NZ Government Incentives Coming Soon For Buyers of Electric Vehicles!

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › NZ Government Incentives Coming Soon For Buyers of Electric Vehicles!

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 60

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2231586 6-May-2019 13:02

GV27:

tripper1000:

The way to make cheap 2nd hand cars is to persuade the "rich" to buy new cars and cop the depreciation, thereby subsidising the 'poor'. So while Subsidising the "rich" today grates on the socialists, it is actually subsidising the "poor" tomorrow. The depreciation hit the 'rich' take on the new cars will likely exceed the (speculated) $10K subsidy, so such a subsidy would actually represent a very good investment for the community lift overall living standards.

Presently, in a N.Z. context the "rich" in this scenario is the Japanese car buying public, but when it comes to EV's the Japanese supply is not meeting N.Z. demand, so we need the kiwi "rich" class to be subsidising cars for the ordinary man.

I'll remember that when I'm filling up a 20 year Corolla showing 300,000km+ with petrol that has about an extra 50% on top in the form of tax that the guy cruising past in a $200K Tesla needed that subsidy more. You know, for the greater good. After all, they're apparently subsidising me, somehow.

Presently we don't have an EV subsidy. We might as well wait until there is a 'lower end' of the market and gear the subsidy towards that and get better bang for our buck. Cashed up people are still going to buy a Tesla one way or the other, a $5K subsidy won't make that much of a difference one way or the other when you're spending $100K on a car.

Firstly, the $200k is an exageration. As you said, people buying a car of that value are still going to do so with or without a incentive.

Where the subsidy will help is getting people into cars like the Model 3, Leaf, Kona, etc that aren't really premium cars but have high prices because they're EVs and the cost of them has to cover the R&D of the battery tech. While yes, the immediate benefit is that middle to upper middle class people are going to get a "hand out", the long term benefit is that if more of these people buy one of these EVs, the more there will be in the second hand market at reasonable prices. We can't get a decent second hand market for these if people aren't buying them new at some point. Imports are an option but that's going to depend on the country we import from also attracting people to buy EVs over ICE vehicles.

GV27:

jjnz1:

Telsa in fact has just reduced their vehicle cost in Canada so their purchasers are eligible for the EV subsidy.

They also capped the range at 150km for one Model.

They did for the Model S in Germany, yes. It wasn't actually a model they sold, just a "on paper" model that was there purely to make their brand eligible for the EV incentive.

Sharesies

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies.

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2231603 6-May-2019 13:33

jjnz1:

tdgeek:

No need to say wow. Why say that?? I asked a VERY simple question, but you wont answer

You have told us your ideas. I ask you how many cars do we need to to make an excellent difference to our emissions? How many? We probably have 4 million cars in NZ, and not all of those are probably in active use. Some cannot manage EV range or use case.

How many cars should we move to EV? 4 million? 2? 1?

Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a chord, and yep for some reason I assumed your question was rhetorical.

The reason I said wow was because your question seemed to imply all or nothing, Ie no in between, which I guess is a common response but always unexpected.

An excellent difference? 100k cars i guess. (or 2.5% of total NZ fleet size or 3.33% of NZ car/SUV fleet) This would account for 2.1% of NZ emission reductions*

A much needed difference, IE a start? An additional 5-10k to the existing fleet. (for a total of 0.55% of NZ fleet)

Difference needed to impact ACC figures? 50k? (1.25% of NZ fleet)

I don't think we should expect any changes to be made over night, and if we don't start soon, then the 'excellent difference' will never be achievable.

FYI, Dec 2018, NZ hit the 11.8k mark for total number of EVs on the road, so 0.2% of total NZ vehicle fleet (0.39% of NZ car/SUV fleet).

Currently we are projected to hit 2.25% mark for total EVs in NZ fleet around 2022.

I would assume that if the 'fat incentives' like the ones I proposed above came into effect, then EV growth would far exceed projected totals.

*Cars/SUVs account for 63.5% of NZ emissions (2015 report) Assuming EVs fall into this category.

No chord hit just a simple question.

100,000 EV's will help. Ok, that will cost the taxpayers 2.4 Billion to reduce emissions by 2.1% . People already complain that the last Govt didnt do much, and that the current Govt isn't doing much, so how can we afford $2.4 Billion to help 100,000 people who can already afford a new car, get a new car? And that will help us out by a mere 2.1% of emissions.

That was my point. I also feel that those who can afford a new car don't need help to make that an EV.

New EV's today wont help used EV's tomorrow. They will be kept longer as repairs are low, and they were purchased at a premium price, so lets get our moneys worth

Better to give people interest free loans, let the low fuel cost (which is the true incentive) pay for that. If I am saving $80 pw I'd be happy to give half that back as repayments and keep my $40pw savings.

Dingbatt

5872 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2231666 6-May-2019 14:21

If you consider that EV owners are "in the business of reducing use of, and dependence on, fossil fuels", then maybe the tax breaks for GST and depreciation could be considered.*

*Note: This comment is tongue in cheek.

But seriously, if a middle income earner (ie someone who surrenders a third of the salary in income tax, let alone GST but pays the bulk of tax in NZ) was able to get an $80K EV (Kona, Niro, etc) for $68K and then claim depreciation, then that may be enough. Even if the GST was a tax credit spread over a number of years (say 3) to prevent people obtaining it then flipping the car on. If you want to take it to the ultimate, then make interest payments tax deductible as well.
There are so many examples already where 'wealthy' people benefit from the tax system, this might just provide opportunity for those that pay most of the tax but receive neither rebates or handouts, to get something.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

wellygary

6718 posts

Uber Geek

#2231687 6-May-2019 14:52

jjnz1:

FYI, Dec 2018, NZ hit the 11.8k mark for total number of EVs on the road, so 0.2% of total NZ vehicle fleet (0.39% of NZ car/SUV fleet).

Currently we are projected to hit 2.25% mark for total EVs in NZ fleet around 2022.

I don't know what prediction you are using, but based on the current EV numbers, NZ is going to get nowhere near 2.25% in 2022..

The NZ passenger light fleet (excl commercial) is approx 3.4 million vehicles, so to hit 2% you need 60-70K EVs NZ is currently adding 500 EV/month and its been around that level since mid 2018 (i.e the growth rate is not increasing)

500 a month gives you 6000 a year, to get from now (12K) to 60K by YE 2022 needs 4 years of increases of around 12K per year, (nearly double the current rate)

EV registration is currently ~2% of new registrations, unless the incentive situation changes, chances of making 2% of total passenger light fleet is fanciful.....

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2231688 6-May-2019 14:52

tdgeek:

jjnz1:

tdgeek:

No need to say wow. Why say that?? I asked a VERY simple question, but you wont answer

You have told us your ideas. I ask you how many cars do we need to to make an excellent difference to our emissions? How many? We probably have 4 million cars in NZ, and not all of those are probably in active use. Some cannot manage EV range or use case.

How many cars should we move to EV? 4 million? 2? 1?

Sorry, I didn't mean to hit a chord, and yep for some reason I assumed your question was rhetorical.

The reason I said wow was because your question seemed to imply all or nothing, Ie no in between, which I guess is a common response but always unexpected.

An excellent difference? 100k cars i guess. (or 2.5% of total NZ fleet size or 3.33% of NZ car/SUV fleet) This would account for 2.1% of NZ emission reductions*

A much needed difference, IE a start? An additional 5-10k to the existing fleet. (for a total of 0.55% of NZ fleet)

Difference needed to impact ACC figures? 50k? (1.25% of NZ fleet)

I don't think we should expect any changes to be made over night, and if we don't start soon, then the 'excellent difference' will never be achievable.

FYI, Dec 2018, NZ hit the 11.8k mark for total number of EVs on the road, so 0.2% of total NZ vehicle fleet (0.39% of NZ car/SUV fleet).

Currently we are projected to hit 2.25% mark for total EVs in NZ fleet around 2022.

I would assume that if the 'fat incentives' like the ones I proposed above came into effect, then EV growth would far exceed projected totals.

*Cars/SUVs account for 63.5% of NZ emissions (2015 report) Assuming EVs fall into this category.

No chord hit just a simple question.

100,000 EV's will help. Ok, that will cost the taxpayers 2.4 Billion to reduce emissions by 2.1% . People already complain that the last Govt didnt do much, and that the current Govt isn't doing much, so how can we afford $2.4 Billion to help 100,000 people who can already afford a new car, get a new car? And that will help us out by a mere 2.1% of emissions.

That was my point. I also feel that those who can afford a new car don't need help to make that an EV.

New EV's today wont help used EV's tomorrow. They will be kept longer as repairs are low, and they were purchased at a premium price, so lets get our moneys worth

Better to give people interest free loans, let the low fuel cost (which is the true incentive) pay for that. If I am saving $80 pw I'd be happy to give half that back as repayments and keep my $40pw savings.

So because 100k EVs (in the given examples) is only 2.1% of the problem we shouldn't bother at all? The problem isn't about who can afford an EV today without an incentive but making an EV affordable for a larger range of people. By adding incentives like what most other western countries have we can make an EV a viable option for someone who was previously going to buy an ICE vehicle because really, when the prices are comparable most people would probably buy an EV over an ICE.

Incentives don't need to last forever. The reason we need incentives is to cover the R&D price premium that an EV incurs. As manufactoring is streamlined and more manufactures start producing EVs the price will naturally reduce as well but that's probably a good 10 years away.

Of course EVs bought today will help the second hand market in the future. Assuming that we do get incentives and they were bought for a similar price that they would have paid for an ICE vehicle, people will be onselling their vehicle for all the same reasons people sell any other car, not purely because it's becoming costly to repair.

jjnz1

1293 posts

Uber Geek

#2231696 6-May-2019 15:01

wellygary:

jjnz1:

FYI, Dec 2018, NZ hit the 11.8k mark for total number of EVs on the road, so 0.2% of total NZ vehicle fleet (0.39% of NZ car/SUV fleet).

Currently we are projected to hit 2.25% mark for total EVs in NZ fleet around 2022.

I don't know what prediction you are using, but based on the current EV numbers, NZ is going to get nowhere near 2.25% in 2022..

The NZ passenger light fleet (excl commercial) is approx 3.4 million vehicles, so to hit 2% you need 60-70K EVs NZ is currently adding 500 EV/month and its been around that level since mid 2018 (i.e the growth rate is not increasing)

500 a month gives you 6000 a year, to get from now (12K) to 60K by YE 2022 needs 4 years of increases of around 12K per year, (nearly double the current rate)

EV registration is currently ~2% of new registrations, unless the incentive situation changes, chances of making 2% of total passenger light fleet is fanciful.....

https://www.transport.govt.nz/mot-resources/transport-outlook/

Comes from a 2015/2016 report, however current EV numbers are current.

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2231698 6-May-2019 15:03

Obraik:

So because 100k EVs (in the given examples) is only 2.1% of the problem we shouldn't bother at all? The problem isn't about who can afford an EV today without an incentive but making an EV affordable for a larger range of people. By adding incentives like what most other western countries have we can make an EV a viable option for someone who was previously going to buy an ICE vehicle because really, when the prices are comparable most people would probably buy an EV over an ICE.

Incentives don't need to last forever. The reason we need incentives is to cover the R&D price premium that an EV incurs. As manufactoring is streamlined and more manufactures start producing EVs the price will naturally reduce as well but that's probably a good 10 years away.

Of course EVs bought today will help the second hand market in the future. Assuming that we do get incentives and they were bought for a similar price that they would have paid for an ICE vehicle, people will be onselling their vehicle for all the same reasons people sell any other car, not purely because it's becoming costly to repair.

I want EV's to succeed but at $2.4 Billion to help 2.1% of emissions is very expensive, particularly when the buyers don't need a subsidy. Its free money for a free trip, they buy EV as they can afford it as they will save on running costs.

EV's bought today will not be turnen over as quick as ICE as ICE become costly to maintain. Better to snap up all the used EV's overseas

But 2.4 Billion for just 100,000 cars?? If you gave interest free loans, you will get more buyers, as you will be catering for more buyers, not just buyers that can afford a 60k car

jjnz1

1293 posts

Uber Geek

#2231723 6-May-2019 15:46

tdgeek:

I want EV's to succeed but at $2.4 Billion to help 2.1% of emissions is very expensive, particularly when the buyers don't need a subsidy. Its free money for a free trip, they buy EV as they can afford it as they will save on running costs.

EV's bought today will not be turnen over as quick as ICE as ICE become costly to maintain. Better to snap up all the used EV's overseas

But 2.4 Billion for just 100,000 cars?? If you gave interest free loans, you will get more buyers, as you will be catering for more buyers, not just buyers that can afford a 60k car

A few things that would be interesting to fully understand:

1. How is the $2.4B calculated? You can't assume all of the subsidies are sunk costs. Also, how much does it add to the economy through new jobs?

2. Context is key - to meet 2030 and 2050 Government set targets, how much is a %2 emission reduction rate worth (IE achieved through other means)?

NZ needs to spend $1 Trillion to meet 2050 goals to be carbon neutral (https://farmersweekly.co.nz/#)

MFE mentions something about needing to spend $353B on the Carbon Zero Bill (value needs to be confirmed).

If this is the case, then a 2% reduction for $2.4B is value for money?

From Labour's website: "The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of mitigating climate change. In fact, many of the actions that reduce climate pollution also have other positive impacts and create jobs."

And MFE source report:

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/Zero-Carbon-Bill-Economic-Analysis-Report-FINAL.pdf

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2231734 6-May-2019 15:56

tdgeek:

I want EV's to succeed but at $2.4 Billion to help 2.1% of emissions is very expensive, particularly when the buyers don't need a subsidy. Its free money for a free trip, they buy EV as they can afford it as they will save on running costs.

EV's bought today will not be turnen over as quick as ICE as ICE become costly to maintain. Better to snap up all the used EV's overseas

But 2.4 Billion for just 100,000 cars?? If you gave interest free loans, you will get more buyers, as you will be catering for more buyers, not just buyers that can afford a 60k car

What is your math on $2.4B? You seem to have glossed over the reason for a subsidy and assumed it will only be used by people that can already afford an EV. Again, the point of a subsidy is to make an EV affordable to those where an EV is currently out of their price range.

If what you say is true and the turn over on EVs will be less than an ICE, why will there be more EVs available to import from overseas?

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2231746 6-May-2019 16:09

jjnz1:

tdgeek:

I want EV's to succeed but at $2.4 Billion to help 2.1% of emissions is very expensive, particularly when the buyers don't need a subsidy. Its free money for a free trip, they buy EV as they can afford it as they will save on running costs.

EV's bought today will not be turnen over as quick as ICE as ICE become costly to maintain. Better to snap up all the used EV's overseas

But 2.4 Billion for just 100,000 cars?? If you gave interest free loans, you will get more buyers, as you will be catering for more buyers, not just buyers that can afford a 60k car

A few things that would be interesting to fully understand:

1. How is the $2.4B calculated? You can't assume all of the subsidies are sunk costs. Also, how much does it add to the economy through new jobs?

Your numbers, about $24k x 100,000 cars

2. Context is key - to meet 2030 and 2050 Government set targets, how much is a %2 emission reduction rate worth (IE achieved through other means)?

NZ needs to spend $1 Trillion to meet 2050 goals to be carbon neutral (https://farmersweekly.co.nz/#)

Cant find it. 1 Trillion? This is NZ

MFE mentions something about needing to spend $353B on the Carbon Zero Bill (value needs to be confirmed).

Even 353 Billion, this is just NZ

If this is the case, then a 2% reduction for $2.4B is value for money?

From Labour's website: "The cost of doing nothing is far higher than the cost of mitigating climate change. In fact, many of the actions that reduce climate pollution also have other positive impacts and create jobs."

And MFE source report:

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/Zero-Carbon-Bill-Economic-Analysis-Report-FINAL.pdf

Ok, it seems these massive numbers are global numbers. Don't mix NZ local metrics with global metrics.

You wont find me arguing against combating climate change. Essentially 1B for each % of local emissions reduction is what you suggest. And that is just 2.1% of car emissions that 2.4B will save.

How does selling 100,000 EV;s instead of 100,000 ICE, add jobs?

Your idea is good, but the numbers don't stack up. Id rather build more hydro to become 100% green and not 80%.

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2231753 6-May-2019 16:18

Obraik:

tdgeek:

I want EV's to succeed but at $2.4 Billion to help 2.1% of emissions is very expensive, particularly when the buyers don't need a subsidy. Its free money for a free trip, they buy EV as they can afford it as they will save on running costs.

EV's bought today will not be turnen over as quick as ICE as ICE become costly to maintain. Better to snap up all the used EV's overseas

But 2.4 Billion for just 100,000 cars?? If you gave interest free loans, you will get more buyers, as you will be catering for more buyers, not just buyers that can afford a 60k car

What is your math on $2.4B? You seem to have glossed over the reason for a subsidy and assumed it will only be used by people that can already afford an EV. Again, the point of a subsidy is to make an EV affordable to those where an EV is currently out of their price range.

If what you say is true and the turn over on EVs will be less than an ICE, why will there be more EVs available to import from overseas?

jjnz numbers. He says 100,000 cars will save 2.1%. He quotes GST and subsidy at about $24k per car.

I assume that anyone who can afford a 65k car does not need a subsidy. There will be a small number who can afford 45k but not 65k, you can get them over the line, even though for many, a 45k ICE is a better car than a 65k EV. Those that cannot afford 45k *subsidised is the bulk of the notion, it will be decades before used EV;s are everywhere.

We have a 5 million population. Get used EV's from countries that have far more cars in use than here.

You seem to think I am against EV? Quite the opposite. Why dont we subsidise all car owners to trade up? Why subsidise some but not all? If 100k cars costs $24B then 3M cars is only $720B Lets do that. Just need to trim the budget a shade...Probably for at least 3 years...

EV's already have an incentive, fuel cost savings.

jjnz1

1293 posts

Uber Geek

#2231762 6-May-2019 16:35

Are you sure tdgeek? I am sure they are NZ numbers not global. I'll check the reports again but they did reference NZ GDP.

Obraik

1617 posts

Uber Geek

#2231763 6-May-2019 16:36

tdgeek:

jjnz numbers. He says 100,000 cars will save 2.1%. He quotes GST and subsidy at about $24k per car.

I assume that anyone who can afford a 65k car does not need a subsidy. There will be a small number who can afford 45k but not 65k, you can get them over the line, even though for many, a 45k ICE is a better car than a 65k EV. Those that cannot afford 45k *subsidised is the bulk of the notion, it will be decades before used EV;s are everywhere.

We have a 5 million population. Get used EV's from countries that have far more cars in use than here.

You seem to think I am against EV? Quite the opposite. Why dont we subsidise all car owners to trade up? Why subsidise some but not all? If 100k cars costs $24B then 3M cars is only $720B Lets do that. Just need to trim the budget a shade...Probably for at least 3 years...

EV's already have an incentive, fuel cost savings.

I personally think just removing GST off the cost of a EV would be enough of an incentive.

The problem is, as you mentioned, a $65k EV is not the equivilent of a $65k ICE vehicle in terms of the quality and features you get. You're looking at around $80k-100k for an EV that matches due to the cost of the batteries eating up a lot of the production cost. The point of a subsidy would be so that someone that has a budget to buy a $65k car would buy the $80k EV that has now been brought down to around the same price as the $65k ICE thanks to the subsidy.

I'm not suggesting you're against EVs, but you do seem to be against the idea of subsidising them while nearly every other western country is going the opposite direction and having sucess doing it. Even the USA has subsidies despite their "clean coal" president. The fuel cost isn't really an incentive as that doesn't lower the upfront cost you have to pay on the car to start getting those fuel savings.

Delphinus

594 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2231793 6-May-2019 16:50

Obraik:

I personally think just removing GST off the cost of a EV would be enough of an incentive.

Personally I completely disagree. Most people in a position to spend 60k on a vehicle will be businesses (or self employed) so can claim the GST back anyway. Scrapping the FBT would incentivise businesses more, who are also more likely to replace the vehicle after 3-5 years as well (adding supply to second hand market).

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2231796 6-May-2019 16:56

Obraik:

I personally think just removing GST off the cost of a EV would be enough of an incentive.

The problem is, as you mentioned, a $65k EV is not the equivilent of a $65k ICE vehicle in terms of the quality and features you get. You're looking at around $80k-100k for an EV that matches due to the cost of the batteries eating up a lot of the production cost. The point of a subsidy would be so that someone that has a budget to buy a $65k car would buy the $80k EV that has now been brought down to around the same price as the $65k ICE thanks to the subsidy.

Here's an example of the huge amount extra that you sometimes have to pay to buy a pure electric vehicle compared with the equivalent petrol vehicle.

The petrol Hyundai Kona 1.6T Elite AWD costs about $42,000, but the "equivalent" pure electric 64 kWh Kona Elite retails for $84,000. Now, no Government subsidy is going to bridge a gap like that and make the equivalent petrol and electric Elite Konas about the same price.

And in this example, the petrol Kona is an all wheel drive, whereas the electric Kona isn't. And the petrol Kona has a space saver wheel, but the electric Kona doesn't. So, based purely on what you get for your money, nobody but an EV enthusiast or an avid environmentalist, would even think of paying double the amount of the petrol vehicle just to get the electric version.

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | ... | 60