Should Virginia Rebuff the HUF?

Rav4 hybrid — paying its fair share

by Bill Tracy

There’s a new Virginia tax called a HUF — for Highway Use Fee.

Who knew? Not me — until I had to pay it.

If you renew your Virginia vehicle registration, and your car exceeds a 25 miles-per-gallon EPA rating, you will be politely advised that you are underpaying pump taxes, and to be fair, you will be assessed an extra fee. In my case, I owed an extra $35 taxes because my new RAV4 Hybrid gets 40 MPG.

Because my wife and I do not put on many miles in retirement, and with COVID, that means I probably now pay a little more combined Virginia pump tax with my RAV4 Hybrid than I would with a non-hybrid RAV4. Not to mention significantly more annual car tax to Fairfax County.

I have mixed emotions. I am pleased that we are not singling out hybrids for punishment like many Red states are doing. In Virginia’s case, apparently, anyone with a car over 25 MPG owes a new fee out of “fairness.” (Fairness to who — the conservatives?)

I have discussed a system just  like this on Bacon’s Rebellion many times. I did not say it was better, I said it was not prejudiced as long as hybrids are not selectively punished. I was aware, some years ago, that New Hampshire had proposed such system, but the last I heard N.H. was not able to get it passed.

The use fee doesn’t cut any slack for electric vehicles. So, could Virginia be the only state with a de facto Miles Driven tax? 

Here is a shortened version of the text when you renew your registration on-line.

Va. Code §§ 46.2-770, § 46.2-771, and § 46.2-772

The purpose of the highway use fee is to ensure a more fair contribution to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund from fuel-efficient and electric vehicles using highways in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Transportation Fund is funded, in part, by motor fuels taxes. The highway use fee is effective July 1, 2020, and will be updated on a yearly basis.

“Fuel-efficient vehicles” are defined as vehicles that have a combined fuel economy of 25 miles per gallon (MPG) or greater, while, “electric motor vehicles” are defined to mean vehicles that use electricity as the only source of motive power

Electric vehicles are required to pay a fixed highway use fee, which is currently $88.20, to reflect the amount in fuels taxes electric vehicles will not pay during a single year due to not purchasing motor fuel.

Bill Tracy, a retired engineer, lives in Northern Virginia.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

204 responses to “Should Virginia Rebuff the HUF?”

  1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Think about this. Who are likely to put the most miles on their vehicles? Those who live in rural areas and those who live outside of urban areas because that is where they can afford to buy. To me the HUF is regressive and elitist.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      Regressive and elitist, two important components of “The Virginia Way”

  2. LarrytheG Avatar

    I think this will be a bargain to the folks that drive 100 miles round-trip a day to/from the exurbs!

    And so, I have to ask why would someone who drives less than 12K a year want to buy a hybrid to start with? 😉

    And finally, is this the first part of a clever strategy to have affected people DEMAND that we go to a mileage-based fee for hybrids and EVs – that they would not have agreed to at all if there had been no tax on them to start with and the mileage-based fee was the initial proposal?

    1. Right on target!

  3. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
    Anonymous_Bosch

    I think that the state should analyze how much traffic is directed onto back roads by google and waze in order to skip congestion. Most neighborhood roads and state roads were not built to handle the additional traffic that these apps are funneling to them. Maybe the state should demand that Google and Facebook pay for the premature deterioration of county and city streets that they are responsible for facilitating due to the increased non-local traffic?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There is some pretty good traffic calming things now days that can make a “short cut” and agonizing long cut never to be used again.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        A bunch of mistimed traffic signals works splendidly for that function.

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Glad the old VW bus only gets 17 mpg going down hill. No more fees please! One downer about the air cooled motor. You have to use ethanol free fuel which is hard to find a buck a gallon more.
    https://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/1175788.jpg

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Check the marinas.

      There’s a Royal station in Harrisonburg. Take jerrycans.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Follow the wood trucks and the lawn care trucks. They only use the ethanol free gas. In South Boston you can gas up at the race track with 100 octane. 7 dollars a gallon. Oh yeah!

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          But MPG is through the roof. By pure happenstance, I made a round trip to Harrisonburg. Brimmed the tank before leaving, brimmed it in Harrisonburg, and then again when I got home. The 98 octane 100% gasoline easily got more than 10% better MPG. Plus, to quote Johnny Rivers, “I knewed I was doin’ my motor some good!”

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        That is so cool! I was just calculating the rocker arm geometry on a new engine build this morning. That motor was designed in 1936 by Ferdinand Porsche.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Many of the folks that I knew that had a VW bus, kept a spare engine handy!

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Didn’t need to. There was one in the trunk.

          2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead V

            I actually have a turn key motor sitting on the floor of my garage just in case. The one I am working on is a 1776 low end hot rod so I can squeel the tires with the good old boys up and down Broadview Avenue in Warrenton.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      is that your bus James?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Yeah I got it at an estate sale. Totally restored it myself.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Very cool!

    3. idiocracy Avatar

      Couldn’t you, in theory, rejet the carburetor so it runs a tad richer to compensate for the different stoichiometry of 10% ethanol gasoline?

      There’s nothing inherent to air-cooled engines that prevents them from running on ethanol gasoline. I run my generator and riding mower on 10% ethanol gas without a problem, but I suspect the carburetor on those is jetted appropriately for 10% ethanol (or, maybe, it just doesn’t really matter if they run slightly lean?)

  5. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    Reduce the fuel tax (I’d say repeal but I want to capture revenue from pass through vehicles), give every car in the state an anonymized GPS transponder, and present them with a yearly fee at the point of annual inspection based on vehicle miles traveled on Virginia roads tiered by the weight of the vehicle since heavier vehicles do more damage.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Exactly.

    2. Wow, UATW and I agree upon something. Delve back deep into the Bacon’s Rebellion archives when I argued strenuously for a Vehicle Miles Driven tax.

      1. Bacon’s Rebellion would do well to cover the current power outage with consideration for how much worse it will be as we move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are allowing those of us without power to keep some basic needs going. What happens when they are less available and more expensive?

        Those suffering the least have whole house generators powered by fossil fuels. Those suffering the most are the ones who rely 100 percent on electricity, with no backup. What are the respective demographics represented by those two groups?

        We have not had power since 10 a.m. on Saturday and it will be days until it is restored. Consider the plight of someone with limited income living in a remote area. No water without power for the pump. That also means no water to flush the toilet. That’s fine for a day or so, but this outage will last several days.

        People with fossil fuel for heat are at least warm. It’s about 35 now but will get down to the low 20s tomorrow night.

        Solar? It’s been cloudy the entire time and without batteries solar still relies on street power to function.

        There was a downed tree blocking our street. There’s only one way out.
        People with gas chain saws cleared it.

        When California made its push to green, resources were diverted from maintaining the existing electric grid to build out for solar and other “green” production methods. Will that happen here?

        If we plan to move away from fossil fuels, stop ONE should be to beef up our electrical distribution system. Without fossil fuels, when the power goes out people will die, particularly the poor and elderly.

        1. BTW – I am served by Southside Electric Cooperative. They provide power to about 52,000 customers (homes). As I write, over 42,000 customers are without power.

          https://poweroutage.us/area/state/virginia

          This is definitely a Virginia issue and needs some attention. COVID-19 is important, but so is being without water, heat etc.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            We’re with REC and they do have outages but we do not – this time. A few years back during a hurricane we had trees down everywhere and were out of power for a week. Fossil fuel or not, even a small backup generator – powered by propane can help keep your fridge and freezer going but when running 24/7, it costs a bunch to run.

            Reliable electricity is a primary indicator of “civilization” and still about a billion people do not have it at all – and others don’t have it 24/7 or can’t afford it 24/7 – places where it can cost 40 cents kwh.

            Most folks don’t believe we can ever run 24/7 on solar/wind. Not even Bill Gates who advocates nukes – albeit modern ones that won’t melt down.

            If we could build modular reactors the size of a substation and they are safe(er) – we could put them everywhere even around cities.

            For all that folks like Elon Musk are doing for EVs and internet – our focus should be on safe nukes… as much as it is on wind/solar. IMHO.

          2. Total outages in Virginia are going down, but very slowly.

            State Outages: 110,189

            Southside’s share of that is 36,000, which is down from 42,000 when I looked this morning.

            https://poweroutage.us/area/state/virginia

            As the restoration process drags on, and especially as it gets colder, bad things can happen. People often do stupid things, but stupidity grows exponentially when they feel desperate. Severe cold and danger of pipes freezing may lead some to take risks.

            Gas generators produce carbon monoxide and can be dangerous if not properly used. They should also be grounded.

            Kerosene heaters are sometimes used carelessly as well.

            Might people be tempted to start a fire in a fireplace that hasn’t been used in many years? Start a fire in a stove with make shift ventilation?

            I’m growing concerned for what might happen if this drags on and hope our governor is monitoring the situation.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            it does boils down to how much you personally are responsible for and what you expect the govt to be responsible for.

            If you lived in an area with no electric cooperative, it’s all on you.

          4. “If you lived in an area with no electric cooperative, it’s all on you.”

            I’m quite prepared to take care of myself. That’s not an issue, and I think you know that.

            I do think government has a place in ensuring the reliability and timely restoration of critical infrastructure like electricity.

            If you think government should ignore the plight and inherent danger to poor and elderly people that results from being without electricity for an extended period of time – that’s “all on you.” They have done nothing to cause this.

            And I see no point in communicating with you further.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” If you think government should ignore the plight and inherent danger to poor and elderly people that results from being without electricity for an extended period of time – that’s “all on you.” They have done nothing to cause this.”

            geeze… so government is “supposed” to do stuff because of the elderly and folks who have done nothing to “cause” this?

            come on… guy… what is the role of govt here… no matter whether folks are elderly or “kids’ or “done nothing to cause this”…

            geeze..

        2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Those who romanticize green should look across the pond. Here is a quote about what is happening. “This winter is delivering wind and solar obsessed Europeans a banquet of consequences. Massive power price spikes in ‘wind powered’ Britain followed a period of dead calm, as the owners of Britain’s remaining dispatchable power plants cashed in: the wholesale price went from £40 to £4,000 per MWh.
          Across the ditch, a complete collapse in wind and solar output on 8 January forced Europe’s grid managers to cut power to big users in France, Germany and Austria in order to avoid a complete ‘system black’. It was, like Napoleon’s Waterloo, “a close-run thing”.
          The number of similar “emergency operations” has increased from a dozen or so each year to over 240, thanks to chaotically intermittent wind and solar.
          None of this was on the radar when Germany was content to rely upon its ever-reliable nuclear and coal-fired power plants. As they say, you reap what you sow.”

    3. Yes, Jim, I remember that, and it remains a fair way to price road use and maintenance — short of that ‘socialized’ tax mechanism a.k.a. ‘the government pays 100% for it and everybody pays for the government’s tab.’ Which, also, clearly has implications for exurban sprawl. Back to BR’s roots, JB!

    4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Can’t just use the odometer at the time of inspection?

      1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        If we move to a strictly federal system, sure, but otherwise you’d be forcing people to pay for vehicle miles traveled for every vacation they took in addition to out of state gas tax, to say nothing of people who commute daily to work out of state.

        We have the technology and should leverage its use accordingly.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          But everybody does it. Just ’cause the residents of Maryland don’t get caught for it the same way in Maryland ain’t Virginia’s fault. State’s Rights don’tcha know?

          Of course, if Virginia needs to assuage some guilt, they could take a portion of the proceeds and donate it to the Federal highway boys.

    5. djrippert Avatar

      Exactly. Make the Richmonders pay to drive just like those of us in NoVa and Hampton Roads pay to drive. Let Highland County pay for their own roads.

      1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        Oh quit your damn belly aching. The only reason a prosperous Northern Virginia even exists is because of large amount of taxpayer dollars flowing into DC from other states. “Oh, boo hoo, the state won’t spend its entire operating budget to procure right of way at Northern Virginia prices to build more highway capacity that will fill back up in a day, woe is us! We have to pay an optional toll if we want to use our single occupancy vehicles in a specific set of lanes without carpooling! What’s a VRE? What’s a Metro?”

        Hampton Roads got put over a barrel with the Midtown and Downtown tunnels, for sure, but they also had years and years and years to do something, anything else before it got to that point and chose not to. They also keep electing politicians who just deeply refuse to recognize that their could be any benefit to regional cooperation and as a result of their stupid, petty competitions with one another will never land a major sports franchise even though they could and will continue to struggle with investing in a rational transportation network.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          “a result of their stupid, petty competitions with one another”

          I call that the “Hatfield-McCoy” effect. Virginia politicians seem to have a problem with it.

          I remember the former mayor of Manassas Park (was mayor in the 1970s) telling me how Prince William County wouldn’t let them have a grocery store and how they mistreated Manassas Park…and this was in 2010.

          At some point (especially 30 years later…) you have to let it go and start working towards solutions. (Manassas Park incorporated as a city in 1974 so Prince William County ceased to have any say).

          This may mean swallowing your pride and letting byegones be bygones.

    6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Of course, heavy vehicles should pay a lot more because they damages they cause. But don’t think about trying to write an op-ed supporting higher fees for the Post. I wrote one, but was told twice that it was inconsistent with the Paper’s policy of supporting higher gas taxes for everyone.

  6. LarrytheG Avatar

    One way to handle the gas tax problem would be to do it like they do electronic tolls. If you have a transponder, you pay one fee and if you do not and they use license plate readers, you pay a higher fee.

    Put transponder and license plate readers in gas stations and EV recharge places and you do have a choice. Have a transponder that pays or let them read your plate and send you a bill for more.

  7. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    The should just up the gas tax. Those who stick with gas guzzlers should pay more all the way around until they get rid of them. Why should we fund public services through what amounts to user fees? Suddenly they aren’t public services anymore. We don’t do that for schools – of course some would like to change that.

    1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
      UpAgnstTheWall

      Given the negative externalities associated with the use of single occupancy vehicles – particularly those still using solely internal combustion engines – coupled with the damage all vehicles do to the road I’m fine with an implicit use fee for roads. Roads aren’t a public service, mass transit is, and the only externality associate with an education is a positive one – an increase of liberalism.

      1. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Whoa there. There are a lot of mixed messages and values in your statement. What externality from being a single passenger? What about the value that the driver obtains. While roads are not a public service, they are a public good. A gasoline/diesel tax is the easiest way to have users pay without being regressive. Liberty and freedom of action are guaranteed rights; not externalities. Attempting to impose your values on others, however, is an externality.

        1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          “Liberty and freedom of action are guaranteed rights; not externalities. Attempting to impose your values on others, however, is an externality.”

          This might be the single stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written at this site.

          Onward…

          Single occupancy vehicles generate huge environmental externalities – switching to all electric would mitigate some of the worst of those (particularly around oil, gas, and coolant), but the manufacture and wear of rubber for tires and the typical mix of iron, copper, steel, and graphite for break pads as well. Then we also add the disposal of said car and the parts thereof which will neither biodegrade nor be recycled. And that’s before we get to the tens of thousands of lives lost every year.

          Fuel taxes are already regressive since poor people who can afford cars have to either purchase or maintain older, less fuel efficient cars. A VMT tax makes far more sense and adjusting it based on vehicle weight is the most honest way to put users in a position to pay for the damage they do to the road.

          If a car was an essential component of guaranteed right of movement the government would give them to people who can’t afford one. They don’t because they aren’t and if anything are a trap for most people given how expensive the combination of gasoline, insurance, and maintenance are. A rational mass transit network would provide more freedom for less cost, but we’ve decided that as a country we’d rather give Exxon all of our money.

          1. I agree with your sentiment, where I depart from you, somehow you believe a massive USA conversion to electric infrastructure based-on “disposable” full electric cars is somehow better for the planet.

            When the other countries of the World talk about phasing out gasoline cars, they are talking about going to Hybrids, Plug-In Hybrids and Electrics. USA we are talking just full electrics because of the USA liberal demand to stop using ALL fossil fuels, which I submit is a political not CO2 end point-based.

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The blathering of an obvious arrogant elitist who know nothing about real externalities and the role of regulation in addressing them. You just don’t like the idea that people can choose to drive alone.
            If liberty and personal freedom are stupid, what is smart?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t think the drive to EVs is driven by fossil fuel hate. The folks that say this think they are mainline folk but they really are not. The vast majority of people in the US are not fossil fuel haters but they do believe we have climate issues , and in general they support cleaner, less polluting vehicles.

            Numerous polls show this and show that the folks who see the “left” as the problem are themselves about 30% and 50% plus – way more than just lefty liberals are on-board with the transition to cleaner and less polluting vehicles AND the rest of the world is thinking this also. It’s the majority view.

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            What would be the demand for Evs if the fossil fuel haters didn’t provide generous subsidies. If people want to buy EVs, that should be their right but why do I have to contribute to the purchase?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            The incentives for EVs have been around quite some time – approved by Congress – long before the “fossil fuel haters” argument came to the fore.

            In terms of why should you pay?

            How about for other energy efficient appliances and HVACs that have similar incentives?

            For that matter, how about for ANY of the “subsidies” the government gives for employer-provided health insurance, IRA, mortgage interest and a slew of other deductions?

            Why should they benefit you on ANY of these things if they don’t benefit others also?

          6. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Quite simply subsidies are wrong. They are often justified to jump start an infant industry but then never go away. It is not the case that EV subsidies predate the fossil fuel haters. They have been around for decades.
            There is also a difference between government incentives-subsidies–and those used by private companies. If Dominion wants to give me a price break to adopt more energy efficient technology, that is a business decision isn’t it?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            The Government has 1.3 trillion dollars worth of subsidies in the tax code.

            The incentives for EV are 7.5 billion.

            The incentives for employer-provided health insurance are 152 billion dollars.

            The govt also lets you deduct mortgage interest including insurance premiums, medical expenses, charitable, IRA, pay reduced taxes on long-term capital gains, stepped-up capital gains, etc, etc..

        2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          LOL, Freedom’s just another word for giving State Farm several thousand dollars a year because we offer no reasonable alternative to get to the grocery store.

          Come on, man.

          1. idiocracy Avatar

            If you pay State Farm several thousand dollars a year I have the following suggestions for you:

            1)Shop around for cheaper insurance

            2)Stop driving like a jackass. Your rates will go down.

      2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
        Eric the Half a Troll

        A single occupancy plug-in hybrid getting nearly 100 mpg is the equivalent of a 4 person HOV for low gas mileage vehicles. Why would you want a disincentive to drivers to own and use one?

        Roads are indeed a public investment and their upkeep is (and should be) a public service.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          well for the same reason you’d charge a toll to use a road no matter what kind of car? And you give carpools a free ride?

        2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          If they’re truly a public good then gas should be taxed at the rate of any other good and the maintenance for roads should come out of the general fund. If they aren’t and deserve a special funding stream a VMT fee pro-weighted for the size of the car makes sense and keeping some vestige of the fuel tax for out of towners and ICE automobiles makes sense.

          1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            Yes, actually they should be funded out of the general fund. That is really how we should pay for roads and their upkeep. I don’t agree with it coming through a gas tax as that also amounts to a user fee. Same thing with tolls. All different sides of the same coin.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            In theory, they could be. Right now , there is about a .7% general sales tax on most goods that generates about a billion dollars which is about what the fuel tax generates.

            So you could double the .7% sales tax to 1.4% sales tax and no longer collect the fuel tax.

            The current total sales tax is 5.3% (not counting local options) so that would increase to 6%.

            That would actually be more efficient to collect that trying to do a mileage tax…for each car.

            About 3/4 of the existing general sales tax for transportation goes for rail/transit (I think).

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            so no taxes and no tolls – even for 18-wheelers?

            so everyone can use as much of the roads as they want and everyone just pays the same?

            I dunno….

          4. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            That is the idea behind no user fees for public services. We have VA based truckers that use other state’s highway system as well. If you don’t support tax breaks for people with no children in the public school system, this is the same thing.

            Btw, I also feel the same about funding police, justice, and ambulance services with “user fees”. A penalty for violating the law is fine but should go to the general fund and not be earmarked to pay for criminal justice. It creates an conflict of interest for one thing.

      3. Well that Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) might be the sweet spot.

        I do not know how those are taxed in Virginia, but for example a RAV4 PHEV only gets 39 MPG on gaso, so conceivably they are taxed $35 per year (like a RAV4 Hybrid) and if they never fill-up, then that would be it.

        But also a RAV4 PHEV gets $7500 Fed tax rebate, and ?? future state refund, so that is heavily subsidized. Regular hybrids and cars over 25 MPG are not subsidized, and the owners have all kinds of extra fees (Car Tax, HUF) for their effort to be more fuel efficient.

        I bet most elected officials do not know the difference between hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and EV so that is part of the problem.

      4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Negative externalities?

        “Not only did Chase follow through and give away an AR-15 on stage with Ted Nugent, she also strapped on her own assault rifle and marched with white supremacists and domestic terrorists at a right-wing gun rally at the state Capitol.”

        Trumpette is coming.

  8. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
    Emilio Jaksetic

    Seems ironic: Buy a fuel efficient car to reduce amount of carbon-based fuel you use (and reduce your carbon footprint) and get punished with a higher tax. The Virginia General Assembly needs to be more careful about sending mixed signals or it will screw up it virtue signaling. Of course, if it’s indulging in taxaholic propensities, then the virtue signaling takes a back seat.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      You’re still damaging the road with that EV even if we all breathe better from you being kind to the air.

  9. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    I like it. But then, it’s a tax based loosely on a state property I use, and inevitably damage.

    Of course, when you buy and sell a car, the odometer reading is registered, so a seller’s tax based on vehicle weight and total miles driven while owned might work. Then, it doesn’t matter what powers it.

    Now, what to do with out-of-state incursions on our roads? Tolls? With rebates to Virginia drivers?

  10. Policy Student Avatar
    Policy Student

    Why tax some, when all benefit? Highway systems are “public goods.” Anyone who shops at brick and mortar stores benefits from highways. Anyone with a job, or a business, or an interest in a healthy economy also benefits. I favor a general fund approach for three reasons 1) It is impossible to accurately calculate “fair share” 2) Flat fee taxes are regressive 3) I’m sick of being nickel-and-dimed. Assess sufficient income/ wealth taxes and be done with it.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      So how do you charge trucks and snowbirds that fill up in NC and drive through Virginia nonstop?

      1. You don’t. The assumption is, there are as many Virginians going in the other direction. Gas in Virginia is still cheaper than states to the north and west.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          That implies that Virginia is enough like the others that a Virginian should want to leave, even if only for a while.

          I, for one, am loathe to cross the line.

    2. djrippert Avatar

      BS. You drive, you pay. Hooterville pays for their roads just like suburbia pays. You walk (or take a bicycle) you don’t pay. Every mile on every road is charged to recover the cost of maintenance and, if necessary, expansion. Highland County, Va is 415 sq mi with 2,210 residents. Do they pay for their own roads? The Greater Richmond area has a population of 1.3m. The Greater Washington Are has a population of 6.1m. Both have “beltways”. I295 in Richmond is 4 lanes wide in many areas. So is I495 around DC. Why isn’t DC’s beltway 5X bigger than Richmond’s given that the metropolitan area is 5X more populous? How many sky high tolls are collected in Richmond?

      You use the roads you pay the tax,

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        On tolls.

        Often to pay for a specific bridge or tunnel – not really keyed to whether the region is urban or not. Take the Bay Bridge of the CBBT – both going from urban to rural.

        Congestion tolls are not about money alone – they are to basically discourage driving during rush hour to try to keep the traffic moving instead of gridlocking. It too can be anywhere there is a significant rush hour – as opposed to blindly putting them only in urban areas. It just so happens that urban areas typically have rush hours than can overwhelm the roads they have and they cannot practically build more – they are out of room – on a network basis. Yes, you might widen one road but another you physically cannot so it becomes an unfixable bottleneck unless you convince enough people NOT to drive there at peak hour.

        The Washington region congestion tolls are not the only option either. There are “free” lanes but they will be congested and you can ride for free if you carpool.

        that’s not BS… you can google “congestion tolls” and read any number of explanations that will be the same.

        1. djrippert Avatar

          Blah, blah, blah … unfixable. What a package of tripe. I’ve lived in Manhattan, I’ve been to Singapore a dozen times. Tokyo too. High density places can work just fine. The con in Virginia comes from Richmond. Plenty of money for free roads in Richmond. But not NoVa and not Hampton Roads. It’s time for the mindless apologists for the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond to shut the f up. There’s plenty of money for top quality transportation in Virginia if everybody pays their own way, including the mollycoddled plantation elite in Richmond.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            If you’ve been to those places, you KNOW they have tolls also. Right?

      2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        The last segment of I-295 was completed almost 30 years ago and was started when the state transportation budget was flush with cash after raising the gas tax in 1986. It hasn’t been improved upon since then at all. VA-288 is 20 years old. The Mixing Bowl has been improved upon more recently than that. How many tax dollars are being spent on the extension of the Silver Line?

        You’re posing all this as if Richmond just keeps showering money on itself for road improvements when that’s simply not the case. The state won’t even get off the money to buy out a scrapyard to extend the Chamberlayne/Belvidere exit ramp. It’s been tight all around, Northern Virginia is not being uniquely deprived.

  11. Nice pic, our RAV4H is Red metallic.
    If anyone knows the HUF calculation basis, that would be interesting to see. Sounds like trying to equalize vehicles to what a 25 MPG car travelling about 12000 miles per year would pay.

  12. Nice pic, our RAV4H is Red metallic.
    If anyone knows the HUF calculation basis, that would be interesting to see. Sounds like trying to equalize vehicles to what a 25 MPG car travelling about 12000 miles per year would pay.

  13. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
    Bill O’Keefe

    Think about this. Who are likely to put the most miles on their vehicles? Those who live in rural areas and those who live outside of urban areas because that is where they can afford to buy. To me the HUF is regressive and elitist.

    1. idiocracy Avatar

      Regressive and elitist, two important components of “The Virginia Way”

  14. LarrytheG Avatar

    I think this will be a bargain to the folks that drive 100 miles round-trip a day to/from the exurbs!

    And so, I have to ask why would someone who drives less than 12K a year want to buy a hybrid to start with? 😉

    And finally, is this the first part of a clever strategy to have affected people DEMAND that we go to a mileage-based fee for hybrids and EVs – that they would not have agreed to at all if there had been no tax on them to start with and the mileage-based fee was the initial proposal?

    1. Right on target!

  15. LarrytheG Avatar

    The premise behind the gas tax is that it is a use tax and before IC engines got a lot more efficient and Hybrids and EVs came along – everyone that used the roads was supposed to pay according to how much they used the roads – how many miles they drove – and that primarily was/is to pay for maintenance of operations.

    That’s the fuel tax.

    but there are other related taxes.

    For instance, if you buy a car , you’re going to be a sales tax – and that money goes to pay for improvements and new roads.

    Then about 1/2% of the general sales tax goes for transportation.

    And a tax on insurance….

    it’s all here – note that the part of the general sales tax earmarked for transportation generates MORE than the fuel tax by a little bit.

    https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/tracking_nov20.pdf

    1. Electric Vehicles are alternate fuel, so it makes some sense that there is a added road use fee in that case.

      So Larry, I guess you need to write to your Senators and tell them the Federal Gaso tax is messed up because they forgot to base it on miles driven. As you say from time immemorial that was always the rule. Geez if they go retroactive on the fix, I might go broke.

      PS- Probably the Repubs wanted the HUF, so you are in the wrong corner

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Naw. The FIRST roads in Virginia were toll roads:

        A HISTORY OF ROADS IN VIRGINIA
        http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/historyofrds.pdf

        and then they decided that private tolls, free market, mind you, were wrong and that since all vehicles got pretty much the same “mileage” they could just charge for fuel… they never foresaw different kinds of fuels…

        Yeah the Repubs liked the free market better… private property rights… make a living building a road and charging people to do it then the Dems came along and got “socialist” on them… went out and took land away from private owners… paid them a fair price mind you… then let everybody and their dog use it for just s “small tax”.

    2. The Repubs are still waiting for Jared Kushner to develop a Trump position on the subject. You never know, he may have an opinion. Suddenly, that will become policy for the True Believers.

  16. Anonymous_Bosch Avatar
    Anonymous_Bosch

    I think that the state should analyze how much traffic is directed onto back roads by google and waze in order to skip congestion. Most neighborhood roads and state roads were not built to handle the additional traffic that these apps are funneling to them. Maybe the state should demand that Google and Facebook pay for the premature deterioration of county and city streets that they are responsible for facilitating due to the increased non-local traffic?

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There is some pretty good traffic calming things now days that can make a “short cut” and agonizing long cut never to be used again.

      1. idiocracy Avatar

        A bunch of mistimed traffic signals works splendidly for that function.

  17. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V

    Glad the old VW bus only gets 17 mpg going down hill. No more fees please! One downer about the air cooled motor. You have to use ethanol free fuel which is hard to find a buck a gallon more.
    https://www.thesamba.com/vw/gallery/pix/1175788.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      is that your bus James?

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Yeah I got it at an estate sale. Totally restored it myself.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Very cool!

    2. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Check the marinas.

      There’s a Royal station in Harrisonburg. Take jerrycans.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        Follow the wood trucks and the lawn care trucks. They only use the ethanol free gas. In South Boston you can gas up at the race track with 100 octane. 7 dollars a gallon. Oh yeah!

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          But MPG is through the roof. By pure happenstance, I made a round trip to Harrisonburg. Brimmed the tank before leaving, brimmed it in Harrisonburg, and then again when I got home. The 98 octane 100% gasoline easily got more than 10% better MPG. Plus, to quote Johnny Rivers, “I knewed I was doin’ my motor some good!”

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead V

        That is so cool! I was just calculating the rocker arm geometry on a new engine build this morning. That motor was designed in 1936 by Ferdinand Porsche.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          Many of the folks that I knew that had a VW bus, kept a spare engine handy!

          1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
            Nancy_Naive

            Didn’t need to. There was one in the trunk.

          2. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
            James Wyatt Whitehead V

            I actually have a turn key motor sitting on the floor of my garage just in case. The one I am working on is a 1776 low end hot rod so I can squeel the tires with the good old boys up and down Broadview Avenue in Warrenton.

    3. idiocracy Avatar

      Couldn’t you, in theory, rejet the carburetor so it runs a tad richer to compensate for the different stoichiometry of 10% ethanol gasoline?

      There’s nothing inherent to air-cooled engines that prevents them from running on ethanol gasoline. I run my generator and riding mower on 10% ethanol gas without a problem, but I suspect the carburetor on those is jetted appropriately for 10% ethanol (or, maybe, it just doesn’t really matter if they run slightly lean?)

  18. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
    UpAgnstTheWall

    Reduce the fuel tax (I’d say repeal but I want to capture revenue from pass through vehicles), give every car in the state an anonymized GPS transponder, and present them with a yearly fee at the point of annual inspection based on vehicle miles traveled on Virginia roads tiered by the weight of the vehicle since heavier vehicles do more damage.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      Exactly.

    2. Wow, UATW and I agree upon something. Delve back deep into the Bacon’s Rebellion archives when I argued strenuously for a Vehicle Miles Driven tax.

      1. Bacon’s Rebellion would do well to cover the current power outage with consideration for how much worse it will be as we move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are allowing those of us without power to keep some basic needs going. What happens when they are less available and more expensive?

        Those suffering the least have whole house generators powered by fossil fuels. Those suffering the most are the ones who rely 100 percent on electricity, with no backup. What are the respective demographics represented by those two groups?

        We have not had power since 10 a.m. on Saturday and it will be days until it is restored. Consider the plight of someone with limited income living in a remote area. No water without power for the pump. That also means no water to flush the toilet. That’s fine for a day or so, but this outage will last several days.

        People with fossil fuel for heat are at least warm. It’s about 35 now but will get down to the low 20s tomorrow night.

        Solar? It’s been cloudy the entire time and without batteries solar still relies on street power to function.

        There was a downed tree blocking our street. There’s only one way out.
        People with gas chain saws cleared it.

        When California made its push to green, resources were diverted from maintaining the existing electric grid to build out for solar and other “green” production methods. Will that happen here?

        If we plan to move away from fossil fuels, stop ONE should be to beef up our electrical distribution system. Without fossil fuels, when the power goes out people will die, particularly the poor and elderly.

        1. BTW – I am served by Southside Electric Cooperative. They provide power to about 52,000 customers (homes). As I write, over 42,000 customers are without power.

          https://poweroutage.us/area/state/virginia

          This is definitely a Virginia issue and needs some attention. COVID-19 is important, but so is being without water, heat etc.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            We’re with REC and they do have outages but we do not – this time. A few years back during a hurricane we had trees down everywhere and were out of power for a week. Fossil fuel or not, even a small backup generator – powered by propane can help keep your fridge and freezer going but when running 24/7, it costs a bunch to run.

            Reliable electricity is a primary indicator of “civilization” and still about a billion people do not have it at all – and others don’t have it 24/7 or can’t afford it 24/7 – places where it can cost 40 cents kwh.

            Most folks don’t believe we can ever run 24/7 on solar/wind. Not even Bill Gates who advocates nukes – albeit modern ones that won’t melt down.

            If we could build modular reactors the size of a substation and they are safe(er) – we could put them everywhere even around cities.

            For all that folks like Elon Musk are doing for EVs and internet – our focus should be on safe nukes… as much as it is on wind/solar. IMHO.

          2. Total outages in Virginia are going down, but very slowly.

            State Outages: 110,189

            Southside’s share of that is 36,000, which is down from 42,000 when I looked this morning.

            https://poweroutage.us/area/state/virginia

            As the restoration process drags on, and especially as it gets colder, bad things can happen. People often do stupid things, but stupidity grows exponentially when they feel desperate. Severe cold and danger of pipes freezing may lead some to take risks.

            Gas generators produce carbon monoxide and can be dangerous if not properly used. They should also be grounded.

            Kerosene heaters are sometimes used carelessly as well.

            Might people be tempted to start a fire in a fireplace that hasn’t been used in many years? Start a fire in a stove with make shift ventilation?

            I’m growing concerned for what might happen if this drags on and hope our governor is monitoring the situation.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            it does boils down to how much you personally are responsible for and what you expect the govt to be responsible for.

            If you lived in an area with no electric cooperative, it’s all on you.

          4. “If you lived in an area with no electric cooperative, it’s all on you.”

            I’m quite prepared to take care of myself. That’s not an issue, and I think you know that.

            I do think government has a place in ensuring the reliability and timely restoration of critical infrastructure like electricity.

            If you think government should ignore the plight and inherent danger to poor and elderly people that results from being without electricity for an extended period of time – that’s “all on you.” They have done nothing to cause this.

            And I see no point in communicating with you further.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            re: ” If you think government should ignore the plight and inherent danger to poor and elderly people that results from being without electricity for an extended period of time – that’s “all on you.” They have done nothing to cause this.”

            geeze… so government is “supposed” to do stuff because of the elderly and folks who have done nothing to “cause” this?

            come on… guy… what is the role of govt here… no matter whether folks are elderly or “kids’ or “done nothing to cause this”…

            geeze..

        2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
          Bill O’Keefe

          Those who romanticize green should look across the pond. Here is a quote about what is happening. “This winter is delivering wind and solar obsessed Europeans a banquet of consequences. Massive power price spikes in ‘wind powered’ Britain followed a period of dead calm, as the owners of Britain’s remaining dispatchable power plants cashed in: the wholesale price went from £40 to £4,000 per MWh.
          Across the ditch, a complete collapse in wind and solar output on 8 January forced Europe’s grid managers to cut power to big users in France, Germany and Austria in order to avoid a complete ‘system black’. It was, like Napoleon’s Waterloo, “a close-run thing”.
          The number of similar “emergency operations” has increased from a dozen or so each year to over 240, thanks to chaotically intermittent wind and solar.
          None of this was on the radar when Germany was content to rely upon its ever-reliable nuclear and coal-fired power plants. As they say, you reap what you sow.”

    3. Yes, Jim, I remember that, and it remains a fair way to price road use and maintenance — short of that ‘socialized’ tax mechanism a.k.a. ‘the government pays 100% for it and everybody pays for the government’s tab.’ Which, also, clearly has implications for exurban sprawl. Back to BR’s roots, JB!

    4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      Can’t just use the odometer at the time of inspection?

      1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        If we move to a strictly federal system, sure, but otherwise you’d be forcing people to pay for vehicle miles traveled for every vacation they took in addition to out of state gas tax, to say nothing of people who commute daily to work out of state.

        We have the technology and should leverage its use accordingly.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          But everybody does it. Just ’cause the residents of Maryland don’t get caught for it the same way in Maryland ain’t Virginia’s fault. State’s Rights don’tcha know?

          Of course, if Virginia needs to assuage some guilt, they could take a portion of the proceeds and donate it to the Federal highway boys.

    5. djrippert Avatar

      Exactly. Make the Richmonders pay to drive just like those of us in NoVa and Hampton Roads pay to drive. Let Highland County pay for their own roads.

      1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        Oh quit your damn belly aching. The only reason a prosperous Northern Virginia even exists is because of large amount of taxpayer dollars flowing into DC from other states. “Oh, boo hoo, the state won’t spend its entire operating budget to procure right of way at Northern Virginia prices to build more highway capacity that will fill back up in a day, woe is us! We have to pay an optional toll if we want to use our single occupancy vehicles in a specific set of lanes without carpooling! What’s a VRE? What’s a Metro?”

        Hampton Roads got put over a barrel with the Midtown and Downtown tunnels, for sure, but they also had years and years and years to do something, anything else before it got to that point and chose not to. They also keep electing politicians who just deeply refuse to recognize that their could be any benefit to regional cooperation and as a result of their stupid, petty competitions with one another will never land a major sports franchise even though they could and will continue to struggle with investing in a rational transportation network.

        1. idiocracy Avatar

          “a result of their stupid, petty competitions with one another”

          I call that the “Hatfield-McCoy” effect. Virginia politicians seem to have a problem with it.

          I remember the former mayor of Manassas Park (was mayor in the 1970s) telling me how Prince William County wouldn’t let them have a grocery store and how they mistreated Manassas Park…and this was in 2010.

          At some point (especially 30 years later…) you have to let it go and start working towards solutions. (Manassas Park incorporated as a city in 1974 so Prince William County ceased to have any say).

          This may mean swallowing your pride and letting byegones be bygones.

    6. TooManyTaxes Avatar
      TooManyTaxes

      Of course, heavy vehicles should pay a lot more because they damages they cause. But don’t think about trying to write an op-ed supporting higher fees for the Post. I wrote one, but was told twice that it was inconsistent with the Paper’s policy of supporting higher gas taxes for everyone.

  19. LarrytheG Avatar

    One way to handle the gas tax problem would be to do it like they do electronic tolls. If you have a transponder, you pay one fee and if you do not and they use license plate readers, you pay a higher fee.

    Put transponder and license plate readers in gas stations and EV recharge places and you do have a choice. Have a transponder that pays or let them read your plate and send you a bill for more.

  20. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
    Eric the Half a Troll

    The should just up the gas tax. Those who stick with gas guzzlers should pay more all the way around until they get rid of them. Why should we fund public services through what amounts to user fees? Suddenly they aren’t public services anymore. We don’t do that for schools – of course some would like to change that.

    1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
      UpAgnstTheWall

      Given the negative externalities associated with the use of single occupancy vehicles – particularly those still using solely internal combustion engines – coupled with the damage all vehicles do to the road I’m fine with an implicit use fee for roads. Roads aren’t a public service, mass transit is, and the only externality associate with an education is a positive one – an increase of liberalism.

      1. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
        Eric the Half a Troll

        A single occupancy plug-in hybrid getting nearly 100 mpg is the equivalent of a 4 person HOV for low gas mileage vehicles. Why would you want a disincentive to drivers to own and use one?

        Roads are indeed a public investment and their upkeep is (and should be) a public service.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          well for the same reason you’d charge a toll to use a road no matter what kind of car? And you give carpools a free ride?

        2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          If they’re truly a public good then gas should be taxed at the rate of any other good and the maintenance for roads should come out of the general fund. If they aren’t and deserve a special funding stream a VMT fee pro-weighted for the size of the car makes sense and keeping some vestige of the fuel tax for out of towners and ICE automobiles makes sense.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            In theory, they could be. Right now , there is about a .7% general sales tax on most goods that generates about a billion dollars which is about what the fuel tax generates.

            So you could double the .7% sales tax to 1.4% sales tax and no longer collect the fuel tax.

            The current total sales tax is 5.3% (not counting local options) so that would increase to 6%.

            That would actually be more efficient to collect that trying to do a mileage tax…for each car.

            About 3/4 of the existing general sales tax for transportation goes for rail/transit (I think).

          2. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            Yes, actually they should be funded out of the general fund. That is really how we should pay for roads and their upkeep. I don’t agree with it coming through a gas tax as that also amounts to a user fee. Same thing with tolls. All different sides of the same coin.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            so no taxes and no tolls – even for 18-wheelers?

            so everyone can use as much of the roads as they want and everyone just pays the same?

            I dunno….

          4. Eric the Half a Troll Avatar
            Eric the Half a Troll

            That is the idea behind no user fees for public services. We have VA based truckers that use other state’s highway system as well. If you don’t support tax breaks for people with no children in the public school system, this is the same thing.

            Btw, I also feel the same about funding police, justice, and ambulance services with “user fees”. A penalty for violating the law is fine but should go to the general fund and not be earmarked to pay for criminal justice. It creates an conflict of interest for one thing.

      2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
        Bill O’Keefe

        Whoa there. There are a lot of mixed messages and values in your statement. What externality from being a single passenger? What about the value that the driver obtains. While roads are not a public service, they are a public good. A gasoline/diesel tax is the easiest way to have users pay without being regressive. Liberty and freedom of action are guaranteed rights; not externalities. Attempting to impose your values on others, however, is an externality.

        1. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          “Liberty and freedom of action are guaranteed rights; not externalities. Attempting to impose your values on others, however, is an externality.”

          This might be the single stupidest thing I’ve ever seen written at this site.

          Onward…

          Single occupancy vehicles generate huge environmental externalities – switching to all electric would mitigate some of the worst of those (particularly around oil, gas, and coolant), but the manufacture and wear of rubber for tires and the typical mix of iron, copper, steel, and graphite for break pads as well. Then we also add the disposal of said car and the parts thereof which will neither biodegrade nor be recycled. And that’s before we get to the tens of thousands of lives lost every year.

          Fuel taxes are already regressive since poor people who can afford cars have to either purchase or maintain older, less fuel efficient cars. A VMT tax makes far more sense and adjusting it based on vehicle weight is the most honest way to put users in a position to pay for the damage they do to the road.

          If a car was an essential component of guaranteed right of movement the government would give them to people who can’t afford one. They don’t because they aren’t and if anything are a trap for most people given how expensive the combination of gasoline, insurance, and maintenance are. A rational mass transit network would provide more freedom for less cost, but we’ve decided that as a country we’d rather give Exxon all of our money.

          1. I agree with your sentiment, where I depart from you, somehow you believe a massive USA conversion to electric infrastructure based-on “disposable” full electric cars is somehow better for the planet.

            When the other countries of the World talk about phasing out gasoline cars, they are talking about going to Hybrids, Plug-In Hybrids and Electrics. USA we are talking just full electrics because of the USA liberal demand to stop using ALL fossil fuels, which I submit is a political not CO2 end point-based.

          2. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            The blathering of an obvious arrogant elitist who know nothing about real externalities and the role of regulation in addressing them. You just don’t like the idea that people can choose to drive alone.
            If liberty and personal freedom are stupid, what is smart?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            I don’t think the drive to EVs is driven by fossil fuel hate. The folks that say this think they are mainline folk but they really are not. The vast majority of people in the US are not fossil fuel haters but they do believe we have climate issues , and in general they support cleaner, less polluting vehicles.

            Numerous polls show this and show that the folks who see the “left” as the problem are themselves about 30% and 50% plus – way more than just lefty liberals are on-board with the transition to cleaner and less polluting vehicles AND the rest of the world is thinking this also. It’s the majority view.

          4. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            What would be the demand for Evs if the fossil fuel haters didn’t provide generous subsidies. If people want to buy EVs, that should be their right but why do I have to contribute to the purchase?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            The incentives for EVs have been around quite some time – approved by Congress – long before the “fossil fuel haters” argument came to the fore.

            In terms of why should you pay?

            How about for other energy efficient appliances and HVACs that have similar incentives?

            For that matter, how about for ANY of the “subsidies” the government gives for employer-provided health insurance, IRA, mortgage interest and a slew of other deductions?

            Why should they benefit you on ANY of these things if they don’t benefit others also?

          6. Bill O'Keefe Avatar
            Bill O’Keefe

            Quite simply subsidies are wrong. They are often justified to jump start an infant industry but then never go away. It is not the case that EV subsidies predate the fossil fuel haters. They have been around for decades.
            There is also a difference between government incentives-subsidies–and those used by private companies. If Dominion wants to give me a price break to adopt more energy efficient technology, that is a business decision isn’t it?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            The Government has 1.3 trillion dollars worth of subsidies in the tax code.

            The incentives for EV are 7.5 billion.

            The incentives for employer-provided health insurance are 152 billion dollars.

            The govt also lets you deduct mortgage interest including insurance premiums, medical expenses, charitable, IRA, pay reduced taxes on long-term capital gains, stepped-up capital gains, etc, etc..

        2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
          UpAgnstTheWall

          LOL, Freedom’s just another word for giving State Farm several thousand dollars a year because we offer no reasonable alternative to get to the grocery store.

          Come on, man.

          1. idiocracy Avatar

            If you pay State Farm several thousand dollars a year I have the following suggestions for you:

            1)Shop around for cheaper insurance

            2)Stop driving like a jackass. Your rates will go down.

      3. Well that Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) might be the sweet spot.

        I do not know how those are taxed in Virginia, but for example a RAV4 PHEV only gets 39 MPG on gaso, so conceivably they are taxed $35 per year (like a RAV4 Hybrid) and if they never fill-up, then that would be it.

        But also a RAV4 PHEV gets $7500 Fed tax rebate, and ?? future state refund, so that is heavily subsidized. Regular hybrids and cars over 25 MPG are not subsidized, and the owners have all kinds of extra fees (Car Tax, HUF) for their effort to be more fuel efficient.

        I bet most elected officials do not know the difference between hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and EV so that is part of the problem.

      4. Nancy_Naive Avatar
        Nancy_Naive

        Negative externalities?

        “Not only did Chase follow through and give away an AR-15 on stage with Ted Nugent, she also strapped on her own assault rifle and marched with white supremacists and domestic terrorists at a right-wing gun rally at the state Capitol.”

        Trumpette is coming.

  21. Emilio Jaksetic Avatar
    Emilio Jaksetic

    Seems ironic: Buy a fuel efficient car to reduce amount of carbon-based fuel you use (and reduce your carbon footprint) and get punished with a higher tax. The Virginia General Assembly needs to be more careful about sending mixed signals or it will screw up it virtue signaling. Of course, if it’s indulging in taxaholic propensities, then the virtue signaling takes a back seat.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      You’re still damaging the road with that EV even if we all breathe better from you being kind to the air.

  22. Nancy_Naive Avatar
    Nancy_Naive

    I like it. But then, it’s a tax based loosely on a state property I use, and inevitably damage.

    Of course, when you buy and sell a car, the odometer reading is registered, so a seller’s tax based on vehicle weight and total miles driven while owned might work. Then, it doesn’t matter what powers it.

    Now, what to do with out-of-state incursions on our roads? Tolls? With rebates to Virginia drivers?

  23. Policy Student Avatar
    Policy Student

    Why tax some, when all benefit? Highway systems are “public goods.” Anyone who shops at brick and mortar stores benefits from highways. Anyone with a job, or a business, or an interest in a healthy economy also benefits. I favor a general fund approach for three reasons 1) It is impossible to accurately calculate “fair share” 2) Flat fee taxes are regressive 3) I’m sick of being nickel-and-dimed. Assess sufficient income/ wealth taxes and be done with it.

    1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
      Nancy_Naive

      So how do you charge trucks and snowbirds that fill up in NC and drive through Virginia nonstop?

      1. You don’t. The assumption is, there are as many Virginians going in the other direction. Gas in Virginia is still cheaper than states to the north and west.

        1. Nancy_Naive Avatar
          Nancy_Naive

          That implies that Virginia is enough like the others that a Virginian should want to leave, even if only for a while.

          I, for one, am loathe to cross the line.

    2. djrippert Avatar

      BS. You drive, you pay. Hooterville pays for their roads just like suburbia pays. You walk (or take a bicycle) you don’t pay. Every mile on every road is charged to recover the cost of maintenance and, if necessary, expansion. Highland County, Va is 415 sq mi with 2,210 residents. Do they pay for their own roads? The Greater Richmond area has a population of 1.3m. The Greater Washington Are has a population of 6.1m. Both have “beltways”. I295 in Richmond is 4 lanes wide in many areas. So is I495 around DC. Why isn’t DC’s beltway 5X bigger than Richmond’s given that the metropolitan area is 5X more populous? How many sky high tolls are collected in Richmond?

      You use the roads you pay the tax,

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        On tolls.

        Often to pay for a specific bridge or tunnel – not really keyed to whether the region is urban or not. Take the Bay Bridge of the CBBT – both going from urban to rural.

        Congestion tolls are not about money alone – they are to basically discourage driving during rush hour to try to keep the traffic moving instead of gridlocking. It too can be anywhere there is a significant rush hour – as opposed to blindly putting them only in urban areas. It just so happens that urban areas typically have rush hours than can overwhelm the roads they have and they cannot practically build more – they are out of room – on a network basis. Yes, you might widen one road but another you physically cannot so it becomes an unfixable bottleneck unless you convince enough people NOT to drive there at peak hour.

        The Washington region congestion tolls are not the only option either. There are “free” lanes but they will be congested and you can ride for free if you carpool.

        that’s not BS… you can google “congestion tolls” and read any number of explanations that will be the same.

        1. djrippert Avatar

          Blah, blah, blah … unfixable. What a package of tripe. I’ve lived in Manhattan, I’ve been to Singapore a dozen times. Tokyo too. High density places can work just fine. The con in Virginia comes from Richmond. Plenty of money for free roads in Richmond. But not NoVa and not Hampton Roads. It’s time for the mindless apologists for the Imperial Clown Show in Richmond to shut the f up. There’s plenty of money for top quality transportation in Virginia if everybody pays their own way, including the mollycoddled plantation elite in Richmond.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            If you’ve been to those places, you KNOW they have tolls also. Right?

      2. UpAgnstTheWall Avatar
        UpAgnstTheWall

        The last segment of I-295 was completed almost 30 years ago and was started when the state transportation budget was flush with cash after raising the gas tax in 1986. It hasn’t been improved upon since then at all. VA-288 is 20 years old. The Mixing Bowl has been improved upon more recently than that. How many tax dollars are being spent on the extension of the Silver Line?

        You’re posing all this as if Richmond just keeps showering money on itself for road improvements when that’s simply not the case. The state won’t even get off the money to buy out a scrapyard to extend the Chamberlayne/Belvidere exit ramp. It’s been tight all around, Northern Virginia is not being uniquely deprived.

  24. I’d be curious (going back to last year’s GA session) how this fee came about? Who asked for it? And how it works mathematically?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It was included in the big omnibus transportation bill (HB 1414) in the 2020 session that was proposed by the administration and introduced by the Speaker.

      Here is the language in the bill (now in Sec. 46.2-772 of the Code of Virginia) that sets out how the user fee is to calculated:

      “For an electric motor vehicle, the highway use fee shall be 85 percent of the amount of taxes paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on fuel used by a vehicle with a combined fuel economy of 23.7 miles per gallon for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth, as determined by the Commissioner. For all other fuel-efficient vehicles, the highway use fee shall be 85 percent of the difference between the tax paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on the fuel used by a vehicle with a combined fuel economy of 23.7 miles per gallon for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth in a year, as determined by the Commissioner, and the tax paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on the fuel used by the vehicle being registered for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth in a year, as determined by the Commissioner.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Thanks… not sure I really understand it. It look like it’s the same fee whether pure electric or just “fuel efficient” and not electric or even hybrid.

        In terms of different states, (from other commenters) not sure why that’s anymore or less of an issue than it ever was before.

        If one REALLY wants to see the fuel tax as funding even MORE than roads – head to Canada or Europe. And a few years back as far as I could tell the price had little to do with whether the car got good mileage or was a hybrid… it was just damned expensive – like $5 a gal – even more expensive in Europe and all but the rich drive smaller cars with higher gas mileage.

        Many GOPers in Congress actually want the Feds to get out of the gas tax because it no longer pays for itself and is requiring general fund subsidies.

      2. Thank you Dick!…
        I was hoping you or Steve would fill in the blanks.

        So the one yet unknown is the yearly average miles traveled per vehicle in Va.

  25. I’d be curious (going back to last year’s GA session) how this fee came about? Who asked for it? And how it works mathematically?

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      It was included in the big omnibus transportation bill (HB 1414) in the 2020 session that was proposed by the administration and introduced by the Speaker.

      Here is the language in the bill (now in Sec. 46.2-772 of the Code of Virginia) that sets out how the user fee is to calculated:

      “For an electric motor vehicle, the highway use fee shall be 85 percent of the amount of taxes paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on fuel used by a vehicle with a combined fuel economy of 23.7 miles per gallon for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth, as determined by the Commissioner. For all other fuel-efficient vehicles, the highway use fee shall be 85 percent of the difference between the tax paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on the fuel used by a vehicle with a combined fuel economy of 23.7 miles per gallon for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth in a year, as determined by the Commissioner, and the tax paid under subsection A of § 58.1-2217 on the fuel used by the vehicle being registered for the average number of miles traveled by a passenger vehicle in the Commonwealth in a year, as determined by the Commissioner.”

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Thanks… not sure I really understand it. It look like it’s the same fee whether pure electric or just “fuel efficient” and not electric or even hybrid.

        In terms of different states, (from other commenters) not sure why that’s anymore or less of an issue than it ever was before.

        If one REALLY wants to see the fuel tax as funding even MORE than roads – head to Canada or Europe. And a few years back as far as I could tell the price had little to do with whether the car got good mileage or was a hybrid… it was just damned expensive – like $5 a gal – even more expensive in Europe and all but the rich drive smaller cars with higher gas mileage.

        Many GOPers in Congress actually want the Feds to get out of the gas tax because it no longer pays for itself and is requiring general fund subsidies.

      2. Thank you Dick!…
        I was hoping you or Steve would fill in the blanks.

        So the one yet unknown is the yearly average miles traveled per vehicle in Va.

  26. LarrytheG Avatar

    The premise behind the gas tax is that it is a use tax and before IC engines got a lot more efficient and Hybrids and EVs came along – everyone that used the roads was supposed to pay according to how much they used the roads – how many miles they drove – and that primarily was/is to pay for maintenance of operations.

    That’s the fuel tax.

    but there are other related taxes.

    For instance, if you buy a car , you’re going to be a sales tax – and that money goes to pay for improvements and new roads.

    Then about 1/2% of the general sales tax goes for transportation.

    And a tax on insurance….

    it’s all here – note that the part of the general sales tax earmarked for transportation generates MORE than the fuel tax by a little bit.

    https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/webdoc/pdf/tracking_nov20.pdf

    1. Electric Vehicles are alternate fuel, so it makes some sense that there is a added road use fee in that case.

      So Larry, I guess you need to write to your Senators and tell them the Federal Gaso tax is messed up because they forgot to base it on miles driven. As you say from time immemorial that was always the rule. Geez if they go retroactive on the fix, I might go broke.

      PS- Probably the Repubs wanted the HUF, so you are in the wrong corner

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Naw. The FIRST roads in Virginia were toll roads:

        A HISTORY OF ROADS IN VIRGINIA
        http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/historyofrds.pdf

        and then they decided that private tolls, free market, mind you, were wrong and that since all vehicles got pretty much the same “mileage” they could just charge for fuel… they never foresaw different kinds of fuels…

        Yeah the Repubs liked the free market better… private property rights… make a living building a road and charging people to do it then the Dems came along and got “socialist” on them… went out and took land away from private owners… paid them a fair price mind you… then let everybody and their dog use it for just s “small tax”.

    2. The Repubs are still waiting for Jared Kushner to develop a Trump position on the subject. You never know, he may have an opinion. Suddenly, that will become policy for the True Believers.

  27. Above, please note Dick Hall-Sizemore has kindly filled in the blanks about the math equations how the fee is calculated.

    Although $35 does not seem too big$$, we have to look to the future. If gaso prices go up for whatever reason, these fees can easily double or triple , and get to the point of quite a large dis-incentive for fuel efficient gasoline vehicles.

    In this scheme, plug-ins are favored over fuel efficient gasoline vehicles because plug-ins get massive Federal ($7500) + future state incentive$ ($2500-$5000). We are talking up to about $12,500 rebate on a plug-in future in Va.

    Whereas a fuel-efficient gasoline car could see $thousands extra fees due to HUF+Car Taxes in Virginia. My point is this HUF policy does not reduce CO2, it just punishes those wanting to buy a fuel-efficient gasoline car.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The singular purpose of the HUF is to raise enough money to maintain the transportation networks – no matter what kind of vehicles use them.

      Two separate things are being conflated and confused.

      It’s like Dominion having to be paid to maintain the grid if you use it – no matter whether you have solar panels or not.

      Everyone has to pay their share of the roads and the grid.

  28. Above, please note Dick Hall-Sizemore has kindly filled in the blanks about the math equations how the fee is calculated.

    Although $35 does not seem too big$$, we have to look to the future. If gaso prices go up for whatever reason, these fees can easily double or triple , and get to the point of quite a large dis-incentive for fuel efficient gasoline vehicles.

    In this scheme, plug-ins are favored over fuel efficient gasoline vehicles because plug-ins get massive Federal ($7500) + future state incentive$ ($2500-$5000). We are talking up to about $12,500 rebate on a plug-in future in Va.

    Whereas a fuel-efficient gasoline car could see $thousands extra fees due to HUF+Car Taxes in Virginia. My point is this HUF policy does not reduce CO2, it just punishes those wanting to buy a fuel-efficient gasoline car.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      The singular purpose of the HUF is to raise enough money to maintain the transportation networks – no matter what kind of vehicles use them.

      Two separate things are being conflated and confused.

      It’s like Dominion having to be paid to maintain the grid if you use it – no matter whether you have solar panels or not.

      Everyone has to pay their share of the roads and the grid.

  29. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V
    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      the whole dialogue about “relying” on wind/solar is just a false narrative.

      ANY fuel source, EVEN coal, natural gas AND nukes can get shut down for a variety of factors but we don’t say they are impractical sources. This is why we have diversified sources in the first place.

      wind/solar can LOWER fuel costs if you use them WHEN they are available and use other available sources when they are not.

      It’s NOT an either/or proposition – never was and never will be.

      it’s just common fiscal sense to use less expensive fuel when you can.

      1. If wind and solar were so cost effective we wouldn’t need to strong arm adoption or provide massive subsidies.

        California went down this path and experienced severe outages and brown outs. We should learn from that. One of their mistakes was diverting resources from the existing grid and distribution system to build out to the new locations for wind and solar.

        Electrical power generation is only one aspect of the Progressive war on fossil fuels. They oppose every new AND every existing means of producing and distributing fossil fuels.

        Progressives also oppose nuclear. And as if that isn’t enough, they want to remove damns which provide hydroelectric.

        Progressives want to mandate electric cars too. That will put an enormous strain on the electrical grid, and it’s not built for that.

        Progressives want to push everything onto the electrical grid all at once.
        A grid which this storm has demonstrated can’t always be relied upon.

        It’s not a question of if homes are without power, but when. With natural gas, propane or heating oil for heat they can at least stay warm in the winter. When citizens are totally dependent on electricity, they lose several things critical to their well being all at once.

        I’ve been without power since Saturday, but I can at least drive my car if needed. I’m quite thankful not to have that compromised as well.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          re: ” If wind and solar were so cost effective we wouldn’t need to strong arm adoption or provide massive subsidies.”

          because it causes less externalities/pollution?

          Same reason we give incentives for high efficiency HVACs, insulation and insulated windows?

          so two more questions back at you:

          if solar/wind is so good , why doesn’t it power islands instead of imported diesel fuel?

          and…

          if nuclear power is so cost-effective, why doesn’t it power inhabited islands instead of diesel fuel?

          1. I have no problem whatsoever with solar or wind. What I don’t like is the totalitarian approach to adoption.

            And I’m not pushing nuclear. What I object to is the activist do-gooders who want them shut down (at great expense) and make it practically impossible to pursue new ones. How much of the cost is fighting opposition?

            Gas from pipelines is very efficient and reliable. When we lived in a home with natural gas we went 16 years without an outage. Biden is shutting down pipelines left and right, which is throwing thousands out of work and pissing away hundreds of millions that has already been spent.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Giving incentives is “totalitarian” ? geeze.

            IN terms of Nukes – often offered as “better” than wind/solar/fossil – and I’d be fine with it if it were actually SAFE … AND cost-effective. I’d even support incentives!

            Gas pipelines… not perfect – Germany has them but the problem is not the pipeline but getting the gas. Anchorage Alaska has access to a ton of gas on the north slope but not enough pipeline – but it can’t be done cost-effectively and needs government subsidies. Does that mean it takes totalitarianism to get it done? Doesn’t it really mean it’s not fiscally feasible as a free market thing?

            I just don’t buy all the “govt is bad” stuff… sorry.. we got incentives and subsides out the wazoo for a LOT of fuel sources INCLUDING nukes, gas and even coal.

            A gas pipeline NEEDS the government to declare eminent domain to claw land away from property owners to give to other property owners – now THAT’s totalitarianism, no?

          3. LARRYTHEG wrote – Giving incentives is “totalitarian” ? geeze.

            Do you not understand the meaning of “require”?

            “The Act requires Dominion Energy Virginia to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2045 and Appalachian Power to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. It requires nearly all coal-fired plants to close by the end of 2024..”

            There are many other requirements as well.

            https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

            Did President Biden provide an “incentive” to stop work on the Keystone Pipeline? Is that your understanding? Where do you get your news?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            What I’m asking first is do you support the government taking land from private owners to transfer to other private owners for a for-profit pipeline?

            Then on the XL-pipeline – it’s not gas. It’s tar sand oil and it’s in Canada. It will have a similar (but different) impact that blowing mountaintops off for coal will have. Look up how tar sand oil is “mined” . Is it something that we need to subsidize by allowing a foreign company to use USA eminent domain to take land from USA property owners?

          5. Who owns the railroads? How did they acquire access to all the land necessary to connect the nation? Was that legal?

            Railroads are much like pipelines in that they don’t work without a continues uninterrupted path.

            I do not support taking private land for all purposes. There has been abuse of this power for sure. I do support it for critical infrastructure such as energy.

            If right of way is needed to build out the electrical grid to a solar farm or windmills, how do you think they will get it? Does the government own those?

          6. “XL-pipeline – it’s not gas”

            I never said it was. Pipelines are also very good for transporting oil. It’s far better than using tankers, trains and trucks. Exxon Valdez? Lac-Megantic? (deadly train derailment)

            “…pipelines are the most efficient way of moving oil over land. And efficiency is not some capitalist word to be sneered at; it means they use less fuel just to transport fuel, reducing pollution and GHGs.”

            https://torontosun.com/2013/07/12/pipelines-and-trains–each-have-advantages-and-drawbacks

            Canada is a close ally. You would rather send our money to our enemies and rely on them to provide such a critical resource?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            there’s a lot of history of rail – they were given the land in exchange for building the rail. But the land was owned by the government – after having taken it from the native americans.

            On the pipelines. You support the government taking that land from private property owners to give to other private property owners for a for-profit pipeline?

            yes or no?

          8. You over simplify as usual.

            I support appropriate measures to build pipelines for energy, but am not certain that land ownership is the only option. There are also easements. I am not familiar enough with the specifics to comment further.

            I will say that the halting of energy pipelines by Progressives has very little to do with property rights. When eminent domain has been used for shopping malls and other private enterprises most said absolutely nothing. In fact, they supported it.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s actually pretty simple, I don’t have to simply. If you own property can you tell another person that you don’t want to sell your property (or an easement) for their private gain?

            pretty simple.

            Does the government have the right to force you to sell to another person who wants to put a pipeline on your property for their personal gain?

            not complicated.

    2. James – I agree. There are lessons to be learned from others, but Virginia doesn’t seem to be paying attention.

      As a side note, Dominion may be the largest player in Virginia, but it’s not the only one. As I mentioned above, Southside is very small by comparison, but has been totally overwhelmed by this ice storm, and their customers are paying the price.

      Has our Governor spoken about this? I have been busy dealing with my own situation, so I don’t know.

      Virginia energy policy must recognize that the Commonwealth is served by several power companies. The citizens who are not in Dominion’s footprint need to be considered as well. Other than deciding what house to buy in what area, we don’t really have much choice about who provides our power.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Are we saying that Government is RESPONSIBLE for the electric grid and one’s choice of power and reliability?

        1. Are you not aware that utilities are highly regulated?

          Are you not aware that the electric grid is considered critical infrastructure?

          Are you saying that massive power failures have nothing to do with emergency management?

          Our governor seems to think this is all a function of government. Perhaps you should enlighten him.

          “Governor Northam Signs Clean Energy Legislation”

          RICHMOND—Governor Ralph Northam is accelerating Virginia’s transition to clean energy by signing the Virginia Clean Economy Act and by amending the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act that requires Virginia to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

          “These new clean energy laws propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change,” said Governor Northam. “They advance environmental justice and help create clean energy jobs. In Virginia, we are proving that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand.”

          https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            FULLY AWARE but asking the question – the Government is the responsible party for BOTH fossil fuels AND renewables?

            Do you support the government forcing property owners to sell their land for private party pipelines?

  30. James Wyatt Whitehead V Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead V
    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      the whole dialogue about “relying” on wind/solar is just a false narrative.

      ANY fuel source, EVEN coal, natural gas AND nukes can get shut down for a variety of factors but we don’t say they are impractical sources. This is why we have diversified sources in the first place.

      wind/solar can LOWER fuel costs if you use them WHEN they are available and use other available sources when they are not.

      It’s NOT an either/or proposition – never was and never will be.

      it’s just common fiscal sense to use less expensive fuel when you can.

      1. If wind and solar were so cost effective we wouldn’t need to strong arm adoption or provide massive subsidies.

        California went down this path and experienced severe outages and brown outs. We should learn from that. One of their mistakes was diverting resources from the existing grid and distribution system to build out to the new locations for wind and solar.

        Electrical power generation is only one aspect of the Progressive war on fossil fuels. They oppose every new AND every existing means of producing and distributing fossil fuels.

        Progressives also oppose nuclear. And as if that isn’t enough, they want to remove damns which provide hydroelectric.

        Progressives want to mandate electric cars too. That will put an enormous strain on the electrical grid, and it’s not built for that.

        Progressives want to push everything onto the electrical grid all at once.
        A grid which this storm has demonstrated can’t always be relied upon.

        It’s not a question of if homes are without power, but when. With natural gas, propane or heating oil for heat they can at least stay warm in the winter. When citizens are totally dependent on electricity, they lose several things critical to their well being all at once.

        I’ve been without power since Saturday, but I can at least drive my car if needed. I’m quite thankful not to have that compromised as well.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          re: ” If wind and solar were so cost effective we wouldn’t need to strong arm adoption or provide massive subsidies.”

          because it causes less externalities/pollution?

          Same reason we give incentives for high efficiency HVACs, insulation and insulated windows?

          so two more questions back at you:

          if solar/wind is so good , why doesn’t it power islands instead of imported diesel fuel?

          and…

          if nuclear power is so cost-effective, why doesn’t it power inhabited islands instead of diesel fuel?

          1. I have no problem whatsoever with solar or wind. What I don’t like is the totalitarian approach to adoption.

            And I’m not pushing nuclear. What I object to is the activist do-gooders who want them shut down (at great expense) and make it practically impossible to pursue new ones. How much of the cost is fighting opposition?

            Gas from pipelines is very efficient and reliable. When we lived in a home with natural gas we went 16 years without an outage. Biden is shutting down pipelines left and right, which is throwing thousands out of work and pissing away hundreds of millions that has already been spent.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Giving incentives is “totalitarian” ? geeze.

            IN terms of Nukes – often offered as “better” than wind/solar/fossil – and I’d be fine with it if it were actually SAFE … AND cost-effective. I’d even support incentives!

            Gas pipelines… not perfect – Germany has them but the problem is not the pipeline but getting the gas. Anchorage Alaska has access to a ton of gas on the north slope but not enough pipeline – but it can’t be done cost-effectively and needs government subsidies. Does that mean it takes totalitarianism to get it done? Doesn’t it really mean it’s not fiscally feasible as a free market thing?

            I just don’t buy all the “govt is bad” stuff… sorry.. we got incentives and subsides out the wazoo for a LOT of fuel sources INCLUDING nukes, gas and even coal.

            A gas pipeline NEEDS the government to declare eminent domain to claw land away from property owners to give to other property owners – now THAT’s totalitarianism, no?

          3. LARRYTHEG wrote – Giving incentives is “totalitarian” ? geeze.

            Do you not understand the meaning of “require”?

            “The Act requires Dominion Energy Virginia to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2045 and Appalachian Power to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050. It requires nearly all coal-fired plants to close by the end of 2024..”

            There are many other requirements as well.

            https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

            Did President Biden provide an “incentive” to stop work on the Keystone Pipeline? Is that your understanding? Where do you get your news?

          4. Who owns the railroads? How did they acquire access to all the land necessary to connect the nation? Was that legal?

            Railroads are much like pipelines in that they don’t work without a continues uninterrupted path.

            I do not support taking private land for all purposes. There has been abuse of this power for sure. I do support it for critical infrastructure such as energy.

            If right of way is needed to build out the electrical grid to a solar farm or windmills, how do you think they will get it? Does the government own those?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            What I’m asking first is do you support the government taking land from private owners to transfer to other private owners for a for-profit pipeline?

            Then on the XL-pipeline – it’s not gas. It’s tar sand oil and it’s in Canada. It will have a similar (but different) impact that blowing mountaintops off for coal will have. Look up how tar sand oil is “mined” . Is it something that we need to subsidize by allowing a foreign company to use USA eminent domain to take land from USA property owners?

          6. “XL-pipeline – it’s not gas”

            I never said it was. Pipelines are also very good for transporting oil. It’s far better than using tankers, trains and trucks. Exxon Valdez? Lac-Megantic? (deadly train derailment)

            “…pipelines are the most efficient way of moving oil over land. And efficiency is not some capitalist word to be sneered at; it means they use less fuel just to transport fuel, reducing pollution and GHGs.”

            https://torontosun.com/2013/07/12/pipelines-and-trains–each-have-advantages-and-drawbacks

            Canada is a close ally. You would rather send our money to our enemies and rely on them to provide such a critical resource?

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            there’s a lot of history of rail – they were given the land in exchange for building the rail. But the land was owned by the government – after having taken it from the native americans.

            On the pipelines. You support the government taking that land from private property owners to give to other private property owners for a for-profit pipeline?

            yes or no?

          8. You over simplify as usual.

            I support appropriate measures to build pipelines for energy, but am not certain that land ownership is the only option. There are also easements. I am not familiar enough with the specifics to comment further.

            I will say that the halting of energy pipelines by Progressives has very little to do with property rights. When eminent domain has been used for shopping malls and other private enterprises most said absolutely nothing. In fact, they supported it.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            It’s actually pretty simple, I don’t have to simply. If you own property can you tell another person that you don’t want to sell your property (or an easement) for their private gain?

            pretty simple.

            Does the government have the right to force you to sell to another person who wants to put a pipeline on your property for their personal gain?

            not complicated.

    2. James – I agree. There are lessons to be learned from others, but Virginia doesn’t seem to be paying attention.

      As a side note, Dominion may be the largest player in Virginia, but it’s not the only one. As I mentioned above, Southside is very small by comparison, but has been totally overwhelmed by this ice storm, and their customers are paying the price.

      Has our Governor spoken about this? I have been busy dealing with my own situation, so I don’t know.

      Virginia energy policy must recognize that the Commonwealth is served by several power companies. The citizens who are not in Dominion’s footprint need to be considered as well. Other than deciding what house to buy in what area, we don’t really have much choice about who provides our power.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Are we saying that Government is RESPONSIBLE for the electric grid and one’s choice of power and reliability?

        1. Are you not aware that utilities are highly regulated?

          Are you not aware that the electric grid is considered critical infrastructure?

          Are you saying that massive power failures have nothing to do with emergency management?

          Our governor seems to think this is all a function of government. Perhaps you should enlighten him.

          “Governor Northam Signs Clean Energy Legislation”

          RICHMOND—Governor Ralph Northam is accelerating Virginia’s transition to clean energy by signing the Virginia Clean Economy Act and by amending the Clean Energy and Community Flood Preparedness Act that requires Virginia to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

          “These new clean energy laws propel Virginia to leadership among the states in fighting climate change,” said Governor Northam. “They advance environmental justice and help create clean energy jobs. In Virginia, we are proving that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand.”

          https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/april/headline-856056-en.html

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            FULLY AWARE but asking the question – the Government is the responsible party for BOTH fossil fuels AND renewables?

            Do you support the government forcing property owners to sell their land for private party pipelines?

Leave a Reply