Washington's Carbon Tax

[RiverDog]

I realize that most of you don't live in WA so you may be unaware of what's been happening regarding the price of gas in this state.

In January of 2023, a new law passed by the Democratic controlled legislature and signed into law by our Democratic governor took effect that levies a fee on oil and gas companies that do business within the state. My layman's understanding is that the state Department of Ecology auctions off permits based on the carbon content of their products. Here's a brief description:

Last week, the Washington Department of Ecology agreed for Washington to join the Western Climate Initiative, Inc., or WCI Inc., and to use the nonprofit’s secure online auction platform for Washington’s new carbon emissions allowance market.

Setting up that auction market is important since the auctions are expected to raise hundreds of millions of dollars that will be invested in reducing emissions and improving Washington's climate resiliency. The market will require a secure and reliable online platform. WCI, Inc., a nonprofit corporation formed by jurisdictions with cap and trade emissions programs, already provides such a platform for California and Quebec’s combined emissions market, as well as for Nova Scotia’s independent market.

And here is what was predicted by a conservative think tank called the Washington Policy Center:

Washington state’s new tax on CO2 emissions is projected to add 46 cents to the cost of a gallon of gas as soon as next year, the state Department of Ecology reports.

The Washington Research Council noted that an analysis from Vivid Economics and McKinsey & Company for Ecology projected the cost of a metric ton (MT) of CO2 to be $58.31 next year. That would add a tax of about 52 cents per gallon or just over 46 cents per gallon for fuels required to include 10% ethanol in accordance with Washington state law. For diesel, the tax on CO2 emissions would increase the cost of a gallon by about 59 cents per gallon, or 56 cents per gallon for fuels that include 5% biodiesel.

Last week, I returned from a camping trip not too far from Hood River, Oregon. I decided to gas up at the cheapest station I could find, a station just outside of Hermiston, OR, about 25 miles from where I live, and I paid $4.39 per gallon. When I got home, I went onto Costco's website and checked the price they were selling gas that day at their Kennewick store, if not the cheapest, one of the cheapest places in town to buy gas, and their price was $4.77 per gallon. Last year at this time, gas was about $.10-.20/gal cheaper in WA than it was in OR. Since the only difference between what OR companies pay for gas vs. WA is the 'carbon tax', that's roughly $,50/gallon from what the price would be without it. The conservative think tank projected a $.46/gallon increase due to the tax, which is pretty close to what I observed.

Democratic Governor Jay Inslee in signing the bill claimed that the cost to the consumer would be "pennies." He thought that the oil industry would just voluntarily pay this tax out of their enormous profits, but predictably, they passed on the additional cost of doing business to the consumer. The end result is that we're paying 10% more for a gallon of gas due to this tax and WA is playing leap frog with CA as to who has the most expensive gas in the country.

That's not "pennies," Mr. Inslee. Oh, the joy of living in a blue state!

[Aseahawkfan]

I have told you about the climate change stance of the left being used for a variety of purposes that will lead to move government revenue and a more expensive life for humans as a whole. When you sell something as Armageddon like Climate Change, have the media fully behind you fearmongering every natural disaster and subsequent damage as caused by climate change, then you write an almost blank check to fix the matter politically and economically.

I've told you to do more research on climate change. How it works. How it is being sold. How it is being implemented. Who is benefitting financially.

It's going to lead to a major paradigm shift in human culture. The first push will be the EV forced changed which will be implemented by higher gas prices as part of the methodology for change. It may start in Blue States, but it will be make it into Red States as well. It will likely come from The Federal government.

Much of the younger generation has taken up Climate Change as an almost religious-like following with climate scientists as the new priests of this religion able to tie almost anything to climate change, all of it due to man made changes. Natural disasters, meat consumption, industrial farming, water consumption, and just about everything can be tied to climate change.

Most Americans don't understand this science. They either don't question its truth or attempt to dismiss it. Neither of which is particularly intelligent since it is pretty obvious some of the science is relevant even though the Armageddon theories and this 12 year or 20 year time fame is complete BS.

The gas prices will continue to increase as that is one of the methods that will be used to force EV adoption. They have to make gas more expensive and charging cheaper until the cost-benefit analysis will be in favor of EVs and force citizens to upgrade with financial incentives being one of the best ways to force this change.

We probably won't have the diet changes forced on us, but the EV change we will likely have to deal with. Future generations will have to deal with the dietary changes when the political elite force the working class to eat lab grown meat and more vegetable-based meat products which are cheaper to produce and maintain with less of an imprint on the environment for space and water. The environmental movements rabbit hole is very deep and convoluted. Just be glad you'll be dead before it gets worse.

[RiverDog]

Yeah, I'm all for addressing climate change, but it has to be done equitably. If we're going to do something like this, it has to be done on a national scale. The other thing that I'm peeved about is that this 'tax' was never put to a vote of the people. It's a huge increase, at least 10%, and is impacting a lot of low income and seniors on fixed income of whom are already paying a much higher percentage of their income on transportation. It's also inflationary, as companies will be passing along these added transportation costs to the consumer.

And who in the hell controls these increases? Some politically appointed head of the Department of Ecology? And why are they passing something of which no one can tell us exactly what financial effect it has? And what are they doing with the revenue they're receiving? It has to be a significant amount for it to have resulted in such a large price increase on such a high-volume item like gas. Who decides how to spend it?

This is an absurd law, and if they don't do something to rectify it, it could lead to us electing a Trump-style moonbat as our next Governor.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, I'm all for addressing climate change, but it has to be done equitably. If we're going to do something like this, it has to be done on a national scale. The other thing that I'm peeved about is that this 'tax' was never put to a vote of the people. It's a huge increase, at least 10%, and is impacting a lot of low income and seniors on fixed income of whom are already paying a much higher percentage of their income on transportation. It's also inflationary, as companies will be passing along these added transportation costs to the consumer.

And who in the hell controls these increases? Some politically appointed head of the Department of Ecology? And why are they passing something of which no one can tell us exactly what financial effect it has? And what are they doing with the revenue they're receiving? It has to be a significant amount for it to have resulted in such a large price increase on such a high-volume item like gas. Who decides how to spend it?

This is an absurd law, and if they don't do something to rectify it, it could lead to us electing a Trump-style moonbat as our next Governor.

When you sell something as Armageddon, then you can do whatever to fix it.

[c_hawkbob]

So you really believe climate change is just a means to an end and not real?

[RiverDog]

So you really believe climate change is just a means to an end and not real?

Speaking for myself, climate change is all too real. We can argue about the cause, ie man made, sunspot activity, but it's undeniable that it's happening.

But that's not the point of this thread. There's a right way and a wrong way of going about trying to do something about climate change, and this law does absolutely nothing to affect it. It's not a problem that can be solved by individual countries, let alone individual states.

[c_hawkbob]

I don't care about the point of the thread, I live in Kentucky, I was responding expressly to a specific statement within the thread. I find it remarkable that climate change is still doubted.

[RiverDog]

I don't care about the point of the thread, I live in Kentucky, I was responding expressly to a specific statement within the thread. I find it remarkable that climate change is still doubted.

I wasn't scolding you and I apologize if you took it that way. But I'm not surprised that climate change is still doubted. People will believe anything they read and hear:

Another 2019 poll, conducted by YouGov, found that 29 percent of respondents 50 years old or younger expressed some belief that the U.S. government “faked the 1969 Apollo moon landing,” with eight percent answering “definitely true” and 21 percent answering “probably true.”

If there are that many people walking around with their heads up their asses, is it any wonder that so many of them doubt that climate change is real?

[Aseahawkfan]

So you really believe climate change is just a means to an end and not real?

No, I do not believe that. Climate change is a real occurrence, has been a real occurrence throughout human history. We have dealt with climate change across multiple human historical periods. Some of it human caused, some of it not. It has not caused Armageddon. It has caused human adaptation in various aspects of human behavior.

I find it is oversold at the moment and based on fearmongering with many Americans not understanding the science of climate change and not many politicians understanding the science of it either. It is being manipulated by many to make money and sell personal theories and ethical considerations absent sound scientific backing.

You have people claiming we have 12 years to fix this or 20 years or putting us on some clock before some unknowable end game from climate change occurs. So what happens after those 12 years pass and we're still here? Or the 20 years? Or 50 years? People become numb to fearmongering as a means of pushing an idea. It's a bad way to sell something.

Do you recall at all peak oil theory? When they tried to sell us all the oil would run out and the world end. Do you recall Y2K when it was sold all the computers would shut down causing an increase in purchasing of survival supplies? Or this might have been before your time the threat of nuclear war being sold as an end of the world scenario which caused people to purchase fall out shelters in their backyards?

That is what I'm talking about. They are overselling climate change. Americans have very little ability to sift the good and bad science or how its being used to push financial incentives making certain groups wealthy and empowering others to push changes that may or may not be necessary.

Riverdog is asking about what he thinks of as a bad carbon tax. He should understand that when you are pushing something as Armageddon, you empower those people to do whatever is necessary to effect change.

When it comes to climate science, Americans, and most world citizens, have no idea whether a particular study or measure taken will actually have an effect, who is pushing it, whether its warranted, or what not.

The criteria should be better. Armageddon fear-mongering should not be the sales method justifying a blank check to initiate changes.

Suffice it to say I expect more taxes to be utilized as a means to force change with those taxes not going away as the government can use climate change as a means to boost tax revenues without having to prove a positive, impactful effect because the citizenry wouldn't know whether it was positive or impactful due to lack of a scientific education to determine so. So expect more of this kind of tax as associating almost anything with climate change will provide a blanket protection against questioning the tax.

This is a tactic often taken by governments to justify tax increases and policy change that may be serving another agenda.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wasn't scolding you and I apologize if you took it that way. But I'm not surprised that climate change is still doubted. People will believe anything they read and hear:

Another 2019 poll, conducted by YouGov, found that 29 percent of respondents 50 years old or younger expressed some belief that the U.S. government “faked the 1969 Apollo moon landing,” with eight percent answering “definitely true” and 21 percent answering “probably true.”

If there are that many people walking around with their heads up their asses, is it any wonder that so many of them doubt that climate change is real?

There are people who have their heads up their asses who don't believe something is real.

Then there are people who have their heads up their asses believing something is real that is not.

They both exist and everything in-between. How exactly do you determine something is real and to what extent? Do regular citizens have the means to do so or must they simply trust in the government to make the necessary changes absent interference from the influence of money and exploitation? How do you know?

Right now people don't even realize they have shifted from using global warming to climate change because the government engaged marketing companies that determined climate change was a better way to sell the idea behind global warming.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/sustainable-semantics-global-warming-vs-climate-change

I find climate change and global warming science interesting. But I can read the base research and understand the science itself better than most politicians and definitely better than most regular people. I also have a historical perspective on climate change whether the growing of deserts in previously fertile areas and their continued expansion, human created soil and water depletion, and a variety of other factors affecting our environment over the long-term you can read about.

I find it interesting to watch the masses manipulated when they barely realize it's occurring. Most people lack the memory capacity to recall all the periods they have been manipulated based on similar ideas to global warming. They forget them easily and then on to the next thing.

I like to bring it up to Riverdog because he asked. He could take a moment to understand how something is being sold to a large mass of humans on a global scale to encourage behavioral and cultural change. The move is being made to cause a sufficient reduction in carbon emissions and other environmental concerns that it will be manageable by the various governments run by politicians who themselves have only a fleeting understanding of climate change and must trust the scientists and capitalists to get the job done.

It's happened before. It provides a huge margin for the government to implement taxes and legal changes to push behavioral change. Since this is being pushed as Armageddon, you have quite a number of people taking it to the extremes.

[RiverDog]

Riverdog is asking about what he thinks of as a bad carbon tax. He should understand that when you are pushing something as Armageddon, you empower those people to do whatever is necessary to effect change.

No, I'm not asking what the motivation was for passing this bill. I know why they did it. It's Democrats like Jay Enslee polishing their green credentials.

I don't fully understand this law. Supposedly, the DOE auctions off pollution allowances to energy companies, ie Shell, Exxon, et al, based on some sort of state-wide cap in order for them to sell gasoline and other carbon-based fuels within the state, allowances that get more expensive over time. The idea is that it will give the energy companies a financial incentive to reduce the carbon content of their fuels. But how are these allowances set? Who sets them? And what happens to the revenue that is generated by these sales? Here's what they're saying:

The revenue raised from Washington’s auctions — projected to be nearly $1 billion a year — will go toward implementing clean-energy projects, reducing emissions from buildings and transportation, and adapting to the effects of climate change.

So what does that mean? That they're going to build more windmills? $1 billion per year of clean energy projects? And what qualifies as clean energy? Nuclear? Hydro? If not, why not? They do not create any carbon emissions. Who decides how and where this money is spent?

Energy companies are not making an effort that they haven't already made due to these allowances they've purchased. Why the hell would they? Washington represents a tiny percentage of their overall gasoline sales. All they've done is pass the cost of selling gas in the state on to the consumer.

I'm not necessarily against something like this, but it has to be equitable and done on a national scale. Why should someone like Cbob living in KY not have to pay for this carbon tax? And why should people living in rural areas, without access to public transportation, pay this carbon tax whereas the people living in the Puget Sound area don't have to pay near as much? And where is the sensitivity in these bleeding-heart Democrats? Do they no longer care that seniors and low-income individuals are the ones getting hurt the most by this 10% increase in transportation costs, not to mention the inflationary aspect of it?

[Aseahawkfan]

On the discussion of carbon taxes, I'm not sure how effective they are as we all know taxes are often passed on to the consumer in increased prices.

A carbon taxes intent is to cause the company to make a greater effort to reduce carbon emissions by pressuring production costs with taxes.

What usually happens unless the company is in a competitive market where a competitor has greatly reduced its carbon emissions to provide a lower cost product or service is the company passes on the cost in the price.

So what a tax usually ends up accomplishing is an increased revenue source for the government receiving the tax, which may or not be used for the end goal of a reduction in carbon emissions. It often ends up filling the coffers of the government to be spent on whatever the government deems important, often infrastructure or paying the bills.

Taxes directly tied to a measurable service are usually better to support so you can see if the government service or infrastructure is being used in a productive manner.

So not cure carbon taxes accomplish the environmental goals, but they are often used because the government checks a variety of boxes with them including appearing to have taken an effective measure to reduce carbon emissions, increasing tax revenues, and encouraging businesses to more responsible environmental behavior. You have to have good metrics to track this to see if it is really working and worth supporting.

[Aseahawkfan]

No, I'm not asking what the motivation was for passing this bill. I know why they did it. It's Democrats like Jay Enslee polishing their green credentials.

I don't fully understand this law. Supposedly, the DOE auctions off pollution allowances to energy companies, ie Shell, Exxon, et al, based on some sort of state-wide cap in order for them to sell gasoline and other carbon-based fuels within the state, allowances that get more expensive over time. The idea is that it will give the energy companies a financial incentive to reduce the carbon content of their fuels. But how are these allowances set? Who sets them? And what happens to the revenue that is generated by these sales? Here's what they're saying:

The revenue raised from Washington’s auctions — projected to be nearly $1 billion a year — will go toward implementing clean-energy projects, reducing emissions from buildings and transportation, and adapting to the effects of climate change.

So what does that mean? That they're going to build more windmills? $1 billion per year of clean energy projects? And what qualifies as clean energy? Nuclear? Hydro? If not, why not? They do not create any carbon emissions. Who decides how and where this money is spent?

Energy companies are not making an effort that they haven't already made due to these allowances they've purchased. Why the hell would they? Washington represents a tiny percentage of their overall gasoline sales. All they've done is pass the cost of selling gas in the state on to the consumer.

I'm not necessarily against something like this, but it has to be equitable and done on a national scale. Why should someone like Cbob living in KY not have to pay for this carbon tax? And why should people living in rural areas, without access to public transportation, pay this carbon tax whereas the people living in the Puget Sound area don't have to pay near as much? And where is the sensitivity in these bleeding-heart Democrats? Do they no longer care that seniors and low-income individuals are the ones getting hurt the most by this 10% increase in transportation costs, not to mention the inflationary aspect of it?

Sounds more like the highly manipulated carbon taxes and credits that were a part of the Paris Climate Accord. I've heard mixed views on how effective they've been for reducing climate change.

They seem to be highly manipulated and more of a marketing tool by companies and politicians to be able to say they're doing all they can for climate change while not actually showing a real reduction in carbon emissions. It's more of a I have a zero net tax versus credit, so I can tell people I have zero climate emissions without actually greatly reducing my carbon emissions.

It's government and business accounting magic.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9/meta

The 37 studies compiled in this review reveal five key findings. First, it is astonishing how little hard evidence there is on the actual performance of carbon pricing policies using ex-post data. This point cannot be understated. It is the collective consensus that we need carbon pricing to address climate change, but the reality is we have very little evidence to substantiate this claim. Even carbon pricing policies with broad coverage, such as Japan and California, lack extensive independent evaluations. Second, the overall effect on reductions for both types of policy is quite small, generally between 0% and 2% per annum. Third, on the whole, taxes appear to do slightly better than ETSs in producing reductions. Fourth, the impact of the EU-ETS—the largest and oldest international carbon market—has been extremely limited. Finally, the highest emissions reductions estimates are from studies using the synthetic control method. I address each point in turn.

[Aseahawkfan]

Let me see if I can state this a little clearer and less verbose:

1. Climate change is real. You should be interested in it and willing to make behavioral changes that seem sensible and impactful.

2. You should try to learn if a change is going to be impactful and have some understanding of the science as well as the measures being discussed or taken.

3. Don't believe the Armageddon timeline BS pushed by the environmental extremists. They are no more credible than a priest claiming the world is ending. We are not even close to Armageddon from climate change.

Like those idiots pushing the need to get rid of meat eating so we can get rid of cows producing too much methane and water waste from farming can go F themselves. They're just vegans with too much empathy for animals hopping on the back of environmental science to try to push veganism because of their personal ethics. I like real meat and I don't want lab grown beef or chicken.

There has never been a better creation than the cow which converts the common vegetable matter of grass and grain into some of the most nutritious and amazing tasting beef.

One of my biggest beefs with the environmental movement, trying to encourage the government to ban tasty steak from cows and force us all to eat crap vegetable meat-like products or lab grown meat. I will literally revolt over this. I love cow milk and tasty beef and all the products made from cows like ice cream and cheese and butter.

C-bob wants to know why I am skeptical of environmental science or at least some of it, the above is why. Damn vegans trying to piggy back environmental science to ruin my food. That really pisses me off.

4. Be open to a lot different ways to effect change like some of the science developing carbon recyclers that pull carbon directly out of the air and turn it into a usable form.

[RiverDog]

Sounds more like the highly manipulated carbon taxes and credits that were a part of the Paris Climate Accord. I've heard mixed views on how effective they've been for reducing climate change.

They seem to be highly manipulated and more of a marketing tool by companies and politicians to be able to say they're doing all they can for climate change while not actually showing a real reduction in carbon emissions. It's more of a I have a zero net tax versus credit, so I can tell people I have zero climate emissions without actually greatly reducing my carbon emissions.

It's government and business accounting magic.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abdae9/meta

The 37 studies compiled in this review reveal five key findings. First, it is astonishing how little hard evidence there is on the actual performance of carbon pricing policies using ex-post data. This point cannot be understated. It is the collective consensus that we need carbon pricing to address climate change, but the reality is we have very little evidence to substantiate this claim. Even carbon pricing policies with broad coverage, such as Japan and California, lack extensive independent evaluations. Second, the overall effect on reductions for both types of policy is quite small, generally between 0% and 2% per annum. Third, on the whole, taxes appear to do slightly better than ETSs in producing reductions. Fourth, the impact of the EU-ETS—the largest and oldest international carbon market—has been extremely limited. Finally, the highest emissions reductions estimates are from studies using the synthetic control method. I address each point in turn.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. It reinforces that which I had suspected.

And as I've been saying, my concern isn't so much of the need for of this law. I fully understand that we are going to have to start making some changes to the way we conduct our everyday lives if we're going to address climate change.

My main concern is the mechanics of this law. How is this revenue being spent? What are green projects? Who decides what's green and what isn't? Are the proceeds going to be subject to legislative budgetary action or is the DOE free to spend it as they please? It's a lot of money, an estimated $1B annually. And are they going to do anything, such as mailing out rebate checks, to address the inequities in this law, or are they good with seniors and low-income folks taking it in the shorts?

A law this impactful should have been put to a vote of the people, and my guess is that this is exactly what's going to happen. I would bet my bottom dollar that Tim Eyman is at this very moment starting a petition to overturn it.

[Aseahawkfan]

There are a lot of people hopping on the environmental bandwagon because it causes a lot of fear and consternation.

As I stated above, the vegans are hopping on to get laws passed to tax or eliminate meat to stop the "animal holocaust." More leftist extremists the news mostly ignores when they are pointing out all the right wing loonies. The CEO of Beyond Meat is using specious environmental studies on animal food production to push the idea of outlawing meat or taxing it to better position his fake meat products for adoption. Even though that fake meat vegetable crap he produces isn't near as healthy as beef consumption.

That's why I get irritated by some of this stuff. You have the base science of carbon emissions causing carbon gases to build up in the atmosphere and trap heat that's reflected off the planet's surface due to the gases absorbing moisture creating a denser gas that slows heat dispersal. The science on that is fairly sound.

You also have the various cycles. We know plants produce oxygen by absorbing CO2, cutting off a carbon, then emitting O2 oxygen. We don't know at what balance point there would be insufficient plant life to balance CO2 emissions from living creatures to produce sufficient O2 for us to breathe. That balance point has never been tested. We do know we definitely want sufficient plant life to engage in the CO2 to O2 process that provides sufficient oxygen for animal life. We also know that a huge amount of sea plants, especially algae, are engaged in this process to oxygenate the planet and climate change and human activity is causing issues with plants and animals in the Oceans.

We know about water depletion within reservoirs with increasing populations. Increased heat and climate patterns caused by increase heat reduce moisture in within the biosphere causing more droughts. Though we have dealt with those historically, especially in desert regions that were once fertile lands such as around the Nile River Valley in Egypt which obviously had climate change causes massive shifts there that reduced fertile land capacity.

We also know these changing climate patterns are affecting certain crops negatively.

A lot going on managing a planetary system.

I hate seeing people trying to tack their ethics on to a branch of science used to push Armageddon theory to force changes that are likely unnecessary.

How about we slow our roll with some of this, make the EV and power changes, then see where we're at?

We're going to have to take corrective action as it is for the changes we're using now. We still have to figure out how much electricity we need to produce for a billion EVs and switching from an carbon based energy system to a renewable energy system. We'll likely required a multimodal model to make this switch.

On top of that, we have to see the environmental impact of mining all the materials for creating car batteries. It's going to require a huge amount of various mined metals to create that many batteries. We need to make the process cost efficient and renewable.

Recycling is a very important aspect of environmental preservation as the more we can reuse something, the less we have to harvest as the population continues to expand.

I still can't believe there are people that think we don't have too many people on the planet. It's a ridculous idea that we don't have too many when a lot of this environmental damage is directly due to human expansion and all subsequent need for lands to sustain a population that size with a modern lifestyle.

[Aseahawkfan]

Interesting. Thanks for the info. It reinforces that which I had suspected.

And as I've been saying, my concern isn't so much of the need for of this law. I fully understand that we are going to have to start making some changes to the way we conduct our everyday lives if we're going to address climate change.

My main concern is the mechanics of this law. How is this revenue being spent? What are green projects? Who decides what's green and what isn't? Are the proceeds going to be subject to legislative budgetary action or is the DOE free to spend it as they please? It's a lot of money, an estimated $1B annually. And are they going to do anything, such as mailing out rebate checks, to address the inequities in this law, or are they good with seniors and low-income folks taking it in the shorts?

A law this impactful should have been put to a vote of the people, and my guess is that this is exactly what's going to happen. I would bet my bottom dollar that Tim Eyman is at this very moment starting a petition to overturn it.

Would a vote of the people change much? The majority don't even understand carbon taxes. Or environmental science. They more binary in their thinking. Those that acknowledge something needs to change and climate change is real and those that believe climate change is false and we don't need to do anything. But how much does either group even know?

I'd rather have a smaller group of trusted experts handle a bunch of this as long those experts are providing easily read and understandable metrics the general populace can monitor to see effectiveness. Not the magic accounting of carbon taxes and credits that let people claim to be Carbon Neutral while they're producing a ton of emissions because they paid certain taxes and used certain credits. That's just bunk.

[RiverDog]

Would a vote of the people change much? The majority don't even understand carbon taxes. Or environmental science. They more binary in their thinking. Those that acknowledge something needs to change and climate change is real and those that believe climate change is false and we don't need to do anything. But how much does either group even know?

I'd rather have a smaller group of trusted experts handle a bunch of this as long those experts are providing easily read and understandable metrics the general populace can monitor to see effectiveness. Not the magic accounting of carbon taxes and credits that let people claim to be Carbon Neutral while they're producing a ton of emissions because they paid certain taxes and used certain credits. That's just bunk.

The problem is the amount of the tax. This isn't like paying $.08 for a grocery bag. We're talking about a billion dollars per year. That's roughly $170 per adult, and it's not being applied evenly. Rural areas will pay more. People that have to drive long distances to get to work, such as those in my area that work for my former employer and have to drive an 80+ mile round trip each day from the Tri Cities to plants located in small towns like Boardman, OR, Connell, those who live in Wenatchee and work in Quincy, or those that live in Moses Lake and work in Warden, are going to pay A LOT more.

And as I said before, who is controlling how much we pay? "Trusted experts"? You mean environmental engineers? Chemists? How are they qualified to determine how much tax I should pay? You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the impact it has on Joe 6-Pack.

If we're going to go this direction, then they need to come up with a better way of administering this tax.

[Aseahawkfan]

The problem is the amount of the tax. This isn't like paying $.08 for a grocery bag. We're talking about a billion dollars per year. That's roughly $170 per adult, and it's not being applied evenly. Rural areas will pay more. People that have to drive long distances to get to work, such as those in my area that work for my former employer and have to drive an 80+ mile round trip each day from the Tri Cities to plants located in small towns like Boardman, OR, Connell, those who live in Wenatchee and work in Quincy, or those that live in Moses Lake and work in Warden, are going to pay A LOT more.

And as I said before, who is controlling how much we pay? "Trusted experts"? You mean environmental engineers? Chemists? How are they qualified to determine how much tax I should pay? You're looking at one side of the equation and ignoring the impact it has on Joe 6-Pack.

If we're going to go this direction, then they need to come up with a better way of administering this tax.

I don't think carbon taxes are effective first and foremost.

Politicians are not trusted experts. I would prefer environmental scientists working with economists.

Joe Six Pack don't know jack squat about how to fix the environment. Joe Six Pack barely knows how to manage his own money to retire. Joe Six Pack relies on experts all the time whether it's a mechanic, a doctor, a lawyer, a housing contractor. No idea why Joe Six Pack suddenly gets to vote on environmental measures.

It's politicians pushing the taxes, which as I posted above is very questionable as to whether they even work to reduce carbon emissions. Joe Six Pack voting on environmental measures isn't going to make for a better system. So far carbon taxes are not proving particularly effective at anything other than a good marketing and revenue tool for the government and corporations.

So first and foremost, vote less for politicians wanting to use carbon taxes and credits and more for politicians pursuing real measurable methods of reducing carbon emissions like targeted tax credits for adopting EVs or using energy efficient systems in the building or production process.

[RiverDog]

I found this article on an obscure website. It's legitimate as they referenced a decision by the WA UTC. This is outrageous that they have ordered the utility to essentially conceal the effect that the carbon tax has on customer's bills:

Earlier this month, the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission approved a request by Puget Sound Energy to increase their natural gas rates to cover the costs of the state’s cap-and-trade program under the Climate Commitment Act.

However, the approval also carried with it a stipulation that the utility provider could not show on customers' bills the reason for the rate increase, a decision that was recommended by the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In its request , PSE told the UTC it needed a 3.25% increase in overall bills for all natural gas customers to generate $16.8 million required to cover their losses, which would be done under a State Carbon Reduction Charge.

In a Friday blog post , Washington Policy Center Environmental Director Todd Myers wrote that “this is not only dishonest but violates the spirit of Washington’s laws and constitution. The position of the Public Counsel in the Attorney General’s office is that they know what the public should know and what they shouldn’t. The claim that transparency is bad for the public is remarkable and revealing.”

https://www.newsbreak.com/washington-st ... ergy-rates

I also find it remarkable, but not surprising, that this story flies below the mainstream media's radar.

[NorthHawk]

The Carbon Tax sounds like a great strategy to try to influence people from using fossil fuels as much as we currently do.
We've had one up here since 2008 and the problems with it in my mind are twofold:

1) To make any real change, it has to be a significant tax - and the voting public won't accept it for the most part and a new gov't would remove it as part of a platform promise.
2) Over time, it just becomes part of your budget. Just like if you buy a new car and you get used to paying $400 per month. You adjust to it and eventually go back to your old habits.

I'll use gasoline as an example for my experience.
It was introduced at $0.07/litre or about $0.26.25 per US Gallon.
It's now at $0.1431/litre or about $0.53 per US Gallon.
That sounds like a lot, and it adds up, but with the price of gas going up as well, it gets hidden to a large degree. Most comments I hear don't dwell on the Tax as much as the profits for the Oil Companies.

There really isn't much difference in traffic nor do I see fewer big trucks and gas guzzler cars used in the city, but I do see a lot more electric cars which may or may not be because of the Carbon Tax.
I'm sure the change to Electric vehicles is in part because of the rising fuel costs, but they are more expensive to initially purchase - so not much real savings unless you go the micro car or a car much smaller than you want.
It takes a lot of driving for 14 cents/litre to add up to the extra costs of electric cars even though up here electricity is fairly cheap and the cars have rebates and electric vehicles are tax exempt provincially (5% Federal tax still applies).

[RiverDog]

The Carbon Tax sounds like a great strategy to try to influence people from using fossil fuels as much as we currently do.
We've had one up here since 2008 and the problems with it in my mind are twofold:

1) To make any real change, it has to be a significant tax - and the voting public won't accept it for the most part and a new gov't would remove it as part of a platform promise.
2) Over time, it just becomes part of your budget. Just like if you buy a new car and you get used to paying $400 per month. You adjust to it and eventually go back to your old habits.

I'll use gasoline as an example for my experience.
It was introduced at $0.07/litre or about $0.26.25 per US Gallon.
It's now at $0.1431/litre or about $0.53 per US Gallon.
That sounds like a lot, and it adds up, but with the price of gas going up as well, it gets hidden to a large degree. Most comments I hear don't dwell on the Tax as much as the profits for the Oil Companies.

There really isn't much difference in traffic nor do I see fewer big trucks and gas guzzler cars used in the city, but I do see a lot more electric cars which may or may not be because of the Carbon Tax.
I'm sure the change to Electric vehicles is in part because of the rising fuel costs, but they are more expensive to initially purchase - so not much real savings unless you go the micro car or a car much smaller than you want.
It takes a lot of driving for 14 cents/litre to add up to the extra costs of electric cars even though up here electricity is fairly cheap and the cars have rebates and electric vehicles are tax exempt provincially (5% Federal tax still applies).

Thanks for weighing in on this. I didn't realize that you folks have a similar tax. Is it a provincial or federal tax? It makes a difference as if it's federal, it's a heck of a lot fairer. Also, do you know what they are doing with the revenue they're reaping?

I agree that it's a sneaky tax that no one is talking about. The mainstream media has virtually ignored it and no one can tell us exactly how much this carbon tax is costing us. Based on my observations, it's about the same as what you are seeing up north, about $.50/gallon. WA's state tax is almost $.50/gallon, so the state, without a vote of the people, has passed a law that has increased our state gas tax by over 100%.

Mark my words, this is going to be a big campaign issue in the upcoming gubernatorial election. I just hope the hell that the R's don't stick us with another Trump moonbat as their nominee like they did the last time around.

[NorthHawk]

It's been a Provincial tax since 2008 in BC. Our provincial Government at the time was Right Wing by our standards, but it was still implemented. 15 years ago seems like a lifetime, now.
Having said that, the Federal Government has put a price on Carbon, so if a Province doesn't have an equivalent carbon tax, then the Feds are suggesting they will do so on that side.
The Federal tax was interesting in that consumers got hit at the pump but got checks to make up for it. Since there was no way to calculate who paid how much, everyone in those provinces that were hit by the Feds got money back even if they only used hydro electrical or renewable energy and walked or bicycled for transportation. Those of us in BC didn't get anything back from the federal government.
Our provincial tax was supposed to offset tax increases, but as usual the money is just going down a black hole - or at the very least there's been no statement showing where the money went and I can only guess it went into "General Revenue".

I'm afraid it will become a solid issue in any election today. Money matters always are and when inflation is hurting more and more people the issue will probably get bigger.

[RiverDog]

It's been a Provincial tax since 2008 in BC. Our provincial Government at the time was Right Wing by our standards, but it was still implemented. 15 years ago seems like a lifetime, now.
Having said that, the Federal Government has put a price on Carbon, so if a Province doesn't have an equivalent carbon tax, then the Feds are suggesting they will do so on that side.
The Federal tax was interesting in that consumers got hit at the pump but got checks to make up for it. Since there was no way to calculate who paid how much, everyone in those provinces that were hit by the Feds got money back even if they only used hydro electrical or renewable energy and walked or bicycled for transportation. Those of us in BC didn't get anything back from the federal government.
Our provincial tax was supposed to offset tax increases, but as usual the money is just going down a black hole - or at the very least there's been no statement showing where the money went and I can only guess it went into "General Revenue".

I'm afraid it will become a solid issue in any election today. Money matters always are and when inflation is hurting more and more people the issue will probably get bigger.

Again, thanks for the info. Ideally, they should return the tax to the consumer in the form of a rebate, but as you said, it's impossible to determine who paid what. Most people, especially low-income people who can't afford a new electric car, don't have much of a choice but to buy gas. Even without the tax, gas is so expensive that people have already cut out their unnecessary trips and tried to economize as much as possible.

[Aseahawkfan]

Well RD, like I posted in the above study, carbon taxes are hard to track. No one is really sure if they are effective.

I'm fairly certain the carbon tax is not why EVs are being adopted in Canada. I'm betting Canada has a lot of EV tax credits like we have in the United States. If you purchase an EV, you get a tax break. This is supposed to ameliorate the expense of EV adoption.

Canada EV tax incentives: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/light-duty-zero-emission-vehicles/incentives-purchasing-zero-emission-vehicles

United States EV tax incentives: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after#:~:text=You%20may%20qualify%20for%20a%20credit%20up%20to%20%247%2C500%20under,purchased%20from%202023%20to%202032.

These types of programs tend to work better than carbon taxes as you can track EV adoption and the subsequent reduction in emissions from fewer fossil fuel vehicles on the road.

As we've discussed before, there are other issues with EVs.

[RiverDog]

Well RD, like I posted in the above study, carbon taxes are hard to track. No one is really sure if they are effective.

I'm fairly certain the carbon tax is not why EVs are being adopted in Canada. I'm betting Canada has a lot of EV tax credits like we have in the United States. If you purchase an EV, you get a tax break. This is supposed to ameliorate the expense of EV adoption.

Canada EV tax incentives: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/light-duty-zero-emission-vehicles/incentives-purchasing-zero-emission-vehicles

United States EV tax incentives: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after#:~:text=You%20may%20qualify%20for%20a%20credit%20up%20to%20%247%2C500%20under,purchased%20from%202023%20to%202032.

These types of programs tend to work better than carbon taxes as you can track EV adoption and the subsequent reduction in emissions from fewer fossil fuel vehicles on the road.

As we've discussed before, there are other issues with EVs.

Agreed.

And not only are the benefits of the carbon tax hard to track, what we're paying for in the form of higher gas prices is difficult to determine. The only way I'm able to estimate it because I live so close to the Oregon border and am familiar with what the difference in the price of gas was last year between the two states. Most people don't have that frame of reference and believe what our governor told us, that it would just cost "pennies."

Plus, now you have an attorney general's office that is actively concealing cost information from customers.

It sounds like we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing.

[Aseahawkfan]

Agreed.

And not only are the benefits of the carbon tax hard to track, what we're paying for in the form of higher gas prices is difficult to determine. The only way I'm able to estimate it because I live so close to the Oregon border and am familiar with what the difference in the price of gas was last year between the two states. Most people don't have that frame of reference and believe what our governor told us, that it would just cost "pennies."

Plus, now you have an attorney general's office that is actively concealing cost information from customers.

It sounds like we're closer to agreeing than disagreeing.

I'm not a big fan of carbon taxes. They have been used for a long time. They don't seem to work for the end goal of reducing carbon emissions.

I prefer targeted measures.

Targeted measures are easy to measure, encouraging adoption through positive reinforcement with financial incentives, and can't be some random tax added to the coffers of the general funds for them to use for whatever. Taxes they never stop even if the problem is solved. I don't like those kind of forever taxes that can't be measured or tracked well.

[RiverDog]

One of the most concerning things about this saga is how the state attorney general's office is forcing utility companies not to itemize their charges, claiming that it would only confuse their customers (shouldn't that be left up to the individual utility?). It's a "keep them in the dark and feed them bullchit" tactic.

And here I thought that Democrats were for transparency.

[NorthHawk]

Well RD, like I posted in the above study, carbon taxes are hard to track. No one is really sure if they are effective.

I'm fairly certain the carbon tax is not why EVs are being adopted in Canada. I'm betting Canada has a lot of EV tax credits like we have in the United States. If you purchase an EV, you get a tax break. This is supposed to ameliorate the expense of EV adoption.

Canada EV tax incentives: https://tc.canada.ca/en/road-transportation/innovative-technologies/zero-emission-vehicles/light-duty-zero-emission-vehicles/incentives-purchasing-zero-emission-vehicles

United States EV tax incentives: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after#:~:text=You%20may%20qualify%20for%20a%20credit%20up%20to%20%247%2C500%20under,purchased%20from%202023%20to%202032.

These types of programs tend to work better than carbon taxes as you can track EV adoption and the subsequent reduction in emissions from fewer fossil fuel vehicles on the road.

As we've discussed before, there are other issues with EVs.

Up here every Province is a little different. Some don't have tax incentives while others have some good ones.
Speaking for BC, there is no Provincial Sales tax on EV's but there is the 5% Federal tax. As well, in BC there is a rebate up to $4000 for lower income purchasers, but even with these incentives, it's still more expensive to buy an EV.
There's also a Provincial limit for the cost of the vehicle of $55000 which leaves a lot of cars out of range. That can be combined with the Federal incentives if the vehicle fits both criteria.

What the EV is ideal for is people who travel only a hundred miles or less per day and they are the perfect town cars because they are so cheap to operate and maintain. If you have solar or wind power at your home, costs to operate could be
close to nothing per mile outside of normal wear and tear. Perfect for retirees who use their car to go shopping or for appointments. The largest problem is the premium that comes with the batteries which are very expensive and adds a lot to the purchase price.

[RiverDog]

There's still a ton of problems they need to figure out before EV's can come even close to replacing gas powered vehicles. The first thing that needs to be done is to upgrade the electrical grid. There is not enough transmission capacity to deliver enough power to homes and businesses to support the recharging of one or two EV's per home. The other is the time it takes to recharge. Where it takes 5 minutes or so to fill your tank with gas, it takes at least 30 minutes to recharge an EV. Truck stops would have to be 5 times as large to accommodate charging stations if they can't turn over vehicles any faster. And, with all this talk of closing down fossil fuel generators, breaching dams, etc, they won't be able to produce enough power to cover this huge increase in electrical demand.

Those aren't insurmountable problems, but it's obvious that it's going to take quite a bit of time, perhaps several decades, for technology to catch up with demand. Plus, as we debated several months ago, they still need to figure out how to charge vehicles for the use of public highways so as to replace the revenue lost from the gas tax. More toll roads? GPS transponders? Meters on rechargers? Each has their own problems.

[NorthHawk]

To answer your last question first, I would assume there would be some type of tax at the rechargers just like a gas tax now. It makes sense because it would be easy to implement and monitor.
Regarding the recharging time, there have been a few advances of late with one being the solid state battery which is said to be much faster - like 10 minutes to recharge as well as being smaller and lighter.
The bottom line is the technology is improving and soon the cars will become cheaper.

I still don't know why the different governments around the world didn't push green hydrogen. The auto industry and its secondary support industries would still be required. For instance engine blocks, transmissions, exhaust systems, and lube centers and more would still be required as well as conversion companies would be created which would offset some of the lost lube center jobs (fewer oil changes required for clean fuel vehicles). The change would have been much less disruptive to the automotive industry. With electric vehicles, most of those things are going to disappear over time.

[c_hawkbob]

There's still a ton of problems they need to figure out before EV's can come even close to replacing gas powered vehicles. The first thing that needs to be done is to upgrade the electrical grid. There is not enough transmission capacity to deliver enough power to homes and businesses to support the recharging of one or two EV's per home. The other is the time it takes to recharge. Where it takes 5 minutes or so to fill your tank with gas, it takes at least 30 minutes to recharge an EV. Truck stops would have to be 5 times as large to accommodate charging stations if they can't turn over vehicles any faster. And, with all this talk of closing down fossil fuel generators, breaching dams, etc, they won't be able to produce enough power to cover this huge increase in electrical demand.

Those aren't insurmountable problems, but it's obvious that it's going to take quite a bit of time, perhaps several decades, for technology to catch up with demand. Plus, as we debated several months ago, they still need to figure out how to charge vehicles for the use of public highways so as to replace the revenue lost from the gas tax. More toll roads? GPS transponders? Meters on rechargers? Each has their own problems.

Grid capacity is not nearly the problem charging station infrastructure is. By the time there are even close to as many charging stations as there are gas stations the grid will have increased capacity enough. The real problem is going to be replacing gas taxes as primary road and bridge builders/maintainers with an electrical charging tax.

[RiverDog]

There's still a ton of problems they need to figure out before EV's can come even close to replacing gas powered vehicles. The first thing that needs to be done is to upgrade the electrical grid. There is not enough transmission capacity to deliver enough power to homes and businesses to support the recharging of one or two EV's per home. The other is the time it takes to recharge. Where it takes 5 minutes or so to fill your tank with gas, it takes at least 30 minutes to recharge an EV. Truck stops would have to be 5 times as large to accommodate charging stations if they can't turn over vehicles any faster. And, with all this talk of closing down fossil fuel generators, breaching dams, etc, they won't be able to produce enough power to cover this huge increase in electrical demand.

Those aren't insurmountable problems, but it's obvious that it's going to take quite a bit of time, perhaps several decades, for technology to catch up with demand. Plus, as we debated several months ago, they still need to figure out how to charge vehicles for the use of public highways so as to replace the revenue lost from the gas tax. More toll roads? GPS transponders? Meters on rechargers? Each has their own problems.

Grid capacity is not nearly the problem charging station infrastructure is. By the time there are even close to as many charging stations as there are gas stations the grid will have increased capacity enough. The real problem is going to be replacing gas taxes as primary road and bridge builders/maintainers with an electrical charging tax.

The more I look at it, the more I can see where you're likely correct about grid capacity at least as it relates to the distribution network. But they are going to have to manage it properly by incentivizing charging during off peak hours. And generating capacity will be an issue if they refuse to consider hydro and nuclear and concentrate solely on wind and solar as seems to be the trend.

As far as taxation goes, I personally would like to see them go with GPS transponders, but it's going to run into privacy issues with a good part of the populace that already has an inbred mistrust of government. My take is that they can already put enough pieces together to figure out where we are/were by means of photo intersections, security cameras, cell phone tracking, etc. Besides, it would help them solve a lot of crimes.

Until they can vastly improve on the amount of time it takes to recharge an EV and/or extend its range and reduce the need for re-charging, charging infrastructure is going to be a huge problem.

[NorthHawk]

If they are using Solar/Wind power for these charging stations, the tax replacement could be fairly quick depending upon how much the renewables contribute.
For instance, if the renewables provide 30% of the power, that's immediately money in the providers pocket. If it's the Gov't providing these charging stations, after paying back the cost of the station, they could see a big increase in money as the power is essentially free for that 30%. So if a recharge is $50 to the consumer, $15 would go directly to the Gov't plus they would also be charging market rates so there is a profit margin there, too. If the renewables provide 10%, it's still $5 in taxes, so it would eventually be a replacement for the current gas tax. With private companies, they would tax them on each kwh sold much in the same way the gasoline taxes are implemented.
Home charging will be the hardest nut to crack, but it might not ever be a huge issue or perhaps every home charger will have a meter on it like the current meters on houses. We don't yet know how it will turn out.

[c_hawkbob]

... perhaps every home charger will have a meter on it like the current meters on houses ...

Better to meter the cars than home chargers. That way you'll get folks charging with a 110 or 220 outlet at work or grandma's house.

[NorthHawk]

Sounds probable, but I wonder how many manufacturers will balk at adding some type of meter?
I guess it wouldn't matter if it's a federal requirement, but retrofitting existing vehicles could be a problem.

[Aseahawkfan]

Sounds probable, but I wonder how many manufacturers will balk at adding some type of meter?
I guess it wouldn't matter if it's a federal requirement, but retrofitting existing vehicles could be a problem.

They have been working on meter upgrades recently where I live. They sent a notice they were upgrading the meters so they can do daily tracking rather than monthly or something. Some type of upgrade. I wasn't looking too closely.

Yes. One of the biggest blocks to EVs is upgrading infrastructure, especially for renters. The primary form of charging will be at your residence or at your destination. Super chargers will likely be used for quick charging, which at the moment is still in the 15 minute range for a 100 miles of charge. Way slower than gas stations.

I like EVs myself. And not just for environmental reasons. EVs are truly better than ICE vehicles now. I hope they can bring the cost down. I love not smelling exhaust and the lack of sound. Electric engines don't make much noise. They accelerate quick. No exhaust. Fewer moving parts.

They are in their infancy. The ICE vehicle tech as good as it is after a 100 plus years of development pales to EV technology in its infancy.

I'm looking forward to the EV age. I probably won't upgrade my vehicle for another ten years as last car I kept 21 years. Next upgrade will likely be an EV.

[Aseahawkfan]

Sounds probable, but I wonder how many manufacturers will balk at adding some type of meter?
I guess it wouldn't matter if it's a federal requirement, but retrofitting existing vehicles could be a problem.

I don't think they will have much problem metering the cars.

I imagine they can meter the car charger at the locations. From what I've seen of EVs is they have specific charger set up with a specific adapter. They can meter the car charging set up at the home.

Knowing our government, it will probably be a general tax on electricity that will provide a massive amount of revenue to replace what was lost.

As we discussed some time ago, EV batteries are heavier than ICE engines which make the vehicles heavier which theoretically increases wear and tear. They'll add that part to the yearly tabs.

Probably be some years before battery tech advances to produce smaller battery pack requirements for engines.

[RiverDog]

Sounds probable, but I wonder how many manufacturers will balk at adding some type of meter?
I guess it wouldn't matter if it's a federal requirement, but retrofitting existing vehicles could be a problem.

I don't think they will have much problem metering the cars.

I imagine they can meter the car charger at the locations. From what I've seen of EVs is they have specific charger set up with a specific adapter. They can meter the car charging set up at the home.

Knowing our government, it will probably be a general tax on electricity that will provide a massive amount of revenue to replace what was lost.

As we discussed some time ago, EV batteries are heavier than ICE engines which make the vehicles heavier which theoretically increases wear and tear. They'll add that part to the yearly tabs.

Probably be some years before battery tech advances to produce smaller battery pack requirements for engines.

I'm no electrician, but it would seem to me that it would be rather easy to bypass a charging meter at home or install a charger w/o a meter.
Transponders would be darn tough to defeat as every cop would know when a car wasn't being tracked by GPS. The big issue with GPS would be privacy and security as it obviously has to be internet based.

They are already assessing an additional charge for EV's on license registrations, but in order for it to be fair, they need to have some sort of tax based on highway usage. Even the gas tax isn't fair as it doesn't measure mileage and people that can afford the modern, fuel-efficient cars end up paying fewer taxes than those that have to drive a 20-year-old vehicle.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm no electrician, but it would seem to me that it would be rather easy to bypass a charging meter at home or install a charger w/o a meter.
Transponders would be darn tough to defeat as every cop would know when a car wasn't being tracked by GPS. The big issue with GPS would be privacy and security as it obviously has to be internet based.

They are already assessing an additional charge for EV's on license registrations, but in order for it to be fair, they need to have some sort of tax based on highway usage. Even the gas tax isn't fair as it doesn't measure mileage and people that can afford the modern, fuel-efficient cars end up paying fewer taxes than those that have to drive a 20-year-old vehicle.

The easiest and least invasive method is increase the tax on all electricity.

I'm not sure what is the difference between a transponder and the onboard computer most EVs have at this point. I'm not sure why they would need to use a lower tech transponder when they can check your car's computer system when it's plugged in and get the info they need.

EVs are very advanced. Almost all come with an onboard computer capable of loading and operating self-driving or advanced cruise control software. They can monitor all energy systems and charging history. Be pretty easy to pull that information and make sure the bill applies to whoever used it.

I haven't seen this issue brought up as concern. The main concerns are what method to use, not the difficulty of applying the method. The onboard computer and tracking software is all very advanced and easy to tie to the owner of the car. That shouldn't be a problem at all.

You should check out some of the modern EV vehicles. They are amazing. Tesla's can park themselves and you can have them come and meet at the front of a store with your key fob equivalent. They can self-drive a bit and have a full onboard computer that can load powerful self-driving software, monitor all your systems, notify if anyone is too close, and deliver all types of information. It's some real movie spaced aged tech. That's why I think EV adoption is going to continue to occur because the tech is so good that people will want them regardless of the environmental benefits. They're just great vehicles at this point. If you can afford one and have enough charging around, you should get one. Amazing advancement in vehicle design.