It looks like the Government of India is all set to push for electric vehicles (EV) nationally. As part of FAME (Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles in India), it has decided to hold talks to enhance the adoption of EVs. Power minister Piyush Goyal has spoken to various stakeholders, along with NITI Aayog, to explain how the economies of scale can make it more viable in India.
Currently in its pilot phase, FAME offers incentives of Rs 29,000 and Rs 1.38 lakh for two- and four-wheelers respectively. A nationwide roll-out is set to begin 1 April.
In July 2016, the road transport ministry had amended the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, (CMVR) to allow older vehicles to be retrofitted with a hybrid electric kit. This move was aimed at getting older vehicles to conform to Bharat-II norms, but that it would merely increase the number of low-quality hybrid kits in the market. Delhi’s ill-planned odd-even formula provided an exemption to compressed natural gas (CNG) and electric hybrid vehicles, but, again, this move would have given rise to low-quality kits in the market as a legal loophole for people who wanted to take out their cars.
The problem with EVs is a more chronic version of what plagues vehicles running on either CNG or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Lack of refuelling points is the biggest problem with gas-based vehicles, mainly due to the legal monopolies in place. EVs are more or less in the same boat, with Plug In India, a website that promotes the use of EVs listing 206 charging points in India. The figure stood at 194 in July 2016. Twelve new charging stations over a period of six months do not augur well for the ecosystem. Tata Motors in 2010 deferred the launch of the electric version of the Nano citing a lack of charging points, and seven years later, the Nano EV is nowhere in sight.
Public transport is marginally better off with buses covering short distances in urban sectors, and have the added benefit of returning to a depot at the end of the day to charge their batteries. This is where the Union government should direct its focus.
In December 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi flagged off an electric bus service designed by the Pune-based firm KPIT Technologies to be used in Parliament premises. However, nothing much has happened since then. In 2014, the Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) managed to acquire a fully electric bus from Chinese manufacturer Utopia for a two-month trial period. After that, however, the bus went back, and nothing happened after. Why? The cost of the bus was Rs 2 crore – too expensive for BMTC to afford.
As suggested earlier, Indian cities can slowly transition from diesel to electric buses if they start investing in the batteries required. Economies of scale play an important role. If we aggressively push for electric vehicles, we can make up for the cost of investment through reduced expenditure in operations.
To solve the problem, what needs to be addressed is demand and supply. There are two parts to the problem, vehicles and charging stations. The old-school method of pushing up the supply to create a demand will not work in a capitalist society like ours. Supply needs to cater to demand, and that is on a sticky wicket. Goyal solved it in the case of the lighting sector with the LED distribution scheme. In January 2014, under United Progressive Alliance-II, Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) procured LED bulbs at Rs 310 a piece, one that fell sharply to below Rs 100 under Goyal.
In this regard, road transport minister Nitin Gadkari inviting Elon Musk’s Tesla Motors to set up a manufacturing base in India makes perfect sense. With Musk himself hinting at Tesla’s plans to ship to India soon, we can assume that 2018 might see a few of them in India. This will push up the supply and demand for Tesla cars in India, mainly due to the company’s brand value. The government should, logically, ensure that nothing stops Tesla legally from setting up charging stations similar to what Mahindra has done after its purchase of Reva Electric.
Public transport
Public transport needs to be prioritised. The simplest argument in favour of public transport is that it boosts productivity or, at worst, slows down the loss of productivity. In the case of a long trip, a commuter can catch up on reading, watch a film, take a nap or even work on their phone or laptop. The subsidy being given to cars and bikes needs to be extended to buses in order to solve the supply and demand problem. Public transport unfortunately is hindered by archaic laws that allow only government-run bodies to operate, penalising private entities who do. While that is a matter that needs to be sorted out by the centre with guidance from the Aayog, what Mr. Goyal and Mr.Gadkari need to do is:
1. Incentivise EVs for public transport
Public transport system is one of the largest consumers of commercial fuel. With the rise in traffic, the average mileage for buses in different cities has also gone down, resulting in an increase in the cost of purchasing fuel. In Mumbai, the fuel cost amounts to 18.2 per cent of the operational costs while in Bengaluru, it comes to 38.6 per cent. Since power supply is cheaper than fuel, the savings on fuel and the investment on the electric vehicle will balance each other out in the long run.
2. Set up a framework for private participation the charging point market
While long-distance bus operators might not go for electric buses, they can use their land resources to set up charging stations. Similarly, there needs to be a provision for anyone who wishes, to set up a charging station for vehicles.
3. Invest in education
Unless we invest in our education sector, research and development will not bear near-enough fruit. The reliance on foreign technology isn’t really a good idea in India with the varying ecosystem from state to state and issues with power.
The EVs market is just starting to take off. If Mr. Goyal can incentivise it, similar to the LED distribution scheme, the market will thrive, resulting in greater savings, a higher quality of travel and, most importantly, more jobs.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.