Victoria’s Electric Car Tax “Worst EV Policy in the World”

Victoria EV tax - ZLEV Road User Charge

Dozens of companies and organisations have put their names to an open letter to Victorian Parliament encouraging a vote against an electric vehicle tax in the state.

In November last year, Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas announced plans to introduce a 2.5 cent/km charge applying to electric and other zero-emission vehicles, along with a 2.0 cent/km charge for plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. A fuel-efficient petrol or diesel car owner only pays around 2.1 cents per kilometre in fuel excise tax.

Under the “ZLEV Road-User Charge” and based on the average distance travelled annually for light passenger vehicles in Victoria, EV owners could forking out $330 a year and plug-in hybrid owners around $260 a year.

Subsequent polling found while many Victorians would like to buy an electric car, taxes on EVs could have an impact on uptake; with 72.1% believing taxes will mean fewer people buy them.

Among the signatories to the open letter are Hyundai, Volkswagen, Uber, the Electric Vehicle Council, Solar Citizens, Environment Victoria and the Australia Institute.

Part of the letter states:

“Most industrialised countries are prioritising incentives for electric vehicles to benefit from cleaner air and new jobs from a growing industry. This new tax means the world’s manufacturers are far less likely to send Victorians their best, most affordable, zero emissions vehicles.”

It points out every other state and territory in Australia has ruled out or delayed plans for a new tax on electric vehicles.

An example is South Australia, which was the first to formally announce plans to introduce an EV tax. The reaction to SA’s plan was such that in March this year, the Marshall Government said it would delay its introduction by a year to allow time to see what happens across the border. It’s probably no coincidence this will likely be after SA’s next state election, and something EV-supporting SA voters may want to keep in mind.

“Ill-Conceived Anomaly of A Tax”

The Australia Institute’s Richie Merzian said penalising EV owners because they don’t pollute the atmosphere is absurd.

Australia has the lowest rate of electric car ownership among developed countries, and if Victoria goes ahead with this it will be the only stand-alone electric vehicle tax in the world.

The Institute says there are a number of things that can be done to change Australia’s standing and an EV road user charge certainly isn’t among them.

“Our research shows that there are a range of policies that support the uptake of EVs which are very popular the public,” said Mr. Merzian. “These include offering loans for electric vehicle purchases, building more charging stations and removing the Luxury Car Tax on zero emissions cars.”

Solar Citizens’ Ellen Roberts says while the Victorian Government is helping households install solar panels through the hugely popular Victorian solar rebate, it should be leading the charge and making it easier for Victorians to invest in cleaner transport.

It’s proposed Victoria’s ZLEV Road-User Charge will come into effect on July 1 this year.

The full open letter (really more an ad) has been published in The Age and can be viewed here.

On a related note, the ABC published a report this week explaining in more detail why EV makers are skipping Australia when releasing their latest models. Michael Bartsch, general manager of Volkswagen Group Australia, is quoted as saying

“We are a Third World dumping ground in terms of automotive technology.”

In relation to Volkswagen signing the open letter, Mr. Bartsch said:

“Volkswagen does not ask for incentives to import zero emission vehicles, rather for the abandonment of such disincentives as this ill-conceived anomaly of a tax.”

Here’s SolarQuotes Founder Finn Peacock’s views on EV taxes:

About Michael Bloch

Michael caught the solar power bug after purchasing components to cobble together a small off-grid PV system in 2008. He's been reporting on Australian and international solar energy news ever since.

Comments

  1. Chris Thaler says

    Provided a suitable reduction in annual registration charges for fully electric road vehicles was introduced at the same time the effect could be nett zero. As EV’s will also produce wear and tear along similar lines as conventional vehicles the road user charges will need to be the same. This would be a better “user pays” style.

  2. Ronald Brakels says

    At a carbon price of $70 a tonne — around the lowest that’s reasonable — internal combustion engine passenger cars should be paying an average of around 2 cents a kilometer. There are also health costs from their exhaust pollution. To get electric vehicles to pay a km road use charge while internal combustion don’t pay for their health and environmental externalities is nuts and will slow the rate of change to cleaner road transport. To the detriment of Victorians and the world.

  3. Des Scahill says

    As a matter of general interest, California (population approx 39.2 million) now has around 600,000 EV’s on its roads.

    Australia (population 25.7 million) has an estimated 20,000 EV’s

    From those figures you can calculate that:

    California has 1 EV for every 65 of its residents
    Australia has 1 EV for every 1,286 residents.

    As well, by 2025 California will complete its closure of its last nuclear generation plant, which came into commercial operation in May 1985. The initial decision to close the plant was made in 2016, and the first of its 2 reactors will be decommissioned by 2024.

    A nice 2016 photo of the plant can be seen here : https://www.kqed.org/science/790765/californias-last-nuclear-power-plant-to-close

    To quote from that same 2016 web-page : “Environmentalists have pressed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to close Diablo given its proximity to seismic faults in the earthquake-prone state. One fault runs 650 yards from the plant’s reactors.

    Worries of earthquakes fracturing the facility have been a dominant theme since Pacific Power Gas & Electric Co (PPGE) first announced plans for Diablo Canyon in the 1960s. The project helped consolidate opposition to nuclear power within the country’s then-fledgling environmental movement.”

    I’ll note in passing that it took 25 years (from 1960 to 1985) for the nuclear plant to progress from the initial planning stage and reach a commercial production level

    PPGE is California’s largest energy utility and also operates in the USA. The utility finally reached an agreement in 2016 with environmental groups and state politicians to replace production at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant with solar power and other energy sources that do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases.

    PPGE will take responsibility for the decommission costs of the nuclear plant, in exchange for an agreement with California to supply it with power solely from renewable sources. Those costs will be recovered from ratepayers, with rapidly rising estimates of those now amounting to $US 4.8 billion according to this article in the Tribune newspaper at
    : https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/environment/article223058625.html

    Further on. the Tribune article notes that:

    “PG&E is saying it will cost their customers significantly more to decommission Diablo Canyon than any other nuclear plant in U.S. history,” ANR Executive Director Rochelle Becker said in a news release. “Given their abysmal stewardship of our ratepayer dollars, we have absolutely no reason to believe PG&E won’t handle this undertaking with the same callous disregard they have shown gas pipeline and fire prevention safety.”

    When operating, the nuclear power plant supplied some 9% of California’s electricity demand, which is a fairly significant single chunk of energy supply to have at just one facility, in an earthquake prone area on the ‘ring of fire’, a mere 650 metres from a visible fault line.

    Along with the US$ 4.9 billion problem above, California has also been simultaneously dealing with it’s problem of aging natural gas plants which are near the end of their useful life. Some have already been closed. That too is a can of toxic worms.

  4. Although on face value this proposal looks bad, I’d like to know more about it.
    I’m happy for electric vehicles to pay a tax like this, but only if they are planning to put more upfront incentives in place to reduce the upfront cost of an electric car (which based on my experience, seems to be the main complaint most car buyers have).

  5. Alan Gregory says

    2.5 c/km for EVs is reasonable to fund the roads. This should be accompanied by a refund of at least 2.5 c/km as zero emission vehicles don´t contribute to the enormous cost to the health service due to air pollution.

  6. Kerry MacDermott says

    The mooted tax on EVs is not a “new” tax. It is a proposal to recover from the owners of electric vehicles the revenue which goes towards upkeep of our roads. At present this is paid by drivers of petrol and diesel vehicles through the “taxes” on fuel paid at the bowser.
    Seems perfectly sensible to me. If electric vehicles start to become more popular in Australia, the cost of maintaining our roads and related infrastructure will be borne by an ever-smaller number of drivers while owners of EVs contribute nothing.
    Perhaps it is the wrong sort of tax, but the sad fact is that every road user needs to pay to have the roads repaired and new ones built. Perhaps the trucking industry should pay more since they do most of the damage (in addition to causing most of the pollution and noise) but that’s another story.
    What l would like to see is a study on what proportion of electric power used by EVs in Australia comes from non-fossil sources and what proportion comes from the largely coal-powered grid. Also, perhaps, how many of the (largely wealthy) owners of EVs pay for their own electric power and how many charge up during the day at no cost to themselves in the secure executive car park. THOSE could be useful indicators of whether EVs are likely to make any useful contribution to saving the world.

    • John Ryan says

      What a presumptuous and I would suggest unsubstantiated critique of EV car owners. As an aware and concerned resident of planet earth, and one who is on a pension, I have contributed a significant portion of my retirement savings to installing solar power and purchasing an EV. I find it sad that other citizens haven’t come to their senses and are making their personal sacrifice to help alleviate the potential catastrophe of global warming. John Ryan Tasmania

      • Kerry MacDermott says

        Thanks for your comment John.
        I hadn’t actually intended my piece to be a critique of EV owners, and l think if you read it carefully you’ll find the only presumptive suggestion is the widely-acknowledged fact that EV owners tend to be wealthier, simply because at their present state of development they are a good deal more expensive than a petrol or diesel car of the same size and quality.
        On the other hand, there are undoubtedly a number of people who buy EVs principally because of a laudable desire to make a contribution towards saving the planet, and find the extra initial cost is a price they are prepared to pay.
        There is also a respected/respectable view amongst sceptical scientists that the EV will only ever make a very marginal contribution.
        I try and keep an open mind and while l have installed solar PV on my roof (with Finn’s assistance) and solar hot water, I’m not into buying new cars and even if l was, I’m not convinced that the economics of current EVs are anywhere near to meeting my needs.

        • Peter Fell says

          Hi Kerry
          Your assumption that EVs will only ever make a marginal contribution to reducing GW pollution is based on what data by which scientists? My suggestion is internal combustioned engined cars (ICE) made a huge difference to the air quality in Beijing when residents swapped from bikes to cars en masse and you only have to eat the pollution in Bangkok to know just how bad ICE vehicles can make the very air we try to breathe

    • Jake Ivey says

      Drivers of petrol and diesel vehicles are taxed by the federal government not the state government as is the case for electric vehicles. the Victorian government is just being greedy and what will end up happening is the federal government will implement a tax on EVs to pay for upkeep of the roads on top of the totally useless state government tax thus de-incentivising the purchase of EVs. Australia is going to end up being one the dirtiest countries of the developed world, which is upsetting considering we have next to no natural disasters, a barren wasteland in the middle of the country and are the leading exporter of uranium, making us the perfect place for a nuclear power plant that could provide us with all the electricity we need.

      • Kerry MacDermott says

        You’re quite right Jake – fuel excise is a federal tax and I missed the point of the lead post which was that the tax proposed on EVs is an attempt by the Victorian Govt to profit from a new technology to which that govt has presumably contributed nothing with a new tax where none existed before. My bad!
        While I’m sure many will scream from the sidelines at the thought of building nuclear power plant(s) in the middle of our “barren wasteland”, I concur wholeheartedly. In fact I have a view that not only should we be building small modular nuclear plants but we should be moving away from the situation where we export bulk yellowcake in steel drums and develop a high-profit industry where we process the stuff ourselves for export and even, possibly (probably several hundred years in the future) accept the spent fuel and bury it safely in said barren wasteland.
        But that’s a bridge too far for many in the community so I guess we’ll just hum along until we discover all the coal and gas-fired stations have been driven out of business and we suddenly realise that there is an embarrassing dearth of back-up for the renewables industry.
        Does the answer lie in nuclear fusion? Who knows? It’s always going to be ready 30 years in the future…

        • Geoff Miell says

          Kerry MacDermott.
          You opine:

          “In fact I have a view that not only should we be building small modular nuclear plants but we should be moving away from the situation where we export bulk yellowcake in steel drums and develop a high-profit industry where we process the stuff ourselves for export and even, possibly (probably several hundred years in the future) accept the spent fuel and bury it safely in said barren wasteland.”

          I’d suggest you are fantasizing. It won’t/can’t happen while Australian federal (and state) legislations banning what you seem to be wishing for remain in place.

          Per the federal “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”, section 140A includes:

          “The Minister must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations:

          (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant;
          (b) a nuclear power plant;
          (c) an enrichment plant;
          (d) a reprocessing facility.”
          https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00777

          And why bother changing the legislation(s) when renewables are much cheaper, much faster to deploy, and much cleaner/safer than nuclear fission technologies?
          https://global100restrategygroup.org/

          The ‘Joint Declaration of the Global 100% RE Strategy Group’ includes:

          “2. A transformation to 100% RE can occur faster than current expectations: the power sector can transform by 2030 and the other sectors soon thereafter. With political will, a transformation of the global energy sector by 2030-35 appears to be possible!”
          https://global100restrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Joint-Declaration-of-the-Global-100-RE-Strategy-Group-210208.pdf

          • Jake Ivey says

            Damn, he really just quoted the “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”. if only the government didn’t spend billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that encourage more coal, gas and oil to be extracted and burned, we might actually believe they give a damn about “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation”. Also, in 2019, the R.E. Ginna nuclear power plant generated around 5 million MWH in a single year, meanwhile a standard 500 megawatt coal power plant produces only 3.5 million MWh per year. the reason we are so reluctant to move to renewables is because they are far less energy efficient than fossil fuels. Nuclear fission solves this issue as not only is it renewable but, it is also far more energy efficient than fossil fuels. Yes, nuclear fission is far more expensive than other renewables but that expense is outweighed by the far greater amount of energy it produces.

          • Ronald Brakels says

            Okay, you got me. Nuclear fusion in the sun is about 0.8% efficient going by percentage of mass converted to energy. With a 20% efficient solar panel that comes to a total of 0.16% efficiency. Not sure how that’s really relevant, though…

          • Geoff Miell says

            Jake Ivey (re your comments at June 2, 2021 at 1:12 pm),

            Nuclear fission is certainly NOT renewable. It relies on a choice of three finite fissile nuclear fuel supply pathways here on planet Earth:
            1. Naturally occurring fissile U-235, which represents only 0.7% of all naturally occurring uranium isotopes, that is then enriched;
            2. Naturally occurring fertile U-238, that must be transfigured in a breeder reactor and reprocessed to obtain fissile Pu-239;
            3. Naturally occurring fertile Th-232, that must be transfigured and reprocessed to obtain fissile U-233.

            There are limited supplies of global high-grade uranium ores remaining that are simply inadequate to sustain a so-called ‘nuclear renaissance’ for the longer-term.
            See Fig 113 at: https://www.energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG-update2013_long_18_03_2013up1.pdf

            There are no LARGE-SCALE technical solutions currently available to extract uranium from seawater (at concentrations of the order of 3.3 parts per billion).

            The thorium fuel cycle has not been established.
            https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/066/46066594.pdf

            Jake, you say: “…nuclear fission is far more expensive…”

            Why would you want to pay “far more” for your energy? That doesn’t make sense to me.

  7. Peter Hormann says

    Will I only be taxed for kilometers I drive in Victoria? If I drive interstate will I still need to pay a Victorian road tax for non-Vic kms? If I live on the NSW/Vic border how will the road tax work?

  8. Someone has to tell Dan that GM, Ford and Toyota no longer build cars in Vic.
    Fuel excise has been going straight into general revenue for decades and has no direct relationship to the cost of building and maintaining our roads. Further, our roads benefit all of us whether we own a car or not, farmers, and industries could not get their products to market without them, and so it goes right down the chain to the pensioner catching the bus to visit the doctor. “User pays” is a good policy but some users pay in many ways and others not at all.

  9. Shane T. Hanson says

    I love this idea…..

    It’s about time the greenies stopped free loading and their commie whining on every subject, that the tax payers have to foot the bill for.

    Personally I think it should be doubled to pay for all the hardware and charging stations and higher capacity gridding that has to be done.

    And electric vehicles don’t pollute? Ahem? But the magic power stations do.

    So I am all for the fossil fuel industries AND the fuel powered vehicles.

    I am also for fitting a stack of solar panels on the car port or garage, to keep your own vehicles charged and running.

    I’d rather see a decentralised state wide power production system composed of solar, wind, hydro and some decent Christian black coal fired power stations….

    I’d prefer white coal but Jesus saw fit to make in scarce quantites (diamonds), and it’s hard to get by the billions of tons.

  10. Kerry MacDermott says

    You’re absolutely correct that fuel excise is not a ‘hypothecated’ tax and therefore it goes into general revenue rather than direct into roads.
    I’ve always understood that a high proportion of it is spent on maintaining roads and building new ones, which must soak up a great deal of revenue.
    Perhaps this is not the case? I guess it will vary from one state to another

    • Bill Schmidt says

      Fuel Excise tax is used to give the politicians another pay rise. Thanks Victorian Government, I just ordered a Camry hybrid, I think I’ll move to another state.

  11. Des Scahill says

    Fuel excise tax for a motor vehicle is currently .427 cents a litre, according to this web page at the Australian Tax Office:
    https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Excise-on-fuel-and-petroleum-products/Lodging,-paying-and-rates—excisable-fuel/Excise-duty-rates-for-fuel-and-petroleum-products/

    Assuming an ‘average’ car does 10 km to the litre, that means you’re currently paying .427c x 10 or $4,27 in excise tax to travel 10 km. . An EV vehicle would instead pay .025c x 10 or 25 cents in total.

    IThose numbers all depend of course on how old your vehicle is, how long since you did a tune-up, whether your’re using an ethanol blend, how many km per litre YOUR current car actually gets etc

    So its going to affect everyone differently. .

    Assuming I’ve done the above sums correctly, It’s pretty clear that the eventual loss of revenue to State Governments if all vehicles became EV’s is massive,

    Inevitably, other taxes of some kind will need to be introduced to replace that overall loss of revenue, and perhaps also cut-backs in existing budgets of other government departments unrelated to transport as well.

  12. Simon Miller says

    The “dumbness” of this government beggars belief. One hand giveth while the other taketh away. “Hey let’s give you a rebate for solar but let’s tax your zero-emissions vehicle.” I could give you twenty reasons why this tax is insane but I can no longer be bothered. My old man’s smokey old 2007 diesel gate Passat will pay less tax than a brand new Tesla Model 3 running the same kms. How stupid is that?

    We know that a user pays scenario must come in as the transition to EVs inevitably occurs but why start the tax now when we need the transition to be as rapid as possible? Dumb…dumb…dumb.

    • Ronald Brakels says

      That is a good summary of how I see the situation.

    • Kerry MacDermott says

      Interesting that you mention your old man’s smokey 2007 diesel Passat.
      It’s well within living memory that diesel engines were encouraged because they were going to save the world from hydrocarbon pollution.
      What were they thinking?? Everyone had known for years that diesels were the filthiest, stinkiest, most revolting engines on the planet. These were going to save us??
      Now diesels are (rightly) banned from many cities around the world because they are the filthiest, etc…
      This is how the scientists are going to save the world?
      Taking the long view, are EVs the answer or are they just a fad? Many think ‘green hydrogen’ is the answer but hydrogen is expensive to produce and has a very low energy density. And it’s hard to store.
      I think the technology to get us out of this situation hasn’t yet been invented.
      Just my two pennyworth…

  13. Greg Wootten says

    Solution is to reduce the the fuel excise and hit everyone with a milage based excise. That’s where we’re headed but that’s too unpopular and probable too hard to run just yet.

    A few facts about EV pollution
    10kW is equivalent to a liter of fuel diesel or petrol
    My PHEV does 50km on 10kW or 2L/100km
    A Tesla does 400km on 60kW or 1.5L/100km

    Run on solar solar mix or brown coal that craps on any diesel/petrol for carbon emissions.

    Also V2G is a huge solution in capturing excess and peak daily renewables and feeding back into the grid.We need charging points and beefed up grids and smarts to do this but it is THE virtual power plant

    It will be local flexible but I doubt the AEMO can get their heads around it

    My PHEV is currently averaging 2L/100km on petrol so I’m already paying excise for my freeway/country runs. Again it’s country efficiency is 6l/100km OK for a 1.8t vehicle.

    But get used to the new tax it’s coming to get us all

    • Kerry MacDermott says

      Greg l thought the fuel excise was a mileage-based tax. The further you travel, the more fuel you have to buy?
      I drive a classic 20 y.o. Euro 1.8t which cruises at 6-7 litres/100km but when the need arises has the power of a well-developed V8. Consumption then averages something over 8.
      I’m no expert but l feel that for Australian conditions the PHEV may make more sense unless all your motoring is city centre or inner suburban. Range anxiety must be a very stressful experience…

  14. Alan Gregory says

    Range anxiety is felt by those who do not have an EV. Those who have an EV manage very well.

  15. I just cancelled my pre-order for a BMW iX 50, when taking into account, LCT, GST, Stamp Duty alone, this purchase (about $185k on road in AUD) would alone more than make up for many years of lost ‘fuel excise’ tax that would occur with myself no longer purchasing fuel.

    This is a ridiculous policy that will make every single EV owner have to keep a log book, take photos of their odometer, or – in the most extreme case – have to have some sort of vehicle logger (as trucks do) installed into their car reporting back to the government.

    Not only that, we all now that the tax rate will only increase over time.

    Disgusting, and I know I am not the only prospective EV owner whose going to just keep their existing ICE vehicle until this tax is reverted.

    Australia is now officially a sad, pathetic joke when it comes to .. well pretty much anything 🙁

  16. In PHEV'n believable! says

    Why has the the government included PHEVs as ZLEV. The definition is ‘predominantly electric’. They are not. My $16k 2014 PHEV (note, not the million dollars people make them out to be) should not be exposed to this road tax as

    1. I’m a rural driver and use 6 – 10L per hundred km ( I pay excise)!

    1b. If I run full electric, the 12kwh @ 34.5c / kWh + GST costs $4.56 in electrical charges. Petrol is cheaper at $1.30 per litre and 3 litres for the same distance traveled = $3.60.

    1c. Even charging off solar (forgetting I paid $5k for the system and depreciates every year) I forgo 12 x 17c feed in tarrifs = $2.04. So solar is not free. The battery is only good for 2500 cycles @ $6000+ for a battery. So 1 charge daily will see a battery near dead in 6 years. So $1000 / 360 = $2.77 per cycle per day. So solar costs $2.04 + $2.77!

    1d. But I cant charge from solar while am work anyway. Which is the case for 99% of people

    1f. But can’t you get a solar battery and charge at night? See 1c above. Same problem with limited cycles, so add $5 – $10k to that 1c calculation. So using a solar battery is far more expensive than just using grid power.

    1g. But a Telsa doesn’t need to be charged daily. This is worse, as the grid limit of 5kw/ 6.6kw means to charge a Tesla from solar, you would need to leave it at home for 3 full days of sun.

    1h. All the figures for solar above are way worse in winter.

    1i. My old V6 petrol outlander uses 9 – 11 L/ 100km. When you factor in no 2c per km tax, it is cheaper to run. Yep, I’m being incentivised to drive an old petrol car!

    In summary, EV costs just as much. It’s just not destroying the environment. A PHEV pays for fuel excise + electricity+ road tax.

    Did anyone in the government actually do any real numbers? I feel this legislation was presented inaccurately, illegally and with bias.

    Point 2. My PHEV uses a J1772 charging port. There is no plan to install more j1772 charging infrastructure. My tax is not going to help me in anyway.

    Point 3. According to the definition, a ZLEV is predominantly driven by electricity. An old PHEV travels 30km electric and 600km on petrol. Which is the predominant here ?

    Point 4. Other states are choosing to roll this out retrospectively. Future buyers can beware of this stupid tax. But how do you enforce this on a customer who owns the vehicle and has already paid stamp duty?

    Point 5. The Andrews government have stated they are looking to privatise the Vic registration system. By adding a tax revenue stream they will seek to get a better price. See the trend here people? That’s what this is all about. Nothing to do with road maintenance. Not a concern about the environment. Privatising the power grid in SA worked out real well… not! Why would you sell your transport infrastructure regulator?

    Point 6. Road maintenance from excise is a federal tax. So an inferred lie from the state government.

    Point 7. Vic roads charge for EV use on interstate roads. A state government charging a federal tax is flirting with the Constitution.

    Summary, I could go on all night about how wrong this is. Literally 10 other points on why this is wrong financially, ethically, environmentally, politically, legally and its discriminatory.

Speak Your Mind

Please keep the SolarQuotes blog constructive and useful with these 5 rules:

1. Real names are preferred - you should be happy to put your name to your comments.
2. Put down your weapons.
3. Assume positive intention.
4. If you are in the solar industry - try to get to the truth, not the sale.
5. Please stay on topic.

Please solve: 16 + 1 

Get the latest solar, battery and EV charger news straight to your inbox every Tuesday