Zero means zero

[embedded content] As we edge ever closer to net zero targets, how the industry should cut emissions is broadly split into two camps: those for eHGVs and those pushing low-carbon alternative fuels. On the final day of the Road Transport Expo (RTX), key industry players were brought together to debate what the sector should ask of the government to accelerate the decarbonisation of road freight.

Jamie Sands, head of solutions at the Welch Group, opened the session, stating: "We all agree that freight must decarbonise. We now mostly all agree on the end goal - that battery electric vehicles are the technology of choice for our utopian future.So, the question becomes, not if, but how we get to that point." Sands argued that a ZEV (zero-emission vehicle) mandate for trucks, built with industry input, will give operators confidence in the pathway to reach the end goal of all new trucks emitting zero emissions at the tailpipe.

"If the business case stacks up, the infrastructure will follow the demand," he said. "The only thing missing is the certainty that comes from knowing where we're heading and that's why we need a zero-emission vehicle truck mandate." Sands added: "You will hear people say we need a technology-neutral policy with multiple pathways, but we already have neutrality, and it's not moving fast enough. "Nobody's stopping you from exploring alternative fuels, if that makes sense to your operation and you should.

In this situation, where belts are tight, the only sensible course of action, to me, is to drive straight towards the clear end-goal. Everything else is just a distraction."

Addressing some of the concerns about operating eHGVs, Sands said: "People love to say that payload makes these trips impossible, but they're not looking at the bigger picture.

"Yes, we're restricted at a vehicle level, but empty running is still at 30%. Trucks and rail are both seriously underutilised. When a third of all journeys are empty, you've not got a payload problem, you've got an efficiency problem, and that's something we can solve."

Darren Newman, director of the Low Carbon Truck Consultancy, explained that he doesn't disagree with Sands. However, he said: "My contention is that if we're going to impact the worst effects of climate change as quickly as possible, we need more solutions to stop adding more carbon to the atmosphere." Newman argued FAME, HVO, biomethane and potentially hydrogen will allow the sector to reduce emissions more quickly than switching to eHGVs when a ban on the sale of new diesel trucks comes into force.

"I don't want to slow down the journey to net zero, I think we should get there as fast as possible," he said, "but we have to take everybody with us, not just the Tier 1 suppliers who are investing in electric vehicles today." Across the board Considering whether a ZEV mandate for trucks could work, Newman said: "I'm not comfortable with vehicle manufacturers carrying the entire burden for this industry to decarbonise.

In my view, I would put an escalating fuel duty on diesel from 2035 to give hauliers 10 years to plan and they can pick the technology that works for them." On the side of a ZEV mandate or similar legislative initiatives, Josh Spencer, EV and sustainability manager at Ford & Slater, said: "The businesses we talk to are telling us that the lack of certainty creates uncertainty around residual value positions because they can't see a future market for the vehicles."

He added: "Our European counterparts are already engaged heavily in zero-emission city centres as a solution and this creates a second life period for vehicles.

"Zero-emission cities would allow a second-hand market to develop with an effective second-hand use case for these vehicles to exist. We know there is a huge amount of misinformation around battery chemistry and battery degradation. All chemistries degrade much more slowly than any of us have been led to believe.

That means even if a vehicle is worked hard in its first life, it has a usable second life opportunity."

Colin Matthews, director of JouleVert, countered: "The government has net zero targets; not zero zero. In this industry, a solution has to be pragmatic, practical, cost-effective and implementable, otherwise we risk melting down this vital industry that literally delivers growth for the UK economy."

Matthews argued that biomethane is a more cost-effective proposition for hauliers looking to reduce emissions. He also emphasised that the industry doesn't need more red tape or eHGV sales being pushed on fleets. Both sides presented compelling arguments, but in the end the audience voted 75% in favour of a ZEV mandate for trucks.

The session concluded with a call from the speakers for hauliers to collaborate and start conversations to explore how their fleets can begin to decarbonise. ? YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED: Throughout the debate, the audience interacted with speakers to ask their need-to-know questions that were discussed on stage.

We've picked out a few key points raised... Q: We need to wait to 2050 to decarbonise with biomethane and only 20% of road transport. Surely, we should focus on electrifying the other 80% now?

Newman: There are over 3,000 trucks today decarbonising with biomethane and this is growing, the energy supply is set to grow enough to decarbonise all artics - the real waiting time will be for grid connections and TCO parity for electric. Matthews: It is not about either/or, it is about removing carbon emissions as quickly as we can by utilising all options. It is about the economics and both biomethane and HVO are economical to use today.

Electric trucks cost twice as much and the cost of the electricity to recharge them at scale is more expensive than diesel/alternative fuel trucks. We need huge investment in the downstream electricity grid to get the power to the depots - that's a fact. There is an eight-year wait, on average, for grid connections and TCO parity for electric requires a price into your truck of 25p/kWh.

This needs addressing if the OEMs and industry are to meet the targets without significantly increasing the cost to deliver goods - period! Q: Do you see a car and van style escalating percentage of electric sales being implemented for trucks as a good move? Newman: Faster adoption of any decarbonisation solution is a good thing.

The scaling of electrification is slow and expensive compared to biomethane and HVO. All solutions should be on the table to suit all operations, budgets and timescales. Matthews: The EU has set targets on the OEMs for the overall reduction of CO2 from their annual new trucks sales.

The truck industry is going to fail to meet this target due to the lack of recharging infrastructure, which is out of their hands. Fleets will not buy BEV trucks if they can't recharge them. So, the OEMs either have to pay crippling fines, or will restrict the sales of diesel trucks to minimise the damage to themselves.

That is not helpful to this industry. Sands: Yes, but only if it's done with the industry, not to it. We already have an end-of-sale date for non-zero-emission-at-the-tailpipe trucks.

What's missing is the roadmap. We need an ambitious, industry-backed agreement on what's possible and when, with clear demand-side support for operators and supply-side incentives to ensure vehicle availability and infrastructure readiness. An escalating percentage of electric truck sales can absolutely help signal intent, stimulate investment, and force momentum into areas that are currently stuck in a stalemate.

But freight isn't passenger cars. The use cases are broader, the margins tighter, and the infrastructure needs are far more complex. If we simply push the responsibility onto OEMs without tackling grid access, depot charging, TCO parity, and operational support for fleets, we risk missing the bigger picture.

This transition will require carrots and sticks, not just targets. So yes, a phased mandate makes sense, but only if it's part of a joined-up strategy that shares the load. Q: The statement made was 'infrastructure will follow demand' - how do you feel that will be achieved without impacting the industry?

Newman: None of this is achieved without affecting the industry - every sector must play its part. Matthews: Who will order trucks without knowing they can recharge them? If it takes a year to buy a BEV truck, but eight years to get a grid connection.

Sands: It will only happen if we're clear about what demand actually means. Demand isn't just more vehicle sales. It's a combination of operator intent, long-term site planning, data and real-world use cases that show electrification can work.

The risk is pretending that demand will just appear organically, and that the grid, the supply chain, and planning authorities will somehow keep up. If we want infrastructure to follow demand without putting operators at risk or stalling the transition, we need a smarter feedback loop. Aggregated intent.

Policy support. Data-sharing. Timelines that match the pace of depot upgrades and vehicle cycles.

Q: You can make the economics work by utilising the asset longer. Shouldn't the end cost be passed on to the customer for a premium service with green credentials? Newman: We see this with increasing housing costs and 35-year mortgages instead of 25 years.

It's obviously cheaper if you spread costs further, but it doesn't change the fact electrification is more expensive. All costs ultimately end up with the end customer, which is why electric takes so long to implement due to cost pushback. Renewable fuels have better green credentials today and customers do not need to pay as they are often cheaper to operate than other technologies.

Matthews: If your artic is doing 500,000km in five years, you will know the state of the cab, etc. If you keep it another three years it will need a mid-life refurbishment much like buses do now; that's added cost again. At end of life, though, some of the batteries will still be good and have a residual value, but this is still an unknown quantity to the operator and leasing companies.

Look at what has happened to used car EV values - leasing companies are getting very cautious. Sands: You can make the economics work by delivering a premium green service. And in some cases, that added value can be passed on to the customer.

But that can't be the only model. The key to real transition is making these vehicles stack up without needing to charge more.

We're heading into a world where zero-emission fleets make commercial and environmental sense.

That's where the focus should be - on efficiency, smart energy use, and operational benefits that hold up in a price-sensitive market. Because if it only works at a premium, it won't work at scale. Q: The electricity grid continues to decarbonise.

An electric vehicle's impact therefore reduces every year. Can renewable fuel improvements be achieved? Newman: No, but they are already lower emissions than the current grid; this is important as we need to halve emissions by 2030 to limit warming (SBTI guidelines).

In 25 to 30 years, electric will likely be the dominant solution; it's just we only have five to 10 years to avoid the worst impact of climate change. Matthews: Also, in 25 years when cars, vans, trucks and domestic heating all demand night-time electricity (with no solar at that hour of the day) what do you think will happen to the price of night-time electricity in a capitalist supply and demand market? Let's not sleep walk into the future.

Q: How does the battery as an asset hold up when everyone adopts it; does the low demand/cost period to take advantage of not get eradicated? Newman: These are big unknowns and part of the problem with mass adoption of new technology and why renewable fuels are easier to adopt. Matthews: We have seen the majority of the battery cost reductions achieved already; the cost reduction curve is levelling out.

Globally, there are 90 million cars sold each year and 3 million trucks; that is two very different economies of scale. Sands: It's a great question. Right now, batteries can act as valuable assets because operators are taking advantage of low overnight rates, grid incentives, and limited competition in flexibility markets.

But as adoption increases, those windows of low demand will start to shrink. Energy pricing will respond, and the early-mover advantage will naturally fade. But that's not a problem; that's progress.

If everyone's charging smart, participating in flexibility markets, and storing renewable energy, then we've done the job. We've built a more resilient, responsive grid that works better for everyone. The battery-as-an-asset model may change, but the system it helped kick-start will be stronger, cleaner and more efficient.

So yes, early adopters can win big. But the long-term win is collective: stable energy, lower emissions and better infrastructure across the board. ?

Find out more and register your interest at: freightdecarbonisationsummit.com/2025