[ad_1]
The president of the Portuguese Automobile Association (ACAP), José Ramos, considers the reformulation of tax benefits for the purchase of hybrid and hybrid cars inexplicable plug without the sector being heard. Although he says he is not in favor of “muscular attitudes”, the leader of the largest association of the national automotive sector warns that “it may be necessary to invade Lisbon” with “a fleet” and promote a street protest in front of the Assembly of the Republic . so that decisions are no longer made without listening to industry representatives.
“Careless or not, the truth is that it was approved. A sector cannot be trapped in these negotiations, ”laments ACAP’s secretary general, Hélder Pedro, pointing to a“ setback ”in policies to support the reduction of CO2 in private transport.
At stake is the PAN proposal, approved with the support of the PS and BE, during the vote on the specialty of the State Budget for 2021. Tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid and hybrid vehicles are limited plug for vehicles with a range of more than 50 kilometers, instead of the initial proposal, which provided for 80 km. PCP, CDS, Chega and IL voted against.
The National Association of Automotive Branches (ARAN) also says it is “outraged” by this decision, approved under the new State Budget, which implies that only hybrids with a minimum electric range of 50 km will have a 60% discount. in ISV. For ARAN “this is a bad budget for the sector that has been terrible.” “This is a measure that seems to prefer an older and more polluting car park.”
José Ramos considers the 50 km limit “silly”. “There is no vehicle with this autonomy,” he protests. “If they had listened to experts in the field, if they had listened to ACAP, they would not have done it, because they do not understand any of this,” he accuses.
Hélder Pedro adds that the approved rule is not even possible to comply with at this time. “In these hybrid vehicles, the homologation certificates do not mention the autonomy in electric mode. Therefore, there is even a practical inapplicability, ”he says.
In an initial version, the PAN proposal provided for a less restrictive limit of 80 km of autonomy. But then that figure dropped to 50 km, leaving those responsible for the sector on the brink of a nervous breakdown. In fact, “attack” is one of the words most used by ACAP at this time, arguing that the Government continues to ignore the interests of a sector that is the largest national exporter and, “worst of all,” questions the objectives environmental.
The PAN proposal determines that “the calculation of the vehicle tax (ISV) and the autonomous taxation in the IRC” begins to obey “criteria that restrict the support to hybrids and hybrids plug that cumulatively satisfy the conditions of having an electric range greater than 50 km and official emissions less than 50 gCO2 / km ”.
The justification for this change is that “many of these cars are hybrids plug ‘facade’, (…) because they have low autonomies in electric mode, they are rarely charged, they have powerful internal combustion engines, and they are also usually large and heavy (many are SUVs), which makes them present in the practice CO2 emissions two to four times higher than those registered in the tests ”.
Pablo Puey, president of the ACAP Strategic Council, rejects these arguments, underlining that the studies that may be the basis for these conclusions were carried out “on certain cars, under certain conditions.” “We have been trying to talk to everyone and explain the situation to everyone. We know that this moment is difficult, but there is a message that has to pass: it is enough ”.
The three officials spoke at a press conference on Thursday, during which it was revealed that the PAN had meanwhile responded to ACAP by saying, in short, that “regardless” of a possible lack of technical rigor, it “does not invalidate” the proposal. to eliminate what for the PAN are fiscal “distortions” that benefit cars that are more polluting than was supposed, in the opinion of this party and according to some studies.
“What happened in Parliament was the biggest disappointment in recent decades,” says José Ramos. “Two governments led by the same party and with the same Minister of the Environment are in an incredible contradiction. As you may recall, the minister said that diesel cars would end. This decision that was taken yesterday, in the opposite direction, shows that the same party has two attitudes. What will happen [com a mudança dos incentivos] it is an increase in unemployment, we will see an increase in CO2 and NOx because it will increase the sales of diesel and gasoline cars ”.
Conventional hybrid cars have 7.2% of the market share in sales this year. Hybrids plug 7% and trams 4.9%. Data for 2020, from January to October, a period in which the national light market fell by 37%. Other data presented today confirm that Portugal has one of the oldest car parks in Western Europe, with an average age of around 13 years. Pablo Puey insists on the need for policies that support replacement, because a new car, with an internal combustion engine, today emits 30gCO2 / km less than a car of that age.
Hélder Pedro warns that a decrease in the sale of hybrids will translate into a potential increase in emissions. The PAN proposal “removes a tax exemption from an important segment, but the most serious thing is the setback to meet the CO2 goals,” he insists.
“The reduction of emissions is essential in Europe and is not only achieved with trams, but also with hybrids. So far we have 5% of tram sales, Portugal is close to countries with GDP per capita superior, made a breakthrough and the proposal was approved [no Parlamento] it is contradictory because it is in the opposite cycle. That is why it is very difficult to be in the market and have confidence in the public authorities ”.
José Ramos concludes: “They are very concerned about hybrids, but not about imported imported vehicles. Despite our openness and stance, why is it not considered ACAP? Perhaps the solution is to invade Lisbon with a fleet of cars to make yourself heard. I don’t like it, I don’t think so, but maybe… “
