Billions for electromobility, questions over process

ElectroMobility Poland (EMP) secured a green light in a competition for billions of zlotys from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (KPO). The applications were assessed by an external advisor – Deloitte Advisory – which had previously worked with EMP, earning more than PLN 4 million (approximately EUR 0.9 million). Rejected applicants say bluntly: “this is a conflict of interest.” Questions are also emerging about the project’s potential cooperation with Chinese partners.

In July 2025, the National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (NFOŚiGW) ran a grant competition worth nearly PLN 4.8 billion (approximately EUR 1.1 billion). The aim was to allocate funds from the National Recovery Plan (KPO) under an instrument supporting the low-emissions economy.

Eight contenders in the race

Eight companies applied to the competition. Among them was ElectroMobility Poland (EMP), the company known for its ultimately unrealized plan to produce Poland’s first electric car under the Izera brand. EMP requested the largest amount: PLN 4.5 billion (approximately EUR 1 billion). The funds were intended to support the construction in Jaworzno of a comprehensive electromobility hub, encompassing not only an electric vehicle factory but also a research and development center.

The applicant requesting the second-largest amount was Adaptive Motors Poland (AMP), which sought PLN 599 million (approximately EUR 140 million). The funding was to enable the establishment of a factory in Kleszczów for electric delivery vehicles under the eVanPL project. WIKE applied for PLN 396 million (approximately EUR 92 million) to finance investments in energy storage and renewable energy sources. SES Hydrogen Energy FE sought PLN 284 million (approximately EUR 66 million) to develop hydrogen infrastructure, including hubs and electrolyzer production.

Within the renewable energy sector, Green Zone Energy Poland also operates and applied for PLN 246 million (approximately EUR 57 million) to develop energy projects. Green Bio Energy Systems aimed to secure PLN 178 million (approximately EUR 41 million) to build a cogeneration biogas plant converting biomass and waste into biogas. PowerUp HydroTech applied for PLN 135 million (approximately EUR 31 million), including for hydrogen storage solutions. The smallest requested amount – PLN 80 million (approximately EUR 19 million) – was sought by Sola EV, a manufacturer of electric vehicle charging stations, to further expand its operations.

In November last year, a ranking list of the strongest projects was approved. At the top of the list were EMP and PowerUp HydroTech – a recently established company, registered in Wrocław in 2025 with Estonian capital. It was these two that received the green light from NFOŚiGW to pursue grant funding.

However, representatives of companies whose applications were unsuccessful disagree with the verdict. They point out that they have no opportunity to appeal the decision of NFOŚiGW or to review the reasoning behind it. There is also another concern: their doubts relate not only to how the applications were assessed, but also to who assessed them.

Deloitte worked with EMP

The undisputed winner in the race for KPO funding in this competition turned out to be EMP. Much has already been written about its unsuccessful and challenging history. Founded ten years ago, the company was intended not only to produce Poland’s first electric car under the Izera brand, but also to be responsible for building the vehicle’s factory in Jaworzno. However, these plans were not realized.

The XYZ portal recently disclosed a list of expenditures incurred by ElectroMobility Poland between 2018 and 2023. Among them was more than PLN 90 million (approximately EUR 21 million) spent on a prospective Chinese technology partner, Geely Holdings. Additional millions were allocated to Italian car and upholstery designers, as well as consultancy firms. According to EMP’s expenditure records, PLN 4.3 million (approximately EUR 1 million) was paid to the consulting firm Deloitte Advisory  - the same firm that, as has now emerged, assessed applications in the KPO funding competition. As is known, ElectroMobility Poland’s application was rated highly.

On what basis was EMP rated positively?

Representatives of companies that were rejected in the competition say that it was Deloitte that conducted the substantive evaluation of applications. NFOŚiGW informed them of this in August of last year. Matt Sołtysiak, CEO of SES Hydrogen Energy FE, explains that his company applied to build a factory for anion-exchange and alkaline electrolyzers with a capacity of up to 100 megawatts.

“For me, as someone who has been active in the investment world for years, a situation in which the audit and substantive evaluation of an application is carried out by an entity that simultaneously maintains a commercial relationship with the grant beneficiary represents a classic conflict of interest. For me, this is unacceptable,” says Matt Sołtysiak.

He recalls that the declared objective of the program was to co-finance the construction of factories by Polish entities, using Polish green technologies and Polish capital. Applying companies were expected to demonstrate the stage of advancement of their work – finished products were not required, but working prototypes based on proprietary technologies and letters of intent substantiating future sales were expected.

Meanwhile, former EMP CEO Tomasz Kędzierski stated as recently as July of last year – that is, at the time of application submission – that EMP continued to pursue partnerships with Chinese manufacturers, and that the optimal cooperation model it was aiming for was a joint venture. In an interview with Business Insider, he said that “the company is in talks with half of the TOP10 Chinese car manufacturers.”

Do you need technology or not?

“So the company clearly admitted that it does not have Polish patents or its own product. And at the time of submitting the application, it was not known what exactly that product would be. Consequently, EMP was not able to substantiate that it was capable of selling any cars, while one of the key requirements of the due diligence process was to present letters of intent confirming sales potential,” says Matt Sołtysiak.

He adds that it would also have been reasonable to split the subsidies into tranches or allocate smaller amounts across multiple recipients, rather than awarding a large sum to a single company.

“There is no appeal pathway whatsoever, nor any possibility of learning the detailed reasoning behind the decision. We do not know who carried out the evaluation on behalf of NFOŚiGW. We were never given the opportunity to meet the Investment Committee. NFOŚiGW refers to the fact that the decision was made by Deloitte. As a result, I do not know who actually made the decision, nor who sat on the investment committee,” says Matt Sołtysiak.

Concerns about the course of the competition and the substantive evaluation are also raised by Albert Gryszczuk, CEO of Adaptive Motors Poland. The company applied in the competition to produce Poland’s first electric delivery vehicle, the eVanPL. It already has its own technology, control systems, and a designed factory.

“We are ready to produce such vehicles; we only lack funding. We have a technology that no other company in the world has – our vehicle can travel 600 km on a single charge. Yet our project was described as ‘non-innovative,’” says Albert Gryszczuk.

The head of Adaptive Motors Poland does not understand why the company’s application was rejected despite having its own technology. He also does not understand why EMP, which does not have its own technology, was positively evaluated. Clarity was not helped by NFOŚiGW itself – the Fund’s reasoning was reportedly very brief.

“We received a response from NFOŚiGW – three paragraphs. ‘You are not innovative, you did not pass the private investor test, there is no market for your products.’ (…) Meanwhile, to obtain support, it was sufficient to create a hub and submit a promise of innovation,” says the CEO of Adaptive Motors Poland.

Deloitte decided on the grant

NFOŚiGW confirms that Deloitte Advisory was the firm that evaluated the submitted applications. It was selected through a tender process. The scope of Deloitte’s advisory work, as described by the Fund, was quite broad. Deloitte was responsible not only for assessing the current state and prospects of each company, but also for valuing the profitability of potential investments.

“The selection was made by the Investment Committee, an independent body that makes investment decisions in accordance with CID [Council Implementing Decisions – European Council implementing decisions defining the conditions for program implementation, ed.] based on final reports prepared by the advisor. Projects assessed positively were forwarded to negotiations on the terms of capital involvement, which are currently ongoing,” reads the response from NFOŚiGW sent to our editorial team.

We asked the Fund whether the prior cooperation between EMP and Deloitte has any impact on the course and outcome of the competition, and whether such a setup is fair to other applicants.

“The advisor, in line with the requirements of the tender, submitted relevant declarations confirming that the individuals performing the expert service consisting of supporting the assessment of funding applications and applicants: did not participate, do not participate, and will not participate in the preparation of any funding application, and will not introduce corrections to documentation submitted by applicants, nor will they support applicants in preparing or supplementing applications, as directly stipulated in the tender documentation,” the Fund stated.

In short, this means that Deloitte declared it did not assist companies in preparing applications for this competition. However, this does not rule out prior cooperation with them. This is the only comment we received from NFOŚiGW on the matter.

Deloitte declined to comment.

“We do not comment on our involvement or lack thereof in matters concerning other entities, including potential clients or projects in which we may have participated,” wrote Anna Sendrowicz, Deloitte’s spokesperson, in a response sent to our editorial team.

What will EMP offer?

What exactly will ElectroMobility Poland do with such a large grant? And who will become its technology partner? The latter question raises another: is the company still considering Chinese firms as potential technology suppliers for the Polish entity?

The company’s spokesperson says that the planned use of the PLN 4.5 billion (approximately EUR 1 billion) includes “the construction of a modern vehicle production facility, development of an R&D base (creation of a research and development center), creation and integration of a supply chain involving Polish companies, development of local competencies in modern technologies and production management, and building an industrial ecosystem around the investment.”

“The ElectroMobility Poland production and development hub project was described in detail in the application documentation submitted to the competition organized by NFOŚiGW. The material comprises nearly 3,000 pages and covers technological assumptions, the business model, the implementation schedule, as well as precisely defined project performance indicators,” explains Piotr Michniuk, EMP’s spokesperson.

However, he does not disclose who may become the company’s strategic partner. It is known that EMP is in talks with such a partner. It is also unclear whether Chinese companies remain in contention.

“Due to concerns over the proper use of public funds, the interest of the company, and the confidential nature of ongoing negotiations with the strategic partner, the company will not publicly disclose information regarding the partner or its origin until these negotiations are concluded. (…) Cooperation within a joint venture framework will be established only on terms and with a partner that enables the realization of these objectives and is aligned with the state’s strategic economic interests,” Piotr Michniuk concludes.

Market speculation suggests that, amid growing tensions between Europe and China in the automotive sector, EMP may need to seek a partner in another country. Korean conglomerates are most often mentioned as potential partners. According to our unofficial findings, however, an alternative option is also being considered: abandoning the idea of producing an electric car and repositioning EMP as an entity focused on other electromobility-related projects.

Key Takeaways

1. ElectroMobility Poland plans to develop a broad industrial hub, but it continues to withhold key details, including the identity of its technology partner. The company assumes cooperation in a joint venture structure. Given the scale of funding involved, the success or failure of the project will carry significant implications for the program as a whole.
2. NFOŚiGW distributed approximately PLN 4.8 billion (about EUR 1.1 billion) among companies submitting investment projects in areas including electromobility, hydrogen, and renewable energy. Applicants presented projects that were subsequently assessed by an advisor in terms of both substantive merit and business viability. Based on this assessment, a ranking list was prepared, effectively granting the green light for potential funding allocation.
3. ElectroMobility Poland, the company behind the ultimately unrealized Izera electric car project, emerged as the clear winner. However, the fact that its applications were evaluated by Deloitte – an advisor that had previously been paid by EMP – raises suspicions of a conflict of interest. These concerns are compounded by a lack of transparency, as highlighted by unsuccessful applicants, who question the credibility of the entire process.