Govt Announces £120,000 Grants for Electric HGVs

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

I mentioned the Telegraph story the other, outlining government plans to ban petrol and diesel lorries by 2040.

the Telegraph reported that the Green Finance Institute has estimated £100bn worth of additional finance and subsidies would be needed to support electric lorry take-up.

By coincidence, I have just come across this press release from the Department of Transport, which seems to have gone under the radar:

  • £18 million to slash up to £120,000 off the cost of green lorries, making it cheaper for businesses to go electric
  • part of £318 million green freight investment to cut costs for industry and reduce emissions, delivering on the government’s promise to boost growth and support jobs
  • government launches consultation on roadmap to phase out sales of new non-zero emission HGVs, giving industry certainty to plan for zero emission by 2040

Hauliers and fleet operators will access discounts of up to £120,000 on new electric trucks thanks to an additional £18 million announced by the government today (6 January 2026) to increase the Plug-in Truck Grant until March 2026.

The move is part of a £318 million plan for green freight, which is backing British businesses by slashing upfront costs on new lorries and helping businesses to access the lower running costs. This is all part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions while cutting costs, sparking growth and creating jobs as the sector moves to the technology of the future.

See the list of electric and hybrid vehicles eligible for a plug-in grant for more information.

Similar to the government’s Electric Car Grant, which has saved over 45,000 drivers up to £3,750 when making the switch, the Plug-in-Truck Grant enables lorry operators to access savings of up to £120,000 when buying a new electric truck.

New grant levels mean:

  • smaller trucks (4.25t to 12t) could save up to £20,000  
  • mid-sized trucks (12t to 18t) up to £60,000 
  • larger trucks (18t to 26t) up to £80,000 
  • and the largest lorries (26t and over) up to £120,000

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-british-business-as-government-slashes-cost-of-electric-lorries-by-up-to-120000

There are around half a million HGVs in the UK, so at an average of say £100,000 subsidy each, that adds up to £50 billion.

On top of that, of course, will be added the various other costs of charging infrastructure and so on, so the £100 billion suggested in the Telegraph is not unrealistic, if the subsidy is given for all HGV purchases.

What is clear is that there is no commercial justification for most hauliers to go electric. If there was, they would need bungs.

This latest plug-in grant is, of course, utterly inconsequential, as it will only be enough to fund 150 lorries at the top rate. Why should taxpayers be forced to hand money over to the likes of Amazon, who have welcomed the news and plan to grab as much cash as they can.

5 9 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Subscribe
Notify of
80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 13, 2026 2:15 am

The question they cannot answer is: why are you doing this? In fact, why are you doing the whole net zero program, but especially, why this?

dk_
Reply to  michel
January 13, 2026 3:11 am

Simple: yet another path to the destruction of the UK.

Scissor
Reply to  dk_
January 13, 2026 4:18 am

Safe and effective.

worsethanfailure
Reply to  dk_
January 13, 2026 5:41 am

That is a facile comment.

It is implausible that Mad Ed nor the rest of Labour, nor the Tories before them, want to destroy the UK. I am sure they all have a vision for a new, better UK—though their idea of “better” probably doesn’t align with mine. And it surely won’t align with what they’re going to get if they continue.

If we don’t come up with some sensible explanations for their insane behaviour we stand no chance of correcting the course.

It is far more plausible they are just not equipped to understand and solve complex technical problems. They are not appropriately educated; they are given to magical thinking, and they are surrounded by equally unfit civil servants.

Even if I thought the changes in the climate in the last forty years are the result of man’s activities, I would still see pioneering Net Zero and all it entails is cretinous. How did we manage to purge the political class of competent, strategic thinkers? That’s the question.

John XB
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 5:49 am

Evil. That is the only sensible explanation.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  John XB
January 13, 2026 7:55 am

No it isn’t. It’s a silly explanation which requires intelligent evil. Hobgoblins to scare up votes are much more sensible, requiring only stupid politicians.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John XB
January 13, 2026 9:21 am

Hanlon’s Razor

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

AleaJactaEst
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 13, 2026 9:29 am

nah, I agree with the “most damage possible” scenario, with a perfect example being the Autopen’s tenure, where direct quotes from some of the Depts twonks involved were literally “it was like throwing gold bars overboard before we got kicked out of office”

Now that’s deliberate damage. The Uniparty here in the UK and in Europe attend Davos for a reason and it’s not the good of the people of their countries.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AleaJactaEst
January 13, 2026 1:14 pm

Perhaps.

Perhaps Hanlon’s Razor is more applicable if stupidity is replaced with greed.

strativarius
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 5:52 am

The uniparty worked against implementing Brexit – traitor’s Parliaments – under May, Johnson, and Sunak, and now it’s working to bring us back into the EU darkness to be bound again. And yet Brexit – national sovereignty – was what the people voted for. The dictatorship did it’s best to get around it and Starmer signs an agreement (to pay more) here and another agreement (to pay more) there, surreptitiously taking us back under the ECJ.

You can’t accuse them of heeding the vox populi.

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 6:19 am

I’m thankful to not be in the UK. You somehow think that the politicians need more education on the subject? I suggest that they have been exposed to massive amounts of data and have decided to press ahead with this madness.
It could be that they truly believe that the Earth is getting too warm. It could be that they are pocketing money from those profiting off of this climate con. Or it could be one of many other reasons.

But they will continue to press on with decarbonization to the detriment of the UK. There is no sign that they will change course any time before there are catastrophic results from this netzero policy.

No, the UK is determined to jump off the cliff into an economic abyss alongside the EU. On the bright side, the UK and Europe will shine as the example to the rest of the world of what to avoid in regard to energy policy.
I am again reminded of Charles MacKay’s 1841 novel, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds. This won’t turn around until the majority of UK and EU citizens realize that this whole CO2/global warming mania is nothing more than a scam. I don’t see that happening until there are serious negative repurcussions from your current netzero path.
… can I interest you in a beautiful, extremely rare tulip? It’s priceless but I will trade it for the value of a flat in London.

worsethanfailure
Reply to  iflyjetzzz
January 13, 2026 8:15 am

You somehow think that the politicians need more education on the subject? 

I dunno how you get that from what I wrote. I said they are not appropriately educated.

They are, with a tiny number of exceptions, trained in classics, literature, philosophy, history, politics, law, and various other innumerate disciplines. They are not equipped to understand a scientific argument nor to spot when they’re being mislead either on purpose or by accident. The totemic example was Boris Johnson admitting he didn’t know what a simple graph was showing.

They don’t understand energy; power; the first thing about thermodynamics; industrial economics, nor—probably—where food comes from.

So yeah, they need a decent education. But DO NOT take that to mean they need more climate-alarm talking points.

Robertvd
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 10:25 am

Boris Johnson one of the best leaders Labour ever had.

Reply to  Robertvd
January 13, 2026 6:37 pm

And he was led by his balls !

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 7:53 am

The sensible explanation is looking for the next hobgoblin after the collapse of the USSR.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. — H.L. Mencken

There is no need to posit evil idiots intentionally trying to destroy society.

Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 1:31 pm

The poet Yeats says, in the introduction to his edition of the Oxford Book of Modern Verse, that suddenly it was 1900, and no-one went mad any more, or converted to Catholicism, or drank absinthe.

It will be the same. One day it will suddenly be 20XX, and no one will believe any more in trans ideology, the climate crisis, critical race theory or Modern Monetary Theory. No-one will believe in Child Centered Education, nor will people pretend that English is an ideographic language and thus prevent children from learning to read. Synthetic phonics will no longer be a thing, it will just be normal teaching. Microaggressions will no longer be a thing either, neither will the New Math. Harry Potter will no longer be prescribed reading in literature courses, DEI will be forgotten as if it had never existed, and disbelief in Islam will no longer be called a form of racism. Borders will be closed and welfare will be denied to illegal immigrants, who will no longer be referred to as asylum seekers. As for the wind turbines and solar panels, they will sit rusting or smashed in the fields and no-one will be found who ever thought they were a good idea.

And as for politics….

Whatever it is, its far more than climate and energy.

Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 2:55 pm

They believe something that isn’t true so all their policies go against common sense and reality.

observa
Reply to  michel
January 13, 2026 6:32 am

You’ve never thought about being seen to change the weather with other people’s resources? This is British weather they’re talking about.

strativarius
January 13, 2026 2:19 am

Yet another bonkers idea. But under the radar Sadiq Khan has put congestion pricing on electric vans and trucks etc – £18/day.

Industry says… diesel is the way to go to keep costs down. You can’t make this stuff up.

January 13, 2026 2:23 am

A current large diesel truck with a full load weighs up to, I believe, 40 tonnes. If it is to be powered by heavy batteries the net load will be considerably smaller so to shift the same amount of cargo per year will require many more vehicles.

It is perhaps interesting that Western Ferries who operate a fleet on the Firth of Clyde and receive no subsidy of any kind have just ordered a couple of new vessels and have chosen diesel propulsion rather than elecricity on the grounds of cost.

Robertvd
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 13, 2026 3:40 am

Not only more trucks because of smaller load capacity but also because they can’t do the same distance in the same time and batteries will take much longer to reload + the capacity of electric fuelling stations. Do we have enough copper for those big cables and what will it do to the price of copper? 

Reply to  Robertvd
January 13, 2026 3:52 am

My understanding is that there aren’t enough known copper ore deposits to provide enough copper cable to supply the electricity required in GB never mind the rest of the world.

But never fear, Mad Ed will find a way.

Reply to  Robertvd
January 13, 2026 3:57 am

How many more windmills will Mad Ed have to add to power all these trucks?

Electric truck are not working out so well in the United States.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 5:36 am

At least driverless trucks, burning diesel, will drive day and night with only a few short stops to refuel.

R.Morton
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2026 8:39 am

will drive day and night with only a few short stops to refuel

…or when they cause an accident, kill a bunch of other motorists, and/or explode.

Reply to  R.Morton
January 13, 2026 8:55 am

All that might happen- but from what I’ve seen on YouTube, the claim is that they’re safer than drivers- but I don’t know and I don’t trust YouTube or anybody else unless I see for myself. If I see any driverless vehicle of any kind on the road, I’ll stay clear of it. The idea of several tons of metal moving at speed anywhere near me- I don’t like it. Same for when robots become. I suppose we should feel bad for the truck drivers- but, that’s just the way reality is- rather cruel to all of us unless we adjust ASAP. I can easily imagine big driverless trucks on an interstate- but I can’t imagine them in a dense urban situation- trying to back up to the loading dock in a busy parking lot. As kids, we’d always shake our hand to the driver to get them to blow their horn. I hope the driverless trucks will be programmed to do that too. 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2026 9:31 am

I have good experience in autonomous navigation.
It will not be pretty.

GPS? Sure, until the storms come or thick clouds or the route goes through a forest. The reflections off buildings in cities has been addressed but the solution is not good enough.

Review all of the accidents involving driverless vehicles demonstrates those vehicles can only avoid what they were programmed to detect and avoid.

Perfection is unobtainium.

Computers cannot “think” beyond their programming.

Reply to  R.Morton
January 13, 2026 2:45 pm

There will be less accidents from EV trucks…

… because they will be off the road most of the time. !!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2026 12:10 pm

Driverless truck.. isn’t that just like using a railway ! 😉

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Robertvd
January 13, 2026 8:15 am

I’m sure the copper thieves will help on the cable side and as here in the UK they have started breaking into wind turbines to steal the copper they will also reinforce the stupidity of pretending we can rely on unreliables to power a modern economy!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Oldseadog
January 13, 2026 9:25 am

Cost per pound of cargo doubles if 2 trucks replace one.

And businesses will save money how?

Robertvd
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 13, 2026 10:35 am

And most of the roads around the big cities are already permanently at a standstill.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 13, 2026 11:33 am

By going into liquidation due to unsustainable government charges.

Neil Pryke
January 13, 2026 2:52 am

They would have you believe that fossil fuel anything, and nuclear anything, are dead in the water…But the armed forces are still using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future…and Sizewell C, like all nuclear power stations, is slowly taking shape…

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Neil Pryke
January 13, 2026 9:33 am

Yes, militaries all over the world are powered by oil and gas and naval vessels by oil and nuclear.

Coal not so much anymore.

strativarius
January 13, 2026 2:56 am

News just in…

REPORT: TRUE COST OF NET ZERO TO HIT £9 TRILLION BY 2050
Meanwhile, the Climate Change Committee is still insisting Net Zero will only cost £108 billion. And that’s the quango that advises the government on Net Zero…
https://order-order.com/2026/01/13/report-true-cost-of-net-zero-to-hit-9-trillion-by-2050/

Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 3:27 am

So this £9 trillion will be the top headline on the BBC, ITV, Ch 4, Sky, etc. news any minute now.

Aye, right.

Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 4:01 am

The True Cost of Net Zero will be a bankrupt, impoverished and vulnerable UK, and it is probably going to get here before 2050.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 4:36 am

Ehrlich et al. were a bit previous…

By the year 2000 2050 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 2050.” 

Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 6:42 am

Yes but for all the wrong reasons did he make such “predictions.”

Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 2:46 pm

Third world Islamic caliphate.

Scissor
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 5:33 am

On top of that, what happens in the UK will have no significant effect on global emissions from combusting fossil fuels, especially in light of what just happened in Venezuela.

Reply to  Scissor
January 13, 2026 12:50 pm

That’s the irony: Even if the UK completely eliminated CO2 output, it would not make one bit of difference to the Earth’s temperatures, even if you believe the IPCC numbers.

The UK politicians are spinning their wheels, going nowhere, and bankrupting the UK in the process.

It’s pretty crazy.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 5:38 am

Then, wealthy East Asians and Americans can tour the UK – photographing the natives in their mud/thatch huts.

Scissor
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2026 5:49 am

By “natives” do you mean Muslims?

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
January 13, 2026 5:58 am

That’s South Asians?

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 6:20 am

Tell me.

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
January 13, 2026 7:03 am

It is – and you can add part of Central Asia and Western Asia…

comment image

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 9:34 am

You left out depopulated.

rovingbroker
January 13, 2026 3:08 am

This is all part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions while cutting costs,

This will certainly prove to be a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” story. And we’re the Peters.

Reply to  rovingbroker
January 13, 2026 4:02 am

The “cutting costs” part is a joke.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 1:17 pm

True, as is reducing emissions.

Eric Jelinski
January 13, 2026 3:24 am

Unfortunately the life cycle of batteries, they wear out and need replacing during the next election cycle.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Eric Jelinski
January 13, 2026 1:17 pm

Those that do not self-ignite, certainly.

strativarius
January 13, 2026 3:33 am

Fun Read

Matthew Parris Calls for Ban on Smelly Hydrocarbons Whether Climate Emergency is Real or Not
On the strength of his Spectator article, Parris has very little understanding of the crucial role hydrocarbons play in a modern industrial society. 
https://dailysceptic.org/2026/01/13/matthew-parris-calls-for-ban-on-smelly-hydrocarbons-whether-climate-emergency-is-real-or-not/

Reply to  strativarius
January 13, 2026 4:03 am

That’s the problem with most of these idiots, they have little understanding.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 4:48 am

Parris is the archetypal snob.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 6:48 am

Exactly. They think that food comes from grocery stores and the shelves just replenish themselves by magic.

Pretty much everything you consume that isn’t made within walking distance of your home got to you by way of diesel engines. And no, you can’t replace them with battery powered crap, since EV trucks have far too little range and far too long “refueling” times. And they are busy destroying the extricate grid that is supposed to enable mass adoption of EVs (of all types).

They’ll need the horses and carts again soon…

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 13, 2026 9:36 am

Wait until winter and those batteries freeze.
At least the people will get a little warmth then.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 13, 2026 1:18 pm

Point missing is frozen Li-ion batteries when recharged have an augmented probability of fire.

decnine
January 13, 2026 3:39 am

“…If there was, they would need bungs….”

There’s a missing ‘not’ in that sentence.

Reply to  decnine
January 13, 2026 4:04 am

A definition for “bungs” is also missing.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 13, 2026 9:38 am

A ‘bung’ is UK slang for an off-the-books payment for services rendered. AKA ‘a back-hander’ or ‘bribe’

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
January 13, 2026 12:53 pm

Thank you, Sir! 🙂

rovingbroker
January 13, 2026 4:37 am

No mention that all that money is not “coming from the government” but is coming from taxpayers — you and me.

worsethanfailure
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 13, 2026 8:22 am

It’s not. We’re already tapped out. It’s coming from future generations, who do not get to choose how their wealth was spent before they were born.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  worsethanfailure
January 13, 2026 9:37 am

I have to remember your thought. It is universally applicable.

January 13, 2026 5:10 am

Very good news for Chinese battery makers!!!

strativarius
Reply to  Steve Richards
January 13, 2026 5:27 am

Put it on their charge account…

I’ll get my coat.

January 13, 2026 5:33 am

Even with substantial grants, I doubt many truckers will be interested.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 13, 2026 11:01 am

The smart ones won’t!

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 13, 2026 7:35 am

End the thread with a joke. Works every time.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 13, 2026 9:15 am

As usual, your link is BS.

Learn to read critically.

abolition man
Reply to  Redge
January 13, 2026 10:57 am

Redge, in order to “read critically” MeLoserUnashamed would have to first learn how to THINK critically! Everything it posts here proves that that is well nigh impossible!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
January 13, 2026 9:50 am

The report comes from Viet Nam.

It is a shame the AP, where words matter, can’t avoid words like “decarbonization” and “carbon emissions” although related to diesel, carbon emissions is somewhat applicable.

January 13, 2026 7:58 am

I doubt if Brits will be welcomed in Bangladesh as Bangladeshis have been welcomed in the UK. In Bangladesh, at least, diesel trucks will still be on the road. Since there are over 5.5 million trucks, lorries in Britain, the tab is more like 100 BILLION pounds, but naturally, Milliband can’t add.

Petey Bird
January 13, 2026 8:05 am

I thought Elon Musk replaced all of the world’s transport trucks with self driving electrics more than a decade ago. I thought I read that. He put all of the roads underground too.

Sparta Nova 4
January 13, 2026 9:18 am

UK having shut down all of its heavy industry, such as steel, will have to buy and import these. How does this create untold millions of well paying green jobs?

Bob
January 13, 2026 2:08 pm

You just can’t get dumber than government. So the government gives money to individuals and companies to encourage them to buy trucks they don’t want. That will open the door for prices to rise on these trucks because now it appears there is a market for them. That means the government should offer even more subsidies because the market is growing and even more need assistance and on and on. All for stuff that doesn’t work not to mention where is the electricity come from to charge all of these trucks. GB is already facing brownouts and blackouts. The only thing I see is the government paying to produce more blackouts. What a bunch of morons.