Electric Vehicle Charging Costs - Could be truly shocking in the future - here's why....

The shocking cost of future electric vehicle  charging -

That might include yours....

With electric vehicles in the UK currently zero-rated for road excise duty, governments will need to recoup lost taxation - through the electric 'fuel' is likely the big choice....

Feel the jolt in your wallet? What will future charging costs look like? 

They won't be cheap and you are likely to end up getting hit by future high costs

Currently, you may be enjoying 'acceptable level' tariffs for charging your electric vehicle that seem cheap now, but that could all be set to change.

Although you can charge a vehicle at home, or on a public charger, the actual cost can be as high as the equivalent liquid Petrol or Diesel fuel alternative to fill the fuel tank up. Surprised? 

Well, there's more to be wary of and you should heed this warning.

Electric vehicles currently enjoy zero road charge costs  - that is, unlike liquid fuelled vehicles using Petrol or Diesel in the UK, they don't get charged duty on the fuel when purchased and/or in some cases a vehicle excise duty charge when the vehicle is used on the road or if they emit over a certain CO2 level. So far so good for the EV's

Vehicle Excise duty as currently levied does not take into account your vehicle usage, it is solely based on engine size and CO2 output - EV's may in future be taxed on their motor wattage. So a 2 seater EV would be cheaper than a 4 seater EV  or SUV-EV to use.

All well and good so far.

I see the future of electric vehicles as great for city use, in short journeys and local travel under 100 miles a day. However, the great uplift in electricity capacity to feed this need for the power to motivate these vehicles will have to be met with more certainty than relying on 'green' energy - did you know that Diesel generators back up 'Green' when 'Green' fails?  Someone will have to pay for the future EV charge-related uplift and Mr or MRS EV Owner, that's going to be you.

How governments may then make you pay...

Yes, there's no such thing as a free lunch and no free rides either. It is a case of have EV now and pay later.

With a massive shortfall in taxable duty with a shift to electric vehicles, you as an EV owner will face one issue - The charging point's costs. Because that is an unavoidable point where you can be taxed.

Likely, these are already 'smart' charging units and have the capacity wired into be updatable by remote methods. Overnight, these could be reset to 'tax' the EV charge you use by any amount that those in control choose to apply. 

So, today's charge of your EV might cost you £30 to charge, tomorrow it could be £100 and there is nothing you can do about it. Except pay if you want to travel by EV.

Having ditched your fossil fuelled vehicle for a 'green' one, you might be looking a bit sour around the chops when your future electricity bill shows how much your EV charges are now costing even if you only charge at home and not out at a public charging point. 

Motorway service areas often have costlier road fuels than otherwise, on motorways, your EV is a captive audience and these establishments need to turn a profit, otherwise they go out of business. 

If you run out of charge, your EV will need a full-suspended recovery - your EV cannot be towed except perhaps only onto the recovery truck and recovery companies will soon realise this and hit you with higher recovery charges in this situation.

Rather than go down the road of unpopular road pricing, my prediction is that governments will  get their pound of flesh another way and tax you at the charging point wherever that occurs - be it at your home or at a public facility. Smart charging with Smart pricing will leave you smarting.

Once you are 'converted' to Green EV's you are a prisoner of the system.

Don't say you haven't been warned. Someone has likely already reached this same conclusion as me on how to make your EV pay like a fossil fuel car does. 

They are just playing the waiting game until there is a large enough EV ownership and no means of escape before applying these cost charges. Then see if I am right.

 

A time to rethink Vehicle Excise Duty – the return to a lower overall blanket fee is overdue and fairer.

The Vehicle Excise Disc may have disappeared, but change to the system is needed

The welcome change back to a rolling 40 year VED exemption system by the last government was good news for our hobby, but why not adopt the French system of 25 years as a qualification where both the MOT and VED are exempt? The Road Traffic Act defines a vehicle over 25 years old as 'vintage.' Why do we not change to a fairer system of 25 years for nil MOT and VED?

When I was in the Police service, there was always this argument for doing away with the road fund licence disc and putting a bit extra on fuel cost. The Police argument was that a lack of valid disc displayed on a vehicle often hid things like no MOT, no insurance, which was a valid point.

But now that the requirement to not have to display a valid disc on the vehicle is the situation, we can look again at doing away with the duty or making it less costly to run a vehicle. We are stuck with having to use motorised transport as public transport is lacking unless you live in a town.

Indeed, when did you last see an 'F' prefix plate car on the road in daily use? Next time you are on the road, look around and see what the oldest car on the road is being driven. Likely it will be something from the late 1990's.

The MGB currently can be either exempt from VED or not

The anomaly is further compounded when you have a 1976 MGB that is currently tax exempt, yet a 1980 example, essentially the same car, has to pay £215 a year. Likely, the 1980 car is occasionally used like the 1976 car and may do less than 3000 miles a year, as might the 1976 one.

The current CO2 calculated VED rate scheme is unfair. It does not take into account the actual mileage covered annually, it is an ownership tax. So, by comparison a small car paying nil VED can do say 60,000 miles a year at no VED cost, yet a new Ford Mustang GT500 would pay likely £515 a year, £1520 if a first year registered car, yet it might only do 2000 miles a year, with the result of far less CO2 being output by the larger car, paying more because it might pollute more, but in real terms might not.

The real factor here is fuel usage and that is something that you pay for at the pump, the more fuel you use the more you pay in tax. There is no environmental argument for unfair VED when you look at aircraft, which pay nothing.

The Heathrow Expansion project will create more CO2

yet a Low Emission Zone for vehicles in the area is proposed

When it was suggested by a previous government to tax aircraft fuel, there was a hoo-hah about it and M.P.'s said that aircraft would avoid landing in the UK if they had to pay taxes and the lid was put on that suggestion quickly because it would have a financial penalty.

The recent Heathrow expansion will allow thousands more aircraft take-off and landing movements in the Heathrow airport area, which is ALREADY the UK's largest single source of pollution.

You couldn't make it up, but as a sop to the increased aircraft traffic, Transport for London (TFL) proposes a new low emission zone, in this same area, which applies to road vehicles only. Not aircraft, the main polluters.

Low Emission Zones - it has to be fair to all users

Lets do some maths shall we? A large airliner fully loaded can use up to 7 tons of fuel per take off. That's 1568 gallons, at 10lb to the gallon weight.

Now, your average MGB could at say 25mpg use that amount of fuel to travel 39,200 miles, which as a limited use classic, may give you ten years worth of travel.

The problem we have is that many of our classic cars such as the MGF and MGTF unfairly fall into the full tax bracket, although most of these are not in daily or high mileage use.

In which case, a half way compromise would be to peg any vehicle 15 years or more older to say £100 a year VED until it reaches the nil duty historic threshold, which I believe should be changed to a rolling 25 years entitlement from the current 40, as it effects relatively few vehicles from the 32 million or so currently on the road.

With the more fuel you use the more tax you pay, the VED should be set at a blanket £100 a year for other cars not currently CO2 level exempt. As all vehicles are banded by CO2 output on the DVLA system, it would be a simple matter to administer. The more you pollute, the more fuel you use and tax you pay, it is that simple. Or is that too simple?

Using the Heathrow pollution example, the argument for taxing vehicles for climate change reasons is fatuous and indeed unfair, when massive polluters do not pay.

The Heathrow Airport expansion, the proposed London Ultra Low Emission Zone and time to rethink Vehicle Excise duty

After approving the Heathrow Airport expansion an

'Ultra Low Emission Zone' for vehicles in London proposed

If there was a league of stupidity, this is the sort of thing they might come up with, except this is actually a nanny state type of proposal.

With a new increase in flight movements at Heathrow, which will create more CO2 from Britain's biggest single CO2 emitter, to redress the balance, it is proposed to create an ultra low emission zone. For vehicles. Not aircraft.

But, the aircraft which do not pay tax on their fuel, go on increasing the damage they do.

The reality is that the most fuel usage and CO2 production an aircraft does at a peak part of its operation, is on taking off. And they use A LOT of Kerosene to do this.

The requirement to display a Vehicle excise disc has now gone

Those facts on aircraft use may surprise you, but aircraft, along with shipping produce a lot of CO2.

Car efficiency has increased but some ecological measures

actually make them less efficient, such as Ethanol in fuel

Cars on the other hand have become much cleaner over the last 30 years.

Leaner burn, the switch to fuel injection and other measures have reduced the pollution. You will know if you used to commute in a city all that time ago how you don't smell a Diesel engine like you used to nor a petrol engine over rich on mixture.

And the blanket light goods class of excise duty has gone and has been replaced by a staggered banding arrangement according to the amount of CO2 the engine produces.

The banding takes no account of actual use

The staggered banding method is wrong and unfair.

It takes no account of actual vehicle usage. It is ridiculous that a car that has a Zero rate can drive thirty thousand miles a year for free, yet a Band M car that does 2000 miles a year has to pay £515 a year. Where a Zero rate car pollutes more.

Clearly there is a discrepancy.

In the past a flat rate was paid for all Private Light Goods classes which covered cars and light vans, the more you drove, the more fuel you bought and paid tax for. A much fairer system. And more logical.

And it gets worse.

If you convert a petrol engine to run on LPG, you run a very clean engine, yet you still pay the same amount of excise duty as if it had not changed fuel. Unless the car was manufactured with the LPG system.

That is a complete farce.

Converting a car costs £1500 to do on average, yet you do not get any excise duty reduction for doing so, although LPG is cheaper as a fuel to buy.

Poorly adjusted modern cars can be polluting too

Another farce concerns the Historic vehicles class.

Many of these vehicles do less than 5000 miles a year. If the vehicle is 40 years old, it gets free vehicle tax by way of exemption.

However, those 15 years old and less than 40, pay full tax.

In France, cars over a certain age are exempt from excise duty, at a lower age than in the UK. They are also MOT exempt at this earlier stage.

The MOT is just a useless piece of paper, it does not guarantee the condition of a vehicle once that vehicle has left the testing station.

The only relevance is that the piece of paper has to be 'in force' and valid if you have to produce it.

The reality is that in the UK, classic or historic vehicles are a small part of the total vehicles on the road, the duty could be slashed for anything over 15 years old, which would mean that most vehicles on the road in the UK would still pay. Many vehicles 15 years and over have been scrapped by now.

It seems ridiculous for an MGB of 1979 vintage to pay perhaps £200+ a year duty when a 1976 model MGB is exempt. Both produce the same emissions.

More so when you consider the Band A car doing 30,000 miles a year or more at no excise duty cost. Which does the more damage?

Then you consider the damage that will be done by the big increase in aircraft movements thanks to the Heathrow expansion and it makes the piddling vehicle emissions a complete farce and just a money grabbing exercise.

Time for a rethink.......

ANPR Cameras part of the policing solution - but not a total solution

Are ANPR Cameras only effective as the accuracy of the data they capture?

Many years ago, those of us in the Police service used to deal with the unlicensed vehicles on the highway by means of the old CLE2/6 form, which was sent to the DVLA. This was effective in most cases, but was of little use if you did not have the vehicle owner to hand or the car was shown as previous keeper only on the DVLA records.

Not all of the vehicles dealt with were parked up, some were seen as being used with out of date or not displaying vehicle excise licences. Indeed some owners would park up off the highway to avoid detection and prosecution in my experience. 

Mobile combined ANPR and Speed cameras are now common

When I was on a training course at Police HQ, the Instructors said quite rightly that a vehicle with no excise disc probably hid other situations, such as no MOT or no Insurance. And indeed, perhaps the vehicle being used by a disqualified driver.

So, ANPR was seen as a sort of magic bullet, but not quite. The days when you patrolled on foot and observed excise offences are now gone thanks to the removal of the requirement to show a valid Vehicle Excise disc in the car windscreen.

I think this is a backward step, there is no visual means now for anyone to see whether a vehicle is legal on the road, without performing a vehicle check or having an ANPR camera. Out of a hundred cars driving by an officer, any or all of these could be on the road illegally now, unless one or more is stopped and checked manually, how would you know? Unless you were standing by a portable ANPR camera that would tell you! Perhaps the regime now is that with reduced Beat Officers, detection is better off done by camera.

Cloning cars and number plates is worthwhile still

Where ANPR falls down is in two ways, firstly, it reads the number plate only. Therefore, a car displaying a number plate (index plate for those in the trade) may be displaying one from a car known to be always kept 'on the road' i.e. legal, with MOT, insurance and duty paid.

Indeed cloning it, is a worthwhile exercise for the criminal, because unless you can stop the driver and check out the car and VIN if it is a direct clone of a known car, same model, colour, make, then the offences remain undetected.

A Police patrol car can be driving right behind the clone and their ANPR may not bleep because the car index is shown to be of a vehicle that is completely 'legal.' Unless they have a reason to stop or suspect it, then the car continues on, offences undetected. Not by any fault of the Officers, but because 'officially' the car is 'legal.'

So the ANPR plate software is unlikely to detect the actual Car 'A' being driven in Sussex but 10 minutes later cloned Car 'A' 's index plates being captured on camera in Glasgow. Which Car 'A' is the real one?

Gantry mounted cameras may record a car with a marker that is known to be owned by a disqualified driver, or has no MOT or Insurance or Vehicle Excise duty in force. But, that is all. Indeed, a car with DVLA details as previous keeper only vehicle, driven by a gantry may flag up the lack of legality, but if there are no Police 'tyres on the road' to enforce it, that person can get away with it until caught, if ever caught. if the previous keeper has no details of whom the car was sold too.

ANPR may be seen as a form of Policing on the cheap, but it is effective in that it does detect crime, but without integration into a system with Officers on the road, it is a piecemeal exercise and people are very unlikely to be caught, especially if they know where static cameras are located and evade them to avoid detection.

As an intelligence gathering tool it has value, for enforcement some too, but in the case of your disqualified driver, you need photographic evidence to prove the offence and to stop them on the road, driving. The disqualified do drive and in the old days Police would sit up and wait for them to and have them for the offence.

Whilst ANPR does solve some crimes, it cannot enforce others. With 34 million plus road vehicles on the UK road network, how many ANPR alerts are generated and how many can be effectively dealt with by an overburdened DVLA and Police service?

And that is without the added problem of foreign cars, many of which may be being driven in the UK without current tax, insurance or test certificates in force in the home country.