Introduction

Whether or not to restrict traffic is just the beginning.

Editor-in-Charge | Cao Jiadong

Editor | He Zengrong

Recently, a Chengdu netizen left a message on the Sichuan Provincial Online Mass Work Platform "Wenzheng Sichuan" proposing a suggestion to include hybrid new energy vehicles in traffic restrictions.

The netizen stated: As people's living standards continue to improve, cars have become a necessary mode of transportation for every household, and new energy vehicles will also become the first choice for most families. Due to the unrestricted traffic for new energy vehicles, the already congested traffic has become even more congested. It is now suggested that hybrid new energy vehicles be included in the scope of traffic restrictions.

The Chengdu Public Security Bureau Traffic Management Bureau also responded promptly, just two days after the netizen's suggestion. The department responded: Regarding the suggestion to include hybrid new energy vehicles in traffic restrictions, the City Public Security Bureau Traffic Management Bureau will initiate feasibility studies in due course.

Facing the official response, some netizens were no longer calm and also left messages on the platform opposing the inclusion of hybrid new energy vehicles in traffic restrictions. They said that it can be seen that this netizen is not a new energy vehicle owner, and most of the suggestions to restrict hybrid vehicles come from gasoline car owners, otherwise they would not propose such illogical suggestions.

After the matter was reported by the media, it quickly ignited the enthusiasm of netizens for discussion, further dividing new energy vehicle owners and gasoline vehicle owners into two camps. As a result, the issue of "privileges" for plug-in hybrids on the road also surfaced. Whether or not to restrict traffic has also triggered heated debates among netizens.

Everyone has a point

The initial netizen who suggested including hybrid new energy vehicles in the scope of traffic restrictions mainly had the following considerations:

First, the country vigorously advocates new energy based on environmental protection considerations. Some auto companies have launched hybrid models with pure electric ranges of only 30 to 40 kilometers, which undoubtedly "mixes" national policies, including but not limited to exemption from purchase tax and being unrestricted in traffic.

Second, due to the short-distance range of hybrid models, most of the time they still rely primarily on fuel driving, undoubtedly exacerbating environmental pollution and contrary to the original intention of energy conservation and environmental protection.

Third, there is an urgent need to alleviate current traffic pressure. Restricting traffic for hybrid models will effectively alleviate the city's traffic pressure, greatly improve citizens' travel rates, and thus enhance citizens' happiness index.

Fourth, there are relevant cities (such as Beijing) that have already included hybrid models in traffic restrictions, and traffic congestion has indeed been effectively alleviated after restrictions were imposed.

Let's analyze whether the above considerations are correct or reasonable. First, the statement that "hybrid models have a pure electric range of only 30 to 40 kilometers" is somewhat imprecise. Since October 1, 2021, new regulations have stipulated that the pure electric driving range of plug-in (including extended-range) hybrid passenger vehicles should meet the conditional equivalent full-electric range of not less than 43 kilometers to be exempt from vehicle purchase tax.

Currently, with the continuous development of new energy vehicle technology and the increase in policy requirements, the pure electric driving range of plug-in hybrid models on the market is generally improving. According to the latest policy requirements and market trends, the pure electric driving range of most plug-in hybrid models is basically 45 kilometers or more, and many extended-range models have reached over 300 kilometers.

However, some early-launched plug-in hybrid models or certain specific configurations with lower positioning may still have a pure electric driving range of less than 40 kilometers. But it should be noted that these products may already be outdated, as auto companies constantly adjust product strategies based on market demand and policy requirements.

Of course, it is worth mentioning that the special treatment of "unrestricted traffic" for plug-in hybrids mentioned by the netizen is indeed the same nationwide. There is only one exception, which is Beijing. Currently, only pure electric vehicles in Beijing are not subject to traffic restrictions, while plug-in hybrids need to be restricted by license plate numbers for one day a week. Therefore, this is the fourth point raised by the netizen.

As a result, those netizens who oppose restricting traffic for plug-in hybrids have also put forward very detailed explanations. For example:

First, hybrid models are designed to accommodate short-distance commuting with electricity and long-distance travel with fuel. In addition, major auto companies provide charging piles when selling new energy vehicles. It is already very convenient for new energy vehicle owners to charge at home or at commercial charging stations, and there is no need to use fuel.

Second, the current proportion of new energy vehicles is far less than that of gasoline vehicles. Promoting the sale of new energy vehicles, vehicle trade-ins, and the installation of residential charging piles are all being driven by the government, which has given new energy vehicles measures such as unrestricted traffic and free parking. The opinions raised by this netizen deviate from national policies and the vision of carbon peaking, and are not recommended for adoption.

Third, rather than focusing on restricting traffic for hybrid vehicles under the banner of environmental protection, it is more important to focus on replacing or eliminating low-fuel-emission gasoline vehicles with trade-ins. In reality, 6 out of 10 new energy vehicles are ride-hailing vehicles, and more attention should be paid to the number of new energy ride-hailing vehicles.

Fourth, from the perspective of gasoline vehicles, if the goal is truly to reduce traffic congestion, then one should drive less and use green public transportation, which is the fundamental solution. Shouting about congestion while not using green transportation is like covering one's ears while stealing a bell.

Regardless of the debate, a clear fact is beginning to emerge. The issue of "privileges" for plug-in hybrids has indeed caused controversy in some places. These "privileges" usually refer to the special treatment enjoyed by plug-in hybrids in certain cities or regions, such as unrestricted traffic, unrestricted purchases, and receiving new energy vehicle subsidies.

Privileges or Equality?

The reason why the issue of "privileges" for plug-in hybrids has caused controversy is mainly based on the following reasons:

First, the imbalance of policy preferences is an important factor. In some areas, plug-in hybrids can enjoy a series of preferential policies such as purchase subsidies, free registration, and unrestricted traffic. Such treatment compared to pure electric vehicles or traditional gasoline vehicles may create an unfair competitive environment, thereby causing dissatisfaction among other car owners.

Second, there are doubts about the energy-saving and emission-reduction effects of plug-in hybrids in actual use. Although theoretically, plug-in hybrids can reduce energy consumption and emissions through pure electric driving, some car owners still rely primarily on fuel driving in actual use, failing to fully utilize their electric advantages, thereby greatly reducing the effects of energy saving and emission reduction. For example, some car owners rarely charge their vehicles and use plug-in hybrids as gasoline vehicles but still enjoy policy preferences.

Furthermore, the occupation of public resources by plug-in hybrids is also a controversial aspect. In some cities, plug-in hybrids can enjoy free parking, free charging, and other public resources, but due to the short pure electric range and low charging frequency of some vehicles, they are considered inefficient users of public resources. For example, some public charging piles are often occupied by plug-in hybrids for extended periods, while pure electric vehicles that truly need to charge cannot use them.

In addition, the ambiguous positioning of plug-in hybrids in the market is also a reason for controversy. Plug-in hybrids have some characteristics of gasoline vehicles and attributes of electric vehicles. This ambiguous positioning causes confusion for consumers when choosing and can easily trigger disputes between consumers of different vehicle types.

Finally, the lack of synchronization between technological development and policy updates is also an important factor that triggers controversy. As technology develops and the market changes, early policies formulated for plug-in hybrids may no longer be suitable for the current situation, but policy adjustments often lag behind, thereby easily triggering controversy.

However, some viewpoints argue that as a type of new energy vehicle, plug-in hybrids still have better environmental performance than traditional gasoline vehicles and have certain market value during the technological transition stage. Therefore, it is reasonable to give plug-in hybrids certain policy preferences, which can help promote the diversified development of the new energy vehicle industry.

In summary, different people have different views on the issue of "privileges" for plug-in hybrids. The controversy over the "privileges" of plug-in hybrids is a complex issue involving policy formulation, technological development, market demand, and public perceptions. When formulating relevant policies, the government needs to comprehensively consider various factors to achieve the sustainable development of the new energy vehicle industry.

Of course, the above viewpoints are mainly limited to public discussions. In fact, just recently in June, Zeng Qinghong, Chairman of GAC Group, put forward a suggestion: When the market share of new energy vehicles and pure electric vehicles reaches 50%, government departments should consider studying and implementing a "fuel-electric parity" policy.

The so-called "fuel-electric parity" means that gasoline vehicles and new energy vehicles should enjoy equal benefits or bear the same restrictions at the policy level. This covers various aspects such as purchase tax, traffic restriction policies, etc., meaning that gasoline vehicles and new energy vehicles need to enjoy equal treatment.

Cui Dongshu, Secretary-General of the China Passenger Car Association, also holds a similar view. He pointed out that the penetration rate of China's new energy vehicle market is developing at an overspeed and is currently close to 50%. In this situation, society should consider establishing a reasonable competitive environment with fuel-electric parity.

Zeng Qinghong pointed out specific measures, such as researching support for the parallel development of multiple energy sources such as new energy vehicles and HEV energy-saving vehicles in areas such as government procurement, vehicle licenses, purchase restrictions, and consumption subsidies. There should not always be favoritism, as it will impact national energy security, the healthy and sustainable development of enterprises, and the creation of a fair competitive environment.