When the Electric Vehicle Industry Development Act or EVIDA lapsed into law, there was an initial state of confusion as to the status of mild hybrid vehicles: are they included or aren’t they?
Now, try as they might, the agency in charge of EVIDA—the Department of Energy (DOE)—seems to be clueless about the entire thing despite various consultations with the public and private companies.
It must be remembered that, in their own wording, they defined a Hybrid Electric Vehicle or Hybrid-EV (HEVs) as “those EVs with both a rechargeable energy storage system and a fueled power source for propulsion” (Section 5 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations).
The circular was silent on whether it required that the electric motor be capable enough to propel the vehicle on its own.
This opened two basic interpretations surrounding mild hybrids. The first (which, in full disclosure, we sided with) stuck to the letter of the law. Mild hybrids, according to the EVIDA law and EVIDA law alone, do enjoy several non-fiscal incentives including priority registration and exemption from the number coding scheme. The second camp said that they aren’t.
It doesn’t help the public’s case that the DOE themselves released a list of recognized EVs and HEVs, when in their very own IRR, the agency in charge of the “regulation and registration of EVs” is the Department of Transportation (DOTr). In fact, they’ve given power to the DOTr and the LTO and LTFRB to “amend [things] accordingly as may be necessary subject to the conduct of public consultations, in compliance with other requirements, as may be provided under existing laws.”
It is for these reasons why vehicles like the Suzuki Ertiga and its Smart Hybrid Vehicle by Suzuki (SHVS) mild hybrid system were granted Hybrid status. Others like the Mazda CX-60 have the words, “Hybrid” clearly indicated on their Certificate of Registration.
Now, the question is: why did the DOE flip the script? Why are they now against mild hybrids being classified as an HEV under the EVIDA when the point of the law in the first place was to encourage the adoption of electrified vehicles?
Some are saying that it’s the result of an intensive lobbying effort to discredit mild hybrids, but given that there’s no proof on the matter, this is purely hearsay at this point. Officially, however, the DOE’s stance comes from another law: the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion or TRAIN Law. Yes, the DOE is using the same law responsible for your pay check, the prices of petroleum products, and new cars nowadays to help them define what a Hybrid Electric Vehicle is.
In a consultation with various carmakers, the DOE went back to the definition of what a “Hybrid Electric Vehicle” is under the TRAIN law. And here, the Department of Finance made a very clear definition:
Hybrid electric vehicle shall mean a motor vehicle powered by electric energy, with or without provision for off-vehicle charging, in combination with gasoline, diesel or any other motive power: Provided, That, for purposes of this Act, a hybrid electric vehicle must be able to propel itself from a stationary condition using solely electric motor (emphasis ours).
With that, some carmakers like Geely have opted not to appeal against the DOE’s ruling removing mild hybrids from their master list. However, it’s understood that some carmakers are still fighting to have mild hybrids recognized by the DOE. This could help paint a clearer picture for consumers and the various regulating bodies.
In this case of mild hybrids not anymore enjoying the perks of the EVIDA law, which side are you on?
Good move, mild hybrid is just an additional cost to vehicles with little value to add on gas consumption. Its more of a hype
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way. For example the Okavango is a mild hybrid but does it get hybrid levels of efficiency? Definitely no, in real world in city around 8kml. The Corolla Cross easily gets 18kml in bad traffic conditions. Therefore only full hybrid should get the perks.
ReplyDeleteThe law doesn't consider fuel efficiency...it considers electrification. That's why we side that, for the purposes of EVIDA, mild hybrids have to be included. It's just funny why they're reverting back to a non-DOE formulated classification of what a hybrid is. Clearly, the DOE didn't consult the right stakeholders to make an informed decision in coming up with the IRR.
DeleteThe goal of electrification is to improve efficiency and reduce emissions. However, some manufacturers are taking advantage of loopholes in the law by simply adding a small electric motor and a hybrid badge to their vehicles, even though these vehicles do not actually produce significant emissions reductions. This is not in the spirit of electrification and should be addressed.
DeleteYeah it should be the spirit and real purpose of the law, after all a law has many interpretations. Motor of mild hybrid is just a glorified alternate starter.
ReplyDeleteSuzuki Ertiga should NOT be considered a “Hybrid” and should revoke their COC and pay appropriate taxes as mandated by law.
ReplyDeletewhen the government agencies went on to reference the train law with this, i got the impression that the rich and powerful just wanted to be the only ones to enjoy the perks all along. have you noticed that almost all new motoring related laws and legislations tend to favor people with more money? vintage car law - c'mon, who has the properly restored ones out there? full-fledged EVs, supercars and big ICE luxury SUVs... sad stste of the Philippines in general...
ReplyDeleteIts bcoz the rich n powerful are the one's who makes laws. the train law they passed - instead of lowering the taxes on pangmasa vehicles, they increased it n those idiots instead of taxing more the rich...lo n behold...they decreased the taxes on luxury vehiclesš¤š¤š¤
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion only BEV for zero tariff color coding. The rationale is bevomes fuel independence and less or zero emission
ReplyDeleteWhy are full hybrid vehicles expensive? I thought they have tax perks?
ReplyDeleteTrue. HEVs & EVs are still expensive. Not one of these have reduced their SRPs since the enactment of EVIDA.
Deletewhen a car manufacturer adds an energy return system to their ICE vehicle, even without a battery as an energy source, they call it a mild hybrid! clearly this does not even conform to the basic principle of the EVIDA law and therefore should be kicked out of the program!
ReplyDeleteThis law is worthless anyway as only a few people own hybrid and EV vehicles in the Philippines
ReplyDeleteRenault Twizy is out of production worldwide and in South Korea since last year.
Autoaccess focused instead of importing expensive luxury vehicles came from Korea.
Not worth owning a hybrid due to higher upfront pricing and the anxiety of ponying up 6-digit amounts to replace the battery after its warranty expires.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there will be need to replace the battery after the warranty expires. Granting that the battery degrades slightly, it still won't be an issue since the vehicle has an ICE motor to run the wheels and charge the battery. Of course the driver will feel the lower output from the battery and slightly higher fuel consumption, but it will not force an outright battery replacement.
ReplyDelete