Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Maryland; And it’s Effects on the Transportation Trust Fund

7/28/2019 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Maryland; And its Effects on the Transportation Trust Fund

1/16

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Maryland;

And its Effects on the Transportation Trust Fund

Jason M Boothe

Towson University

GEOG 393

Fall 2011


2/16

1Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Maryland

December 17, 2011

Introduction

In recent years a new sector in the

automotive industry has started to expand, that

being the sector of electric vehicles (EV). This push

towards greater usage of these vehicles is in part is

to lessen the impact on the environment from

traditional gasoline powered vehicles and to lessenthe influence of petroleum as a source for fuel for

the transportation sector. Currently these vehicles

are in limited quantities and available in select

markets through the United States. But as the

number of manufactures increases and the number

of consumers adopting these vehicles as their

mode of transportation increases, the demand and necessity for charging stations located

outside of the home will also increase. With the current limited availability of charging stations

to support these vehicles, an infrastructure will need to be built out. This includes not only the

stations themselves, but also possible changes to the power grid to supply these stations.

There is a question as to what level should the government be involved in the build out

of this infrastructure and more particularly should funds from the Transportation Trust Fund

(TTF), on the state level, be used to finance the build out of this infrastructure. If not the state

then that will be the supplier and financer of this infrastructure build out and power supply. Also

with the fuel of choice being electricity it removes a significant portion of the vehicles operation

from the fuel tax, being that gasoline is not involved, so is their a way that this class of vehicles

can still adequately fund the TTF?


3/16


December 17, 2011

Contents

Introduction .................................................................... 1

Contents ......................................................................... 2

EV Infrastructure ............................................................ 3

Electric Vehicles ................................................. 3

Electric Power Grid ............................................ 3

Charging Stations .............................................. 4

Funding and Taxation ..................................................... 6

Infrastructure Costs and Funding ...................... 6

Taxation and the Trust Fund ............................. 7

No Change ........................................................... 7

Capture at the Pump ........................................... 7

Tolls ..................................................................... 8

Fees and Taxes ..................................................... 8

Vehicle Miles Traveled/Road Usage Tax .............. 8

State Initiatives ............................................................. 10

Maryland ......................................................... 10

Connecticut ...................................................... 10

Virginia ............................................................ 11

Indiana ............................................................. 11

Conclusions ................................................................... 13

Bibliography .................................................................. 15


4/16


December 17, 2011

EV Infrastructure

As stated in the introduction, an infrastructure is required to make possible the charging of

Electric fueled vehicles. This infrastructure can be broken down into three parts; the first part is

the vehicles themselves, the second part is electric power grid, and the third are the charging

stations.

To understand the requirements of the build out a basic knowledge of its parts are required, inthis section we will review these parts.

Electric Vehicles

Electric Vehicles or EVs are general put into two classifications. The first is the Battery Electric

Vehicles (BEV). BEVs are vehicles that run exclusively on electric powered and do not include a

gas combustion engine. During operation, a battery pack in the vehicle provides the fuel to the

drivetrain, which is an electric motor. As the car is used the amount of fuel stored in the

batteries decreases and refuel in the form of a recharge is required. A common issue with this

class of EV is the range that one can operate the vehicle, and the time it takes to recharge the

batteries. BEVs are refueled by way plugging in the vehicle into a Vehicle Charging unit.

Charging time is dependent on the type of battery in the vehicle, the charging unit being used,

Generally speaking BEVs have a range of about 100 miles, but this can vary depending on the

performance of the driver, driving conditions, and the car its self. Cars in this class are the

Nissan Leaf, Mitsubishi iMiEV, and Tesla Roadster.

The second type of EV is the Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV). Like the BEV, this class of

vehicle has an electrical socket and battery pack that allows for charging and operation of the

vehicle. While the battery packs on these vehicles are typically smaller then in BEVs, and thus

would have a corresponding shorter range, this class of vehicles come equipped with a gasoline

power engine that acts as an on board generator, providing additional energy while driving to

the electric drivetrain. Because of this on-board generation setup, a PHEV can theoretically

travel at a range similar to if not greater then a traditional gasoline powered vehicle, depending

on conditions. Vehicles in this class would include the Chevrolet Volt

Electric Power Grid

The electric power grid in terms of EVs refers to the generation of electricity and transmission

of that electricity to the charging stations. Without going into the specifics of how electricity is

generated, the process to get power to charging stations, involves generation stations, the

transmission of energy to the grid, and then the distribution of the energy from the grid to the

stations. In May of 2011 consulting firm M.J. Bradley and Associates prepared a study

highlighting the relationship and issues present for the Electric Utility sector in regards to EV

infrastructure.

The report generally gave a positive slant for the industries involvement, citing that a return on

investment would be expected. It stated that the cost to upgrading existing distribution

networks to handle the increased usage of the networks would be offset by an increase in

consumption revenue, concluding that infrastructure was not a barrier. However the study, as


5/16


December 17, 2011

well as several of the state studies, did point to some existing concerns with the electric

infrastructure. The primary point of concern is an increase in the load factor, depending on

equipment, and time of year (summer/daytime). All of the studies however point to this issue as

being addressable in time to meet the demand of increased EV usage, and propose two ways to

solve it. The first way is an upgrade to the grid network from what is being in use now to a Smart

Grid. While some of this happing already, with the slow roll out of EVs the industry believes that

there is time to make the required Smart Grid upgrades for when demand increases. Anothersolution proposed by the Utility industry would be to charge varying rates depending on the

load factor and the time of day, for example a higher charging rate charge during the daytime as

opposed to at night. It is speculate that this could help in reduce load on the grid by incentivizing

EV owners to charge their vehicles at times when the load on the gird is low. It has also been

suggested, and in some cases applied, that alternative energy solutions be used, such as solar

and wind, as a way to power EV charging stations to not only reduce the influence of fossil fuels

in the EV charging process, but also as a way to reduce the load that would be attributed to the

charging stations on the grid.

While there are some other minor issues with some utilities present, the overall sense is that

the Electric Utilities would be on board with the expansion of the EV infrastructure as long as

there is a potential for a return on investment. Case in point, in a study done by the State of

Connecticut, several utilities in the state were cited in the report for initiatives that they have

already undertaken in regards to EV infrastructure.

Charging Stations

Charging Stations are the designated places in which EVs will refuel their batteries. These

charging stations can be located at residences, parking structures, places of business (in the

designated parking area), as well as street level public parking areas. Existing zoning laws as well

as other ordnances and regulations may regulate, depending on the jurisdiction, the location

and set up of these charging stations. In the United States there are three classifications of

charging stations. The first two classes are low voltage, low wattage, and AC trickle charge

systems. Currently these are the most prominent of the existing charging network. These

chargers also the longest time, measure in hours, to fully recharge an EV. The third class is the

so called quick charge system, named such because of the fact that it recharge a vehicle in less

then half the time of the other two classes of chargers, around 30 minuets on average. These

chargers use a high voltage and a higher kilowatt load then the other two classes, as well class

three chargers are DC current as opposed to AC current in the other two classes. The chart

following shows a break down of the three classes of chargers.


6/16


December 17, 2011

Several studies examined have shown some issues with these various charging stations beyond

permitting and instillation issues. For level one and two stations, it is the time involved in the

recharging of the vehicle battery, only making it convenient for overnight charging. Level three

though poses a far more ranging sent of issues. The Bradley Utility Study pointed out that level

three stations would represent a risk to the return on investment of Utility companies, due to

the high cost of the units ($2000 on average for a level two compared to $5000 on average for a

level three) and the low per kilowatt charge rate. Another issue for the class three units is

standardization and usability. While there is a standard adapter for the class one a two charging

systems, there has yet to be an approved standard for the class three units. This lack of

standardization has led to class three plugs not being available on all vehicles, for example the

Nissan Leaf does have a class three input where as the Chevrolet Volt does not (it should be

noted due to the class three using DC and the other two classes using AC the same input can not

be used because of technological difference in the way the car is charged using the two different

current types). One other issue that has been raised with class three chargers is a safety issue,

due to the use of DC current. However this issue has not been fully explored or explained.


7/16


December 17, 2011

Funding and Taxation

Infrastructure Costs and Funding

The investment in EV charging infrastructure requires some substantial up front costs. These

upfront costs come in the form of land acquisition for stations, construction of the stations, cost

of the charging equipment, permits, and other miscellaneous expenses.

Studies done by the State of Connecticut and Virginia Clean Cities, the estimate coast of a class 2

public charging stations is from $7,500 to $8,030 per charging unit, this includes the unit,

installation, and other associated fees. This makes for charging stations being a significant

infrastructure expense. In the initial roll out of charging stations significant grant monies was

distributed from both State and Federal, as well as some local sources, to help finance these

stations. However due to the costs associated with these charging stations, the continued full

financial support of government may be seen as unfeasible, particularly in a time of austerity.

In general though however, many charging stations have been built out on private land by

private developers. It is becoming more and more common to see charging stations in parking

lots, parking structures, multi-unit residential communities, et al. Developers see the instillation

of these units as a potential incitement to owners of EVs to visit their communities. However in

general the developers do not own the charging units, the property on which they sit is leased

out to another company that builds the charging station, maintains it, and charges (when one is

assessed) for its use.

When it comes to charging stations on public lands, states have general taken hands off

approach. For the most part it has been local governments that have been leaders in the

expansion of EV charging stations, by making zoning changes and simplifying the permitting

process. Several municipalities, including Baltimore, have teamed with EV charging companies

such as ChargePoint to lease space for EV charging station in public parking facilities own by thecity. 1

This is not to say that the state are not involved. States have allowed similar insulations of

charging stations at their own parking facilities. However states have played the more significant

role as a financial facilitator for the build out of charging stations. States have provided both

grant money as well as low interest loans as a direct investment in EV infrastructure. States have

also instituted gracious tax rebate programs to both charging station owners and to developers

that allow for the installation of charging stations on their property. No instance have I found in

which TTF funds were used for EV infrastructure, though I cannot say for certain that it has

never happened?

1

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/features/green/2011/10/ev_chargers_debut_in_bmore_cit.h

tml


8/16


December 17, 2011

Taxation and the Trust Fund

In the State of Maryland as well as other states, a significant percentage of funds coming into

the TTF are generated from imposition of a per gallon tax on the purchase of gasoline and diesel

fuel. As the number of vehicles on the road switch from being gas powered to that of fully

electric (BEVs) or partial electric and gasoline (HEVs) the amount of funds captured from the

gas tax is speculated to decrease. This is in part from not only the decrease in consumption of

gasoline products in general, but as well as an increase in efficiency of gasoline poweredengines. With the current backlog of transportation projects, particularly from a lack of funding,

and the ever increasing costs of maintaining the current transportation infrastructure as well as

expanding it to meet future demands, the question becomes how will the state recoup its the

potential losses to the TTF because of the decrease in capture from the current gas tax

structure. Currently, per my research, only two states, Oregon and Washington, have moved

forward on the legislative side with an EV tax proposal to supplement gas tax losses to their

respective TTFs

No Change

The first of the scenarios is that of the No Change scenario. In this scenario there would be nochange to the current funding mechanisms, the existing gas tax structure would remain in place.

With this structure most EVs would be paying little to no gas tax. Essentially when not taking

into fact registration fees and tolls, EVs would be traveling on state and federal highways for

free. As the percentage of vehicles on the road that are EVs increases, it can be postulated that

the revenue captured by the gas tax would decrease. This has the potential to cause significant

strain to the already strained financial structure of not only the TTF in Maryland but also other

states and Federally. This potential lack of funding could lead to the not only the decline in new

investments in the wider transportation infrastructure from a state and federal level, but also an

increase in the deferment in needed transportation maintenance. This currently is the system in

place for all states.

Capture at the Pump

The Capture at the Pump scenario would institute a tax capture system for EVs that would be

similar to that of the current gas tax. This system would charge EV owners a set rate per

kilowatt-hour that would be dedicated to the TTF. This in part mimics the way the gas tax

charges a set fee per gallon that is dedicated to the TTF. While this sounds like a simple and easy

system to set up there are potential drawbacks. First, for home chargers how would the taxing

authority know where the electrons are going? Considering that home charging systems are

wired into the houses electrical system. To separate one would have to either meter separately

or devise a system in the charging unit that would determine its usage as opposed to other

appliances and then charge accordingly. Then there is the issue of portable chargers that can be

plugged into any electrical outlet, using these portable chargers (while they take an extensively

long time to charge ones EV) one could essentially bypass the tax. While this has been talked

about by several states, no state has gone forward with this policy.


9/16


December 17, 2011

Tolls

This scenario calls for an increase in Tolling on roadways in the state, for both new and existing

infrastructure, as well as increasing tolls on currently tolled roadways. Besides just a general of

exiting toll rates and increase in road tolling there are several other drawbacks. One of them

would be the affect on non-EV drivers, as essentially they would be hit with this as well. While it

is theoretical to apply this just to EVs advancements in technologies may be needed for toll

collection systems to differentiate between EVs and non-EVs. Another question is what roadsdo you add tolls to, and by how much do you increase the tolls. With the addition of tolls on

mainline roads, there is also the potential of traffic shifting to lower classification roads. No

state has taken this route as a way to make up for gas tax decreases from EVs

Fees and Taxes

This scenario calls for an increase in the tax, title and registration fees associated with EVs or

the creation of a new or separate fee for EVs to offset their non/limited contribution to the TTF

via the gas tax. This is one of the two proposals that have been taken under serious

consideration. Earlier this year Washington State proposed (SB 5251) a $100 per year fee to be

paid by owners of EV classed vehicles. The purpose of this fee was to offset the loss of revenue

from the gas tax. However in May 2011 the bill was killed, in part by an effort pushed by General

Motors, the manufacture of the Chevrolet Volt. GM stated that tax would amount to a double

tax to owners of its Volt, which would have been assessed the fee, considering that they also

pay into the gas tax as well. 23 Many states also have significant tax rebates and reduced

registration fees for EVs partially in order to being the price point down on these vehicles.

Increasing these fees and taxes to offset the gas tax, could in theory eliminate these rebates, if

not decrease the amount discounted, with the possibility of increasing them higher then what a

gasoline powered vehicle would incur. Doing so could make the price pint for EV s unattractive

for potential owners, decreasing the sales of these vehicles.

Vehicle Miles Traveled/Road Usage Tax

The VMT Tax or RUT would tax EVs at a set rate base upon the amount of miles traveled during

a given timeframe. The RUT would be determined by an annual odometer check during the

annual inspection of a vehicle. GPS tracking of vehicles has also been proposed. This proposal is

attractive as that instead of charging for the consumption of energy as in the gas tax, you are

now charged for the actual use of the transportation infrastructure. Oregon is currently

reviewing and has passed legislation that would charge EV owners a RUT based on the millage

they dive as a way to offset the loss of revenue from the gas tax. In the Oregon proposal (HB

2328), drivers would be charged at a rate of 1.43 cents per mile traveled. Reaction to this has

been somewhat mixed by Oregon EV owners. While some have stated they are in favor of the

proposal, stating the need to maintain an adequate transportation network, others have voiced

their disappointment and concern over other issues. Among the issues are the idea of big

2 http://www.thefutureiselectric.com/2011/05/washington-state-ev-tax-dead/3 http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/washington-state-wants-tax-electric-vehicles


10/16


December 17, 2011

brother is watching (for GPS tracking), an issue similar to the Washington issue for PHEV owners

of a double tax, being tax on roads out side of the state (if using just a odometer reading), as

well as others. Because of these concerns, and the uncertainty of the method to use, Oregon

has delayed the roll out of RUT. 45

4 http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/oregons_electric_car_owners_sh.html5 http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2011/04/oregon-law-would-tax-electric-

car.html


11/16


December 17, 2011

State Initiatives

Due to the sudden emergence of EVs as a new form of personal transportation and the limited

current distribution of EVs in the United States the majority of state have yet to implement

statewide policies when it comes to EV infrastructure. In the course of my project I was only

able to fine one state, Connecticut, that has formed a statewide EV commission and had their

findings finalized. Several other states, such as Maryland, Illinois, Iowa, Georgia, New Jersey,

Oregon, are in the process of forming EV councils and developing statewide EV plans. In a coupleof other state some non-governmental organizations (universities and non-profits) have develop

recommendations for the EV infrastructure using councils similar to what Connecticut has.

This is not to say that there are not policies in place with states that address the EV

infrastructure issue as well as the corresponding gas tax issue. As mentioned previously Oregon

has passed a VMT tax specifically for EVs. A number of other states also have incentive plans,

offered through their departments of Transportation or Environment, for those wishing to

purchase EVs as well as install EV charging stations, in both the home and in publicly accessible

areas.

Maryland

Currently in Maryland there is no set or stated plan or policy when it comes to EVs. Like many

other states Maryland has several tax-based incentives and rebates for those who wish to

purchase bot EVs and the charging equipment. And like many other states Maryland is

experience significant stress when it comes to long-term fiscal security of the TTF. In 2010 the

Maryland State Senate passed a bill (SB 176) allowing for the creation of the Electrical Vehicle

Infrastructure Council, the purpose of the council is to look at strategies going forward in the

promotion of EV infrastructure in the state of Maryland.

The Council has only met several times so they have yet to make any policy or recommendations

in regards to EV infrastructure in the State. Based upon the minuets that have been released to

the public, most of the discussions have been on how to increase the number of public charging

stations, the identifications of any barriers to expansion of the infrastructure, and general

housekeeping measure for the council. Surprisingly they have welcomed public comment at this

early stage have received some from a Mr. Bruninga, a member of the public. Mr. Bruninga has

specifically commented on the issues of the gas tax and its replacement for EVs. Mr. Bruninga

stands in favor of a VMT style tax for EVs. The Council has acknowledged this proposal and has

set for discussion at a later date. No discussion has been recorded in the minuets in regards to

using TTF monies in the expansion of EV infrastructure in the state.

Based upon the enabling legislation, the council must submit an interterm report on its findingsto the Governor before January 1, 2012 and a final report before December 1, 2012.

Connecticut

In 2009 Executive Order 34 was signed by then Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell that established

the states Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council. The mission of the council was to develop a

plan on preparing the State for the rapid and seamless integration of EVs into the market,


12/16


December 17, 2011

coordinate interagency decision making on critical issues, establish performance measures for

meeting goals, and making sure those goals aligned with national level EV goals. Much like

Marylands current council, Connecticuts council consisted of members from various state

agencies, as well as other various stakeholder representatives from the transportation and

energy sectors. On September 1, 2010 the Council delivered a report of its findings to the

Governors office.

As part of the councils study, it identified several barriers to the increase of usage of EVs in

Connecticut. One of the identified barriers is that current lack of EV charging infrastructure in

the State. The Council also identified the question of who would pay for the build out of this EV

Charging infrastructure. They came to the conclusion that it would be a combination of both

public and private funds to both promote the build out and to cover the costs of the build out.

However the council declined to state what percentage would be provided by each entity. It did

propose some scenarios on who would fund the charging infrastructure, such as installing

charging stations in high traffic zones and parking facilities. As for public side funding, there was

no explanation of where exactly the public side financing would come from, though it was

expected some of it would come via federal grants similar to what has been to the state by the

Federal government for pilot projects in designated areas.

In terms of recouping lost revenue from the gas tax, the Connecticut report makes no

recommendations, nor have I been able to find any other discussion on the matter concerning

the state. However the council did recommend a rather large package of incentives mostly in

the form of ta breaks for those wishing to install charging stations, both public and home, in

order to help reduce the costs. There was no mention of how the tax breaks would be paid for.

Virginia

In 2010 Virginia Clean Cities, an environmental advocacy group published a report analyzing the

EV infrastructure in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The report has similar tones to that of thereport that Connecticut published. With the Connecticut report is share the concept that a

significant barrier in the EV infrastructure is installation of charging stations. However the

Virginia study points to an a complex, lengthy, and expensive permitting system as being the

central part of the barrier to greater installation of EV chagrining stations in the Commonwealth.

In terms of financing EV infrastructure the report makes little mention of public funds outside of

the proposal of small grants and loans being offered by the Commonwealth to help offset the

installation costs of EV charging stations. No mention is made of diverting funds from Virginia s

TTF to EV infrastructure build out or improvements.

As with Connecticut, at the Virginia study makes no mention of the gas tax recoup reduction

associated with EVs, nor does it make any recommendations on how to recover those funds for

EV class vehicles (Report of an Expert Panel).

Indiana

In February of 2011 Indiana University (IU) published a report addressing the issues of EV

infrastructure in the State of Indiana. The report was complied by an Expert Panel from IUs


13/16


December 17, 2011

School of Public and Environmental Affairs, state policy makers, and industry and environmental

stakeholders. Of the reports examined the IU report was the most comprehensive in its

examination of the EV industry, from vehicle manufacturers and battery makers to the policies

not only being undertaken in Indiana but other states and countries as well.

As with the other reports, the IU report also identifies the need to build out the EV charging

infrastructure, as well as identifying the significant costs in doing so. The IU report identifies that

significant public expenditure has been outlaid already for EV infrastructure. In its

recommendations it states that private concerns should going forward take on more of the

responsibility for the cost of the EV infrastructure build out and that public sources of funding

be gradually reduced. In part for the reduction of public funds, it sites not only the large

expenditures that have been made already but also the strain that continued financing can place

on state budgets with the limited return on investment currently. The IU report makes no

mention of funds being diverted from the TTF to finance EV infrastructure.

As opposed to the other reports examined, the IU report does make mention of the gasoline tax

and the effects that EVs place upon it. However it only make a brief mention of the gas tax in

relation to how it may make an incentive for people to adopt EVs due to the relationship

between the gas tax and high gas prices in other countries. But the IU plan makes no

recommendations as for the replenishment of the TTF due to lost revenue capture from the gas

tax. The IU does mention a tax plan that has been adopted by India, a series of excise specific to

EVs, but does not say if their adoption was to offset lost revenue, nor does the report

specifically endorse or oppose what India has done.


14/16


December 17, 2011

Conclusions

Moving forward, I believe that it is safe to say that EVs will continue to become an increasing

presence on not only the streets of Maryland but also the streets of the United States and the

world. Because of this an adequate infrastructure will need to be built out sooner rater then

later to support these vehicles. In hand with this a new financing structure will need to be

developed to offset losses in the Transportation Trust Fund incurred by the decrease of the gas

tax capture associated with EV adoption.

Public financing does have a role to play in the EV infrastructure build out. However I would

recommend against direct public financing and ownership of EV infrastructure as well as I would

recommend against using funds from the TTF to finance any part of this infrastructure build out.

So far most of the public financing has gone to the construction of charging stations, which

essentially are the gas stations of the future. That I know of or have been able to find, public

entities in the United States do not own, operate, finance (with the exception of stations for the

service of their own fleet vehicles) gas filling station, let alone finance them from the TTF, so

why should they. A similar argument could be made for the power gird infrastructure as well,

though government entities in some locations that do own electric infrastructure. I would alsoquestion the economics of diverting funds from the TTF that could be used for other

transportation projects, such as bridge repair, to EV infrastructure build out, considering the

limited number of EVs on the road with the pressing need from other transportation projects.

As the number of EVs increases the need for charging stations will increase, I see the private

sector meeting this need. Why, well this will develop into a market sector that developers

cannot ignore. It would be advantageous for them to build charging stations at, new housing

developments, retail centers, business complexes, and parking structures, as a way to attract

the segment of the population that uses EVs to their facilities. Where public financing come in is

in this build out. Initially as the technology is built out the government could offer, as

recommended in the reports, tax incentives, grants, and low interest loans, to help contain the

costs of instillation of charging stations. As the system grows these incentives, could be

refocused to retrofit existing built up areas that have a lack of charging stations as well as rural

areas in which their would be less EV possibly present.

As for the Transmission and generation segments, most of the cost of these upgrades will be

handle by the private sector with some government help. These will usually come out of

improvements by various Smart Grid upgrade plans, and less so from Transportation related

projects.

The bigger concern though, as I see it, is the affect that EVs will place on the TTF. WithMaryland, as with most states and the Federal Government, the gas tax represents a significant

portion of the funding mechanism for the TTF. Discounting any reductions caused by efficiencies

in standard gas powered vehicles, the increase in EVs which use little to no gas, is bound to

have an impact on gas tax capture and correspondingly to the TTF. As it stands essentially, with

the exclusion of some of the hybrids, tolls, and registration fees, EVs, for all intensive purposes,

are traveling on state and federal highways for free. This is not a good long-term solution. There


15/16


December 17, 2011

for a new funding mechanism needs to be developed that address this inequality when it come

to EVs. More then likely this will result in a new tax or fee being imposed, making any decision

not a popular one, regardless of how it is explained to the public, however it is going to

increasing become a necessary one.

Based on my examination of several different financing proposals, the one I would put my

recommendation behind is that of a Vehicle Miles Traveled or a Road User Tax. As explained

previously, this tax would be on the amount of miles traveled in a given time frame by a vehicle.

Thus it is taxing a vehicle not on the consumption of its fuel but on its actual use of the

transportation infrastructure. However just like the other proposals this one is not with out its

issues, what one tax out of state driving, how is the mileage to be determined, et al, and I dare

not speculate into solutions to those issues. However if a system could be effectively applied, it

could be expanded to not only EVs but to all vehicles and serve as a replacement for the current

gas tax structure.

In conclusion, EVs look to be here to stay, and it should be the responsibility of the government

to promote effective, safe, and productive uses and roll out of EV technology. However the

government must be clear in how it wishes to assist in the build out of the required EV

infrastructure as well as being mindful of the potential strains that the EV infrastructure will

have on finances.


16/16


December 17, 2011

Bibliography

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Council. Final Report. State of Connecticut. Hartford, 2010.

M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure A Utility perspective. Mobile

Source Technical Review Subcommittee. Washington, 2011.

Report of an Expert Panel. Plug-in Electric Vehicles: A Pratical Plan for Progress. Indiana

University. Bloomington, 2011.

Virginia Clean Cities. Virginia Get Ready: Initial Electric Vehicle Plan. Harrisonburg, 2010.

Documents

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure in Maryland; And it’s Effects on the Transportation Trust Fund