Letter: Electronic Vehicles Will Ultimately Be More Expensive To Run

Published on: 7 Sep, 2017
Updated on: 7 Sep, 2017

From Paul Bishop

The biggest issue with electronic vehicles (EVs) will be the loss of £28 billion of fuel duty revenue to the exchequer. If we were to switch the EVs overnight, this fuel duty would need to come from somewhere else.

The total miles driven in the UK is currently estimated at 406 billion miles annually. This means the government earns 7p in tax revenue per mile driven. So a 300 mile charge on a Tesla EV will need to deliver £20 in tax revenue.

Current costs to charge a Tesla at a supercharger are roughly £25 from flat. So suddenly the cost to do 300 miles will be £45. At current fossil fuel prices, you would only need to achieve over 35mpg to cost less – most modern cars can easily deliver more than this.

This is the problem – EVs will ultimately be more expensive! And this is what will eventually stifle the growth of the sector when all the government grants are withdrawn and the taxation gets back to where it needs to be.

We need to be focusing on reducing energy consumption, ignore where the energy comes from for a moment and focusing on simply reducing how much energy we use.

Smaller cars, lighter cars, more social transport solutions. If only the answer was as simple as EVs.

Responses to Letter: Electronic Vehicles Will Ultimately Be More Expensive To Run

G Basnett Reply

September 8, 2017 at 10:36 pm

I think Paul Bishop makes a very valid point about tax revenues. We all recognise that we’re currently in a honeymoon period as regards grants & incentives for low emission vehicles.

However, there are lots of other considerations. For example:
1) In an urban environment petrol & diesel cars are causing unacceptable levels of air pollution – how does he propose to solve this?
2) Electric cars can be charged from a domestic electric supply – will the same level of tax be applied in this case?

In the long run maybe some technology other than electric will prove to be the answer, but currently, it’s a starting place. From a health perspective, we can no longer afford to delay.
Gordon Bridger Reply

September 10, 2017 at 6:08 pm

Mr Bishop makes a valid point although this tax loss could be recouped from other sorts of tax.

More serious problems are the huge amount of generating capacity we will have to invest in to keep cars on the road, and we have yet to get anywhere near solving the battery problems of very large trucks.

Not my investment preference.
Paul Bishop Reply

September 13, 2017 at 9:29 am

Of course, revenues can be sought elsewhere, but ultimately it will come from our pockets one way or another!

I touched on my solution at the very end, albeit it only in one line.

Firstly, we need to minimise energy consumption. It takes more energy to move a 2-tonne SUV than a 1-tonne city car which takes more energy than a bicycle!

We need to focus on how, with existing technologies, we can reduce our energy consumption. This is through both lifestyle and technology. Once we are doing this, we can then look at the sources for providing the energy we need.

In cities and areas where local pollution is an issue then EVs are a great choice. For long distance, high-speed motorway journeys then clean diesels will still have a place.

I could go on, but my fundamental point is that there is no silver bullet. We need to stop thinking of binary solutions to such a complex problem.

The whole issue needs to be completely de-politicised and tackled with some real pragmatism.