"Rod Speed" wrote
"nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 22/04/2021 18:24, Robin wrote:
On 22/04/2021 17:18, nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 18:08, Tim+ wrote:
nightjar wrote:
On 20/04/2021 13:40, Tim+ wrote:
...
ANPR cameras are already all over the country monitoring your
movements.
What additional privacy issues are you worried about?

Not me; the opponents of a road pricing system. Possibly because road
pricing would need an awful lot more of them.


Which is why a simple mileage based system would be so much easier.

We already have a simple mileage based system and one that, unlike a
flat distance rate, rewards those who use more efficient vehicles. It
is called Road Fuel Duty. All we need to do is extend it to electric
vehicles too.

Having thought on the matter further, I realise that would be much
easier than I first thought. If all public charging points applied the
tax at point of sale, the way Road Fuel Duty is applied, the only
problem would be collecting the tax due when the vehicle is charged at
home. ISTM that could be solved with a very minor modification to the
vehicle - the addition of a short range transmitter that only operates
when the vehicle is connected to an outside supply. A linked receiver
would detect it and notify the house meter that a vehicle was
connected.

The house meter should then be able to detect the change in use when
the vehicle is connected and disconnected and hence know what rate it
was charging at. This should work even if the vehicle is connected to
13A socket, rather than a dedicated charging point. The tax can then be
collected through the electricity company. No need to track anybody and
all revenue collections are completely automatic.

Having said that, a road use charge seems to be the solution the
government is expect to adopt, probably at much greater cost.


Taxing the electricity EVs take is - and always has been - in principle
an option. But a little more detail would have helped judge whether
that's practicable. As it is I am left to infer that you envisage:

a. the addition of a receiver to smart meters and smart meters
required everywhere a car is charged - even where they cannot get a
signal so are read manually

AIUI, all new meters have smart functionality, even if they have to be
read manually. It wouldn't make sense to build dumb meters any more.

b. the addition of a transmitter to every EV
c. the transmitter able to stop the EV accepting the charge unless it
shakes hands with the receiver

I had not thought of that, but it would be a sensible provision.

d. all secure

To whatever standard is decided is reasonable for the application.

e. all even more reliable (else as it's all to easy to foresee the
headlines when inability to charge leads to injury or death.

What is rather more difficult to foresee is any reasonably predictable
situation where a failure to charge leads to injury or death. It is no
more of a problem than a car running out of fuel.

I can well imagine some Treasury officials dismissing those as as
"technical details" - to which I'd be inclined to say "indeed, just like
the design and roll-out of smart meters themselves".

But I (and others) also see a more fundamental question: how
to justify much higher prices for kWh for an electric vehicle than kWh
for patio heaters, hot tubs, power showers, 65 inch TVs, bitcoin mining
etc etc.

The price per kWH will be the same for all. The difference in price for
the various uses will be government taxes* and duties. Those should be
shown on the bill as separate items.

* probably 20% VAT as for road fuels.

You might argue it's carrying over the differences now between road
fuels and other oils. But EVs are being forced on people to save the
planet, as part of a program to cut back on energy consumption
generally. What makes EVs uniqulety bad when it's all carbon neutral?

Road Fuel Duty has little or nothing to do with trying to make everything
carbon neutral. It is a source of government income, amounting to about
1% of GDP. The Treasury is determined to replace it with something.

It shouldnt be up to Treasury, Boris should be telling those
fools that it makes no sense to be using some very expensive
mechanism to collect taxes by way of road pricing when it
makes no sense to have road pricing when its trucks, not
cars that wear out the roads.

Tho I spose you can make a case that given you lot do collect
such a large amount via the fuel tax, it would be politically
hard to collect the same amount now without a real political
**** fight. Easier to do it by stealth with a tax on electric charging.

That will probably be some form of road pricing, but I am simply pointing
out that it need not be.