An EV tax that pays for an EV rebate? You couldn’t make this shit up.
Victoria is set to become the only place in the world to de-incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles with an electric car tax for every kilometre driven.
Victoria will also introduce a $3,000 incentive to encourage buying electric cars.
After coming up with this brilliant move, I don’t see why the Victorian Government should stop there.
- They could encourage healthy eating by taxing fresh fruits and vegetables.
- Exercise could be encouraged by taxing gyms and bicycles.
- Maybe they could raise money for the police by mugging grannies?
Actually, I have a great public health idea for Victoria. They should slap a $50 tax on COVID vaccinations to raise funds to encourage people to get vaccinated. While a tax of $50 may seem like a lot to get vaccinated, COVID is such a serious threat we can’t afford to take half measures. Maybe it should be a $100 tax per vaccination to make sure we encourage people enough.
The EV Tax
Victoria’s Andrews Government intends to tax EVs by introducing a per-kilometre road charge of 2.5 cents for fully electric cars and 2 cents for plug-in hybrids. This was supposed to pay for roads, but it makes no sense to slap a charge on low emission vehicles when internal combustion cars are free to pollute our air and emit greenhouse gases without paying for the harm they cause. While the manufacture and use of electric cars can also contribute to these problems, the effects are much less and decreasing.
If the Victorian Government goes ahead, they will reduce people’s incentive to buy electric vehicles and fuel-efficient hybrids. Fewer will be sold than otherwise, and more conventional petrol and diesel vehicles will end up on our roads and are likely to cause harm above 2.5 cents per kilometre.
Fortunately, I have a plan to stop this that’s sure to work. I’m asking everyone to sign a petition arranged by The Australia Institute that says the EV road charge is as dumb as a hammer made out of sacks. I’m sure this will work because it’s good, and an in-depth analysis of Disney movies has informed me the good side always wins.
So here’s a link to the petition page. Go ahead and sign it:
CLICK HERE FOR VICTORIA’S ELECTRIC CAR TAX IS STUPID PETITION PAGE
Here’s the comment I included when I signed:
“It makes no sense to increase the cost of running low emission vehicles when conventional vehicles are not required to pay for the damage they cause the environment and our health. The reduced uptake of low emission vehicles the road charge will cause will hurt us all.”
But there’s no need to leave a comment if you don’t want to, and you can also un-tick the box that says The Australia Institute will send you spam — I mean, updates. You can also ignore them when they ask for a donation after signing the petition. The Australia Institute’s full-time workers average over $100,000 a year in pay, so they’re not going to starve to death if you don’t shell out.1
Don’t keep reading this. Go and sign it. It doesn’t say you have to be a Victorian to put your name on it. It’s all one planet. We only have a single atmosphere to share. Unless you’re Elon Musk, you’re not going to get any of Mars’ atmosphere, and that hardly even counts as air. It’s more a method for shifting dust around.
Just stop reading and sign the petition! If you do that, I promise I’ll have some more words written for you by the time you get back.
Previous Mentions
Michael, who is sort like Batman except cooler, recently wrote about the Vic EV tax in this article titled:
Victoria’s Electric Car Tax “Worst EV Policy in the World”
He also wrote about it earlier here:
Electric Vehicle Opinions Victoria Poll Results
And here:
AAA Revs Up On Electric Vehicle Tax Support
In case you were wondering, he’s not in favour of it.
My boss, Finn Peacock, also had something to say about it:
The EV Tax Is A Dumb Plan
The good news is other states that were considering doing something similar — SA and NSW — have given up on it for now. But Victoria is still planning to introduce a road charge of 2.5 cents per kilometre for electric vehicles and 2 cents for plug-in hybrid cars in July. The reason given is it’s supposed to make up for them paying either less than average or nothing at all in fuel excise.
If you’re familiar with the ins and outs of taxation, you may be wondering how this will work because the fuel excise is federal while Victoria’s “ZLEV Road-User Charge” is state level. The answer is, it’s not going to work because — for the first few years — the government will use the money collected to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. Yep, that’s right. To get money to encourage the uptake of EVs, they will charge EV owners money for every kilometre they drive.
It Will Reduce Fuel Efficiency
The fuel excise is currently 42.7 cents per litre for both petrol and diesel. My 2004 Hyundai Getz gets around 15 kilometres per litre, while a plug-in Mitsubishi Outlander hybrid2 — according to Mitsubishi — apparently gets around 53km to the litre. If I accept that as being true, a comparison of the total amount of fuel excise and/or Victorian ZLEV Road-User Charge vehicles will pay looks like this:
- 2004 Hyundai Getz: 2.9 cents per km in fuel excise.
- Fully electric vehicle: 2.5 cents per km in VIC ZLEV Road-User Charge
- Plug-in Mistsubishi Hybrid: 2.8 cents per km in fuel excise and VIC ZLEV Road-User Charge
While a completely electric vehicle pays less than a Getz, a Mitsubishi Outlander really gets screwed over. It’s so ridiculous it makes me wonder if whoever came up with this idea was run over by a plug-in hybrid and is out for revenge. They have managed to develop a plan that will increase the average fuel consumption of new petrol-powered vehicles sold in the state. How the hell could they think this is a good idea?
Environmental & Health Costs
The road-user charge for a fully electric car is less than what the Getz or plug-in hybrid would pay, so while that may not seem so bad, it ignores the elephant that isn’t in the room because it died from heat prostration before it arrived. Electric vehicles and fuel-efficient hybrids result in much lower greenhouse gas emissions per kilometre driven than internal combustion engine vehicles.
In 2020 the average Australian passenger car got 9 kilometres to the litre. Each litre of petrol burned emits around 2.3 kilograms of CO2. Emissions from oil extraction, refining, and transport increase it to at least 2.6 kilograms per litre. This comes to 0.29 kg of CO2 per kilometre driven by the average Australian passenger car.
The amount of additional CO2 we can safely add to the atmosphere is zero. We’re way past the point where it’s possible to say, “Hey, maybe a little more won’t hurt?”. Passenger car emissions harm us all through environmental damage caused by global warming. Some estimates put the damage cost of each additional tonne of CO2 added to the atmosphere at over $500. But I’ll instead consider how much it will cost to clean up the mess by removing a typical passenger vehicle’s CO2 emissions from the atmosphere and sequestering them long term.
An optimistic estimate of what it might cost to remove CO2 from the atmosphere at anything approaching the rate current road transport adds it is $70 a tonne. This comes to 7 cents per kilogram or 2 cents per kilometre driven by a typical Australian passenger car. If a less optimistic estimate of $100 a tonne is used, it comes to 2.9 cents per kilometre. So just cleaning up the greenhouse gas emission mess caused by fossil-fueled passenger cars per kilometre driven could easily cost more than the EV road charge Victoria wants to impose.
In addition, pollution emitted by internal combustion engines takes an expensive toll on health. I’m not going to try to estimate its cost per kilometre because it’s too complex for my little brain. But it’s definitely significant.
Currently, fossil-fueled cars don’t pay for the cost of their greenhouse gas emissions or their pollution health costs. While electric cars also result in emissions and health costs, they are far less than average and declining as the grid becomes greener.
If the Victorian Government wanted to instead:
- Tax vehicles based on their greenhouse gas and/or health costs, or…
- Make all vehicles pay the same road charge.
I would be fine with that. Well, actually, the second option is dumb compared to the first, but at least it wouldn’t foolishly disadvantage cars that cause less pollution and less environmental damage.
Electric Car Tax + Rebate Makes No Sense
I want to make it very clear that I don’t think the Victorian Government are a mob of idiots. I mean this in a very profound, moral, philosophical, and — perhaps most keenly of all — legal sense. But I do think their plan to put a per-kilometre road charge on EVs and hybrids is idiotic.
People respond to incentives. If this is your goal…
Don’t offer one hand in friendship and then use it to pull people in and knee them in the groin. People hate that. You’re not even robbing Peter to pay Paul, you’re robbing Peter to pay Peter, which is pointless.
If you want a rapid uptake of low emission vehicles, then increase the upfront cost of high emission ones and use that revenue to decrease the cost of those that emit little or nothing. You’ll find a miracle in low emission vehicle uptake will occur when people can save money by not buying a car that makes the world burn. It will work a hell of a lot better than charging them more for each kilometre they drive.
If you’re not willing to do something like that, maybe you shouldn’t try to help electric cars at all. I suspect you’ll cause more harm than good. But if you want to make fossil fuel vehicles pay for at least a portion of the harm they cause, I’ll be 100% behind that.
Footnotes
- The donation is to support their activities and not their personal spending, so feel free to contribute if you like. ↩
- I originally had the wrong type of car here. Thanks to Scotty for pointing this out in the comments. I’ve changed it to the plug-in Mitsubishi Outlander as that is, currently, the most popular plug hybrid in Australia. ↩
About Ronald Brakels
RSS - Posts
Camry hybrid isn’t a plug in so it’s not subject to the tax.
Sorry, that was a bad mistake on my part. It should have been the plug in version of the Toyota RAV4. But then I realized that’s still a bad choice as it’s not currently sold in Australia. So I have changed it to the plug-in Mitsubishi Outlander. Thanks for pointing this out.
It appears the petition site has crashed. It worked for 11,314 Aussies, but there hasn’t been a new response for almost 20 minutes. Neither my name nor my comments* were accepted.
* “I cannot believe I’ve been voting Labor for six decades. In WA our tenants are being utterly ripped-off by _slashing_ solar electricity FiTs… and now we read that another state Labor government is ripping-off EV users. Only a Green/Labor coalition can stop these incredibly short-sighted policies. No more family donations to Labor, state OR federal, that’s for sure!~”
Is it just that the site is deliberately strangled to engineer an apparent low popularity of the petition? My signing has been stuck on “saving” for over half an hour now. Hmmm, it’s probably just Microsoft software.
My comment was “Wait until 70 – 80 % EV uptake before taxing – that’ll rake in more tax sooner. (Try modelling it.)
Even if a lower percentage would also be effective, it’s the principle of catching the fist in the cookie jar needing bait.
Reading in September 1994 Scientific American that Bill Clinton had on Earth Day 1993 promised that the U.S. would reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, I’m reminded how effective the fossil fuel industry’s disinformation and politician buying program has been.
Discouraging EV uptake just compounds the depth of suffering inflicted before the increasingly rogue climate tames again – if we ever manage that.
I bet that Kim Jong Un is right on track for keeping vehicle and passenger aircraft emissions low.
I wouldn’t want to live under a government that truly had the power to control emissions, other than by adjusting carbon taxes or pollution laws.
Lessor,
You have just identified exactly a key reason why I switched to voting for the Greens 2 or 3 elections ago.
The Greens are not going to knowingly set out to destroy the world, or inadvertently do so through sheer idiocy.
Way back in 2000 I conducted a study for rating the environmental performance of vehicles, including electric vehicles (very rare at that time). The project report is here:
http://mpainesyd.com/filechute/GCGdisc2.pdf
In brief, EVs did very well despite most electricity at the time being from coal-fired power stations. I also found that every dollar of petrol put in the tank caused societal costs of around a dollar. This included an underestimate of global warming costs.
The methodology subsequently contributed to the Australian Green Vehicle Guide.
Needless to say I find the proposal to tax EVs on a km basis as a huge backward step.
https://youtu.be/fLflYkgnNBY
Ha ha
>They could encourage healthy eating by taxing fresh fruits and vegetables.
>Exercise could be encouraged by taxing gyms and bicycles.
>Maybe they could raise money for the police by mugging grannies?
Don’t give them any ideas !!!!!!
Ronald,
I’d suggest you missed the following related subjects:
* The closure of Victoria’s Exxon Mobile Altona refinery, leaving only Viva Energy’s Geelong refinery (and Queensland’s Ampol Lytton refinery) remaining in operation in Australia, means more reliance on finished fuel imports, that increases risks of likely worsening energy security;
https://crudeoilpeak.info/exxon-mobils-refinery-closure-in-australia-peak-oil-context
* global post- ‘peak oil’ supply
If Figure 5 in the Nov 16 post “Peak Oil Never Went Away” is anywhere near accurate, global energy security disruption is not far away.
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/11/16/peak-oil-never-went-away/
See also Dec 1 Bloomberg post “Peak Oil is Suddenly Upon Us”, includes:
“Batteries are a technology, not a fuel, which means the more that are produced, the cheaper they are to make. In fact, every time the global supply of batteries doubles, the cost drops by about 18%, according to data tracked by BNEF. Historically, EVs have been more expensive to build than gasoline cars. That’s changing.
The past year saw the first companies reaching the Holy Grail in battery packs: a cost of $100 per kilowatt hour. That’s the point that analysts have long believed will bring the cost of building electric cars in line with similar gasoline-fueled vehicles. After that, EVs will only get cheaper.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-peak-oil-era-is-suddenly-upon-us/
I’d suggest Governments are still locked-in to a fossil fuel mindset and don’t see, as BNEF oil analyst David Doherty has said: “The writing is all over the bloody wall”. The sooner we get off oil, the better.
Disincentives for EVs makes our energy security worse.
i dont understand why a Labor run state, would suggest a tax on improvements..
I have concerns about who is lobbying this move.
I thought replacing fuel tax with a different tax was not so bad
Then i seen this clip.
I did not realize the fuel tax was not even being used for roads.
Well – I thought part of the fuel tax WAS being directed to roads?
I do know that the damage a vehicle does to the road (from Road Research scientists), varies according to the weight to the power 3.
Damage ~ k x W^3
So – a heavier vehicle does 8 times as much damage to the road, than a vehicle of half the weight (and, EV’s can be quite heavy).
As an approximate rule, heavier vehicles also use more fuel, therefore pay more road tax, therefore contribute more to road maintenance – as they should. Should EV’s NOT take a share of the cost for this?
Of course, if none of the collected tax really goes to road maintenance, then the above isn’t true – so then, how is road maintenance funded?
Ronald,
You suggest:
“* Tax vehicles based on their greenhouse gas and/or health costs, or…
* Make all vehicles pay the same road charge.”
Expanding on your suggestion:
GHG emissions and health costs could be covered by fuel excise (for carbon-based fuels) at the pump. Only farmers/food producers get a fuel rebate. Fossil fuel extractors pay ‘full wack’ – many of them pay little tax anyway. Tax diesel more due to health consequences of particulates.
ALL registered vehicles pay a public road use tax at registration and subsequent renewals based on following parameters:
* power/torque rating – higher rating pays more, as an upfront/leading charge;
* gross vehicle mass – higher mass pays more, as an upfront/leading charge;
* odometer distance travelled per period – travel more, pay more, as a trailing charge.
I think that’s fair. EV’s won’t be paying for fuel excise, but they would for public road use.
But I doubt the pollies would be sufficiently courageous to adopt it – too many powerful vested interests demanding exclusions.
At present, motorists only contribute about two-thirds of the cost of the road system.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/sa-ev-tax-mb1758/#comment-870504
My only concern, Geoffrey, is that Administrative Costs can often be greater that revenue raised, when Bureaucracies become involved. Imagine trying to track the odometers of all vehicles!
Whilst in academic theory, at least, collecting this data would be technically feasible automatically in future vehicles – and billing automated – the reality is that our indigenous manufacturing capacity is near-zero – so we will only get what EV manufacturers in China, the US, Japan, and Germany provide us…!
The advantage of taxing on GVM, power, and vehicle type upfront, is that funds become available earlier, and only need to be raised once per ownership change.
Ian Thompson,
You state: “Imagine trying to track the odometers of all vehicles!”
Firstly, I stated in my previous comment above: “ALL registered vehicles pay a public road use tax at registration and subsequent renewals…”
ALL REGISTERED vehicles is NOT the same as **ALL VEHICLES**.
Vehicles that don’t venture onto public roads, including many farm vehicles, mine vehicles, vehicles on extensive construction sites and other private facilities, etc., aren’t necessarily registered for public road use. If unregistered (and therefore uninsured) vehicles do venture onto public roads then the driver is committing a traffic offence. I’m not referring to these vehicles. I think you missed that distinction.
Secondly, I live in the jurisdiction of the State of NSW. When I re-register my vehicle annually with the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) via a Service NSW office, I’m required to have a ‘roadworthy’ inspection check performed beforehand on my vehicle by an RMS accredited mechanic and obtain a “pink slip” inspection report. The report is transmitted electronically to the RMS and I receive a printed paper copy of the “pink slip” report when I pay the mechanic for the ‘rego-check’ service ($42).
The NSW “pink slip” inspection report includes the odometer reading at the time of inspection.
As I understand it, when selling a registered vehicle privately in NSW, the owner selling is required to obtain a “pink slip” inspection report before transfer of registration. The report is valid for six months. The process is not required by the owner selling if the transfer is to an accredited vehicle dealer.
My point is, for at least the jurisdiction of the State of NSW, for NSW REGISTERED vehicles that are permitted to travel on NSW public roads, the odometer reading is already being recorded and delivered periodically to the RMS, prior to re-registration AND prior to ownership change. So I’d suggest there are no extra “Administrative Costs” for NSW – the periodically recorded odometer data is already available. Other Australian states/territories may be different.
Odometer readings from vehicles can be transferred electronically – I think Tesla vehicles do this already, together with much more operating data. It would require the cooperation of all vehicle manufacturers to establish a compatible uniform protocol. But this is not necessary for what I was suggesting in my previous comment above.
Fair enough Geoffrey – that’s not something we do (yet) here in WA.
So, you pay a mechanic $42, and the authorities process your application for “free”, annually?
Ian Thompson,
You ask: “So, you pay a mechanic $42, and the authorities process your application for “free”, annually?”
No. Lordy, no.
To re-register a NSW registered light vehicle (i.e. GVM of 4.5 tonnes or less) annually (or 6-monthly):
1. Pay and obtain a “pink slip” rego-check pass report ($42) before re-registration. Usually this is not required if the light vehicle is less than 5 years old.
2. Buy and receive a “green slip” Compulsory Third Party (CTP) policy from one of a number of NSW RMS accredited insurance companies before re-registration. Rates vary based on type of vehicle, commercial or private use, and driving infringement/accident history.
https://www.canstar.com.au/car-insurance/nsw-green-slip-ctp-insurance/
3. Pay and receive a receipt of re-registration from RMS/Service NSW. Rates vary based on type of vehicle, and commercial or private use.
Pensioner Concession Card holders are exempt from paying re-registration fees (but not exempt for CTP insurance or rego-check fees) for their first light vehicle, boat trailer and caravan.
https://www.service.nsw.gov.au/transaction/renew-vehicle-registration#how-to-renew
Note that NSW CTP insurance is NOT vehicle comprehensive car insurance, or vehicle third party, fire and theft insurance – these are extra insurances/costs, but not mandatory for NSW registration of light vehicles.
It seems fair to me that EV’s should be paying something towards road upkeep. Bridges, overpasses, complex inter-changes, road surface maintenance, road widening, road markings, exits from a major highway to a local township, repairs of all types due to floods etc are all part of the picture..
There;s also the old ‘tyranny of distance’ problem. It’s one thing to spray hot tar on a surface that’s 5 km away, not so easy when its 125 km.away somewhere between Tweed Heads and Taree, and the highway is 4 lanes wide, not 2, So, there’s the need for storage of materials, moving very large and expensive equipment around so the job gets done faster, accommodation for workers, all that kind of stuff.
Along with that are shared responsibilities. Local councils are usually responsible for maintaining roads within their LGA, State Gvmts take responsibility for their state highways ( a ‘highway’ is not just roads such the MI motorway either), As well, property developers usually have to contribute towards the internal roads and drainage systems within a large property development,
So, there’s much more going on than just the wear and tear on the road surfaces, and EV owners should contribute towards those other costs.
While I agree with the sentiments here that it’s currently a bit daft to start imposing costs on EVs that even further discourage the take up of the technology, it doesn’t change the fact that at some point in the nearish future govts will have to find a solution to replacing the revenue they currently get from fuel excise. The commonly sprouted logic that fuel taxes don’t pay for roads now as it just goes into consolidated revenue, while technically true, doesn’t really cut it either- money is money and even with creative accounting there is still a pretty good connection between the raising and the spending of it.
It seems pretty inevitable and equitable that those who gain a benefit from the roads etc contribute to the provision of them with at least some relationship between their amount of benefit with the amount of contribution. Especially so if some of us can avoid some of that contribution (gst on power) by generating it yourself from your roof.
While this solution is clearly dumb, that doesn’t mean we don’t need to find an alternative pretty soon and start having sensible conversations a bit more sophisticated than ‘EV’s should not pay taxes because they are less harmful than your gas guzzler.’
Andrew, as an EV owner I don’t actually see that an EV rebate followed by a tax on driving it is all that illogical overall.
The up front cost of an EV is the barrier to ownership for most people. There’s a long term fuel savings, but if you have to finance the thing, the lendor doesn’t take that into consideration.
Canada’s federal government put up $300 million for EV rebates in May 2019 so far has spent $255 million and with an election coming that may be all there is, ever. They’re going with the ‘stick’ approach of a carbon tax that ramps up to $170 a ton by 2030, so a tax on coal and gas generation.
Hi Andrew
Does the carbon tax extend to gasoline, diesel fuel?
I’m guessing the vast majority of vehicles in Canada, like in Australia, are not EV’s.
Note with interest that over 35 million vehicles were registered in Canada in 2018 – ALL of which will need to be changed over to electric if GHG emissions are to be curtailed in the near-term.
So, in reality the $300 million relates to an effective rebate of less than $10 per vehicle. If the carbon tax does relate to gasoline/diesel, then vehicles using these fuels will soon be priced out of existence (good), but perhaps then there will be less incentive for EV manufacturers to lower prices (bad). The only saving grace will be economies of scale, and competition – I do hope this works out.
Hi Randy
As a prospective EV owner myself I’d love to see the various levels of Aus governments encourage what I see as both desirable and inevitable – more usage of EVs and less usage of squashed dinosaurs. In the Australian context it should be a no brainer even for the biggest climate sceptic because replacing imported oil with the essentially limitless local electricity generation (including from coal if you must) seems crazy to dismiss. Unfortunately the idea of carbon taxes has been so poisoned politically here, and the likes of the Greens aren’t blameless here, means I can’t see them being much of a tool to drive the uptake. Subsidies that drive uptake and scale and rolled back as costs dropped seemed effective for solar here so perhaps something similar should be tried for EV
EV’s will at some point have to contribute to the cost of the network they use. However, having states going independently and using a state tax (as the Vics are proposing) to essentially replace a federal tax seems like one of the worst ways of doing it. As someone living in a outer urban/ semi rural area it also concerns me that a simple mileage charge is pretty inequitable.
Does the tax extend to gasoline and diesel fuel? Yes, of course. They’re hydrocarbon fuels. All the existing transportation fuel, excise, and sales taxes are staying as well as the Crown petroleum royalties.
It’s also a tax on coal, gas, and diesel powered electricity, so bad luck for those of us in Alberta or Saskatchewan, except we can and do put solar on the rooftop.
Re the rebate, no, it’s 300 million allocated, of which 255 million is already gone at $5,000 each car under $45,000. It may well never be topped up, so the choice will soon be to pay the fuel taxes or buy an EV with your own money.
The EV manufacturers as yet haven’t reached anywhere near the scale of production that could replace all the vehicles in Canada.
One thing about EVs that some in warmer climates don’t experience is the enormous energy drain of cold weather operation in the world’s coldest country.. And passenger cars aren’t the largest source of CO2 emissions in Canada, induatry, building space heating, and heavy transport are.
It’s an enormous challenge, soon to ne made even more difficult by the shutdown of all 8 reactors at Pickering and increased gas power generation.
I’m a little uncertain about our use of subsidies to encourage the uptake and cost reduction of rooftop PV – which even now Lazard’s LCOE suggests is a method of producing energy about 5 times more costly than Utility Solar, or Wind – despite rooftop’s mammoth cost reductions.
I suspect instead this was a means to have us cough up 50% of the “ready cash” – in order to boost economies of scale.
Has even been suggested we get our own self-use at a sort of “wholesale” price (of our local energy) – yet Ronald’s rate-of-return calculations actually uses Grid Retail cost, and then only on the non-subsidised cost. Ok for us, but someone is paying for the subsidies (us, in the end?), so I’d think subsidising Utility Solar would have given us more “bang for the buck” (and still will).
Nevertheless, I too looked at becoming an EV owner – even test-drove a Tesla Model S when in Melbourne. Thought I could use my excess rooftop PV to charge it – rather than accept the pitiful 7 cent FiT here in Perth – now 3 cents…!
Alas, the “S” was then the ONLY EV that could meet my minimum range requirements (pre- Model 3), but excessively priced for my rather modest use requirements. So, I’m still using petrol – and will almost certainly continue with this for quite some time (unless BIG price reductions). I doubt subsidies will help me. Pity – I liked the “S”…!
Agree 100% Andrew
Do the Maths! A $3000 grant will cost $3,600 inc Administration costs.
Collecting 2.5cents will net 2 cents after admin. So its 180,00klm to break even! all Vic Govt does is cause is market disruption and the tax payer loses. So drop the tax and the subsidy and we will be better off.
The following information is available from VicRoads.vic.gov.au site ZLEV road-user charge exemptions
“The ZLEV road-user charge applies to the distance travelled by registered Victorian ZLEVs.
ZLEV motorcycles are excluded from road-user charges.”
However I wonder how legal the following is ?
“Kilometres travelled interstate are not exempt from the ZLEV road-user charge.”
“however there is one circumstance for which vehicle usage would be exempt:
Use on private roads – distances travelled by ZLEVs on private roads or agricultural lands”
The process of submitting a photograph of the ZLEV odometer with the car being identified by serial number, now has a penalty for avoidance being …. the loss of Vic licence.
“The ZLEV tax is to be levied on all interstate Roads travelled as well as in Victoria.”
Eg Travelling north by car to Queensland for warmth in Winter has an additional expense.
There is almost nothing that the Victorian government does that I believe is good. However, the tax on EV’s is something that I agree with, in principle. EVs are going to use the roads so the owners should have to pay for the maintenance of existing roads and the building of new ones. Some of the tax from petrol goes to paying for that. Why should EV drivers get free travel on roads that other pay for? Of course, this is predicated on the government putting the tax on EVs into roads. Do we trust them to do the right thing? Not on the past record.
The problem is internal combustion engine vehicles are causing harm they’re not currently paying for. We could make internal combustion vehicles pay the full cost of their operation and let the market sort it out, but that doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon.
The question of climate change harm caused by vehicles has a very direct answer in the form of carbon emissions taxes.
Some opposition to carbon taxes may be rooted in a dislike of nuclear power, as a 2012 EIA report estimated that nuclear power would almist completely replace coal with a carbon tax over $25 a ton. Canada’s tax started at $30 and the ‘coal’ provinces are all investing in nuclear.
Canada’s tax is now $50 a ton, on every way to not freeze to death except burning wood or using electricity, no exceptions or exemptions.
John Deere is in final development of an ethanol injector for diesel engines. It would convert a diesel engine to 100% ethanol fuel at high efficiency, so we’re not so far from farms running on nothing but biofuel and solar electricity.
Victoria isn’t the only jurisdiction with an electric vehicle tax either. Saskatchewan has a $150 annual electric vehicle tax on its 600 elecyric cars, but also has a new Tesla service center and salea of EVs are brisk, even for the more expensive cars that don’t qualify for the $5,000 federal purchase rebate.
Randy WESTER,
“Some opposition to carbon taxes may be rooted in a dislike of nuclear power, as a 2012 EIA report estimated that nuclear power would almist completely replace coal with a carbon tax over $25 a ton.”
Why refer to a 2012 (i.e. a decade old) Energy Information Administration (EIA) report? Why not refer to a much more recent one (with more recent data), Randy?
I’d suggest the EIA provides second-to-none free and public data and analyses of current and historical conditions in energy markets. However, when it comes to forecasting the future, the EIA’s crystal ball appears to be clouded by persistent biases and errors.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/274869-an-energy-agencys-forecasting-flaws/
Similarly, I’d suggest the International Energy Agency (IEA) also has a poor track record on predictions, particularly when it involves renewables.
See Ronald’s post, which includes an example of a graph of annual PV additions: historic data vs IEA predictions.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/russian-invasion-iea-nuclear/
“Canada’s tax started at $30 and the ‘coal’ provinces are all investing in nuclear.”
What’s there to show for these “investments”, Randy?
What nuclear reactor units are being planned for siting within the coal provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, and when are they anticipated to be operational?
Why refer to a 2012 report? For the same reason that ‘climate justice’ keyboard warriers keep going back to the internal memos and reports of Exxon from the 1960’s.
It describes a road not taken 10 years ago, that very likely would have been taken if PM Thatcher’s address to the U.N. had been taken seriously. My opinion is that without an actual carbon tax that makes emissions a real monetary cost that everyone pays, Greta was right about ’empty words’.
France saw the very real strategic threat of relying on foreigners for something as basic as electricity, and went with nuclear power in response.
Canada did the same in Ontario, but in Alberta and Saskatchewan coal was still cheaper, and there just wasn’t much money. The IEA report is 10 years old and predicted a nuclear buildout for 2030.
Canada’s carbon tax is still in flux, but it has already forced a rapid conversion from coal to gas in Alberta. The IEA prediction was for 2030, 18 years out, and a CANDU reactor takes 4 to 6 years to construct. So it’s fairly probable for 2040. On the other hand, if environmental damage were no obstacle, we’ll see another 6 GW of hydro development that backs up 12 GW of wind capacity.
British Columbia, btw, sells metallurgic grade coal to China, but there are no electricity generators in that province using coal. Alberta *imports* more hydroelectricity from B.C. than is generated *within* Alberta.
My personal opinion is that Canada should endeavour to supply Europe with all the oil, gas, and coal it would need in order to stop using Russian products this time around, until a lasting peace can be secured. But at a price that would pretty much bleed them white. We’re bloody tired of sending our boys over there to be shot at, over various petty five hundred year old greivances between people who live in the most habitable climate on Earth. I’d like to see them fight the next war with sticks and rocks because that’s all they’ll be able to afford, because Europe no longer needs to import Russian energy.