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 | ... | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | ... | 60

245 posts

Master Geek

Trusted

#2274849 11-Jul-2019 20:43

Obraik:

The RUC inequality between a hybrid and an EV is something they need to acknowledge. I'd recommend doing what I did and emailing (cleancars@transport.govt.nz) the Ministry to express your concern so they can hopefully make some amendments between now and 2021.

Yes, I'm going to be making a submission around this. A hybrid Prius effectively pays ~$38/1000km in excise tax, while a EV if nothing changes will pay RUCs at $72/1000km. This will result in having hybrids with lower initial purchase price, still a good subsidy, better range, lower battery replacement costs, and similar running costs to an EV. Thus it will make more sense practically and financially to own a hybrid than an EV which is the complete wrong signal when EVs are the much better option for reducing CO2 output.

Norton 360

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Norton 360 antivirus provides enhanced security for your connected devices, a secure VPN for online privacy, Password Manager, Firewall, SafeCam, PC Cloud Backup, Dark Web Monitoring, Parental Control, and more. An all-in-one cybersecurity solution backed by 100% Virus Protection Promise and 60 Day Money Back Guarantee.

Linuxluver

5797 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2274888 11-Jul-2019 22:53

ockel:

frankv:

Technofreak:

I find it incredible that EV evangelists that think just because an EV suits their needs, an EV will suit the needs of everyone, therefore it's OK for the government to penalise those naughty people with an ICE for not buying an EV.

It's not about penalising anyone, let alone labeling anyone as naughty. It's about people paying the true cost of what they do. If you really need an ICEV, then you pay more, which is a reflection of the damage that ICEV do to the environment, and the costs that this imposes on the Govt (i.e. the rest of us).

Except that its a token payment. If it were a true polluter-pays structure then it should be levied on km travelled (like diesel RUC) using each vehicles emissions level and the current cost of carbon credits.

Anything else is just waffle.

As is often the case, it's better than nothing. The real problem here is not enough voters are demanding action....and the ear-splitting whining from some about a $3000 penalty 18 months from now is clear sign many people just don't understand what this is all about: climate change.

When the votes are there, the policy will follow.....so if any of us want stronger policy we best get out there and do what we can to convince people it's necessary.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 15 years..... Time flies....

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2274977 12-Jul-2019 07:34

frednz:

Technofreak:

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles. Then to add insult to injury, I'd say nearly 100% of those people buying an ICE vehicle would happily buy an EV if there was one available that either they could afford or fitted their needs. This scheme is an unfair tax on those that cannot afford an EV or have needs that cannot be met by an EV. This scheme isn't going to reduce EV prices to a level those that cannot afford them now will be able toh afford them once the daft scheme is introduced.

Although it's true that the scheme relies partly for its funding on people buying heavily polluting ICE vehicles, the real irony of "this daft scheme", is that some of what is raised from this source goes back into help people buying, well, would you believe it, more fuel efficient ICE vehicles, such as the Suzuki Swift etc.

This must make people who want to buy a new ICE vehicle feel a whole lot better, because after reading several of the "EV Evangelist" posts, you are made to feel that, if you buy a new ICE vehicle, you are badly letting the side down and that this will cause even more polar bears and seaside places to get into trouble (which is probably true).

Anyway, what happens if the money raised from those ICE vehicles that DO attract a fee, is insufficient to meet the amount of the discounts given to all those low-emitting vehicles? No doubt the Government's budgeting process will include an amount for any shortfall?

For the umpteenth time this move is not the EV move, its an emission move. It incents lower emission cars to allow emissions to reduce.

But overall its an EXTREMELY minor move. Extremely minor. The effect on emissions is a rounding error. We have 3.8M light vehicles, we bring on 160,000 annually, that 4% we will improve, but many if not most will be larger ICE so maybe 2% we will improve, and of that 2% there will be Swifts that are a minor improvement and hybrids that are more, but also minor.

So while it seems a good move in the right direction, it will make F all difference to climate change. Far better to send that penalty to a national public transport subsidy where its worthwhile to catch a bus/train as services are more handy and frequent and its cheaper

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2274982 12-Jul-2019 07:39

frednz:

tdgeek:

Agree. If it cost me $x per km for an ICE and less for an EV and price are sort of similar, I will justify that. But I can't. My example is a Kona. 40k for an ICE 80 for the EV. 40k is a LOT of petrol

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/114135887/lets-not-be-fundamentalist-about-feebates-and-ev-ownership

The above article compares the discounted cost of a NZ-new 40kWh Leaf ($51,990) with the Corolla ZR ($36,690), giving a premium to pay for an EV of about $15,000. This example shows the way we are going and is perhaps better than saying the gap is $40,000, which doesn't allow for the $8,000 discount and is for a 64kWh vehicle that is in a different class to the Leaf. The non-Elite Kona costs $78,000 and will qualify for the $8,000 discount.

So, it's obvious that the Leaf is going to be more popular with budget conscious EV buyers than the more expensive and longer range new EVs, and is getting closer to the price of an "equivalent" petrol vehicle.

Thats two examples, its not one that is right and one that is wrong. If I want a Kona its $40,000 . 8k makes no difference. Budget conscious people dont buy $51,000 cars. In any case its not viable as the premium is too large to make the fuel savings beneficial, just as Solar PV is for most people. The prices do need to come down. As my other posts says, this is not a move that helps climate change, which is the irony

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2274983 12-Jul-2019 07:44

frednz:

If you read Part 2A of the discussion paper, it includes strong words, such as "require" and "must meet". Imagine the amount of paper work and effort needed to comply with the clean car standard proposals. I can see why some importers wouldn't be happy being told by Government how they to have to manage, by law, their vehicle imports! For example:

The proposed Clean Car Standard would require vehicle suppliers to lower the average CO2 emissions of the vehicles they are bringing into New Zealand. It would apply to all new and used light vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet, including all cars, SUVs, vans, utes, and light trucks of 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass or less.

The proposed Clean Car Standard would have an emissions target that vehicle suppliers must meet, on average, across their vehicle fleets. An average fleet target means that vehicle suppliers can import vehicles with emissions over the target, so long as this is balanced by sufficient imports of vehicles that are under the target. This allows vehicle suppliers to decide how they will improve their fleets to meet the target.

So you support moves that help climate change but a move to reduce large ICE imports is a problem? The way I look at it is we are telling them what to do, as they wont do it for the good of NZ. So we force importers to reduce large ICE imports as when this comes in, in 2021, there will be alternatives. If we ever relied on humans to do the right thing nothing will ever happen. Importers are here to make money, thats it

cruxis

384 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2275072 12-Jul-2019 09:36

Was looking at the entry level Zero S electric motorcycle which is about $17000, With the EV $8000 subsidy as it definitely meets the 0 emissions standard it would be $9000. This is a really good price. Does anyone know if there is a NZ importer of them?

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2275085 12-Jul-2019 09:56

cruxis:

Was looking at the entry level Zero S electric motorcycle which is about $17000, With the EV $8000 subsidy as it definitely meets the 0 emissions standard it would be $9000. This is a really good price. Does anyone know if there is a NZ importer of them?

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/

Does this also support motorcycles?

Not bad, my bike is about double that HP, but even so, not bad

I doubt that you would get a 50% subsidy. A Swift gets a small discount, and they will emit more than say a 400cc bike which is about the HP rating. Maybe a discount of half a Swift at best? IF it included motorcycles

PolicyGuy

1291 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2275087 12-Jul-2019 09:58

cruxis:

Was looking at the entry level Zero S electric motorcycle which is about $17000, With the EV $8000 subsidy as it definitely meets the 0 emissions standard it would be $9000. This is a really good price. Does anyone know if there is a NZ importer of them?

https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/zero-s/

First, this is a proposed scheme out for consultation. The enacted scheme - if there is one - may look quite a lot different, and wouldn't come into action until 2021

Second, the scheme specifically excludes motorcycles. I have submitted that it shouldn't, but ...

Sorry to dash your hopes
:(

GV27

4300 posts

Uber Geek

#2275146 12-Jul-2019 10:40

I still think my idea of funding this from the profits from Light Rail lines in Auckland is viable :D

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2275150 12-Jul-2019 10:46

GV27:

I still think my idea of funding this from the profits from Light Rail lines in Auckland is viable :D

Yeah but once that buys two wheels and one hubcap, you still cant drive it! Actually that is zero emissions!

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2275369 12-Jul-2019 14:29

tdgeek:

frednz:

If you read Part 2A of the discussion paper, it includes strong words, such as "require" and "must meet". Imagine the amount of paper work and effort needed to comply with the clean car standard proposals. I can see why some importers wouldn't be happy being told by Government how they to have to manage, by law, their vehicle imports! For example:

The proposed Clean Car Standard would require vehicle suppliers to lower the average CO2 emissions of the vehicles they are bringing into New Zealand. It would apply to all new and used light vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet, including all cars, SUVs, vans, utes, and light trucks of 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass or less.

The proposed Clean Car Standard would have an emissions target that vehicle suppliers must meet, on average, across their vehicle fleets. An average fleet target means that vehicle suppliers can import vehicles with emissions over the target, so long as this is balanced by sufficient imports of vehicles that are under the target. This allows vehicle suppliers to decide how they will improve their fleets to meet the target.

So you support moves that help climate change but a move to reduce large ICE imports is a problem?

I haven't said that. I prefer to quote what expert industry leaders say.

This statement from the MIA is worth reading. Here's a relevant extract:

However, he (David Crawford) has concerns about the proposed Clean Car Standard which sets average
weighted emissions targets that importers must meet.

“That implies that distributors have significant influence on vehicles consumers choose to
buy as well as vehicles manufacturers produce.

“This is not the case as New Zealand is a tiny global market, and therefore this policy is
unlikely to achieve the results that the Government is seeking.

“Policies aimed at controlling supply into our market are generally not favoured as they
impose artificial controls that often distort that market.

“They can also create a range of unintended outcomes such as people holding onto older
less safe and more polluting cars longer than they would otherwise and it is also likely to
lead to price increases for all new vehicles entering the market.”

He says the MIA is also disappointed to see that a sliding scale FBT (fringe benefit tax)
regime and better depreciation rates are not up for consideration, as these two policies in
combination with a clean car discount would have a huge impact on accelerating the uptake
of lower emission vehicles.

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2275381 12-Jul-2019 14:49

tdgeek:

frednz:

Technofreak:

The irony of this daft scheme is it relies for it's funding on people buying ICE vehicles. Then to add insult to injury, I'd say nearly 100% of those people buying an ICE vehicle would happily buy an EV if there was one available that either they could afford or fitted their needs. This scheme is an unfair tax on those that cannot afford an EV or have needs that cannot be met by an EV. This scheme isn't going to reduce EV prices to a level those that cannot afford them now will be able toh afford them once the daft scheme is introduced.

Although it's true that the scheme relies partly for its funding on people buying heavily polluting ICE vehicles, the real irony of "this daft scheme", is that some of what is raised from this source goes back into help people buying, well, would you believe it, more fuel efficient ICE vehicles, such as the Suzuki Swift etc.

This must make people who want to buy a new ICE vehicle feel a whole lot better, because after reading several of the "EV Evangelist" posts, you are made to feel that, if you buy a new ICE vehicle, you are badly letting the side down and that this will cause even more polar bears and seaside places to get into trouble (which is probably true).

Anyway, what happens if the money raised from those ICE vehicles that DO attract a fee, is insufficient to meet the amount of the discounts given to all those low-emitting vehicles? No doubt the Government's budgeting process will include an amount for any shortfall?

For the umpteenth time this move is not the EV move, its an emission move. It incents lower emission cars to allow emissions to reduce.

Everyone realises that the Government Discussion Paper is not just dealing with EVs, but people are questioning whether it would have been better to give higher discounts to people who buy EVs, rather than reducing the overall amount available for EVs by giving discounts for the purchase of some lower emitting petrol vehicles.

Before the release of the Discussion Paper, I don't think anybody suggested that, in the fight against climate change, purchase discounts should be given to buyers of new lower emitting petrol vehicles. This could possibly show that the Government doesn't see the elimination of petrol vehicles from our roads as a high priority in the fight against climate change.

Linuxluver

5797 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2275387 12-Jul-2019 15:00

tdgeek:

For the umpteenth time this move is not the EV move, its an emission move. It incents lower emission cars to allow emissions to reduce.

But overall its an EXTREMELY minor move. Extremely minor. The effect on emissions is a rounding error. We have 3.8M light vehicles, we bring on 160,000 annually, that 4% we will improve, but many if not most will be larger ICE so maybe 2% we will improve, and of that 2% there will be Swifts that are a minor improvement and hybrids that are more, but also minor.

So while it seems a good move in the right direction, it will make F all difference to climate change. Far better to send that penalty to a national public transport subsidy where its worthwhile to catch a bus/train as services are more handy and frequent and its cheaper

Agreed. There are several aspects to why this is what it is.

1. Many of the worst emitting vehicles presently have no alternatives. So yo can't incent people to buy what isn't there and punish them if they don't.
2. There are 3 parties in the government. This is the policy they could all sign up to.
3. It's a start. It introduces the idea to the public and adds functionality in the bureaucracy to assess emissions and charge fees accordingly.
4. It makes climate change a wallet issue. That will provoke discussion and provide opportunities to highlight how and why this is necessary.
5. The regulatory regimes overseas are already driving automakers everywhere to push emissions down. NZ has no say. We make no vehicles.

So 2021. After the next election. If enough people vote for stronger policy to address climate change.......we'll have plenty of time to see it happen by 2021. I'm picking National will have a policy that makes other taxpayers "compensate" high emitters for reducing their emissions. This is what Conservatives are doing in Canada right now in terms of policy - making the non-emitters pay for the emitters. You heard it here first.

Today's report of early and record melting across the Arctic - ice, sea ice, permafrost, glaciers.....all of it - is yet another sign we're already over the edge.....we just haven't started falling fast enough yet for most people.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 15 years..... Time flies....

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2275388 12-Jul-2019 15:00

frednz:

Everyone realises that the Government Discussion Paper is not just dealing with EVs, but people are questioning whether it would have been better to give higher discounts to people who buy EVs, rather than reducing the overall amount available for EVs by giving discounts for the purchase of some lower emitting petrol vehicles.

Before the release of the Discussion Paper, I don't think anybody suggested that, in the fight against climate change, purchase discounts should be given to buyers of new lower emitting petrol vehicles. This could possibly show that the Government doesn't see the elimination of petrol vehicles from our roads as a high priority in the fight against climate change.

Right now, you cannot replace many vehicles with EV's. They are not here, they are not in volume, they are too costly. Its cheaper to run an ICE, So right now EV's will make stuff all difference. I gave numbers earlier why this whole move makes stuff all difference to emissions. At least in addition to EV's we can reduce emissions by reducing them from ICE by using better ICE, as ICE will be here for a LONG time yet. If this Govt was into lower emissions it would tax ICE and hybrids and spend on public transport. EV' will look after themselves when costs comes down

tdgeek

26506 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2275389 12-Jul-2019 15:02

Linuxluver:

tdgeek:

For the umpteenth time this move is not the EV move, its an emission move. It incents lower emission cars to allow emissions to reduce.

But overall its an EXTREMELY minor move. Extremely minor. The effect on emissions is a rounding error. We have 3.8M light vehicles, we bring on 160,000 annually, that 4% we will improve, but many if not most will be larger ICE so maybe 2% we will improve, and of that 2% there will be Swifts that are a minor improvement and hybrids that are more, but also minor.

So while it seems a good move in the right direction, it will make F all difference to climate change. Far better to send that penalty to a national public transport subsidy where its worthwhile to catch a bus/train as services are more handy and frequent and its cheaper

Agreed. There are several aspects to why this is what it is.

1. Many of the worst emitting vehicles presently have no alternatives. So yo can't incent people to buy what isn't there and punish them if they don't.
2. There are 3 parties in the government. This is the policy they could all sign up to.
3. It's a start. It introduces the idea to the public and adds functionality in the bureaucracy to assess emissions and charge fees accordingly.
4. It makes climate change a wallet issue. That will provoke discussion and provide opportunities to highlight how and why this is necessary.
5. The regulatory regimes overseas are already driving automakers everywhere to push emissions down. NZ has no say. We make no vehicles.

So 2021. After the next election. If enough people vote for stronger policy to address climate change.......we'll have plenty of time to see it happen by 2021.

Today's report of early and record melting across the Arctic - ice, sea ice, permafrost, glaciers.....all of it - is yet another sign we're already over the edge.....we just haven't started falling fast enough yet for most people.

yes, it is a start and I am in favour of anything even though this wont help emissions much at all

1 | ... | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | ... | 60