California policy makers are committed to decreasing carbon-dioxide emissions as part of their plan to address climate change, but they now face challenges on that front. The most obvious is the state’s $68-billion budget deficit, which creates pressure to reduce spending on climate programs.
Now the Legislative Analyst’s Office has offered more bad news. A new report found “policies aimed at increasing the adoption of ZEVs [Zero Emission Vehicles] will decrease the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuels, and consequently reduce the associated tax revenues that currently support the state’s transportation system.”
Electric-vehicle owners don’t pay gas taxes that fund transportation infrastructure, thus leading to increased calls for alternative ways to pick up the slack from growing EV adoption. In California, 25 percent of new vehicle sales are EVs, which is three times the national average.
Texas nearly quintupled the cost of registering an EV as a means to backfill lost revenues. Reason magazine explains the higher fees are “largely in line with what owners would likely pay in gas taxes.” Although sensible, that approach discourages EV purchases as the state wants more Californians to drive non-gasoline vehicles.
The LAO details other choices, such as raising fuel taxes, reducing transportation spending, implementing new fees such as tolls or tapping funds from other sources. The Legislature must wrestle with the costs and benefits of each idea, but most are problematic.
Boosting gas taxes forces other drivers to subsidize EV owners. Given congestion, cutting transportation spending is a non-starter. In theory, tolls are a reasonable idea, but most proposals impose tolls on top of fees drivers already are paying. Tapping other funds violates what the LAO calls the “user-pays” principle – drivers should pay in proportion to their usage.
We toss out another idea – reforming the California Department of Transportation, which spends far more per-mile on transportation projects than most other states thanks to California’s contracting, union, environmental and bureaucratic burdens.
As the Legislature returns, it will need to consider its options. Whatever choices lawmakers make, they need to keep the “user-pays” principle front and center.
—The Editorial Board, Southern California News Group
