AT least one solar energy stakeholder is criticising Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke for deciding to reduce duties on electric vehicles (EV) instead of removing the GCT on lithium batteries.

Jason Robinson, CEO of Solarbuzz Jamaica, said “it was a disappointing blow to the solar industry that the only solution put forward by the Government to alleviate high fuel/energy costs is the reduction on the duty on EVs from 30 per cent to 10 per cent.

Robinson argues that the solar industry has been consistent in its plea to the Government and Dr Clarke on the need for a removal of the GCT on lithium batteries to allow for more Jamaicans accessibility to solar against the increasing energy costs on the global market.

“We were hopeful that Minister Clarke would have taken the opportunity at Tuesday’s budget presentation to announce the removal of the 22 per cent GCT on lithium (iron phosphate) batteries used for the installation of solar systems. The current taxing of these batteries adds US$800 to US$1,200 to the total cost, placing solar energy even more out of the reach of the average Jamaican as lithium batteries account for most of the cost of a home solar system,” said Robinson.

The solar industry anticipated that the GCT on lithium batteries that was applied in January 2021 at the height of the novel coronavirus pandemic was finally going to be removed. The industry claims that eight months ago, Dr Clarke assured the solar association that their request would be presented to Parliament to allow for tax removal in five months.

“It is now 12 months and we are still waiting for a concessionary offer from this Government to remove the GCT that was imposed on lithium batteries,” Robinson stated.

He said the solar association applauds the Government’s focus on countering the present global energy crunch, reduce Jamaica’s dependence on petrol — especially where oil import is concerned — and mitigate the island’s carbon footprint, but he contends that the measures put in place should be incentivised.

Robinson explained that an EV requires charging and, since Jamaica’s electricity is still made up of at least 80 per cent fuel, an influx of these will only increase the country’s demand from the Jamaica Public Service (JPS) putting consumers back at square one.

“An EV will increase one’s JPS bill tremendously unless the house or business powering the charging station has solar. What this Government has or is therefore suggesting is a 10 per cent reduction in import duty for EV purchase to be powered at an increasing energy billing rate by the JPS or non-incentivised cost for solar power in the non-removal of the 22 percent GCT on lithium (iron phosphate) batteries,” he explained.

He further pointed to the Government’s Vision 2030 plan that lead acid batteries (also used for the installation of solar systems) remain duty and tax free. On that note, he highlighted that these lead acid batteries last for only four years and remain a higher threat to the environment with the gas they discharge while being powered and the present disposal trend of sending them to dumps to deteriorate into the island’s water table.

“Vision 2030 and all efforts and measures stemming from it must make sense to the current and increasing need by Jamaicans for affordable solar energy for homes and businesses. There is a lack of vision in the taxing of a solution (lithium batteries) that will keep cleaner technology with a 15-year lifespan out of the hands of the majority of Jamaicans,” Robinson argued

He continued: “EVs are a much needed alternative but, at best, they are a five- to 10-year solution for the majority of Jamaica in comparison to the present demand and solution of solar energy for homes and businesses.”