It has found that a single electric heavy goods vehicle (eHGV) could cut approximately 1,000 tonnes of carbon emissions by 2034, when compared with a diesel equivalent. The study is intended to help policymakers and hauliers understand the issues involved in decarbonising transport. The UK is phasing out the sale of non-zero emissions HGVs up to 26 tonnes by 2035, and above 26 tonnes by 2040.

In terms of operational data, the project used telematics data captured from 160 test vehicles at more than 20 hauliers to draw some conclusions about operations.  

First, eHGVs were found to perform in the same way as diesels, in one respect at least. The study found that heavier HGVs of all types are less fuel-efficient than lighter ones. It said: ‘The median 35–40 tonne eHGV is 31% less efficient than a 20–25 tonne eHGV, while a 35–40 tonne diesel HGV is 36% less efficient than a 20–25 tonne diesel HGV.’ However, trip efficiencies varied a lot, because weight wasn’t the only factor, and there were few eHGVs at the heaviest weight classes.

Second, the slowest vehicles were the least efficient per kilometre driven, which the authors speculate being due to start-stop driving, together with the greater effect of heating, cooling and other ancillary loads over the longer periods of time it takes to complete each kilometre.

This is significant for hauliers, the authors say, because of range limits. ‘Weight and speed both have a strong influence on efficiency and need to be considered in route planning. This is a change from diesel operations, where similar patterns occur, but range on a tank of fuel is rarely a limiting factor.’  

‘While the overall pattern of efficiency for eHGVs is similar to diesels, the degree of variation is not. eHGVs are relatively more efficient than diesels at lower speeds (for example where there are many stops). Operators need to consider their specific route types, using their telematics data to understand range capabilities and allocate vehicles appropriately. Using a fixed range to plan routes is likely to result in vehicles being underutilised.’

The report has also found that winter conditions reduce the energy efficiency of eHGVs.

There was a more unexpected finding. HGVs are used much more heavily than passenger cars, and their larger batteries generally require more time to charge. However, the report’s authors found that those challenges can be overcome. ‘In most cases, existing HGV schedules potentially have enough slack time to allow eHGVs to charge and still complete the same duties. This does, however, require eHGV charging infrastructure to be made available at (or near to) locations where eHGVs dwell – for example at destinations and wherever drivers take a break, as well as at depots.’

The extra capital cost of eHGVs compared to diesel versions (two to three times greater) is a significant barrier to adoption. The report found a break-even in total cost of ownership (capital + operational costs) between eHGVs and diesel trucks after four years, assuming 80% depot charging at 20 p/kWh and 20% public charging 50 p/kWh, plus the £81,000 zero emission truck grant announced by the UK government in March (new EV vans get £5,000). In that case, after eight years the cost benefit of eHGVs reaches £94,000. The report goes on to explore three affordability scenarios in far more depth. One common factor is that the greater the distances, the more savings.  

The authors observe: ‘Financial viability varies less by route and more by how the vehicle is operated. To make eHGVs more viable it’s important that operators try to achieve higher mileages, lower electricity costs, lower infrastructure costs through higher charger utilisation, and use public charging where needed to extend journey lengths.’

A cost-benefit calculator is available and has been updated.  

Twelve depot and seven public vehicle charging sites are due to be set up by the end of the year. Development of public charging sites has been delayed. Only two of seven public charging sites opened in January 2026.

The report blamed the delays on ‘extended planning processes, significant grid reinforcement works negotiations and protracted with distribution network operators (DNOs)’. It continued: ‘These challenges are typical of first-of-a-kind infrastructure and have generated learning that will reduce risk and timescales for future delivery.’

A further delay to one site was caused by thieves cutting the 10 charging cables to sell the copper wire as scrap.  

These delays meant that most charging in the trial was done at the depot, which limited the range of the truck fleets and prevented some of the researchers’ ideas being tested.

The project is publicly funded and run by electric charging provider Gridserve and Hitachi ZeroCarbon, and supported by hauliers, truck manufacturers, charging locations and truck financiers.  

The trial is funded to run for another five years under the management of vehicle engineering consultant Ricardo.