Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] update on GM Trying To Quash Driving Of All-Electric EV1 Restorations By Universities

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mills
    I am more inclined to push the issue of road tax collection into a position that will satisfy the government that they will be getting their road taxes at
    Message 1 of 31 , Dec 31, 2007
      I am more inclined to push the issue of road tax collection into a position that will satisfy the government that they will be getting their road taxes at their "DREAM STATE" of 100% of the liability and get on toward the goal of promoting and supplying alternative fuel vehicles which are blocked at every turn in the path by governemnt who fears that they are not going to get their financial cut of the money they are entitled to.

      To press the issue further, I began a career in the PROPANE industry in 1968. It was interesting and I was young and curious. I ended up in Bakersfield California doing propane conversions for the agriculture industry which included over the road vehicles which were converted new and run their entire lives on propane.

      Since this included over the road vehicles as well as agricultural functions like pumping irrigation water to the fields as well as harvesting equipment used in those fields, blending of on highway fuel and off highway fuel was common place in every day operations. Farmers and their employees would fill up a tractor directly from the pickup tank which usually carried close to 100 gallons of fuel to the job site.

      This process ended up with the pickup getting it's fuel from on-site storage tanks and the fuel being used both on-highway as well as off road or in the fields all coming from the same supply of fuel.

      What ended up here is that government lost tax revenue due to the blending of on highway use with off highway use. Government knew that this was happening but were pretty much helpless to deal with it until the "SMOG CHECK" rules came about and the physical modification rules stopped the pickup's from converting to the same fuel.

      While that stopped the tax losses in that catagory, they discovered that the problem was not nearly as severe as they thought as far as road taxes not being paid and the entire issue went away with the smog check program still out there today.

      The issue today concerns government and their road tax issue in a much more severe potential problem than that of the 1970's. Using an electric car or truck and charging it up every night is one issue to address but, there is the issue of the charging station in the daytime parking lot of today as well as other places that does make it a severe collection problem at the least.

      One example to give you some prospective in the issue;

      You drive an electric car and commute one way to work at a rate of 150 miles per day.
      You charged up your car overnight at home and again at work while it set there all day.

      This could accumulate 1,500 miles per week or 75,000 miles per year based on 50 weeks per year at work. This could add up to $1875.00 per year in road taxes, both State and Federal that never came into the coffers of government much less the automatic collect at the pump that we have today.

      It should therefore be easy to see just why government is fighting the issue by denying the electric car and/or other alternative fueled vehicles to be used on the roads today.

      The problem at issue is the collection of the road taxes that are today being handled by the oil industry at the refinery for the benefit of government with little or no problems to speak of.

      Now the question; How can that be accomplished to the satisfaction of government all over America?

      Yes, it is a tough problem to deal with and answers are hard to find.

      Now you know why the electric car "FAILED"!!

      If government should release the use of the alternative fueled vehicle to the roads and highways of America today, the roads and highways would fail through lack of money to maintain them.

      Pure and simple economics....No money to pay the bills.

      If you are inclined to see the severity of the collection problem today, just stop by a McDonalds that is not real busy. When you go in, watch the cook stare at his or her computer screen. That person will continue to do so even though your order is on their screen until such time as the computer tells the cook that your hamberger has been paid for. they will then go to work and place your hamberger patty on the grill.

      Blew me away the first time I saw that one happen......It was within the last year.

      What's next??

      Bob


      Ron Cochran <rcochran@...> wrote:
      Based on this post from Robert Mills, it is too bad
      that this tax was not based on dollars spent instead of
      a per gallon tax. At least a tax based on dollars
      spent would tend to penalize owners of gas-guzzlers.
      On the other hand, this also means that Congress would
      only need to make slight changes in the Federal Highway
      Tax in order to increase taxes on such gas-guzzlers. I
      would vote for that!

      Ron

      _____

      From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Robert Mills
      Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 1:15 PM
      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] update on GM
      Trying To Quash Driving Of All-Electric EV1
      Restorations By Universities

      When federal highway taxes were implemented back in the
      1940's it was for highway building and repair and was
      put on as a money tax per gallon purchased; example;
      "10 cents per gallon of gasoline".

      Differnet amounts for diesel and an exemption from the
      tax if it was purchased and used for fuel oil heating
      in the home or business and agriculture as well..

      These taxes were also named Federal Excise taxes by a
      lot of people and have been there for over 60 years
      now.

      Of course, they have been changed as the cost of
      building highways went up along with the Golden Gate
      Bridge in San Francisco, etc.

      The problem government has today is not with the taxes
      itself but how do I collect them "FIRST" and with 100%
      accuracy that was guarenteed to them when it was
      collected at the pump by the refinery delivering the
      fuel.

      Yes, it can be measured in lot's of ways and calculated
      accordingly. The problem that government is trying to
      deal with now is; "How do I collect it "FIRST",
      "AUTOMATICALLY", and with 100% accuaracy like the
      credit card at the gas pump and do so without
      collection costs like I have today with gasoline.

      The biggest fear that government has is that of you
      plugging a charger into your garage plug and filling up
      your electric car and I don't get my cut "FIRST"!!

      This fear also exists at the State level for their road
      taxes.

      Any suggestions short of not allowing the electric
      vehicle to be made and put out there?

      Be careful with your answer or you might just discover
      the reason for the electric cars being sent to the
      crusher in 1992.

      Bob

      Lee Dekker <heprv@yahoo. <mailto:heprv%40yahoo.com>
      com> wrote:
      So, a follow up question, for anyone.

      Are road taxes collected by the total gallons pumped?
      Or by the total $s spent at the pump for those gallons?

      Robert Mills <rmills7759@yahoo.
      <mailto:rmills7759%40yahoo.com> com> wrote: Remember me
      and "Where's my road taxes?

      Bob

      murdoch <murdoch@herecomesmo
      <mailto:murdoch%40herecomesmongo.com> ngo.com> wrote:
      GM, by contract with the Universities (although the
      contract itself
      has not been published, so this is 2nd-hand) apparently
      has tried to
      keep the donated cars from being converted back to
      all-electric (We
      have to ask: _*WHY?*_) and seems also to have tried to
      keep them from
      the public eye when they are so-converted.

      http://www.seattlee
      <http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1_WWU_Resurrection
      #GM_Reacts>
      va.org/wiki/GM_EV1_WWU_Resurrection#GM_Reacts

      [...]

      >Our take
      >
      >GM in their infinite wisdom to promote their green
      image and
      >new EV design studio is warning universities to stick
      to
      >their signed agreements regarding donated EV1 carcases
      a
      >half decade ago. Turns out the schools technical
      departments
      >were able to revive their EV1's as part of the process
      of
      >hybridizing them as intended in the donation
      contracts[4].
      >Unfortunately the schools let some people see and
      video tape
      >the vehicles and also may have let their tires touch a
      roads
      >surface, which is apparently prohibited. Another part
      of the
      >agreement was that the schools would not mar GMs
      image,
      >which they feel the videos of the car may have done.
      So why
      >is GM upset about all this?
      >
      >* It's ironic that it's not the crushing of a small
      fleet of EV1's
      >which were loved by their drivers that tarnishes the
      GM image,
      >but rather video of the cars being driven on roads
      when a group
      >of university student restores one which mars GMs
      image.
      >* Perhaps access to the EV1 would be considered
      cheating for members
      >of GMs new EV design studio which will be working on
      the new Chevy
      >Volt. [5]
      >* It takes the edge off the Volt Hype if people know
      that the
      >EV1 existed a decade ago and was already slated to
      become a series
      >hybrid. GM even had a running 4 seat EV1 at the EVS-18
      in Beijing
      >(1998) which was a series hybrid with as much range as
      the Volt.
      >[6]
      >* To ensure that only GMs own pre-approved and focus
      group branded
      >"Green Image" is promoted, being green is subjective
      after all,
      >isn't it?
      >* GM likes to talk green (EVs, PHEVs, and E-Flex), but
      in the
      >end they are really still all about the yellow
      (ethanol, Flex
      >Fuel).
      >* Perhaps because GM has become <insert expletive
      here>?

      ---------------------------------
      Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast
      with Yahoo! Search.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
      Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






      ---------------------------------
      Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • murdoch
      Hi Bill: Sorry to truncate your post, but I did label my response as side-bar issues. I did not necessarily disagree with that which I truncated. I will
      Message 31 of 31 , Jan 10, 2008
        Hi Bill:

        Sorry to truncate your post, but I did label my response as side-bar
        issues. I did not necessarily disagree with that which I truncated. I
        will repair your post here in this one, so it is all there at the end.

        As to what I "must think", I'm pretty sure I'm on record, over years
        (if not decades) in bringing attention to what is for sale versus what
        is not for sale. In a way, I got started following the EV story when
        I noticed the disconnect and blatant dishonesty between what Auto
        manufacturers were saying and what they were doing, about real-world
        EV availability.

        While Robert Mills's thesis is counter-intuitive to some, and he tends
        to focus in on one issue to the exclusion of other critical ff&v
        issues, our discussion in this group of a wide variety of
        better-vehicle-related issues means that we sometimes we may appear to
        veer off-course.

        I have myself had lengthy discussions with Robert in the past, and
        some disagreement, as to his very singular focus on this one issue. In
        a group of more than 700 nominal participants, I think we must keep in
        mind that one single poster who is posting a lot on one particular
        issue does not necessarily represent the views of anyone outside
        themselves. It's been a long time since we have had Robert's views on
        things, and I'm glad to see what looks like a pretty robust
        discussion.

        I like to recommend to people that if they do not want to read one
        particular poster in an e-group, that a way to do this is to ignore
        that poster or delete their posts in your email program (if you access
        the group via email, which some of us do). A problem with this method
        is that it should (in my view) only be used sparingly, so as to reduce
        consternation and improve your focus. Otherwise it becomes petty and
        can result in a disjointed group discussion.

        Thank you for bringing us some hard information about the Zenn. I
        have always wanted to see more exchange of international information
        here in this group as to real-world vehicle availability in a variety
        of countries.

        You seem frustrated with your initial interchanges here, but ... maybe
        try to pace yourself a bit. Many of us have been discussing things
        for years, not to mention making personal time and resource and money
        sacrifices as activists.

        Honestly, I think you'll find over time that what you have to say will
        reach people.

        Anyway, glad to have you aboard.

        murdoch/
        forum owner/co-moderator.




        [Default] On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:08:36 -0500 (EST), bill wicksted
        <bwicksted@...> wrote:

        >For some people you have to spell out everything.
        >
        >What hybrid can you buy to day that stock will give you 50mpg or better?
        >
        >You must think that because 90mpg was done in the past it is
        >magically going to be produced by a car industry, oil cartel
        >driven government whether it be ICE only or hybrid electric?
        >With sales of SUV's going up and oil at $100.00 barrel let's
        >produce a small highly efficient ICE with 100mpg or an e-
        >model that only needs electricity, no oil changes, and none
        >of the usual oem parts and service.
        >
        >We will do this and put 1/2 of our dealerships into
        >bankruptcy because all those people at Future Fuels and
        >Vehicles are concerned about the amount of damage heavy cars
        >are doing to the roadways, but we could put in computers to
        >collect a road tax for you, SIR.
        >
        >Murdoch if you want to comment on only a small part of a
        >post you do me or the group no favour. Include the whole
        >post!

        Here is a whole post that you made previously:

        >From: bill wicksted <bwicksted@...>
        >Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 00:45:06 -0500 (EST)
        >
        >So if a vehicle that only gets 20mpg weights more than the 40mpg the road use works out to about the same!
        >
        >What about the Hybrid's mpg (not plug in as there are none available for sale) What is the highest mpg for a hybrid? 50mpg and that's pushing it.
        >
        >The Government is getting it's pound of flesh we are the ones bleeding, as we know it's not just Government or GM or the Oil Cartel but the combination of all 3
        >
        >They keep bringing up new battery chemistries, water turbines, flywheels, Fuel cells, biofuels, ethenol, and now it's algae producing biofuel from carbon emissions (but they won't be ready for consumer use until....... you put in the excuse) just to keep the consumer from catching onto there games.
        >
        >"We The People" killed the electric car!
        >
        >Most states allow the use of e-bikes as long as they are only as efficient as a bicycle so no competion for the ICE machine.
        >
        > Two side-bar things here:
        >
        > 1. I believe the Honda Insight non-pluggable hybrid got something
        > like 60 or 70 mpg. They were light-weight and incorporated things
        > like special tires that arguably sacrificed some comfort. That
        > particular vehicle has been discontinued, but it showed that a hybrid
        > could get in excess of 50 mpg, just as we know a non-hybrid can.
        >
        > PHEVs are harder to figure, but I think in terms of overall energy use
        > (translating their plug-power to gasoline power) they have been
        > measured up in the 90 mpg range. However, PHEVs have not been widely
        > for sale, so just responding to the non-pluggable aspect of this, I
        > think some hybrids have been known to get 70 mpg.
        >
        > 2. All vehicles are not alike in terms of the damage they do to
        > roads. I believe I heard the metric that a vehicle which weighs twice
        > as much will do four times the damage. (If I am remembering this
        > correctly, it is something I saw discussed once in an article about
        > downtown road repairs necessary in San Diego.). So, depending on
        > trying to balance keeping things simple versus trying to tax those who
        > are causing the greatest expense, it is possible that the computer
        > systems should be asked to handle vehicle identification and taxing
        > them at different rates per mile.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Regards Bill W.
        >
        >bwicksted@...
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.