The Sun Always Shines on EV
November 2, 2022 3:49 PM Subscribe
BBC News: “...they saw a Fiat Panda which had been converted from petrol to electricity. They imported a similar car into Norway and used the first modern-day EV on the country's roads to launch a campaign of civil disobedience, making a point about how it needed to embrace an alternative to polluting fossil fuel vehicles. They racked up fines as they drove the car through toll booths, parked illegally and refused to pay vehicle taxes, arguing that this new form of sustainable transport should be free of these levies in order to make it more attractive.” More in [Goodwood] [Which Car]
Top notch headline.
posted by Sand at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2022 [22 favorites]
posted by Sand at 5:19 PM on November 2, 2022 [22 favorites]
One of the points I'm glad the BBC article made is that Norway makes an enormous amount of money off its oil. What it doesn't mention is that it is these funds that allow it to go electric. So on the one hand - good on them! But it would be good if they also started to do work in other parts of the world to offset all the carbon they're creating.
posted by rednikki at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by rednikki at 6:36 PM on November 2, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'd argue it's the abundant hydropower that makes electric really attractive in Norway, not the oil money. Electric car infrastructure isn't as expensive as you might think:
Enova, the Norwegian government body responsible for providing funding and advice for energy and climate projects, initially funded a 7 million euro EV infrastructure programme providing 1,900 charging points by 2011. source
That's just over a tenth of the 17000 charging stations they have now. It's not a billions-of-dollars project. Other than that, they've mostly given incentives in the form of reduced taxation.
Like with alcohol and tobacco, it's a major headache for governments that have grown dependent on fossil fuel duty income to truly commit to electric in a similar way - they inherently have a conflict of interests.
So there are structural reasons why other countries might not be as well placed as Norway to effect this kind of transition at the same pace. But it's not like they dipped the hand of the state into the giant oil money pot to do this - they didn't need to.
posted by Dysk at 12:09 AM on November 3, 2022 [9 favorites]
Enova, the Norwegian government body responsible for providing funding and advice for energy and climate projects, initially funded a 7 million euro EV infrastructure programme providing 1,900 charging points by 2011. source
That's just over a tenth of the 17000 charging stations they have now. It's not a billions-of-dollars project. Other than that, they've mostly given incentives in the form of reduced taxation.
Like with alcohol and tobacco, it's a major headache for governments that have grown dependent on fossil fuel duty income to truly commit to electric in a similar way - they inherently have a conflict of interests.
So there are structural reasons why other countries might not be as well placed as Norway to effect this kind of transition at the same pace. But it's not like they dipped the hand of the state into the giant oil money pot to do this - they didn't need to.
posted by Dysk at 12:09 AM on November 3, 2022 [9 favorites]
One angle is that gas taxes pay for highway maintenance. The money has to come from somewhere.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:06 AM on November 3, 2022
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:06 AM on November 3, 2022
That was only ever partially true in the US and has steadily declined since the 70s:
I'd like to see gas taxes replaced by mileage fees on heavy traffic (essentially anything requiring a CDL) proportional to registered weight. It would put the costs on the vehicles overwhelmingly causing the most damage and it would chip away at the subsidies promoting long haul trucking over rail.
posted by Mitheral at 5:29 AM on November 3, 2022 [8 favorites]
the amount of state and local road spending covered by gas taxes, tolls, user fees, and user taxes varies widely among states. It ranges from only 6.9 percent in Alaska to 71 percent in Hawaii. In the contiguous 48 states, North Carolina relies the most on dedicated transportation revenues (63.6 percent), while North Dakota relies on them the least (17.5 percent)those numbers before the federal government and several states suspended gas taxes as a PR and inflation fighting measure.
I'd like to see gas taxes replaced by mileage fees on heavy traffic (essentially anything requiring a CDL) proportional to registered weight. It would put the costs on the vehicles overwhelmingly causing the most damage and it would chip away at the subsidies promoting long haul trucking over rail.
posted by Mitheral at 5:29 AM on November 3, 2022 [8 favorites]
There's not really a difference to a government funding EV subsidies through giving people money directly for the cars or reducing taxation on EVs. Either way it's a reduction in net government resources for other stuff.
The charging stations aren't the main cost, it's the foregone income from taxes on EVs.
A recent analysis in the UK showed that if everyone switched to EVs overnight and we kept the current tax arrangements, the basic rate of income tax would have to go from 20% to 24% to make up for the shortfall. That's a lot of money and I think that many European countries have even higher fuel duty than the UK so the effect might be even larger.
I think the bigger story is that direct EV subsidies are now barely necessary since the cost has come down so much. Depending on how fast new lithium mines come online, we're probably going to hit a crossover point for most drivers (some already have) in a few years.
Mitheral, road wear is proportional to the 4th power of axle weight so virtually all road wear comes from the biggest vehicles. I don't know if we directly want to run the taxes that way but it would be the most cost reflective way to fund maintenance.
It's pretty obvious that we will need to collect that money from somewhere else, and a weight-banded mileage charge is probably the most politically palatable.
posted by atrazine at 5:33 AM on November 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
The charging stations aren't the main cost, it's the foregone income from taxes on EVs.
A recent analysis in the UK showed that if everyone switched to EVs overnight and we kept the current tax arrangements, the basic rate of income tax would have to go from 20% to 24% to make up for the shortfall. That's a lot of money and I think that many European countries have even higher fuel duty than the UK so the effect might be even larger.
I think the bigger story is that direct EV subsidies are now barely necessary since the cost has come down so much. Depending on how fast new lithium mines come online, we're probably going to hit a crossover point for most drivers (some already have) in a few years.
Mitheral, road wear is proportional to the 4th power of axle weight so virtually all road wear comes from the biggest vehicles. I don't know if we directly want to run the taxes that way but it would be the most cost reflective way to fund maintenance.
It's pretty obvious that we will need to collect that money from somewhere else, and a weight-banded mileage charge is probably the most politically palatable.
posted by atrazine at 5:33 AM on November 3, 2022 [4 favorites]
There's not really a difference to a government funding EV subsidies through giving people money directly for the cars or reducing taxation on EVs. Either way it's a reduction in net government resources for other stuff.
Yes and no. The latter situation can be achieved from the other direction as well, by simply starting to tax combustion vehicles significantly more, rather than reducing already low taxes on EVs. In an American context for example, that scenario is possibly more relevant.
A recent analysis in the UK showed that if everyone switched to EVs overnight and we kept the current tax arrangements, the basic rate of income tax would have to go from 20% to 24% to make up for the shortfall.
Living in Britain but being from a country with a basic tax rate of 40% (plus 8% NI), I would be very okay with that (though I'd also like a vehicle tax by weight phased in as combustion vehicles come off the market, as EVs still contribute to road wear and local air pollution from road, tyre, and brake dust).
posted by Dysk at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Yes and no. The latter situation can be achieved from the other direction as well, by simply starting to tax combustion vehicles significantly more, rather than reducing already low taxes on EVs. In an American context for example, that scenario is possibly more relevant.
A recent analysis in the UK showed that if everyone switched to EVs overnight and we kept the current tax arrangements, the basic rate of income tax would have to go from 20% to 24% to make up for the shortfall.
Living in Britain but being from a country with a basic tax rate of 40% (plus 8% NI), I would be very okay with that (though I'd also like a vehicle tax by weight phased in as combustion vehicles come off the market, as EVs still contribute to road wear and local air pollution from road, tyre, and brake dust).
posted by Dysk at 6:32 AM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
One angle is that gas taxes pay for highway maintenance. The money has to come from somewhere.
Spend any amount of time in an EV group (in the US) and you'll hear endless bitching about high registration fees which are intended (at least in part) to offset the fact that EV owners don't pay gas taxes.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 6:45 AM on November 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
Spend any amount of time in an EV group (in the US) and you'll hear endless bitching about high registration fees which are intended (at least in part) to offset the fact that EV owners don't pay gas taxes.
posted by rabbitrabbit at 6:45 AM on November 3, 2022 [2 favorites]
I love how the framing is always 'oh we have to charge the EV end users more to make up for taxes not collected in fuel' and not 'oh we can finally stop subsidizing oil companies, that will cover so much of the tax burden that end users used to pay!'
posted by FatherDagon at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by FatherDagon at 7:30 AM on November 3, 2022 [3 favorites]
BBC News: “...they saw a Fiat Panda which had been converted from petrol to electricity.
Not quite. While this would have been a prototype, it's not that Fiat engineers would take a Panda coming off the assembly line, unbolt the IC engine and mount an electric motor instead as the word 'convert' suggests. It's more like "what parts can we use, modified or not, and what do we have to add to make an electric version?", then take that shopping list, get the lot to a dedicated workshop and start building. They were working with Steyr-Puch, who are more geared to small series and utility and military vehicles.
A friend of ours has one of those Panda Elettrica's, which he'd converted from its original NiCd batteries to Li-Ion, saving a lot of space and weight and allowing the rear seat to be put back in. Range is still about 100km on a good day, just a little better than the original.
For a while Micro-Vett built electric Fiat Fiorino vans but those didn't catch on, partly because they were not that reliable, and mainly because their range didn't suit the average van man very much.
posted by Stoneshop at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Not quite. While this would have been a prototype, it's not that Fiat engineers would take a Panda coming off the assembly line, unbolt the IC engine and mount an electric motor instead as the word 'convert' suggests. It's more like "what parts can we use, modified or not, and what do we have to add to make an electric version?", then take that shopping list, get the lot to a dedicated workshop and start building. They were working with Steyr-Puch, who are more geared to small series and utility and military vehicles.
A friend of ours has one of those Panda Elettrica's, which he'd converted from its original NiCd batteries to Li-Ion, saving a lot of space and weight and allowing the rear seat to be put back in. Range is still about 100km on a good day, just a little better than the original.
For a while Micro-Vett built electric Fiat Fiorino vans but those didn't catch on, partly because they were not that reliable, and mainly because their range didn't suit the average van man very much.
posted by Stoneshop at 11:31 AM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
I love how the framing is always 'oh we have to charge the EV end users more to make up for taxes not collected in fuel' and not 'oh we can finally stop subsidizing oil companies, that will cover so much of the tax burden that end users used to pay!'
Well, that's mostly because oil companies are not really subsidised in a direct cash way i.e. nobody is handing them money saying, here lads, please have this. The subsidy they receive is usually in the form of being able to deduct more capital expenditures or doing so faster or counting as deductible expenditures categories of things that "typical" businesses are not. We have to be a little careful with that though because lots of industries get little sweeteners like that so attributing the full amount of "special" treatment that oil and gas production gets to subsidy ignores the fact that the "typical" tax treatment (no goodies) that they're measuring against as a counter-factual is actually not as good as the money-weighted average of business collectively.
The fact is, there are cash-terms harms and costs from using petroleum fuelled vehicles that aren't incurred from EVs but this difference doesn't offset the reduction in cash collected by the government from fuel taxes and vehicle annual taxes. So if governments want to spend the same, those taxes have to come from elsewhere.
Living in Britain but being from a country with a basic tax rate of 40% (plus 8% NI), I would be very okay with that (though I'd also like a vehicle tax by weight phased in as combustion vehicles come off the market, as EVs still contribute to road wear and local air pollution from road, tyre, and brake dust).
Indeed. I come from a country where the basic tax rate is only 37% including NI and we're not really thought of as low tax for personal income. I think that as we get old diesels off the road, particulates are going to be a bigger and bigger deal politically. My understanding is that tyre companies are all in a race to develop ultra low particulate tyres, whoever gets there first with a solid patent portfolio will push the issue hard to do in their competition.
At the moment, there's some element of progressivity built into the vehicle and fuel taxation system (but not in rural areas where even quite poor people have to drive and often significant distances - also why it was the upper working class from outer suburban and rural France who got their gilets out rather than the very poor in urban areas) because cars and driving big cars cost money and the rich do more of it. I'd hate to see all of this collected from VAT or basic rate tax instead.
posted by atrazine at 4:18 PM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
Well, that's mostly because oil companies are not really subsidised in a direct cash way i.e. nobody is handing them money saying, here lads, please have this. The subsidy they receive is usually in the form of being able to deduct more capital expenditures or doing so faster or counting as deductible expenditures categories of things that "typical" businesses are not. We have to be a little careful with that though because lots of industries get little sweeteners like that so attributing the full amount of "special" treatment that oil and gas production gets to subsidy ignores the fact that the "typical" tax treatment (no goodies) that they're measuring against as a counter-factual is actually not as good as the money-weighted average of business collectively.
The fact is, there are cash-terms harms and costs from using petroleum fuelled vehicles that aren't incurred from EVs but this difference doesn't offset the reduction in cash collected by the government from fuel taxes and vehicle annual taxes. So if governments want to spend the same, those taxes have to come from elsewhere.
Living in Britain but being from a country with a basic tax rate of 40% (plus 8% NI), I would be very okay with that (though I'd also like a vehicle tax by weight phased in as combustion vehicles come off the market, as EVs still contribute to road wear and local air pollution from road, tyre, and brake dust).
Indeed. I come from a country where the basic tax rate is only 37% including NI and we're not really thought of as low tax for personal income. I think that as we get old diesels off the road, particulates are going to be a bigger and bigger deal politically. My understanding is that tyre companies are all in a race to develop ultra low particulate tyres, whoever gets there first with a solid patent portfolio will push the issue hard to do in their competition.
At the moment, there's some element of progressivity built into the vehicle and fuel taxation system (but not in rural areas where even quite poor people have to drive and often significant distances - also why it was the upper working class from outer suburban and rural France who got their gilets out rather than the very poor in urban areas) because cars and driving big cars cost money and the rich do more of it. I'd hate to see all of this collected from VAT or basic rate tax instead.
posted by atrazine at 4:18 PM on November 3, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older $7 Million Says I Won't Cheat Again. Spoiler... | Magic on Deck Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by waving at 4:42 PM on November 2, 2022