Some might still ask hesitantly, will using EVs instead of fossil fuel vehicles (FFV) really be environmentally friendly for Indonesia? The answer is, “Yes.” We have a grid carbon factor of around 0.80 kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) because of our reliance on coal.

Even with this relatively high carbon grid factor, EVs are still more environmentally friendly than FFVs. EVs can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 20 percent to 35 percent compared to FFVs and could significantly help improve Jakarta’s air quality. As we move toward the goal of decarbonizing our energy sector, switching to EVs will help Indonesia meet our Paris Agreement targets.

In addition, EVs could help reduce Indonesia’s negative oil trade balance and transform our automotive industry.

Although Indonesia has been lagging behind its global peers in promoting EVs and underlying industrial developments, the government has made significant progress in the past two years. The Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry announced last month that Indonesia would have around 2.2 million EPCs and 13 million electric motorcycles (e-motorcycles) by 2030. Further, there would be 31,800 charging stations and 67,000 battery swapping facilities to support the projected number of EVs.

At first glance, one might think that the number of charging stations would not be sufficient to cater to the estimated number of EVs. However, EVs are different from FFVs in terms of how they are powered. FFVs rely on gas stations to fill up their tanks, but EVs do not need charging stations for energy.

Charging EVs is decentralized, so can improve Indonesia’s energy security. EV users can charge their cars at home overnight. Based on user experience in other countries, charging EVs is as simple as plugging in our laptops, although an EV charger is around 220 volts. Overnight charging at home would give a driving range of around 200 kilometers, even if users don’t have a wall-mounted charger. Therefore, the number of charging stations does not necessarily correspond directly to the number of EVs in the country.

Public charging stations would, of course, increase convenience for EV users. They would also help reduce users’ anxiety over driving range. Still, home charging should be sufficient for short distances, such as a daily intracity commute to the office.

As for public charging stations, the government could provide a mix of low-power (slow) and high-power (fast) chargers. Slow charging stations are suitable for installing at malls or office buildings, where users can leave their EVs to charge over several hours. Fast charging stations can be installed on highways and national roads. Establishing a massive fast charging network is very costly. At the initial stage, the government must chip in or fully finance the development of EV charging networks.

However, developing a charging network won’t guarantee EV sales. EVs are still more expensive than FFVs, unless the government provides fiscal incentives for buying EVs, such as tax and customs duty exemptions. As there are more pressing issues at hand, offering EV subsidies might not be a feasible option for the government at this time. In addition, using the state budget to subsidize EV purchases could end up favoring affluent car owners.

I would suggest that the government focus on electrifying commercial vehicles first. Taxis, buses and ride-hailing motorcycles have a higher operating mileage than private vehicles like passenger cars and motorcycles. Consequently, commercial vehicles have higher emissions and would be more financially attractive than noncommercial vehicles.

In terms of financial considerations, EVs are also more energy efficient so they consume less energy than FFVs. For instance, EVs can cover 41 km with 10 kWh of energy, while FFVs can cover only up to 17 km, so EVs carry a lower energy cost than FFVs.

For commercial EVs that average high daily mileage, the cost of procuring EVs can be offset more quickly by lower operational costs. Even in Indonesia, where fuel prices are relatively low, commercial EVs like electric buses and taxis will be attractive to the private sector and move forward in adopting them without significant government support.

From the environmental viewpoint, electrifying commercial vehicles in the initial stage is also reasonable. Due to their higher operating mileage and fuel consumption, commercial vehicles produce higher emissions than noncommercial vehicles. For instance, each e-bus produces the same level of emissions as 40 EPCs. In Jakarta, diesel buses represent just 0.1 percent of all commercial vehicles, but are responsible for 5 percent of GHG emissions and 20-30 percent of pollutants.

In terms of technical considerations, commercial EVs require a less complicated network. They usually have designated routes, stops and timetables. This predictability makes it easier to map out their charging network. A different approach would be needed for ride-hailing motorcycles, which have unpredictable routes.

However, the option exists to install battery swapping facilities instead of fast charging stations for e-motorcycles, which can also be easily charged at home. In contrast, noncommercial EVs require a more complex charging network.

Focusing on electrifying commercial vehicles is recommended at the initial stage, as they are low-hanging fruit. It would cost the government less to start with commercial EVs instead of noncommercial EVs, because the former requires a simpler charging network.

Commercial EVs are financially more attractive and produce more emissions. The government can accelerate the uptake of commercial EVs by subsidizing the development of charging networks and electricity tariffs.

Still, commercial EVs are ready to take off, even with minimum government support.

 ***

The writer is a clean energy consultant for the Asian Development Bank, and a cofounder of Forum Energi Muda. The views presented here are personal.