Norway horrified as new rates make EV charging prices higher than petrol

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just wait until governments *rescind* subsidies for EVs and decide to tax electricity for EVs in the same way they tax gasoline and diesel for ICE vehicles.

EVs are simply  > NOT  AFFORDABLE <  for most people.

 

Norway horrified as new rates make EV charging prices higher than petrol

A hike in electric car charging rates by European electric car fast charging network Ionity has drawn a backlash from the Norwegian electric car association Norsk Elbilforenig, which says the new rates make powering an electric vehicle more expensive than fuelling a similar petrol or diesel car.  ...

 

... Ionity’s new rate of 0.79 euros/kWh will see Norwegians pay around NOK7.80 (gross price in country-specific currency), which becomes NOK 8.40/kWh ($A1.37/kWh converted) after Ionity has added an additional fee.

This means long range electric vehicles could now cost NOK20 per mile ($A0.327/km converted) to drive when using Ionity’s network (many sites of which features 350kW Australian-designed Tritium Veefil-PK ultra-fast chargers) according to a statement issued by Norsk Elbilforenig.  ...

 

... In effect, the change in pricing structure means drivers could be forced into subscription agreements with carmakers in order to access cheaper charging rates.

An example given by Norsk Elbilforenig is that of Audi, which costs NOK189/month ($A30.89) and NOK3.2/kWh ($A0.52/kWh) for a 12 months subscription.

The announcement was met with numerous negative reactions that caused one follower of the network on Facebook to comment: “This is messed up, daylight robbery!!! The price is absurd. My BMW i3 winter consumption is 20 kwh per 100km , so 16€ per 100km. I think that a BMW X5 is cheaper to drive than that.”

“That is pure theft!! Meaning 50kw worth of charge would cost 40€?! More expensive than gasoline. Shameful!” said another.  ...

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Ahhh...the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

Who would have ever guessed that if the government lost a tax resource (the tax on fuel), that they would simply place a tax on whatever replaced that fuel.🤔

Baffling, isn’t it!😂

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Holy crap, I've been waiting for this to happen. I've always had this notion that I couldn't prove in my head that "we won't feel the consequences of these power systems until we've gone too far" I'm not convinced that the resultant efficiency of an EV is higher than an ICE. From my calculations, they're about 30% efficient when all factors are taken into account (and this is done with a 55% efficient power plant). 

I'm not happy that they have to pay more, it's just something I expected.

Edited March 1, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[0R0 + 6,251]

Bet the EV owners wish they had gone with PHEVs instead to be able to get the cheaper energy source. 

Why is their electric charge rate so high? Renwable electricity? or just gouging by the industry/cartel?

[Otis11 + 551]

21 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Bet the EV owners wish they had gone with PHEVs instead to be able to get the cheaper energy source. 

Why is their electric charge rate so high? Renwable electricity? or just gouging by the industry/cartel?

It's not all of Norways chargers... it's one company that wants to pay off their charging infrastructure (or turn it into a new revenue source?) Who thinks people will use it anyway.

If theres sufficient competition in the free market, they won't. But there might not be competition...

Fortunately drivers can still charge at home, this is simply their fast chargers. But for road trips they might be stuck... 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

It may be amusing when upper middle class EV enthusiasts eventually realize that their EVs are not, in fact, "greener" than ICE vehicles, and that electricity utility companies want to make a profit from a captive market. 

And governments will eventually replace lost revenues from taxing fossil fuels (petrol, diesel) and instead:

1)  phase out subsidies for EVs

2)  start taxing electricity for EVs

Those magical rainbow unicorn farts powering EVs won't seem so magical, once governments use EVs as a tax base to replace lost hydrocarbon taxes for ICE vehicles.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 3/2/2020 at 2:55 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

And governments will eventually replace lost revenues from taxing fossil fuels (petrol, diesel) and instead:

Attached is the EV HEV fee data I found for the US last year.

Another article from a Canadian newspaper.  Too big to attach. "Jack Mintz_Tax electric vehicles or we'll blow a huge hole in our budgets_Financial Post".

www.plugincars.com explains charging fees for the US.

Tesla website has a great slider calculator that will tell you how long it will take to charge a certain  size battery from x percent to z percent.  They also recommend that your garage (if you have one) is rewired 240V.  Length and wire gauge must be determined by one of their authorized electrical contractors.  Another cost.

www.clippercreek.com has extensive info for charging.

A problem for the Canadian prairies is the cold.  Running the electric car heater will reduce your driving range quickly.  It could mean life or death.

Just found this.  Sad news.  The EV folk will get a shock when all the costs are known.  Oil demand will be impacted downward.

https://www.mjbradley.com/sites/default/files/ElectricVehicleMarketStatus05072019.pdf

I still need to tow a trailer.  I will never own an EV. I can't get to my wife's sister in Saskatcewan without a long charge midway. No fast charge on their acreage when I arrive.  Our ICE vehicles will become antiques and be kept running forever like in Cuba.

New Fees on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.pdf

[Rob Kramer + 696]

Same old story - you see the worm and only feel the hook till after you bite. Early adopters will probably see all the benefits and by the time its "normal" to to own an EV it will cost a normal price. I cant see spending 30k CAD on a 10KWH solar system and 42K after tax and delivery and EV rebate on a Nissan leaf. That's 72K plus I'd need 2k for panel and garage wiring upgrades.  Spend 20k on a Nissan micro put 54k in a 5% dividend tfsa and get 2,700$/yr for fuel. I think it's even more profitable for the gas car if theres interest on the 74k vs the 20k or just 42 vs 20. 

[George8944 + 128]

Didn't the French do something similar several years back? They subsidized the cost of deisel fuel to encourage people to move away from gasoline, then once a large number bought deisel, they dropped the subsidy and people rioted.

Now that I think about it,  didn't a recent President subsidize the solar panel and lithium battery industry only to get a huge surge in business and a subsequent huge collapse when the subsidy expired?   Names like Solyndra and A123 come to mind.

Governments will never learn that new markets can't be forced.  Ultimately they need to stand on their own merits...and economics.

My heart goes out to the scammed people of Norway.

 

[WayneMechEng + 89]

My Canadian and US taxes have been filed, plus my report on foreign bank accounts.  To continue:

COVID-19 has devastated the developed world's economies.  No government or private entity has the capital to develop any more renewable energy projects.  Fossil fuels will continue to be used, although demand has been reduced temporarily; possibly some small amount permanently, according to the IEA.

No one has any money to buy any ICE or EV in the foreseeable future.  Let's watch auto sales.  Our current inventory of ICE vehicles will last us for one or two decades, thanks to the corona virus and the Saudi-Russia oil price war.

The major flaw in our Canadian Finance Minister Morneau's deficit spending plans to counter COVID-19's economic impacts, is that he states Canada's debt to GDP is stellar compared to other G7 members.  That argument's fallacy is that it was based on prior Canadian GDP's.  Canada's future GDP's will be so low without fossil fuel revenue and the corona virus impact, that Minister Morneau's reasoning fails completely.  However, although not his fan, other ways Canada is handling the corona virus impacts seems reasonable.

In Alberta, the Athabasca Glacier's arm of the Columbia Ice Fields, feeds all major rivers on our prairies.  Google the Athabasca Glacier and discover that it may disappear in a century or so.  Hydro power will fail; there will be no drinking or irrigating water.  No grains grown. Do the prairies need to build pipelines from desalinization plants on the Pacific Coast or from the Slave Lakes?  Future power generation could only be from SMU's (Small Modular Reactor's) or natural gas.  Prove to me that renewables can supply 100% of our future power, without a reliable base source, and without capital.  The corona virus debacle has shown us that global just-in-time supply chains don't have the redundancy required for reliability (or national security).

Reliable base power generation requires two fuel sources: nuclear and natural gas.  That is the best we can do to slow global warming.  Or we can stay in self-isolation forever.  No "Planes, Trains or Automobiles" in that future.  Remember, if Canada shuts off all fossil fuel production and consumption, Russia and Saudi Arabia (and others) have proven conclusively that they and others want to supply all that the world requires.  Gerald Butts brainwashed PM Trudeau.  Idiot (dual language word).

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by WayneMechEng
added a closing parentheses

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 2/28/2020 at 8:00 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Just wait until governments *rescind* subsidies for EVs and decide to tax electricity for EVs in the same way they tax gasoline and diesel for ICE vehicles.

EVs are simply  > NOT  AFFORDABLE <  for most people.

 

Norway horrified as new rates make EV charging prices higher than petrol

A hike in electric car charging rates by European electric car fast charging network Ionity has drawn a backlash from the Norwegian electric car association Norsk Elbilforenig, which says the new rates make powering an electric vehicle more expensive than fuelling a similar petrol or diesel car.  ...

 

... Ionity’s new rate of 0.79 euros/kWh will see Norwegians pay around NOK7.80 (gross price in country-specific currency), which becomes NOK 8.40/kWh ($A1.37/kWh converted) after Ionity has added an additional fee.

This means long range electric vehicles could now cost NOK20 per mile ($A0.327/km converted) to drive when using Ionity’s network (many sites of which features 350kW Australian-designed Tritium Veefil-PK ultra-fast chargers) according to a statement issued by Norsk Elbilforenig.  ...

 

... In effect, the change in pricing structure means drivers could be forced into subscription agreements with carmakers in order to access cheaper charging rates.

An example given by Norsk Elbilforenig is that of Audi, which costs NOK189/month ($A30.89) and NOK3.2/kWh ($A0.52/kWh) for a 12 months subscription.

The announcement was met with numerous negative reactions that caused one follower of the network on Facebook to comment: “This is messed up, daylight robbery!!! The price is absurd. My BMW i3 winter consumption is 20 kwh per 100km , so 16€ per 100km. I think that a BMW X5 is cheaper to drive than that.”

“That is pure theft!! Meaning 50kw worth of charge would cost 40€?! More expensive than gasoline. Shameful!” said another.  ...

Agreed that electric vehicles are both more expensive and more environmentally damaging than advocates believe. 

Also agreed that governments will plug their budget gaps by taxing EVs.  They may not tax the fuel, but they'll tax something about them.  I believe one state instituted a $200 annual registration fee. 

Playing devil's advocate though:
1)  The best use case for EVs is commercial vehicles.  The vast majority of these will be charged at the owner's facility at low rates.
2)  The vast majority of miles driven will be recharged in the owner's homes at low rates.
3)  Reduced EV maintenance often saves as much or more money than reduced fuel expenditures. 
4)  EVs are a technology in its infancy; there's plenty of room for improvement.  ICEs are approaching the end of their development. 
5)  "Electrification" doesn't just mean pure EVs.  It also includes various shades of hybrids, which is a good strategy.  ICEs and electric motors pair well with each other. 

Expanding on #4: ICEs are improving - but that improvement is coming at ever greater cost.  The complexity of modern engines is a manufacturing and maintenance nightmare that mostly negates the fuel savings.  In the near future, ICEs will reach their pinnacle, and EVs will close the gap. 

If we take all of that together, I would argue that EV advocates are celebrating prematurely.  They are not, however, entirely off the mark. 

[WayneMechEng + 89]

15 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

3)  Reduced EV maintenance often saves as much or more money than reduced fuel expenditures. 

I recall in High School we had to read "The Octopus", a short story by Frank Norris.  Briefly, grain prices were high at the time, and a farmer came into town to ship his grain.  He was quite happy about the profit he was going to make.  When he got to the train station, the agent informed him that the rates had gone up.  The Robber Barron's (such as the Vanderbilts'), had no intention of letting the farmers reap the reward.  (Eventually the US regulated rail rates.)

So it is with today's corporate greed and our governments' tax men.  Any net savings of an EV over an ICE will be gobbled up by slick entrepreneurs or taxes.  The middle class has been nearly eliminated by outsourcing our jobs.  College loans have ruined the start in life that young persons had enjoyed in the past.  At the end of Frank Norris's story, the farmer was arguing with the agent and asked how the rates were determined.  The agent responded, "All that the traffic can bear".  But I digress.

COVID-19 and OPEC have shown that our economies need redundancy in many applications and institutions.  A hybrid vehicle, although needing more mechanical attention than an EV, will run on fossil fuel if the charging facility has a power outage.  More capital is needed if the charging facility installs a very powerful backup generator (running on fossil fuel) capable of fast charging two or three EV's at a time.  (All gas stations should have a small emergency generator.) (My true story:  I was traveling to a new office from California in 1988 and stopped in Mobile, Alabama.  A storm had knocked out all power.  My family ate cold sandwiches at Denny's.  Our motel had no power.  Still no power when we checked out.)  Many mechanics will retain their jobs if HEV's are on the road.  Now that we are experiencing in real time what it means when no one can earn a paycheck, we need to consider the effects of rapid technological or ill conceived socially engineered changes.

Always recall that if shale and oilsands disappear, for any reason, OPEC, Russia, Libya, etc. are all waiting to take all the market share. It is just like a wolf pack surrounding an old cariboo, just waiting .....That is their stated intent.

This was always a plot on the part of "conventional oil", foreign or otherwise, to restrict new supply oil sands and later shale) and maintain oil prices.  Now we have the NOPEC bill in the US Congress.  Preventing OPEC oil imports is the next move in a chess game.  We are feeling the havoc wrought by OPEC and Russia.  NOPEC is the only way to protect the US economy.  Canada should consider foreign oil imports.  And all this happens when COVID-19 has us down.  Now we can sort out our friends from foe.  The famous Chinese book, "The Art of War", says that a wise general will not need to resort to battle.  We are in such a war.  So the earth will warm, but we can focus on the real impacts and discuss solutions.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

The problem is that the fuel tax has been with us for a century, and it no longer matches reality. It used to be an equitable way to pay for roads.

The road portion of fuel taxes should be replaced by a ton*mile tax on all vehicles equally, EVs gas,  diesel, or whatever. This would level the playing field. The heavier your vehicle, the more you pay. The more you drive, the more you pay.

To the extent that the voters think is appropriate, diesel and gasoline should incur a destination pollution tax, paid on fuel. Here in California, our geography causes us to have the worst air pollution in the nation, so we would probably vote for this.

To the extent that the voters think is appropriate, fossil fuel producers or importers (NG, oil, and coal) should pay a carbon tax. This hits all fossil fuel direct and indirect consumers equally.

EV electricity should be the same cost as all other electricity. Time-based or dynamic off-peak rates should apply equally to EVs and all other electricity use.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

Norway is not that big a country. Those charges only apply to for-profit charging stations, but most charging will be done at home. Europeans tend to travel long-distance by train, not car.  Taken all together, this means that these extortionate rates will apply to only a tiny percentage of the EV mileage.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Norway is not that big a country. Those charges only apply to for-profit charging stations, but most charging will be done at home. Europeans tend to travel long-distance by train, not car.  Taken all together, this means that these extortionate rates will apply to only a tiny percentage of the EV mileage.

Mileage required when you get your license is how they will get around the charge at home folks.  IT has already been discussed in every nations since the dawn of the horse and buggy. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Mileage required when you get your license is how they will get around the charge at home folks.  IT has already been discussed in every nations since the dawn of the horse and buggy. 

I'm fine with a road usage tax  (mileage times vehicle weight), as long as it applies equally to all vehicles. The road-usage portion of diesel and gasoline taxes should be eliminated at the same time.

With existing technology, the road usage tax can be assessed daily, not just at licensing time, and can be fairly apportioned to the jurisdictions whose roads you are using. Basically, all roads including city streets become toll roads.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

59 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm fine with a road usage tax  (mileage times vehicle weight), as long as it applies equally to all vehicles. The road-usage portion of diesel and gasoline taxes should be eliminated at the same time.

With existing technology, the road usage tax can be assessed daily, not just at licensing time, and can be fairly apportioned to the jurisdictions whose roads you are using. Basically, all roads including city streets become toll roads.

Oh I agree, but  HOW does one do this in reality?  Can't put automatic tolling everywhere.  Well technically you could, but the cost would be astronomical. Anything attached to a car can be tampered with fairly easily.  Why the gas tax was done to begin with as it got rid of the very localized RID(Road improvement districts--> Enough people get together, local, to impose fees for improvement or maintenance and you are forced to pay) which used to be pervasive everywhere.  Essentially an addendum to a property tax.  Personally, I think everyone will be forced back to yearly license fees MUCH higher than today as RID's lead to discontent between neighbors, but are cheaper overall. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Oh I agree, but  HOW does one do this in reality?  Can't put automatic tolling everywhere.  Well technically you could, but the cost would be astronomical. Anything attached to a car can be tampered with fairly easily.  Why the gas tax was done to begin with as it got rid of the very localized RID(Road improvement districts--> Enough people get together, local, to impose fees for improvement or maintenance and you are forced to pay) which used to be pervasive everywhere.  Essentially an addendum to a property tax.  Personally, I think everyone will be forced back to yearly license fees MUCH higher than today as RID's lead to discontent between neighbors, but are cheaper overall. 

Mandate a cellphone-type GPS-capable transponder in each vehicle. Many already have this. Spot check using video cameras at major intersections. Many already have this. If a car is spotted while its transponder claims it is elsewhere, fine the driver. If the transponder is reporting mileage numbers that don't match the car's movements, fine the driver. A car transponder already pays for itself in auto theft reduction, so the mandate adds little or nothing to vehicle cost. Video cameras cost money, but the cost is recovered by better enforcement of traffic laws, and in this case by road tax. In many areas, no new cameras will be needed. Here in California, we have separate short-range transponders for our toll roads, but if you forget to mount your transponder or if it fails, you still pay the toll because the cameras pick up your license plate. My city also already has far more traffic cameras for enforcement than we would need to cross-check the car transponders. My city also has cameras on each freeway entry and exit ramp and on major roads at the city boundaries. The police use them for quickly tracking stolen vehicles used in crimes.

Worried about your privacy? Sorry, but you lost that battle long ago. Your cell phone's location is known to the phone company. It is known to lots of other organizations if you enable location info, which you probably do if you use maps. Those cameras already track vehicles by  license plate number, with human review when something isn't right.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

4 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Mandate a cellphone-type GPS-capable transponder in each vehicle. Many already have this. Spot check using video cameras at major intersections. Many already have this. If a car is spotted while its transponder claims it is elsewhere, fine the driver. If the transponder is reporting mileage numbers that don't match the car's movements, fine the driver. A car transponder already pays for itself in auto theft reduction, so the mandate adds little or nothing to vehicle cost. Video cameras cost money, but the cost is recovered by better enforcement of traffic laws, and in this case by road tax. In many areas, no new cameras will be needed. Here in California, we have separate short-range transponders for our toll roads, but if you forget to mount your transponder or if it fails, you still pay the toll because the cameras pick up your license plate. My city also already has far more traffic cameras for enforcement than we would need to cross-check the car transponders. My city also has cameras on each freeway entry and exit ramp and on major roads at the city boundaries. The police use them for quickly tracking stolen vehicles used in crimes.

Worried about your privacy? Sorry, but you lost that battle long ago. Your cell phone's location is known to the phone company. It is known to lots of other organizations if you enable location info, which you probably do if you use maps. Those cameras already track vehicles by  license plate number, with human review when something isn't right.

Holy Shit, what are you a flamming Commie?  Yea, lets just microchip your ass while you are at it... That will never be misused by power hungry assholes... Nah... perfectly "safe"... as long as you are in China or USSR...

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Yea, lets just microchip your ass while you are at it... 

Just put your smart phone in your back pocket?😀

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Holy Shit, what are you a flamming Commie?  Yea, lets just microchip your ass while you are at it... That will never be misused by power hungry assholes... Nah... perfectly "safe"... as long as you are in China or USSR...

Do you use a cell phone? Do you drive in cities that have video cameras? Do you pay tolls? Do you pay by credit card? All of these things allow large intrusive organizations to track your physical location. So what's the difference?

No, I'm not a commie, or a fascist, or any other type of totalitarian. I don't like TSA "security theater" at the airports, or FBI "anti-terrorist" warrantless phone taps, or FISA courts, or a lot of other worthless privacy invasions, but I'm OK with tracking vehicles on public highways to collect fairly-apportioned use fees.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Do you use a cell phone? Do you drive in cities that have video cameras? Do you pay tolls? Do you pay by credit card? All of these things allow large intrusive organizations to track your physical location. So what's the difference?

Mr. Clemmenson, I find it impressive just how little you care for your personal privacy, which translates into your liberty, which you are apparently perfectly prepared to go sacrifice for some road toll.  

First up, let us presume that your marriage is not working out.  You meet a woman who invites you to be intimate with her.  Tempted, you (and I know you are in California, but let us assume New York City for the ease of structure) travel by your car from the City over to New Jersey, then a short trip up the parkway to her place, where you have a nice snuggle.  Then, back home, your excuse being a business meeting.  The exercise gives you a new persepctive on your life and marriage and gives you something to reflect on.  Now, that is about as private as it gets. 

But, in that case, your cell phone, your E-Z Toll Pass, and your car market place are all being recorded by the authorities. The Hudson River passage is by toll plate, so they know you went to Jersey, and when.  All that data is subject to subpoena.  The cell phone records allow the authorities to subpoena data as to which tower your signal pinged off. Your toll pass is laughably easy.  Those cameras out there can be tracked, and if they are on-line  (most are), anyone can see your car pass by.  If there is a data drive on them  (some are), then that is subject to subpoena.  Now let's say after reflection you decide that your new mistress is not going to work out, and you develop this new appreciation for your wife, so you decide to stay with her and work on it.  Not so fast.  Lots of people, including The State, know about your little fling, and can (and will) haul you into court.  Your wife, upset, sues for divorce and alimony.  You get to pay huge sums upon pain of imprisonment.  You get to pay for your children but have no say in their upbringing, and likely will end up not even seeing them.  You pay a huge price for losing your liberty of movement.   For what - to make some road tax easy to collect?  

This is just one example.  But you say:  I would never cheat on my wife  (and a plague on those who would!).  Getting past the Calvinist tone of that, there are lots of other things you would rather the government not know about.  Suppose your sister was married to a criminal, and you went to see her.   The FBI shows up and demands to know if you visited the criminal's home and if so, what was discussed there.  You don't want to be ensnared so you fib and say, "I never went there."  Well, you did, but that was innocent, all you wanted to do was give your sister a hug.   But the FBI has those surveillance photos and toll-plate data, and they arrest you - not for going there, but for fibbing to the cops.  You go to jail for 13 months.  Think that does not happen?  Think again.  That is precisely what happened to Martha Stewart. She spent over a year in the Federal Penitentiary in Pennsylvania with her elderly mother unable to visit from New York, for telling the FBI that she could not recall a phone conversation with some stock broker. What, are you shitting me, talking to some stock broker?  You go to jail for that?  Yup, you do, welcome to America, and the FBI cops that will entrap you easy as pie.  (I know a lot more about this, and I offered to personally  drive the elderly mom back and forth to the prison on a chartered bus for free, my dime, because it was so outrageous. )

Meanwhile, your entire road-tax propsoition is totally flawed.  What hurts roads, and causes their wear, is the tire pressure.  Tire pressure determines the amount of compression placed on the road surface; the heavier the load, the higher the pressure, up to 130 lbs in heavy truck tires.  An auto at 28 pounds does no damage at all. If all you did was run autos on the interstate you would have zero damage.  It all comes from overloaded trucks.  If you want to charge a fair tax then make it a function of the vehicle tire pressure.  That motivates trucking companies to install extra axles (and tires) to distribute the load and lower the tire pressures. If you want to run 80,000 lbs with 18 wheels, you pay X + 10.  If you run that 80,000 lbs over 24 wheels you pay X - 20.   That is much fairer. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

47 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not so fast.  Lots of people, including The State, know about your little fling, and can (and will) haul you into court. 

On what grounds? Adultery is not a crime in New Jersey. New York does not have jurisdiction over actions committed in another state.

Even if it were in NY adultery is a Class B misdemeanor (max 3 months in prison). In the past 50 years there have been 13 prosecutions and 5 convictions, almost all in conjunction with another crime. No, the state is not going to haul you into court for driving over to someone's house and spending the evening.  

Edited May 25, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

49 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

But, in that case, your cell phone, your E-Z Toll Pass, and your car market place are all being recorded by the authorities. The Hudson River passage is by toll plate, so they know you went to Jersey, and when.  All that data is subject to subpoena.  The cell phone records allow the authorities to subpoena data as to which tower your signal pinged off. Your toll pass is laughably easy.  Those cameras out there can be tracked, and if they are on-line  (most are), anyone can see your car pass by.

How is this different from today? All of those records already exist and "are subject to subpoena". I have no privacy, and neither do you.

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

54 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Meanwhile, your entire road-tax propsoition is totally flawed.  What hurts roads, and causes their wear, is the tire pressure.  Tire pressure determines the amount of compression placed on the road surface; the heavier the load, the higher the pressure, up to 130 lbs in heavy truck tires.  An auto at 28 pounds does no damage at all. If all you did was run autos on the interstate you would have zero damage.  It all comes from overloaded trucks.  If you want to charge a fair tax then make it a function of the vehicle tire pressure.  That motivates trucking companies to install extra axles (and tires) to distribute the load and lower the tire pressures. If you want to run 80,000 lbs with 18 wheels, you pay X + 10.  If you run that 80,000 lbs over 24 wheels you pay X - 20.   That is much fairer. 

Clearly, it's not "totally flawed". It has a flaw, and you just pointed it out. it's trivially fixable by adjusting the weight multiplier.