Economy 7 metering query

They will care, if something goes wrong, and they arrive back to find their battery flat, particularly if they have a Tesla.

Would drivers care, today, if the parking operator said "We might help ourselves to the fuel in your tank, but don't worry - we'll put it back before your return"?
 
Sponsored Links
True, but what if they were told that parking cost £x per day, but if you let the airport 'borrow' your battery it was £0.5x? Airport car parks already have mobile jump-starters on hand, mobile fast chargers wouldn't be impossible.
 
No, one only has to work out a tariff that applies to mixed use including EV charging. It doesn't have to be accurately reflecting the purpose for which the energy is used, as long as it's acceptable to the regulators, i.e. sufficiently accurate in the majority of cases.
If it were to be fair, that could get complicated, particularly if they were trying to collect an equivalent of fuel excise duty on electricity used for EV charging. Without a pretty sophisticated system, some could end up at least partially paying 'car fuel excise duty' on electricity used for, say, storage heaters.

To do as has been sort-of suggested, and abandon all vehicle fuel excise duties and, instead, replace them (and probably 'car tax') with a mileage-based system would simplify things, but would be an enormous infrastructure undertaking.

Kind Regards, John
 
Are we labouring under a misapprehension?

Because fuel duty results in those who travel farthest, or have the largest vehicles, paying more does not mean that is the actual intention.

Raising a replacement 45 billion could simply be done by ignoring EVs and raising income and other taxes.
 
Sponsored Links
The drivers wouldn't know (or care) how much energy their car provided to the grid, as long as it was fully charged when their incoming flight lands.

I would care. All those extra charge/discharge cycles reduce the life of the battery.
 
I would care. All those extra charge/discharge cycles reduce the life of the battery.
You wouldn't care if you had a leased battery, although the owner might. However it isn't that simple - batteries do have a maximum number of cycles, but they also don't like being left part-charged, and/or under light load, for long periods.
 
I hadn't forgotten that, but it seems that I misunderstood what was being suggested.

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. This thread started out on the mechanics of an Economy 7 meter used to charge an EV but, it seemed to me, has evolved into how the government will recoup the 'lost' revenue from electricity not have fuel duty, et al, applied to it.

You rightly pointed out that putting all the cost on a per-mileage charge means that there needs to 'free' charging at home with the associated complexities that involves. I was saying that there is no issue about paying for the mechanism by which the car is powered (fuel or electricity), the issue is with recouping the 'lost' tax revenue.

Hence, rather than applying the solution of per-mileage charging to both parts of the cost (which creates additional problems) I was saying that the solution would only be applied to the part of the cost where there is an issue.

Are you suggesting that the electricity used would simply be charged at the standard rate (hence no problems of metering)

No idea if it would be standard rate or Economy 7. I don't know enough about the level of detail to form an opinion.

However, I thought the concerns related to the electricity supply (not just the excise duty), with fears that 'Big Brother' and his friend the 'smart meter' would monitor and maybe 'control' home EV charging (and many other things) and maybe levy a different charge for electricity (not excise duty) used for EV charging.

That is a concern (or set of concerns) that I think has some validity but, as I said earlier, I thought recouping the lost tax revenue had come up as a concern as well.

Personally I am somewhat sceptical that the national roll-out of smart meters will take place. As well as all of the more detailed issues (e.g. incompatibility between companies), it is a massive way behind schedule and there are serious doubts that it costs in.

I heard an academic expert being interviewed about this. He said that the cost is supposed to be £11 billion to deliver a saving of £16 billion. However those figures are based on people reducing their usage c. 10% and were produced before there was any large-scale real-world evidence. We how have that evidence and it shows that people stop looking at the energy monitors after a few weeks and that reductions are no more than 3%.
 
To do as has been sort-of suggested, and abandon all vehicle fuel excise duties and, instead, replace them (and probably 'car tax') with a mileage-based system would simplify things, but would be an enormous infrastructure undertaking.
Much simpler to just assume that x% of all electrical energy is used to charge EVs and price it accordingly.
 
Much simpler to just assume that x% of all electrical energy is used to charge EVs and price it accordingly.
Certainly simpler, but potentially 'unfair', depending on how the (assumed) excise duty was being collected on EV charging. For example, if it were collected via the electricity charge, then those without EVs (some even without cars) would have cause for grievance.

Kind Regards, John
 
Because fuel duty results in those who travel farthest, or have the largest vehicles, paying more does not mean that is the actual intention.
Indeed, there is already an arguable anomaly in the system, given that "those who travel farthest, or have the largest vehicles" are, in general, paying no more 'vehicle tax' than light road users, even though they are using the roads (and 'doing damage' to roads) fat more. Give or take the problems of implementation, it would seem more appropriate to abolish both of those 'taxes' and replace them with a 'tax' based on mileage and vehicle size.
Raising a replacement 45 billion could simply be done by ignoring EVs and raising income and other taxes.
"Simply", yes, but not necessarily fair to those without cars (who, arguably, include those least able to pay taxes of any sort).

Kind Regards, John
 
Indeed, there is already an arguable anomaly in the system, given that "those who travel farthest, or have the largest vehicles" are, in general, paying no more 'vehicle tax' than light road users, even though they are using the roads (and 'doing damage' to roads) fat more.
They are though they pay a lot of fuel duty,

Give or take the problems of implementation, it would seem more appropriate to abolish both of those 'taxes' and replace them with a 'tax' based on mileage and vehicle size.
Possibly, but they will in future be paying for more elecricity - and electricity prices could be taxed on an increasing rate for high usage.

"Simply", yes, but not necessarily fair to those without cars (who, arguably, include those least able to pay taxes of any sort).
Well, income tax is a fair tax - IF set fairly.
Those least able to pay don't pay income tax.

VAT is not fair apart from the fact that the better off obviously purchase more goods.
 
Hence, rather than applying the solution of per-mileage charging to both parts of the cost (which creates additional problems) I was saying that the solution would only be applied to the part of the cost where there is an issue.
Fair enough.
No idea if it would be standard rate or Economy 7. I don't know enough about the level of detail to form an opinion.
I wasn't totally clear. I wasn't trying to distinguish between 'Standard tariff' and 'E7 tariff'. When I said 'standard rate' I meant that EV electricity would be charged on the same basis/tariff as everything else - i.e. removing the need for separate metering of EV use. Is that what you meant?
Personally I am somewhat sceptical that the national roll-out of smart meters will take place. As well as all of the more detailed issues (e.g. incompatibility between companies), it is a massive way behind schedule and there are serious doubts that it costs in.
I agree. It's one of the reasons, coupled with the slowness (even if it happens) and the complete absence (yet) of any 'smart appliances', that makes me feel that those concerned about the perceived 'Big Brother' aspects of smart meters probably don't need to even start worrying for a few decades (if they're still around then!).

Kind REgards, John
 
Well, income tax is a fair tax - IF set fairly. Those least able to pay don't pay income tax. VAT is not fair apart from the fact that the better off obviously purchase more goods.
That's all true, but it still wouldn't be particularly fair if those without cars (EV or otherwise) had to pay as much car-related tax/duty, through general taxation, as would a car user whose 'taxation situation' (e.g. income) was the same.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top