Ferrari has signed a ten-year agreement with Shell to purchase renewable electricity. The deal will provide 650 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of clean power through 2034. This is enough to cover nearly half of the energy needs at Ferrari’s main production plant in Maranello, Italy.
The plant uses around 130 GWh of electricity each year. The remaining electricity will be supplied through additional renewable energy and certificates.
The agreement is part of Ferrari’s plan to reduce carbon emissions and shift toward cleaner energy in its operations. Davide Abate, Chief Industrial Officer at Ferrari, remarked:
“This agreement represents a further step forward in our journey towards decarbonizing the Maranello plant. The collaboration with Shell Energy Italia to supply renewable energy represents a concrete contribution to our goal of reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by at least 90% in absolute terms by 2030.”
For Shell, the deal demonstrates its growing role in supplying green power to large industrial customers. The oil giant is also increasing the scale of its renewable power generation. The electricity for Ferrari will come from a dedicated solar plant located in Italy, which improves supply reliability.
Gianluca Formenti, CEO of Shell Energy Italia, noted:
“In line with our strategy of producing more energy with fewer emissions, this agreement is a tangible example of our commitment to providing energy solutions to support our customers and partners in achieving their decarbonization goals.”
What are the Key Features of the Deal?
The PPA, or power purchase agreement, will deliver renewable electricity for ten years. Shell will provide most of the energy directly from a dedicated plant. The remainder will come from renewable energy certificates (RECs). These certificates allow Ferrari to claim that its energy consumption is backed by clean power, even if the electricity does not flow directly from the plant.
This combination ensures that Ferrari’s operations in Italy rely heavily on renewable sources. By securing long-term renewable energy, the luxury carmaker reduces its exposure to volatile energy prices.
The PPA includes fixed-pricing elements. This helps Ferrari avoid sudden jumps in energy costs. It also strengthens its ability to meet climate targets for carbon emissions.
The deal covers:
- 650 GWh of electricity from renewable sources over 10 years.
- Nearly 50% of Ferrari’s energy needs at Maranello.
- Additional RECs and green power to cover the remaining electricity use.
Ferrari’s Carbon Reduction Goals and Renewable Energy Strategy
Ferrari has committed to reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 90% by 2030. Scope 1 emissions come from Ferrari’s direct activities. This includes heating, production equipment, and company vehicles. Scope 2 emissions come from purchased electricity. Below are the ways the company uses to achieve its 2030 carbon neutrality goal.
The automaker reported several thousand metric tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions from operations in recent years. Progress has already begun as energy systems switch to cleaner power.
Switching to renewable electricity helps Ferrari cut Scope 2 emissions. The company has also invested in efficiency measures to reduce energy use across its facilities.
Moreover, it aims to streamline operations. They want to keep producing high-performance cars while using less energy overall. The company says some efficiency projects can reduce factory electricity use by 10–15% over time.
In recent years, Ferrari has been working on its energy mix. In 2024, it shut down a gas-fired trigeneration plant at Maranello. This plant had generated electricity, heat, and cooling from natural gas. By closing it, Ferrari reduced fossil fuel use and emissions.
However, the chart below shows that while Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions show a gradual reduction, the total emissions show a steady increase. This is mostly due to growth in the company’s value chain activities.
Scope 3 emissions—mainly from the supply chain, purchased goods, and product use—are the dominant source, over 90%, and consistently drive the company’s total footprint.
Fueling Renewable Energy Expansion
The Italian luxury sports carmaker is expanding its use of solar energy. It plans to increase photovoltaic (PV) capacity to around 10 megawatts peak (MWp) by 2030. Solar panels are installed on factory rooftops and other company-owned spaces. These panels already cover part of the factory’s daytime electricity consumption.
The company also partnered with Enel X to create a Renewable Energy Community (REC). This community lets nearby businesses, residents, and public institutions use clean power from Ferrari’s solar installations. It helps spread the benefits of renewable energy beyond Ferrari itself. The community has dozens of participants and supports local energy independence.
Ferrari has invested in energy-efficient transformers and storage systems. These upgrades improve the efficiency of electricity use and reduce energy waste. Combined with the new PPA, Ferrari’s approach is designed to achieve both emissions reduction and cost stability.
Offsetting the Unavoidable: Ferrari’s Carbon Credit Strategy
Ferrari tackles residual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They support certified carbon avoidance projects by buying carbon avoidance credits. By using this method with direct emission cuts, the company reached carbon neutrality for Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in 2021, 2022, and 2023 across all its operations.
In 2024, Ferrari cancelled 77,691 metric tons of CO₂-equivalent carbon credits. These credits came from the Sustainability Community Project in Canada. They were certified by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) – Verra. This project combines over 800 carbon-reduction micro-projects from SMEs, municipalities, and NGOs. It includes more than 1,000 buildings in Quebec.
The goal is to reach up to 10,000 customer facilities in a sustainable community. The GHG reductions come from activities such as improved energy efficiency, waste diversion, and fuel switching.
Also, Ferrari partners with ClimateSeed. This ensures that the projects follow strict environmental, social, and financial standards. The company hasn’t developed its own GHG removal or storage projects yet. However, it adjusts its carbon credit purchases each year. This helps offset unavoidable emissions and meet its carbon neutrality goals.
Industry Implications: Luxury Cars Join the Clean Energy Race
This deal reflects a growing trend among manufacturers in Europe. Companies are signing long-term renewable energy deals. This helps them cut emissions and stabilize energy costs.
For automakers, energy use is becoming an important part of environmental responsibility. Reducing emissions is not just about electric or hybrid cars. It also depends on how factories are powered.
Other car manufacturers are also pursuing renewable energy. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche have all made deals to source clean power for major facilities. Ferrari’s agreement shows that luxury car makers are now also integrating renewable energy into their main operations.
Driving Forward: A Sustainable Shift for Ferrari
Ferrari’s renewable energy agreement with Shell is expected to have a lasting impact on its operations. It ensures a stable supply of clean energy and supports broader climate goals. It also ensures alignment between how Ferrari builds cars and the electric models it plans to sell in the future.
The partnership also strengthens Shell’s position in providing renewable solutions to industrial clients. It shows that legacy energy companies can play a role in helping others transition to cleaner power.
As Italy and other European countries aim to increase renewable energy use, long-term agreements like this one may become more common. Companies can benefit from cost predictability, emission reductions, and support for their sustainability goals.
The post Ferrari and Shell Sign Renewable Energy Deal, Powering Ferrari’s Carbon Neutrality by 2030 Goal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-