In November 2020, the-then Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’, which included a ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. James Evison looks at the journey to the ZEV Mandate, and the current state of play for the changeable policy.
Last week, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced a fresh review of the ZEV Mandate. But what are the current policies – and what could change?
It was in the days of the Covid pandemic on 18 November 2020 that Boris Johnson delivered one of his most consequential policy announcements for the transport and energy sectors. While many other parts of his ’10 point plan’ for green growth either stalled, or were subsumed into other agendas, there is one that sticks out: the phasing out of sales of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030.
This would become the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, a genuinely world-leading policy for a large country to ban new petrol and diesel vehicles from production by 2030.
A policy in flux
Implemented in January 2024, it began with a 22% EV sales target for new car registrations. This target is set to accelerate by around 10-15% each year to end at 80% by 2030, with 100% of all new car sales being battery-electric by 2035.
Yet, as can be seen, this path of acceleration isn’t the original goal of 2030. It was created after the-then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in November 2023 pushed back the original 100% targets to a new 2035 date for the ban – and set off a chain of events, which has resulted in regular calls for the Mandate to be revised.
A year later in 2024, the same issue occurred. There were reports that the new Labour administration, elected in July, were being asked to change the ZEV Mandate again by the Society for Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT). A later report from the Department for Transport confirmed that the car industry successfully met its targets in its first operational year. But, despite such figures, a consultation was put in place, with the UK Government reporting in April 2025 that it planned to further weaken the Mandate – although it did also reinstate the 2030 ban date, which had been a General Election manifesto commitment.
In the 2025 change, vehicle manufacturers were given “greater freedom” on how to hit the 2030 phase out for new petrol and diesel cars, and smaller manufacturers were exempt entirely from the rules – with hybrids sold until 2035. Vans with an ICE could also be sold until 2035, alongside full hybrid and plug-in hybrid vans. It was a significant shift, and seemed like the issue was finally put to bed, especially after minister Keir Mather described it as “iron clad” earlier this year.
Yet, this isn’t the end of the story. The SMMT still cite market demand challenges. Some reports have even claimed the Mandate could be weakened to just 50% of new vehicles being battery-electric by 2030 as a result of the recent review announced.
On the other side is the charging and electric vehicle industry, which has consistently highlighted the potential for economic growth of the sector – and need for assurances to deliver chargers ahead of demand. It consistently argues for the Mandate to remain in its current format, most recently writing to Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander on the issue.
According to ChargeUK, the electric vehicle charging industry can deliver £15.5bn directly to the economy by 2035 and £385bn to wider transport electrification – but only with a “stable” ZEV Mandate. The transport sector has also questioned the SMMT’s position, creating a policy debate which has grown over time.
Most notably, in an exclusive piece for Transport + Energy, Dr Andy Palmer – the ‘godfather of EVs’ and the Nissan Leaf – said the important element was to simply have a policy and stick with it so businesses could have confidence: “When governments repeatedly change direction, investors begin asking a simple question: why should we trust the UK?”, he said.
So, could we really see another shift in targets, even to as low as 50% of new vehicles by 2030 – and would that even be the end of the discussion?
Norway
An international perspective is useful to understand the debate about the UK’s own ZEV Mandate. The UK Mandate isn’t actually world-leading in practice. For that example, there is Norway, which has reached almost 100% market penetration of electric vehicles.
So, did Norway have a powerful Mandate to achieve this goal? Yes, and no. In 2016, the Norwegian Parliament set an official national goal that all new passenger cars sold by 2025 should be zero-emission vehicles. This was technology-agnostic, and therefore could be either hydrogen or electric. Yet unlike in the UK, it did not penalise vehicle manufacturers with quotas for sales of battery-electric vehicles or fines for non-compliance.
Instead, it used a carrot and stick approach of making EVs financially the best option for the consumer, and on the flip side making fossil-fuel vehicles prohibitively expensive. Some mandates though were put in place for public sector fleets to be zero-emission from 2022, and city buses by 2025.
For the consumer, it was a combination of extremely heavy taxation on ICE vehicles, which doubled the price of standard petrol and diesel cars, while zero-emission vehicles were exempt from purchasing taxes, import tax, 25% VAT, and low prices on road tolls, ferry fees and parking costs.
In addition, and relevant to the UK debate, fast charging networks were also subsidised by the state, and a legal right was made for residents in apartment blocks to have charging.
A fair comparison?
There are two obvious points to making comparisons between Norway and the UK: the size and type of market, and the design of the decarbonisation policy.
In the first instance, Norway’s population is just over half the size of London – 5.67 million – making it easier to create such a policy without significant economic cost to industry. But the second is the design of the strategy. It was well planned, executed, and saw all sectors offered certainty and direction of travel. Buy-in from all stakeholders enabled business and consumer certainty.
The same cannot be said of the UK’s policy so far. Consumer incentives have been fewer, and those that did exist are now being rolled back, as seen with road tax and the Expensive Car Supplement in April 2025, the London ULEZ zone now charging EVs, the ‘pay-per-mile’ eVED proposal, and the 20% VAT priced (and unsubsidised) public charging.
There is also the issue around vehicle manufacturers. As shown, in Norway there were no rules for banning the production of ICE vehicles by manufacturers. This is fine, because there aren’t any large-volume Norwegian vehicle manufacturers. The country relies on imports.
The UK, on the other hand, sells as many new cars as the entire driving population of Norway in a year and a half. Even the greatest optimist would realistically state that scaling up EVs would be extremely challenging at this rate for UK-based manufacturers.
Then there is the demand-side issue. It is worth noting this is already a problem in the UK. Consumers buy significantly more EVs in the UK than its factories produce. Around 473,348 new BEVs were registered last year, but total cars with a plug made in the UK is less than 300,000 – and those which are pure BEV are even fewer.
This perhaps raises questions on the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ claim there is a demand-side issue.
In the latest review, considerations could well be assessed in the decision about whether to shift from 80% of new cars being BEV by 2030.
Where next?
As EV manufacturing accelerates, could Norwegian-style incentives assist the UK market? And how is the issued solved around vehicle manufacturers?
A combination of more consumer savings would be welcomed by all. Radically altering the cost of ICE vehicles, the long called for VAT reduction on public charging, and other incentives, such as car scrappage schemes, could improve demand. The SMMT has indeed argued for incentives. More government assistance on incentives is one place of common agreement across the transport industry.
As another example, ChargeUK recently revealed that if public electric vehicle (EV) charging was cheaper than petrol, it could boost demand for EVs by nearly 50%. The policy levers would appear to boost growth. Again, it is safe to assume that during the consultation many of these arguments will be made to the UK Government again.
Rethinking the model
One other thing is certain: China. It is able to produce electric vehicles in a volume that cannot be matched anywhere else in the world.
It maintains its position as the EV market leader, with electric cars accounting for almost half of all car sales in 2024. The number of electric cars sold in China – more than 11 million in 2024 – is equivalent to the total sold worldwide in 2022. Chinese manufacturer BYD overtook Tesla this year as the world’s largest EV manufacturer, revealing that even for pure-play BEV manufacturers, it is a challenge to compete.
Whatever the UK Government does, or doesn’t, put in place in terms of a ZEV Mandate, China’s dominance is an important fact to have on the decision-making table. It is currently also driving EU decision making around tariffs and market access.
As noted by experts, there is a risk that driving down the number of new BEVs from the UK will drive the consumer to foreign imports.
Market forces
Ultimately, it could be the market that will decide.
At the recent Transport + Energy Fleet Electrification Forum, leaders from across the sector were polled on the ZEV Mandate. The result (representing fleets of more than 200,000 vehicles overall) was the majority stating they won’t change their plans, even if the Mandate was altered.
The reality is that businesses and public sector bodies have their own sustainability and net zero strategies, outside of government intervention and levers. They have already committed a large amount of upfront capital, assets and resources into these schemes.
What happens next, one thing is for sure: there will be more bumps down the road, even after this most recent review.
How smooth that journey is depends on whether the UK Government’s policy gets the buy-in of all stakeholders – and that is the biggest challenge.
Image courtesy of Green Car Guide
