Transport Energy Paradox: Misguided Electrification and Neglect of Rails

Tensions between the United States and Iran continue to raise concerns about the sustainability of global oil supplies, including for Indonesia. Although some of Indonesia’s crude oil comes from countries like Nigeria and Angola, disruptions to distribution routes remain a serious risk. Closures in the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would directly impact the smoothness of national energy supplies.

However, behind these external threats, a more fundamental issue lies domestically: the transport sector’s energy consumption structure, which remains heavily dependent on oil. Unlike the electricity sector, which has been relatively diversified, the transport sector has yet to show significant transformation. This dependency makes transport a weak point in national energy resilience.

Therefore, energy conversion in the transport sector is an inevitability. Unfortunately, the policy direction pursued so far tends not to address the root of the problem.

Policy focus has been more directed towards private vehicles such as cars and motorcycles, which are systemically difficult to control (uncontrollable). This approach assumes that technological changes at the individual level will automatically result in overall system efficiency, an assumption that has not always been proven.

Currently, sales of battery-based electric vehicles show an increasing trend. In 2025, electric car sales reached around 104,000 units or 12.93% of total sales. This achievement is inseparable from various fiscal incentives provided by the government. However, the fundamental question is how sustainable this trend is when those incentives are reduced or stopped?

Field facts show that the growth of electric vehicles is highly dependent on fiscal support, from reductions in VAT, exemptions from luxury goods tax, to regional tax incentives. From the state’s financial perspective, this policy is difficult to maintain in the long term, especially amid increasing revenue needs. Thus, the sustainability of electric vehicle adoption still holds uncertainty.

Besides the incentive factor, there are other structural constraints that are no less important. Consumer preferences, brand loyalty, and limitations in charging infrastructure (SPKLU) pose real barriers. Investments in building SPKLU, which reach hundreds of millions of rupiah per unit, also limit expansion, especially outside urban areas.

The problem then becomes more fundamental: transport issues are not merely about the type of energy used, but about how the transport system itself is designed. When the system remains centred on individual vehicles, aggregate energy efficiency will be difficult to achieve, regardless of the type of energy used.

It is at this point that policy direction needs correction. The government should shift focus from sectors that are difficult to control to more controllable ones, namely public transport, both for passengers and goods.

National transport development so far has been too oriented towards highways. The impact is that the national logistics system relies on road-based modes that are highly energy-intensive. Besides absorbing large amounts of fuel, the dominance of road transport also triggers congestion and increases pollution.

Efforts to convert energy in road-based modes are not as simple as imagined. In the logistics sector, converting trucks to electric faces challenges due to dispersed business actors and diverse operational characteristics. The same applies to bus transport, especially for long-distance services with dynamic routes and complex operational needs.

Only in urban transport with fixed routes is conversion to electric relatively more feasible. However, its success greatly depends on transport system integration and government funding support. Unfortunately, most cities in Indonesia still face issues of fragmented public transport services.

Reflecting on these various limitations, rail-based transport becomes increasingly relevant to consider as a systemic solution. Indonesia actually once had an extensive rail network as a historical legacy, connecting various cities through railway and tram lines. However, changes in development orientation caused that network to shrink, even disappear in some areas.

The revival of railways was indeed evident, especially during Ignasius Jonan’s leadership era. However, to this day, the role of trains has not been able to match the dominance of road-based transport. Yet, in terms of energy efficiency, trains are one of the most superior modes, especially if supported by full electrification.

The main problem is not technology, but institutional design and regulation. During the era of Law No. 13 of 1992, railway management was under one entity combining infrastructure and facilities. This model facilitated coordination but burdened the manager, especially in infrastructure investment and maintenance.

Regulatory changes through Law No. 23 of 2007 actually directed towards separation between infrastructure and facilities. However, in practice, the boundaries are not yet fully clear, thus not yet able to optimally encourage private investment.

In the railway system, there are two terms often misunderstood: infrastructure and facilities. Infrastructure includes rail networks, stations, bridges, and signalling systems. Meanwhile, facilities include locomotives, passenger carriages, and freight wagons.

Economically, investment in railway facilities is relatively more attractive