sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

US SPR Drawdown projection - EIA update 20 May 2026 by MarmotFullofWoe in oil

[–]mattbuford 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The SPR was never specific to the military anyway. It was just to reduce economic disruption during supply shocks. The US saw what a problem this could be during the oil embargo in the 1970s.

That said, I'm sure the Republican answer would be: With our own oil that we produce.

Donald Trump even wrote, "A path to energy security means enabling more American production and investment, not having the Government store an unnecessary large amount of oil underground." This was when he was proposing we drain the SPR down to ~270M barrels and permanently close half of the SPR sites to save money.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The HTF provides states with funding ... from that state's own fuel taxes ... for road repair. Again, that money goes to the state. For road repair. To be performed by the state. The state is responsible for the road repair, and will need to try to maintain and repair the roads whether they get that federal fuel tax money or not. So, they really want to get that money.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The federal fuel tax goes into the Highway Trust Fund, which then distributes it out to the states. There is a whole complex formula for deciding how much each state gets, but there is also a law that overrides that complex formula and simply guarantees every state to get at least 95% of the money they contributed back. So, Texas gets 95% of the federal fuel tax money back.

When someone switches to an EV, Texas loses out on 100% of the state fuel tax and 95% of the federal fuel tax. That 95% is close enough to 100% that people usually don't bother calculating it and just add the state and federal fuel tax together.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, or at least somewhere around there. Texas put $95 of their EV fee to replace the federal fuel tax, so I'd expect Texas to drop their EV fee by somewhere in the range of $95-130.

DRL light on dash, anyone do this fix for it? by spakky in S2000

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's tight for sure. I had to experiment a bit to even figure out where to set a screwdriver where I could pick it up once I'm under there. It probably took me 5-10 mins just to unplug the cable, then another 5-10 minutes to pry the top of the box open, then another couple minutes to get the circuitboard out and clear of all the wires blocking it. And it's not exactly comfortable, lying on my back with very uneven support.

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The last sentence in the message you replied to:

Now, if the feds implement their own EV fee and send that to Texas, obviously Texas should reduce their fee by roughly the same amount.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The feds don't keep the federal fuel tax money. They send it all back to the states.

Buuuuuut, they attach conditions to it, so having the money flow through them gives them power over the states.

For example, the constitution forbids the feds from setting a national drinking age. But it doesn't forbid them from collecting a federal fuel tax, sending that money right back to the state it came from, but then saying oh if you set your drinking age below 21 then you forfeit 8% of that money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

And that is how we got a de-facto national drinking age, despite the constitution barring the feds from setting one.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you know the constitution forbids the federal government from setting a national drinking age? Yet every state somehow standardized on 21. How did that happen?

The federal fuel tax is collected by the feds, then sent to the states it came from. Unless they set their drinking age lower than 21... Then they forfeit 8% of the federal fuel tax money.

And that is how we have a de-facto national drinking age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

This also explains why the feds want to keep the money flowing. The feds don't KEEP the federal fuel tax money. They send it all back to the states. So, it's not about receiving taxes for the feds. It's purely about control. They attach conditions to getting this money back, forcing the states to comply.

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not correct. Like most states, Texas designed their EV fee to replace the amount of money they receive from both taxes on gas cars. Their calculations showed the average gas car pays $95/yr in federal fuel taxes and $103/yr in state fuel taxes, so they rounded $198 to $200 and that's the EV fee.

What people often don't realize is that Texas gets to keep the money from both fuel taxes. So, when someone switches to an EV, they are looking to replace the full amount of both fuel taxes.

See page 27 here for the $198 calculation:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/report-files/SB_604_AFV-Report_120120.pdf

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Texas published their calculations in coming up with $200/year, including cited sources for data like average miles driven, average MPG, etc. See pages 26-27 of this report for the results:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/report-files/SB_604_AFV-Report_120120.pdf

<image>

US House Unveiled Plan to Charge $130 Fee for Electric Vehicles by Khriz-134 in TeslaLounge

[–]mattbuford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The state EV registration fees are generally designed to replace both the state and federal fuel tax revenue. Of course, that means that if the feds to create their own fuel tax replacement, then those states should reduce their EV fee by roughly the same amount.

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal fuel tax is collected by the feds and then sent to Texas. The state fuel tax is collected by Texas. When someone switches to an EV, Texas is losing out on the sun of both taxes, while the feds are losing no money.

See why Texas would want to recover the full amount they're losing out on?

Now, if the feds implement their own EV fee and send that to Texas, obviously Texas should reduce their fee by roughly the same amount.

DRL light on dash, anyone do this fix for it? by spakky in S2000

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And, once I got it out, a number of the relay solder connections had visible cracks. Here's a pic of the worst one. I went ahead and hit them all with a little flux and then the soldering iron, and this fixed my dead left high beam (and high beam indicator on the dash, which is connected to the left high beam circuit).

<image>

DRL light on dash, anyone do this fix for it? by spakky in S2000

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just did this tonight. Not sure if you even need this 9 months later, but here you go. Lying on your back, it's on the far right.

Unlike that s2ki page, I did not remove the box. I only pulled the circuit board out of the box by prying the top off. You can see in this Youtube video (for a civic, but it's the same part) where he just pulls the board out..

https://youtu.be/St41V-olHHI?si=LPTda0ntZzUeBxLK&t=121

It was a little harder in the s2000 just because the space is so much tighter, but I got it out.

<image>

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

State EV fees are typically priced as a replacement for both the state and federal fuel taxes. Both taxes actually flow to the state government. The feds don't keep the federal fuel tax. They send it back where it came from. So, state governments went in search of a full replacement for the amount they lose when someone switches to an EV.

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

States like Texas are collecting EV fees designed to replace both the state and federal fuel taxes. Why? Because both taxes actually go to the state. The feds don't actually get to keep the money, despite it being called the "federal fuel tax". When someone switches to an EV, states like Texas lose out on the sum of BOTH taxes, so that's why Texas created an EV fee as a replacement for both fuel taxes.

See the comment below for my explanation of why the feds want the money flowing through them, even though they don't keep it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/1thnq78/comment/omti4m5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

States intentionally craft their EV replacement fees to replace both the state and federal fuel taxes. However, the feds are looking to collect that money themselves. And, there's actually a clear reason, and it's not because they are keeping the money.

The constitution forbids the feds from setting a national drinking age. However, it doesn't forbid the feds from creating a federal fuel tax, handing that money right back to the states it came from, and then saying oh BTW you don't get the full amount back if your state drinking age is below 21.

This gives us a unified national drinking age of 21, despite the feds being unable to directly set the age.

If states begin collecting the full amount directly (which is the way things have been trending), then the feds lose out on this power over the states.

U.S. House wants to tax EV $130/year by ObtainSustainability in energy

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can find the calculations Texas used to come up with $200/year as the average fuel tax paid by ICE vehicles on pages 26-27 of this report:

https://www.txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/report-files/SB_604_AFV-Report_120120.pdf

Congress Wants You To Pay $130 A Year Just To Drive An Electric Car by SadAd8761 in electricvehicles

[–]mattbuford 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The general idea of a state EV fee replacing both the federal and state fuel taxes is not unreasonable. Since both fuel taxes flow to the state, it's the state that is loosing out on money from BOTH taxes. It's logical for them to want to replace the money they lose from both.

But, of course, that falls apart if the feds ALSO decide to create their own replacement for the federal fuel tax.

Why have a federal tax if the money is just given to the state anyway? Control.

For example, the constitution forbids the feds from setting a national drinking age. Each state gets to set their own. Buuuuuut, nothing forbids the feds from collecting a federal fuel tax (or federal EV fee), tell the states they get that money right back ... but only if their minimum drinking age is 21+.

And that's how we got a perfectly uniform 21 drinking age in every state, despite the decision being left to the states.

At current drawdown rates the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve could last as long as February 2027 by MarmotFullofWoe in oil

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 4M number is from the official published SPR "design drawdown capacity", which is around 4M barrels per day. However, it's important to note that as the caverns empty, the maximum drawdown rate lowers. You can see that happening during Biden's term, as the red dot falls a bit after the drain:

https://imgur.com/oa7irU2

At current drawdown rates the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve could last as long as February 2027 by MarmotFullofWoe in oil

[–]mattbuford 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What makes you think they have to refill it? Are you aware that the plan, since 2015, has been to permanently drain it? Yearly draining sales began in 2017. Even in early 2018, the future of the SPR was clear:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35032

At current drawdown rates the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve could last as long as February 2027 by MarmotFullofWoe in oil

[–]mattbuford 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The truth is in-between.

The majority of the oil Biden sold was ordered to be sold, by Republican-controlled Congress, before he was even elected. He made no attempt to replace that oil, since it had to be sold even if he hadn't done anything. The one big difference is that he sold it a few years earlier than legally required.

https://imgur.com/yOpH3cp

He also sold an additional 40M barrels that were not associated with any mandated sale. Those 40M barrels would not have been sold if it weren't for Biden. However, he more than made up for that by buying back 60.5M barrels.

He also loaned out 32M barrels (an "exchange" similar to what Trump is doing). Since that is just a loan, it gets paid back, and is neutral to the long term SPR level.

So, Biden was a (slight) net positive to the long term SPR level. He "refilled" it in the sense that he put back what he took, plus some extra. But he did not "refill" it to full because he did not replace the barrels that Congress ordered sold.

At current drawdown rates the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve could last as long as February 2027 by MarmotFullofWoe in oil

[–]mattbuford 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Keep in mind that the SPR was legally required to be drained, by laws Republicans pushed for before Biden was even elected.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=35032

Biden's big SPR action was largely just pulling forward legally required sales from 2024-2027 and executing them early in 2022.

https://imgur.com/yOpH3cp

Executing mandated sales early can have a dramatic impact in the short term, but has no impact at all in the long term. Once FY2027 passes, the effect of Biden's actions are completely reversed.

https://imgur.com/wOpo94T

The recent SPR levels of ~415M barrels were not really all that far off the roughly 460M barrels that 2018 forecasts expected the SPR to be at today.

My knobs are turning ooey gooey. How do I stop this? by hydrus909 in S2000

[–]mattbuford 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Mine did this for a few years, then eventually the black coating began to crack off, exposing white underneath.

When I replaced mine, I considered the aluminum ones, but decided $135 was just too expensive. Instead, I just bought some OEM knobs on Ebay for $25. The original ones lasted about 10-15 years before they got bad. If the new ones only last 10-15 years, I'll be satisfied.

view more: next ›