[nri2ri]

Such an interesting thread!
As someone who recently bought a strong hybrid in a metro and think of it as a hedge for me to last until charging infra is better, I would still be inclined with government stance here.
The states that do away with EV incentives beyond a certain ex showroom price have got the right vision.
I agree that India and world at large is not ready for EVs today, but I am 100% sure of any incentives to hybrid going to the margins of manufacturers. Do not trust maruti to come up with democratized hybrids for the masses.
Even the ROI math stops making sense for EVs today once you cross the 20-25L ex show room mark. The way I see this playing out, governments should continue incentives on sub 20L (inflation adjusted) BEVs to democratize them more and incentivize charging infra development. Our cities do need more commuter/load carrying EVs today

There should also be a raise in taxes/fuel prices where buying a strong hybrid at a small premium would still make sense for the buyers over pure ICE vehicles. I’m not holding my breath, but whenever the charging infra gets suddenly better across our country (and beyond the tier I cities) and the battery density/prices turn the next sharp corner, I’ll be fully behind pro EV, hate everything else brigade. Until then let our domestic companies iterate and work on their BEV tech. Fuel prices/road taxes alone can sway the buyers who can afford it to rethink ICE vs strong hybrids and as mentioned many times before in this thread, the technology is mature ans available across the board.

[schwartz]

I have three quick points to make.

1. One of the major reasons for promoting EVs is to ensure India doesn't lag behind in the EV race. If the EV ecosystem is not created both in terms of manufacturing capability and infrastructure preparedness it can lead to death of a large industry. This would result in large job losses and tax loss to the exchequer. Supporting EV industry therefore is critical.
   
2. It is important that the government is not fickle-minded with public policy. Automakers and ancillaries are investing large sums of money to create the ecosystem - investments in battery manufacturing, charging infrastructure, technology, etc. All these investments are happening ahead of demand. These investments have not just been made by the firms but also by domestic and foreign institutional investors including sovereign wealth funds. They have certainly been motivated in part due clear government policy. All these investments will be in peril if the policy is changed, and India will have egg on her face.
   
3. We all want technology adoption curve to look like a hockey stick. Life ironically has speed bumps. Yes, EV adoption seems to have hit a speed bump. However, future is still widely acknowledged to belong to electrics, given that we are trying to clean up our electricity grid.

I am happy the government is keeping their gaze set on the long term

[qaqa]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

Much to the contrary, manufacturers who were asleep at the wheel, banking only on their traditional ICE engines or very easy-to-engineer BEVs are the ones trying to block strong hybrids..

If BEVs are very easy to engineer, what is stopping a Toyota or a Honda from introducing an EV range? We should have had manufacturers piling upon one another with EVs in the Indian market. The fact that it hasn't happened is only indicative that to be a serious EV player, you do need to make some EV specific R&D investments. The Government's tax policy is the right sort of nudge to make this happen.

Also one must understand that we are post the "middle age" for hybrids. It's at a stage where it makes little sense for a new player to invest in hybrid tech this late in the game. If you extend benefits to hybrids only those manufacturers who had legacy investment in hybrid tech will benefit.

Assuming EVs are easy, isn't the Government right in promoting EV tech? Easier means we can have local manufacturers catch up faster ; easier means that cost is lower (both upfront and lifetime). Complexity is not a virtue in itself. A complex mechanical time piece isn't inherently superior to a cheap quartz.

[krishnakarthik1]

So one argument is sometime back when the govt. rolled out subsidies some manufacturers abused it and now they are worried it might happen again and hence will not give any discounts.

How much brain power is required to pass a bill saying '5% GST on all strong Hybrids costing less than 25 lakhs'? There are only 3 models in that category right now- Vitara, Hyryder and City Hybrid.

Let the Govt. decide and certify individual models on which is a strong Hybrid and which is not. It's so easy, just some paperwork and a few suitcases.

Since there will be a huge cost difference between those and the non hybrid ones, other manufactures also will put in the effort to make mass hybrid vehicles that cost less. This in turn will help.

Common sense is not common for normal folks like us but it's non existent for the sarkar.

[TwinBishop]

Originally Posted by nidhikapoor

Even if all electricity is generated by fossil fuels there are tremendous advantages of EVs. ICE converts about 20 percent of energy into motion. Rest is wasted as heat. Besides, EVs shift the pollution to less inhabited areas. We lose millions a year due to air pollution in our cities.

Besides to see the actual environmental cost of ICE vehicles, you need to factor in the environmental cost of extraction, shipping, refining, shipping it again etc.

I am not against EVs at all. In the long run an EV or even better, a green hydrogen fueled car is the best option.

I am not for ICE either.

Having said that, there is a case for strong hybrids as they provide a transition path from the current inefficient and polluting ICE cars to EVs. In the dynamics of physical systems and even more so in dynamical systems involving human beings, a steep change is near impossible.

For large deployment of EVs tremendous improvement is required in the charging infrastructure in cities, towns and highways across India. And what about the grid when a substantial number of EVs start charging. Again lot of improvement is required in the electricity grid. To do all this in near future (2030-35) is attempting a vertical step change. Such attempts do not work in large dynamical systems.

Now ICE to EV by 2030 is a huge change. A strong hybrid makes an incremental change possible. We can get more time to make the necessary improvements in infrastructure. An substantial increase in efficiency over ICE (strong hybrids) is not something to be scoffed at.

To paraphrase Thoreau, let us not ask at once for an efficiency jump from 20% to 85%, let us ask for a jump from 20% to 40%.

Also, the tax cut for strong hybrids need not be same as that for an EV. There can be progressive taxation akin to that in IT.

[buzzy_boy]

Not here to debate the benefits of ICE vs EVs vs Hybrids. However, 48% GST, and 20% RT (in TN), on any non-sin-good is atrocious!

[krrisdrive]

Originally Posted by buzzy_boy

Not here to debate the benefits of ICE vs EVs vs Hybrids. However, 48% GST, and 20% RT (in TN), on any non-sin-good is atrocious!

That is clearly disincentive to hybrids. How dare OEMs can bring this tech which will reduce fuel consumption while we transition to pure EVs?

Or can be viewed as wealth tax. After certain lacs, certain length, certain bhp, voila, you have crossed the imaginary line and become wealthy. It is customary to levy heavy tax on that wealth in most countries.

It is a pity that even after so many technocrats we produce, our automobile policy is governed by lobbies from EV, ICE and Hybrid OEMs in stead of any white paper on these emerging technologies by any think tank.

[sassid]

I always worry about the unforeseen consequences of any decision. We have a set of beliefs regarding EV's and a set of beliefs regarding Hybrids and Pure ICE. These beliefs only have validity basis today's known facts. New information will emerge over time and will materially alter today's decision making rationale. This process is the only undisputable fact!

The unforeseen consequences are limited in an environment where the government/authorities maintain a largely level field. This allows all possible approaches to compete and eventually basis tomorrows reality a tech or approach wins. Since as a country and as a population we are not overly invested in any single approach - the population as a whole wins at the expense of a smaller set of individuals whose choices did not bear out.

Here we have the other end of the spectrum where there is a concerted effort to push the populace to one desired option. Consequences of a wrong decision are therefore likely to be severe and disproportionately borne not by the government but rather by the people.

As I write, we have a three hour power outage scheduled for the day. I shudder to think what would happen when the whole of the state is reliant on the power grid for mobility or how much the power tariffs would be ratcheted up given the higher demand and the lower capacity to service.

I do hesitate to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by short term considerations of cost reduction and tax maximisation but I am concerned at the price of such overweening decision making

[kadumanushya]

I have a different take on this really. While I'd love to buy a strong hybrid - I think it'll reduce emissions, cost less to operate and definitely be better for the environment than full ICE, I will NOT buy a hybrid.

I'm close to upgrading my car from a Rapid and I'm strongly considering a BYD (Atto 3/M6) or some other EVs and NOT a Hycross. I have a few reasons for this.

1. EVs truly offset emissions from within the city to the generation site where it'll be easier to address. It'll make our cities a lot more breathable.
2. They'll quite likely add a load of battery storage to our grid which is essential for our grid (this will need two way power flow in/out of an EV battery)
3. The biggest reason, however, is that this govt has a tendency to bring in poorly thought out tax/policies/rules which cause real harm to consumers. The move to E20 without giving alternatives comes to mind, and the future mobility plan (was linked in another thread) talks about E40. An E20 ICE engine will run into trouble quickly if a poorly thought out push for E40 comes into play.
4. My exposure to the whims and fancies of this govt is reduced drastically - E40, Ethanol Diesel, tax increase on fuel, 10year ban, RC renewal refusal etc are reduced.
5. I doubt the harm is in any way greater than Oil production, so that "what about the environment?" question is a non starter for me.
6. Range anxiety is a non issue in a 400km+ range EV. I take a break usually after a few hours and I can just time my stops around EV charging stations. My 400km+ trips are a rarity and Plugshare shows enough number of fast chargers on these routes to make even these doable with a little planning.

[84.monsoon]

The somewhat confusing and contradictory stances from various arms of the government on EV subsidies and taxation seem to continue. Transport minister Nitin Gadkari has said yesterday that he believes electric vehicles no longer need subsidies.

On the one hand, we have Amithab Kant wanting to create a very big incentive for accelerating EV adoption through aggressive taxation differentials between EVs and non-EVs, including strong hybrids, and on the other hand, we have the transport minister feeling like India has reached the point where we do not need major subsidies for EVs. You also have UP government, which is run by the same BJP, giving road tax waivers to strong hybrids and defending their stance strongly, stating their strong hybrid penetration in the state is too low and needs to increase!

I would side with the transport minister here, as I believe the huge FAME-style tax breaks given to manufacturers, plus bumper GST and Road Tax incentives given to EVs, are today going straight to increase manufacturers' profit margins, rather than actually helping to strengthen the ecosystem and accelerate EV adoption.

For instance, do we know what part of the huge profits that Tata Motors is making on their overpriced Nexon and Punch EVs is being invested in building EV charging infrastructure for India? As a market leader in EVs, Tata Motors seems to behaving the same way as Maruti was in the ICE era - as a market leader, not investing in developing infrastructure, not working on improving usage conditions for their consumers, not pushing regulation to improve safety of EVs etc. Contrast to Tesla, who as the market leader, built such an extensive EV charging network on their own in the US!

Every manufacturer, from Tata to Mercedes to Hyundai to Mahindra points to the Central and State Governments and Public-Private partnerships, as the primary responsible parties to build the charging networks. These manufacturers do a few insignificant token actions and make a huge deal of it, for example installing a charger each in their few hundred dealerships and putting out a big Ad about it! That is the limit, as far as the extent to which these supposed "market leaders" are willing to go, to develop the ecosystem.

None are willing to dip into their quarter-on-quarter profits to create infrastructure at scale, as they want to protect their margins which are in turn supporting sky high share prices and creating massive wealth for their owners. Giving more incentives will only increase their profits further and boost their share prices even more, but will make very little difference to broaden EV adoption.

[nidhikapoor]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

The somewhat confusing and contradictory stances from various arms of the government on EV subsidies and taxation seem to continue. Transport minister Nitin Gadkari has said yesterday that he believes electric vehicles no longer need subsidies.

On the one hand, we have Amithab Kant wanting to create a very big incentive for accelerating EV adoption through aggressive taxation differentials between EVs and non-EVs non-EVs, including strong hybrids, and on the other hand, we have the transport minister feeling like India has reached the point where we do not need major subsidies for EVs. You also have UP government, which is run by the same BJP, giving road tax waivers to strong hybrids and defending their stance strongly, stating they strong hybrid penetrative should increase!

I would side with the transport minister here, as I believe the huge tax FAME-style tax breaks given to manufacturers, plus bumper GST and Road Tax incentives given to EVs, are today going straight to increase manufacturers' profit margins, rather than actually helping to strengthen the ecosystem and accelerate

How does excusing road tax add to manufacturers profits?

Also just to take one exam. The ioniq 5 is cheaper in India than in all of Europe. So, they are not pocketing the benefits, obviously.

[TwinBishop]

The following graphs are from a detailed cradle to analysis of petrol, hybrid, EV, and fuel cell cars. The analysis is from Argonne National Laboratory a US DoE lab.





From the above two graphs it can be seen that strong hybrid (HEV in US jargon) is a good technology to adopt while we transition to EV.

The full report can be downloaded from https://greet.anl.gov/publication-c2g_lca_us_ldv.

[vamsi.vadrevu]

Instead of taxing vehicles based on technology, they should be taxed on their total lifecycle emissions. And let the manufacturers determine which is the best technology. This will naturally lead to the best technology winning in the long run.

[itsbaman]

In my opinion, majority of the car buyers opt for EVs due to reduced running expenses in a long time. No one really buys them to save the environment. Why would someone buy a 20 lacs Nexon when they can buy a mighty D-Segment SUV at that price (considering our road presence-obsessed public), if not for lower running expenses? If savings can't match the extra price paid over their ICE counterpart, and if the buyer cannot save a substantial amount of money in 8 years ( considering the warranty on the battery by Tata), there is no point entering in range anxiety world. EV charging infrastructure is no where close to be called as developed. The one segment where I see EVs becoming successful is public transport, but that too mostly owned by the government.
Unless EV sales match their ICE counterparts, the government should have continued with the lower taxes and subsidies.
I had a lot of faith in EVs, now diminishing everyday.

[JayPrashanth]

Originally Posted by KeepItSimple

The government has opened a loophole in UP with reduced tax on hybrids.

The UP government's decision to waive off road tax on hybrids has to do with a court ruling, and not to benefit hybrids as such.

https://www.livemint.com/industry/th...284605774.html

Cheers,

Jay