by Will Jones
Demand for electric cars has slumped as Rachel Reeves prepares to hit them with a new pay-per-mile tax. The Telegraph has more.
Electric vehicle (EV) sales grew at their slowest rate in two years in November, at just 3.6%, according to figures from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).
Mike Hawes, the Chief Executive of the SMMT, tied the slowdown to the Budget and its long build-up.
He said: “Even in a fragile market, zero-emission vehicle uptake continues to rise, which is exactly what we need. But the weakest growth for almost two years – ahead of the Government announcing a new tax on EVs – should be seen as a wake-up call that a sustained increase in demand for EVs cannot be taken for granted.
“We should be taking every opportunity to encourage drivers to make the switch, not punishing them for doing so, else the ambitions of Government and industry will be thwarted.”
The Chancellor announced a new pay-per-mile road tax for EVs in last week’s Budget. The levy will charge drivers of electric cars 3p per mile when it comes into force in April 2028 – costing them around £250 a year on average.
News of the policy was first revealed by the Telegraph on November 6th.
The change is meant to make up for lost fuel duty and to start bringing EVs into line with petrol and diesel vehicles. A typical petrol car driver currently pays around £600 per year in fuel duty, which is effectively a tax on distance travelled.
However, the car industry has warned that the new tax risks damaging demand for EVs, which are more expensive to buy than petrol alternatives.
The number of EVs sold climbed to 39,965 in November. Fully electric cars made up 26.4% of all new car sales in November, up from 25.1% a year ago. The SMMT said the recently introduced electric car grants supported sales.
However, the proportion of EV sales still falls short of the 28% annual target. Carmakers who fail to meet this level risk fines.
Worth reading in full.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Electric Car Demand Sinks”
It actually grew by 3.6%.
“Fully electric cars made up 26.4% of all new car sales in November, up from 25.1% a year ago.”
The weakest growth for two years. Take it how you wish. Oh, you did…
And as the fraction increases more, the growth rate will probably fall even more. You got us there, Z^2…
The measure was only officially announced on 26th November. The drop in sales growth was only on briefings and speculation. The £3750 government grant on BEVs costing less than £37000. This works out at 125000 miles at 3p per mile. So no real disincentive as the poor and non BEV drivers are subsidising those who can afforda £37k car. See scheme here
https://www.gov.uk/plug-in-vehicle-grants/cars
This is how pretty much all ‘solutions’ to Climate Change are set up. Like solar panels on roofs. An almost direct transfer of wealth from poor people to rich people.
It’s quite telling.
It worked well for us. Under our contract, we get paid 78p/kWh for the electricity we generate because we can afford to put a pile of junk on our roof.
We use that money to help campaigns STOP wind & solar grifters from decimating our prime farmland for a quick buck.
The best setup for solar is distributed at or very near point of use.
If you pay less than 78p/kWh for grid power, then you can buy a heap of surplus deep-cycle batteries or similar, charge them with cheaper off-peak fossil fuel electrons, then sell them back at 78p/kWh.
Might even pay for the “pile of junk” if you get in before the Government wakes up.
Funny you should suggest that (:-)).
The Government woke up weeks after we signed up, but the index-linked contract is for 25yr. Our system has paid for itself several times over; it was the best investment ever & will help finance our fight against government stupidity for the next 12 yrs.
Actually it is probably the EV grant that has caused hesitation in the market. It only applies to certain models, not all models under £37k. Each model is supposedly assessed for its green credentials and the gov. decides if it can receive the £3750 or lower £1500 grant.
Models are gradually being added to the list. Who wants to buy a car and then find they could have got the grant a week later!
Pre-registration:
Just use Mike’s Nature trick. Down is up and up is down.
How wonderful, the Brits can now feel good about themselves saving the planet.
If anybody buys an EV, and then they think they are wonderful people because they’re contributing towards saving the planet, well . . . they’re NOT.
It takes 5x more metals to construct an EV compared to an equivalent ICEV.
That’s 5x more mining . . . and I won’t go into the environmental damage that inevitably results from mining operations here.
The thing is, the global mining industry emits about the same amount of CO2 as the global aviation industry, and “transition” for both is equally problematic – bordering on impossible.
And what this means is, as construction and sales of EVs increase, the so-called CO2 problem becomes exponentially worse, notwithstanding there are 1.4 BILLION ICEV worldwide that supposedly MUST be replaced . . . to save the planet!!
Isn’t that just bloody brilliant.
Can anyone explain the logic of a government subsidising someone car choice when the category of car they are subsidising is already over 25% of the market choice?
Surely the maturity of the electric car market is such that government prompts are no longer needed.
The government is now at the point of giving with one hand and taking back that gift with the other via road charging.
The other feature of this story is charging bays are now to be taxed also.
I get the impression the days of the state funded sweetener stimulating electric car growth are over.
How are they doing in the second hand market? How are they doing in the rental car market and how are they doing in the private buyer segment of new car sales market as compared with the company car segment of new car sales?
Electric cars are clearly great when they are new, it is only when you come to sell them on into the used car sector the real market is on display.
That was their plan all along with EV’s. Subsidize them via tax incentives to increase the demand to get people to buy them, then tax their use of them….
Pay them to take a punch in the guts, then tax them for the sudden air intake.
Clever.
“The government is now at the point of giving with one hand and taking back that gift with the other via road charging’
It’s one of the hallmarks of socialism/communism/Marxism/Islamism and pretty much all today’s gov’ts. Virtue Signaling wrapped by its own resultant Cognitive Dissonance into perpetuity until its constituents are fully destroyed. France, England, Minnesota are currently well into the experience. All cancers work similarly. You save the patient by routing the cancer(s).
I see Mr. Hawes is calling EVs “zero emmission” vehicles.
He should be charged with falsifying evidence. The emmissions from the manufacture of the electricity an EV uses are produced elsewhere but they are still emitted to produce the power which makes the vehicle move so the so-called pollution should be applied to the EV.
Not to mention the real pollution caused by the manufacturing process which produces the vehicle.
The trouble is you make sense.
It really shows extreme ignorance and delusion when someone says what Hawes said.
I’ve seen EVs called “displaced emission vehicles”. Much more appropriate.
Hit back or pack up
Glossary: “EV” = (Battery) Electric Vehicle
“ICV” = Internal Combustion Vehicle
EV owners need to “buckle up” — the mileage levy will only increase.
If (per the article) the current motor fuel revenue is £600 per year per vehicle and the 3p / mile levy for EVs will realize about £250 (which works out to 8,333 miles driven on average), that creates a net deficit of £350 per year for each ICV replaced by an EV. In the UK motor fuel levies (including VAT) amount to 55-70% of the retail price of fuel, and the revenues are simply rolled into the general budget rather than being restricted to transportation uses. This of course means any deficit must be made up somewhere else.
Fast forward to the day the UK achieves total electrification of personal transportation and the mileage levy must be at least 7.2p / mile to realize the same revenue. And most likely more as (1) the higher cost of EVs will put some people out of owning cars altogether and (2) data from the US indicates EVs are driven fewer miles on average than ICVs. Not to mention (3) the UK is on a trajectory of higher spending and lower productivity, which means taxes will eat up a larger share of GDP.
The irony is that in the UK EVs don’t save as much on fuel costs as they do in the US since the retail price is mostly taxes which they will end up paying one way or another. That plus electricity is significantly more expensive ($0.40-0.41 / kWH UK vs. $0.16-0.18 / kWH US).
People like Rachel Reeves believe every problem can be solved by more government spending and higher taxes to pay for it. Isn’t it amazing how expensive all that free stuff becomes?
It looks like the people of New York and Seattle are about to get a big dose of this philosophy.
YES, EVs are heavier than ICE vehicles and pay no fuel tax to maintain the roads that EVs are tearing up!
An example is California:
California has almost 400,000 miles of roadways used by the State’s 30 million vehicles. Those roadways are heavily dependent on road taxes from fuels that contribute more than $8.8 billion annually, for planning, constructing, and maintaining California’s publicly funded roadways. The same gas tax revenues also fund many environmental programs and the high-speed rail project.
That $8.8 billion revenue source from fuel taxes will diminish in the years ahead as heavier EVs are being mandated in California to replace the lighter internal combustion engine vehicles.
Heavier vehicles cause much more wear on highways. Conventional 18 wheeler trucks cause over 90% of the wear on interstates. If EV trucks mandates are realized, among the many problems that will emerge will be a substantial increase in road damage. EV autos and trucks will have to pay much higher road use fees than anticipated, or the general public will have to pick up the costs in taxes of some type. There is no free lunch.
EVs autos also blast through conventional guard rails during crashes, so worldwide transportation researchers, manufacturers and roads departments will have to spend tens of $billions replacing guardrails and barriers with newly designed EV-deflecting barriers.
NASCAR style SAFER barriers along all the freeways?
Why bother with guard rails? If people prefer not to drive on a nice, smooth, paved road, that’s their choice.
Freedom!
Not significantly; per-axle weight limits are imposed by all states, so an EV truck must carry less cargo to offset the increased battery weight, unless weight allowances are raised. Shipping rates will likely rise as a result. Marginally, more trucks will be required to transport the same amount of cargo, also likely increasing costs. The real problem with long haul EV trucks is not the additional road/bridge wear, but the loss of motor fuel taxes to pay for it. That will have to be worked out somehow, either by taxing at the charging parks or the weigh stations.
I don’t think it’s going to be much of a problem for quite a while. Take a look at the typical Pilot / Flying J truck stop and count the number of diesel pumps they have. Then calculate the electrical service it would take to charge an equivalent number of EV trucks. Private enterprise will only build truck charging parks if they’re commercially viable. If the federal and state governments try to do it, we’ll be living on Mars before an EV truck can go from Los Angeles to New York.
Study was done on average an EV semi is a bit over 5000 pounds more than non EV semi’s. You wouldn’t think that’s much but depending on the load it can be a lot. That can easily be 2-3 pallets less in a load. 2-3 pallets that will now have to be sent in a separate trailer as an LTL (Less Than Load) which can cost significantly more money to ship as a partial load or more time as the trucking company looks to flesh out a full load before departing.
Then there’s the light loads where the truck is full but not at max load. Some of those loads are already sketchy on if the trucking company is making money or not. Suddenly decrease the weight by 5000 pounds and a slightly profitable load now becomes unprofitable. One example: My dad was a retired truck driver and one of the companies he worked for hauled waste wood chips/dust from sawmills. Trailers they use are extra long, extra tall and even add more room by dipping down in the belly. All of this is to maximize load weight, profit per load wasn’t a lot. Take 5k off that load and no way would it be even close to profitable.
I doubt a 4,000 pound EV causes more wear on roads and bridges compared to a 3,500 ICV. For example a Tesla Model 3 Long Range 4dr Sedan curb weight is 3,891 lbs. — not significantly more than a Lexus IS 300 at 3,715 lbs (source: Edmunds for 2025 models). Neither the roads nor the squirrels can tell the difference.
Heavy trucks weighing 30,000 lbs and up cause the bulk of road/bridge wear, along with salt damage in places that get frequent winter snow and ice.
Interestingly, Hawaii charges an annual registration fee based on Gross Vehicle Weight rather than ad valorem. So heavier vehicles regardless of powertrain pay more. The state charge runs between $0.0175 – $0.025 per pound depending on weight class. Various county fees add between $0.0175 and $0.07 per pound (Honolulu County taking the biggest bite).
In 2025 Hawaii also implemented a per-mile fee for EVs, but capped at $50 annually. Hawaii is mostly small islands, so people there drive much less than the US national average.
Hawaii State Motor Vehicle Registration Fees
Lets see, quick google of a Ford Mach e Mustang versus a Mustang….4800 pounds versus 3800 pounds. I would say that’s significant.
“Electric vehicle (EV) sales grew at their slowest rate in two years in November, at just 3.6%”
I wonder what it’ll be when all subsidies and tax breaks are ended.
Fifteen years from now every electric car you see will only be worth its value as scrap, because very few people are going to be willing to spend twenty thousand dollars to put a new battery in a fifteen year old car.
I recently had to drive from San Diego to east Texas and observed a number of Teslas driving under the speed limit, presumably to extend their range. I would not want to be stuck in west Texas with a dead Tesla. Gas stations are relatively far apart and I didn’t see any charging stations outside cities.
My commute is a 50 mile round trip with 40 of it on the freeway. If I see a car going slow in the right lane it’s either a seasoned citizen or an EV trying to maximize distance. On the other hand I get passed by a lot of hybrids who are doing 5+ mph over the speed limit using up that extra fuel saving in going faster.
Darrin:
Caught me speeding!
Please lock your doors as I wiz past you – Lol
FYI: my 4575 lb (2024) Sonata hybrid is getting 47.3 mpg in combined city/hwy driving
“We should be taking every opportunity to encourage drivers to make the switch, not punishing them for doing so, else the ambitions of Government and industry will be thwarted.”
I’m sorry, but you have zero moral authority to use social engineering to control people by purposefully stealing from some and giving to others based on the feckless whims of your vanity, ego and greed. You have completely abandoned the rightful function of government – to maintain Security and Order in pursuit of micromanaging a population is superior to you in every metric. Your contempt of the Ten Commandments, the bare minimum of Western morality by promoting Envy and Coveting through False Witness and Theft – while pursuing a hostile religion of environmental worship is beyond acceptable behavior. In short, Hawes, you are an evil rent-seeking Statist and need to be resisted.
It’s not just the 3 pence per mile, it’s the catastrophic depreciation, battery fires, electrical failures, spares availability, high insurance costs.
Well EV’s should pay a per mile tax. Every time you fill up your car with gasoline, a portion of that goes to road use taxes. EV, owners are not paying any road use tax, yet their using our roads.
I have to laugh at the government directive that is trying to force manufacturers to sell a certain percentage of cars as EVs or face fines. But what will the government do if consumers won’t buy them? Will it hit them with some sorts of fines also? Let them try that and watch how their support at the polls plummets. In Canada the two leading parties in last spring’s federal election offered to withdraw the national carbon tax which was having an imperceptible effect on lowering emissions but was guaranteeing a rise in overall living costs. Forcing mandates of any kind unless there’s a national emergency never works, so any government that is trying to undermine its chances in future elections shouldn’t even consider them.
I’m ROFL with disgust at fallacious arguments against taxing EVs for road use:
‘punishing”tax raid’As the Telegraph article explains, fossil-fuelled vehicles are charged through tax on their fuels.
I expect that th big cost in roads is making them.
Only heavy vehicles will cause substantive repair costs.
I’d like to know why EVs aren’t paying for the roads they drive on?
It’s just because we’re not keeping up with the R&D folks-
BYD GROWTH COLLAPSES! CEO Confesses Failure, Reveals $100 Billion Comeback Plan
If anybody buys an EV, and then they think they are wonderful people because they’re contributing towards saving the planet, well . . . they’re NOT.
It takes 5x more metals to construct an EV compared to an equivalent ICEV.
That’s 5x more mining . . . and I won’t go into the environmental damage that inevitably results from mining operations here.
The thing is, the global mining industry emits about the same amount of CO2 as the global aviation industry, and “transition” for both is equally problematic – bordering on impossible.
And what this means is, as construction and sales of EVs increase, the so-called CO2 problem becomes exponentially worse, notwithstanding there are 1.4 BILLION ICEV worldwide that supposedly MUST be replaced . . . to save the planet!!
Isn’t that just bloody brilliant.
Demand for electric cars where?
EV Sales increase 48% Worldwide in Q3 2025
https://youtu.be/xxmR2bUJSlA?si=uvHNlesnHBr8XN9-
Count me among those confused. Of course, it IS a government policy. The UK now is imposing a fee on EVs to compete with the incentives they provide for buying EVs. Why not just reduce the amount of the subsidy and use the money for roads? Please note: I am NOT a politician who lies to folks to get votes then breaks all promises, so what do I know??