Cutting off oil, driving down energy demand, having millions of cars charging the grid? It all sounds grand. Yet without binding policies, the ambitions means little, Antony Froggatt, Senior Director for Aviation, Shipping and Energy at Transport & Environment tells EU Perspectives.
Transport is a key effort of the Electrification Action Plan by the European Commission‚ part of a wider push for electric power to cover 46 per cent of EU energy consumption by 2040․ For Mr Froggatt, the headline ambition is significant. But there are caveats. “The ambition in the plan is enough, however, what is important is not a non-binding target, but the policies and measures that can help to deliver enhanced electrification,” he says.
Speaking to EU Perspectives, Mr Froggatt explained why vehicle-to-grid technology could change the role of electric cars. He elaborated on why corporate fleets are critical to creating a second-hand EV market, and where the Commission’s strategy falls short on trucks, shipping and aviation.
Your review says electrification is the clearest way to cut energy demand, boost competitiveness and reduce fossil fuel imports. Is the Commission’s Electrification Action Plan ambitious enough to make transport a central part of Europe’s energy security strategy?
The ambition in the plan is enough; for example, the call for 46 per cent of energy to be used by electricity by 2040 would be doubling the current level in only 14 years. However, what is important is not a non-binding target, but the policies and measures that can help deliver enhanced electrification.
The plan presents electric vehicles as ‘batteries on wheels’ that can help solve grid bottlenecks. What still needs to happen before vehicle-to-grid technology can work at scale across Europe?
The Commission commits to proposing “technical requirements to enable interoperability such as standardized communication protocols”. This is a useful first step, but these technical requirements also need to include a hardware component. Every EV will need to be equipped with a bidirectional onboard charger to avoid EV drivers needing to make an additional investment in a much more expensive bidirectional charger outside the vehicle. A basic unidirectional charger costs roughly €500, whereas a bidirectional charger costs at least €4,000; often substantially more. Unless every EV integrates the bidirectional charging capability, V2G is unlikely to scale up (more details in T&E briefing). The EU institutions need to conclude the Automotive Package swiftly. T&E invites the European Commission to include a strong ‘hardware’ focus when elaborating technical requirements for V2G under the type approval framework.
The Action Plan recognises corporate fleets as key to creating an affordable second-hand electric car market, but T&E says the EU still needs binding electrification targets. Why are corporate fleets so important for the wider EV transition?
We strongly support the Commission’s focus on demand-side incentives, particularly the guidance on Social Leasing (Annex II). Directing Social Climate Fund and ETS2 revenues toward affordable, EU-made small BEVs for low-income and rural households will ensure a socially fair transition. We also support the review of the Clean Vehicles Directive to ensure that public authorities lead the way in terms of procurement of zero emission vehicles..
The plan rightly highlights corporate fleets (which account for 60% of new car sales) as the primary engine for establishing an affordable second-hand BEV market. The plan announces several fiscal measures such as i) a proposal measures on progressively phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (Q4 2026) and ii) a recommendation on Fiscal and Non-fiscal demand-side incentives for zero emission vehicles (Q4 2026). It is unclear yet to what extent this will cover cars (private and corporate) and will be additional to the currently discussed Clean Corporate Vehicles Regulation.
You might be interested
T&E welcomes the Commission’s commitment to review the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) in 2026.
What is missing in the picture?
While the Action Plan puts electrification front and center, it relies heavily on voluntary national demand-side tweaks (fiscal and non-fiscal) and turns a blind eye to the severe political risk currently facing the sector. The plan fails to account for how ongoing discussions around the Automotive Package threaten to further weaken vehicle decarbonisation targets despite the urgent need to rapidly scale up EVs. Pushing for electrification in an action plan while simultaneously allowing supply-side ambition to be watered down in legislative negotiations sends a dangerous and contradictory signal to investors, automakers, and consumers alike. See joint letter calling for the EU to adopt a strong vision and concrete action to accelerate vehicle electrification instead of lowering the ambition of recently agreed legislation.
Additionally, while the plan addresses fossil fuel subsidy phase-outs, it lacks a firm deadline to end tax write-offs for fossil-fuel company cars.
What else is needed?
To turn this plan into reality, the EU must set binding electrification targets for large corporate fleets under the upcoming Clean Corporate Vehicles Regulation. Also, it must protect the 2035 100% ZEV target under the car CO2 standards as the bedrock of investment certainty. European social leasing mechanism: the Commission should introduce a European Social Leasing scheme to scale leasing of compact, affordable, made-in-Europe electric vehicles via public de-risking.
For trucks, shipping and aviation, T&E says the plan sends positive signals but lacks concrete commitments. Where is the biggest gap: depot charging for trucks, shore power for ships, or support for electric aviation?
On depot charging: while the plan mentions that the upcoming AFIR review will address data collection on depot charging needs, it falls short of ambition. Semi-public depot charging deserves much greater attention in the AFIR framework.
On private procurement’s role: the Commission commits to propose a recommendation on fiscal and non-fiscal demand-side incentives for ZEVs by Q4 2026. While this is welcome, it is unclear whether these measures will apply to cars, vans, trucks, or all vehicle segments. And it fails to address a key barrier: the role of large shippers (cargo owners). Their procurement decisions have a major influence on the investment choices of European transport companies. Therefore, they should take greater responsibility for decarbonising the freight they commission. Unfortunately, the EAP overlooks this issue.
On shipping—although the Action Plan acknowledges the importance of electrifying shipping, it does not introduce any concrete measures to accelerate the transition. On price transparency, the EAP invites stakeholders to enhance price transparency and comparability of shore side electricity prices but does not outline specific actions. Similarly, the Commission indicates that it will work on removing barriers to the electrification of ferries and inland waterway transport but fails to provide concrete measures to achieve these objectives. This is especially pressing given the potential omission of small ferries from the planned expansion of the EU ETS.
How about aviation?
Electric aviation severely lacks concrete commitments. Binding targets for a technology which is not yet certified, and not commercially available, may be premature. However, the complete absence of even aspirational goals signals a low level of ambition. Furthermore, a number of measures for other sectors – e.g. adjusted depreciation times for BEVs, or bridging the tax gap between fossil gas and electricity – could be easily extended to electric aviation.
Finally, the EAP overlooks the role that electric aviation would play in maintaining the European leadership in aircraft manufacturing in the future – a role that should not be taken for granted given the quick developments in electric aviation in China and the US.
