ABB claims its Terra 360 is the "world's fastest electric car charger"

Germany is extending its vehicle tax exemption for electric cars until 2035, a federal move aimed at boosting EV sales, supporting the auto industry, and advancing the country’s transition to cleaner, more sustainable transportation.

Why is Germany Exempting EVs from Vehicle Tax Until 2035?

Germany is exempting electric vehicles from vehicle tax until 2035 to boost EV adoption, support its auto industry, and meet national climate targets.

✅ Encourages consumers to buy zero-emission cars

✅ Protects jobs in the automotive sector

✅ Advances Germany’s clean energy transition

Germany’s federal government has confirmed plans to extend the country’s vehicle tax exemption for electric cars until 2035, as part of a renewed push to accelerate the nation’s e-mobility transition and support its struggling automotive industry. The move, announced by Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil, comes just weeks before the existing exemption was set to expire.

“In order to get many more electric cars on the road in the coming years, we need to provide the right incentives now,” Klingbeil told the German Press Agency (DPA). “That is why we will continue to exempt electric cars from vehicle tax.”

Under the proposed law, the exemption will apply to new fully electric vehicles registered until December 31, 2030, with benefits lasting until the end of 2035. According to the Finance Ministry, the measure aims to “provide an incentive for the early purchase of a purely electric vehicle.” While popular among consumers and automakers, the plan is expected to cost the federal budget several hundred million euros in lost revenue.

Without the extension, the tax relief for new battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) would have ended on January 1, 2026, creating uncertainty for automakers and potential buyers. The urgency to pass the new legislation reflects the government’s goal to maintain Germany’s momentum toward electrification, even as the age of electric cars accelerates amid economic headwinds and fierce international competition.

The exemption’s renewal was originally included in the coalition agreement between the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). It follows two other measures from the government’s “investment booster” package—raising the maximum gross price for EV tax incentives to €100,000 and allowing special depreciation for electric vehicles. However, the vehicle tax measure was previously in jeopardy due to Germany’s tight fiscal situation. The Finance Ministry had cautioned that every proposal in the coalition deal was “subject to financing,” and a plan to end EV subsidies led to speculation that the EV tax break could be dropped altogether.

Klingbeil’s announcement coincides with an upcoming “automotive dialogue” summit at the Chancellery, hosted by Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The meeting will bring together representatives from federal ministries, regional governments, automakers advancing initiatives such as Daimler’s electrification plan across their portfolios, and trade unions to address both domestic and international challenges facing Germany’s car industry. Topics will include slowing EV sales growth in China, the ongoing tariff dispute with the United States, where EPA emissions rules are expected to boost EV sales, and strategies for strengthening Germany’s global competitiveness.

“We must now put together a strong package to lead the German automotive industry into the future and secure jobs,” Klingbeil said. “We want the best cars to continue to be built in Germany. Everyone knows that the future is electric.”

The government is also expected to revisit a proposed program to help low- and middle-income households access electric cars, addressing affordability concerns that persist across markets, modelled on France’s “social leasing” initiative. Though included in the coalition agreement, progress on that program has stalled, and few details have emerged since its announcement.

Germany’s latest tax policy move signals renewed confidence in its electric vehicle transition, despite budget constraints and a turbulent global market, as the 10-year EV outlook points to most cars being electric worldwide. Extending the exemption until 2035 sends a clear message to consumers and manufacturers alike: the country remains committed to building its clean transport future—one electric car at a time.

Related Articles

• World Electricity News

Nevada EV Charging Plan will invest $100 million in highway, urban, and public charging, bus depots, and Lake Tahoe sites, advancing NV Energy's SB 448 goals for clean energy, air quality, equity, and tourism recovery.

Key Points

Program invests $100M in EV infrastructure under SB 448, led by NV Energy, expanding clean charging across Nevada.

✅ $100M for statewide charging over 3 years

✅ 50% invested in overburdened communities

✅ Supports SB 448, climate and air quality goals

The Public Utilities Commission of Nevada approved a $100 million program that will deploy charging stations for electric vehicles (EVs) along highways, in urban areas, at public buildings, in school and transit bus depots, and at Red Rocks and Lake Tahoe, as charging networks compete to expand access. Combined with the state's clean vehicle standards and its aggressive renewable energy requirements, this means cars, trucks, buses, and boats in Nevada will be powered by increasingly clean electricity, reflecting how electricity is changing across the country.

The “Economic Recovery Transportation Electrification Plan” proposed by NV Energy, aligning with utilities' bullish plans for EV charging, was required by Senate Bill (SB) 448 (Brooks). Nevada’s tourism-centric economy was hit hard by the pandemic, and, as an American EV boom accelerates nationwide, the $100 million investment in charging infrastructure for light, medium, and heavy-duty EVs over the next three years was designed to provide much needed economic stimulus without straining the state’s budget.

Half of those investments will be made in communities that have borne a disproportionate share of transportation pollution and have suffered most from COVID-19—a disease that is made more deadly by exposure to local air pollution—and, amid evolving state grid challenges that planners are addressing, ensuring equitable deployment will help protect reliability and health.

SB 448 also requires NV Energy to propose subsequent “Transportation Electrification Plans” to keep the state on track to meet its climate, air quality, and equity goals, recognizing that a much bigger grid may be needed as adoption grows. A  report from MJ Bradley & Associates commissioned by NRDC, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and Western Resource Advocates demonstrates Nevada could realize $21 billion in avoided expenditures on gasoline and maintenance, reduced utility bills, and environmental benefits, with parallels to New Mexico's projected benefits highlighted in recent analyses, by 2050 if more drivers make the switch to EVs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Electric Vehicle Charging Costs and Times explain kWh usage, electricity rates, Level 2 vs DC fast charging, per-mile expense, and tax credits, with examples by region and battery size to estimate home and public charging.

Key Points

They measure EV charging price and duration based on kWh rates, charger level, efficiency, and location.

✅ Costs vary by kWh price, region, and charger type.

✅ Efficiency (mi/kWh) sets per-mile cost and range.

✅ Tax credits and utility rates impact total ownership.

More and more car manufacturing companies dip their toes in the world of electric vehicles every year, making it a good time to buy an EV for many shoppers, and the U.S. government is also offering incentives to turn the tides on car purchasing. Electric vehicles bought between 2010 and 2022 may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. 

And according to the Consumer Reports analysis on long-term ownership, the cost of charging an electric vehicle is almost always cheaper than fueling a gas-powered car – sometimes by hundreds of dollars.

But that depends on the type of car and where in the country you live, in a market many expect to be mainstream within a decade across the U.S. Here's everything you need to know.

How much does it cost to charge an electric car?
An electric vehicle’s fuel efficiency can be measured in kilowatt-hours per 100 miles, and common charging-efficiency myths have been fact-checked to correct math errors.

For example, if electricity costs 10.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, charging a 200-mile range 54-kWh battery would cost about $6. Charging a vehicle that consumes 27 kWh to travel 100 miles would cost three cents a mile. 

The national average cost of electricity is 10 cents per kWh and 11.7 cents per kWh for residential use. Idaho National Laboratory’s Advanced Vehicle Testing compares the energy cost per mile for electric-powered and gasoline-fueled vehicles.

For example, at 10 cents per kWh, an electric vehicle with an efficiency of 3 miles per kWh would cost about 3.3 cents per mile. The gasoline equivalent cost for this electricity cost would be just under $2.60 per gallon.

Prices vary by location as well. For example, Consumer Report found that West Coast electric vehicles tend to be less expensive to operate than gas-powered or hybrid cars, and are often better for the planet depending on local energy mix, but gas prices are often lower than electricity in New England.

Public charging networks in California cost about 30 cents per kWh for Level 2 and 40 cents per kWh for DCFC. Here’s an example of the cost breakdown using a Nissan LEAF with a 150-mile range and 40-kWh battery:

Level 2, empty to full charge: $12
DCFC, empty to full charge: $16

Many cars also offer complimentary charging for the first few years of ownership or provide credits to use for free charging. You can check the full estimated cost using the Department of Energy’s Vehicle Cost Calculator as the grid prepares for an American EV boom in the years ahead.

How long does it take to charge an electric car?
This depends on the type of charger you're using. Charging with a Level 1 charger takes much longer to reach full battery than a level 2 charger or a DCFC, or Direct Current Fast Charger. Here's how much time you can expect to spend charging your electric vehicle:

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada EV Manufacturing Strategy catalyzes electric vehicles growth via batteries, mining, and supply chain localization, with Unifor deals, Ford and FCA retooling, and government incentives safeguarding jobs and competitiveness across the auto industry.

Key Points

A coordinated plan to scale EV assembly, batteries, and mining supply chains in Canada via union deals and incentives.

✅ Government-backed Ford and FCA retooling for EV models.

✅ Battery cell, module, and pack production localizes value.

✅ Mining-to-mobility links metals to the EV supply chain.

As of a month ago Canada was just a speck on the global EV manufacturing map. We couldn’t honestly claim to be in the global race to electrify the automotive sector, even as EV shortages and wait times signalled surging demand.

An analysis published earlier this year by the International Council on Clean Transportation and Pembina Institute found that while Canada ranked 12th globally in vehicle production, EV production was a miniscule 0.4 per cent of that total and well off the average of 2.3 per cent amongst auto producing nations.

As the report’s co-author Ben Sharpe noted, “Canada is a huge auto producer. But nobody is really shining a light on the fact that if Canada’s doesn’t quickly ramp up its EV production, the steady decline we’ve seen in auto manufacturing over the past 20 years is going to accelerate.”

National strategy
While the report received relatively scant attention outside industry circles, its thesis was not lost on the leadership of Unifor, the union representing Canadian autoworkers.

In an August op-ed, Unifor national president Jerry Dias laid out the table stakes: “Global automakers are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicle investments, but no major programs are landing in Canada. Without a comprehensive national auto strategy, and active government engagement, the future is dim … securing our industry’s future requires a much bigger made-in-Canada style effort. An effort that government must lead.”

And then he got busy at the negotiating table.

The result? All of a sudden Canada is (or rather, will be) on the EV assembly map, just as the market hits an EV inflection point globally on adoption trends.

Late last month, contract negotiations between Unifor and Ford produced the Ford Oakville deal that will see $2 billion — including $590 million from the federal and Ontario governments ($295 million each) — invested towards production of five EV models in Oakville, Ont.

Three weeks later, Unifor reached a similar agreement with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on a $1.5-billion investment, including retooling, to accommodate production of both a plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicle (including at least one additional model). 

Workforce implications
The primary motivation for Unifor in pushing for EVs in contract negotiations is, at minimum, preserving jobs — if not creating them. Unifor estimates that retooling the Ford plant in Oakville will save 3,000 of the 3,400 jobs there, contributing to Ontario's EV jobs boom as the transition accelerates. However, as VW CEO Herbert Diess has noted, “The reality is that building an electric car involves some 30 per cent less effort than one powered by an internal combustion engine.”

So, when it comes to the relationship between jobs and EVs, at first glance it might not seem to be a great news story. What exactly are the workforce implications?

To answer this question, and aid automakers and their suppliers in navigating the transition to EV production, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has done a study on the evolution of labour requirements along the automotive value chain. And the results, it turns out, are both illuminating and encouraging — so long as you look across the full value chain.

Common wisdom “inaccurate”
The study provides an in-depth unpacking of the similarities and differences between manufacturing an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle versus a battery EV (BEV), and in doing so it arrives at a surprising conclusion: “The common wisdom that BEVs are less labor intensive in assembly stages than traditional vehicles is inaccurate.” 

BCG’s analysis modeled how many labour hours were required to build an ICE vehicle versus a BEV, including the distribution of labour value across the automotive value chain.

While ICE vehicles require more labour associated with components, engine, motor and transmission assembly and installation, BEVs require the addition of battery manufacturing (cell production and module and battery pack assembly) and an increase in assembly-related labour. Meanwhile, labour requirements for press, body and paint shops don’t differ at all. Put that all together and labour requirements for BEVs are comparable to those of ICE vehicles when viewed across the full value chain.

Value chain shifting to parts suppliers
However, as BCG notes, this similarity not only masks, but even magnifies, a significant change that was already underway in the distribution of labour value across the value chain — an accelerating shift to parts suppliers.

This trend is a key reason why the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association launched Project Arrow earlier this year, and just unveiled the winner of the EV concept design that will ultimately become a full-build, 100 per cent Canadian-equipped zero-emission concept vehicle. The project is a showcase for Canadian automotive SMEs.

The bulk of the value shift is into battery cell manufacturing, which is dominated by Asian players. In light of this, both the EU and UK are working hard to devise strategies to secure battery cell manufacturing, including projects like a Niagara Region battery plant that signal momentum, and hence capture this value domestically. Canada must now do the same — and in the process, capitalize on the unique opportunity we have buried underground: the metals and minerals needed for batteries.

The federal government is well aware of this opportunity, which Minister of Industry, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains has coined “mines to mobility.” But we’re playing catch up, and the window to effectively position to capture this opportunity will close quickly.

Cooperation and coordination needed
As Unifor’s Dias noted in an interview with Electric Autonomy after the FCA deal, the scale of the opportunity extends beyond the assembly plants in Oakville and Windsor: “This is about putting workers back in our steel plants. This is about making batteries. This is about saying to aluminum workers in Quebec and B.C. … to lithium workers in Quebec … cobalt workers in Northern Ontario, you’re going to be a part of the solution…It is a transformative time. … We’re on the cusp of leading globally for where this incredible industry is going.”

With their role in securing Ford’s EV production commitment, the federal and Ontario governments made clear that they understand the potential that EVs offer Canada, including how to capitalize on the U.S. auto sector's pivot as supply chains evolve, and their role in capitalizing on this opportunity.

But to ultimately succeed will require more than an open chequebook, it will take a coordinated industrial strategy that spans the full automotive value chain and extends beyond it into batteries and even mining, alongside Canada-U.S. collaboration to align supply chains. This will require effective cooperation and coordination between governments and across several industrial sectors and their associations.

Together they are Team Canada’s pit crew in the global EV race. How we fare will depend on how efficiently and effectively that crew works together. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

U.S. Renewable Energy Record 28% signals a cleaner power grid as wind, solar, and hydroelectric output soar; EIA data shows cost-competitive clean energy reshaping the electricity mix and reducing carbon emissions across regions.

Key Points

EIA-reported April share of electricity from wind, solar, and hydro, reflecting cost-driven growth in U.S. clean power.

✅ Wind, solar additions dominated recent U.S. capacity buildouts

✅ Lower levelized costs make renewables most competitive

✅ Seasonal factors and outages lowered fossil and nuclear output

The amount of electricity generated by renewable resources hit a record 28% in April, a breakthrough number that shows how important renewable energy has become in U.S. energy markets as it surpassed coal in 2022 overall.

"It's a 'Wow' moment," said Peter Kelly-Detwiler, an energy analyst and author of "The Energy Switch," a recent book about the transition to a carbon-free energy economy.

The percentage of U.S. electricity produced by renewable energy from wind, solar and hydroelectric dams has been steadily rising, from 8.6% in April 2001 to this April's 28%. Those numbers were released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which tracks energy data for the nation.

What explains the surge?
There are several reasons. At the top is that wind and solar installations dominated U.S. energy buildouts.

"Basically, the only things we've added to the grid in the past decade are wind, solar and natural gas," said Harrison Fell, an economist and engineer at Columbia University, where he co-leads the Power Sector and Renewables Research Initiative.

That's happening for two reasons. The first is cost. Renewables are simply the most economically competitive power currently available, Kelly-Detwiler said.

In 2021, the cost of producing a megawatt-hour of electricity from a new wind turbine was $26 to $50. The same amount of electricity from the cheapest type of natural gas plant ranged from $45 to $74, according to Lazard, a financial advisory firm that publishes annual estimates of the cost of producing electricity. 

Federal and state mandates and incentives to increase the amount of clean energy used also help, Fell said, as renewables reached 25.5% of U.S. electricity recently. 

"When you do the math on what's the most profitable thing to add, it's often going to be wind and solar at this stage," he said.

Was weather a factor?
Yes. April tends to be a particularly windy month, and this spring was windier than most, Fell said.

There's also less power coming into the grid from fossil fuels and nuclear in the spring. That's because electricity demand is generally lower because of the mild weather and fossil fuel and nuclear power plants use the time for maintenance and refueling, which reduces their production, he said.

Another surprise was that in April, wind and solar power together produced more electricity than nuclear plants nationwide. 

Historically, nuclear power plants, which are carbon-neutral, have reliably produced about 20% of America's electricity. In April that number dropped to 18% while wind and solar combined stood at 19.6%.

The nuclear decrease is partly a result of the shutdown of two plants in the past year, Indian Point in New York state and Palisades in Michigan, as well as scheduled closures for maintenance.

Will the trend continue?
When all U.S. carbon-neutral energy sources are added together – nuclear, wind, hydroelectric and solar – almost 46% of U.S. electricity in April came from sources that don't contribute greenhouse gases to the environment, federal data shows.  

"It's a milestone," Kelly-Detwiler said. "But in a few years, we'll look back and say, 'This was a nice steppingstone to the next 'Wow!' moment."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Nova Scotia Biomass Electricity Policy increases dispatchable renewable generation from Port Hawkesbury and Brooklyn Energy, raising MWh output while critics cite clearcutting, carbon emissions, high costs to ratepayers, and delays replacing Muskrat Falls hydro.

Key Points

Policy directing utilities to maximize biomass power as dispatchable renewable supply during hydro delays.

✅ Port Hawkesbury biomass output up 35% year over year

✅ Brooklyn Energy used as dispatchable renewable supply

✅ Critics cite clearcutting, emissions, high ratepayer costs

A boiler owned by Nova Scotia Power on the grounds of the Port Hawkesbury paper plant, whose discount power rate request has drawn attention, is burning 35% more woody biomass this year than last. 

The year-to-date figures show 126,810 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity was generated over the first nine months of 2021 compared to 93,934 MWh for the same period in 2020 and 65,891 MWh in 2019. 

The information is contained in monthly fuel cost reports Nova Scotia Power must make to the Utility and Review Board, which regulates how much consumers ultimately pay for electricity and has received a call for major grid changes in Nova Scotia.

Burning biomass  — which includes everything from low-grade pulpwood to bark, shavings, and wood chip waste from sawmills — for the purpose of generating electricity is only about 22% efficient, even as some coal stations have switched to biomass abroad. Nova Scotia Power’s boiler at Port Hawkesbury supplies about 3% of the total electricity used in the province. 

Citizens concerned about climate change have for years opposed the government classifying biomass as “renewable energy” and have echoed calls to reduce biomass use for electricity, because clearcutting, which releases carbon from the ground, remains the dominant form of harvesting on Crown and private land. That’s despite ongoing work to begin implementing 2018 recommendations from Professor Bill Lahey to move toward a more ecological approach. 

In May 2020, after it became obvious renewable hydroelectricity from Muskrat Falls was going to be delayed yet again, the McNeil government passed an Order-in-Council extending until December 2022 the deadline to generate 40% of electricity from renewable sources as it moved to increase wind and solar projects across Nova Scotia. 

To help with the shortfall, Nova Scotia Power was told to “maximize” its use of biomass at both the facility it owns in Port Hawkesbury and another one in Brooklyn owned by its parent company, Emera.

In a letter to Nova Scotia Power dated May 15, then-Energy Minister Derek Mombourquette, amid debate over independent energy planning, added: “Nova Scotia Power shall also maximize the use of dispatchable renewable electricity from its own facilities, as well as those of renewable electricity power producers in Nova Scotia (excluding COMFIT generation sources).” 

By definition, “dispatchable” excludes wind and hydro sources, which are not available 24/7, though a new attempt to harness the Bay of Fundy's tides is underway. Nova Scotia Power claims the only “dispatchable renewable electricity power producer” in the province is Brooklyn Energy, the 35 MW biomass plant near Liverpool. 

The government capped at $7 million a year how much electricity Nova Scotia Power could buy from its affiliate company. Critics of the deal — such as auditors hired by the regulator and the province’s consumer advocate — say electricity generated by Brooklyn is the most expensive power and question why the province would burden ratepayers with its purchase.

The answer became apparent in September 2020 when then-Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Kelliann Dean appeared before the legislature’s standing committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development to praise the Order-in-Council for helping rescue the forestry industry four months after the closure of the Northern Pulp mill. 

“The change to Renewable Energy Standards (May,2020) is enabling Nova Scotia Power to generate more electricity from wood chips and sawmill residuals by operating two biomass plants at capacity until electricity from Muskrat Falls comes onstream,” she said. “We are using all the policy levers at our disposal to support the sector.”

Nova Scotia Power is not required to report to the UARB how much electricity is being produced or how much biomass is being burned at Brooklyn Energy. The company pleads “commercial confidentiality” when asked by The Halifax Examiner. 

Nova Scotia Power does report how much it spends each month to buy power from independent producers — a small group which includes Brooklyn but excludes all wind farms. That dollar amount has also increased over the past year — from $15.9 million for 10 months ending October 2020 compared to $23.3 million for 10 months ending October 2021. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency makes it impossible to know exactly how much of that increase is attributable to purchasing more biomass.

Radio silence
The current Minister of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy ,Tory Rushton, has the authority to reduce the amount of biomass being burned to generate electricity and by extension, the rate of clearcutting.

With a stroke of the pen, the PC government of Tim Houston could issue another Order-in-Council capping the amount of metric tonnes that could be used in the boilers, or, direct Nova Scotia Power to use biomass only when it is the most economical fuel choice. 

But so far, Rushton has not responded to the Halifax Examiner’s question about whether he intends to make any change to stop “maximizing” the use of biomass to produce electricity.

 The Examiner isn’t the only one pushing the Minister for answers to difficult issues. At noon today, Citizens opposed to a controversial clearcut on Crown land near Rocky Point Lake in Digby County will stage a demonstration outside the Department of Natural Resources and Renewable Energy on Hollis Street. The protest led by members of Extinction Rebellion and the Healthy Forest Coalition is to pressure the government to take action to protect the habitat of the mainland moose, an endangered species that ranges overs the Crown land currently being cut by the Westfor consortium. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News