91视频

State Rep. Vicky Berger, R-Salem, says 鈥渢he world is watching鈥� as the Oregon Legislature contemplates a bill that would tax electric vehicle drivers. Some people say it’s too early to tax such a small proportion of the state’s drivers, but others say now is the perfect time.

鈥淚t’s easier to start small with a small set of vehicles creating a small-risk involvement,鈥� said James Whitty, manager of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding, at a hearing last week. He led the group that drafted the tax in . 鈥淭he new electric vehicle fleet creates this opportunity. To wait makes the start complex and more expensive.鈥�

鈥淚n the long run, we think it’s fair that (drivers of) electric vehicles pay their fair share,鈥� said Jeff Kim, president of , an Oregon-based developer of charging stations. 鈥淗owever, we also support a cost-effective solution that wouldn’t cost more to implement than revenues received.鈥�

In its current form, HB 2325 would start charging drivers of plug-in and hybrid electric cars 1.43 cents per mile, starting in 2014. The bill is intended to help compensate for an anticipated decline in revenues from the state gas tax, Whitty said.

Representatives of the electric vehicle infrastructure industry, however, say 2014 would be too soon for a tax.

鈥淚n five years, there will be better technology, batteries will be less expensive, and there will be enough vehicles to tax to make some sense,鈥� said Chad Biasi, owner of Portland-based EV4 Oregon, a developer of charging stations.

Biasi raised another concern: If the tax’s intent is to charge drivers for their usage of the road, shouldn’t cars be charged based on weight, or if they use studded tires?

鈥淓lectric vehicles are lighter 鈥� they provide less wear and tear on the road surface,鈥� Kim said. 鈥淚f all vehicles were the same weight, maybe a mileage-based tax could make sense. Maybe something else will be better.鈥�

Berger is co-chairwoman of the House Revenue Committee, which is expected to vote on the bill either Friday or Monday. Because the bill would levy a new tax, it would require three-fifths approval of the Legislature.

Berger said the committee was examining possible amendments to address some concerns. The amendments could include changing the fee amount and its structure, Whitty said.

Uncertainties are the precise reason why the tax should be considered sooner rather than later, Berger said.

鈥淥ne of the unknowns is this technology. Starting sooner will provide a smaller subset (of drivers), to adapt the system, see how it works and make changes,鈥� she said.

Berger said that as it is now, the bill would call for mileage to be monitored automatically through cars’ odometers, via a system Berger compared to an 鈥渁pp,鈥� like on a smartphone. The system would only track miles traveled and not have a GPS.

Another option would be manual reporting by drivers, but Whitty told the revenue committee that was ruled out as expensive and unreliable.

鈥淢anual reporting is simple for the person who has to report,鈥� Whitty said. But for the state, it would create higher administration costs because staff would be hired to enter data and interface with customers, he added. Fraud and failure to report also would be concerns. Automatic reporting would be cheaper and thus result in greater net revenue, Whitty said.

Berger said she did not know who would be responsible for paying for the technology to report mileage. She speculated that drivers could pay for a simple system themselves, or the state might provide a more complicated one for free.

Whitty said the state should provide several options, and hoped that the private sector could help develop tracking technology.

For the short term, Berger said, she hopes the bill will pass this session so that a system is in place.

鈥淭he tax system isn’t going to live or die on this tax on these few cars,鈥� Berger said.