A recent editorial noted the state's desire to have 50,000 to 60,000 EVs on the road by 2025. That's a great, if ambitious, goal. The editorial also noted John McClaughry's opinion that non-EV owners should not be subsidizing those who want to buy one.

I don't often agree with Mr. McClaughry's positions but I'm with him on that one. Reducing emissions is an important thing but if we subsidize hybrid cars (not emission free), should I get a subsidy, too, for a very high mileage gas-powered car? We need a fairer way to encourage more EVs.

The other issue, not addressed in the editorial, is taxation. I have written in this paper before about the need to find an equitable way to have EVs pay a tax for highway maintenance. Gasoline taxes are the primary source for that and while the small number of EVs currently on the road don't have a huge impact, the numbers hoped for surely will. I pay tax for every gallon of gas I buy. Maybe we should tax every KWH used? That's a complicated solution and we should be working on it now, not in 2025 when we have 60,000 highway users whom we haven't figured out how to tax.

Michael Fullerton

East Calais

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.