Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Hong Kong First Registration Tax

What do you think will happen to the Hong Kong EV 0% FRT Tax Break?

  • It won't get renewed and EV incentives will be dropped.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It won't get renewed, but EVs given a FRT break somewhere between 0% and the hybrid discounts.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It won't get renewed, but EVs given the same FRT break as hybrids.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
With the help of the EPD, I've managed to clarify the mechanics behind the implementation of the extension for the FRT waiver.

Today (5th March) at 4:30pm a LegCo subcommittee will meet to approve going forward with this change:

Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Subcommittee on Proposed Resolution under Section 5(4) of the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax) Ordinance (Agenda) 5 March 2014

The proposed legislative change is here:

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/hc/papers/hc0228cb3-440-e.pdf

with Legal Services Division "no objection" report here:

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/hc/papers/hc0228ls-32-e.pdf

and LegCo briefing paper here:

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/hc/sub_leg/sc10/papers/sc100305cb1-1027-1-e.pdf

Subject to the agreement of LegCo, the Secretary for the Environment will move the resolution for approval during March. There is a small confusion on the exact date - the resolution paper itself says 19th March 2014 and the LegCo briefing says 26th March 2014. Whichever - they're trying to get this done before the 31st March expiry date (presumably to avoid the grey area of vehicles registered after 31st March but before the resolution passes).

The resolution itself is very simple: "Repeal 2014, Substitute 2017". It is not tangled up with anything else, and I can't see anything stopping it.

What I find interesting is the justifications listen by Government in this:



Here is the quoted strategy document:

* Since April 2011, car parks have been required to be “EV charging-enabling” if the developer wishes to obtain concessions on gross floor area. All parking spaces are required to put in place at the building construction stage the infrastructure and conditions, including electrical wiring and provision of sufficient power supply, to facilitate future installation of chargers.

Mark, this only applies to new development, right? Because I have asked bunch of carparks around Quarry Bay, and none offers even a 13A socket, with the exception of that you pay for the charging.
 
* Since April 2011, car parks have been required to be “EV charging-enabling” if the developer wishes to obtain concessions on gross floor area. All parking spaces are required to put in place at the building construction stage the infrastructure and conditions, including electrical wiring and provision of sufficient power supply, to facilitate future installation of chargers.

Mark, this only applies to new development, right? Because I have asked bunch of carparks around Quarry Bay, and none offers even a 13A socket, with the exception of that you pay for the charging.

Yes, only for new developments.

For existing developments:

* A dedicated team and a hotline (3757 6222) are in operation to help EV owners or buyers to set up EV chargers at strata-titled car parks. Besides, guidelines have been issued to prospective EV buyers on how to set up chargers at their own car parks and letters were issued to around 7 400 owners’ organisations appealing for their support.
 
Yes, only for new developments.

For existing developments:

I wish there would be some information on a home page, both directed at EV owners, but also with more information to owners associations and managements.

I am thinking how to solve it when more EVs want to charge: Do we need one spot for each car? Can one charger serve more than one spot, and in that case ... how can it be managed that one owner plugs in his/her car, then after it has finished charging, other owners can unplug, and plug into their own car?

Can the Tesla model S unlock the plug, after a certain charge level has been reached? And how about metering. Oh, so many questions, but for EVs to be successful, these questions need to be answered.

I was even thinking of a charging cable on a rail in the ceiling, which could be moved between multiple spots.
 
That is an interesting idea.

It still has issues. Lots.

Like when is it OK to remove the cable from another car?

What happens if you scratch it or otherwise damage it in the process?

How will charging for the electricity be controlled, if unplugged from one car and inserted into another?

Let's say I go flying for a few days, or even a week, and leave the car at the airport. It would be a waste of charging station capacity if my car is plugged in for 7 days, while others could have used it in the meantime.
 
Here is video stream from yesterday committee meeting. LegCo Webcasting System

There seem to have been a very aggressive attack at Tesla specifically. In particular they seems to single it out as a "toy". I would argue that Tesla needs to do some PR/education work with government if they want to have longer term staying power.

Thanks for posting. I had been looking for that (seems to take them forever to get the videos edited and published - still no minutes of the meeting available).

The committee, in general, seemed to be very much in favour of the resolution. The chairman (Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG Chiu-hung) of the meeting raised a concern about applying FRT concessions to “luxury racing cars” (maybe translation problems, and perhaps “luxury sports cars” is a better translation). Tesla was brought up several times, including the 300 cars estimate, as well as Tesla Hong Kong web site estimates of savings between HK$463,350 to HK$673,570, depending on the car model. Mr CHEUNG questioned whether public funds should be used to subsidise the purchase of toys for the rich. Both the EPD representative (expressing the view of supporting technology transfer high performance -> mainstream), and other committee members, expressed themselves very well and seemed to understand the true situation (as well as Tesla’s stated 3 stage plan Roadster -> Model S/X -> Model E).

The other committee members saw the benefits of the legislation, and the committee in the end supported the resolution. It will go to a vote in the chamber, unamended, on 26th March 2014.

One thing that saved it is the rigidity of the legislation. They can approve a change to the date (2014 -> 2017) by simple legco resolution. To change the terms of the exemption would require a legislative bill being introduced. Even if members want to propose an amendment, they can only amend the date.

I am concerned about the chairman’s lack of knowledge of the current situation. He is ill-informed in several key aspects. While I see his point about luxury cars, he is plain wrong regarding ‘sports’ or ‘racing’ cars and ‘toys for the rich’. My own opinion is that even if these were ‘toys for the rich’ (which they are not), is it better for the rich to buy polluting toys or non-polluting electric toys?

His (publicly listed, so shown here) eMail address seems to be:

[email protected]

He is New Territories East constituency, so anyone in this area might want to try writing in to him (I have). I would point out:

  1. The Tesla Model S (the 300 order vehicle he is referring to) is a 4 door family sedan, not a sports car. Premium, not luxury. Perhaps he is confusing it with the Tesla Roadster (a 2 door sports car).
  2. The Tesla Roadster is a sports car, but was discontinued last year. It is not available on the market any more. Only a very limited number were sold in Hong Kong, and only 2,500 world wide over 5 years.
  3. The EPD's published list of EVs available in Hong Kong does not include any sports cars.
  4. EVs today cost double a comparable petrol engined car (due to the limited numbers and cost of the batteries), and the FRT exemption is still required to make these affordable.
 
Thanks for posting. I had been looking for that (seems to take them forever to get the videos edited and published - still no minutes of the meeting available).

The committee, in general, seemed to be very much in favour of the resolution. The chairman (Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG Chiu-hung) of the meeting raised a concern about applying FRT concessions to “luxury racing cars” (maybe translation problems, and perhaps “luxury sports cars” is a better translation). Tesla was brought up several times, including the 300 cars estimate, as well as Tesla Hong Kong web site estimates of savings between HK$463,350 to HK$673,570, depending on the car model. Mr CHEUNG questioned whether public funds should be used to subsidise the purchase of toys for the rich. Both the EPD representative (expressing the view of supporting technology transfer high performance -> mainstream), and other committee members, expressed themselves very well and seemed to understand the true situation (as well as Tesla’s stated 3 stage plan Roadster -> Model S/X -> Model E).

The other committee members saw the benefits of the legislation, and the committee in the end supported the resolution. It will go to a vote in the chamber, unamended, on 26th March 2014.

One thing that saved it is the rigidity of the legislation. They can approve a change to the date (2014 -> 2017) by simple legco resolution. To change the terms of the exemption would require a legislative bill being introduced. Even if members want to propose an amendment, they can only amend the date.

I am concerned about the chairman’s lack of knowledge of the current situation. He is ill-informed in several key aspects. While I see his point about luxury cars, he is plain wrong regarding ‘sports’ or ‘racing’ cars and ‘toys for the rich’. My own opinion is that even if these were ‘toys for the rich’ (which they are not), is it better for the rich to buy polluting toys or non-polluting electric toys?

His (publicly listed, so shown here) eMail address seems to be:

[email protected]

He is New Territories East constituency, so anyone in this area might want to try writing in to him (I have). I would point out:

  1. The Tesla Model S (the 300 order vehicle he is referring to) is a 4 door family sedan, not a sports car. Premium, not luxury. Perhaps he is confusing it with the Tesla Roadster (a 2 door sports car).
  2. The Tesla Roadster is a sports car, but was discontinued last year. It is not available on the market any more. Only a very limited number were sold in Hong Kong, and only 2,500 world wide over 5 years.
  3. The EPD's published list of EVs available in Hong Kong does not include any sports cars.
  4. EVs today cost double a comparable petrol engined car (due to the limited numbers and cost of the batteries), and the FRT exemption is still required to make these affordable.

Well, all he has to do is come to this forum and read a few threads, then he will have his knowledge boost.
 
Vote is today.

Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Council Meeting (Agenda) 26 March 2014

Note that the current agenda shows:

IV. Motion

Proposed resolution under the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax) Ordinance

Secretary for the Environment to move the motion in the Appendix.

(The motion was also issued on 14 March 2014
under LC Paper No. CB(3) 476/13-14)

Amendment to the proposed resolution
Dr Hon Fernando CHEUNG to move the following amendment:

Resolved that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for the Environment under section 5(4) of the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax) Ordinance (Cap. 330) at the Legislative Council meeting of 26 March 2014 be amended in the Schedule by deleting "2017" and substituting "2015".

So, despite being informed of the true facts, and despite everyone else on the committee disagreeing with him, Dr CHEUNG continues to demonstrate his lack of support for environmental friendly vehicles in Hong Kong, but instead push his own political agenda. It doesn't affect us here, but most certainly affects the future of EVs in Hong Kong. I hope that the council will sensibly pass the original motion and reject the amendment. I guess we will know in a few hours.

P.S. Good news is that I live in his constituency and can now exercise my option of voting for his opponent, and doing what I can to ensure he doesn't get re-elected. Bad news, is he was last elected in 2012, so we've got a few more years of him.
 
So has the decision been made yet? So worst case, it gets extended to March 2015 and best case March 2017?

I guess if you order a Tesla now and you get it before March 2015, you will not have to pay FRT and the used value of the car would go up significantly if the FRT exemption is revoked.
 
Mark is correct. All is good ... for the next 3 years :smile:
Glad our lawmakers show support for EVs.

Yep, back home now. Definitely passed and FRT exemption for pure EVs in Hong Kong is now to 31st March 2017.

Fernando CHEUNG tried to pass an amendment to only renew for 1 year, but that was voted down. The government proposed 3 year extension was then passed (39 to 10).

Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Council Meeting (Agenda) 26 March 2014
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/chinese/counmtg/voting/v20140326.pdf

Youtube video of the debate is up:


The legislation is now a through train, so Tesla is free to register and deliver my car on April 1st (pretty, please).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, back home now. Definitely passed and FRT exemption for pure EVs in Hong Kong is now to 31st March 2017.

Fernando CHEUNG tried to pass an amendment to only renew for 1 year, but that was voted down. The government proposed 3 year extension was then passed (39 to 10).

Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Council Meeting (Agenda) 26 March 2014
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/chinese/counmtg/voting/v20140326.pdf

The legislation is now a through train, so Tesla is free to register and deliver my car on April 1st (pretty, please).

Happy days! I have a feeling that these things will sell like crazy in Hong Kong. BMW M5 performance for less than half the price basically - and with a clear conscience.

As a result, I am pretty confident that the FRT will be introduced after 3 years which means, you won't lose money on re-sale after 3 years. Once I get some job security, I will order one.
 
I'm still watching the video but at 20 mins mark, I would like to say, Fernando is like Chelsea's Fernando (Torres), they are idiots.

Let's hope that he's not getting any Tesla because of its abundant spaces for his daughter's wheelchair.
 
Watching Fernando CHEUNG and the other politicians, who supported his amendment motion on the council meeting video makes me :cursing:.

What uninformed ignorant morons. Talking continuously about the Model S being a "sports car" and toy for the rich. Don't they know it's a sedan?
Comparing Tesla and Ferrari etc., etc.
Unbelievable.

Mirriam-Webster's definition of a "sports car": a low, small car that seats two people and that is made for fast driving
 
Last edited:
Watching Fernando CHEUNG and the other politicians, who supported his amendment motion on the council meeting video makes me :cursing:.

Yep, that's why I posted it. You guys need to see what these guys are saying in the legislature. Legislature. A place of law. A place where truth should be spoken.

I am flabbergasted that guy brought up the norwegian report on long-term pollution of EVs vs gas cars. As Robert Llewellyn said so eloquently about that report:

When they calculated the materials that went into making electric motors for cars, they accidentally used a static electric motor (the sort of thing you’d use to drive a large milling machine or industrial lathe) instead of a small, compact motor that would be found in a Nissan Leaf or similar car. Their calculations were for a 1,000 kg motor, the motor in the Nissan Leaf weighs 53kg. As you can imagine, an error of this magnitude could skew the figures rather badly. All cars use a lot of copper, the wiring loom, the starter motor etc. Electric cars use a little bit more, that phrase is accurate, they use a little bit more. Not 90kg more. The report also ‘casually misjudges’ the size, weight and copper content of the frequency inverter. These units do indeed contain copper but the report happened to measure a large, industrial scale frequency inverter you’d find in a factory tool shop. The factory one contains 36kg of copper, the one in the Nissan Leaf is 6.2 kg, total weight, most of which is the steel box it's housed in. They then analysed battery chemistry which no EV maker uses, battery capacity that no plug in car uses, then skewed the figures of how much coal is burned to generate the power to charge the non existent batteries in the mythical car. Essentially, the report is trash from start to finish.

The report is so biased and plainly false that even the Norwegian government ignores it, and incentivises EVs to a level not seen anywhere else (tax free, bus lane access, free parking, free charging, etc etc). But, our elected representative brings it up (as hearsay no less) in the legislative council.

Then you have Fernando Cheung saying 'I am not an expert' and then calling into question the facts put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency (who presumably have one or two experts in, you know, the environment and protection of it).

But the most disgusting thing about this is that this was all said after I wrote to Mr Fernando Cheung to correct his mistakes. He ignored what I said and continued to say such false and insinuating things in the legislative council (where he has protection). All to further his own political agenda.

As for the guy who voted NO because he wants electrical bicycles to be approved by the transport department, what the hell has that got to do with the EPD and incentives for EVs?

That said, there were some great comments from the pro camp. Just facts, the truth, and no political agenda. I was particularly impressed with Frankie Yick - he really knows what he is talking about. Charles Mok also represented my functional constituency admirably.

Anyway, 39 PRO and 10 (politicians pressing their own agenda) against is still a resounding victory. The government really nailed this one and obviously got the support in place beforehand.
 
Great update, Mark.

Sounds a bit like the global warming debate, "is it influenced by humans burning fossil fuels, or not?"

Cherry picking of information, out of context, and with wrong scientific methods and facts.