This is messed up; $325 emmisions tax for 5.0-5.9L

  • Sponsors (?)


http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=738011

Sorry Murph someone already beat ya to it.

Send an e-mail to all:
Courtesy of a fellow stangnetter, and an all around great guy.

Senate Transportation Committee

Senator Mary Haugen – Chair
Phone: 360/786-7618
Email: [email protected]
Senator Chris Marr
Phone: 360/786-7610
Email: [email protected]
Senator Ed Murray
Phone: 360/786-7628
Email: [email protected]
Senator Dan Swecker
Phone: 360/786-7638
Email: [email protected]
Senator Don Benton
Phone: 360/786-7632
Email: [email protected]
Senator Jean Berkey
Phone: 360/786-7674
Email: [email protected]
Senator Jerome Delvin
Phone: 360/786-7614
Email: [email protected]
Senator Tracey Eide
Phone: 360/786-7658
Email: [email protected]
Senator Janea Holmquist
Phone: 360/786-7624
Email: [email protected]
Senator Ken Jacobsen
Phone: 360/786-7690
Email: [email protected]
Senator Jim Kastama
Phone: 360/786-7648
Email: [email protected]
Senator Claudia Kauffman
Phone: 360/786-7692
Email: [email protected]
Senator Derek Kilmer
Phone: 360/786-7650
Email: [email protected]
Senator Curtis King
Phone: 360/786-7626
Email: [email protected]
Senator Cheryl Pflug
Phone: 360/786-7608
Email: [email protected]
Senator Tim Sheldon
Phone: 360/786-7668
Email: [email protected]
Senator Harriet Spanel
Phone: 360/786-7678
Email: [email protected]
 
FYI, one of the people on my email list actually got a response from one of the people on the committee saying that the bill was dead and wasn't going to make it out of committee. On the other hand, it could be reintroduced next session, so keep an eye out then.
 
Going strictly by displacement is perhaps too simplistic, but I agree with the idea in principle. Forget CAFE, and put the burden of choice onto the consumer -- you get to decide how much the performance car or SUV is worth to you.

And really, how is $325 absurdly high anyway? The average joe spends 5 or 6 times that per year in gasoline alone, not to mention the price of the car, depreciation, insurance...
 
Going strictly by displacement is perhaps too simplistic, but I agree with the idea in principle. Forget CAFE, and put the burden of choice onto the consumer -- you get to decide how much the performance car or SUV is worth to you.

And really, how is $325 absurdly high anyway? The average joe spends 5 or 6 times that per year in gasoline alone, not to mention the price of the car, depreciation, insurance...

When you own 5 cars, that adds up immensely. Further, the bill states that "The vehicle engine displacement fee under this section is
imposed to provide funds to mitigate the impact of vehicle loads on the
state roads and highways, as well as encourage the reduction of vehicle
emissions and is separate and distinct from other vehicle license fees."
Of my five cars, one drives less than 5,000 miles a year and three others do less than 3,000 miles a year. Between the four, I probably put out less in emissions
than one modified WRX driven 15,000 miles.

Besides collectors such as myself, this bill would have unfairly penalized people who need a large vehicle for work, such as contractors, construction workers, gardners and delivery drivers as well as poorer people who don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what they drive.

This bill only "makes sense" to someone that drives a four cylinder vehicle.
 
When you own 5 cars, that adds up immensely.
And if you can afford to own five cars, you can afford the fee ;).

Between the four, I probably put out less in emissions
than one modified WRX driven 15,000 miles.
Like I said, displacement might be too simplistic. The bill also mentions using emissions. That's a better choice.

Besides collectors such as myself, this bill would have unfairly penalized people who need a large vehicle for work, such as contractors, construction workers, gardners and delivery drivers as well as poorer people who don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what they drive.
Easy -- exemptions for legitimate businesses. And poor people with limited resources are hardly going to be shopping big cars and SUV's.

This bill only "makes sense" to someone that drives a four cylinder vehicle.
I take it you meant that as a cheap shot? Didn't work. My car gets 20 mpg just like my Mustangs did, it probably emits as much as they do (it ought to, it makes more power than the Mustangs did, excepting the '03 Cobra) -- it would get hit by the emissions part of that bill just like any big V8. My car is every bit as likely to fall to the CAFE axe as a big V8 muscle car is.

There is a very real problem with the way the gov't is currently regulating vehicle emissions. To me it sounds like the bill in Washington is an early, if imperfect attempt to find an equitable solution. The only folks who get really offended are those who think they should be allowed to do whatever they want at no cost, and damn everybody else around them. Reminds me a lot of the people who insist going catless is their god given right.

Personally I welcome the day when SUVs have to pay for the privilege. Tell me, what's the gas guzzler tax on a GT500? What is it on an SUV that gets the same mileage?
 
FYI, one of the people on my email list actually got a response from one of the people on the committee saying that the bill was dead and wasn't going to make it out of committee. On the other hand, it could be reintroduced next session, so keep an eye out then.

It seems it is dead, for now. It will be automatically reintroduced next year though so we need to keep an eye out. Here is another one they were trying to pull and it will also come up next year.

State of Washington 60th Legislature 2008 Regular Session
By Senators Murray, Kohl-Welles, Weinstein, Pridemore, Jacobsen, and
Kline
Read first time 02/06/08. Referred to Committee on Transportation.

AN ACT Relating to a passenger vehicle greenhouse gas excise tax; adding a new section to chapter 82.44 RCW; and creating a new section.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION.

Sec. 1. The legislature acknowledges the scientific consensus that global warming from greenhouse gases threatens Washington state's economy and environment. The legislature further recognizes that it is incumbent on the people of Washington state to take measures to reduce the state's contribution to global warming pollution. Emissions from road transportation account for approximately one-third of Washington state's global warming pollution, and the transportation sector is Washington state's largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging the use of fuel-efficient
vehicles and providing transportation alternatives are important strategies for reducing fuel use and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

The legislature finds that a greenhouse gas tax is an excise tax on sources that contribute to global warming. The legislature finds that the global warming costs associated with automobile emissions are not
included in the existing costs of using a vehicle. Additionally, the SB 692 legislature finds more alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle travel are needed to significantly reduce automobile vehicle miles traveled.

The legislature finds that a greenhouse gas tax is an effective way to embed some of the global warming costs of automobile emissions into the cost of using a vehicle, and at the same time provides resources to fund transportation alternatives.

The legislature finds that an exact measure of a vehicle's greenhouse gas emissions, though preferred, is not administratively
feasible at this time. The environmental protection agency fuel economy rating is the best available measure of a vehicle's greenhouse gas emissions given current technology and data collection practices.

The legislature finds that there is a sufficient relationship between a vehicle's fuel economy and its greenhouse gas emissions to provide a rational basis for determining the vehicle green house gas emissions tax. The legislature assumes that passenger vehicles travel the national average of twelve thousand miles per year and sets the price of greenhouse gas emissions at twenty dollars per ton of carbon dioxide.

Therefore, the legislature finds imposing a vehicle greenhouse gas emissions tax is a vital part of the state's strategy to reducing global warming.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 82.44 RCW to read as follows:
(1) The department of licensing must annually collect a vehicle excise tax on greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with the schedules contained in subsection (4) of this section. The annual vehicle greenhouse gas emissions excise tax will be collected on all motor vehicles licensed under the passenger use class, as specified in chapter 308-96A WAC.
(2) The state treasurer must distribute revenues on a monthly basis, less administrative fees not to exceed one percent of fees collected, according to the following formula:
(a) Twenty-five percent to the Washington state department of transportation; and
(b) Seventy-five percent to cities and counties based on a pro-rated share of registered passenger vehicles in incorporated and unincorporated areas.

SB 6923 p. 2
(3) The proceeds of this tax must be used for the design, construction, and operations of transportation facilities and services
that provide alternatives to the use of single-occupant vehicles and for programs that encourage the use of these facilities and services.

The allowable uses of these revenues include but are not limited to transit, high-capacity transportation, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transportation demand management programs.
(4) The tax schedule for the vehicle greenhouse gas emissions excise tax is as follows:
(a) For the purpose of this section, "EPA fuel economy rating" means the estimated, combined (fifty-five percent city and forty-five percent highway) fuel economy rating for vehicles, as reported in the United States environmental protection agency and United States department of energy "fuel economy guide" since the 1978 model year.
(b) Passenger vehicles that have an established EPA fuel economy rating must be taxed according to the EPA fuel economy rating as follows:


EPA Fuel Economy Rating
(Miles Per Gallon)
Tax Tons CO2
(12,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled)
10 or fewer MPG $240
11 MPG $220
12 MPG $200
13-14 MPG $180
15-16 MPG $160
17-18 MPG $140
19-21 MPG $120
22-26 MPG $100
27-34 MPG $80
35-48 MPG $60
49+ MPG $40
(c) Passenger vehicles that do not have an established EPA fuel economy rating must be taxed according to their engine displacement
size as follows:

p. 3 SB 6923


Engine Displacement/Size
(Liters)
Tax
4.0 L or more $240
3.0 L to less than 4.0 L $180
1.5 L to less than 3.0 L $120
Less than 1.5 L $80
--- END ---
SB 6923 p. 4
__________________
 
its not fair to tax by displacement. i only drive 4k or less a year and would be taxed just by my engine size while a guy in his honda is driving 20k or more a year making more poloution then my "gas guzzler" and getting off without paying extra for it
 
And if you can afford to own five cars, you can afford the fee ;).

Like I said, displacement might be too simplistic. The bill also mentions using emissions. That's a better choice.

Easy -- exemptions for legitimate businesses. And poor people with limited resources are hardly going to be shopping big cars and SUV's.

I take it you meant that as a cheap shot? Didn't work. My car gets 20 mpg just like my Mustangs did, it probably emits as much as they do (it ought to, it makes more power than the Mustangs did, excepting the '03 Cobra) -- it would get hit by the emissions part of that bill just like any big V8. My car is every bit as likely to fall to the CAFE axe as a big V8 muscle car is.

There is a very real problem with the way the gov't is currently regulating vehicle emissions. To me it sounds like the bill in Washington is an early, if imperfect attempt to find an equitable solution. The only folks who get really offended are those who think they should be allowed to do whatever they want at no cost, and damn everybody else around them. Reminds me a lot of the people who insist going catless is their god given right.

Personally I welcome the day when SUVs have to pay for the privilege. Tell me, what's the gas guzzler tax on a GT500? What is it on an SUV that gets the same mileage?

The bill is regressive and, I agree, simplistic. The legislator is riding the new fad of anti-carbonism. People with older trucks are going to be hit very hard. How about a bill that targets new vehicles and attempts to dissuade people from buying huge and heavy SUV's, instead of this punitive legislation? Changing buying habits is a worthy focus. Americans love big cars; when the cars aren't big enough, they buy trucks. We need to change that ethos. This bill just hits people for owning the "wrong" vehicles. I don't see a benefit to the air or the environment in that legislation.
 
My big issue is against all of us who have already bought cars. If it were a fee for new cars, that would make an impact, but there are a lot of people who have old cars and cannot afford new ones, who will have to pay these high yearly taxes. The cost of living is already too high.

We need to stop crying like girls over passenger vehicle emissions and go after the big polluters, heavy industry.
 
Um, is it just me, or is the government going about this all wrong?

They aren't going to achieve their goal of reduced emissions by taxing the public punitively.

They need to use a "carrot" to encourage new technology, not a "stick" to punish everyone living in the real world.

I for one would love to play on a battery-operated dirt bike, pull my trailer with a hydrogen-fueled truck, and power my house with non-polluting electricity. So, where can I get this stuff? Nowhere. Instead of taxing me for using current technology, they should fund real-world options for me to choose from.

Stupid government.
 
My big issue is against all of us who have already bought cars. If it were a fee for new cars, that would make an impact, but there are a lot of people who have old cars and cannot afford new ones, who will have to pay these high yearly taxes. The cost of living is already too high.

We need to stop crying like girls over passenger vehicle emissions and go after the big polluters, heavy industry.

+1. Starting with Coal power plants. The reason this **** happens is that the guy that owns the coal and natural gas power plants can afford to line the pockets of politicians while the farmer or logger or whatever that needs his truck cannot. Meanwhile, said politician needs to show that he is "forward thinking and green", so he comes of with **** legislation like this piece of trash to keep up appearances. This is similar to the tax breaks that *******s that drive priuses and insights and other hybrids in California get. Those hybrids that get them the tax breaks get SLIGHTLY better fuel mileage than othr cars and are loaded with hundreds of lbs lithium and lead in their batteries that are only good for so long until they are junk, and end up in a landfill. We need to focus on nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel. And don't even get me started on E85. Takes tons of coal derived power to make and worse fuel mileage than gasoline. Crap crap crap. Someone needs to lift the veil of ***** the news media, Al Gore, and all the other bureaucrats have collectively put in front of our faces.:bs: And for some reason that veil is alot thicker and stinkier in oregn, Washington, and California. Oh yeah, and if you hate this, don't vote democrat. if you do, this will be the tip of the iceberg.:flag:
 
+1. Starting with Coal power plants. The reason this **** happens is that the guy that owns the coal and natural gas power plants can afford to line the pockets of politicians while the farmer or logger or whatever that needs his truck cannot. Meanwhile, said politician needs to show that he is "forward thinking and green", so he comes of with **** legislation like this piece of trash to keep up appearances. This is similar to the tax breaks that *******s that drive priuses and insights and other hybrids in California get. Those hybrids that get them the tax breaks get SLIGHTLY better fuel mileage than othr cars and are loaded with hundreds of lbs lithium and lead in their batteries that are only good for so long until they are junk, and end up in a landfill. We need to focus on nuclear power and Hydrogen fuel. And don't even get me started on E85. Takes tons of coal derived power to make and worse fuel mileage than gasoline. Crap crap crap. Someone needs to lift the veil of ***** the news media, Al Gore, and all the other bureaucrats have collectively put in front of our faces.:bs: And for some reason that veil is alot thicker and stinkier in oregn, Washington, and California. Oh yeah, and if you hate this, don't vote democrat. if you do, this will be the tip of the iceberg.:flag:

I agree wholeheartedly. but do you honestly think that after GWB that anyone near the political right is going to come close to winning the election? for Gods sake the lead republican cantidate is pretty much a democrat anyways. it's hopeless. the hippies are going to take over the country and we'll see how much better they do with it. I honestly don't see much improvement in the near future.
 
I'm with you guys on a few points. The biggest related problem we have here is in our mixing of technology with politics. Many people blame the right for relaxing heavy industry emissions rules, and rightfully so. Many people blame the left for trying band-aid solutions for a broken arm problem, such as hybrids.

I hold reservations about hydrogen powered cars, for one, it is the most highly reactive element in our known universe, and therefore, very dangerous in an accident. Not only that, but it takes a high amount of electricity to separate hydrogen from water.

I'm all for real life exploration of alternative energy and propulsion, not because it's green, but because there are certainly far more efficient means for deriving energy, which in turn will be more cost effective. Legislation like the one I posted about only serves lip service to politicians and ends up hurting the tenants of this great country.
 
This bill is so fundamentally wrong I can't even begin to describe it. If John Heywood was dead, he would be rolling in his grave. My colleagues and I are attempting to set up a personal meeting with the politicians involved and discuss this tragic lapse of judgment.
 
+1. Starting with Coal power plants. The reason this **** happens is that the guy that owns the coal and natural gas power plants can afford to line the pockets of politicians while the farmer or logger or whatever that needs his truck cannot. Meanwhile, said politician needs to show that he is "forward thinking and green", so he comes of with **** legislation like this piece of trash to keep up appearances. This is similar to the tax breaks that *******s that drive priuses and insights and other hybrids in California get. Oh yeah, and if you hate this, don't vote democrat. if you do, this will be the tip of the iceberg.:flag:

My friend, you are sadly mistaken. My father’s sole way of putting bread on my table growing up was working at a coal fire power plant here in Oregon. He worked at Trojan and has worked for PGE for 27 years. I have toured the power plant and have first hand knowledge as to how much "pollution" it actually emits. Due to strict laws the coal fire plant, at least the one in our state, is as environmentally friendly as possible.

I am so far from the left its not even funny, so we agree on that. On the subject at hand I agree it’s a very crude version of an interesting law, but it seems as though liberalism tends to be the precipice for this forward thinking and abandonment towards reality thus forcing us to live in the state of "equality" we are leveling towards...:puke:
 
My friend, you are sadly mistaken. My father’s sole way of putting bread on my table growing up was working at a coal fire power plant here in Oregon. He worked at Trojan and has worked for PGE for 27 years. I have toured the power plant and have first hand knowledge as to how much "pollution" it actually emits. Due to strict laws the coal fire plant, at least the one in our state, is as environmentally friendly as possible.

I am so far from the left its not even funny, so we agree on that. On the subject at hand I agree it’s a very crude version of an interesting law, but it seems as though liberalism tends to be the precipice for this forward thinking and abandonment towards reality thus forcing us to live in the state of "equality" we are leveling towards...:puke:


By "pollution," I meant Carbon Dioxide, the villian of the day. A villian by the way that is emitted by burning almost anything, be it Natural Gas, Coal, Gasoline, LPG, Ethanol, Methanol, Diesel, Biodeiesel, or E85. Don't care what you do, CO2 is going somewhere. Note the one big one missing from my list.....Hydrogen. Hydrogen is not only carbon-free, but safe. It is far less likely to explode than gasoline. Someone above incorrectly stated that Hydrogen is the most reactive substance known. It isn't. take for example Cesium. It it will cause an explosion in the presence of water. Aluminum corrodes simply in the presence of air. Hydrogen does neither. Also, it's energy released in BTUs per weight is far lower than gasoline, hence why it takes turbos and superchargers to obtain an acceptable horsepower level for a driveable car. :nice: