Skip to content

Review and Analysis of IL’s Draft Bill No. 457/XVI/1.ª

This document reviews the Draft Bill No. 457/XVI/1.ª, proposed by Iniciativa Liberal (IL), which aims to amend the legal framework governing electric mobility in Portugal (Decree-Law No. 39/2010). The feedback and observations below are drawn from a detailed reading of the proposal and a transcript that raised key points of concern and suggestions.

Link for the pdf: Draft Bill No. 457/XVI/1.ª

1. Overall Structure of the Proposal

1.1 Integrated vs. Mixed Networks

The draft bill introduces two types of networks: 1. An integrated electric mobility network, managed by the Electric Mobility Network Managing Entity (EGME). 2. A mixed electric mobility network, where operators act independently but must communicate data to a National Access Point.

While the goal is said to be simplification, the transcript notes that splitting into multiple networks (and potentially adding new coordinating bodies) may inadvertently increase complexity. Instead of a single operator for data and financial flows (as with the current Mobi.E model), the creation of multiple “islands” of operation might generate more administrative layers and confusion.

1.2 New Entities and Platforms

Under the proposal, several new or modified structures appear:

  • Electric Mobility Service Provider (eMSP): A new player distinct from the CEME (Comercializador de Eletricidade para a Mobilidade Elétrica).
  • Point of National Access: A digital interface to unify access to static and dynamic data about charging stations.
  • Separate “information management” of the network: Adds another functional area on top of EGME.

In practice, these additions could require new IT systems and oversight. The transcript questions whether this expansion of entities is consistent with IL’s stated liberal goals of reducing bureaucracy and promoting free market competition.

2. Competition and Market Openness

2.1 Service Areas on Highways

A positive aspect is the emphasis on open competition for installing and operating charging stations on highways, ending automatic concession extensions. This could break potential monopolies or dominant positions and incentivize multiple operators to bid for service-area locations.

However, the transcript highlights the risk of local monopolies or “islands” if large private sites (e.g., certain supermarkets) build proprietary networks disconnected from others or impose restrictive conditions. True interoperability might suffer if new networks do not fully share data or allow roaming.

2.2 Licenses and Possible Market Limitations

The proposed 10-year, potentially renewable licenses for charging point operators (OPCs) draw parallels to other sectors (like taxi licenses), where excessive licensing conditions may restrict entry. If the government can decide to launch tenders whenever it sees fit, there is a risk of limiting the number of operators rather than encouraging an open market.

3. Ad Hoc Payments and Energy Contracts

3.1 Existing Ad Hoc Solutions

While the bill promotes ad hoc payments (via QR codes, bank cards, etc.), the transcript points out that many operators already offer ad hoc payment methods in Portugal. This prompts questions about whether the bill truly adds something new or merely formalizes ongoing trends.

3.2 Contractual Aspects and Debt Risk

A purely ad hoc model (no prior registration or contract) raises concerns about how operators handle payment defaults. Some contractual framework often exists to ensure operators can manage risks (credit checks, user authentication, etc.). The transcript suggests that some bureaucracy is unavoidable for consumer protection and business viability.

3.3 Price Transparency

The proposal forbids discriminating between ad hoc users and other mobility service providers, barring unwarranted price differentials. This is generally viewed as a positive step for price fairness. Still, the transcript notes that operators could discriminate through high access fees for new entrants, which effectively limits open participation.
Additionally, the text does not definitively clarify whether tariffs should be per kilowatt-hour or per minute, or if idle fees (charges for occupying a station after a vehicle is fully charged) should be mandatory. These are critical issues for both operators and EV drivers.

4. Aligning With Liberal Principles

4.1 Potential Contradictions

The transcript repeatedly mentions a contradiction in a liberal bill that aims to reduce bureaucracy yet might create more entities (EGME, eMSPs, National Access Point, etc.). The concern is that these added layers could:

  • Increase administrative and IT costs.
  • Fragment data collection.
  • Reduce operational simplicity.

4.2 Balancing Market Freedom and Oversight

On one hand, the bill seeks to deregulate (e.g., removing obligatory CEME-OPC relationships), but on the other, it formalizes new structures and procedures. The transcript suggests that achieving true market competition while maintaining necessary consumer and operator safeguards might require broader industry consultation. Many of the technical hurdles and potential duplications, it argues, could be avoided by co-creating solutions with active stakeholders.

5. Role of Municipalities and Regional Development

5.1 Municipalities as Operators

In areas with low population density, private investment in charging infrastructure might not be profitable. The text and transcript highlight that municipalities may fill this gap, potentially offering EV charging themselves. However, clarity is needed regarding how municipal projects interact with private operators to avoid unfair competitive advantages or confusion over responsibilities.

5.2 Ensuring Broader Access

The transcript endorses the idea of extending infrastructure beyond urban centers, stressing that legislation and incentives can reduce regional disparities. Encouraging local authorities to plan and invest in charging solutions could be key to wider EV adoption.

6. Main Conclusions

  1. Complexity vs. Simplification

  2. Despite the objective of reducing barriers, creating new sub-entities (eMSP, separate data management, etc.) may increase complexity and costs.

  3. Ad Hoc Charging and Interoperability

  4. Much of the proposed ad hoc system is already being implemented by operators.

  5. A framework is still needed to handle user authentication, risk management, and roaming integration.

  6. Highway Concession Openness

  7. Opening highway service areas to multiple operators is a positive.

  8. Safeguards are required to avoid local monopolies.

  9. Price Clarity and Non-Discrimination

  10. Non-discrimination between ad hoc and other tariff structures is good, but further detail on tariff schemes (kWh, time, idle fees) would enhance transparency.

  11. Need for Broader Stakeholder Input

  12. Consultation with operators, commercial providers, and EV drivers could solve many technical pitfalls and help align the bill with market realities.

  13. Consistency With Liberal Values

  14. The transcript points out that some provisions seem at odds with a “liberal” approach, by potentially adding more complexity rather than removing it.

Final Thoughts

While Draft Bill No. 457/XVI/1.ª from Iniciativa Liberal contains commendable ideas — notably around competition, transparency, and ad hoc payments — the details suggest there may be unintended expansions of bureaucracy and fragmentation. A closer dialogue with industry stakeholders and clearer articulation of how new entities fit together could help ensure that the final law truly facilitates efficient, transparent, and user-friendly electric mobility in Portugal.