Jamus wants to have a greener future.
12 h ·
As a small country, it’s difficult for us to imagine our green efforts making any difference for the fate of the planet. At one level, this is undeniable; our nation’s emissions, no matter how controlled, will be completely dominated by those of larger and denser countries. But that’s beside the point. Our future is tied together, so we have a shared responsibility to do our part. We can also play a leadership role and show the way forward. Many countries already look to us as a model for development; we can be one for the environment, too.
As we transition our economy toward sustainability, electric vehicles (EVs) will play an ever-greater role. But there is a chicken-and-egg problem with adoption: unless we’ve chargers easily available, nobody will buy EVs; but companies won’t install if there isn’t enough demand. This is where government can take a lead. HDB oversees charging infrastructure in multistory carparks. As long as these are safe and sufficient, it will help encourage EV adoption among HDB dwellers, which make up a good chunk of our car owners.
It is important to ensure safety, because many would be concerned about fires, especially after reports of how other battery-reliant transportation vehicles, such as PMDs, have contributed to fires (18 across the island last year, and 2 that I know of in
#SengkangGRC). But it is also crucial to guarantee sufficiency. If there are only 2 stations, and they’re always occupied, nobody will upgrade to EVs, since they won’t want to risk having a flat battery when they need to get to work for an important meeting.
One strategy for discouraging charger hogging is to apply a penalty rate when users already have a full charge (this is how Tesla does it). We can also adjust the number of stations, to oversupply chargers when there are more registered PHC and taxi drivers in a cluster. For condos and mixed-use buildings, we could try to target a higher number of stations, since such structures are likely to have a disproportionate number of EV drivers (due to commercial traffic and relatively higher incomes).
But there is another institutional mechanism for ushering in the transition: leverage the current COE system, which, after all, guarantees the expiry of existing internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles after 10 years, by default. The Ministry of Transport (MoT)’s plan is to issue no more ICE COEs, starting in 2030. That’s a fine approach, and effectively means the more-or-less complete phase-out of the ICE fleet by 2040. There is one shortcoming: the EV transition will need to wait another 8 years. Alternatively, we can create a distinct EV COE category, and split new COE issuance between EV and ICE. This will allow the transition to begin immediately, and get us to a full RV fleet by 2042.
Minister Iswaran, in his response, suggested that introducing two types of COEs would reduce the supply of available in each category, making prices more volatile. Maintaining a single category was preferable, for that reason. I agree that segmenting markets this way could result in greater volatility and potentially higher COE prices, especially in the ICE category. The question, then, is whether higher COE prices are worth paying, in exchange for getting more EVs on the road earlier. We’re all aware of higher COE prices of late, and how this is making it difficult, especially for those who rely on driving for a living. But there is a way around this: rebate part of that extra revenue, especially for commercial vehicles.
I (and other
#workersparty MPs) have made previous suggestions along those lines, of special dispensation for certain categories, such as motorcycle delivery riders, PHC drivers, or drivers of vehicles used for commercial purposes. We could even do the same for a special commercial EV category, which would work out to a discount for such EV permits (off the market price). This would in turn encourage takeup, and reduce emissions from one of the highest-impact categories of vehicles.
Ultimately, we can view the higher prices paid by noncommercial ICE drivers as a feature, not a bug. The higher prices for ICE COEs would encourage the switch sooner, and we also get more EVs on the road by also adjusting changes in quantity, not just price. Either way, the goal is to have more EVs and less ICE vehicles on the road, as soon as possible. I’d prefer using two tools to do so than one, with price rebates to certain categories to contain price increases. But reasonable folks can disagree.
#makingyourvotecount
