Ontario Making it Easier to Build Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

California NEM-3 Tariff ushers a successor Net Energy Metering framework, revising export compensation, TOU rates, and non-bypassable charges to balance ratepayer impacts, rooftop solar growth, and energy storage adoption across diverse communities.

Key Points

The CPUC's successor NEM policy redefining export credits and rates to sustain customer-sited solar and storage.

✅ Sets export compensation methodology beyond NEM 2.0

✅ Aligns TOU rates and non-bypassable charges with costs

✅ Encourages solar-plus-storage adoption and equity access

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has officially commenced its “NEM-3” proceeding, which will establish the successor Net Energy Metering (NEM) tariff to the “NEM 2.0” program in California. This is a highly anticipated, high-stakes proceeding that will effectively modify the rules for the NEM tariff in California, amid ongoing electricity pricing changes that affect residential rooftop solar – arguably the single most important policy mechanism for customer-sited solar over the last decade.

The CPUC’s recent order instituting rule-making (OIR) filing stated that “the major focus of this proceeding will be on the development of a successor to existing NEM 2.0 tariffs. This successor will be a mechanism for providing customer-generators with credit or compensation for electricity generated by their renewable facilities that a) balances the costs and benefits of the renewable electrical generation facility and b) allows customer-sited renewable generation to grow sustainably among different types of customers and throughout California’s diverse communities.”

This successor tariff proceeding was initiated by Assembly Bill 327, which was signed into law in October of 2013. AB 327 is best known as the legislation that directed the CPUC to create the “NEM 2.0” successor tariff, which was adopted by the CPUC in January of 2016.

The original Net Energy Metering program in California (“NEM 1.0”) effectively enabled full-retail value net metering “allowing NEM customers to be compensated for the electricity generated by an eligible customer-sited renewable resource and fed back to the utility over an entire billing period.” Under the NEM 2.0 tariff, customers were required to pay charges that aligned them more closely with non-NEM customer costs than under the original structure. The main changes adopted when the NEM 2.0 was implemented were that NEM 2.0 customer-generators must: (i) pay a one-time interconnection fee; (ii) pay non-bypassable charges on each kilowatt-hour of electricity they consume from the grid; and (iii) customers were required to transfer to a time-of-use (TOU) rate, with potential changes to electric bills for many customers.

NEM 2.0

The commencement of the NEM-3 OIR was preceded by the publishing of a 318-page Net Energy Metering 2.0 Lookback Study, which was published by Itron, Verdant Associates, and Energy and Environmental Economics. The CPUC-commissioned study had been widely anticipated and was expected to act as the starting reference point for the successor tariff proceeding. Verdant also hosted a webinar, which summarized the study’s inputs, assumptions, draft findings and results.

The study utilized several different tests to study the impact of NEM 2.0. The cost effectiveness analysis tests, which estimate costs and benefits attributed to NEM 2.0 include: (i) total resource cost test, (ii) participant cost test, (iii) ratepayer impact measure test, and (iv) program administrator test. The evaluation also included a cost of service analysis, which estimates the marginal cost borne by the utility to serve a NEM 2.0 customer.

The opening paragraph of the report’s executive summary stated that “overall, we found that NEM 2.0 participants benefit from the structure, while ratepayers see increased rates.” In every test that the author’s conducted the results generally supported this conclusion for residential customers. There were some exceptions in their findings. For example, in the cost of service analysis the report stated that “residential customers that install customer-sited renewable resources on average pay lower bills than the utility’s cost to serve them. On the other hand, nonresidential customers pay bills that are slightly higher than their cost of service after installing customer-sited renewable resources. This is largely due to nonresidential customer rates having demand charges (and other fixed fees), and the lower ratio of PV system size to customer load when compared to residential customers.”

Similar debates over solar rate design, including Massachusetts solar demand charges, highlight how demand charges and TOU decisions can affect customer economics.

NEM-3 timeline

Popular content
The preliminary schedule that the CPUC laid out in its OIR estimates that the proceeding will take roughly 15 months in total, starting with a November 2020 pre-hearing conference.

The real meat of the proceeding, where parties will present their proposals for what they believe the successor tariff should be, as the state considers revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, and really show their hand will not begin until the Spring of 2021. So we’re still a little ways away from seeing the proposals that the key parties to this proceeding, like the Investor Owned Utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E), solar and storage advocates such as SEIA, CALSSA, Vote Solar, and ratepayer advocates like TURN) will submit.

While the outcome for the new successor NEM tariff is anyone’s guess at this point, some industry policy folks are starting to speculate. We think it is safe to assume that the value of exported energy will get reduced, with debates over income-based utility charges also influencing rate design. How much and the mechanism for how exports get valued remains to be seen. Based on the findings from the lookback study, it seems like the reduction in export value will be more severe than what happened when NEM 2.0 got implemented. In NEM 2.0, non-bypassable charges, which are volumetric charges that must be paid on all imported energy and cannot be netted-out by exports, only equated to roughly $0.02 to $0.03/kWh.

Given that the value of exports will almost certainly get reduced, we expect that to be bullish for energy storage as America goes electric and load shapes evolve. Energy storage attachment rates with solar are already steadily rising in California. By the time NEM-3 starts getting implemented, likely in 2022, we think storage attachment rates will likely escalate further.

We would not be surprised to see future storage attachment rates in California look like the Hawaiian market today, which are upwards of 80% for certain types of customers and applications. Two big questions on our mind are: (i) will the NEM 3.0 rules be different for different customer class: residential, CARE (e.g., low-income or disadvantaged communities), and commercial & industrial; (ii) will the CPUC introduce some sort of glidepath or phased in implementation approach?

The outcome of this proceeding will have far reaching implications on the future of customer-sited solar and energy storage in California. The NEM-3 outcome in California may likely serve as precedent for other states, as California exports its energy policies across the West, and utility territories that are expected to redesign their Net Energy Metering tariffs in the coming years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Vehicle Adoption Benefits include reduced air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and improved respiratory health, as regional studies show, with equity considerations for low-income communities and policy mandates accelerating zero-emission vehicles.

Key Points

The environmental and health gains from wider EV uptake, including cleaner air, lower emissions, and fewer asthma cases.

✅ Regional EV growth linked to lower NO2 and PM2.5 levels

✅ Fewer asthma ER visits in higher EV-adoption areas

✅ Address adoption gap to ensure equity in low-income communities

In an effort to mitigate the effects of climate change, countries across the globe are involving electric vehicles in their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, citing the EV climate and cost benefits highlighted by recent analyses.

A federal mandate in Canada, for instance, aims to ensure that one-fifth of all passenger cars, SUVs and trucks sold in Canada are electrically-powered by 2026, with Ottawa set to release EV sales regulations to guide industry. By 2035, if this mandate is carried out, every passenger vehicle sold in Canada will need to be electric, though some critics deem the 2035 target unrealistic based on current conditions.

But what will this shift to electric vehicles actually do for the environment, especially given that 18% of Canada's 2019 electricity came from fossil fuels which affects lifecycle emissions?

One team of researchers with the Keck School of Medicine of USC aimed to find out, conducting what it describes as one of the first studies to analyze the environmental and health impacts of electric vehicles on a regional scale. Their research linked the wider integration of zero-emission vehicles with lower levels of local air pollution and some respiratory problems, a pattern consistent with analyses showing EVs are greener across all 50 states in the U.S.

“When we think about the actions related to climate change, often it’s on a global level,” Erika Garcia, an assistant professor of population and public health at the Keck School of Medicine, said in a press release.

“But the idea that changes being made at the local level can improve the health of your own community could be a powerful message to the public and to policy makers.”

Using data that spanned from 2013 to 2019, Garcia and the team of researchers compared the registration of zero-emissions vehicles with air pollution levels and asthma-related emergency room visits in California. They found that in regions where more electric vehicles were adopted, emergency room visits dropped, along with with pollution levels.

Sandrah Eckel, an associate professor of population and public health sciences and the study’s senior author, said their findings offer hope among a reality of climate anxieties.

“We’re excited about shifting the conversation towards climate change mitigation and adaptation, and these results suggest that transitioning to [electric vehicles] is a key piece of that.”

Garcia added that the study also evaluated disadvantages faced by those living in lower-income communities, which often see higher pollution levels and related respiratory problems, underscoring that EVs are not a silver bullet in broader climate and health policy.

Researchers discovered that adoption of zero-emissions vehicles in low-resource neighbourhoods was slower compared to more affluent areas, amid ongoing debate over whether EV purchase subsidies are an effective tool for Canada.

The study attributes this disparity to what the researchers call an “adoption gap” – referring to groups of people that cannot afford newer vehicles that are electrically-powered.

According to the study, which was published in the journal Science of the Total Environment, the adoption gap “threatens the equitable distribution of possible co-benefits.”

“Should continuing research support our findings, we want to make sure that those communities that are overburdened with traffic-related air pollution are truly benefiting from this climate mitigation effort,” Garcia said in the release.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Nature-friendly offshore wind energy supports climate neutrality by reducing greenhouse gases while safeguarding marine biodiversity through EU marine spatial planning, ecosystem-based approaches, cross-border coordination, and zero-use zones for resilient seas.

Key Points

An approach to offshore wind that cuts emissions while respecting ecological limits and protecting marine biodiversity.

✅ Aligns buildout with ecological limits and marine spatial plans

✅ Minimizes noise, collision, and habitat loss for sensitive species

✅ Coordinates EU-wide monitoring, data, and cross-border siting

Offshore wind power can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it poses risks for the seas. Germany will hold the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency in 2020. What must be done to contain the climate and species crises, as it were?

Offshore wind power is an important regenerative energy source with a $1 trillion market outlook in the coming decades. However, the construction, operation and maintenance of the systems put marine mammals, birds and fish at considerable risk. Photo: Siemens AG

In order to achieve the German and EU climate and energy goals by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, we need a nature-friendly energy transition. At present, the European energy system is largely based on fossil fuels. This is changing, as renewables surge across Europe for end consumers and industry and the large-scale electrification of the energy consumption sectors. Offshore wind energy is an element for future power generation.

A nature-friendly energy transition is only possible if energy consumption is reduced and energy efficiency is maximized in all applications and sectors. Emissions reductions through offshore wind energy In 2019, Europe had an installed offshore wind energy capacity of around 22 gigawatts from 5,047 grid-connected wind turbines in twelve countries. In Germany, the nominal output of the offshore wind turbines feeding into the German power grid was around 7.5 gigawatts, with clean energy accounting for about 50% of electricity nationwide. The wind blows much stronger and more steadily at sea than on land.

The power capacity of the turbines has also almost doubled in the last five years, which has led to a higher energy yield. Offshore wind energy is a building block for replacing fossil fuels, and markets like the U.S. offshore sector are about to soar as well. Wind turbines at sea provide electricity almost every hour of the year and have operating hours that are as high as conventional power plants. They can contribute to significant reductions in CO2 emissions and to mitigate the climate crisis.

It must be ensured that offshore wind turbines and parks as well as the grid infrastructure make a positive contribution to climate protection through their expansion and that the overall condition of marine ecosystems improves. The expansion of offshore wind energy is necessary from the point of view of climate science and must take place within the framework of the ecological load limits and under nature conservation aspects.

Seas and marine ecosystems suffer from years of overfishing, pollution and industrial use. The conservation status of sea birds, marine mammals and fish stocks is poor. Ecosystem services and productivity of the oceans are decreasing as a result of massive species extinction and unfavorable habitats. Changes in sea temperature, oxygen levels and acidification of the oceans reduce their resilience to the climate crisis.

The latest reports from the European Environment Agency show in black and white that the good environmental status and other goals of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive are not being achieved. The primary goal must therefore be to meet the obligations of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the EU nature conservation directives.

With the expansion of offshore wind energy, the pressure on the already polluted marine ecosystems is increasing. Offshore wind turbines also harbor risks for marine ecosystems, especially if they are built in unfavorable locations. Studies show harmful effects on marine mammals, birds, fish and the ocean floor. In Europe, where wind power investments hit $29.4 billion last year, a regulatory framework must be created for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the ecological limits and taking into account zero-use zones. The European Union urgently needs to take coherent measures for healthy and resilient seas.

New strategy of the European Commission The EU Commission plans to present a strategy for the expansion of renewable energies at sea on November 18, 2020.

The strategy will address the opportunities and challenges associated with the expansion of renewable energies at sea, such as effects on energy networks and markets, management of the maritime space, the technological transfer of research projects, regional and international cooperation and industrial policy dimensions, as well as political headwinds in some countries that can affect project pipelines. NABU welcomes the strategy, but worries about insufficient consideration of marine protection, ecological load-bearing capacity and the marine spatial planning that regulates interests in the use of the sea. All EU member states have to submit their marine spatial planning plans by March 2021.

Conclusions of the European Council Shortly before the end of 2020, the European Council plans to adopt conclusions for cooperation among European member states on the subject of offshore wind energy and other renewable energy sources at sea. It is important that the planning and development of offshore wind energy is coordinated across national borders, including alignment with the UK's offshore wind growth, also to protect marine ecosystems.

However, the ecosystem approach must not be left out. It must be ensured that the Council conclusions focus on the implementation of EU marine and nature conservation directives for the expansion of offshore wind energy within the load limits. EU-wide monitoring systems can help protect marine species and ecosystems. Germany holds the EU Council Presidency and the North Sea Energy Cooperation Presidency for 2020 and can make a decisive contribution.

NABU demands on offshore wind energy in Europe Expansion targets for offshore wind energy across Europe should be based on the ecological load limits of the seas. Development of concrete concepts for the ecological upgrading of areas in marine spatial planning and operationalization of the ecosystem-based approach.

For the nature-friendly expansion of offshore – Wind energy systems must take into account avoidance distances from seabirds to turbines, habitat loss, collision risks and cumulative effects. Implementation / obligation to sensitivity analyzes – they allow targeted conclusions about the best possible locations for offshore wind energy without conflicts with marine protection.

Targeted keeping of areas free for species and their Habitats of anthropogenic use – this increases planning security and can lower investment thresholds for EU funding programs. Ensuring regional cooperation between the European member states for nature Protection and with the involvement of nature conservation authorities – after all, the marine ecosystem does not stop at borders.

Adjustment of priorities: If offshore wind energy is prioritized over other renewable energy sources across Europe, other industrial forms of use of the seas must be given a lower priority.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

U.S. Clean Hydrogen Hubs aim to scale production, storage, transport, and use as DOE and the Biden administration fund regional projects under the infrastructure law, blending green and blue hydrogen, carbon capture, renewables, and pipelines.

Key Points

Federally funded regional projects to make, move, and use low-carbon hydrogen via green, blue, and pink routes.

✅ $7B DOE funding via infrastructure law

✅ Mix of green, blue, pink hydrogen pathways

✅ Targets 10M metric tons annually by 2030

New details are emerging about the Biden administration’s landmark plans to build out a U.S. clean hydrogen industry.

On Friday, the Department of Energy named the seven winners of $7 billion in federal funds to establish regional hydrogen hubs. The hubs — funded through the infrastructure law — are part of the administration’s efforts to jump-start an industry it sees as key to achieving climate goals like the goal of 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 set by the administration. The aim is to demonstrate everything from the production and storage of hydrogen to its transport and consumption.

“All across the country, from coast to coast, in the heartland, we’re building a clean energy future here in America, not somewhere else,” President Joe Biden said while announcing the hubs in Philadelphia.

From 79 initial proposals, DOE chose the following: the Mid-Atlantic Hydrogen Hub, Appalachian Hydrogen Hub, California Hydrogen Hub, Gulf Coast Hydrogen Hub, Heartland Hydrogen Hub, Midwest Hydrogen Hub and Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub.

Many of the winning proposals are backed by state government leaders and industry partners, and by Southeast cities that have ramped up clean energy purchases in recent years as well. The Midwest hub, for example, is a coalition of Illinois, Indiana and Michigan — supported by politicians like Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), as well as such companies as Air Liquide, Ameren Illinois and Atlas Agro. The mid-Atlantic hub is supported by Democratic members of Congress representing the region, including Delaware Sens. Chris Coons and Tom Carper and Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester.

The administration hopes the hubs will produce 10 million metric tons of “clean” hydrogen annually by 2030. But much about the projects remains unknown — including how trends like cheap batteries for solar could affect clean power supply — and dependent on negotiations with DOE.

A win for ‘blue’ hydrogen?
Nearly all hydrogen created in the U.S. today is extracted from natural gas through steam methane reformation. The emissions-intensive process produces what is known as “grey” hydrogen — or “blue” hydrogen when combined with carbon capture and storage.

Four recipients — the Appalachian, Gulf Coast, Heartland and Midwest hydrogen hubs — include blue hydrogen in their plans, though the infrastructure law only mandated one.

That has drawn the ire of environmentalists, who argue blue hydrogen is not emissions-free, partly because of the potential for methane leaks during the production process.

“This is worse than expected,” Clean Energy Group President Seth Mullendore said after the recipients were announced Friday. “The fact that more than half the hubs will be using fossil gas is outrageous.”

Critics have also pointed out that many of the industry partners backing the hub projects include oil and gas companies. The coalitions are a mix of private-sector groups — often including renewable energy developers — and government stakeholders. Proposals have also looped in universities, utilities, environmental groups, community organizations, labor unions and tribal nations, among others.

“The massive build out of hydrogen infrastructure is little more than an industry ploy to rebrand fracked gas,” said Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh in a statement Friday. “In a moment when every political decision that we make must reject fossil expansion, the Biden administration is going in the opposite direction.”

The White House has emphasized that roughly two-thirds of the $7 billion pot is “associated” with the production of “green” hydrogen, which uses electricity from renewable sources. Two of the chosen proposals — in California and the Pacific Northwest — are making green hydrogen their focus, reflecting advances such as offshore green hydrogen being pursued by industry leaders, while three other hubs plan to include green hydrogen alongside hydrogen made with natural gas (blue) or nuclear energy (pink).

Many hubs plan to use several methods for hydrogen production, and globally, projects like Brazil's green hydrogen plant highlight the scale of investment, but the exact mix may change depending on which projects make it through the DOE negotiations process. The Midwest hub, for example, told E&E News it’s pursuing an “all-of-the-above” strategy and has projects for green, blue and “pink” hydrogen. The mid-Atlantic hub in southeastern Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey will also generate hydrogen with nuclear reactors.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm has described clean hydrogen as a fresh business opportunity, especially for the natural gas industry, which has supported the concept of sending hydrogen to market through its pipeline network. Lawmakers like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — who said the Appalachian hub will make West Virginia the “new epicenter of hydrogen” — have pushed for continuing to use natural gas to make hydrogen in his state.

“Natural gas utilities are committed to exploring all options for emissions reduction as demonstrated by the 39 hydrogen pilot projects already underway and are eager to participate in a number of the hubs,” said American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert in a statement Friday.

Green hydrogen also has faced criticism. Some groups argue that the renewable resources needed to produce green hydrogen are limited, even with sources such as wind, solar and hydropower technology, so funding should be reserved for applications that cannot be easily electrified, mostly industrial processes. There also is uncertainty about how the Treasury Department will handle hydrogen made from grid electricity — which can include power from fossil fuel plants — in its upcoming guidance on the first-ever tax credit for clean hydrogen production.

“Even the cleanest forms of hydrogen present serious problems,” Walsh said. “As groundwater sources are drying up across the country, there is no reason to waste precious drinking water resources on hydrogen when there are cheaper, cleaner energy sources that can facilitate a real transition off fossil fuels.”

But Angelina Galiteva, CEO of the hub in drought-prone California, said hydrogen will enable the state “to increase renewable penetration to reach all corners of the economy,” noting parallel initiatives such as Dubai's solar hydrogen plans that illustrate the potential.

“Transitioning to renewable clean hydrogen will pose significantly less stress on water resources than remaining on the current fossil path,” she said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

US electric vehicle momentum is slowing as tax credits expire, tariffs increase costs, and interest rates rise, while Europe and China accelerate EV adoption through stronger incentives, enhanced charging infrastructure, and growth in battery manufacturing.

Why has US Electric Vehicle Momentum Slowed as Globe Surges?

US electric vehicle momentum has slowed due to expiring subsidies, rising costs, and global competition from faster-moving markets.

✅ End of federal tax credits weakened buyer demand

✅ Tariffs and high interest rates raised EV prices

✅ Europe and China expanded incentives and infrastructure

You could be forgiven for thinking that electric cars might finally be gaining momentum in the United States. Last year, battery-powered vehicle sales topped 1.2 million—more than five times the number sold just four years earlier, amid an early-2024 EV surge in deliveries. Hybrid sales tripled over the same period, and in August, battery cars accounted for 10 percent of all new vehicle sales, a record high according to S&P Global Mobility.

Major automakers, including General Motors, Ford, and Tesla, reported record electric-vehicle deliveries this quarter, a rare bright spot in an industry still contending with high interest rates, inflation, and tariffs, and a sign the age of electric cars is arriving.

Yet analysts warn the apparent boom may be short-lived, noting a market share dip in early 2024 that could foreshadow slower growth. Much of the recent surge was driven by buyers rushing to take advantage of a federal subsidy worth up to $7,500 per vehicle—a credit that expired at the end of September. Without it, automakers expect demand to dip sharply.

"It's going to be a vibrant industry, but it's going to be smaller, way smaller than we thought," Ford CEO Jim Farley said Tuesday. General Motors’ CFO Paul Jacobson echoed that concern: "I expect that EV demand is going to drop off pretty precipitously," he told a conference last month.

Even with those gains, the US—still the world’s second-largest car market—remains a laggard compared with global peers, where global EV adoption has accelerated rapidly. Electric and hybrid vehicles accounted for nearly 30 percent of new sales in the UK last year and approximately one in five across Europe. In China, electric models accounted for almost half of all car sales in 2023 and are expected to become the majority this year, according to the International Energy Agency.

Analysts say policy differences largely explain the gap. Other regions have offered stronger incentives, stricter emissions rules, and more aggressive trade-in programs. President Joe Biden tried to close the gap, tightening emissions standards, offering loans for EV investments, and spending billions on charging networks while expanding the $7,500 credit. His goal was to have half of all US vehicle sales be electric by 2030.

Supporters argue that such measures are crucial to keeping American carmakers competitive with Chinese and European manufacturers. But former President Donald Trump, who recently dismissed climate change as a "con job," has vowed to roll back many of those initiatives, echoing arguments that the EV revolution is overstated by proponents. "We're saying ... you're not going to be forced to make all of those cars," Trump said this summer, while signing a bill to strike down California’s plan to phase out gasoline-only car sales by 2035. "You can make them, but it'll be by the market, judged by the market."

Although EVs have become cheaper, they still cost more than comparable gasoline models, and sales remain behind gas cars in most segments. The average US electric car sold for approximately $57,000 in August, which is roughly 16 percent higher than the overall average, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Chinese EV giants such as BYD have been blocked from the US market by tariffs supported by both Biden and Trump, further limiting price competition. Automakers now face the twin challenges of rising tariffs and disappearing subsidies.

"It would have been difficult enough if all you had to deal with were new tariffs, but with new tariffs and the incentive going away, there are two impacts," said Stephanie Brinley of S&P Global Mobility.

Researchers warn that the policy shift could further reduce EV investment. "It's a big hit to the EV industry—there's no tiptoeing around it," said Katherine Yusko of the American Security Project. "The subsidies were initially a way to level the playing field, and now that they're gone, the US has a lot of ground to make up."

Still, Brinley urged caution before declaring the race lost, even as some argue EVs have hit an inflection point in adoption. "Is [electric] really the right thing?" she asked. "Saying that we're behind assumes that this is the only and best solution, and I think it's a little early to say that."

Related Articles

• USA Electricity News

UK-EU EV Tariffs 2024 threaten a 10% levy under Brexit rules of origin, raising electric vehicle prices, straining battery supply chains, and risking a price war for manufacturers, consumers, and climate targets across automotive market.

Key Points

Tariffs from Brexit rules of origin imposing 10% duties on EVs, raising UK prices amid battery and supply chain gaps.

✅ 10% tariffs if rules of origin thresholds are unmet

✅ Price hikes on UK EVs, led by Tesla Model Y

✅ Battery supply gaps strain UK and EU manufacturers

Electric cars will cost British motorists an extra £6,000 if Rishi Sunak fails to strike a post-Brexit deal with the EU on tariffs, industry bosses have told The Independent.

UK manufacturers warned of a “devastating price war” on consumers, echoing UK concern over higher EV prices across the market – threatening both the electric vehicle (EV) market and the UK’s climate change commitments – if tariffs are enforced in January 2024.

In the latest major Brexit row, the Sunak government is pushing the European Commission to agree to delay the costly new rules, even as the UK readies for rising EV adoption across the economy, set to come in at the start of next year as part of Boris Johnson’s Brexit trade deal.

But Brussels has shown no sign it is willing to budge – even as Washington has announced a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs this year – leaving business leaders in despair about the impact of 10 per cent tariffs on exports on Britain’s car industry.

The tariffs would increase the price of a new Tesla Model Y – the UK’s most popular electric vehicle – by £6,000 or more, according to a new report by the Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations.

“For the sake of our economy and our planet, the government has a responsibility to get round the table with the EU, fix this and fix the raft of other issues with the Brexit deal,” said commission director Mike Buckley.

The new rules of origin agreed in the Brexit trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) require 45 per cent of an electric car’s value, as the age of electric cars accelerates, to originate in the UK or EU to qualify for trade without tariffs.

The British auto industry has warned the 2024 rules pose an “existential threat” to sales because of the lack of domestic batteries to meet the rules, even as EV adoption within the decade is widely expected to surge – pleading for a delay until 2027.

The VDA – the lobby group for Germany’s car industry – has also called for an “urgent” move to delay, warning that the rules create a “significant competitive disadvantage” for European carmarkers in relation to China, where tariffs on Chinese EVs are reshaping global trade, and other Asian competitors.

The new report by the Independent Commission on UK-EU Relations – backed by the manufacturers’ body Make UK and the British Chamber of Commerce – warns that the January tariffs will immediately push up costs and hit electric vehicle sales, despite UK EV inquiries surging during the fuel supply crisis in recent years.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News