Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[eswimm]

Since the other thread regarding GA fees was locked, I couldn't post there, but this seems like it could be useful information for others.  Based on the wording in GA 2015-2016 House Bill 170 it doesn't sound like there's a way around the fee for a motorcycle.

When I registered my bike (2015 SR) in North Carolina, however, my registration included a $130 fee as a PEV (Plug-in Electric Vehicle).  I did a little research on the exact wording of the laws and contested the charge with the DMW.

The DMV responded promptly and the charge was refunded. 

For anyone interested, here's the exact wording of my complaint to the DMV.

------------------------------------
I am the owner of a 2015 Zero SR electric motorcycle. I noticed when it was registered that it was assessed a fee of $130 for being a Plug-in Electric Vehicle.

According to NC Statue 20-87:

(13) Additional fee for certain electric vehicles. - At the time of an initial registration or registration renewal, the owner of a plug-in electric vehicle that is not a low-speed vehicle and that does not rely on a nonelectric source of power shall pay a fee in the amount of one hundred thirty dollars ($130.00) in addition to any other required registration fees.

But the definition for a Plug-in Electric Vehicle defined in statute 20-4.01:

(28a) Plug-in electric vehicle. - A four-wheeled motor vehicle that meets each of the following requirements:
a. Is made by a manufacturer primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and meets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards included in 49 C.F.R. § 571.
b. Has not been modified from original manufacturer specifications with regard to power train or any manner of powering the vehicle.
c. Is rated at not more than 8,500 pounds unloaded gross vehicle weight.
d. Has a maximum speed capability of at least 65 miles per hour.
e. Draws electricity from a battery that has all of the following characteristics:
1. A capacity of not less than four kilowatt hours.
2. Capable of being recharged from an external source of electricity.

Based on the definition, the $130 fee should not apply to an electric motorcycle, since the definition specifically calls out that it applies to four-wheeled motor vehicles only.

Please let me know how I go about getting this fee removed from my vehicle registration and refunded.
---------------------------------------------

It'd probably be worthwhile if anyone else has had success overturning one of these fees to share similar info.

[Richard230]

I find it amazing that the GA state legislators specified that the electric vehicle fee only applies to four-wheel vehicles. It is rare that motorcycles or side car vehicles get a break on taxes or fees in this country.  Normally we are the "guys behind the tree" when new taxes are considered.  Congratulations to your state legislators for (possibly) thinking that electric motorcycles should be encouraged as they are quiet and can not be easily made noisy.  Being quiet is the major reason that the general (voting) public hates motorcycles and the more electrics on the street and in the woods, the less the public and their constituents will be annoyed.   

I sure hope California legislators will be as considerate of this new technology, especially as Zero is manufactured here.  Unfortunately, I am not counting my chickens before they hatch.  Our legislators can hardly restrain themselves when it comes to taxing everything and everyone is sight - especially when they are a voting and financial-contributing minority.   

[gyrocyclist]

 Great research; great post, great result! Am wondering if this type of information is appropriate for a section in the unofficial manual?

[Liamonski]

In Colorado, I'm seeing this. C.R.S. 42-3-304.

25 C I refers to the federal law which states The term “motor vehicle” means any vehicle which is manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways (not including a vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails) and which has at least 4 wheels. But then 25 c II makes it sound like it would actually include motorcycles. Colorado "only" charges $50 right now, at least.

----
(25) (a) Beginning January 1, 2014, in addition to any other fee imposed by this section, county clerks and recorders shall annually collect a fee of fifty dollars at the time of registration on every plug-in electric motor vehicle. County clerks and recorders shall transmit the fee to the state treasurer, who shall credit thirty dollars of each fee to the highway users tax fund created in section 43-4-201, C.R.S., and twenty dollars of each fee to the electric vehicle grant fund created in section 24-38.5-103, C.R.S.

(b) The department of revenue shall create an electric vehicle decal, which a county clerk and recorder shall give to each person who pays the fee charged under paragraph (a) of this subsection (25). The decal must be attached to the upper right-hand corner of the front windshield on the motor vehicle for which it was issued. If there is a change of vehicle ownership, the decal is transferable to the new owner.

(c) As used in this section, "plug-in electric motor vehicle" means:

(I) A motor vehicle that has received an acknowledgment of certification from the federal internal revenue service that the vehicle qualifies for the plug-in electric drive vehicle credit set forth in 26 U.S.C. sec. 30D https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/30D, or any successor section; or

(II) Any motor vehicle that can be recharged from any external source of electricity and the electricity stored in a rechargeable battery pack propels or contributes to propel the vehicle's drive wheels.
----

[eswimm]

Just to clarify, I had the fee refunded in North Carolina, not Georgia.  The Georgia law reads like it includes motorcycles, since it defines it as any vehicle that is fueled solely by alternative fuel.

Based on the wording for the Colorado statute, they say any vehicle that meets the requirements for the federal tax credit in section 30D or successor section, which does define a PEV as a 4 wheeled vehicle, but subsection g goes on to define credit for 2 and 3 wheeled vehicles.  I didn't find anything in the CO statute that defined a PEV directly, only referral to the federal definition.

[ctrlburn]

Luckily the man promoting the EV fee in Wisconsin, State Department of Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb, resigned when he demonstrated his capacity for math exceeded the Governor's.

At best being added to the registration renewal - and Wisconsin's motorcycle registration being 2 years - would half any fee. 

I'd also remind your legislature of the existence of Electric Motorcycles. During the next election volunteer to drop off flyers or throw candy in a parade (left hand throwers).  The reasons these laws don't mention motorcycles is because the author hasn't heard of them. So make some noise!

I have a good friend - who has an absolute RANT against bicyclists using roads. He tore on about every freeloading social cyclist roadway slight near frothing and livid. When he paused I asked how much should they pay... he was "Like $5 or so..." and he was completely defused.  I use that as the "Zero" benchmark... if the problem is "EVs don't pay anything" then the correction should be slight. If the problem is "EV's don't pay their share" I can only point out if equity is the goal "Bicycles pay nothing, large trucks pay too little, diesel car owners pay too much" and "Why don't we have 'off road use' gasoline pumps?" and have those addressed in the same legislation.  (Air Quality and Health compensation aside)

Georgia was a distinct reversal - not taxation for fairness. They deliberately killed the EV market, there was nothing gentle or inadvertent about it.

On the brighter side for those who got an EV credit... an additional fee to doesn't cost you 'net' until the credit is negated (minus the cost of money).

[Richard230]

Please pardon my excursion into local politics, but this news item was just too good not to share - considering my comment above about legislators in CA being very creative when it comes to generating new taxes:

A few minutest ago I heard a report on KCBS (San Francisco's all-news radio station) that a SF county supervisor plans to introduce an ordnance that would tax any robots and automation that replaces a human performing a job or service.  The tax would be set at the amount that the human was taxed who was being replaced by the robot or automation.  Sounds about right for San Francisco.  Unfortunately for them, what happens in SF that can be replaced by robots?  Giving out parking tickets and driving a bus, perhaps?  How about being a SF supervisor?   

One thing I wish all politicians would do is consider the "long game" when they pass a new law or tax. What will be the long term result of their actions and how will it affect the advancement of society or technology and will it actually make life better for everyone that they "serve"?   

[NEW2elec]

Ga lets EVs ride with one person in the HOV lane and even let you ride in our "Peachpass" lanes free of charge (if you have the transponder) which can be pricey in Atlanta traffic.
So not total hatred for EVs just money hungry.
But on the grander scale everyone owes their lives and livelihood to roads.  If you drive on them or not the food you eat the things you buy all get there by a road at some point.
Now I don't have kids but my tax money goes to schools that I get no use from.
 Everyone should pay an amount to road tax regardless if you ride a bus, walk, subway, bike, Uber, it goes beyond just tearing up the concrete road, you should pay for the life blood infrastructure that everyone gets use from.

Also have convicts build them, my county does and I can ride 50 miles of back roads and not see a pot hole.    A very good way to work off that DUI.

[Kocho]

Maryland's law I recall defined vehicle similarly to the NC one above (federal). I've had 3 electric motorcycles registered there in the past few years and none was assessed any additional fees.

Which brings an interesting question. If electric motorcycles should not be subjec to fees like electric 4-wheelers, are they also ineligible for rebates and incentives;) ? (I know they were eligible, were as in past tense, since the $ ran out in MD last September).

[dukecola]

Please pardon my excursion into local politics, but this news item was just too good not to share - considering my comment above about legislators in CA being very creative when it comes to generating new taxes:

A few minutest ago I heard a report on KCBS (San Francisco's all-news radio station) that a SF county supervisor plans to introduce an ordnance that would tax any robots and automation that replaces a human performing a job or service.  The tax would be set at the amount that the human was taxed who was being replaced by the robot or automation.  Sounds about right for San Francisco.  Unfortunately for them, what happens in SF that can be replaced by robots?  Giving out parking tickets and driving a bus, perhaps?  How about being a SF supervisor?   

One thing I wish all politicians would do is consider the "long game" when they pass a new law or tax. What will be the long term result of their actions and how will it affect the advancement of society or technology and will it actually make life better for everyone that they "serve"?   

But jobs are created with robots, they have to be manufactured, assembled, installed, programmed, serviced and repaired. For comparison purposes, those jobs are likely higher paying and greater tax revenue than what a burger flipper contributes.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Please pardon my excursion into local politics, but this news item was just too good not to share - considering my comment above about legislators in CA being very creative when it comes to generating new taxes:

A few minutest ago I heard a report on KCBS (San Francisco's all-news radio station) that a SF county supervisor plans to introduce an ordnance that would tax any robots and automation that replaces a human performing a job or service.  The tax would be set at the amount that the human was taxed who was being replaced by the robot or automation.  Sounds about right for San Francisco.  Unfortunately for them, what happens in SF that can be replaced by robots?  Giving out parking tickets and driving a bus, perhaps?  How about being a SF supervisor?   

One thing I wish all politicians would do is consider the "long game" when they pass a new law or tax. What will be the long term result of their actions and how will it affect the advancement of society or technology and will it actually make life better for everyone that they "serve"?   

But jobs are created with robots, they have to be manufactured, assembled, installed, programmed, serviced and repaired. For comparison purposes, those jobs are likely higher paying and greater tax revenue than what a burger flipper contributes.

Literally no one would replace employees if the overall payroll and benefits were higher. This is an untrue comparison.

[dukecola]

But jobs are created with robots, they have to be manufactured, assembled, installed, programmed, serviced and repaired. For comparison purposes, those jobs are likely higher paying and greater tax revenue than what a burger flipper contributes.

Literally no one would replace employees if the overall payroll and benefits were higher. This is an untrue comparison.

From a pure state tax revenue aspect, one professional robot repairman would pay more taxes into the system than 20 burger flippers.

[gyrocyclist]

 [/quote]From a pure state tax revenue aspect, one professional robot repairman would pay more taxes into the system than 20 burger flippers.
[/quote]
Perhaps not if the professional robot repairperson was a robot 

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Literally no one would replace employees if the overall payroll and benefits were higher. This is an untrue comparison.

From a pure state tax revenue aspect, one professional robot repairman would pay more taxes into the system than 20 burger flippers.

That's not how tax revenues work. The state subsidizes the company employing 20 "burger flippers" with unsustainable minimum wages by providing social services funded by the other tax revenues.

It's externalized transfer; that's all. This is like how it's literally cheaper to house people than to deal with the health costs of homeless people to their surroundings.

[ctrlburn]

I am not saying the letters to my legislators did anything, but "motor truck" and "automobile" are classifications which do not include motorcycles.


Wisconsin Statute:
341.25(1)(L)3. If a motor truck or automobile is a nonhybrid electric vehicle, in addition to the fee under par. (a) or (c), a surcharge of $100 shall be added to and collected with the fee for each automobile and for each motor truck registered under par. (c) at a gross weight of not more than 8,000 pounds.

NOTE: Par. (L) is created eff. 1-1-18 by 2017 Wis. Act 59.