Wow, that's great. That actually made me smile for some demented reason.

Well, of course, silly.
In the early 1990's, I lived in San Diego County. My water was provided to me by my "friendly" municipal water district. They did not possess any water of their own (unlike LA's grand MWD, who owns most of the ground water in the state). They were forced to buy it, and then resell it to me. They had little storage capacity. We paid whatever they could get it for.
Now, the early 90's was also a drought time. We were told to conserve. But, each time overall water usage dropped, the rate for water went up. To maintain some semblance of constant income (actually, they had to have a constantly increasing income).
They made it very clear- you have a target usage. Go over, and you will pay some exorbitant “surcharge”. However, use less, and you will get a rate hike. In 8 years, my bill never went down. Even though water consumption in my house was cut in half.
The state will be hurting if a radical new electric (or human powered, or dung powered) car hits the streets. Jillions of dollars of lost income will mean but one thing- higher state gas taxes.
But, I’m sure Ah-nuld will have a solution.

Uncertain as to your point here. The hybrid cars "saved" the legislators' "bacon," suggesting that they were not connected to the mandate, in which case, the reduced tax revenue due to efficiency of hybrids would not really be a consequence of the mandate, right?

That may be nitpicking, but what about your larger point? Are you saying that reduced tax revenue is an argument against more fuel-efficient cars? Just imagine the tax revenue if we were all to drive Hummers; it reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer painted over highway stripes to turn a four-lane into a two lane: "So luxurious!"

LNS- are you really that clueless?

The more gas is sold, the more tax revenue is generated to pay for road maintenance. The more hybrid or electric cars are out there, the less gas will be sold.

The internal-cumbustion drivers are effectively subsidizing the driving of the electric drivers.

The underlying point is that the funding system for road maintenance will need to be re-thought in a few years. Maybe something based on vehicle weight x miles driven would be fair...

Saw this article this morning, and it looks like some didn't bother to click on through to the other side. The broader point of the article is that California is now talking about charging drivers by the mile - for someone like me, who drives 65 miles a day minimum, that would suck. If Colorado ever implements such a thing, they had better at least get around to using reflective paint and reflectors embedded in the pavement...right now it's as if CDOT sat around and said "Hey, how can we make the roads as dangerous as possible?"

Let me just say thank you in advance to the taxpaying drivers of California if this thing passes. Because I will visit your state for vacation someday, or drive through to get somewhere else I want to go, and you will be subsidizing my non-California-citizen driving. I'll be tearing up your roads for free!

The other thing that isn't mentioned is that the gas taxes which are supposed to pay for road construction/repair in California have been raided in the last few years to pay for the rest of the budget. Hence, not very much road repair or construction. And considering the budget shortfall in this state, if they continue to rely on the gas taxes, they will just fall further behind.

It's comedy AND tragedy!

Suppose they do begin to tax by the mile, what will happen to the poor (literally poor) working stiffs who cannot afford to live within a reasonable distance from, say, San Francisco and thus commute some ongodly distance to work? They get slapped with higher commuting taxes, yet the (assumed) increased demand for living nearer to the metro areas where the jobs are increases housing costs even more.

A tax on the distance driven would not have a big effect on anyone so long as the tax on gasoline was repealed at the same as the tax on miles driven was put into effect. The problem will be that the gasoline tax is likely be left in place and the mileage tax will be just another tax piled on. Then both will probably be raided to go to some politician or other's pet project and the roads will still not get adequate funding.

The REAL problem is that hybrid cars WASTE more hydrocarbon fuel than they supposedly save. Here's why:

The energy used to produce the lithium ion batteries in the hybrid cars EXCEEDS the energy differential provided by the hybrid system compared to a similar sized conventional internal combustion car over the expected 150,000 mile life of the hybrid car batteries.

If you want further details, let me know.

heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheeeeeeee! Oh yeah, bring on those alternative fuel vehicles... (uh, what the hell do we tax now???)

You know whats funny. He dosent actually put his fuel economy. now I'm a fuel economy snob, I have a VW TDI, and I get 40+. I bet I'm getting better than that prius. He's driving on the freeway, and so he's really stinking it up. Hybrids really are a waste when you think about it. Get a honda civic HX for 15k, and you get in the mid 40's on the freeway. Get a new Jetta TDI, get 50+ all the time. This whole hybrid thing is just a joke.

Oh, and before any one someone say's how dirty a diesel run, the new TDI's are nearly cleaner than gas, and if your savvy you can use Biodiesel and have no real polution. But thats for the hippies.

Guipo

Here's the problem with switching to a tax based on mileage travelled: As soon as you do that, you take away any incentive whatsoever for people to get rid of a guzzler for a more fuel efficient car. Unless you completely ban the operation of such vehicles (not just their future sale), then people will just hang on to their older, less efficient cars as long as they can.

Oregon's already on it, electronic snooping and all.

More's the pity.

More's the shame, since I'm an Oregonian.

Oh, and sorry about the double trackback.