EVs, CNG Or CBG? Clean-Fuel Industry Wants CAQM To Keep All Options Open

Delhi-NCR’s clean-mobility debate is no longer simply about whether electric vehicles are cleaner than petrol or diesel. It is increasingly about which technology works best for which vehicle, how quickly it can be deployed and what happens to the CNG and biofuel ecosystem already in place.

The debate intensified after seven clean-fuel industry bodies said their evidence was not adequately heard at a CAQM consultation in April. A September representation from the Association of CGD Entities (ACE) has taken the argument further by challenging restrictions on new CNG light goods vehicles.

At the same time, TERI’s latest study has added another dimension. Its central finding is that India may need different fuel and technology choices for different vehicle segments, rather than a single pathway.

Why The Industry Is Objecting

In an April 22 letter to CAQM Chairperson Rajesh Verma, the Indian Sugar and Bio-energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA), National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories (NFCSF) and Indian Federation of Green Energy (IFGE) said the April 14 consultation appeared to have a “pre-conceived and pre-determined inclination towards a BEV-only pathway”.

A separate April 29 representation to Expert Committee chairperson Ashok Jhunjhunwala was signed by seven bodies — ISMA, NFCSF, ACE, IFGE, Grains Ethanol Manufacturers Association (GEMA), Indian Biogas Association (IBA) and All India Distillers’ Association (AIDA). The groups said their data and submissions had not been adequately heard.

Their larger argument is that Delhi’s pollution problem cannot be addressed simply by choosing one vehicle technology. They say older, more polluting vehicles remain a major source of vehicular pollution and that existing clean-fuel systems should be assessed for their actual contribution before being displaced.

The September Letter Changes The Stakes

ACE’s September 21 letter challenges CAQM’s Direction No. 102 of August 19 on new light goods vehicles, particularly restrictions affecting new CNG vehicles. ACE says the numbers and methodology used to assess their emissions need independent review.

The association disputes a reported 57-fold difference in PM2.5 emissions between CNG light goods vehicles and other CNG categories. It says measured emissions do not support such a gap and has asked CAQM to review the underlying data.

More importantly, ACE wants the benefit of replacing a new CNG vehicle with an EV to be assessed against charging infrastructure, electricity generation, emissions over the vehicle’s full life, cost and actual air-quality impact. It argues that the availability of EV models alone should not determine whether CNG is restricted.

What The New TERI Study Says

TERI’s September 30 study assesses petrol, diesel, CNG, electricity and LNG across six vehicle segments, including two-wheelers, cars, light commercial vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. Its central message is that no single fuel performs best across every category. It instead calls for a segmented transition based on vehicle use and operating conditions.

Aditya Singh Ratnu, founder and CEO of Zevo India, said the study does not diminish the role of EVs. “The TERI study does not underestimate the importance of EVs,” he said, pointing to their low ownership costs and strong long-term potential in two-wheelers and three-wheelers.

For cars and urban use, Ratnu expects EV adoption to rise steadily, while noting that their wider lifecycle performance also depends on electricity generation and battery manufacturing.

The industry has separately cited an ARAI-TERI study for the Ministry of Heavy Industries, which it says estimated that 40% EV penetration by 2030 could reduce PM2.5 levels by about 0.8%. The associations argue that the estimate excludes non-exhaust emissions. This is an industry-cited argument and is separate from TERI’s newer multi-fuel study.

Why CNG, CBG And Ethanol Matter

The clean-fuel industry’s argument is also rooted in the infrastructure and investments already in place. Delhi-NCR has a mature CNG network, while CBG can be blended into CNG and supplied through the existing city-gas ecosystem.

Kumar Shanker, managing director of IGL, said TERI’s study highlights CNG’s combination of lifecycle emissions, affordability, infrastructure readiness and operational practicality. “A fuel with such an all-round advantage merits continued recognition in our multi-fuel clean-mobility policy,” he said.

The industry sees CBG as a way to build on that network while adding an agricultural and rural-economy dimension. Subhash Kumar, director general of the Association of CGD Entities and former chairman and managing director of ONGC, said increasing CBG blending could make the natural-gas pathway progressively cleaner. “CNG has cleaner credentials and with increasing blending of CBG, the natural gas pathway will become progressively cleaner,” he said. He also pointed to the potential benefits for energy security and rural incomes.

That is why the biogas industry sees CBG as more than an alternative vehicle fuel. Gaurav Kedia, chairman of the Indian Biogas Association, said, “CBG addresses several priorities together - it is carbon negative, offers greater energy security and a stronger rural economy.”

Ethanol makes a different case, with the industry pointing to its links with farmers, agricultural residue and energy security.

But It’s Not An Anti-EV Argument

The industry’s position is better understood as an argument against a single pathway, rather than against EVs themselves. Its April representation calls for EVs to be considered alongside hybrids, ethanol, CNG, CBG and flex-fuel vehicles.

Ratnu sees different technologies serving different uses. “For light commercial vehicles, buses, taxis and cars, CNG is the most competitive option,” he said, pointing to its practicality for these applications and faster refuelling. He expects EVs to expand steadily in urban and regional use.

The debate also raises the question of how “clean” should be measured. The industry has pointed to tyre and brake wear and the electricity mix. Ratnu says these should be considered alongside, not instead of, tailpipe emissions. “Tailpipe figures show local exposure, which matters in a dense city like Delhi, and EVs have a clear advantage there,” he said.

The Bigger Question For CAQM

The central question for CAQM is therefore not whether EVs have a role. It is whether Delhi-NCR should prescribe one technology across vehicle categories or allow different technologies to be used where they make the most sense.

TERI’s latest study points towards the latter, with cost, infrastructure, full-life emissions, affordability and energy security influencing technology choice. It sees strong potential for electric mobility in smaller and urban segments, continued relevance for CNG across passenger and commercial applications, and a role for LNG in long-haul freight.

For the clean-fuel industry, the answer is a technology-neutral, multi-fuel strategy. For CAQM, the challenge is to make that choice using transparent data, comparable assessments and measurable air-quality outcomes.