Road Pricing and Electric Vehicles: Where to from here?

A road use charge on EVs is not a disincentive [Source: Mariordo, CC BY-SA 2.0]

Details for this event are available here: https://ciltinternational.org/events/road-pricing-and-electric-vehicles-where-to-from-here/.

Please note I will be updating this article over the next few days to provide more of the detail behind our presentation at CILTA in Canberra entitled "Road Pricing and Electric Vehicles: Where to from here" on 12th October 2021 with John Poljak, the founder of www.keynumbers.com.

The slides from our presentation are available below:

Road Pricing and Electric Vehicles: Where to from here? from University of Canberra

Background reading

Dossor, R. (2015). Revenue from road use. Parliamentary Library Briefing Book - 45th Parliament. Canberra: Parliamentary Library. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departmen ts/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/FundingRoads. 

Model of Critical Junctures

See my paper with Stephen Darlington from the AusPSA Conference 2021 here: https://www.politicalscience.com.au/2021/09/apsa-2021-conference-paper.html.

EV Road Use Charge: What's happening now?

Victoria: Road use charges of 2.5c/km (Victoria) on zero and low-emissions vehicles (ZLEVs) from 1 July 2021 (equivalent to fuel exercise charges). Note that conventional hybrids are not considered to be ZLEVs. Source: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge.

NSW: 2.5 cents per km (indexed) for electric vehicles and 2 cents per km (i.e. 80% of EV charge, indexed) for plug-in hybrid vehicles, by 1 July 2027 or when EVs reach 30% (whichever comes first). Source: https://www.nsw.gov.au/initiative/nsw-governments-electric-vehicle-strategy/road-user-charge 

SA: $3,000 subsidy with 2 cents per km (indexed) for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and 2.5 cents per km (indexed) for any other electric vehicles, by 1 July 2027 or 30% (as per NSW)

Timing

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (2019) Road User Charging for Electric Vehicles. URL: https://infrastructure.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Road-User-Charging-for-Electric-vehicles-1.pdf.

Introducing a road user charge for electric vehicles is a home run reform. It represents a win-win for infrastructure users and taxpayers. But there is a catch – reform must be delivered soon.

keynumbers

• Headline versus reality: Keynumbers https://keynumbers.com
• Signal versus noise: EV road use charge 2.5c/km versus ICE Fuel excise at $0.427/litre
• Australia as a laggard? See Canada (which manufactures EVs) (comparative data)
• London congestion charging does not reduce congestion in the same way a distance-based charge, so not a panacea for congestion management
• NSW toll roads – M4
• Rome – surge pricing fast lanes

Incentives

KPMG Canada (2021):

“For those already inclined to buy an EV, they were motivated by environmental concerns, lower operating costs, tax incentives, and the prospect of reduced insurance premiums. For them, tax incentives were much less of an incentive than the environment or lower operating costs”.

Other incentives:

• Investment in charging infrastructure
• Reductions in registration fees
• Reductions in stamp duty and other purchasing-related subsidies
• ‘Soft’ loans 

Disincentives

Range anxiety:  https://www.chasingcars.com.au/news/electric-vehicles/we-test-five-electric-cars-until-they-die-in-an-australian-ev-range-test-model-3-kona-leaf-zs-ev-and-e-tron-tested/.

KPMG Canada (2021) (replicated findings of Electric Vehicle Council 2020):

“The main reasons cited by those planning to buy a vehicle but not an EV are the high cost (60 per cent); limited driving range [range anxiety] (51 per cent); lack of charging infrastructure (50 per cent); dubious battery lifespan (30 per cent), limited model options (24 per cent); and recharging time (24 per cent).

• 83 per cent of Canadians believe the auto makers should be required to invest in a national charging infrastructure.
• 89 per cent want EV charging stations installed at "every gas station" as well as shopping malls and grocery stores.
• 61 per cent say the pandemic made them realize that they need a vehicle. They said they would rather drive than take public transport.”

See: Electric Vehicle Council in partnership with carsales (2021). Consumer Attitudes Survey 2021. URL: https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-EVC-carsales-Consumer-attitudes-survey-web.pdf.

Particulate emissions

OECD. https://www.oecd.org/environment/measures-needed-to-curb-particulate-matter-emitted-by-wear-of-car-parts-and-road-surfaces.htm.

Advocacy since 2015

• Based on understanding of technological inventions as critical junctures
• "Road Users Must Pay, Sooner Rather Than Later", The Conversation, 16 June 2015.
• "Toll war revs up: Sydney drivers face congestion tax or road user-pay system", The Sunday Telegraph, 12 July 2015.
• Getting serious on roads reform is one way our political leaders can get back on track, The Conversation, 25 August.
• De Percy, M.A. and Wanna, J. (Eds.) (2018). Road Pricing and Provision: Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead. Canberra: ANU Press. DOI: http://doi.org/10.22459/RPP.07.2018.
• Road user fee a step to reform: Those who drive petrol-fuelled cars are subsidising drivers of electric vehicles. The Australian, 25 November 2020. 
• Pearls and Irritations https://johnmenadue.com/road-pricing-must-start-with-electric-vehicles/ 

Webinars and wonders: A running sheet of interesting events during s2, 2021

Photo by Pkdowling313 [CC BY SA 4.0] 

 

I am listing the webinars I have attended this semester so I can keep track of those I wish to return to or to write up later. I will improve this page over the rest of the semester and add links where available.

24th August 2021, 3pm: NATSEM online workshop on electric vehicle policy.

26th August 2021, 11am: ANU SPIR, Revisiting the Baconian Method, Professor John Ure.

31st August 2021, 5pm: ANZSOG@ANU Online Book Launch. Politics, Policy and Public Administration in Theory and in Practice: Essays in honour of Professor John Wanna.

31st August 2021, 5pm: Sydney Institute, Twenty Years after 9/11 – The Hon John Howard AC.

3rd September 2021, 10am: CEDA Roundtable: Rapid antigen testing for Covid-19

3rd September 2021, 3pm: CEDA  Duty of care: meeting the aged care workforce challenge

6th September 2021, 12pm: CEDA Building trust in technology

13th September 2021, 12pm: CEDA Pandemic to endemic - beyond the jab. Speakers: Laureate Professor Peter Doherty AC, Melinda Cilento, Chief Executive, CEDA, Professor Raina MacIntyre, Head, Biosecurity Research Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW.

13th September 2021, 5pm: Sydney Institute Christianity and Australian Jurists – Chris Merritt, Justice Geoff Lindsay, Professor Wayne Hudson & Anne Henderson.

20th-22nd September 2021: Australian Political Studies Conference, Macquarie University.

23rd September 2021, 3.10pm: University of Canberra Human Research Ethics Committee, Ethical by Design: The Principles of the National Statement, Ian Pieper, Anesh Nair, Matt Muskat.

23rd September 2021, 5pm: Lowy Institute Australia's submarines: The world reacts.

27th September 2021, 6pm: United States Study Centre NATO Expert Talk Series: NATO's arms-control agenda.

29th September 2021, 12.30pm: Centre for Independent Studies, On Liberty EP70 | Peter Jennings | Did Australia buy the right boat? AUKUS, AUSMIN, and the "forever" alliance.

29th September 2021, 5pm: Lowy Institute Aiding the Pacific’s economic recovery.

30th September 2021, 10am: Sydney Institute, China, the United States and All That – Thomas Friedman.

30th September 2021, 6pm: Centre for Independent Studies Is Populism A Threat To Liberal Democracy? Professor Joe Forgas

5th October 2021, 3.30pm: CEDA Improving Australia's digital competitiveness

6th October 2021, 11am: Sydney Institute India and Pakistan after the Return of the Taliban – Sadanand Dhume.

6th October 2021, 12pm: The Australian Plus event, What Really Happened in Wuhan. Sharri Markson.

7th October 2021, 11am: United States Study Centre, The future of US politics: A conversation with The Brookings Institution's Sarah Binder and Thomas Mann.

12th October 2021, 6pm: CILTA, Intelligent Docks - Reducing congestion, demurrage, overtime and emissions. Adam Welch, Practice Manager, Assurance at Bestrane. https://ciltinternational.org/events/intelligent-docks-reducing-congestion-demurrage-overtime-and-emissions/.

13th October 2021, 9am: Centre for Independent Studies, The New Cold War. Professor John Mearsheimer.

14th October 2021, 4pm: Lowy Institute, In Conversation with Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro L. Locsin Jr.

18th October 2021, 12pm: Lowy Institute, 2021 Lowy Institute Media Lecture. Yalda Hakim.

21st October 2021, recorded: Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Papua New Guinea and the Belt and Road Initiative: the road to ruins or riches, Sarah O'Dowd.

26th October 2021, 5pm: The Sydney Institute, Dark Emu, Bruce Pascoe and the Hunter/Gatherer Controversy – Geoffrey Blainey & Warren Mundine.

11th November 2021, 6pm: Lowy Institute, 2021 Lowy Lecture — Jake Sullivan, US National Security Adviser.

11th-12th November 2021, 10am to 4pm: ACSPRI, Questionnaire Design Online. Dr Gordon Emmerson.

NSW ICAC Model: 'Shame culture' institution not suited to Australian democracy

Poor timing of the announcement into the investigation of Gladys Berejiklian aside, the NSW ICAC model represents a 'shame culture' institution that is not suited to Australian democracy.

The announcement by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of an investigation into the NSW Premier's alleged "breach of public trust" the week before lockdown ends was inherently political, despite it being within the institution’s powers.

The many people who voted for the NSW Government can be justifiably upset by the timing and the fact that unelected bodies like ICAC can influence political leadership in times of crisis. What system of redress do voters have toward this unelected body? 

Citizens do not vote for ICAC, but ICAC has created a situation that has toppled the leader of the party the majority of voters in NSW wanted to be in government. 

In the context of the current crisis, NSW citizens may be justifiably confused by the over-reach of power given to ICAC. Adam Smith's ‘impartial and well-informed spectator’ would be right to question whether ICAC’s actions were politically motivated.

In addition to preventing corruption, the model for ICAC in NSW has created a situation where an unelected body can ruin a state premier's reputation by doing little more than raising a suspicion. Simply put, the model for the NSW ICAC, originally designed to root out endemic corruption in 1980s NSW, has more recently focused on a process of ‘naming and shaming’.

To be sure, ICAC has had its successes in fighting corruption, but since its founding in 1988, three NSW premiers have now been named and shamed. The first two premiers lost their positions but were subsequently found not to have broken the law.

And a third premier has been shamed initially through collateral damage from a public hearing into another person, and subsequently through a public announcement of an investigation. This resulted in her resignation.

ICAC's powers need to be reviewed. Its current model can disrupt political leadership at the whim of an announcement. Three unelected bureaucrats, one full-time and two part-time commissioners, effectively hold the power of veto over state premiers in NSW.

A similar anti-corruption body has been debated at the federal level. But rather than the NSW model, the proposed federal model would not have public hearings. Some say that this is wrong - if it is good enough for others then it is good enough for the political elite.

But imagine if a prime minister was wrongly named and shamed and the federal government imploded like the NSW government is imploding this week? There is a clear incentive for enemies of the Australian state to use this system to destabilise our national government. Arguably, a federal anti-corruption body in the same mould as NSW represents a national security risk.

The NSW ICAC requires reform. Unelected bodies that have such power over our liberal democratic system are a destabilising force. That a third NSW premier has fallen from the 'shame culture' response created by ICAC suggests the efficacy of ICAC has been compromised by this capability.

But even if ICAC finds that the NSW Premier acted unethically (as opposed to illegally), is the political instability worth the finding? Voters are best able to decide who should lead them. Finding political solutions to political problems is a basic principle of liberal democracies.

The key issue is prosecuting something versus publicly naming and shaming. ‘Naming and shaming’ creates collateral damage that cannot be undone. Public hearings that destabilise our political system do not make politicians more accountable. They distract our political leaders from doing their jobs, especially in times of crisis. 

The concept of the rule of law provides for the rights of individuals and the inherent principle of innocence until proven guilty. Nevertheless, in cases such as those relating to national security, the burden of proof can be reversed. But the point is that the 'accused' engages with the legal process.

NSW ICAC investigations, when announced, do not facilitate the concepts of 'innocent until proven guilty' or rely on the reversal of the burden of proof. ICAC announcements are a form of naming and shaming that reinforces the perception of guilt.

The NSW ICAC model represents a 'shame culture' institution that is not suited to Australian democracy. Any federal anti-corruption body would benefit from closer adherence to the accepted norms of the rule of law and avoid the naming and shaming model adopted in NSW.