Cheap ride for EV users coming to an end ??

[Deleted member 126251]

From a congestion point of view smart motorways work.

..........

Yep people avoid them......

 

[del320]

The obvious parameter on which to base VED taxation on EVs is the battery size in kW.hrs.
On account of not all the electricity used to propel them being generated from renewables (only 60% or so) and that use of EVs drives demand which incurs more fossil fuel generation, EVs should be taxed to represent their energy consumption - at circa 40% of petrol/diesel fuel duty/VAT. Basing that on annual mileage would be the quickest and simplest way to implement it. Battery size could also be factored in to reflect actual energy consumption.

Perhaps my 'erudite' post #20 at the foot of the first page was missed! Differentiation must be made between the type and power of EVs. A vague claim that motorists would be no worse off under a new tax regime is baloney. If the guy who presently chooses, or has no option but, to run a cheap econo-box was to pay no more, then it follows that the owner of a Taycan or AMG will be quids in - based purely on a mileage travelled basis.

As I stated, factoring in time of day, type of road etc, would bring such over-complication that invasive tracking would be inevitable.

Perhaps clawing back lost revenue through general taxation might be seen as an alternative?

 

[Bellow]

Perhaps clawing back lost revenue through general taxation might be seen as an alternative?

I suspect that that is exactly what is being avoided.
Downing Street's new policy chief wants to ''rapidly' return to Tory tax cuts'.

 

[st13phil]

Perhaps clawing back lost revenue through general taxation might be seen as an alternative?

Ignoring the political implications of doing so, that would make a great deal of sense as some 80% of tax revenues from transport go into the general taxation "pot". Perhaps that, plus a vignette type system for foreign registered vehicles entering the country?

But however sensible it may be, it would be viewed as tantamount to political suicide after decades of "green" campaigning that personal transport (other than on foot or a bicycle) should be verboten.

 

[markjay]

The obvious parameter on which to base VED taxation on EVs is the battery size in kW.hrs.
On account of not all the electricity used to propel them being generated from renewables (only 60% or so) and that use of EVs drives demand which incurs more fossil fuel generation, EVs should be taxed to represent their energy consumption - at circa 40% of petrol/diesel fuel duty/VAT. Basing that on annual mileage would be the quickest and simplest way to implement it. Battery size could also be factored in to reflect actual energy consumption.

Battery size? Why? Would you tax ICE cars based on fuel tank size?

Fully agree with smart per-mile charging for all to replace VED and fuel duty. To achieve this we will need to deal with the Liberaternians on the 'big brother' fears, though.

By 'smart' I mean per-mille charging based on road congestion, time-of-day etc, as well other circumstances (e.g. disabled people, volunteer paramedics, etc).

 

[Bellow]

Battery size? Why? Would you tax ICE cars based on fuel tank size?

The battery is the engine in an EV.
The bigger the battery, the heavier and more accelerative the vehicle is - which impacts directly on energy consumed.

Fully agree with smart per-mile charging for all to replace VED and fuel duty. To achieve this we will need to deal with the Liberaternians on the 'big brother' fears, though.

Nope. Factor in battery size and it can be based on annual mileage between MOTs.

By 'smart' I mean per-mille charging based on road congestion, time-of-day etc, as well other circumstances (e.g. disabled people, volunteer paramedics, etc).

Del 320 (see post #20, page #1) makes it clear why this is undesirable.

 

[st13phil]

By 'smart' I mean per-mille charging based on road congestion, time-of-day etc

Why? What is the justification for variable rate charging according to congestion or time-of-day?

 

[markjay]

The battery is the engine in an EV.
The bigger the battery, the heavier and more accelerative the vehicle is - which impacts directly on energy consumed.

The battery on an EV is both the fuel tank and the engine. But you know that...

The battery size also implies the maximum power output possible via the motor, though not the actual one.

The battery output is managed by the onboard computer.

It's the motor's capability to cope with the power and torque that counts, not the battery's theoretical ability to melt-down the motor.....

The motor is rated in BHP, like ICE cars. Taxing EVs based on actual maximum output through the motor and managed by the computer, as opposed to the theoretical maximum output possible by the battery size, is more akin to how ICE cars are taxed (and insured) now, i.e. as opposed to simply taxing (and insuring) cars based on engine displacement as was the case in the olden days. So battery-size charging will be a retrograde step.

All of the above is relevant IF you want top tax EVs differently to ICE cars. This will always carry the risk that EVs will be taxed more favourably.

My argument is that we do not need more cars on the roads, EVs or otherwise. As I pointed-out, EVs are more city-centre friendly, so let local Councils incentive their use if they so wish. But at state level, all cars should be taxed to the same criteria.

Why? What is the justification for variable rate charging according to congestion or time-of-day?

The same logic as off-peak ticket rates on trains?

 

[st13phil]

The same logic as off-peak ticket rates on trains?

That's a fixed capacity intermittent service that runs to a timetable, so it makes sense to incentivise those who can travel outside peak times to do so.

By contrast, roads are a continuous service - albeit with a finite capacity - with no fixed timetable. As I mentioned in a post earlier in this thread, road congestion is self-limiting as users will choose to travel at different times to avoid (as far as possible) hold-ups. So why the need to add another "incentive"? (Clue: to raise revenue)

The reality is that congestion charging is a highly regressive form of taxation that affects most those least able to vary their travel times (mostly the lower paid) and those for which public transport is not a viable option, such as trades people carrying tools and equipment.

 

[Deleted member 126251]

Perhaps my 'erudite' post #20 at the foot of the first page was missed! Differentiation must be made between the type and power of EVs. A vague claim that motorists would be no worse off under a new tax regime is baloney. If the guy who presently chooses, or has no option but, to run a cheap econo-box was to pay no more, then it follows that the owner of a Taycan or AMG will be quids in - based purely on a mileage travelled basis.

As I stated, factoring in time of day, type of road etc, would bring such over-complication that invasive tracking would be inevitable.

Perhaps clawing back lost revenue through general taxation might be seen as an alternative?

My son is getting a Taycan in a few months. IIRC he was saying that, because of the perks associated with EVs, the Taycan is going to cost him less than his current ICE E53 AMG (will be 3 years old). I mentioned before that the irony of the whole EV/ICE (in his case) is that when he does long trips to their subsidiaries (not that often) , he will need to use his wife's Q9 diesel........

 

[ChrisHGTV]

How about just taxing cyclists that are using electrically assisted bicycles, the lazy sods.

Ha ha. I have to admit i was a bit of a naysayer about electric bikes. But then an old colleague at work got one - and it basically meant he could commute in on the bike rather than by car (it was about 15 miles each way). I had a go- it was actually really quite addictive so i got off sharpish lest i be tempted. When last in the NL and Belgium there were loads of folk out on them - and a large number of "older" folk out in big groups just for a ride. That i think is a real positive - you still have to pedal.

 

[Tonye]

you still have to pedal.

Not on my old twist and go, the wife's new bike you have to pedal but i am going to do a mod on it, ie put the magnet ring on the front wheel with a new censor, once you are moving no need to pedal, just touch any brake to trip the motor out to slow down.

 

[Bellow]

The motor is rated in BHP, like ICE cars. Taxing EVs based on actual maximum output through the motor and managed by the computer, as opposed to the theoretical maximum output possible by the battery size, is more akin to how ICE cars are taxed (and insured) now, i.e. as opposed to simply taxing (and insuring) cars based on engine displacement as was the case in the olden days. So battery-size charging will be a retrograde step.

HP (of the motor(s)) or kW.hrs of the battery - it doesn't much matter so long as the energy consumed in moving the car is accounted for. There's a world of difference in the energy required to propel your Ionic 5 or a Citroen Ami. That needs to be reflected in the taxation system and, by using battery size as a parameter the sheer amount of energy (and CO2 created) expended in manufacturing the battery is also recognised.

My argument is that we do not need more cars on the roads, EVs or otherwise. As I pointed-out, EVs are more city-centre friendly, so let local Councils incentive their use if they so wish. But at state level, all cars should be taxed to the same criteria.

All cars are not taxed equally at 'state level' And unless that happens soon expect a backlash from the public that could influence the next GE and the whole decarbonising project.

 

[ChipChop]

Ha ha. I have to admit i was a bit of a naysayer about electric bikes. But then an old colleague at work got one - and it basically meant he could commute in on the bike rather than by car (it was about 15 miles each way). I had a go- it was actually really quite addictive so i got off sharpish lest i be tempted. When last in the NL and Belgium there were loads of folk out on them - and a large number of "older" folk out in big groups just for a ride. That i think is a real positive - you still have to pedal.

Indeed they do make sense for someone who maybe would be reticent to get back into or start cycling which is a great positive to the e-bike. I think quite a lot of people are a bit disappointed with the amount of effort you have to put into an e-bike to make good progress especially off road.

My e-bike tax comment was slightly flip but bearing in mind e-bikes are using valuable electricity that could be used in other, arguably more essential ways such as heating a pensioners home for example, then maybe a tax on there use should be considered when electricity becomes an ever more scarce and expensive resource.

But where does it stop. Carbon fibre bikes and parts for example cannot be recycled in any meaningful way so should they be disincentivized via a sales tax because of this.

 

[st13phil]

There's a world of difference in the energy required to propel your Ionic 5 or a Citroen Ami. That needs to be reflected in the taxation system and, by using battery size as a parameter the sheer amount of energy (and CO2 created) expended in manufacturing the battery is also recognised.

If you’re going down the tax rate according to battery capacity path, I’d also suggest another element based on vehicle mass, as the greater the mass the more energy it takes to accelerate it (and conversely, the more energy is wasted stopping it).

Make the “mass” element high enough and we may get the oversized Chelsea Tractor EV's off the road, too

 

[ChrisHGTV]

Indeed they do make sense for someone who maybe would be reticent to get back into or start cycling which is a great positive to the e-bike. I think quite a lot of people are a bit disappointed with the amount of effort you have to put into an e-bike to make good progress especially off road.

My e-bike tax comment was slightly flip but bearing in mind e-bikes are using valuable electricity that could be used in other, arguably more essential ways such as heating a pensioners home for example, then maybe a tax on there use should be considered when electricity becomes an ever more scarce and expensive resource.

But where does it stop. Carbon fibre bikes and parts for example cannot be recycled in any meaningful way so should they be disincentivized via a sales tax because of this.

For sure i think any use of energy “out of the tap” will/should eventually be taxed, if only to make people appreciate not to waste it.

Re carbon bikes, I think they should all be banned anyway - horrible jelly mould things! Ha ha partly in jest, I’m a staunch Ti, Steel and Aly fan! Though yes I do admit to having carbon bits!

One area I’d like to see real change is packaging waste. In our house there is just me and my wife and I wouldn’t say we’re huge consumers but we still manage to fill a big green recycling bin every two weeks. A lot of it is just unnecessary it seems, just to support branding or nefarious “looks bigger than it is” tactics. The energy required to create it, ship it and recycle it must be huge.

 

[markjay]

HP (of the motor(s)) or kW.hrs of the battery - it doesn't much matter so long as the energy consumed in moving the car is accounted for. There's a world of difference in the energy required to propel your Ionic 5 or a Citroen Ami. That needs to be reflected in the taxation system and, by using battery size as a parameter the sheer amount of energy (and CO2 created) expended in manufacturing the battery is also recognised.

What you say would make sense if cars were taxed based on kW consumed - not kWh stored. However, per-kW charging is only possible on public chargers, at current it is not possible to do with home chargers, which is why attempts to copy the ICE taxing modules for EV cars, will fail.

 

[Bellow]

What you say would make sense if cars were taxed based on kW consumed - not kWh stored. However, per-kW charging is only possible on public chargers, at current it is not possible to do with home chargers, which is why attempts to copy the ICE taxing modules for EV cars, will fail.

Essentially they are one and the same. KWhr stored capacity increases vehicle weight (which requires more energy usage to accelerate) and that stored capacity is specified to provide a decent range knowing that the vehicle consumes a high amount of energy to propel. Unless and until actual recharging consumption can be taxed, battery capacity and mileage covered are the parameters most likely to provide a figure to which tax can be levied according to CO2 emissions.
Battery capacity alone would suffice for a flat rate VED system as it incorporates CO2 created in manufacturing the battery and is to some degree progressive as it would be rising proportionally with the vehicle's retail price which can be assumed to reflect its owner's ability to afford it.

 

[BTB 500]

Battery capacity alone would suffice for a flat rate VED system as it incorporates CO2 created in manufacturing the battery and is to some degree progressive as it would be rising proportionally with the vehicle's retail price which can be assumed to reflect its owner's ability to afford it.

It would remove any link between tax revenue and usage though ... you'd pay the same whether the car was doing 2,000 or 20,000 miles a year.

 

[markjay]

Essentially they are one and the same. KWhr stored capacity increases vehicle weight (which requires more energy usage to accelerate) and that stored capacity is specified to provide a decent range knowing that the vehicle consumes a high amount of energy to propel. Unless and until actual recharging consumption can be taxed, battery capacity and mileage covered are the parameters most likely to provide a figure to which tax can be levied according to CO2 emissions.
Battery capacity alone would suffice for a flat rate VED system as it incorporates CO2 created in manufacturing the battery and is to some degree progressive as it would be rising proportionally with the vehicle's retail price which can be assumed to reflect its owner's ability to afford it.

But the same applies to ICE cars, no? Larger fuel tank means more weight (when full), meaning poorer mpg and more fuel (energy) consumed per mile. And yet we don't tax private ICE cars by weight. At all. Not even gross or net weight. We simply tax the fuel, the more the car consumers, the more the driver pays.

It seems to me that what this boils down to, is the EV lobby trying to tax ICE cars off the road, while the traditionalists retort by trying to tax EVs off the road.

But there's no need for extra creativity in taxing EVs... the only issue is that at current we don't know how to tax electricity from home chargers, otherwise it would have been very easy to put EV taxations on-par with ICE cars.

This may soon be resolved, though - my understanding is that new building regulations will require the installation of home chargers that are fed from a different supply (and meter) which will enable utilities companies to match taxation to that currently only possible on public chargers.