EV charging policy
I have read the news about Taiwan Power Co introducing its first policy on the charging of electric vehicles (EVs) during peak hours. I support the idea that electricity use for vehicles should cost more. To prevent blackouts in peak hours, it is necessary for the government to come up with new methods to apportion electricity use.
The Motor Vehicles Office has said that about 68,000 electrified vehicles were sold last year, including 58,000 hybrid electric vehicles and 10,000 battery electric vehicles, an annual growth rate of 42.4 percent and 14.4 percent respectively. This means that as the number of EVs increases each year, a larger proportion of electricity is to go toward charging them. Also, there have been cases when vehicle owners charged their batteries during peak hours and caused blackouts in entire buildings. As a result, electricity shortages are an issue during those times.
Under the new policy, drivers would pay four times more during peak hours, which apparently would discourage them from charging their vehicles during those hours.
Based on the results of increasing tolls on national highways during peak hours and on weekends, I think that having different prices for peak and off-peak hours is a good way to release pressure on the electric power system.
Taiwan needs more policies that deal with the increasing number of EVs, and this is a good start. In addition to the newly announced policy, I also suggest that EV owners install energy management systems to track whether there are too many vehicles charging at the same time, and prevent power shortages or outages from happening.
Florance Lin
Taipei
A voice for Mudan
The article “Statues in Mudan to help tell Paiwan version of incident” (Taipei Times, May 27, page 2) showed the importance of transitional justice for indigenous ancestors and their descendants.
Mudan Mayor Pan Chuang-chih (潘壯志) has said that the facts behind the Mudan Incident between Paiwan and Japanese colonists are not well-known among Taiwanese. Hence, the government has a responsibility to reveal the truth and promote transitional justice on behalf of underrepresented people. I strongly agree with Pan’s perspective and the movement to establish ancestors’ statues in the community as a means to implement transitional justice.
Thanks to transitional justice, minority groups can finally receive compensation and a formal apology from the government — and their stories are no longer regarded as taboo or unsubstantiated rumor.
A good example of this is the 228 Massacre. After many decades of silence, the victims and relatives were finally able to provide eyewitness testimony of the Incident. People can now discover different perspectives on the massacre through works of literature, documentaries and historical research reports.
As Pan said: “At a time when the government is focused on transitional justice, there is a responsibility to give a voice to the ancestors of Mudan.”
Transitional justice is an essential process, not only for healing and easing the pain of victims, but also to achieve justice for innocent people wrongly accused and to shed light on untold truths muzzled by oppressive regimes. It prevents the recurrence of human rights abuses, promotes academic discovery and historical research, and, above all, uncovers the truth.
Thus, armed with the purpose of accurately acknowledging and recording the past, transitional justice is necessary for ancestors and their descendants.
Maggie Hsu
Pingtung County
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS