# National's Environment Policy



## MaverickNZ (May 14, 2008)

Its good to see coz at the moment there is no incentive for the masses to change to electric vehicles, that and there currently aren't any in mass production


----------



## Zevflow (May 24, 2008)

When I had my Voltswagen featured in the Nelson paper,(http://www.evalbum.com/1675 ) one of the people that showed great interest in the car was Dr Nick Smith our local MP and National's shadow minister for conservation, environment etc. Although a very busy man, he went out of his way to come round to my place and have a look at the car. I had mentioned in the paper about the RUCs and how ridiculous they were, when the government was meant to be promoting a clean green image for NZ, yet discouraging EVs by taxing them. Nick has really been proactive in wanting to change this and has put it forward to his caucus for inclusion in this years environment policy,( http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleId=28478 ) along with other incentives for alternative energys. I am not normally a political animal, but Labour has done nothing about it in the last 9 years, yet National has run with it straight away. EVs are generally driven carefully in neighbourhood streets, which have a percentage paid by the ratepayers anyway. Everytime petrol goes up, Labours GST take gets every greater and would more than cover a few EVs. Maybe it's time for a new government with some fresh ideas instead of constantly holding their hand out for taxes on taxes. (RUCs are GST inclusive)


----------



## jinx (May 4, 2008)

Great Idea

Could there possibly be anything negative about it?

We currently have no financial incentives to make the change, unlike other countries with grants and various subsidies.

From the lawmakers POV this would probably simplify things a great deal and get them great brownie points for very little cost. Let's face it, there are still very few EV's in NZ and such a move would hardly cost the govt much while making them look good in return. It'd be a long time before there were enough EV's to make them reconsider their stance.


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

jinx said:


> Great Idea
> 
> Could there possibly be anything negative about it?


That's what I was thinking. Personally I love the idea - kinda obviously really as I own an EV! 
I can't yet see any downside to it other than the fact the government could then be considered as pandering to a minority group (us). 

That raises another question - Is "pandering" to us a bad thing when our minority group will one day be the majority group? Could this be the beginning of the end of Road User Charges?

Interestingly, I found out on Saturday that Vehicle Licensing (registration) of an EV is $170 for six months, as opposed to a petrol car's $104 for six months. 
The reason it's almost twice the price is do with the ACC levy being paid for through petrol tax, and not through RUC. It's a shame as we're really strapped for cash this week.


----------



## paulmo_on_tour (Aug 31, 2008)

Wow,

Interesting thoughts all around. 

Personally like the idea of cutting charges, but then if EV's become a greater number, the charge will have to come back. What then? Someone's going to cry "foul". 

How about just bringing the charges down to the same as a petrol. Or at least 1/2 (or reduced)? I think that 1/2-reduced would have more impact, and then when the charges go back up, and we all know they will, there's not so much screaming and fighting. 

In any case, a fine balancing act for sure. Not sure why anyone would "want" to be in office, seems like a quick way to ulcers to me.

Paul


----------



## carrott (Aug 19, 2008)

Zevflow said:


> Everytime petrol goes up, Labours GST take gets every greater and would more than cover a few EVs.


To the extent that people spend more. If you have a fixed budget and spend less on GST inclusive items elsewhere, from the point of view of the total GST take, it makes no difference if your dollar goes on petrol or movie tickets (or food, as one group are rattling about). Having said that, I'm sure there are a lot of people who aren't taking an overseas trip with recent commodity price inflation, so total GST recepts are likely going up.

The issue of Road user charges has be discussed somewhat on the NZEVA yahoo group: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/nzeva/message/293



KiwiEV said:


> That's what I was thinking. Personally I love the idea - kinda obviously really as I own an EV!
> I can't yet see any downside to it other than the fact the government could then be considered as pandering to a minority group (us).
> 
> That raises another question - Is "pandering" to us a bad thing when our minority group will one day be the majority group?


There is significant unrest about the RUC, especially now that cars are becoming so fuel efficient. If you compare a relatively fuel inefficient petrol vehicle to a light diesel, you'll find the petrol is paying more tax per km. Not so with a modern small car.

I was at the Mini Car Club of Auckland meeting last week where a guy from BMW showed off the new diesel Mini. The diesel pays more tax per km because the petrol Mini consumes about 4.4l per 100km. The RUC and petrol excise system was obviously designed for 10-12 litres per 100km petrol consumption and it just doesn't work when you can waft along in a modern small petrol car. This point was lost on the audience who were mostly baying for Helen's blood.

Don't expect them to pull many punches when you drive around for practically nothing.



KiwiEV said:


> Could this be the beginning of the end of Road User Charges?


I very much doubt it. When sales of petrol begin to fall, the roading budget starts to look thin and the reserve bank starts to point out that all that petrol money that used to go overseas is fuelling inflation, there will be pressure to put the RUC scheme back onto electric cars. I wouldn't be totally surprised if they scrap the petrol tax and put all cars onto road user charges at this time.



KiwiEV said:


> Interestingly, I found out on Saturday that Vehicle Licensing (registration) of an EV is $170 for six months, as opposed to a petrol car's $104 for six months.
> The reason it's almost twice the price is do with the ACC levy being paid for through petrol tax, and not through RUC. It's a shame as we're really strapped for cash this week.


Just think of those tax dodging rich people in their new <5l per 100km petrol cars!


----------



## Hadleigh Reid (Jul 22, 2008)

Well it makes alot of sense to encourage people like us ;-)

Nice to see govt getting behind stuff (like Israel)


----------



## Jens Rekker (Oct 26, 2007)

The one downside I can see is that a Govt that removes RUCs for EVs isn't going to be a Govt that will otherwise encourage or promote EVs, because to do so would erode their tax base.

Maybe that's the difference between Nats and Labs; Labour will retain RUCs for EVs because they see it has a real future for signicant numbers in NZ, whereas National thinks them to be a marginal curiosity that won't get off the ground in any numbers to make a difference to their tax income. There is certainly a lift for any party that promises tax breaks for EVs, partly because EVs as an idea is much larger than the number of EVs rolling around our roads right now. You have to ask who is really serious about EVs and who sees a few quick runs on the voter appeal score line?

To take that further, has either party shown an interest in EVs beyond the RUCs issue? EVs and Biofuels are encouraged in the Labour Govt transport policy as a target. The Emissions Trading Scheme would definitely encourage EVs, but I don't know if it puts any money in an EV driver's pocket. I haven't heard of National's.

For me it's a bit like Kennedy's quote "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Substitute in "environment / atmosphere" for the 2nd "country" and you have my outlook on EVs. I have always been suspicious about chequebook politics, which I saw really screw up Australia in the 90s.


----------



## locost_bryan (Aug 18, 2008)

When we downsized our Mazda6 wagon (10.2l/100km of 95) to a Honda Jazz (6.8l/100km of 91), we evaluated virtually every small and light car (priced in the low $20,000s).

I was quite keen on a Fiat Punto diesel, but the $3,000 price premium over the frugal petrol version didn't stack up when you accounted for the RUCs. The RUC system was designed for trucks, and doesn't cater well for light cars. iirc the scale stops reducing at about 3 tonnes, so small diesels pay the same RUCs as a Takapuna tractor (or have I misunderstood how the RUC scales work?).

fwiw, the Jazz is costing about 40% less to run than the Mazda, saving us about $1,000 per year. 

What is the Green's policy on EVs?

Bryan
Auckland


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

Even with the cost of fuel removed motorists in NZ still pay too much to run their vehicles. This is speaking from experience as I've owned and operated a car in Queensland for two years. 
For some reason in New Zealand cars are seen as luxury items. Often though, this is unfair because an alternative (like public transport) doesn't exist. New Plymouth like many dozens of cities around New Zealand is a perfect example of that. 

We _need_ (not _want)_ our car and we need it to be affordable as there's no alternative other than walking. Yet cars are taxed & levied quite highly compared to our average incomes. There needs to be a more even balance and this policy will help. 

Those of you concerned with where money will come from to subsidise the removal of RUC for EVs must remember that kiwis now pay an extra $30 Billion in taxes each year _on top_ of existing taxes since the government changed in 1999. I think we can afford it from that amount.

Please don't get me wrong - I'm not anti-Labour. Like many kiwis my vote changes depending on the state of the country and at this stage in the game NZ is struggling.

Let's imagine one day in the future that at least 30% of the country is driving EVs and taxes have returned to normal. At that stage it would be fair and logical to reinstate some sort of RUC for EVs again as the road maintenance has to be paid from somewhere. 

At this stage though, the positives outweigh the negatives. Look into the future: with this kind of forward thinking we could even have free recharging sockets like London or solar panel subsidies like California. We're lucky in the respect that a little country like ours can pick & choose the best bits from around the world.


----------



## Zevflow (May 24, 2008)

I’m glad *some* of you can see the benefits of this scheme. The whole idea is to *promote* the uptake of EV’s. I few of you are getting lost in the finer details of the RUC’s. Yes I agree that they need a revamp, especially where passenger petrol/diesel cars are concerned. I also agree with Gav in the fact that the RUC's may have to be reinstated later, but petrol will be $6.00/litre so it will not seems so bad.

I cannot see how it can be considered as cheque book politics. With the election so close and minimal advertising of this particular issue, I hardly think it is the sole aim to swing hundreds of thousands of voters to National. 

I think National is very committed to EV’s and other alternate energy sources eg. *Sustainable* biofuels, (as outlined in their policy, if you take the time to read it). National MP and Spokesman on the Environment, Dr Nick Smith has ordered one of the first Mitsubishi EV’s, due here early next year. If that’s not walking the walk, I don’t know what is. What Labour Minister is doing that? I cannot find one mention of EV’s in Labours Transport Policy (2005 – About time they came up with some new policy).

Although there has been some mention of power companies pushing for EV’s, to me that smacks more of cheque book politics eg. Carbon credits and selling more power themselves. 

I thought the whole idea of promoting EV’s was to help the environment, with the added benefit of reducing NZ's imports and dependance on foreign oil?

Once oil becomes scare and the price really goes up, NZ should already be up and running with EV’s. How much oil do you think the USA with let us have in times of turmoil?


----------



## dinther (Oct 25, 2007)

Weight based road user charges are great and should not be abolished for any road using vehicle! It is the purest form of "User pays".

You drive on the road, you pay for it. Of course at the same time all other "Road charges" such as registration should be abandoned or at least MUCH cheaper. I don't see any reason why an EV should not pay road user charges while a SUV should. They both use the road. Petrol cars should also pay these charges while that tax should be removed from petrol.

We need to get away from using a single type vehicle for all tasks since it will never suit all tasks very well.

With only road user charges and kilometer based insurance it would be possible to have a road worthy SUV parked behind the house not costing any money unless you drive it for your fishing-trip. You'd simply pick the most suitable vehicle.

With my newly acquired light weight two seater Honda Insight we now have 3 cars. We pick the car most suitable for the job which in most cases is the Honda. Pitty the unused cars keep costing money even though they don't use anything.

EV owners would benefit from this too. You could have a petrol car parked up without costing any money for those longer trips or when maintenance takes your EV out of the running.

Besides, whenever government interferes with anything it always becomes a mess and I DON'T want to pay for your road use.

I find it a pity that your vote can be bought by little trinkets such as Road User Charges. Aren't there more fundamental principles you should consider rather than "what can I get out of it"?

For example: National supports the idea of a carbon trading scheme as much as Labor does. Both are hell bound to destroy the NZ economy and both believe in the lie that is man made global warming.


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

dinther said:


> I find it a pity that your vote can be bought by little trinkets such as Road User Charges. Aren't there more fundamental principles you should consider rather than "what can I get out of it"?


Where did I say that my vote was decided by the offer to remove Road User Charges for EVs? I had my mind made up months ago on different reasons. That remark was just rude.


----------



## Zevflow (May 24, 2008)

Once again somebody doesn't get the fact that the scheme is to promote the uptake of EV's for a short to medium term. Similar to the promotion of solar hot water systems by giving a grant. If I had the negative attitude about that I would say " Why should my tax dollars go to help somebody else's cheap hot water." Both ideas are to help all New Zealanders long term. If you can afford to have 3 cars lying around, maybe one should be an EV??? If you can't beat them, join them.


----------



## dinther (Oct 25, 2007)

Hey guys I am not on the attack here.

Gavin, I made that remark based on your comment on your own website:

"Hey Kiwis! I just found out that if the National Party becomes the next government, they're going to remove Road User Charges (road tax) for Electric Vehicles! That's fantastic! I've decided that they'll be getting my vote! "

If I misunderstood that then I am sorry. It is not my intention to be rude. Like most people I like to see the back of Labour ASAP. This country has suffered enough but I don't believe that creating more legislation and manipulation will do any good.

I like the government to keep their dirty fingers out of my wallet. I want to make my own decisions and I don't need a government to steal my money to then turn around and use some of my own money to incite me to do something. Even worse, use some of my money to incite someone else to do something I don't like.

That simple fact is lost on so many people who only consider the choice between Labour and National. Why not a vote for principles and look for a more suitable small party? I will vote Libertarianz. They won't win but they are the only political party that makes the right noise and is actually based on sound principles. I am sick of strategic voting between the two BAD parties so mine will be based on principle this time.

I think that subsidies for solar hot water heating is also bad. Any subsidy is bad. If none were given then you would not need to pay so much tax and you give yourself what ever subsidy is convenient to you. Just shake the slave attitude and be free.

All three cars are petrol although the Honda is a hybrid. I bought the Honda with the intention to turn it into an EV but the motor turned out to be in a much better state than expected so I decided to run it as it is a while longer. Maybe I can help this way to ensure we have a nice warm summer


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

Ok, no hard feelings. Regarding the message on my website, I can see how the viewer could get the impression that I've made my voting decision based on the RUC issue. It's not the case as you know but I'll re-word that sentence this evening to clear the air. 

We'll have to agree to disagree on the grants & subsidies thing. Personally I don't mind some of my tax dollars going to support the installations of hot water panels on kiwi houses as it's good for the family's energy bill and good for NZ's image. I'd like to do it myself one day. Having the grant there makes it a bit easier on the wallet (although we have gas-on-demand for our hot water at the moment which is the best for our small household size).
Same goes for Thermal Insulation subsidies, Alarm installation subsidies for pensioners, Herceptin subsidies etc. All these sorts of subsidies I have no problem paying for as it makes NZ a better place to live. This is just my humble opinion though and it would be a dull place if we weren't allowed to disagree.


----------



## locost_bryan (Aug 18, 2008)

dinther said:


> With only road user charges and kilometer based insurance it would be possible to have a road worthy SUV parked behind the house not costing any money unless you drive it for your fishing-trip. You'd simply pick the most suitable vehicle.


Your biggest fixed cost is depreciation, which is largely time based. Each of your 3 cars will lose about 20% of their value every year, whether you drive them or not. And don't forget the opportunity cost of the money tied up in the SUV, that could be sitting in the bank earning interest.

As long as RUCs reflect the fact that your 2-tonne SUV causes 4 times the road wear as your 1-tonne Insight, then by all means abolish all other road taxes and build all the costs into a GPS tracked RUC system (then the tax collected can be paid to the maintainers of the roads you actually drive on, not into Transfund's big bucket).

A mate who's working in Geneva gets by without a car. Uses the tram to get to work (only time he's met his CEO was on the tram!), rented a people mover when the rels visited, rented a Ferrari for a naughty weekend in Monaco , rented a Mini Cooper to do the "Italian Job" .


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

Like a lot of laws RUC's were designed to suit the majority of situations that existed when it was written. It’s the exceptional situations that make an ass out of the law. In theory if someone were to convert a motor bike to electric he would pay the same for his RUC kilometres as a sub-three ton truck and that would almost certainly negate any financial benefit from doing such a conversion in NZ.

I wouldn't mind betting that for the average car conversion the RUC's are close to the cost of the electricity used to run the vehicle.

I believe Labour is currently reviewing RUC's in spite of having just increased them.


----------



## Wingnut (May 17, 2008)

*Quoting John: "In theory if someone were to convert a motor bike to electric he would pay the same for his RUC kilometres as a sub-three ton truck and that would almost certainly negate any financial benefit from doing such a conversion in NZ."*


DOH! Well thats a bugger! That revelation has just cast a shadow of doubt on my plans. 
I was planning on starting a motorbike conversion as a cheaper easier alternative to a car as my first EV attempt. 
I thought I could ease my way into the EV universe with a small motorbike. I even have a donor bike lined up, an 1986 RG250 Gamma Wolf similar to this one on EValbum. http://www.evalbum.com/2019
The main attraction initially was that a motorbike conversion is more palatable to the wife $$$ wise.
But if you're right John, is there any point in continuing??
Come to think of it, previous comments on vehicle registration would ring true in terms of ACC levies. Registration for a motorbike is currently higher than that of a car due to the heavier ACC component, so I guess if the government are going to lose ACC levies from the sale of petrol for the bike, they will add that to the registration ACC ... ?
I may have to do some sums.

Is there anyone else out there who has done a EV Motorbike conversion in NZ who could shed some light on the financial justification for continuing a conversion to a road legal level?? Any info appreciated. 

Cheers Chris
Nelson.


----------



## John (Sep 11, 2007)

I say "in theory" because I don't know exactly how the law is applied. The manual on RUC's states that any vehicle using a fuel not taxed at source regardless of its weight must pay RUC's. And yes electricity is considered a fuel under this law. It doesn't have a clear classification of vehicle type for a motor bike but it would most likely be type 1 i.e. 2 axle single tyred. Now an electric vehicle like a Segway would definately have no classification. I think mopeds are exempt from the usual vehicular requirements by being classified as not being a road vehicle.
These rules are up for review at the moment so now is the time to affect change. This review comittee is due to give its findings in March 2009 and so will be adivsing the new government who ever that may be.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/road+user+charges+review+group+named

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/minister/annette+king


----------



## Hemon Dey (Jul 31, 2008)

How about you build-in a small petrol generator in the EV, do it properly with secured tanks etc - then classify it as a petrol hybrid, and voila, no RUC 

Then drive around wearing a trench coat, sun glasses and a big hat so nobody recognises you ... lol

Hemon


----------



## carrott (Aug 19, 2008)

Hemon Dey said:


> How about you build-in a small petrol generator in the EV, do it properly with secured tanks etc - then classify it as a petrol hybrid, and voila, no RUC Hemon


As far as I know, it's not possible to register a vehicle as a plug in petrol hybrid yet. So you'd have to convince your certifier it's a regular hybrid. I don't know what the penalties are if you get caught plugging in.

When the system has been updated (and it may be already) to allow registration of plug in petrol hybrids, they will still attract RUC. I was at the IPENZ lecture on Monday and Tizard wasn't keen on discussing the issue, but is aware of it.


----------



## locost_bryan (Aug 18, 2008)

carrott said:


> As far as I know, it's not possible to register a vehicle as a plug in petrol hybrid yet. So you'd have to convince your certifier it's a regular hybrid. I don't know what the penalties are if you get caught plugging in.


How are the Designline hybrid buses treated? iirc the 30kw Capston microturbine runs on LPG (taxed at source?), but it's only used to boost the overnight mains charge.


----------

