Washington state to spend $450,000 studying 'gasoline superusers'

[PimTac]

WA has decided to ban ICE vehicles from being sold after 2030. The decision is more agenda driven than common sense.


This is not new. A certain political thinking that starts with C has been in place here for a long time. Check our history to read more about it.

 

[Skippy722]

They’re probably using the money from the gas tax they collect to fund this study

 

[Snagglefoot]

Same, same, in Canada. A report was recommending high taxation on pickup purchasers, but the press got hold of it and the federal government denied they were going to follow the recommendations.

 

[Andrew1972]

A super user might be be defined by the average

1,000 gallons in my Tundra won’t get you very far.

This is an arbitrary, and rather inflammatory, way to label consumers.

The average American driver uses 530 gallons per year traveling 13,500 miles. So 1000 gallons in reasonable point to label super user if that is even a study word. Your Tundra using 1000 miles might fall into a category of study of low MPG vehicle. That is point of study likely to get better data, people like my wife use a lot of fuel but her reason is more long commute to work…

 

[CharlesInCharge]

Too much unfettered and abusive wasteful power, throwing around resources as though they are unlimited.

In the end any results are largely an irrelevant curiosity, which is directly addressed by the state/federal "use taxes" affixed to every gallon. Complete abuse of power.

 

[Snagglefoot]

To be honest, a lot of folks who bought trucks in the last 6 years since the oil price collapse will be exiting their lease periods and loan payment plans. A lot of these folks might decide they no longer require pickups but I doubt they will go to EV’s.

 

[Astro14]

If I drove 13,500 miles per year in the Tundra, I would get close to being a superuser, but I don’t commute in a pickup truck, and I drive far fewer miles than that.

But there was a time, when I did commute, long distances, and I put over 45,000 miles on my Volvo in ten months.

The structure of people’s lives change, and commutes can change with new jobs, moves, kids going to college, divorce, death in the family, whatever.

Taking care of elderly parents, visiting family in Vermont, and having two jobs put me squarely in the Superuser category while driving a Volvo wagon that got good MPG.

Limiting, or even just demonizing, how far people drive their ICE vehicle by labeling them as “super users” (and let’s be honest about who’s funding this study and why) is wildly unfair to those who may not have a choice in vehicle or distance driven in the short term.

I‘ve looked at an EV. Doesn’t work for me. Just doesn’t.

But I’m one of the few that can afford a new Tesla.

Most people can’t.

 

[Owen Lucas]

The decision is more agenda driven than common sense.


This is not new. A certain political thinking that starts with C has been in place here for a long time.

Seattle is a great example of this. They should use the money to bring back insane asylums, that would help everyone out.

 

[eljefino]

Liquid fuel is a great product given its high density and quick refill time, and it makes the least sense for many superusers to phase into electricity out of any of us.

A pizza delivery driver would wear out his EVSE plugging a car in for 10 minutes then going back out on another delivery.

Studies like this can lead to ideas like odometer reading per-mile taxes that benefit gas guzzlers over more efficient vehicles, even if it appears to endorse the contrary.

 

[92saturnsl2]

Limiting, or even just demonizing, how far people drive their ICE vehicle by labeling them as “super users” (and let’s be honest about who’s funding this study and why) is wildly unfair to those who may not have a choice in vehicle or distance driven in the short term.

If I add personal/discretionary mileage and commuting mileage together, I'm a super user. I live in a rural, cheap-to-live area (at least it was when I moved here), but have to commute to the city to make decent money. I could live in the city near my work, but that's not my cup of tea-- and I'd be no better off financially since you can't get a house with a decent size chunk of land in the city unless you are quite wealthy.

I fully support the adoption of electric vehicles, but it's a personal decision. For me I'd be fully on board if there was an affordable EV on the market that I could commute with. When a used Telsa goes for $30-40K, yep, I soldier on with my old ICE vehicles. It'll be that way for the next 10-15 years, until EV's become old enough and rack up enough mileage that an ordinary person can afford one.

I don't know why they have to spend hundreds of thousands on a study-- it's pretty black and white to anyone with half a brain.

 

[meep]

I object to the line.

It’s arbitrary. It’s biased. It has negative connotations and I’m already seeing posts that reflect that negative bias against “super users”.

How about we monitor people for their food consumption?

Anyone consuming over 2,500 calories a day is a “super eater“ and “taking a disproportionate share” of resources.

Let‘s bias public perception against them.

Nuts. I really try not to, to the point where 3/4 of my lunch is a ziplock back with raw vegetables, but I still think I fall into the SuperEater category! Blah!

 

[PimTac]

If I drove 13,500 miles per year in the Tundra, I would get close to being a superuser, but I don’t commute in a pickup truck, and I drive far fewer miles than that.

Just for comparison, I drove a tad over 20k a year when I was working. That was mainly commuting but the wife and I enjoyed our road trips each year around the western states. Yes we were burning gasoline and probably would qualify as super users under this study but in return we got to see and appreciate a lot of this beautiful country which can only be experienced by car or bike. In addition we helped the economy in many towns by staying and eating and touring the local attractions.

 

[PimTac]

Heck, around here we have sunny days almost every day; wish we had rain!
Say you commute into the Valley from the east, you can easily do 100 to 200 miles per day. Or more...
Husband and wife work in different locations... We can pile up the miles!

We knew a friend that commuted between Salinas and San Francisco. He soon figured out that it wasn’t worth it but instead of leaving his job ( USPS) he stayed with a friend in the city during the week and drove home on the weekends. That took a toll on the family.

 

[PimTac]

Seattle is a great example of this. They should use the money to bring back insane asylums, that would help everyone out.

They would need some really big ones.

 

[Tman220]

Here we are arguing about who and who isn't a "superuser" and the only ones that will benefit are the politicians running all over the world in their private jets, yachts, heating/cooling their gigantic multiple houses. These turds are the biggest "superusers" of them all and they were successful getting a bunch of people arguing on an oil forum which basically specializes in caring for your vehicle in a way to get the very most out of it.
Don't let these government trolls do this to you..
The only thing this "study" will possibly result in is another way to extract more money via energy taxes. You already pay a "gas guzzler" tax on many vehicles. A new tax will only result in placing the most pain on the lower class. A tax like this would affect the entire transportation of goods industry so get ready for products in stores to become ever more expensive. Get these people out of office.

 

[97prizm]

Seems a trivial amount for a governmental study.

You'd think it would be at least 7 figures.

Don't give them any ideas.

 

[RooflessVW]

Don't give them any ideas.

I mean, how many people do you think are working on it and for how long? 10 people over one year is only $45k

 

[Cujet]

OMG, there are months I drive 10,000 miles or more. Often at 17-19mpg. Thank god that's only for the spring, summer and fall.....

Honestly, it's nobody's business what fuel I purchase or where I go, or when. Or when I put 6000 gallons on the Gulfstream...

There are no energy savings to be had moving my tools, parts and repair equipment around via EV pickup truck. I promise the "power plant" will be struggling to make enough power to do the job. TANSTAFL, there ain't no such thing as free lunch.

 

[Jack Watts]

“Disproportionate“?

Now who‘s triggered?

The “superusers” are nothing of the kind. An arbitrary line was drawn by lawmakers to say that somebody buying over 1,000 gallons of fuel each year is somehow “abnormal” and that they use a “disproportionate“ amount.

While they are actually paying for that fuel at the pump, just like “normal users”.

And you’ve bought into labeling people with that.

You‘ve bought into stereotyping.

?

triggered? it's called math.

I get it. Some folks think that the basic laws of thermodynamics don't apply. If people actually paid for the true cost of burning hydrocarbons (including dealing with the byproducts appropriately), I have a feeling a lot of folks would make different choices. Personally I'm a bit tired of my money going to subsidize those folks. As I said, it's just math as far as I'm concerned.

If "super user" triggers you, we can find a kinder, more gentle name...

 

[OVERKILL]

?

triggered? it's called math.

I get it. Some folks think that the basic laws of thermodynamics don't apply. If people actually paid for the true cost of burning hydrocarbons (including dealing with the byproducts appropriately), I have a feeling a lot of folks would make different choices. Personally I'm a bit tired of my money going to subsidize those folks. As I said, it's just math as far as I'm concerned.

If "super user" triggers you, we can find a kinder, more gentle name...

Oh, we can definitely open this Pandora's box. How about all the pollution from the massive consumption of Bunker C, with no catalysts, no GPF's, no emissions control devices of any kind really, on all those freighters bringing across the goods from Asia that have been outsourced? The entire concept of the "Global Economy" is predicated on labour moving to where it is cheapest, and that, in turn, depends on massive levels of air and marine transport, the emissions footprints of which, are never factored into these discussions.

So no, people don't pay for the "true cost" of burning hydrocarbons, but that doesn't just apply to the guy driving the 10mpg pick-up truck, it just as much applies to the EV-driving socialite with a shopping habit that takes trips to Europe every year.

The emissions footprint of modern civilization, every aspect of it, is massive. Hydrocarbons are deeply engrained in every facet of our lives from healthcare to housing. In many places, they are burned to produce the electricity to run the EV's that are so frequently proclaimed to be the solution, the components for which are often derived from slave labour in 3rd world countries, processed in China, using coal, and then transported all across the globe using Bunker C.

I'm tired of my money subsidizing useless wind turbines in a grid that was already green, and most of the power produced is either curtailed or exported. I'm tired of paying Joe Farmer $0.80/kWh for his solar panels that'll be scrap in 10 years while the nuke plant we should have been paying for, that'll reliably generate real power for the next 80 years, didn't get built. Waste is everywhere. Taxpayer monies are used and abused and it isn't just the fossil fuel industry.