Electric cars?

[qldfrog]

Might be more reliable than Russian gas supply though.

There not much reliability in putting more energy/money than you get backbetter by a ton of coal and pile it up
Oil lpg as well but harder to store
Wind is much better in these areas, and obviously hydro which is not yet at 100% coverage
The Southern part of France is another story and there are even solar farm plans over the Mediterranean sea which technically/economically make sense.
Strategically is another matter...
The US might decide to blow the cable next if the EU is not economically gone by then, unless it is Islamic State... confusion in that area,..ask Syrians...
Anyway crazy idea but perfect woke decision

 

[Value Collector]

There not much reliability in putting more energy/money than you get backbetter by a ton of coal and pile it up
Oil lpg as well but harder to store
Wind is much better in these areas, and obviously hydro which is not yet at 100% coverage
The Southern part of France is another story and there are even solar farm plans over the Mediterranean sea which technically/economically make sense.
Strategically is another matter...
The US might decide to blow the cable next if the EU is not economically gone by then, unless it is Islamic State... confusion in that area,..ask Syrians...
Anyway crazy idea but perfect woke decision

According to these solar resource maps, France looks pretty good to me, even the northern areas are similar to Melbourne/Victoria which isn’t as great as Queensland, but still economical and pretty decent.

 

[JohnDe]

The media has been reporting that the EU is banning ICEV's, but this is not true. The legislation passed by the EU parliament "states that automakers must reduce CO2 emissions from new cars to zero by 2035."

It takes effect in 2035.​

The European Union took another step today toward banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars. The Parliament approved the new CO2 emissions reduction targets last year, with the latest vote finally pushing the legislation into law. It states that automakers must reduce CO2 emissions from new cars to zero by 2035.

Automakers will have another target to reach before the cutoff date. The law states that automakers must slash CO2 emissions by 55 percent for new cars and by 50 percent for vans by 2030. The next several years will also see the EU alter its zero- and low-emission vehicle incentives, removing them entirely by 2030.

Automakers that produce between 1,000 and 10,000 new cars a year could have until 2036 to meet the emissions targets. Manufacturers registering fewer than 1,000 new vehicles per year could continue to be exempt from the new rules.

The new law effectively bans the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars in the 27-member bloc. However, it doesn’t specifically mention banning internal combustion engines as the law dictates the emissions targets and not how they are achieved. This leaves open the door for synthetic fuels and hydrogen power.

Porsche began synthetic fuel production late last year, which is just one avenue for automakers looking outside of battery-electric vehicles. Even Lamborghini expressed interest in exploring alternative fuels, with Toyota experimenting with hydrogen-fueled combustion engines. The future isn’t set on BEVs just yet.

The Road To No More ICE:​

• Germany Pushes Back On 2035 Combustion Engine Ban Proposal
• European Union Agrees To Ban Sales Of New Gasoline And Diesel Cars From 2035

While 2035 is 12 years away, the new law will have global ramifications as automakers work to adhere to it. Many companies have already announced plans to transition their lineups exclusively to battery-electric vehicles. Ford announced in 2021 that it plans to sell only electric cars in Europe by 2030, supporting the bloc’s 2035 ban. Mini, Volkswagen, Jaguar, Bentley, and others are following a similar path toward electrifying their lineups.

In the US, states are banning the sale of gasoline and diesel cars in place of federal regulations. California approved a ruling in August 2022, followed by Oregon in December, effectively banning the sale of new combustion-powered cars. New York is another state implementing such a ban.

 

[JohnDe]

"EV's BIGGEST problem & NOW The US Government NEEDS Tesla!"

 

[mullokintyre]

In the field of Automobiles, there have been a couple of interesting developments, plus some scary ones.
Firstly, Ford has dumped its shares in Rivian, and taken a 10billion writedown on its investment. (see The driven )
Fords problems continue as it has had to halt production of the F150 on battery issues ( see zero hedge ).

With Tesla stock soaring (and price cuts already hurting competitors' margins), Ford shares are sliding after the carmaker announced that it has paused production and shipments of its electric F-150 Lightning pickup due to a potential battery issue.

And from CNBC

DETROIT – Ford Motor reported an ugly fourth quarter, missing Wall Street’s earnings expectations and falling short of its own full-year guidance by $1.1 billion, as the company reported “execution issues” that plagued operations.

Ford’s fourth-quarter net income was $1.3 billion, $11 billion lower than the same period a year earlier. For the full year, Ford lost $2 billion, nearly $20 billion off its 2021 profit.

however, despite all this being good for Tesla , it has had its own issues this week.
From Zero hedge

No sooner did we write about how Tesla's sales in China were perking up to start the new year thanks to price cuts, than it looks as though the increase in demand may be falling off to start the new month.

That was the topic of a new GLJ Research note to clients on Tuesday morning. Analyst Gordon Johnson looked at the company's weekly China deliveries for the week of February 6th to February 12th and noted an apparent plunge in demand.

While the "trend" only looks to have been for one week so far, it is worth keeping an eye on, especially because Tesla has once again raised prices in China (as we noted days ago). Whether or not this was in response to the fall in demand or the cause of it remains unclear.

Johnson wrote to clients: "In short, as detailed in Ex. 1 below, we remind our readers that in TSLA’s most important/profitable market of China, on Jan. 5th, 2023, due to lackluster demand, the company resorted to sharp price cuts across its suite of cars in China, to include: (a) -17.0% for the Model 3 SR, (b) -5.7% for the Model 3 P, (c) -13.4% for both the Model Y SR and Model Y LR, and (d) -9.6% for the Model Y P."
Recall we wrote last week that the price of a Model Y had risen again to 261,900 Yuan. The price of the vehicle had been cut to 259,900 Yuan on January 6th from its original price of 288,900.

He continues, noting the fall off in sales for the second week of February: "And, as detailed in Ex. 2 below, while these cuts resulted in a (mild) short-term boost in demand, this week TSLA sold just 6.963K cars in China, domestically, or a FRACTION of the roughly 17.734K adjusted cars/week TSLA produced in Shanghai in January 2023 (i.e., 58.270K cars produced ÷ [31 days in Jan. – 8 days of Shanghai plant shutdown in Jan.] = 2.534K adjusted cars produced/day in Jan.)."

"Stated differently, TSLA sold just 39% of its Shanghai adjusted production, domestically, this week," Johnson says.

And finally, we get the unsurprisng news that for many Americans, the idea of a new car, whether it be an EV or an ICE engined car , is totally off the radar. from Zero hedge again

New vehicle affordability continues to sour as high-interest rates and soaring monthly payments have prevented many middle-class folks from owning a shiny new car.

Let's begin with the Cox Automotive/Moody's Analytics Vehicle Affordability Index that shows new vehicle affordability hit a record low in 2022. The number of median weeks of income needed to purchase a new vehicle hit a record high of 44 weeks. Before the pandemic, the index hovered between 33-35 weeks for nearly a decade.
It's important to note some of the affordability issues plaguing the middle class. The first is the average monthly auto payment has hit a record high of $777, almost doubling from late 2019, according to Kelley Blue Book owner Cox Automotive.

For a decade, the average new-car payment in the US bumped along at roughly $400 a month. That's about as much as the typical American household can shell out and still meet other major expenses, said Jonathan Smoke, chief economist at Cox. But it crossed that mark in November 2019 and has been soaring ever since. -Bloomberg
JPMorgan's data shows new car prices have also hit a record high of $50,000. This figure has jumped 30% since 2019. Add soaring interest rates to the mix, and it appears the era of every American owning a new car has ended for now.

However, the middle class has gravitated towards used cars. Cox data shows the average one costs around $27,000 -- about half the price of a new car.

Besides the affordability crisis driven by high-interest rates and rising prices, there's also a major issue with tight inventories of new cars among automakers. Bloomberg said:

In the US, automakers customarily carried 60 to 100 days of inventory. These days, manufacturers are targeting about half that much to lower overheads and keep prices high.
"We'll never go back to the inventory levels that we were at in the past," GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra told investors last year.
The bad news for the middle class is that wholesale used car prices are beginning to re-accelerate after a year of sliding, though they remain 64% higher than Covid lows.
Mark Wakefield, managing director at consulting firm AlixPartners, said: "You've seen a move to more wealthy people buying cars."

While the wealthy purchase new cars, everyone else is buying used junkers. And after many middle-class and low-income families have been battered by 21 months of negative real wages, personal savings depleted, and credit cards maxed out, their ability to afford a new car in the years ahead plummets, ensuring the used car market will remain robust as more people than ever will be driving older and older cars.

It's a great time to be a mechanic.

Given that most of the EV brands are higher price brackets than many ICE versions, one might expect to see EV vehicles hit somewhat harder.
I would not ve surprised if this was to be replicated in Australia, as the hordes of people critically reactive to housing mortgage rates reassess things.
Mick

 

[JohnDe]

In the field of Automobiles, there have been a couple of interesting developments, plus some scary ones.
Firstly, Ford has dumped its shares in Rivian, and taken a 10billion writedown on its investment. (see The driven )
Fords problems continue as it has had to halt production of the F150 on battery issues ( see zero hedge ).

And from CNBC

however, despite all this being good for Tesla , it has had its own issues this week.
From Zero hedge

And finally, we get the unsurprisng news that for many Americans, the idea of a new car, whether it be an EV or an ICE engined car , is totally off the radar. from Zero hedge again


Given that most of the EV brands are higher price brackets than many ICE versions, one might expect to see EV vehicles hit somewhat harder.
I would not ve surprised if this was to be replicated in Australia, as the hordes of people critically reactive to housing mortgage rates reassess things.
Mick

Your theory sounds plausible, though some of the source info is questionable.

Are insurance registrations a true indicator of sales?

Is it prudent to assess USA new car sales by boxing in all the states into one category?

Goes to show how difficult it is for investors. Do we hold, buy or sell with the news given to us?

 

[JohnDe]

This looks good, but it would want to have an extraordinary battery range for countries like ours.

Ineos has confirmed that its first electric vehicle will follow in the footsteps of its Grenadier pilot model, offering a serious all-terrain option wrapped up in a zero-emissions package.

The imminent Grenadier has already proven its off-road mettle in an adventure across Scotland’s frozen central Highlands powered by BMW’s silky six-cylinder petrol and diesel engines, but its maker says the first electric Ineos will continue the family tradition of go-anywhere-ability.

Speaking at the international launch of the Grenadier in Scotland, Ineos Automotive's commercial director, Mark Tennant, said capable 4x4 vehicles for adventurous customers are what Ineos is all about.


6
“We do see off-road as being a big part of the growing DNA of the Ineos Automotive brand for sure,” he said.

“The page was blank five years ago. We’ve done some quite significant scribbling on that page from a brand point of view that gives us the sort of product we’ve been driving over the last couple of days. That for me will be the cornerstone of what Ineos stands for, for the long term."

Tennant wouldn’t reveal many technical details about the second Ineos model, but confirmed its EV would offer respectable off-road ability, despite significant mechanical differences to the Grenadier.


6
“From a battery-electric point of view, it will still have some pretty impressive off-road credentials, it’s not going to be a ladder chassis – it’ll be a skateboard base vehicle, but we’re still pushing our engineers to make sure it can do some impressive things.

“It won’t be by definition quite what the Grenadier is, but it’ll still be pretty bloody good.”

While Ineos is confident of its EV ability when the road comes to an end, critical battery life, towing capacity, and overall range will be just as important to a local audience when it comes to Australian off-road adventures and feasibility, and Ineos is yet to offer a claimed driving range.



Like the BMW partnership required to bring the Grenadier to life, Ineos will recruit the expertise of third-party engineering specialists to develop and build its electric off-roader, but is not ready to confirm exactly which suppliers will provide the major building blocks including battery, drive motors and power management systems.

However, it can be confirmed that existing macro manufacturing partner Magna would be assigned to assist with development and construction.

“We’re working with Magna for the engineering. That’s the first building block, but it’s a bit premature in terms of the partners beyond that. We’re still a small entity and we bring in the expertise where it’s appropriate.



“We’re at a stage where we need to build the credibility and we get a lot of imparted credibility from some of the people we’re working with.”

For now, Ineos is only talking about its first two models, but a recent memorandum of understanding with Hyundai resulted in a Grenadier prototype powered by a hydrogen fuel-cell.

This could offer a glimpse at how the company is looking to future-proof its first model while developing a sustainable drivetrain that could find use in others.

“We’re very excited to be doing a battery-electric vehicle, but for this sort of vehicle, the Grenadier and things that are bigger, we think hydrogen represents a really good alternative.


6
“There’s still some work to be done on the BEV side, but absolutely it would be great if we could look at broadening the range of what we’re pursuing as our range of alternatives,” said Tennant. “There’s a lot of lessons to be learned – probably good and bad – from that tipping point that EVs are coming to.”

According to Tennant, the future of sustainable transport is not necessarily about one type of drivetrain that will prevail but a combination of all feasible options including battery electric, hybrid and hydrogen depending on the application.

“There’s been massive focus on battery electric and that technology, including infrastructure, is much further advanced than hydrogen, but I think it’s worth keeping the focus on what could be a mixed economy.”

 

[sptrawler]

We did ask the question as soon as the States suggested it, "how can the States charge a road tax, to cover the cost of loss of fuel excise", when fuel excise is a Federal tax. ?

Well here is the latest update on it, a long read but very important in the context of E.V's, if anyone is interested.

Should the states charge EV owners for every kilometre?

A challenge to a charge on electric cars using roads has sparked a legal stoush between the states and the Commonwealth. Why?

www.theage.com.au

There are just over 83,000 electric vehicles on Australian roads, almost half of them bought in 2022. That number is expected to grow exponentially, with the ACT already planning to ban the sale of new petrol cars in 2035.

An attempt to make these electric car owners pay to drive on public roads has now turned into a high-stakes legal stoush pitting the Commonwealth against the states and territories.

The case, brought by two EV owners, has landed in the High Court. At stake is not only the future of how we pay to use and maintain our roads, but also how states can tax their citizens.
Most motorists don’t know it, but Australia has long had a road tax: the fuel excise levy, which has just gone up from 45 cents to 47 on every litre of petrol. An average driver pays $715 or so a year in fuel excises – but, of course, if your car doesn’t run on petrol, you’re not paying this.

Except in Victoria. There, since July 2021 if you drive an electric car you’ve had to pay for every kilometre you travel – now 2.6 cents – under the first scheme in Australia to get EV owners to pay to use public roads. The average EV driver ends up forking out about $350 a year. And the Andrews government says that’s only fair. NSW and Western Australia plan to impose their own EV road-user charges from 2027.
Now two Victorian EV owners, Chris Vanderstock and Kathleen Davies, have taken the fight to Canberra. They’ve teamed up with climate change law specialists Equity Generation Lawyers to challenge Victoria’s Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act in the High Court.
The federal government intervened in the case to support Vanderstock and Davies. All the other states and territories back Victoria. It’s not so much David and Goliath as states versus feds. That’s a big stoush, and it could have far-reaching consequences.

“It’s not really about the electric vehicle charge,” says Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck. “The broader and more important issue is about the full scope of the states’ ability to raise taxation revenue.”
Section 90 of the Constitution says only the Commonwealth has the power to impose excises – but exactly what an excise is has been hotly debated. The High Court has taken various positions over the years, in cases over state and territory licences to sell alcohol, cigarettes and, in one case against the ACT, pornographic videotapes.
In the landmark 1997 case Ha v New South Wales, the court decided (four judgments to three) that NSW tobacco licensing fees were unconstitutional because they were partly calculated on the volume of cigarettes sold, and a tax on volume is an excise. This stopped the states from taxing not only tobacco but alcohol and petrol too. That was a big blow to states’ ability to fill their own coffers.

Beck says the question has lain dormant until now: states have been less inclined to impose goods-related taxes since the federal government introduced a GST in 2000 – the states and territories get the revenue from this 10 per cent tax on goods and services. A Victorian win could clear the way for states to impose new taxes on the use of goods, he says. “It opens up potentially billions of dollars of additional revenue sources for the state.”
The EV case was heard by a full bench of the High Court (seven justices) over three days in Canberra this week. Victoria is arguing its EV charge is not an excise because it is levied on an activity – driving – and not on goods.
But Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court that any potential EV buyer would be influenced by the knowledge they would have to pay the road user charge, which distorted the market, just like a tax. “If we think the tendency of the tax is to do that ... then it can be an excise in just the same way as a sales tax can be because we do not permit states to distort the national market,” he said. “That is an exclusive power for the Commonwealth.”
Donaghue raised a hypothetical of Australia developing its own hydrogen-powered car industry and imposing federal tariffs on overseas-made models. If the EV charge was valid, it would mean states could “impose taxes to increase the cost of using locally produced ZLEVs [zero and low-emissions vehicles] and therefore work against the tariff policy that the Commonwealth was seeking to put in place,” he said. In other words, even if you take the position that the purpose of section 90 is not so much to constrain states broadly but merely to stop states interfering with federal tariffs, it’s still problematic.
If Victoria’s EV charge is thrown out, it will likely only be a reprieve for those motorists, with the Commonwealth expected to eventually introduce its own “road user charge”.

The federal government collects about $12 billion in fuel excise every year, which covers about a third of the cost of maintaining the nation’s road networks, but that will rapidly disappear if Australia follows the rest of the world and shifts to EVs.

National Transport Research Organisation CEO Michael Caltabiano says Australia urgently needs to find a replacement for fuel excise revenue as EV sales gather speed.
But Caltabiano says there are major complications in replacing a federal tax and funding regime with a patchwork of schemes confined within each state and territory.

“How do you equitably charge access? If we have eight different charging regimes, as you cross borders, what happens?” he says. “These are really complex problems that need to be solved as we move to a zero-emissions fleet, and we haven’t really engaged with the problem holistically.”

Loading
Australian Automobiles Association CEO Michael Bradley says he hopes the High Court case will “clarify which level of government will be tasked with developing a sustainable, equitable transport taxation system that allows governments to fund our roads”.
Victoria’s Solicitor-General lawyer Rowena Orr KC told the High Court this week if the court finds the state’s EV charge invalid, it could jeopardise a raft of other state levies such as those on poker machines, online gambling, ride-share companies and waste disposal.

The state may even lose the ability to impose a road congestion charge, like that used to manage traffic in central London, Orr said. “It is important for your honours to consider the purpose that those imperilled statutes serve and ... the consequences of rendering them invalid.”
Meanwhile, Donaghue told the court that states may be tempted to impose more, similar taxes as improving technology makes it easier for them to track how people use certain goods.

A decision from the court is not expected for at least a couple of months. Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at Sydney University, says a decision against Victoria could entrench the “extraordinarily” unbalanced relationship between the states and federal governments to “exacerbate a bad system and make it worse”.

“The Commonwealth has most of the power to collect taxes, whereas the states have most of the responsibility to spend ... and there are arguments about how that is done,” she says. “It’s really about the Commonwealth getting more power over the states and more spending power to then decide how money is spent.”

 

[Value Collector]

We did ask the question as soon as the States suggested it, "how can the States charge a road tax, to cover the cost of loss of fuel excise", when fuel excise is a Federal tax. ?

Well here is the latest update on it, a long read but very important in the context of E.V's, if anyone is interested.

Should the states charge EV owners for every kilometre?

A challenge to a charge on electric cars using roads has sparked a legal stoush between the states and the Commonwealth. Why?

www.theage.com.au

There are just over 83,000 electric vehicles on Australian roads, almost half of them bought in 2022. That number is expected to grow exponentially, with the ACT already planning to ban the sale of new petrol cars in 2035.

An attempt to make these electric car owners pay to drive on public roads has now turned into a high-stakes legal stoush pitting the Commonwealth against the states and territories.

The case, brought by two EV owners, has landed in the High Court. At stake is not only the future of how we pay to use and maintain our roads, but also how states can tax their citizens.
Most motorists don’t know it, but Australia has long had a road tax: the fuel excise levy, which has just gone up from 45 cents to 47 on every litre of petrol. An average driver pays $715 or so a year in fuel excises – but, of course, if your car doesn’t run on petrol, you’re not paying this.

Except in Victoria. There, since July 2021 if you drive an electric car you’ve had to pay for every kilometre you travel – now 2.6 cents – under the first scheme in Australia to get EV owners to pay to use public roads. The average EV driver ends up forking out about $350 a year. And the Andrews government says that’s only fair. NSW and Western Australia plan to impose their own EV road-user charges from 2027.
Now two Victorian EV owners, Chris Vanderstock and Kathleen Davies, have taken the fight to Canberra. They’ve teamed up with climate change law specialists Equity Generation Lawyers to challenge Victoria’s Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act in the High Court.
The federal government intervened in the case to support Vanderstock and Davies. All the other states and territories back Victoria. It’s not so much David and Goliath as states versus feds. That’s a big stoush, and it could have far-reaching consequences.

“It’s not really about the electric vehicle charge,” says Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck. “The broader and more important issue is about the full scope of the states’ ability to raise taxation revenue.”
Section 90 of the Constitution says only the Commonwealth has the power to impose excises – but exactly what an excise is has been hotly debated. The High Court has taken various positions over the years, in cases over state and territory licences to sell alcohol, cigarettes and, in one case against the ACT, pornographic videotapes.
In the landmark 1997 case Ha v New South Wales, the court decided (four judgments to three) that NSW tobacco licensing fees were unconstitutional because they were partly calculated on the volume of cigarettes sold, and a tax on volume is an excise. This stopped the states from taxing not only tobacco but alcohol and petrol too. That was a big blow to states’ ability to fill their own coffers.

Beck says the question has lain dormant until now: states have been less inclined to impose goods-related taxes since the federal government introduced a GST in 2000 – the states and territories get the revenue from this 10 per cent tax on goods and services. A Victorian win could clear the way for states to impose new taxes on the use of goods, he says. “It opens up potentially billions of dollars of additional revenue sources for the state.”
The EV case was heard by a full bench of the High Court (seven justices) over three days in Canberra this week. Victoria is arguing its EV charge is not an excise because it is levied on an activity – driving – and not on goods.
But Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court that any potential EV buyer would be influenced by the knowledge they would have to pay the road user charge, which distorted the market, just like a tax. “If we think the tendency of the tax is to do that ... then it can be an excise in just the same way as a sales tax can be because we do not permit states to distort the national market,” he said. “That is an exclusive power for the Commonwealth.”
Donaghue raised a hypothetical of Australia developing its own hydrogen-powered car industry and imposing federal tariffs on overseas-made models. If the EV charge was valid, it would mean states could “impose taxes to increase the cost of using locally produced ZLEVs [zero and low-emissions vehicles] and therefore work against the tariff policy that the Commonwealth was seeking to put in place,” he said. In other words, even if you take the position that the purpose of section 90 is not so much to constrain states broadly but merely to stop states interfering with federal tariffs, it’s still problematic.
If Victoria’s EV charge is thrown out, it will likely only be a reprieve for those motorists, with the Commonwealth expected to eventually introduce its own “road user charge”.

The federal government collects about $12 billion in fuel excise every year, which covers about a third of the cost of maintaining the nation’s road networks, but that will rapidly disappear if Australia follows the rest of the world and shifts to EVs.

National Transport Research Organisation CEO Michael Caltabiano says Australia urgently needs to find a replacement for fuel excise revenue as EV sales gather speed.
But Caltabiano says there are major complications in replacing a federal tax and funding regime with a patchwork of schemes confined within each state and territory.

“How do you equitably charge access? If we have eight different charging regimes, as you cross borders, what happens?” he says. “These are really complex problems that need to be solved as we move to a zero-emissions fleet, and we haven’t really engaged with the problem holistically.”

Loading
Australian Automobiles Association CEO Michael Bradley says he hopes the High Court case will “clarify which level of government will be tasked with developing a sustainable, equitable transport taxation system that allows governments to fund our roads”.
Victoria’s Solicitor-General lawyer Rowena Orr KC told the High Court this week if the court finds the state’s EV charge invalid, it could jeopardise a raft of other state levies such as those on poker machines, online gambling, ride-share companies and waste disposal.

The state may even lose the ability to impose a road congestion charge, like that used to manage traffic in central London, Orr said. “It is important for your honours to consider the purpose that those imperilled statutes serve and ... the consequences of rendering them invalid.”
Meanwhile, Donaghue told the court that states may be tempted to impose more, similar taxes as improving technology makes it easier for them to track how people use certain goods.

A decision from the court is not expected for at least a couple of months. Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at Sydney University, says a decision against Victoria could entrench the “extraordinarily” unbalanced relationship between the states and federal governments to “exacerbate a bad system and make it worse”.

“The Commonwealth has most of the power to collect taxes, whereas the states have most of the responsibility to spend ... and there are arguments about how that is done,” she says. “It’s really about the Commonwealth getting more power over the states and more spending power to then decide how money is spent.”

I wonder what’s next, the States might look at bringing in an income tax.

 

[SirRumpole]

We did ask the question as soon as the States suggested it, "how can the States charge a road tax, to cover the cost of loss of fuel excise", when fuel excise is a Federal tax. ?

Well here is the latest update on it, a long read but very important in the context of E.V's, if anyone is interested.

Should the states charge EV owners for every kilometre?

A challenge to a charge on electric cars using roads has sparked a legal stoush between the states and the Commonwealth. Why?

www.theage.com.au

There are just over 83,000 electric vehicles on Australian roads, almost half of them bought in 2022. That number is expected to grow exponentially, with the ACT already planning to ban the sale of new petrol cars in 2035.

An attempt to make these electric car owners pay to drive on public roads has now turned into a high-stakes legal stoush pitting the Commonwealth against the states and territories.

The case, brought by two EV owners, has landed in the High Court. At stake is not only the future of how we pay to use and maintain our roads, but also how states can tax their citizens.
Most motorists don’t know it, but Australia has long had a road tax: the fuel excise levy, which has just gone up from 45 cents to 47 on every litre of petrol. An average driver pays $715 or so a year in fuel excises – but, of course, if your car doesn’t run on petrol, you’re not paying this.

Except in Victoria. There, since July 2021 if you drive an electric car you’ve had to pay for every kilometre you travel – now 2.6 cents – under the first scheme in Australia to get EV owners to pay to use public roads. The average EV driver ends up forking out about $350 a year. And the Andrews government says that’s only fair. NSW and Western Australia plan to impose their own EV road-user charges from 2027.
Now two Victorian EV owners, Chris Vanderstock and Kathleen Davies, have taken the fight to Canberra. They’ve teamed up with climate change law specialists Equity Generation Lawyers to challenge Victoria’s Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act in the High Court.
The federal government intervened in the case to support Vanderstock and Davies. All the other states and territories back Victoria. It’s not so much David and Goliath as states versus feds. That’s a big stoush, and it could have far-reaching consequences.

“It’s not really about the electric vehicle charge,” says Monash University constitutional law professor Luke Beck. “The broader and more important issue is about the full scope of the states’ ability to raise taxation revenue.”
Section 90 of the Constitution says only the Commonwealth has the power to impose excises – but exactly what an excise is has been hotly debated. The High Court has taken various positions over the years, in cases over state and territory licences to sell alcohol, cigarettes and, in one case against the ACT, pornographic videotapes.
In the landmark 1997 case Ha v New South Wales, the court decided (four judgments to three) that NSW tobacco licensing fees were unconstitutional because they were partly calculated on the volume of cigarettes sold, and a tax on volume is an excise. This stopped the states from taxing not only tobacco but alcohol and petrol too. That was a big blow to states’ ability to fill their own coffers.

Beck says the question has lain dormant until now: states have been less inclined to impose goods-related taxes since the federal government introduced a GST in 2000 – the states and territories get the revenue from this 10 per cent tax on goods and services. A Victorian win could clear the way for states to impose new taxes on the use of goods, he says. “It opens up potentially billions of dollars of additional revenue sources for the state.”
The EV case was heard by a full bench of the High Court (seven justices) over three days in Canberra this week. Victoria is arguing its EV charge is not an excise because it is levied on an activity – driving – and not on goods.
But Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue told the court that any potential EV buyer would be influenced by the knowledge they would have to pay the road user charge, which distorted the market, just like a tax. “If we think the tendency of the tax is to do that ... then it can be an excise in just the same way as a sales tax can be because we do not permit states to distort the national market,” he said. “That is an exclusive power for the Commonwealth.”
Donaghue raised a hypothetical of Australia developing its own hydrogen-powered car industry and imposing federal tariffs on overseas-made models. If the EV charge was valid, it would mean states could “impose taxes to increase the cost of using locally produced ZLEVs [zero and low-emissions vehicles] and therefore work against the tariff policy that the Commonwealth was seeking to put in place,” he said. In other words, even if you take the position that the purpose of section 90 is not so much to constrain states broadly but merely to stop states interfering with federal tariffs, it’s still problematic.
If Victoria’s EV charge is thrown out, it will likely only be a reprieve for those motorists, with the Commonwealth expected to eventually introduce its own “road user charge”.

The federal government collects about $12 billion in fuel excise every year, which covers about a third of the cost of maintaining the nation’s road networks, but that will rapidly disappear if Australia follows the rest of the world and shifts to EVs.

National Transport Research Organisation CEO Michael Caltabiano says Australia urgently needs to find a replacement for fuel excise revenue as EV sales gather speed.
But Caltabiano says there are major complications in replacing a federal tax and funding regime with a patchwork of schemes confined within each state and territory.

“How do you equitably charge access? If we have eight different charging regimes, as you cross borders, what happens?” he says. “These are really complex problems that need to be solved as we move to a zero-emissions fleet, and we haven’t really engaged with the problem holistically.”

Loading
Australian Automobiles Association CEO Michael Bradley says he hopes the High Court case will “clarify which level of government will be tasked with developing a sustainable, equitable transport taxation system that allows governments to fund our roads”.
Victoria’s Solicitor-General lawyer Rowena Orr KC told the High Court this week if the court finds the state’s EV charge invalid, it could jeopardise a raft of other state levies such as those on poker machines, online gambling, ride-share companies and waste disposal.

The state may even lose the ability to impose a road congestion charge, like that used to manage traffic in central London, Orr said. “It is important for your honours to consider the purpose that those imperilled statutes serve and ... the consequences of rendering them invalid.”
Meanwhile, Donaghue told the court that states may be tempted to impose more, similar taxes as improving technology makes it easier for them to track how people use certain goods.

A decision from the court is not expected for at least a couple of months. Anne Twomey, professor of constitutional law at Sydney University, says a decision against Victoria could entrench the “extraordinarily” unbalanced relationship between the states and federal governments to “exacerbate a bad system and make it worse”.

“The Commonwealth has most of the power to collect taxes, whereas the states have most of the responsibility to spend ... and there are arguments about how that is done,” she says. “It’s really about the Commonwealth getting more power over the states and more spending power to then decide how money is spent.”

I reckon EV owners need a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

 

[Value Collector]

I reckon EV owners need a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

Well our head of state is an EV owner, although I believe some of his love for Ev’s comes from his love of earning income by renting the sea floor to offshore wind farms.

If I earned 15% of any lease anytime a company leased some ocean floor or crown land to building wind farms, I would be wanting to increase electricity demand too, hahaha

 

[sptrawler]

I reckon EV owners need a Constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament.

The other issue that it highlights is, currently the only money that the Government gets from petrol is excise, gst. and minor taxes.

As we go more toward renewable generation, the State Governments will have to become more directly involved with installing generating and storage capacity into the system, when this happens they will earn money from the charging of E.V's that they don't currently get from the sale of fuel.

So are they going to be a lot worse off, with the loss of fuel excise? I don't think so

Also on the same subject, here is an example of why hybrid E.V's are a huge waste of money and why I chose a full E.V over a hybrid.

Every kilometre David drives his plug-in hybrid in Tasmania, he's paying tax in Victoria

Victoria's electric vehicle tax is being challenged at Australia's highest court, but experts say it raises bigger questions about how the country could make transport taxes fairer in the future.

www.abc.net.au

Retired schoolteacher David Farrands is on a driving holiday in Tasmania, but every kilometre he travels he's paying a unique tax that only exists in his home state of Victoria.
"It's got a battery that runs for 35 kilometres, which is for keeping the air quality in busy cities clean," he said.

"The philosophy and the concept of the vehicle is perfect for people who go into the city occasionally and don't want to pollute … but then travel as a retiree and need an internal combustion engine."

For Mr Farrands, the tax is about 2 cents for every kilometre he travels.

It does not matter if his car is running on petrol or driving interstate.

For the last year, Mr Farrands's Zero and Low Emission Vehicle (ZLEV) road-user charge came to about $456. He proved the distance he travelled by uploading a photo of his dash to a government website, as all ZLEV users are asked to do.

In the last 12 months, Mr Farrands has spent much of his time travelling – mostly interstate, on longer drives and towing his caravan, meaning his car is running on petrol.

That means on top of the ZLEV charge, Mr Farrands is also contributing tax dollars to the federal government's fuel excise when he tops up at the bowser.

The fuel excise is charged as 47.7 cents per litre of petrol or diesel, a tax intended to raise revenue to improve Australia's road network.

That does not factor in the cost of electricity for powering the vehicle.
"That is just a huge cost… we are paying more than anybody in a polluting car. I just don't get it," he said.

Victoria is currently the only state actively imposing a road-use charge on electric vehicles (EVs), though some states plan to introduce them in the future.

New South Wales will introduce a similar charge when EVs make up 30 per cent of new vehicle sales or in 2027, whichever comes first, while Western Australia also plans to introduce a charge in 2027.

 

[mullokintyre]

When i have charged at a EV chargepoint where there is a charge per kilowatt hour used (not all of them are free!), there was never any GST charged on the invoice.
If the feds decided to add GST and excise to the EV chargers, they would partially solve the problem.
if even the free ones had to pay an excise, you would see a few more shekels come into the coffers.
If the road tax is allowed and other state follow, it will kill off some of the market for PHEV's.
Having to pay excise and GST when you buy fuel, then still having to pay on a per KM basis because the car is also electric, would piss a few folk off.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

When i have charged at a EV chargepoint where there is a charge per kilowatt hour used (not all of them are free!), there was never any GST charged on the invoice.
If the feds decided to add GST and excise to the EV chargers, they would partially solve the problem.
if even the free ones had to pay an excise, you would see a few more shekels come into the coffers.
If the road tax is allowed and other state follow, it will kill off some of the market for PHEV's.
Having to pay excise and GST when you buy fuel, then still having to pay on a per KM basis because the car is also electric, would piss a few folk off.
Mick

Electricity sales are subject to GST, even your home electricity has GST on it, so when you are charging at home (unless from 100% solar in that moment) you will be paying GST.

I am not sure about charge point, but I can’t see why they would be exempt from charging gst.

Even if a person uses solar to charge, the solar installation itself is subject to GST, so there is still tax revenue being generated when people install solar to try and cover some of their charging costs.

 

[mullokintyre]

reading in Weekend Australian
it talks about teslas planned new 25k entry level car

At an investor day on March 1, the world’s second-richest man will give fresh details on Tesla’s cheapest and smallest electric vehicle yet, which some are calling the Model 2, the Model A or the “robotaxi”. The expectation is it could sell for $US25,000, a big discount to the Model 3, Tesla’s cheapest offering at $US42,000 for a base version. “This has the potential to be a game changer. It could double Tesla’s business,” said Gene Munster of Deepwater Asset Management.

As is his wont, Musk hyped the event, claiming that it would deliver a “message of good hope and positivity for the future ... for the people and life of Earth”. The message, however, will be received far differently by the $US3 trillion global auto market.

Tesla, having put the industry on the back foot, now plans to turn the screw. At the core of what could become Tesla’s first truly mass-market product - the Model 3 still sits at the higher end for most buyers - is a new production system that could allow it to halve its costs. That leap is expected to come from a combination of the sheer scale of Tesla’s plants - its gigafactory in Austin, Texas, is the largest manufacturing facility in America - falling battery costs and finetuning of processes since 2018, when it started producing the Model 3 in volume.

Its still vapour ware, and history has shown that tesla slips a lot in its time predictions (still awaiting the Cybertruck).
But it will have a big advantage in that it will be made in the USA, which is almost mandatory for cars sold in the US these days.

The most interesting part for me was the following about the takeup of sales in other countries.

Last year was the first that electric vehicles accounted for at least 5 per cent of new sales in America, a critical threshold that in at least 18 other countries has signalled the start of widespread adoption, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. It marks the beginning of the “S-curve”, when early enthusiasts account for just a few per cent of the market, then are swiftly followed by the masses, leading to a steepening of the curve that slackens near the top as a new technology draws in the last holdouts.

Britain hit the 5 per cent figure in June 2020.
By December, plug-in electric vehicles accounted for 39 per cent of new auto sales.

Even allowing for the fact that it includes hybrids, that is a stunning figure.
Of course it needs to be sustained over a period of months, even years to make a dent in the overall numbers.

China reached the 5 per cent threshold in 2018. Electric vehicle sales now account for a fifth of the market.

Interesting that China reached the 5% mark two years prior, but has taken longer to get to the 20% share.
One might speculate for days as to the reasons why.
I will leave it up to others to do so.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

reading in Weekend Australian
it talks about teslas planned new 25k entry level car

It’s still vapour ware, and history has shown that tesla slips a lot in its time predictions (still awaiting the Cybertruck).

I have a feeling you would have said that about every model Tesla has brought out, but they eventually come. Don’t let delay’s fool you into thinking they won’t get there.

For example I waited 1.5 years longer for the model 3 than I thought I would have too, even @sptrawler thought at one stage the car was never coming and I might lose my deposit, but now the Model 3 is one of the best selling cars in Australia.

The Tesla Semi truck was delayed a long time, but now deliveries have started, next will be the cyber truck.

Teslas design team have finished work on the cyber truck now, and are now working full time on the new vehicle.

 

[mullokintyre]

Electricity sales are subject to GST, even your home electricity has GST on it, so when you are charging at home (unless from 100% solar in that moment) you will be paying GST.

If you charge at home or somewhere else from something other than the grid, eg direct from Solar rooftip, there will be no gst.
I have looked at the three tax invoices issued by EVIE , and all did not have any GST mentioned on it, neither as part of the total or as a separate item.
By law, they are supposed to show the GST component if it is charged, so if there is no component shown, then they are either breaking the law, or there is no charges on electricity used at an EV station.

Mick

 

[Value Collector]

If you charge at home or somewhere else from something other than the grid, eg direct from Solar rooftip, there will be no gst.
I have looked at the three tax invoices issued by EVIE , and all did not have any GST mentioned on it, neither as part of the total or as a separate item.
By law, they are supposed to show the GST component if it is charged, so if there is no component shown, then they are either breaking the law, or there is no charges on electricity used at an EV station.

Mick

Do you mean this Evie? Where it says right in their terms an conditions that all prices include GST?

Yes as I said charging from solar does not have GST, but if a cloud comes over or it’s night you will draw from the grid and pay GST.

Solar installations them selves do have GST when you originally pay for them though, so GST of solar output is about $0.003 cents per kilowatt hour over its life, paid upfront when you install the infrastructure.

Evie terms and conditions

 

[farmerge]

I still think that Evie is on a knife edge with their billing. I am under that all purchases must show the GST component as a single item. Doesn't really concern me as i don't have a need for it.

 

[Value Collector]

I still think that Evie is on a knife edge with their billing. I am under that all purchases must show the GST component as a single item. Doesn't really concern me as i don't have a need for it.

I agree, they should definitely state it on their invoices, but Mick was saying he didn’t think they charged GST, but I think they do and just might not state it on receipts.

Maybe there is a loop hole that once you have signed up to a service and become a member the rules are slightly different.