Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers met with his state/territory counterparts on Friday to discuss (among other things) a potential road user charge (RUC) for electric vehicles.
What Was The Outcome Of The Meeting?
An options paper was put together for the meeting, a goal of which was for state and territory treasurers to “agree or to discuss some principles behind this policy design”.
What was in that paper isn’t clear. But the treasurers were in general agreement about the need for reforms to road user charging arrangements for electric vehicles, and that those reforms should be designed not to impede EV uptake.
“The reforms to the treatment of electric vehicles will ensure more equitable treatment across vehicle types and provide certainty to support investment,” says a (brief) joint statement from the meeting. “The design of reforms should be as simple as possible and minimise administration and compliance burden. We will ensure any changes are phased to enable the productivity, climate and consumer benefits of increasing electric vehicle uptake over the coming years.”
In a separate summary of the meeting, which also identified the need for reduction or removal of regulations that disadvantage electric heavy vehicles, Treasurer Chalmers said:
“The Commonwealth will progress work with the states and territories and take the time to get the policy development right.”
So, it appears this will still be a ‘Pantene’ process – it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen.
Why Is An EV Road User Charge Being Pursued?
EV owners avoid paying fuel excise and plug-in hybrid owners only pay it when they top-up at the pump. Fuel excise helps pay for road projects and maintenance — sort of. Collected by the federal government, fuel excise goes into general/consolidated revenue; where it can be spent on just about anything.
“Universal” RUC Missing In Action
The seismic shift that will be brought about by electric vehicles also means a seismic shift is needed in how we fund roads. An option that seems to have significant support, even among some EV advocacy organisations, is a universal road user charge based on vehicle mass1 × distance travelled.
For example, the Australian Electric Vehicle Association (AEVA) is supportive of a road user charge.
“… but only if it’s part of a wider reform of road-related revenue collection which applies to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. This is particularly relevant as conventional hybrids are primarily responsible for the decline in fuel excise collected form [sic] petrol sales, yet such vehicles would not be captured under an EV-specific RUC.”
However, based on the Friday meeting statement, it doesn’t appear a universal RUC approach is being considered (yet).
What About The Fuel Excise’s Future?
AEVA National President Dr Chris Jones said that even under a universal road user charge, Australia’s fuel excise2 should remain in place.
“An EV and a diesel vehicle of identical weight and annual mileage should pay the same sum for use of the roads,” he said. “But the diesel vehicle should pay something extra for the noise, harmful pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, fuel excise captures that perfectly already.”
And the AEVA says while the RUC should be set by the federal government, state and territory transport departments should administer the scheme and retain all revenue for road maintenance.
The Federal Treasurer reportedly isn’t keen on a universal road user charge *and* fuel excise existing side-by-side as he considers this a double-tap tax for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle owners. But that’s the point: a “polluter pays” approach would make ICE ownership less desirable; although there are significant social and other implications to consider.
Comments have now closed on this article.
Footnotes
- The weight of a vehicle being included in the proposed universal RUC formula is important. But vehicle weight damage to roads is exponential. The ‘fourth power rule’ states damage is proportional to the axle load raised to the power of four. So, trucks do the most damage. But as things stand, trucks with a gross vehicle mass greater than 4.5 tonnes are eligible for fuel tax credits if used for an on-road business activity. ↩
- The current fuel excise rate is 51.6 cents for every litre of fuel purchased. ↩
About Michael Bloch
RSS - Posts
All these charges are nonsensical. Even a RUC, in a huge country so reliant upon roads, is ridiculous, with weight x distance creating punitive differential taxation for both regional and remote Australians, and freight. Yes trucks do the overwhelming damage to roads, but then it’s freight used by all Australians, on those trucks.
Nearly half the total raised annually by the existing fuel excise could be recovered simply by scrapping the diesel fuel rebate, about half of which goes to rich mining companies. But the more glaring disgrace in public policy thinking here is the increasing spread of the idea of ‘user-pays’ public services. Roads are essential publiuc resources, and should be funded centrally, not by users. Those who don’t use roads much benefit enormously, from their use.
Well said
Kerry Packer said it best when he made a comment to an enquiry on his supposed tax evasion. “You don’t spend the money wisely enough for me to want to give you more”
He went on to say he works within the parameters set by government.
I see a number of people sprouting about a user pay system for EV’s. To start with, and EV cost more to buy, hence, more stamp duty, GST, and possibly LCT, depending on price. Vehicle registration has an insurance component, licensing fee and the rest is earmarked for roads. A substantial amount really.
Like the rooftop solar, EV’s were pushed hard to reduce carbon footprint, and be more environmentally friendly. As soon as there’s a migration to this, the government steps in with increased charging prices, taxes, reduced rebates
etc.
We are already a highly taxed nation, but we are essentially the same size as the USA, but with only 27 million people to fund infrastructure. Not certain on the right solution.
Hi Steve,
I love it when people quote Kerry Packer about how wisely the government spends money; they neglect to mention it was government spending on defibrillators that saved Packer’s life.
He was playing polo when he had a heart attack and lucky for him, the brand new government funded ambulance on hand had the latest in very expensive technology on board. They revived him with that investment.
Once he realised how lucky he was, Packer did a deal with the NSW government to help them fit out ALL the ambulances with defib machines. They became knowns as “Packer whackers” and it was a great philanthropic gesture, but even the richest man in Australia could only afford to do half the job.
Packer was a cunning businessman but he couldn’t succeed, indeed none of us can, without good government and civil society to protect our interests.
Hear, hear… and we aren’t taxed highly for the record. Australia’s total tax revenue in 2023–24 reached 30 percent of GDP, notably below the OECD average of 33.9 percent according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Other sources confirm Australia’s tax-to-GDP ratio sits around 29 percent, making it one of the lowest-taxing advanced economies. This places Australia near the bottom of the OECD rankings for tax burden, so I don’t know why people keep believing this myth even if it *feels* right.
Heavy trucks do all the damage to roads and roads are made much stronger than necessary to accommodate them.
The fact that they do not pay for the maintenance costs or their part of the capital costs has given them an enormous advantage over rail freight.
Australia would be far better off if long distance freight were carried by rail instead of the constant line of large trucks on all major highways.
If this EV tax comes in, watch EV sales drive off the cliff, defeating the governments green efforts.
The thought of this ghastly tax on us is terrifying.
If some stupid bureaucrat thinks we are going to send him a photo of our odometer, ways will be devised to get around it.
This will end in tears for the albos government.
Why should ev drivers not contribute to schools hospitals and roads.
ICE vehicles are what is putting many in hospital in the first place.
How so? Vehicular accidents don’t care about the energy source, only velocity, mass, and any crumple factor. Oh perhaps there’s a sensory component too – silent vehicles are less noticeable than a loud revving engine, likewise loud colours, or lights, are more apparent than those which blend into the road, or surrounding environment.
Ah, just check out the health cost of petrol and diesel pollution and get back to us…
Robert, in my area they are zero. The big issues are burnoffs, bushfires, industrial emissions, and pollens.
City cores would be different – smog from fireplaces and vehicle emissions, plus industrial emissions, are a real hazard in some foreign cities. Of course those places could always try banning all that to clear the air but I don’t see any government banning ICEV ownership in cities.
This chat is surprisingly “active”. I’ve not been around here for long, but would have expected a website like this, to be everyone pretty much in agreeing.
Getting back on topic, no one seems to have mentioned the effectiveness of the congestion charges in London. While they didn’t ban ICE, they taxed the hell out of it and it made a difference. I visited once before the charge and once after. The first time I had black snot at the end of the day from the pollution. On the second visit, after the charge, things were about what I expect to see at home in Australia. Sorry, not a pretty example, but something that I didn’t need an academic or government body to tell me. That alone is a good reason to tax ICE. (Both visits were in approximately the same time of year. Yes, I know there was a higher proportion of diesels in the UK at the time compared with Australia and that would be a contributing factor. Contrary to my comment, I’m neither anti science or anti government.)
John Alba: – “How so? Vehicular accidents don’t care about the energy source, only velocity, mass, and any crumple factor.”
Encouraging and facilitating the extraction and combustion of more fossil fuels is ‘civilisation suicide’!
See my Submission (#26) to the NSW Parliament Joint Select Committee on Net Zero Future re their inquiry into Emissions from the fossil fuel sector, published yesterday (Sep 10) at:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3113
As a general rule of thumb, global average warming of +4 °C (for land & ocean) is consistent with +6 °C over land, & +8 °C in the average warming over mid-latitude land. That risks +10 °C in the summer average, or perhaps +12 °C in heatwaves. Western Sydney has already reached 48 °C. If you add 12 °C to the 48 °C you get summer extremes of 60 °C.
See page 10: https://www.breakthroughonline.org.au/dor
Can your air-con handle 50+ °C? No?
Geoff, that’s one perspective sure, the other is that the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels is what has and is facilitating modern civilisation with plenty of folk not interested in going horse and buggy if their ICEV options are banned.
Yes yes there’s plenty of folk who believe in the climate apocalypse. There’s also plenty of others who don’t, and many more whose first concern is economics – they’re also not interested in making sacrifices they’re told to by folk who aren’t in the same situation, and\or aren’t even making those sacrifices e.g. regular travel on private planes to tell folk to stop flying and start sacrificing to save Mother Gaia.
You’re also ignoring the obvious concrete jungle heat sink issue. Excessive urbanisation and terrible city planning is not global warming.
Hi John,
The great thing about science and the scientific method is that it doesn’t care what you believe.
Some believe the earth is flat, oil is renewable, infinite growth on a finite planet is possible.
Much comfort comes from the idea a plucky band of oil billionaires & the cranks they’ve paid, have disproven climate change.
These folks are sharp like a bowling ball and/or willfully ignorant along with it.
So people either understand climate change; or they’re plain wrong.
And they’ve been wrong for well over 50 years.
Have a listen.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2025-08-30/the-science-show-50-years-robyn-williams/105706348
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritchie_Calder
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_Prize
John Alba: – “You’re also ignoring the obvious concrete jungle heat sink issue. Excessive urbanisation and terrible city planning is not global warming.”
In my Submission (#26) at:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/91844/0026%20Geoff%20Miell.pdf
…Slide 19, headlined Human Cost of Global Warming contains a gif animation, sourced from: https://globaia.org/habitability
The purple regions shown in the animation are where the mean annual temperatures (MATs) are projected to exceed 29 °C, for GMST anomaly thresholds at +1.5, +1.8, +2.1, +2.4, +2.7, +3.6 & +4.4 °C, relative to pre-industrial age, likely too hot for humans to comfortably/safely live – far more than just urban areas.
Our/humanity’s niche shows a primary peak of population density at a MAT of ~13 °C & a secondary peak at ~27 °C (i.e. monsoon climates principally in South Asia). The density of domesticated crops & livestock follow similar distributions, as does GDP.
you dont think EV users pay tax on their income? That they dont pay GST on good they buy? That they dont pay vehicle Rego?
EV’s will still be way cheaper to run than CE vehicles. If RUC’s deter the uptake on EV’s then those people aren’t very serious about having an EV.
The annual EV tax in Alberta, Canada is $200, the first 3 years / 80,000 km depreciation on our Model Y has been 50 times as much. And the fuel savings (assuming home charging) are still at least 10 times the tax.
Canada had a $5,000 purchase subsidy on EVs (that we have avoided getting 3 times) cancelled this past January, and that had a huge effect.
The only people the road tax will stop from buying an EV are those who are very bad at math, and those people should just keep buying lottery tickets.
The 98.4% of people who haven’t bought one yet, either can’t afford an EV, can’t use one, or don’t want one yet. Or they got a plugin hybrid, and average a litre and a half of gasoline every 100 km.
An RUC should apply to ALL cars, if you dont want to avoid ev uptake, simple
Yes a RUC that applies to all would be a bit more palatable.
yeah? not impede EV uptake?
Just one simple example – how many LPG powered vehicles have been sold since they started taxing LPG for vehicle use?
Any charge being considered at all, is a big negative on the will I, wont I buy an EV next year question. The whole idea of an EV for me is to avoid the federal government charges and save money.
Also to be considered, it at least with an ICE vehicle i am paying the exorbitant fee in small amounts as i go. A lot less pain than yet another an annual bill I have to save up to pay.
People who are not rich consider price options based on what comes out of their pocket today, they dont have the luxury of considering lifetime costs / savings.
I’ve seen people hand over $150 for a fill, and our EV tax is $200 a year for Alberta’s 30,000 EV owners.
I think Saskatchewan’s EV tax is $150 but some of their roads will do that much damage to your car.
Yes we should do whatever we can to promote EVs, but somebody has to pay for roads and bridges. What are we going to do when it’s 50% EVs?
Yes, the upfront cost is the main barrier to selling EVs, and charging at home. And public charging, doesn’t have to be cheap, but it absolutely has to work.
Didn’t take too long to bring this to the forefront, the ‘fairness’ in user pays.
They could have left it a bit longer though, to keep the incentive going on the overall cost / benefit of EVs.
At the moment they (BEVs and PHEVs) make up around 2.4% of overall passenger vehicle numbers in Australia (1.75% of all registered motor vehicles).
That’s not a huge considering an approx decade and a half long build up, granted most of this has been in the more recent 7 or 8 years.
Whatever new taxes labor come up with, I’m sure it will be a windfall to help them on their way, perhaps even helping in slowing the further growing record debt we are in.
Hi Les,
I agree we shouldn’t be taxing EV’s before they’re much more established.
It would be nice to see the government acknowledge the benefit to personal wellbeing and the health budget derived from EVs… but applying a new tax to stink cars for lung damage wouldn’t be politically tenable.
I’d also ask the question about how much an RUC is going to cost to administer. Could we perhaps find something better to do with our time than take photos of odometers?
Any extra revenue should be siloed for rolling out better EV charging infrastructure.
Les in Adelaide: – “They could have left it a bit longer though, to keep the incentive going on the overall cost / benefit of EVs.”
Yep. Per BITRE report Road Vehicles, Australia January 2024, from page 1:
* 21.74 M registered motorised road vehicles on 31 Jan 2024.
* A further 4.7 M caravans, trailers & plant/equipment (e.g. construction equipment, tractors & other agricultural equipment, all-terrain vehicles, forklifts, golf buggies, etc.) not included in the estimate of total registered motorised road vehicles.
* ~167,850 registered BEVs & FCEVs on 31 Jan 2024, an increase of 112% on Jan 2023. Figures include ~159,460 passenger BEVs & FCEVs, representing ~1.0% of all registered passenger vehicles in 2024.
* ~481,400 registered hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) on 31 Jan 2024. Figures include 479,290 registered passenger HEVs, representing ~3.0% of all registered passenger vehicles in 2024.
ICEVs continue to dominate Australia’s fleet.
AEVA, like many EV groups, are arguing for a sin tax i.e. those for whom EVs are not an option (cost, range, terrain, complexity etc) be forced to pay a penalty because Other = Bad.
Those arguing for an EV tax, are arguing for a fair use charge – both EVs and ICEVs use the roads, but only ICEVs pay for this privilege. Agricultural and mining vehicles also pay for the privilege via excise+GST, but this is refunded because they don’t actually use public roads, usually.
Current EV subsidy options have made EVs more popular, but hybrids remain far more popular, and ICEVs still comprise the majority of sales. Consumer choice is clear. Unless government doubles down on its carrot and stick approach to EV v ICEVs this will not change. But push too far and voters will opt for a change in government instead – the voter is always right! 😜
John Alba: – “Consumer choice is clear. Unless government doubles down on its carrot and stick approach to EV v ICEVs this will not change.”
I think most consumers are ‘energy blind.’ It seems Australia’s liquid fuel security is becoming ever more precarious.
https://crudeoilpeak.info/australian-diesel-import-dependency-on-middle-east-oil-update-april-2025
https://crudeoilpeak.info/australian-petrol-import-dependency-april-2025-update
Some energy analysts suggest serious supply concerns by markets for both oil and natural gas soon. Brace for impact…
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/ev-road-charges-mb3246/#comment-1727290
And burning more carbon is ‘civilisation suicide’!
https://www.lithgowenvironment.au/docs/road-to-climate-ruin-geoff-miell-4jun25.pdf
Anything that discourages the rapid phaseout of Australia’s fleet of operating ICEVs threatens Australia’s longer-term energy security and is ultimately ‘civilisation suicide’.
Geoff, the problem is EVs remain effective suicide for many Australians – too expensive, too short ranged, too many bells and whistles and pointless add ons that are ultra expensive to repair etc.
Given the current global temperature remains significantly below what certain points in the past are supposed to have been, there’s many who are actually in favour of increasing global warming.
Some may, others are pointing out the reopening of previous fields, and the discovery of more. Demand, not supply, is likely to be the bigger issue.
Ever more precarious? Australia is a net importer, that’s not changed, so how are things more precarious? Remember, Australia relies less on foreign imports for fuel, than it does foreign imports for EVs.
Yes you may consider consumers to be energy blind, but is that how they perceive themselves? Or do they simply apply a different value judgement to the matter? Total reliance on CCP China for instance for EVs vs partial for fuel from Singapore?
Hi John,
In terms of “partial” I think about 90% of our transport fuel comes from Singapore. We have onkly two onshore refineries and Bass straight is drying up. While EVs, wherever they come from, are about 10% of new sales and about 1% of the fleet.
When you say “many Australians” are you thinking of the 85% who live within an hour of the coast, who’s average commute is sub 20km and average annual mileage is about 15,000km?
Some Australians, not many, may find EVs aren’t a great fit, but most, in fact a vast majority will find EVs are perfectly suitable if they stop believing the FUD spread by trolls and useful id!ots of the incumbent energy industry.
Why would we spend billions upon billions, year upon year, to sponsor multinational tax dodgers and extremist theocracies in the middle east? Couldn’t we better use that money at home on education, aged care and environment?
Anthony Bennett: – “In terms of “partial” I think about 90% of our transport fuel comes from Singapore.”
Nope. Diesel is the critical transport fuel.
Average Monthly Diesel imports to Australia, between May 2024 – Apr 2025:
South Korea: 670 ML (26% share)
Malaysia: _ _ 424 ML (17%)
Singapore: _ 345 ML (13%)
India: _ _ _ _ 309 ML (12%)
Taiwan: _ _ _ 313 ML (11%)
Brunei: _ _ _ 202 ML (8%)
Japan: _ _ _ 149 ML (6%)
China: _ _ _ _ 78 ML (3%)
UAE: _ _ _ _ _ 53 ML (2%)
Indonesia: _ _ _ 1 ML (less than 1%)
Others: _ _ _ _ _2 ML (less than 1%)
http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/Diesel-imports-last-12months-Apr25.jpg
Australia’s diesel fuel consumption cover is about 26 days (2025, to Jun)
https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-petroleum-statistics
54% of Australian diesel imports are dependent on Middle East crude oil.
Disrupt Australia’s diesel fuel imports & our 2 refineries & we stop functioning in about a month.
Thanks Geoff,
I should have written 90% comes on boats and if you block shipping we have about 6 weeks supply, assuming the boats on the water get here. A fortnight otherwise?
That was my impression of it anyway, jet fuel is probably part of the equasion too.
“Strategic reserves” stored in the USA are a bit pointless..?
Anthony Bennett: – “A fortnight otherwise?”
Per Australian Petroleum Statistics, Days of Consumption Cover, 2025 to Jun:
Crude oil & feedstocks: 39
LPG: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _94
Automotive gasoline: _ 29
Aviation gasoline: _ _ 138
Aviation turbine: _ _ _ _21
Diesel oil: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26
Fuel oil: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 77
https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-petroleum-statistics
Consumption cover only includes stocks in Australia (on land & on domestic & coastal waters) held on the last day each month.
Without diesel fuels there are no deliveries of petrol, jet, & LPG fuels via ships & trucks. Diesel fuels are essential for heavy transport, agriculture, construction, mining (including coal and gas extraction), keeping factories producing & keeping people fed & healthy.
A recent ‘war-game’ report reveals vulnerabilities.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-07/australia-fuel-security-falling-short-foi-war-game-report/104745210
Brilliant detail as usual Geoff,
Thank you for knowing where to find it and being diligent in posting. It’s frustrating when others “take a glance” and question the veracity without questioning their own bias.
Bottom line is that we’re screwed, in any case days not months, if they turn the oil off.
Anthony, your 15% of Australians would still comprise about 4 million or so – roughly somewhere between Croatia and New Zealand. As for the 85% within an hour of the coast having commutes averaging less than 20 km and yearly mileage of 15,000 km, I’d be curious as to the data behind that – I suspect that average hides a lot!!!
Not many is subjective. It crossed my mind a while ago that maybe ‘government’ should simply ban non-EV ownership by those dwelling in city cores. The eliminates smog issues, and ostensibly does what the most Green leaning population seem to want. But I don’t see that happening.
Tax dodging is a separate issue and not limited to energy. Yes funding fundamentalist Islamic regimes may be a problem, but is funding the CCP any better? Education, aged care, and environment sound good, but will that actually happen, and who defines what counts as well spent? Greens v Teals v Labor v Coalition v One Nation v Katter v etc have very different views!!!
Anthony Bennett: – ““Strategic reserves” stored in the USA are a bit pointless..?”
Former defence department secretary Dennis Richardson suggests the decision to house Australia’s strategic fuel reserves in the US as “an absolute joke”.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/08/housing-australia-fuel-reserves-in-us-an-absolute-joke-former-top-defence-bureaucrat-dennis-richardson-says
The journey across the Pacific Ocean for large oil tankers from the US Gulf Coast to Australia is estimated to take around 2-3 weeks. This assumes that the necessary tankers are readily available. In a real emergency, arranging these logistics could add to the overall timeframe.
Even once the fuel arrives, there’s no guarantee of immediate refining capacity to process it for consumption.
People in Russia are now reporting waiting 8 hr for their 10 litres fuel ration. https://youtu.be/sC77lpHXuCA?t=175
If China attacks Taiwan, expect similar queues here.
John Alba: – “…there’s many who are actually in favour of increasing global warming.”
That’s a road to “climate ruin.”
Joint director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Johan Rockström, said:
“We have as modern humans existed on planet Earth during the two most recent ice ages, so only 250,000 years.
So, we’ve had two ice ages and two interglacials. One is the Eemian, 100,000 years ago; and then the Holocene, the most recent 10,000-year period.
So, the Holocene is a warm interglacial. It is a 14 °Celsius planet. It’s inside this, this ‘Corridor of Life,’ the plus two maximum warmth to minus six. But it’s even more narrow. It’s actually 14 °Celsius, +/- 0.5, 0.5.” https://youtu.be/U8pLrRkqbb0?t=357
Humanity is on a collision course towards a +3 °C GMST anomaly, or more; a world beyond any past human experience. Large-scale depopulation would be likely.
https://globaia.org/habitability
John Alba: – “Ever more precarious? Australia is a net importer, that’s not changed, so how are things more precarious?”
Did you read the links? No?
Diesel is the critical transport fuel. Disrupt diesel fuel flows & everything else soon stops functioning.
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/ev-ruc-australia-mb3264/#comment-1727839
For the period Jan 2010 to May 2024, for Australia’s diesel fuel:
Sales increased +3.5% per annum (linear best fit);
Imports increased +19% per annum (linear best fit).
http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/AU-Diesel-Sales-Imports_May24.jpg
Australia only has two operating refineries remaining with a max combined diesel production capacity of circa 500 ML/month. Domestic sales of diesel fuel in Australia ranged from 2,525.0 ML in Feb to 2,903.4 in May in year-2025 so far.
The future of the two operating Australian refineries remains uncertain beyond mid-2027, when a federal government rescue package expires.
Geoff, I glanced at the crudeoilpeak links, but I’m unclear on the credibility – seems to be some random politically active guy on the internet. Given population growth in Australia it logically follows that fuel demand will grow. Since Australia is a limited producer of fuels, is it accurate to say that Australia is more precarious given it’s always been precarious?
Given Australia’s reliance on coal power for electricity, one could also make the argument that when the coal stops, so too does Australia. Yes switching to CCP solar panels, inverters, and other such matters may be popular, but it’s actually keeping Australia’s energy precarious! Offend the CCP and the power stops.
Worse, most EVs are CCP made, which reinforces the whole precariousness of Australia. Offend the CCP and …
Paranoid? Perhaps. But the alternative is to have faith in CCP (which runs a police state and shows clear imperial ambitions) not adding a widget or backdoor to highly complex tech products.
John Alba: – “I glanced at the crudeoilpeak links, but I’m unclear on the credibility – seems to be some random politically active guy on the internet.”
I note all Matt’s graphs at crudeoilpeak include from where the data is sourced to compile them. For example, the petroleum stats for Australia are sourced from Australian Petroleum Statistics at: https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/australian-petroleum-statistics
You could verify the data for yourself, but that requires effort on your part.
John Alba: – “Since Australia is a limited producer of fuels, is it accurate to say that Australia is more precarious given it’s always been precarious?”
There could be zero operating refineries remaining & 100% fuel imports within a few years.
A recent ‘war-game’ report reveals Australia’s increasing liquid fuel security vulnerabilities.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-07/australia-fuel-security-falling-short-foi-war-game-report/104745210
:EVs remain effective suicide for many Australians”
Do you mean economic suicide?
I doubt it, the total cost per km might be a bit less if you’re going new. But yeah, a preowned, small, well maintained petrol car or hybrid is going to be the cheapest.
Randy Wester: – “But yeah, a preowned, small, well maintained gasoline car or hybrid is going to be the cheapest.”
What makes you think petroleum fuels will remain abundant and affordable in the years/decades to come?
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/ev-road-charges-mb3246/#comment-1727290
Burning more fossil fuels is ‘civilisation suicide’!
Maybe I need to be more clear: If you can afford new, go EV if you can. The savings in fuel might justify the increased payments.
If you’re on a tighter budget, get a small used hybrid and save for a plugin car.
I think petroleum will remain available in Canada, but not necessarily abundant or cheap. We put about 35 litres into our plugin hybrid every two months because no chargers where we need to go.
Gasoline going from $1.25 to $5.00 a litre would not really change my life. I can so easily outbid the non hybrid drivers.
But if we run out of petroleum by-product natural gas in winter, despite 8,000 MW of wind and solar in Alberta we’d likely have no electricity and no heat at 30 below zero, so we’d be evacuating.
In 10 years we’ll have nuclear plants, though, so we won’t need the oil and gas.
Randy Wester: – “I think petroleum will remain available in Canada, but not necessarily abundant or cheap.”
Canada is a net exporter of crude oil. Per SRoWE2025, page 33, Canada exported on average 5.135 Mbarrels/day in 2024, representing 7.4% global share of exports.
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
USA is a net importer of crude oil, but a net exporter of petroleum products.
Australia is a net importer of crude oil & a substantial net importer of petroleum products. I’d suggest Australia is in a far more precarious liquid fuel security position compared with Canada & USA.
Randy Wester: – “Gasoline going from $1.25 to $5.00 a litre would not really change my life.”
Would fuel queues and rationing, like in some parts of Russia are apparently experiencing now, be life changing for you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqilnMdsSZo
I think an invasion of Taiwan could see very long fuel queues here in Australia.
Maybe the gross exports averaged 5.1 MM BBL / Day in “Barrel of Oil Equivalents” in 2024, but the actual oil + bitumen exports, even before subtracting imports of refined fuel imported from the U.S., was more like 3.6 MM BBL / Day
Most of Canada has historically imported fuel or crude by tanker, rather than transport it 5,000 km by pipeline. And we ran short of conventional crude in the 1970’s, so like SASOL in South Africa we started making synthetic “crude” oil from natural gas and bitumen.
Yes, certainly Australia is in a more precarious position on liquid fuel than North America. But not hopeless – harder to blockade Australia with U-Boats, than it was Britain.
No, Fuel queues here are extremely unlikely, and would hardly affect me, because our other car is a Model Y. But having to buy four good snow tires to drive it in winter, would cost me almost $3,000, so we shod the plugin Prius with ‘all weather’ tires for $420.
Randy Wester: – “Most of Canada has historically imported fuel or crude by tanker, rather than transport it 5,000 km by pipeline.”
I’d suggest that’s a fuel security vulnerability.
Randy Wester: – “No, Fuel queues here are extremely unlikely, and would hardly affect me, because our other car is a Model Y.”
I note that in 2024, Russia exported 10.1% share of global crude exports, larger than Canada (7.4%). Russia is now experiencing fuel queues & rationing in increasing areas.
What makes you think Canada is immune from fuel shortages that could affect chilled & frozen goods, dry goods, retail & hospital pharmacy supplies, etc.?
Randy Wester: – “But not hopeless – harder to blockade Australia with U-Boats”
Look where Australia gets most of its diesel imports from:
https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/ev-ruc-australia-mb3264/#comment-1727839
A major conflict in North-East Asia could disrupt many Asian refineries.
Randy, perhaps I phrased it poorly, but no the problems are not limited to the economics, though that’s obviously a big one.
In terms of cost, those doing less mileage per year save money by going ICEV – they capital costs of an EV vastly exceed that of an ICEV,
Then there’s the traditional range anxiety issue. Yes as you go up the EV range you can get longer range, but you’re also paying much much more. At what point does it simply make sense to stick with a fast and easily refuellable ICEV? Worse, as EV usage increases, ‘fuel demands’ become a growing problem meaning more time wasted, and likely higher costs. If folk are already struggling to get a ‘bowser’ because of excess demand, how much worse will it be when demand increases? And remember, supply is fixed so as more draw on the power, there’s less to go around meaning slower recharging and longer waits.
Hi John,
Do you remember the large, ongoing & long lived impact of cutting the fuel excise? No?
Geoff Miell:
“What makes you think Canada is immune from fuel shortages that could affect chilled & frozen goods, dry goods, retail & hospital pharmacy supplies, etc.?”
A national railway, for one, 90% hydro and nuclear electricity, for another.
Storage and transport of chilled and frozen goods is not something Canadians spend much time worrying about. Probably 90% of our food is cooked from frozen, and from October through March, it’ll keep frozen in the trunk of the car.
Canada exports 81% of the oil produced here, not including what’s refined in the U.S. and reimported.
There is a new oil / fuel / propane pipeline over the mountains from Alberta to the coast that could probably supply Australia, 850,000 bbl per day and could be expanded by 350,000 bbl per day with more pumping horsepower, should Asian refineries be unavailable to Aus.
But in war, all bets are off. If I lived in Aus, I’d likely go the limit on solar and batteries, and still drive an electric car.
Randy Wester: – “A national railway, for one, 90% hydro and nuclear electricity, for another.”
A small portion of the Canadian railway system is electrified, with electric traction primarily limited to some commuter & urban rapid transit systems, while the vast majority of the national network, especially for freight, remains diesel-powered. Canada lacks the widespread electrification seen in many other industrialized nations, particularly for long-distance freight, which contrasts with countries like China, India, & Russia that have extensively electrified their railway networks.
Without diesel fuels there are no deliveries of petrol, jet, & LPG fuels via ships & trucks. Diesel fuels are essential for heavy transport, agriculture, construction, mining (including coal & gas extraction), keeping factories producing & keeping people fed & healthy.
I’d suggest Canada is not as immune to disruptions to its economic wellbeing as you seem to think.
Geoff, Canada has 17 refineries and only imports fuel when it’s cheaper or closer.
The railways have moved 420,000 barrels of petroleum per day.in 2020-02. They won’t run short, there are stacked contingency plans.
When I was on the disaster planning team at a trucking company, there was a concern raised that the backup generator only had enough fuel capacity for a week at full load. It wouldn’t run at full load, and if Alberta was completely out of diesel and electricity, a nuclear war or a comet strike has just occurred, and we were going to just call it a day.
I do think it’s deeply unwise to offshore anything critical, like pharma and single use medical supplies.. If there’s a fuel shortage in Asia, we’re not going to get incoming shipments by air, no matter how much jet fuel *we* have on hand. And we have done just that.
I don’t mean to come off too flippany, but we’re pretty well prepared. A spring flood took out everything but 1 rail line.2 years ago, though
Randy Wester: – “I don’t mean to come off too flippany, but we’re pretty well prepared.”
I think Canada is more resilient to disruptions to global fuel supplies compared with Australia, but clearly not completely immune.
Canada’s pharmaceutical supply chain is heavily reliant on foreign imports & concentrated supply sources, which increases its susceptibility to disruptions & shortages.
Also, even if Canada remains resilient in the shorter-term, amongst the destabilisation of other warmer countries as they become progressively too hot & unlivable as planet Earth warms further, & hundreds of millions to billions of people attempt to migrate to cooler regions in the coming few decades, I think eventually Canada will be inevitably dragged towards civilisation collapse too – analogous to what happened to the rear section of the Titanic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGeskFzE0s
Burning more carbon-based substances is global ‘civilisation suicide’!
The RUC has to include all motorised vehicles, from ebikes all the way up to A/B Doubles and Triples according to damage done to roads and the environment.
Recording distance can be done at places like Service NSW where odometers can be recorded in drive throughs by staff. This will create jobs (which most politicians seem to like to do). Concessions for primary producers can apply for off road use, as already applies for liquid fuels.
Above all we must finally do something about mode shift: from road to rail. Rail infrastructure must be brought up to date so that people have an incentive to travel by train rather than car. So too for freight. Current intermodal technologies are not fit for purpose.
Personal anecdote: I live in regional NSW about 4 hours drive from Sydney. Recently spoke to a diesel tanker drive decanting at a service station. He told me that he services one or two stations before returning to Sydney to reload and do another trip. Count all the costs involved there
“Recording distance can be done at places like Service NSW where odometers can be recorded in drive throughs by staff.”
At least in NSW and I’m sure they’re not the odd one out, the odometer reading is taken at the rego check, which is compulsory for vehicles 5yrs and older. I don’t think there needs to be another step or more people required in the process, since it is already being done.
Cars under 5yrs old, just need to provide the previously mentioned odometer photo during the registration process and have the extra amount added at the time of payment. There’s enough AI now days to be able to automatically read the value from the image and the value can be cross checked if the vehicle is sold before the 5yr rego check or at the 5yr rego check. (might lead to an increase of almost 5yr old cars being written off as people want to avoid paying excess RUC charges. 🙂 )
The AEVA proposal actually makes sense: a universal RUC for all vehicles that use public roads and then fuel excise for all vehicles emitting toxic fumes and greenhouse gases. It doesn’t really matter where those are emitted, so scrap the diesel fuel rebate.
Unfortunately just because it makes sense doesn’t mean it will get implemented as the government needs to keep the majority of voters happy and that majority currently drives ICE vehicles.
It doesn’t matter where they are emitted including at the dirty Australian power supply.
When, not “if” the EV burns or gets written off in an accident there are many more dirty things put into the air to spoil the planet.
Think of the car carriers that have been sunk by EVs burning, they mayor may not have started it but most definitely encouraged and kept them burning with impossible to put out fires. They should pay for that too.
Tony
To me there are more factors than just weight and distance and road damage etc. There’s also congestion; on the roads and parking space for example. I haven’t had a car (ICE or Electric) since 1981, and ridden bicycles (since 1972) and ICE motorcycles since 1996. Recently I’ve acquired an electric midi-scooter (like a Vespa) and an electric motorcycle, both, I should say, made in Australia. Both are totally solar charged. Whilst sitting in a traffic jam on the Kwinana Freeway in Perth, as cars crawled past, in a 10 minute period I saw ONE car with more than just the driver. My concern is that as an e-motorcyclist any RUC will have me subsidising the “congesto-mobiles”, and I’d like to see the size of the vehicle taken into consideration. E-motorcycles contribute very little to on-street congestion, as a standard car parking bay can hold 3-4 motorcycles.
Joe that’s the best comment I’ve seen so far.
In Canada, local schools and roads are paid for out of property tax. Provincial roads are paid outbof provincial fuel tax, and national roads are paid out of national fuel tax.
Our provincial government is levying a $200 a year fee on electric cars, but not on plugin hybrids. It’s a bit less than four weeks’ property tax on a modest home, or half the cost of one snow tire.
They’re not going to check odometers.
Australia is able to use fuel, in the form of electricity, that it can produce locally and does not have to import. EV technology is a great boon to Australia, and this advantageous technology should be exploited to the full and the opportunity not squandered through ignorance. Of greater import is the state of the environment with global heating occurring at an accelerating rate and positive feedback systems starting to kick in.
Damage to roads is caused by weather and the axle loads of the vehicles moving across them. Weather is so minor that road managers ignore them. Axle loads do the damage. The damage caused is to the fourth power of the weight. That is a doubling of the weight causes 16 times the damage to the road. Increasing axle load limits means greater construction and maintenance costs. So, to suggest that equitable road user charges should be just weight by distance is simplistic and plain wrong. There is also one other variable that must be considered and that is speed of the vehicles. A doubling of the speed at which the vehicles move on roads requires 4 times the road space to maintain the same safely level. Therefore, the formula to calculate the full cost of the road use must include weight, distance travelled and speed. I would suggest that all road use should be charged at full cost recovery by tolling. Fuel excise should be removed and a price on carbon applied.
At the end if the day the govt has a spending problem, period. Let us choose what we drive and cut the spending and over bloated baurocracy and salaries these incompetent unaccountable polies take from the taxpayer while letting multinationals take our resources for little benefit to the voters.
The Motorcycle Advocacy Group (Qld) proposes a RUC based on metered travel usage of kWh for road registered electric vehicles.
a) With bi-directional charging, the kWh used for road trips would be the crucial information required for uploading by owners to pay a RUC based on the electric vehicle.
b) The kWh usage in electric vehicles would be a more effective and efficient way for a RUC on electric vehicles (similar to fuel excise) to be applied and would be a more equitable arrangement than a mass x distance scheme.
c) A metered RUC based on kWh usage for travel would better reflect changes to the mass (loaded/unloaded) of an electric vehicle as well as motor efficiency.
d) A metered RUC based on kWh would encourage efficient use of energy to save on costs.
e) A metered RUC based on kWh may encourage safer speeds and safer drivers/riders to conserve power.
f) Data collection could be addressed by the software already existent within the systems present on electric vehicles.
I appreciate the comment about vehicle weight. As regards tax, how about taxing tyres? Damsge to roads will be roughly proportional to damage to tyres. Also a carbon tax is essential.
Yes, an excise on tyres would fairly cover a RUC for all vehicles that use tyres, ICE, BEV and hybrid.
Oh how the one eyed lead the blind. In pavement design which is basically a hypothesis based on fatigue and cumulative strain memory the strains caused by cars are so low they are not even counted in the cumulative axial assessment. Tyre pressure, number of tyres and axial load is what counts You are being lied to. Just look at the tyre sizes as fitted to Chinese made for china EVs.
EV users should be paid for their health benefits not taxed, the detail is summed up well here > https://youtu.be/aiPU2xpRn3o?si=F8ZzLh-4F37zOWQ_
I’ve just come back from a tour of China, where in Shanghai (population 26 million) almost all the cars on the road are new EVs, and bicyles and motorcycles have been replaced by electric scooters and EBikes.
It was clean, quiet, and the the air was free from exhaust fumes.
We were told the reason is that ICE vehicles pay a yearly AUD 22,000 registration fee, while EV registration is AUD 200-300.
Imagine an Australian government having the courage to do something like that!