The new personal mobility system would comprise of two car categories. The first is the 'M1' category, as currently exists in Europe for conventional cars. This category is regulated by ever improving safety legislation and the vehicles are optimised for safety, performance and comfort.
The second category would be a new category, that of 'Urban M1'. This category would be regulated by power - say 20kW max; and by weight - say 600 kg max, excluding batteries. This new category would be similar to the existing quadricycle category but would increase the power allowance by 5kw and the weight allowance by 250kg, to enable increased safety levels for urban driving for vehicles with 4 seats. This category would encourage the development of lightweight and low power vehicles designed primarily for use as commuter vehicles and second cars for the family. These vehicles would be regulated by weight and power and be optimised for low price and energy efficiency.
Once these new categories have been introduced, how should EVs be incentivised? Put another way, where should government funds and incentives be directed? And what kind of taxation system would work best?
There are two barriers to adoption of EVs today, the first is the higher price of EVs compared to conventional cars; and the second is the limited charging infrastructure. The bulk of subsidies in the UK are spent on the former. Today, the subsidies are solely oriented to the M1 category. Quadricycles receive no subsidy on the grounds of safety, but the new 'Urban M1' would be an ideal category to incentivise.
Instead of focusing purely on emissions as we do currently by measuring g CO2 /mile and setting annual road taxes, parking permits (in a few municipalities) and congestion charges based on the emissions figure, we could introduce a new metric, that of energy efficiency, measured in miles / kWh, or a similarly useful measure. Such a measure will directly encourage greater energy efficiency, which will become increasingly important, just as fuel efficiency is today.
However, if the taxation system was used to strongly prioritise the 'Urban M1' category (the more energy efficient category), then subsidies could be directed at building up a fast charging network, which will benefit both categories. With a ubiquitous charging network, the range of a vehicle becomes much less important (because it can be charged quickly) and also frequently topped up every time the vehicle is parked somewhere. Under such a scenario there would be less demand for extended range vehicles (plug-in hybrids) as motorists would switch to the energy efficient, low cost, low taxed, frequently topped up alternative.
Emissions can be taxed according to the type and source of the electricity. Charge at home from your solar panels or wind turbine, or at work from your solar array in the car park - zero tax. Charge at home, at work or at a public charging station from the grid - tax rate according to the source electricity type. By taxing fuel at source according to type, with punitive rates for dirty electricity and incentivised rates for clean electricity, we will accelerate the introduction of clean energy.
To be honest I am still thinking this stuff through myself, but I am convinced that there are real benefits to such an approach. I am a marketing guy not an engineer or a legislator, so I am sure that this can be developed a lot further.
