Germany to Exempt Electric Cars from Vehicle Tax Until 2035


Germany to Exempt Electric Cars

Protective Relay Training - Basic

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 12 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$699
Coupon Price:
$599
Reserve Your Seat Today

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

 

Related News

Renewable Electricity Is Coming on Strong

Cascadia electrification accelerates renewable energy with wind and solar, EVs, heat pumps, and grid upgrades across British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon to decarbonize power, buildings, and transport at lower cost while creating jobs.

 

Key Points

Cascadia electrification is the shift to renewable grids, EVs, and heat pumps replacing fossil fuels.

✅ Wind and solar scale fast; gas and coal phase down

✅ EVs and heat pumps cut fuel costs and emissions

✅ Requires grid upgrades, policy, and social acceptance

 

Fifty years ago, a gasoline company’s TV ads showed an aging wooden windmill. As the wind died, it slowed to stillness. The ad asked: “But what do you do when the wind stops?” For the next several decades, fossil fuel providers and big utilities continued to denigrate renewable energy. Even the U.S. Energy Department deemed renewables “too rare, too diffuse, too distant, too uncertain and too ill-timed” to meaningfully contribute, as a top agency analyst put it in 2005.

Today we know that’s not true, especially in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.

New research shows we could be collectively poised to pioneer a climate-friendly energy future for the globe — that renewable electricity can not only move Cascadia off of fossil fuels, but do so at an affordable price while creating some jobs along the way.

After decades of disinformation, this may sound like a wishful vision. But building a cleaner and more equitable economy — and doing so in just a few decades to head off the worst effects of climate change — is backed by a growing body of regional and international research.

Getting off fossil fuels is “feasible, necessary… and not very expensive” when compared to the earnings of the overall economy, said Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and global development expert at Columbia University.

Much of the confidence about the price tag comes down to this: Innovation and mass production have made wind and solar power installations cheaper than most fossil-fuelled power plants and today’s fastest-growing source of energy worldwide. The key to moving Cascadia’s economies away from fossil fuels, according to the latest research, is building more, prompting power companies to invest in carbon-free electricity as our go-to “fuel.”

However, doing that in time to help head off a cascading climatic crisis by mid-century means the region must take major steps in the next decade to speed the transition, researchers say. And that will require social buy-in.

The new research highlights three mutually supporting strategies that squeeze out fossil fuels:

Chefs and foodies are well-known fans of natural gas. Why, “Cooking with gas” is an expression for a reason. But one trendy Seattle restaurant-bar is getting by just fine with a climate-friendly alternative: electric induction cooktops.

Induction “burners” are just as controllable as gas burners and even faster to heat and cool, but produce less excess heat and zero air pollution. That made a huge difference to chef Stuart Lane’s predecessors when they launched Seattle cocktail bar Artusi 10 years ago.

Using induction meant they could squeeze more tables into the tight space available next door to Cascina Spinasse — their popular Italian restaurant in Seattle’s vibrant Capitol Hill neighborhood — and lowered the cost of expanding.

Rather than igniting a fossil fuel to roast the surface of pots and pans, induction burners generate a magnetic field that heats metal cookware from inside. For people at home, forgoing gas eliminates combustion by-products, which means fewer asthma attacks and other health impacts.

For Artusi, it eliminated the need for a pricey hood and fans to continuously pump fumes and heat out and pull fresh air in. That made induction the cheaper way to go, even though induction cooktops cost more than conventional gas ranges.

Over the years, they’ve expanded the menu because even guests who come for the signature Amari cocktails often stay for the handmade pasta, meatballs and seasonal sauces. So the initial pair of induction burners has multiplied to nine. Yet Artusi retains a cleaner, quieter and more intimate atmosphere. Yet thanks largely to the smaller fans, “it’s not as chaotic,” said Lane.

And Lane adds, it feels good to be cooking on electricity — which in Seattle proper is about 90 per cent renewable — rather than on a fossil fuel that produces climate-warming greenhouse gases. “You feel like you’re doing something right,” he said.

Lane says he wouldn’t be surprised if induction is the new normal for chefs entering the trade 10 years from now. “They probably would cook with gas and say, ‘Damn it’s hot in here!’” — Peter Fairley

This story is supported in part by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

increasing energy efficiency to trim the amount of power we need,

boosting renewable energy to make it possible to turn off climate-wrecking fossil-fuel plants, and

plugging as much stuff as possible into the electrical grid.
Recent studies in B.C. and Washington state, and underway for Oregon, point to efficiency and electrification as the most cost-effective route to slashing emissions while maintaining lifestyles and maximizing jobs. A recent National Academies of Science study reached the same conclusion, calling electrification the core strategy for an equitable and economically advantageous energy transition, while abroad New Zealand's electrification push is asking whether electricity can replace fossil fuels in time.

However, technologies don’t emerge in a vacuum. The social and economic adjustments required by the wholesale shift from fossil fuels that belch climate-warming carbon emissions to renewable power can still make or break decarbonization, according to Jim Williams, a University of San Francisco energy expert whose simulation software tools have guided many national and regional energy plans, including two new U.S.-wide studies, a December 2020 analysis for Washington state and another in process for Oregon.

Williams points to vital actions that are liable to rile up those who lose money in the deal. Steps like letting trees grow many decades older before they are cut down, so they can suck up more carbon dioxide — which means forgoing quicker profits from selling timber. Or convincing rural communities and conservationists that they should accept power-transmission lines crossing farms and forests.

“It’s those kinds of policy questions and social acceptance questions that are the big challenges,” said Williams.

Washington, Oregon and B.C. already mandate growing supplies of renewable power and help cover the added cost of some electric equipment, and across the border efforts at cleaning up Canada's electricity are critical to meeting climate pledges. These include battery-powered cars, SUVs and pickups on the road. Heat pumps — air conditioners that run in reverse to push heat into a building — can replace furnaces. And, at industrial sites, electric machines can take the place of older mechanical systems, cutting costs and boosting reliability.

As these options drop in price they are weakening reliance on fossil fuels — even among professional chefs who’ve long sworn by cooking with gas (see sidebar: Cooking quick, clean and carbon-free).

“For each of the things that we enjoy and we need, there’s a pathway to do that without producing any greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jotham Peters, managing partner for Vancouver-based energy analysis firm Navius Research, whose clients include the B.C. government.


What the modelling tells us

Key to decarbonization planning for Cascadia are computer simulations of future conditions known as models. These projections take electrification and other options and run with them. Researchers run dozens of simulated potential future energy scenarios for a given region, tinkering with different variables: How much will energy demand grow? What happens if we can get 80 per cent of people into electric cars? What if it’s only 50 per cent? And so on.

Accelerating the transition requires large investments, this modelling shows. Plugging in millions of vehicles and heat pumps demands both brawnier and more flexible power systems, including more power lines and other infrastructure such as bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap that communities often oppose. That demands both stronger policies and public acceptance. It means training and apprenticeships for the trades that must retrofit homes, and ensuring that all communities benefit — especially those disproportionately suffering from energy-related pollution in the fossil fuel era.

Consensus is imperative, but the new studies are bound to spark controversy. Because, while affordable, decarbonization is not free.

The Meikle Wind Project in BC’s Peace River region, the province’s largest, with 61 turbines producing 184.6 MW of electricity, went online in 2017. Photo: Pattern Development.
Projections for British Columbia and Washington suggest that decarbonizing Cascadia will spur extra job-stimulating growth. But the benefits and relatively low net cost mask a large swing in spending that will create winners and losers, and without policies to protect disadvantaged communities from potential energy cost increases, could leave some behind.

By 2030, the path to decarbonization shows Washingtonians buying about $5 billion less worth of natural gas, coal and petroleum products, while putting even more dollars toward cleaner vehicles and homes. No surprise then that oil and gas interests are attacking the new research.

And the research shows a likely economic speed bump around 2030. Economic growth would slow due to increased energy costs as economies race to make a sharp turn toward pollution reductions after nearly a decade of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

“Meeting that 2030 target is tough and I think it took everybody a little bit by surprise,” said Nancy Hirsh, executive director of the Seattle-based NW Energy Coalition, and co-chair of a state panel that shaped Washington’s recent energy supply planning.

But that’s not cause to ease up. Wait longer, says Hirsh, and the price will only rise.


Charging up

What most drives Cascadia’s energy models toward electrification is the dropping cost of renewable electricity.

Take solar energy. In 2010, no large power system in the world got more than three per cent of its electricity from solar. But over the past decade, solar energy’s cost fell more than 80 per cent, and by last year it was delivering over nine per cent of Germany’s electricity and over 19 per cent of California’s.

Government mandates and incentives helped get the trend started, and Canada's electricity progress underscores how costs continue to fall. Once prohibitively expensive, solar’s price now beats nuclear, coal and gas-fired power, and it’s expected to keep getting cheaper. The same goes for wind power, whose jumbo jet-sized composite blades bear no resemblance to the rickety machines once mocked by Big Oil.

In contrast, cleaning up gas- or coal-fired power plants by equipping them to capture their carbon pollution remains expensive even after decades of research and development and government incentives. Cost overruns and mechanical failures recently shuttered the world’s largest “low-carbon” coal-fired power plant in Texas after less than four years of operation.

Retrofits enabled this coal-fired plant in Texas to capture some of its carbon dioxide pollution, which was then injected into aging oil wells to revive production. But problems made the plant’s coal-fired power — which is being priced out by renewable energy — even less competitive and it was shut down after three years in 2020. Photo by NRG Energy.
Innovation and incentives are also making equipment that plugs into the grid cheaper. Electric options are good and getting better with a push from governments and a self-reinforcing cycle of performance improvement, mass production and increased demand.

Battery advances and cost cuts over the past decade have made owning an electric car cheaper, fuel included, than conventional cars. Electric heat pumps may be the next electric wave. They’re three to four times more efficient than electric baseboard heaters, save money over natural gas in most new homes, and work in Cascadia’s coldest zones.

Merran Smith, executive director of the Vancouver-based non-profit Clean Energy Canada, says that — as with electric cars five years ago — people don’t realize how much heat pumps have improved. “Heat pumps used to be big huge noisy things,” said Smith. “Now they’re a fraction of the size, they’re quiet and efficient.”

Electrifying certain industrial processes can also cut greenhouse gases at low cost. Surprisingly, even oil and gas drilling rigs and pipeline compressors can be converted to electric. Provincial utility BC Hydro is building new transmission lines to meet anticipated power demand from electrification of the fracking fields in northeastern British Columbia that supply much of Cascadia’s natural gas.


Simulating low-carbon living

The computer simulation tools guiding energy and climate strategies, unlike previous models that looked at individual sectors, take an economy-wide view. Planners can repeatedly run scenarios through sophisticated software, tinkering with their assumptions each time to answer cross-cutting questions such as: Should the limited supply of waste wood from forestry that can be sustainably removed from forests be burned in power plants? Or is it more valuable converted to biofuel for airplanes that can’t plug into the grid?

Evolved Energy Research, a San Francisco-based firm, analyzed the situation in Washington. Its algorithms are tuned using data about energy production and use today — down to the number and types of furnaces, stovetops or vehicles. It has expert assessments of future costs for equipment and fuels. And it knows the state’s mandated emissions targets.

Researchers run the model myriad times, simulating decisions about equipment and fuel purchases — such as whether restaurants stick with gas or switch to electric induction “burners” as their gas stoves wear out. The model finds the most cost-effective choices by homes and businesses that meet the state’s climate goals.

For Seattle wine bar Artusi, going with electric induction cooktops meant they could squeeze more tables into a tight, comfortable space. Standard burners cost less but would have required noisy, pricey fume hoods and fans to suck out the pollutants. For more, see sidebar. Photo: InvestigateWest.
Rather than accepting that optimal scenario and calling it a day, modellers account for uncertainty in their estimates of future costs by throwing in various additional constraints and rerunning the model.

That probing shows that longer reliance on climate-warming natural gas and petroleum fuels increases costs. In fact, all of the climate-protecting scenarios achieve Washington’s goals at relatively low cost, compared to the state’s historic spending on energy.

The end result of these scenarios are net-zero carbon emissions in 2050, echoing Canada's race to net-zero and the growing role of renewable energy, in which a small amount of emissions remaining are offset by rebounding forests or equipment that scrubs CO2 from the air.

But the seeds of that transformation must be sown by 2030. The scenarios identify common strategies that the state can pursue with low risk of future regrets.

One no brainer is to rapidly add wind and solar power to wring out CO2 emissions from Washington’s power sector. The projections end coal-fired power by 2025, as required by law, but also show that, with grid upgrades, gas-fired power plants that produce greenhouse gas emissions can stay turned off most of the time. That delivers about 16.2 million of the 44.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions cut required by 2030 under state law.

All of the Washington scenarios also jack up electricity consumption to power cars and heating. By 2050, Washington homes and businesses would draw more than twice as much power from the grid as they did last year, meaning climate-friendly electricity is displacing climate-unfriendly gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas. In the optimal case, electricity meets 98 per cent of transport energy in 2050, and over 80 per cent of building energy use.

By 2050, the high-electrification scenarios would create over 60,000 extra jobs across the state, as replacing old and inefficient equipment and construction of renewable power plants stimulates economic growth, according to projections from Washington, D.C.-based FTI Consulting. Scenarios with less electrification require more low-carbon fuels that cut emissions at higher cost, and thus create 15,000 to 35,000 fewer jobs.

Much of the new employment comes in middle-class positions — including about half of the total in construction — leading to big boosts in employment income. Washingtonians earn over $7 billion more in 2050 under the high-electrification scenarios, compared to a little over $5 billion if buildings stick with gas heating through 2050 and less than $2 billion with extra transportation fuels.


Rocketing to 2030

Evolved Energy’s electrification-heavy decarbonization pathways for Washington dovetail with a growing body of international research, such as that National Academy of Sciences report and a major U.S. decarbonization study led by Princeton University, and in Canada debates like Elizabeth May's 2030 renewable grid goal are testing feasibility. (See Grist’s 100 per cent Clean Energy video for a popularized view of similar pathways to slash U.S. carbon emissions, informed by Princeton modeller Jesse Jenkins.)

 

Related News

View more

Bus depot bid to be UK's largest electric vehicle charging hub

First Glasgow Electric Buses will transform the Caledonia depot with 160 charging points, zero-emission operations, grid upgrades, and rapid charging, supported by Transport Scotland funding and Alexander Dennis manufacturing for cleaner urban routes by 2023.

 

Key Points

Electric single-deckers at Caledonia depot with 160 chargers and upgrades, delivering zero-emission service by 2023

✅ 160 charging points; 4-hour rapid recharge capability

✅ Grid upgrades to power a fleet equal to a 10,000-person town

✅ Supported by Transport Scotland; built by Alexander Dennis

 

First Bus will install 160 charging points and replace half its fleet with electric buses at its Caledonia depot in Glasgow.

The programme is expected to be completed in 2023, similar to Metro Vancouver's battery-electric rollout milestones, with the first 22 buses arriving by autumn.

Charging the full fleet will use the same electricity as it takes to power a town of 10,000 people.

The scale of the project means changes are needed to the power grid, a challenge highlighted in global e-bus adoption analysis, to accommodate the extra demand.

First Glasgow managing director Andrew Jarvis told BBC Scotland: "We've got to play our part in society in changing how we all live and work. A big part of that is emissions from vehicles.

"Transport is stubbornly high in terms of emissions and bus companies need to play their part, and are playing their part, in that zero emission journey."

First Bus currently operates 337 buses out of its largest depot with another four sites across Glasgow.

The new buses will be built by Alexander Dennis at its manufacturing sites in Falkirk and Scarborough.

The transition requires a £35.6m investment by First with electric buses costing almost double the £225,000 bill for a single decker running on diesel.

But the company says maintenance and running costs, as seen in St. Albert's electric fleet results, are then much lower.

The buses can run on urban routes for 16 hours, similar to Edmonton's first e-bus performance, and be rapidly recharged in just four hours.

This is a big investment which the company wouldn't be able to achieve on its own.

Government grants only cover 75% of the difference between the price of a diesel and an electric bus, similar to support for B.C. electric school buses programmes, so it's still a good bit more expensive for them.

But they know they have to do it as a social responsibility, and large-scale initiatives like US school bus conversions show the direction of travel, and because the requirements for using Low Emissions Zones are likely to become stricter.

The SNP manifesto committed to electrifying half of Scotland's 4,000 or so buses within two years.

Some are questioning whether that's even achievable in the timescale, though TTC's large e-bus fleet offers lessons, given the electricity grid changes that would be necessary for charging.

But it's a commitment that environmental groups will certainly hold them to.

Transport Scotland is providing £28.1m of funding to First Bus as part of the Scottish government's commitment to electrify half of Scotland's buses in the first two years of the parliamentary term.

Net Zero Secretary Michael Matheson said: "It's absolute critical that we decarbonise our transport system and what we have set out are very ambitious plans of how we go about doing that.

"We've set out a target to make sure that we decarbonise as many of the bus fleets across Scotland as possible, at least half of it over the course of the next couple of years, and we'll set out our plans later on this year of how we'll drive that forward."

Transport is the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Scotland which are responsible for accelerating climate change.

In 2018 the sector was responsible for 31% of the country's net emissions.

Electric bus
First Glasgow has been trialling two electric buses since January 2020.

Driver Sally Smillie said they had gone down well with passengers because they were much quieter than diesel buses.

She added: "In the beginning it was strange for them not hearing them coming but they adapt very easily and they check now.

"It's a lot more comfortable. You're not feeling a gear change and the braking's smoother. I think they're great buses to drive."

 

Related News

View more

Canadian climate policy and its implications for electricity grids

Canada Electricity Decarbonization Costs indicate challenging greenhouse gas reductions across a fragmented grid, with wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas tradeoffs, significant GDP impacts, and Net Zero targets constrained by intermittency and limited interties.

 

Key Points

Costs to cut power CO2 via wind, solar, gas, and nuclear, considering grid limits, intermittency, and GDP impacts.

✅ Alberta model: eliminate coal; add wind, solar, gas; 26-40% CO2 cuts

✅ Nuclear option enables >75% cuts at higher but feasible system costs

✅ National costs 1-2% GDP; reserves, transmission, land, and waste not included

 

Along with many western developed countries, Canada has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40–45 percent by 2030 from 2005 emissions levels, and to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

This is a huge challenge that, when considered on a global scale, will do little to stop climate change because emissions by developing countries are rising faster than emissions are being reduced in developed countries. Even so, the potential for achieving emissions reduction targets is extremely challenging as there are questions as to how and whether targets can be met and at what cost. Because electricity can be produced from any source of energy, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and any combustible material, climate change policies have focused especially on nations’ electricity grids, and in Canada cleaning up electricity is viewed as critical to meeting climate pledges.

Canada’s electricity grid consists of ten separate provincial grids that are weakly connected by transmission interties to adjacent grids and, in some cases, to electricity systems in the United States. At times, these interties are helpful in addressing small imbalances between electricity supply and demand so as to prevent brownouts or even blackouts, and are a source of export revenue for provinces that have abundant hydroelectricity, such as British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec.

Due to generally low intertie capacities between provinces, electricity trade is generally a very small proportion of total generation, though electricity has been a national climate success in recent years. Essentially, provincial grids are stand alone, generating electricity to meet domestic demand (known as load) from the lowest cost local resources.

Because climate change policies have focused on electricity (viz., wind and solar energy, electric vehicles), and Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, this study employs information from the Alberta electricity system to provide an estimate of the possible costs of reducing national CO2 emissions related to power generation. The Alberta system serves as an excellent case study for examining the potential for eliminating fossil-fuel generation because of its large coal fleet, favourable solar irradiance, exceptional wind regimes, and potential for utilizing BC’s reservoirs for storage.

Using a model of the Alberta electricity system, we find that it is infeasible to rely solely on renewable sources of energy for 100 percent of power generation—the costs are prohibitive. Under perfect conditions, however, CO2 emissions from the Alberta grid can be reduced by 26 to 40 percent by eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy such as wind and solar, and gas, but by more than 75 percent if nuclear power is permitted. The associated costs are estimated to be some $1.4 billion per year to reduce emissions by at most 40 percent, or $1.9 billion annually to reduce emissions by 75 percent or more using nuclear power (an option not considered feasible at this time).

Based on cost estimates from Alberta, and Ontario’s experience with subsidies to renewable energy, and warnings that the switch from fossil fuels to electricity could cost about $1.4 trillion, the costs of relying on changes to electricity generation (essentially eliminating coal and replacing it with renewable energy sources and gas) to reduce national CO2 emissions by about 7.4 percent range from some $16.8 to $33.7 billion annually. This constitutes some 1–2 percent of Canada’s GDP.

The national estimates provided here are conservative, however. They are based on removing coal-fired power from power grids throughout Canada. We could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency turned out worse than indicated in our dataset—available wind and solar energy might be lower than indicated by the available data. To take this into account, a reserve market is required, but the costs of operating such a capacity market were not included in the estimates provided in this study. Also ignored are the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for added transmission lines, environmental and human health costs, and the life-cycle costs of using intermittent renewable sources of energy, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous wastes from solar panels and wind turbines.

 

Related News

View more

Canada's largest electricity battery storage project coming to southwestern Ontario

Oneida Energy Storage Project, a 250 MW lithium-ion battery in Haldimand County, enhances Ontario's clean energy capacity, grid reliability, and peak demand management, developed with Six Nations partners and private-public collaboration.

 

Key Points

A 250 MW lithium-ion battery in Ontario storing power to stabilize the grid and deliver clean electricity.

✅ 250 MW lithium-ion grid-scale battery in Haldimand County

✅ Developed with Six Nations, Northland Power, NRStor, Aecon

✅ Enhances grid reliability, peak shaving, emissions reduction

 

The Ontario government announced it is working to build Canada's largest electricity battery storage project in Haldimand County, part of Ontario's push into energy storage amid a looming supply crunch. Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland made the announcement in Ohsweken, Ont.

The 250-megawatt Oneida Energy storage project is being developed in partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, Northland Power, NRStor and Aecon Group.

The Ontario government announced on Friday it is working to build Canada's largest electricity battery storage project in Haldimand County.

On Friday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland made the announcement in Ohsweken, Ont.

The 250-megawatt Oneida Energy storage project is being developed in partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, Northland Power, NRStor and Aecon Group.

“It will more than double the province's energy storage resources and provide enough electricity to power a city approximately the size of Oshawa,” said Ford, noting Ontario's growing battery storage expansion across the grid.

“We need to continue to find ways to keep our energy clean and green,” said Ford, including initiatives like the Hydrogen Innovation Fund to spur innovation.

The federal government said they are providing a further $50 million in funding, coinciding with national investments such as the B.C. battery plant to scale capacity.

The premier said the project will begin operating in 2025 and will more than double the amount of clean energy storage.

Officials with the Six Nations said they have invested in the project that will provide economic returns and 97 per cent of the construction workforce to build it.

"This project is an example of what is possible when private and public companies, multiple levels of government, and their agencies work alongside a progressive Indigenous partner in pursuit of innovative solutions,” said Matt Jamieson, President and CEO of Six nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. “As with all our development efforts, we have studied the project to ensure it aligns with our community values, we are confident the outcome will create ratepayer savings, and move us closer to a Net Zero future for our coming generations."

According to the province, it has directed the independent electricity system operator to enter into a 20-year contract for this project with a goal to grow the province's clean energy supply, alongside transmission efforts like the Lake Erie Connector to enhance reliability.

The province said the Oneida Energy storage project is expected to reduce emissions by between 2.2 to 4.1 million tonnes, the equivalent to taking up to 40,000 cars off the road.

The project will use large scale lithium batteries, with regional supply bolstered by the Niagara battery plant, to store surplus energy from the power grid then feed it back into the system when it’s needed.

“Power that is generated and it can’t be utilized, this system will help harness that, store it for a period of time, and it will maximize value for the rate payer,” said Jamieson.

Jamieson said he is proud that the Six Nations is a founding developer in the project.

The facility will not actually be in Six Nations. It will be near the community of Jarvis in Haldimand County.
For Six Nationals elected Chief Mark Hill, it’s a major win as Ontario's EV sector grows with the Oakville EV deal and related projects.

“We want to continue to be a driver. We want to show Canada that we can also be a part of green solution,” Hill said.

But Hill admitted the Six Nations Community remains deeply divided over a number of longstanding issues.

“We still have a lot of internal affairs within our own community that we have to deal with. I think it’s really time once and for all to come together and figure this out,” said Hill.

The traditional leadership said they were left out of the decision making.

“No voice of ours was even heard today in that building,” said Deyohowe:to, the chief of the Cayuga Snipe Clan.

According to the Cayuga Snipe Clan, consultation with the Haudenasauene council is required for this type of development but they said it didn't happen.

“We’ve never heard of this before. No one came to the community and said this was going to happen and for the community we are not going to let that happen,” said Deyohowe:to.

The Six Nations Development Corporation said it did reach out to the Haudenosaunee chiefs and sent multiple letters in 2021 inviting them to participate.

 

 

Related News

View more

Biden's Climate Bet Rests on Enacting a Clean Electricity Standard

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

 

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

 

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

 

Related News

View more

Renewables Are Ready to Deliver a Renewable World - Time for Action for 100% Renewable Energy Globally

100% Renewable Energy Transition unites solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and bioenergy with storage, smart grids, and sector coupling, delivering decarbonization, energy security, and lower LCOE amid post-Fukushima policy shifts and climate resilience goals.

 

Key Points

It is a pathway using all renewables plus storage and grids to fully decarbonize power, heat, transport, and industry.

✅ Integrates solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and bioenergy

✅ Uses storage, smart grids, and sector coupling for reliability

✅ Requires enabling policies, finance, and rapid deployment

 

Renewable energy organizations representing different spheres of the renewable energy community have gathered on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima nuclear accident to emphasize that renewable energies are not only available in abundance, with global renewable power on course to shatter more records, but ready to deliver a renewable world.

The combination of all renewable technologies, be it bioenergy, geothermal energy, hydropower, ocean energy, solar energy or wind power, in particular in combination with storage options, can satisfy all energy needs of mankind, be it for power, heating/cooling, transportation, or industrial processes.

Renewables have seen tremendous growth rates and cost reduction over the past two decades, but there are still many barriers that need to be addressed for a faster renewable energy deployment to eventually achieve global 100% renewable energy, as outlined in an on the road to 100% renewables initiative that charts the path. It is up to political decision-makers to create the legislative and regulatory conditions so that the renewable energy community can act as fast as needed.

Such rapid switch towards renewables is not only a must in light of nuclear risks and the growing threats of climate change, but also the necessary response to the current pandemic situation. And it will allow those hundreds of millions of humans in unserved areas to get for the first time ever access to modern energy services, as noted by a new IRENA report that details how renewables can decarbonise the energy sector and improve lives.

Speakers from the renewable energy community presented today in a joint webinar that a renewable future is a realistic vision, representing:

Energy Watch Group, Global100RE Platform, Global100RE Strategy Group, International Geothermal Association, ISEP Japan, REN Alliance, World Bioenergy Association, World Wind Energy Association.

Dr. Tetsunari Iida, Director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies ISEP Japan:

Ten years ago, on 11 March 2021, the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred. It is a "coincidence of global history" that it now coincides with the starting point of the 100% renewable energy initiative that is accelerating around the world.

The world has changed dramatically since 311. Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Taiwan, South Korea, China and many other countries were all shocked by 311 and shifted their focus from nuclear power to renewable energy, and in the U.S. clean energy industries are setting sights on market majority to accelerate this trend. The next ten years will be the decade in which this perception will rapidly become the "new reality". 311 was the "starting point" for a structural energy shift in world history.

Hans-Josef Fell, former MP, President of the Energy Watch Group and co-initiator of the Global100RE Strategy Group:

The disasters of Fukushima and Chernobyl are urging the entire world to quickly end the use of atomic energy, and many call for a fossil fuel lockdown to catalyze a climate revolution alongside the transition. Contrary to what is often claimed, nuclear energy cannot make a contribution to climate protection, but only creates immense problems with toxic radioactivity emissions, nuclear waste, atomic bomb material and the dangers of a nuclear catastrophe. In contrast, 100% renewable energies until 2030 can help achieve climate protection and a simultaneous nuclear phase-out, according to a recently published statement by a world-leading group of energy researchers from the USA, EU and Australia.

Their research suggests that a 100% renewable energy supply, including storage systems, can provide full energy security for all of mankind by 2030 and will even be cheaper than the existing nuclear and fossil energy supply, and with over 30% of global electricity already from renewables, momentum is strong. The only requirement for implementation is the right decisions taken by decision makers both in governments and industry. All technical and economic prerequisites for a disruptive conversion of the global energy supply to 100% renewable energies are already in place.

Hon. Peter Rae AO, President of WWEA and Honorary Chairman of the REN Alliance:

40 years ago, the idea of developing nuclear power appealed to me as a non-polluting method of generating electricity. So I studied it. How to deal with waste and how to ensure it would not create a danger to life. Along came Chernobyl and other accidents. Storage of waste was leaving dangerous hiding places while some waste was alleged to be dumped at sea. I became more and more concerned. There were demonstrations that the existing methods were dangerous and required very strict construction and operational tolerances - up went the cost. Long delays and huge cost increases. I had visited nuclear power stations and talked to expert proponents in UK, France, US, Taiwan and Australia, and debates such as New Zealand's electricity future reflect similar concerns. The more I did the more certain I became that it was not the way to go. Then Fukushima put the dangers and cost beyond doubt.

Let's get on with the rollover to renewables.

Dr. Marit Brommer, Executive Director of the International Geothermal Association IGA:

The IGA is proud to work with all renewable energy associations to continuously provide a unified voice to a cleaner energy future. The Geothermal sector is proven to be a partner of choice for many locations in the world serving baseload power and clean heat to customers. We are particularly interested in the increased attention system integration gets, which underpins the importance of all renewables coming together at events such as the webinar organised by the WWEA.

Christian Rakos, President of the World Bioenergy Association:

The IPCC has emphasized the important role of sustainable bioenergy for climate protection. Recent advances in technology allow us to use feedstock from forestry, wood processing and agricultural production in an efficient and clean way. Today, bioenergy already contributes 12 - 13% to global final energy demand. Importantly, contribution from bioenergy is more than 5 times as much as nuclear energy worldwide. Together with other renewable energy technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower, bioenergy can increase the contribution in a substantial way to meet the energy demands of all end use sectors and meet the international energy and climate goals.

Stefan Gsanger, Secretary General of the World Wind Energy Association and Co-chair of the Global100RE Platform:

The switch to a renewable energy future requires new political and economic thinking: from centralised structures with few large actors towards decentralised, participatory models with millions of communities and citizens playing an active role, not only as consumers but also as producers of energy. To make this new paradigm the predominant energy paradigm is the true challenge of the energy transformation which we as the world community are facing. If we manage this shift well and on time, billions of people across the globe, in industrialised and developing countries alike, will benefit and will face a bright future.

 

Related News

View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.