unfair. You shouldn't be penalized, for using less gasoline, just because you put rubber on the road and go farther in between fill ups. If anything you should get a rebate, for helping keep the air cleaner.

I can understand legislation to replace the revenue created by lost gasoline taxes IF and WHEN we ever reach a tipping point where there are so many Hybrids and Full Electrics on the road that it really impacts road repair and maintenance. BUT...unfortunately for humanity we are a long ways from that reality.
At this point....you simply should NOT be penalized for owning and operating a Hybrid, IMO.