IN DEBRIEFING the 56-page National EV Strategy just released by Canberra, it is clear that, overall, if you can cut through the government rhetoric, the National EV Strategy lays the foundation for a great plan for Australia to manage the transition to electric vehicles.
There is no doubt this is a great opportunity for Australia to align itself with the rest of the developed nations on this issue.
But the report demonstrates that we need an open and transparent discussion based on factual, independent and reliable data and that data needs to be the foundation for any policy decisions.
What needs to stop immediately, from all participants, is the cherry-picked, misleading and potentially incorrect information used to form arguments, as this will only hinder Australia when the rubber meets the road on this strategy.
There are some worrying signs that the entirety of the cohort of submissions and impacts of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy have not been considered.
Steve Bragg
The submissions of a select few respondents appear to be used heavily or are used disproportionately to the total number of submissions represented in the document and some stances have been considered more important and have been promoted.
The views of the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) dominate the report while those of the FCAI, AADA, the MTAA and TIC appear to have gone AWOL.
However, a positive of being a last-mover is that we can learn from other countries’ mistakes in decarbonising their car parc.
As to the fuel efficiency standard, it is central to the strategy but, given the process that still needs to occur, there is no real comment to be made other than it’s a step in the right direction.
Pros
1. Fuel efficiency standard announced – a first step
Most of the commentary and wording around the standard is: robust, ambitious, achievable. There seems to be no disharmony on the need for the standard between anyone; just what will be the level of the standard when it comes in.
This is the fundamental change that is required in Australia to drive a cleaner car parc.
As we can already see from Toyota’s high percentage of hybrids in their fleet and their significantly lower emissions, a mix of technologies can be used to drive down the overall emissions, rather than a narrower viewpoint of banning certain types of vehicles in favour of others.
Additionally, emphasis needs to be on aligning with global fuel efficiency standards. But we need to take into account the number of years other nations have had their standards and allow ourselves a sufficient lead time. Let’s not, for example, try to make the UK deadline.
Implementing the standard is the first step. It does need to be in line with other international standards but must cater for the unique purposes for which Australians use their vehicles.
2. Understanding that energy generation is crucial for the transition
Mentioned throughout the report is that a change in energy generation sources and a greater emphasis on renewables is required to support the transition to EVs.
However this is very scant on details and reliant on other similar consultations occurring with other industries. A potentially serious issue with the strategy is that there is mention of the transition of the electricity grid throughout the paper but it is not until Page 33 that there is any significant acknowledgment of this issue.
Considering the government has used terminology such as “The backbone of the transition is the decarbonisation of the electricity grid, which will charge most of the EVs Australians drive”, it should be more prominent.
The government has an ambitious policy to achieve 82 per cent renewables by 2030, however the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council said: “Australia is deploying new large-scale generation – wind and solar farms – more slowly than needed to reach the 82 per cent target for renewable energy”.
The Government website https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/ tracks the emissions from both EV & ICE vehicles. If comparing similar model vehicles, the emissions to power the vehicles are closer than many would expect only a ~15 per cent reduction in emissions if charging on today’s grid.
EV’s make phenomenal environmental sense when using renewable energy to charge.
3. Highlights the ability of Australia to become a world leader and showcases some examples of companies already at the forefront
This is great for Australia as we have many of the natural resources and currently export them unrefined around the globe. We can move along the value chain into refining raw materials and even to manufacturing. However, the key to this will be avoiding the costs of subsidising manufacturing to the same levels as Holden, Ford, Toyota & Mitsubishi previously.
Cons
1. Lack of fact checking of any sources, instances of cherry-picking data from reports and disregarding analysis of reports that do not fit a narrative
For example: “On average, a petrol car consumes around 10 litres per 100 km and costs around $2,400 to fuel each year. The average EV consumes around $400 worth of electricity per year (EVC 2022a).” – Page 10.
Similar to the above, the EVC report is a survey of 741 members of the Tesla Owner’s Club of Australia (51% response rate). The EVC contradicts itself in response to this claim with another reference used in the report (Electric Vehicle Council) (n.d.) Myth busting, EVC website: https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/myth-busting/ quoting the following on the same webpage:
“The average Australian drives 38km per day” or 13,870km per year (assumes 365 days in a year)
“The upfront costs of EVs are currently more expensive than conventional vehicles, however powering your EV is much cheaper – about 70 per cent cheaper per kilometre in fact. That means the average EV driver saves $1,600 on fuel costs each year.”
“Another massive saving from EV ownership is fuel. Battery EVs don’t need any petrol or diesel and are charged with electricity. The average Australian drives 15,000km and spends around $2,160 on petrol per year ($0.14/km). An EV travelling 15,000km would cost around $600 per year ($0.04/km) in electricity costs.”
Meanwhile the https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/ website has the majority of EV’s currently available in Australia and calculations are based on government data. The EVC survey results are not incorrect (I am not suggesting this) but throughout the strategy there are references to third parties that have interpreted government data when government data could have been used as the reference in the first place.
Another example: “The primary barrier to EV adoption in Australia remains a lack of vehicle supply (EVC 2022b)” – page 21.
On Page 13 the CPRC (Consumer Policy Research Centre) (2022) The barriers and potential enablers of electric vehicle uptake in Australia paper was quoted:
“There is strong demand for EVs in Australia, but consumers perceive upfront cost, driving range between charges, charging infrastructure, charging times, and running costs to be key barriers to greater uptake of EVs (Bleakley 2023; Brewer 2022). Rapid technological change and a transforming market are changing those perceptions (CPRC 2022).”
However, that same CPRC report said that the upfront cost of an EV was the main barrier to adoption. It should be noted that the EVC report notes no sources, whilst the CPRC report is based on the results of a survey with 2,000 respondents.
2. The strategy references the EVC 10 times, AADA/FCAI/TIC/MTA’s once in total and VFacts/ABS motor vehicle census/BITRE motor vehicle census zero times.
The strategy quotes the EVC that is unreferenced but aligns to data from reliable sources such as VFacts & the Government. It is concerning that the Government does not understand what data it already has.
There were more than 1,500 individuals and more than 200 organisations that provided their feedback in over 500 submissions, yet one has been referenced significantly more than any others.
Other organisations that could be considered the peak bodies that represent large member bases include:
The FCAI is a representative organisation for companies who distribute new passenger vehicles, light commercial vehicles and motorcycles and all-terrain vehicles in Australia. Their common members with EVC include BMW, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Mercedes Benz, Nissan, Polestar, Tesla, Volkswagen Group (Audi, Cupra, Skoda, Bentley, Lamborghini) and Volvo.
The AADA is the body representing over 1,500 new car dealers in Australia.
The MTAA represents the six state and territory motor trades associations and those associations individually themselves.
The TIC which represents the united views of truck manufacturers, importers, diesel engine companies and major component suppliers
To have one organisation referenced 10 times seems excessive and narrow given the breadth of submissions (500 from 1,200 individual and 200 organisations) received from organisations that are highly regarded and represent large and diverse member bases.
Many of the EVC references used have taken data and figures from other organisations without reference or acknowledgement of the source of the data.
3. The report, to address affordability, uses misleading concepts on which to be benchmarked such as the number of vehicles available under $60,000. This should really be the price disparity between ICE and EV.
The outcomes to be measured as a result of the strategy include to make EVs more affordable measured by the number of models or variants priced below $60,000. Two issues occur with this measure:
The cheapest EV in Australia is currently the GWM Ora $43,990 and MG ZS $43,990 both before on-roads but also state incentives. The top of the line MG ZST Essence is from $34,990 whilst the base model MG ZS is $23,990
This is an absolute measurement in that there is no consideration for the relative affordability vs a traditional ICE vehicle. This measure won’t assist in achieving equal access to all Australians, the divide between richer and poorer will just increase.
The counter argument to the above is that EV’s are cheaper to run, however the price disparity results, on average, a breakeven in terms of Total Cost of Ownership greater than the average age of an Australian vehicle. EV’s make phenomenal financial sense if price parity to ICE can be achieved.
By Aidan Cousin and Steve Bragg on 30th April 2023 Comment, Management Workshop, News, Regulations News Pitcher Partners
There is no doubt this is a great opportunity for Australia to align itself with the rest of the developed nations on this issue.
But the report demonstrates that we need an open and transparent discussion based on factual, independent and reliable data and that data needs to be the foundation for any policy decisions.
What needs to stop immediately, from all participants, is the cherry-picked, misleading and potentially incorrect information used to form arguments, as this will only hinder Australia when the rubber meets the road on this strategy.
There are some worrying signs that the entirety of the cohort of submissions and impacts of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy have not been considered.
Steve Bragg
The submissions of a select few respondents appear to be used heavily or are used disproportionately to the total number of submissions represented in the document and some stances have been considered more important and have been promoted.
The views of the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) dominate the report while those of the FCAI, AADA, the MTAA and TIC appear to have gone AWOL.
However, a positive of being a last-mover is that we can learn from other countries’ mistakes in decarbonising their car parc.
As to the fuel efficiency standard, it is central to the strategy but, given the process that still needs to occur, there is no real comment to be made other than it’s a step in the right direction.
Pros
1. Fuel efficiency standard announced – a first step
Most of the commentary and wording around the standard is: robust, ambitious, achievable. There seems to be no disharmony on the need for the standard between anyone; just what will be the level of the standard when it comes in.
This is the fundamental change that is required in Australia to drive a cleaner car parc.
As we can already see from Toyota’s high percentage of hybrids in their fleet and their significantly lower emissions, a mix of technologies can be used to drive down the overall emissions, rather than a narrower viewpoint of banning certain types of vehicles in favour of others.
Additionally, emphasis needs to be on aligning with global fuel efficiency standards. But we need to take into account the number of years other nations have had their standards and allow ourselves a sufficient lead time. Let’s not, for example, try to make the UK deadline.
Implementing the standard is the first step. It does need to be in line with other international standards but must cater for the unique purposes for which Australians use their vehicles.
2. Understanding that energy generation is crucial for the transition
Mentioned throughout the report is that a change in energy generation sources and a greater emphasis on renewables is required to support the transition to EVs.
However this is very scant on details and reliant on other similar consultations occurring with other industries. A potentially serious issue with the strategy is that there is mention of the transition of the electricity grid throughout the paper but it is not until Page 33 that there is any significant acknowledgment of this issue.
Considering the government has used terminology such as “The backbone of the transition is the decarbonisation of the electricity grid, which will charge most of the EVs Australians drive”, it should be more prominent.
The government has an ambitious policy to achieve 82 per cent renewables by 2030, however the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council said: “Australia is deploying new large-scale generation – wind and solar farms – more slowly than needed to reach the 82 per cent target for renewable energy”.
The Government website https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/ tracks the emissions from both EV & ICE vehicles. If comparing similar model vehicles, the emissions to power the vehicles are closer than many would expect only a ~15 per cent reduction in emissions if charging on today’s grid.
EV’s make phenomenal environmental sense when using renewable energy to charge.
3. Highlights the ability of Australia to become a world leader and showcases some examples of companies already at the forefront
This is great for Australia as we have many of the natural resources and currently export them unrefined around the globe. We can move along the value chain into refining raw materials and even to manufacturing. However, the key to this will be avoiding the costs of subsidising manufacturing to the same levels as Holden, Ford, Toyota & Mitsubishi previously.
Cons
1. Lack of fact checking of any sources, instances of cherry-picking data from reports and disregarding analysis of reports that do not fit a narrative
For example: “On average, a petrol car consumes around 10 litres per 100 km and costs around $2,400 to fuel each year. The average EV consumes around $400 worth of electricity per year (EVC 2022a).” – Page 10.
Similar to the above, the EVC report is a survey of 741 members of the Tesla Owner’s Club of Australia (51% response rate). The EVC contradicts itself in response to this claim with another reference used in the report (Electric Vehicle Council) (n.d.) Myth busting, EVC website: https://electricvehiclecouncil.com.au/about-ev/myth-busting/ quoting the following on the same webpage:
Meanwhile the https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/ website has the majority of EV’s currently available in Australia and calculations are based on government data. The EVC survey results are not incorrect (I am not suggesting this) but throughout the strategy there are references to third parties that have interpreted government data when government data could have been used as the reference in the first place.
Another example: “The primary barrier to EV adoption in Australia remains a lack of vehicle supply (EVC 2022b)” – page 21.
On Page 13 the CPRC (Consumer Policy Research Centre) (2022) The barriers and potential enablers of electric vehicle uptake in Australia paper was quoted:
“There is strong demand for EVs in Australia, but consumers perceive upfront cost, driving range between charges, charging infrastructure, charging times, and running costs to be key barriers to greater uptake of EVs (Bleakley 2023; Brewer 2022). Rapid technological change and a transforming market are changing those perceptions (CPRC 2022).”
However, that same CPRC report said that the upfront cost of an EV was the main barrier to adoption. It should be noted that the EVC report notes no sources, whilst the CPRC report is based on the results of a survey with 2,000 respondents.
2. The strategy references the EVC 10 times, AADA/FCAI/TIC/MTA’s once in total and VFacts/ABS motor vehicle census/BITRE motor vehicle census zero times.
The strategy quotes the EVC that is unreferenced but aligns to data from reliable sources such as VFacts & the Government. It is concerning that the Government does not understand what data it already has.
There were more than 1,500 individuals and more than 200 organisations that provided their feedback in over 500 submissions, yet one has been referenced significantly more than any others.
Other organisations that could be considered the peak bodies that represent large member bases include:
To have one organisation referenced 10 times seems excessive and narrow given the breadth of submissions (500 from 1,200 individual and 200 organisations) received from organisations that are highly regarded and represent large and diverse member bases.
Instances where better sources are available:
Many of the EVC references used have taken data and figures from other organisations without reference or acknowledgement of the source of the data.
3. The report, to address affordability, uses misleading concepts on which to be benchmarked such as the number of vehicles available under $60,000. This should really be the price disparity between ICE and EV.
The outcomes to be measured as a result of the strategy include to make EVs more affordable measured by the number of models or variants priced below $60,000. Two issues occur with this measure:
The counter argument to the above is that EV’s are cheaper to run, however the price disparity results, on average, a breakeven in terms of Total Cost of Ownership greater than the average age of an Australian vehicle. EV’s make phenomenal financial sense if price parity to ICE can be achieved.
By Aidan Cousin and Steve Bragg
Road to Recovery Podcast Series
Listed dealer groups well-placed for EVs
Pitcher Partners reviews the readiness of big dealer groups to face EV challenge
JAC opens first dealership
More than 50 dealers poised to sell and service JAC utes around the country
Inchcape sells UK retail business
$A662m sale sees UK auto giant now concentrate on car distribution