Don’t put brakes on progress
Published 12:01 am Friday, February 11, 2011
The line between an idea that’s forward-thinking and one that’s premature has been crossed with a proposal in Olympia to assess a $100 license fee on all-electric cars. It’s in the wrong lane policy-wise, threatening to collide with efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Supporters include the chairs of the Legislature’s two transportation committees, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen of Camano Island and Rep. Judy Clibborn of Mercer Island, who are mindful that owners of cutting edge, all-electric vehicles like the Nissan Leaf won’t be paying gasoline taxes, a major source of revenue for road construction and maintenance.
With fewer than 2,000 such cars subject to such a fee this year in Washington, the money raised would hardly amount to a rounding error in the overall state transportation budget. So the proposal is framed as a matter of simple fairness — owners of all-electric cars cause their share of wear and tear on highways, and should pay their fair share of the cost.
But that’s a counterproductive application of fairness, given the economic, environmental and national security imperative to reduce our dependence on petroleum. People who are willing to go out on the cutting edge of gasoline-free car technology ought to be rewarded, not penalized. Such pioneers are performing a public service, leading by example and giving others a look at a cleaner future. That’s why the federal government is offering tax credits of up to $7,500 for the purchase of all-electric or plug-in hybrid electric cars. State policy shouldn’t push in the opposite direction.
At some point, when all-electric cars reach a critical mass, of course their owners should pay their share of the taxes necessary to maintain a functional transportation system. That will be a happy day, indeed.
But for now, such talk distracts from the chief problem regarding highway funding: the decline of gas-tax revenues as gas-powered cars become more efficient. A more productive and meaningful debate would involve how to adjust gas-tax rates — perhaps by indexing them to inflation — so they better keep up with construction and maintenance costs. Then the public discussion must move into the details of proposals to increase tolling and offering cities and counties more options to raise revenue for roads and transit. Eventually, charging on the basis of miles traveled may be part of the solution.
Presenting voters with a comprehensive funding package next year, after the economy has had more time to recover and ample public discussion has taken place, makes a lot of sense.
Proposing short-term fees in the meantime, fees that make no real difference in the overall funding picture but could undermine good policy goals, does not.
