Carbon Budget Targets and Emissions Performance of Electric

Vehicles in the United Kingdom

Abstract the United Kingdom (UK) is the first major economy to adopt net-zero emissions target by
the year 2050 by law. The transport sector in the UK, which accounts for 33% of total carbon emissions,
only achieved a 3.2% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2018. For the past 5 years, road surface
transport was the source of 13.2% of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the country. The UK aims
for an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to the levels in 1990. Under current policy
framework, emissions in the UK transport sector is likely to obstruct the progress of the UK in meeting
the carbon emissions target by 2050. This paper aims to analyse how the pace of Battery Electric
Vehicles (BEVs) transition and driving behaviour of Plugged in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
users can impact the GHG emissions reduction performance of the UK transport sector in meeting the
carbon targets by 2050. The paper also takes into account the uptake of low carbon fuels in road surface
transport. Comparison against the forecasted carbon budgets highlighted that the current pace of BEV
adoption is insufficient for the UK transport sector to achieve the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th carbon budgets,
due to the slow reduction in number of Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs).

Keywords: EV; PHEV; CO2; GHG; Transport

1. Introduction
Climate change and the urgency to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are widely
acknowledged both by the European Union (EU) and by the UK. As highlighted from the evidences
presented in the special report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), at
the current pace of GHG emissions, multiple land, ocean ecosystems and the services that they provide
have already changed due to global warming1 and action on a massive scale has to be undertaken
immediately to prevent a global temperature rise of 1.5 to 2 degrees by 2050 which would lead to an
unprecedented environmental catastrophe. As such, at the EU level, all sectors have started to reduce
their GHG emissions in order to meet EU commitments, where transport sector is aimed to reduce its
GHG emissions by 60% relative to 1990 levels.

Germany announced a series of drivers and targets during a National Electric Mobility Strategy
Conference to pledge its commitment to reduce GHG emissions level by 40% in 2020 and an intention
to reduce by 80-95% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels. By 2020, the German government hope to achieve
1 million EVs and 6 million in 2030. While environmental goals play an important role, it is also evident
that German policy makers are keen to preserve its leadership and significance in the automotive
industry as the world transits into a higher degree of electromobility2.

In the UK, a Climate Change Act was legislated in 2008 to commit the UK Government by law to
achieve an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 relative to the 1990 levels to curb with the
detrimental impacts of climate change and global warming, in ratification of the Paris Agreement3.
Under this Act, a five-yearly carbon budget is set as stepping-stones under the recommendation of the
UK Climate Change Committee (CCC) to guide the UK government in achieving the 2050 carbon
emissions reduction target. Based on the performance so far, the UK has met the target for the first two
carbon budgets, outperforming the first carbon budget (2008-2012) by 1% (384MtCO2e) and second
carbon budget (2013-2017) by 14% (384MtCO2e) 3. The Government’s energy and emissions
projection 2018 4 predicted that the UK would outperform the third carbon budget by an approximately
3.5% (88MtCO2e), reducing a total of approximately 40% reduction from the 1990 levels 3. Uncertainty
analysis highlights that even under the highest emissions scenario, the GHG emissions incurred in the
UK will be within the 3rd carbon budget with margin as low as 18MtCO2e or as high as 145MtCO2e.
However, the projections done for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets suggest that the UK’s overall
GHG emissions would currently be greater than the cap set by the budget and a shortfall remains against
this target. The shortfall is estimated to be between 70MtCO2e to 230MtCO2e 5 for the fourth carbon
budget and between 176MtCO2e to 353MtCO2e for the fifth carbon budget. This is mainly due to
policies developed in the Clean Growth Strategy 6 not fully developed at the current stage and its impact
on GHG emissions reduction is uncertain.

Moreover, the CCC recently recommended a net-zero emissions target (100% GHG emissions
reduction from 1990 levels), a 20% more GHG emissions target relative to 1990 levels, to the UK
Government 7. In accordance with recommendation, the UK government passed the net-zero emissions
law in June 2019. The CCC and the government are hoping to accelerate the efforts in GHG emissions
reduction with the stretched target, knowing that certain departments are not progressing as desired 7.
In particular, the transport sector which accounts for more than a third (33%) of all carbon dioxide
emissions in the UK merely achieved a 3.2% reduction relative to 1990 levels in 2018. Having the net-
zero emissions target would require an even higher degree of transformation in the policies within the
UK transport sector in order to meet the revised target by 2050. Key initiatives adopted by the UK
Department of Transport (DfT) presented in the “Road to Zero strategy” policy paper in 2018, in
limiting the GHG emissions include a mass transition from Conventional Internal Combustion Engine
(ICE) vehicle to Lithium-Ion Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(PHEVs) 6 and increasing supply and usage of low carbon fuels (Biofuels) by year 2032. This strategy
was further supported by an announcement in a separate plan to tackle roadside NO2 concentrations by
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and DfT, stating that the UK will

2
end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040 8. With the announcement of
these plans, Full-Battery operated Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(PHEV) are expected to experience rapid growth in the upcoming years, forming a large proportion of
the car population within the UK. However, the pace of EV adoption remains uncertain.

The EV transition proposed by the DfT in the “Road to Zero strategy” policy paper in 2018 will be
beneficial in reducing GHG emissions, but whether the actual pace of EV transition is sufficient to meet
the carbon targets by 2050 remains unclear. In the short term, the DfT predicts that PHEV would replace
ICEVs and serve as the intermediate mode before a full transition into BEVs in the UK by 2050 due to
factors such as range anxiety, lack of charging infrastructure and time required for charging 9. The
flexibility of PHEV users in adopting various operation modes (gasoline, blended or electric) for daily
commute could potentially result in an adverse impact on GHG emission. Therefore, the actual
reduction in GHG emissions through the use of PHEVs may be lower than historically assumed.
Therefore, this paper aims to analyse how the pace of transition to BEVs and driving behaviour of
PHEV users can impact the GHG emissions reduction performance until the year 2050 and how these
factors will affect the progress of UK in meeting the subsequent carbon budgets.

2. BEVs and PHEVs

Numerous studies have explored the potential of GHG emissions reduction of EVs over ICEVs both
from the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) perspective and the use phase perspective. In the LCA perspective,
10
found that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in
global warming potential relative to conventional ICEVs assuming a lifetime of 150,000km. In 11, an
average passenger BEV, PHEV and an ICEV is compared using LCA under real-world driving
conditions in China, the US, Japan, Canada and the EU based on country and region specific data. It
was found that EVs showed a positive performance in GHG emissions reduction ranging from 30% to
80% when compared to gasoline ICEV globally. This finding was also similar to the results highlighted
by 12, which uses the Well-to-Wheel (WTW) methodology, a specific type of LCA, stating that a BEV
will incur less than half of the emissions relative to an ICEV based on the average EU electricity mix.

As for the use phase, 13 highlights that EV has better efficiency than ICEVs due to elimination of engine
idling and greater efficiency of the prime mover, especially at low vehicle speeds and when starting
from cold. This would result EV incurring less GHG emissions from charging compared to the tailpipe
emissions of an ICEV. In 14, the EV use-phase efficiency is calculated under a wide range of driving
conditions using the Monte Carlo method and the global warming potential (GWP) associated to
charging the EV based on these different driving conditions are calculated and compared with the GWP
of an ICEV for six different driving cycles. The results show that in general, EVs proved to be a

3
promising alternative towards a cleaner transportation sector, although certain countries in Europe such
as France and Norway are better-suited for EV adoption.

Analysis on how pace of transition from ICEVs to EVs will affect the GHG emissions performance of
a country is not commonly done. Despite many countries indicating that the pace of transition to EVs
has to be hasten such as Canada, South Africa and the UK, there is limited modelling tool available to
help these countries assess their current pace of EV transition and evaluate their GHG emissions
performance against their respective carbon or air quality target. Without an effective way of assessing
the current pace of EV transition and determining whether it is sufficient in meeting the long-term
carbon targets, formulation of policies, imposing taxes and providing incentives becomes challenging.

PHEVs are seen as an important transitional technology as the world transits from conventional ICEVs
to full-electric BEVs due to factors such as range anxieties and under-developed network of charging
infrastructures 15. However, the true GHG emission reduction potential of a PHEV became the focus of
many studies in recent years with news reports such as 16 stating that many PHEV drivers may never
have unwrapped their charging cables and only operate their PHEVs in gasoline mode. The plug-in
grant introduced in 2011, allowing buyers to offset up to £4,500 on new PHEVs and the high taxes
imposed on diesel cars encouraged many companies to adopt plug-in hybrids to form its vehicle fleet,
without considering if the vehicle was functionally suitable. As a result, the true GHG emissions
reduction potential of the PHEV is not fully utilised.

The answer to whether a PHEV behaves more like an BEV in terms of GHG emissions reduction while
in operation or is it more similar to an ICE car would rely less on the vehicular technology but more on
driving and charging behaviour 17. Current policies assume that PHEV users would charge daily while
Original Equipment Manufacturers argue that users will maximize the electric capabilities of the
PHEVs whenever home and public charging infrastructure are available 17. Current research assesses a
PHEV’s effective utilization of its GHG emissions reduction potential through a utility factor based on
the share of electrified distance travelled out of the total distance travelled by the PHEV. In 17, the
charging and driving behaviour of 3,500 PHEV owners in California was collected and analysed to
determine the percentage of electric miles driven in a trip (% eVMT) to determine if the GHG emissions
reduction potential of a PHEV is being maximised. The result from the research concludes that the full
GHG emissions reduction potential of a PHEV is unmet due to limited availability of public charging,
remote geographical location, driver awareness of charger location, driver willingness to use the charger
due to charging duration and high charges. This conclusion was supported by research findings from
18,19
which further iterates that policy making and future regulations should be based on real-world
consumption measurements from PHEV and geographical location of chargers, fuel prices would

4
impact driving and charging behaviour of users which has an impact on utilising the GHG emissions
reduction potential of a PHEV.

Understanding how the charging behaviour of PHEV users will affect the GHG emissions reduction
potential would help gain a better understanding on the progress of the UK transport sector in moving
towards the 2050 carbon target. It is necessary to investigate how pace of BEV adoption and driving
behaviour of PHEV users will affect the performance of GHG emissions of the UK transport sector in
meeting the carbon targets by 2050.

3. Methodology
The key steps necessary to analyse if the current policy of transiting the existing UK ICEVs to EVs will
be sufficient to meet the carbon budget allocated are as follows:
1. Develop a reference model for GHG emissions contributed by each vehicle class (BEV, PHEV,
ICEV and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCV))
2. Project the growth of each vehicle class (BEV, PHEV, ICEV, HFCV) leading to 2050
a. Data extraction from relevant database from Government Agencies, Grey Literature, Peer-
Review Journals
b. Regression analysis of the following parameters:
• Total number of cars in the UK
• Number of BEVs in the UK
• Number of PHEVs in the UK
• Number of Hydrogen FCVs in the UK
• Efficiency of EVs
c. Consider the Low Carbon Fuel (Biofuel) targets in the UK
3. Propose method to calculate EV GHG emissions under varying pace of BEV adoption and
PHEV user driving behaviour
4. Project future Carbon Budget allocations in the UK and evaluate performance
3.1 Developing a reference model for BEV (UKBEV) and PHEV (UKPHEV)
According to 20 , at the end of Q4 2018, the five most registered BEV in the UK were the Nissan Leaf,
Tesla Model S, Renault Zoe, BMW i3 and Tesla Model X while the five most registered PHEV in the
UK were the Mitsubishi Outlander, BMW 330E, Mercedes Benz C350E, Volkswagen Golf GTE and
the BMW 530E. Table 1 and 2 shows the total registrations and weighted percentages of the top 5 BEVs
and PHEVs as of 31/12/2018.

Table 1. Registration numbers of top 5 most registered BEVs in the UK

BEV Model Weighted Percentage

5
 Total registration as of
31/12/18
NISSAN LEAF 24,742 51.4%
TESLA MODEL S75D 8,660 18.0%
RENAULT ZOE R90 ZE40 7,605 15.8%
BMW I3 3,637 7.5%
TESLA MODEL X75D 3,538 7.3%
TOTAL (Top 5 BEV models) 48,182 100.0%

Table 2. Registration numbers of top 5 most registered PHEVs in the UK

Total registration as of
PHEV Model Weighted Percentage
31/12/18
MITSUBISHI OUTLANDER 38,989 49.1%
BMW 330e 13,309 16.8%
MERCEDES-BENZ C350E 10,219 12.9%
VOLKSWAGEN GOLF GTE 8,724 11.0%
BMW 530E 8,190 10.3%
TOTAL (Top 5 PHEV models) 79,431 100.0%

The segment which the BEV belongs to and the electricity consumption per km travelled were extracted
from 21
and verified with the respective vehicle manufacturer’s datasheet. According to 22, the latest
available data shows that a car travelled an average commute distance of 7134 miles per year, equivalent
to 31.45km per day. Even though there are no direct tailpipe emissions from the use of BEVs and
PHEVs in electric mode, the GHG emission is taken to be the GHG emission incurred at the distribution
grid from charging the BEV and PHEV with an equivalent amount of electrical energy to travel the
daily commute distance. Based on the latest available GHG emission factor for electricity consumed,
23
inclusive of grid losses from , the factor used for analysis in this report is taken to be 0.30913
kgCO2e/kWh.

The daily GHG emissions from each BEV and PHEV model operating in electric mode is then
calculated using the product of electricity consumption (kWh/km), average commuting distance by a
UK commuter daily (31.45km) and GHG emissions from charging the BEV/PHEV (kgCO2e/kWh).

Table 3. Data of five most registered BEV models in the UK

BEV Model Segment

6
 GHG emissions
Electricity
from electricity
consumption
consumption
(kWh/km)
(kgCO2e / day)
NISSAN LEAF Small Family Car 0.165 1.604

TESLA MODEL S75D Large Executive 0.174 1.692

RENAULT ZOE R90 ZE40 Supermini 0.158 1.536

BMW I3 Supermini 0.162 1.575
TESLA MODEL X75D SUV 0.202 1.964

In formulating of an average BEV model for analysis, the arithmetic mean was taken for each BEV
across the two characteristics, and then weighted based on the cumulative sales of the model as shown
in Table 1.

The outcome of the weighting, results in a hypothetical BEV with electricity consumption of
0.168kWh/km, similar to that of a BMW i3 and a GHG emissions level between a Nissan Leaf and
Tesla Model S75D. Table 4 summarizes the features of the hypothetical UKBEV model.

Table 4. Data of an average BEV calculated using the weighted average of cumulative registrations of
top 5 BEV models

Electricity consumption GHG emissions (kgCO2e /

BEV Model
(kWh/km) day)
UKBEV 0.168 1.633

Similarly, based on the top 5 PHEV model registration as shown in Table 2, relevant data are extracted
21
from and verified using the respective vehicle manufacturing datasheet as shown in Table 5. The
difference is that an additional tailpipe GHG emissions for PHEV operating in gasoline mode over the
daily commute distance is calculated using the product of gasoline efficiency of the PHEV (km/litre)
and emission factor of 2.305kgCO2e / litre of gasoline from 23.

Table 5. Data of five most registered PHEV models in the UK

Elect Gasoline GHG GHG

PHEV Model Segment consumptn consumptn emissions emissions
(kWh/km) (km/litre) from elect from gas

7
 consumptn consumptn
(kgCO2e) (kgCO2e)

MITSUBISHI
SUV 0.280 15 2.722 4.872
OUTLANDER
Large
BMW 330e 0.217 19 2.110 3.875
Family Car

MERCEDES- Large
0.193 20 1.876 3.707
BENZ C350E Family Car

VOLKSWAGEN Small
0.227 18 2.207 3.966
GOLF GTE Family Car

BMW 530E Executive 0.236 16 2.294 4.488

Using the weightage of the cumulative sales of the top 5 PHEV models, a hypothetical model of PHEV
is derived as shown in Table 6. The outcome of this weighting results in a PHEV with GHG emissions
level resembling that of a BMW 530E when operating in electric mode and gasoline mode over the
typical UK commute distance. Table 6 summarizes the features of the hypothetical UKPHEV model.

Table 6. Data of an average PHEV calculated using the weighted average of the cumulative
registrations of top 5 PHEV models

GHG emissions GHG emissions

Electricity Gasoline
from electricity from gasoline
PHEV Model consumption consumption
consumption consumption
(kWh/km) (km/litre)
(kgCO2e) (kgCO2e)
UKPHEV 0.248 17 2.412 4.420

The transition to low carbon transportation within the UK will not be instantaneous and any policy or
technological change implemented now will require time to take effect as pointed out by 24. Therefore,
conventional ICE cars are still expected to have a significant presence in the UK vehicle fleet from now
till 2040. However, because of the rapid uptake of electromobility by the global community as pointed
out earlier, this paper assumes the efficiency and performance of ICE cars to remain constant as more
resources are spent on developing better quality EVs. Therefore, for analysis purpose, the GHG
emissions of an average ICE car is taken to be 0.18368 kgCO2e/km, as extracted from 23.

8
3.2 Projection of growth for each vehicle class (BEV, PHEV, ICEV, HFCV) to 2050
3.2.1 Total Number of cars in the UK
In the Future Energy Scenarios (FES) Report 2018 published by Britain’s National Grid Operator 25, it
proposes four different scenarios (Two Degrees, Community Renewables, Steady Progression and
Consumer Progression) based on different speed of decarbonization and decentralization for the
transport sector of Britain leading to 2050. Of the four scenarios proposed, two scenarios (Two Degrees
and Community Renewables) are able to meet the 2050 carbon reduction target, to reduce at least 80
percent GHG emissions from the 1990 levels. Based on the car registration figures in the UK provided
by the Department of Transport from 2014 to 2018 26, the growth of cars in Great Britain was found to
be similar (<0.03%) in trend compared to the growth of cars in the UK as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Total number of cars in Great Britain and the UK from 2014 to 201826

Great Britain United Kingdom

Year
Total no. of cars % growth Total no. of cars % growth
2014 29,611,489 - 30,513,268 -
2015 30,250,294 2.16% 31,170,701 2.15%
2016 30,850,440 1.98% 31,792,259 1.99%
2017 31,200,182 1.13% 32,159,943 1.16%
2018 31,517,597 1.02% 32,493,258 1.04%

Therefore, the percentage growth projection made for Britain’s transport sector in the four scenarios in
FES 2018 25 and car registration figures in the UK from 2014-2018 26 were used to perform a regression
analysis to project the total number of cars in the UK towards 2050 as shown in Figure 1.

9
 Figure 1. Regression analysis for the total number of cars in the UK leading to 2050

Based on the projection, it is observed that the forecast for total number of cars in 2020, according to
the percentage growth projection from FES 2018, appears to be slightly lower than the actual number
of cars at the end of 2018. As the FES 2018 was published in July 2018, the projections could have
been done based on the UK car population data at end 2017, resulting in the slight deviation from actual
and projected car population in the UK.

From the regression analysis, it is observed that there is an overall upward trend in the UK car
27
population until 2040. This trend is supported by which attributed the continuous growth of total
number of cars primarily because of population growth. However, in the two scenarios that is able to
meet the 2050 carbon reduction target (Two Degree and Community Renewables), a significant
reduction of the total number of cars in the UK is projected post 2040 due to the assumption that there
will be increased use of public transport, ride sharing initiatives and active form of travelling (Walking
and Cycling) within the UK population. This trend is supported by 28, but the report also mentioned that
the trend will depend on the availability of right incentives and infrastructure and the public’s
willingness to alter their travel behaviour and share commute rides. On the other hand, the other two
scenarios (Steady Progression and Consumer Evolution) estimated a slight reduction in total number of

10
cars (Steady Progression) and a slight increase (Consumer Evolution) after 2040 as private ownership
of personal vehicles continue to remain popular and the public are less willing to share commute rides.

3.2.2 Number of BEVs in the UK

In all four scenarios depicted in the FES 2018 report, EVs are projected to become the most popular
mode of personal transport post 2040. For the two scenarios (Two Degree and Community Renewables)
that are able to meet the GHG emissions reduction target in 2050, the Government’s aspiration of ending
sales of conventional petrol and diesel powered cars by 2040 is met and the speed of uptake of EVs,
especially full electric BEVs, rapidly increases. Similar to the regression analysis done for total number
of cars in the UK, a regression analysis was done for total number of BEVs in the UK, using the existing
number of BEVs from 2014 to 2018 extracted from 26 and the growth projection percentage of BEVs
in FES 2018 25 as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Regression analysis for the total number of BEVs in the UK leading to 2050

From the regression analysis, an exponential increase of BEVs in the overall trend is expected to
continue from the present till 2048 before levelling towards 2050, forming the majority of the
population of cars within the UK. As highlighted in 9, fuel economy, emissions targets, financial
incentives and city access restrictions will become the main drivers at the policy front encouraging the
growth of EV adoption in the coming years. Furthermore, most major economies at the moment have

11
fuel economy, emissions regulations in place and in order to meet these targets, the EV market, in
particular the full electric BEV, will have to grow correspondingly and replace the existing fleet of
ICEVs. In addition, there are approximately 20 major cities worldwide that have announced plans to
ban the use of gasoline and diesel cars by 2030 or sooner. Within EU, Paris will be banning all gasoline
and diesel vehicles from the city centre by 2030 while central London and town centres across the UK
will start seeing zero emissions zones (ZEZs) introduced from 2025. These city access restrictions will
further encourage future car buyers to switch from ICEVs to BEVs, fuelling the growth of BEVs within
the UK.

3.2.3 Number of PHEVs in the UK

According to car manufacturers and automotive stakeholders, PHEVs are regarded as an important
transitional technology to alleviate motorist of the range anxiety whilst battery ranges are limited and
charging infrastructure is still being developed in the UK 29. However, in order to ensure that the long
withstanding 2050 emissions target is met, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS)
Committee recommends that non-plug in hybrid vehicles and all except the cleanest form of plug-in
hybrid cars should be phased out, through more stringent zero emission range requirements for PHEVs,
in order to deliver on the targeted emissions reductions.

However, in the short term, from present until the following conditions are met, driving range of BEVs
is able to be comparable to the ICE counterparts, BEV ownership costs is able to achieve parity with
ICE cars, sufficient charging infrastructure are available to serve the daily commute of the user and the
time taken to charge is significantly lesser, PHEVs will continue to grow and remain as an important
30
intermediate mode of transport in the UK. In fact, based on the data extracted from , PHEV
experienced a stronger annual growth relative to BEVs over the past five years as shown in Table 8.
Figure 3 shows the projection of number of PHEVs in UK until 2050.

Table 8. Percentage growth of PHEV and BEV over past five years

Year PHEV % Growth BEV % Growth

2014 7,937 - 12,357 -
2015 24,063 203.18% 20,952 69.56%
2016 49,676 106.44% 29,715 41.82%
2017 79,442 59.92% 42,016 41.40%
2018 116,865 47.11% 56,307 34.01%

12
 Figure 3. Regression analysis for the total number of PHEVs in the UK leading to 2050

From the regression analysis performed based on PHEV registration data from DfT from 2015 to 2018
and the FES 2018 report scenarios as shown in Figure 3, the population of PHEV is also expected to
experience rapid growth, although less compared to BEV until 2040, which BEV then takes over as the
majority population of EV on the roads in the UK.

3.2.4 Number of Hydrogen FCVs in the UK

The progress of using hydrogen as a transport fuel in the UK has been moving in step with international
standards and technology 6 and most initiatives are government-funded due to the early stage of the
market. The early nature of the HFCV market means that vehicle costs are still not economically viable,
and a lack of refuelling infrastructure remains a key obstacle to the expansion of HFCVs in the UK.
However, the Government did lower the market barrier by providing a £4.8m funding to convert initial
demonstration projects into an initial network of 15 hydrogen refuelling stations which are operational
and accessible to the public. However, the view of the UK Government on HFCV is that there is more
to understand how far the UK hydrogen economy could expand and help in decarbonising the UK 31.

The use of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles are similar to BEVs in the sense that it has zero tailpipe
emissions while in operation 31. However, the well-to-wheel GHG emissions depend on the method of

13
hydrogen production 6,31. Similar to EVs, the GHG emissions incurred from operating HFCVs is taken
to be the GHG emissions from producing the equivalent amount of hydrogen fuel for making a typical
commute trip in the UK (31.45km). As HFCVs are still preliminary in its testing stage and the
31
projections remains low in the UK according to , the GHG emissions for a HFCV is taken to be
32
0.11897 kgCO2e/km as extracted from for analysis in this paper. Based on the HFCV registration
data from DfT from 2015 to 2018 and the growth percentage projection based on the FES 2018 report,
a regression analysis on HFCV is performed in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Regression analysis for the total number of HFCVs in the UK leading to 2050

As mentioned earlier, from present till 2040, even though the growth trend is expected to accelerate, in
terms of absolute numbers, it will remain low relative to EVs. This is because, a bigger transformation
is in the UK is needed to tackle pivotal issues such as refuelling infrastructure, public perception, safety
31
and maturity of technology. has suggested the possibility of converting the gas grid to a hydrogen
grid in order to build a network of refuelling infrastructure. However, the question of whether to convert
the gas grid into a hydrogen grid or to break produce hydrogen on-site via electrolysis are areas that
render further research. With these considerations and uncertainties at the moment, EVs are set to be
the major form of alternative to ICEVs leading to 2050.

14
3.2.5 Total number of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) in the UK
EVs and HFCVs form a category of vehicles known as Ultra-Emissions Low Vehicles (ULEVs) and is
defined by any vehicle that uses low carbon technologies, emit less than 75g of CO2/km from tailpipe
emissions and is capable of operating in zero tailpipe mode for a range of at least ten miles 33. In order
to understand how the ban in sales of Diesel and Petrol cars in 2040 will impact the growth of ULEVs
and how the assumptions in FES2018 would lead to an increase in ULEVs, the sum of BEVs, PHEVs
and HFCVs based on the regression results obtained from the projections of FES 2018 are plotted as
shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Projection of ULEVs in the UK

From the results shown in Figure 5, an upward trend is observed for the growth of ULEVs in the UK.
It can be seen that the most rapid growth of ULEVs happens between 2033 till around 2042 before
slowing down after 2045.

3.2.6 Efficiency of EVs

With more emphasis on electromobility, improvements in drive efficiency, aero drag, vehicle weight
reduction are expected for the period between now till 2050. According to the findings presented in 34,
for a given propulsion system technology that is supported by the policy environment, the
improvements in EV efficiency would correspond to 1.5 to 2% compounded. Based on the GHG

15
emissions per trip obtained for UKBEV, UKPHEV in electric mode and gasoline mode, the GHG
emissions were extrapolated using a compounded reduction of 1.5% per year as shown in Figures 6, 7
and 8.

Figure 6. GHG emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements of BEV

16
Figure 7. GHG emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements of PHEV in electric mode

Figure 8. GHG emissions reduction due to efficiency improvements of PHEV in gasoline mode

17
3.2.7 Biofuel Targets to reduce GHG emissions in the UK and the EU
Since 2008, the UK effected the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), aimed at reducing GHG
emissions from fuel supplied for transport purposes (Road vehicles, non-road mobile machinery,
35
tractors and recreational craft that do not normally operate at sea) through encouraging the use of
renewable fuel. Fuel suppliers for road transportation including diesel, gas oil or renewable fuel
totalling 450,000 litres or more have an obligation to fulfil under the Order. In the latest amendment of
the RTFO, the biofuel volume targets increased from 4.75% to 9.75% in 2020 and 12.4% in 2032 and
beyond, taking into account the latest amendments of biofuel targets set in the EU Renewable Energy
Directive (RED) 35. A crop cap was introduced to ensure a sustainable level for crop biofuels to be used
with an initial maximum cap of 4% of fuel in 2018, reducing annually from 2021 to reach 3% in 2026
and 2% in 2032. A new class of advanced fuel termed “Developmental fuels” was also introduced in
the latest amendment to be included from 1st January 2019, starting from 0.1% in 2019 and rising to
35
2.8% in 2032. Figure 9 plotted based on data extracted from summarises the biofuel targets of UK
set out by the latest amendment from the RTFO.

Figure 9. Renewable Fuel targets defined by the latest amendment of RTFO

18
3.3 Method to calculate EV GHG emissions under varying BEV population and
charging behaviour
From the regression results obtained and the targets of biofuel leading to 2050, the annual GHG
emissions of the UK EV population under different pace of adoption of BEV (represented using BEV
ratio to total EV) and PHEV user driving behaviour can be calculated using the proposed equations
below:

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐺𝐻𝐺 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝐵𝐸𝑉 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃𝐻𝐸𝑉 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 =

𝑁 𝐸−𝑁 (1)
∑ 𝐶𝑂𝐵𝐸𝑉, 𝑖 + ∑ {𝑝(𝑒) ∙ 𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐻𝐸𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 ,𝑖 + [1 − 𝑝(𝑒)][𝛼 ∙ 𝛽 + (1 − 𝛼 𝑇 )] ∙ 𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐻𝐸𝑉𝑔𝑎𝑠 ,𝑖 }
𝑖=1 𝑖=1

𝛼 ∙ 𝛽 = 𝛼𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝛽𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 + 𝛼𝐷𝑒𝑣 𝛽𝐷𝑒𝑣 + 𝛼𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝛽𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 (2)

E: Total no. of EVs (PHEVs and BEVs)

N: No. of BEVs
𝐶𝑂𝐵𝐸𝑉 : GHG emissions from charging BEV/trip
𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐻𝐸𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐 : GHG emissions from charging PHEV/trip
𝐶𝑂𝑃𝐻𝐸𝑉𝑔𝑎𝑠 : Tailpipe GHG emissions from travelling in gasoline mode
p(e): Probability of user operating PHEV in electric mode for trip
𝛼𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 , 𝛼𝐷𝑒𝑣 , 𝛼𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 : Fraction of biofuel type relative to total supply of transport fuel (0-1.0)
𝛽𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑝 , 𝛽𝐷𝑒𝑣 , 𝛽𝑂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 : Fraction of CO2 emissions using biofuel type relative to gasoline (0-1.0)
𝛼 𝑇 : Percentage of total no. of PHEV in gasoline mode using Biofuel (0-1.0)

It is worth mentioning that the GHG emissions contributed by the BEVs and PHEVs in the subsequent
analysis does not take into account the GHG emissions incurred from the manufacturing of the EVs but
only the GHG emissions incurred from operating the EV and charging the EV over a typical commute
trip (Use-phase). This is due to a separate allocation of carbon budget under “Industry” which accounts
for the manufacturing process of vehicles36. As mentioned earlier, the focus of this study is to assess
whether the pace of EV transition would enable the transport sector to meet the respective carbon targets.

3.4 Tabulation of carbon budget allocation to EVs

In order to assess if the EV transition will enable the transport sector (cars) to operate within the carbon
budget allocated, the respective 5-year GHG emissions from the EV population under varying pace of

19
BEV adoption and PHEV user driving behaviour are evaluated against the carbon budget allocated to
the EV population within the same period.

Tabulation of carbon budget allocated to the EV population is done based on the sectorial and
departmental allocation presented in37 which depends on the department’s influence over emissions
from that sector. As illustrated in the sectorial breakdown as shown in Figure 10, retrieved from 37, the
transport sector is allocated 21% of the carbon budget, of which 76% is assigned to the DfT37,.

Figure 10. Sectorial allocation of the carbon budget 39

Within the UK, out of the total number of vehicles in road transportation, the proportion of cars, occupy
a percentage of between 82% to 83% over the past 5 years38 as shown in Table 9. In this paper, the
percentage of cars in surface road transportation in the UK is taken to be the average over the past five
years (82.83%), for computation of carbon budget allocation to cars.

Table 9. Proportion of cars in UK road transportation from 2014 to 2018

Year Cars Total Percentage

2014 30,513,268 36,714,834 83.11%
2015 31,170,701 37,570,569 82.97%
2016 31,792,259 38,388,214 82.82%
2017 32,159,943 38,893,327 82.69%
2018 32,493,258 39,364,569 82.54%

With the percentages explained earlier, the carbon budget allocated to surface transport (cars) (𝐶𝑂𝐶𝐴𝑅𝑆 )
for each carbon budget is calculated using Equation (3) and (4):

20
 𝐶𝐵𝐶𝐴𝑅𝑆 = % 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑝𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 × % 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝐷𝑓𝑇 × % 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑈𝐾 𝑅𝑑 𝑡𝑝𝑡 × 𝐶𝐵 (3)

𝐶𝐵𝐶𝐴𝑅𝑆 = 0.21 × 0.76 × 0.825 × 𝐶𝐵 (4)

𝐶𝐵𝐶𝐴𝑅𝑆 : Carbon budget allocated to surface transport (cars)

% 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑝𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 : Percentage of carbon budget allocated to transport sector
% 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝐷𝑓𝑇 : Percentage of carbon budget allocated to DfT from the transport sector
% 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑠𝑈𝐾 𝑅𝑑 𝑡𝑝𝑡 : Percentage of cars in UK surface road transportation
CB: Amount allocated for Nth carbon budget (MtCO2e)

In order to evaluate if the current UK policy on EV transition will enable the transport sector to meet
the carbon targets by 2050, a carbon budget allocated for EVs is tabulated as shown in Equation (5):

𝐶𝐵𝐸𝑉 = 𝐶𝐵𝐶𝐴𝑅𝑆 − 𝐶𝑂𝐼𝐶𝐸 − 𝐶𝑂𝐻𝐹𝐶𝑉 (5)

𝐶𝐵𝐸𝑉 : Carbon budget allocated to EV population in the UK

𝐶𝑂𝐼𝐶𝐸 : Tailpipe GHG emissions of ICE cars over the 5-year carbon budget period
𝐶𝑂𝐻𝐹𝐶𝑉 : GHG emissions from operating HFCV over the 5-year carbon budget period

So far, five carbon budgets have been legislated in the UK, until 2032. Therefore, for analysis till 2050,
a regression is done based on past carbon budget allocations to analyse the transport sector’s
performance in meeting the 2050 target of 80% GHG reduction relative to 1990 levels. The regression
analysis performed for the carbon budget is presented in Figure 11.

21
 Figure 11. Regression analysis for subsequent carbon budgets allocation (2033-2050)

Table 10 summarises the current carbon budgets legislated by the UK, the carbon budget allocation
obtained from the regression analysis and the carbon budget allocation for cars in the respective 5-year
periods.

Table 10: Past carbon budget allocations and future carbon allocations based on regression analysis

% decrease CO2 Budget Allocated to Carbon budget

Carbon
Years from 1990 (CB) cars (𝑪𝑩𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒔 ) remaining for EVs
Budget
levels (MtCO2e) (MtCO2e) (𝑪𝑩𝑬𝑽 ) (MtCO2e)
1st 2008-2012 25.00% 3,018 398.95
2nd 2013-2017 31.00% 2,782 367.75
3rd 2018-2022 37.00% 2,544 336.29 13.42
4th 2023-2027 51.00% 1,950 257.77 -46.08
5th 2028-2032 57.00% 1,725 228.03 -34.44
6th 2033-2037 62.25% 1,516 200.46 1.65
7th 2038-2042 68.00% 1,285 169.92 46.14
8th 2043-2047 73.75% 1,054 139.39 81.05
Final 2048-2050 80.00% 803 106.20 79.18

22
According to 39, carbon budgets advised by the CCC are provided on the basis that there would be no
carry-forward and is based on the most cost-effective path for UK emissions reduction. The letter further
highlights that the surplus from the second carbon budget is not due to policy but largely due to
accounting changes in the EU Emissions Trading System and the lasting effects of the recession.
Therefore, carrying forward surplus emissions would further loosen carbon budgets, leading to
unnecessary costs and further difficulties in meeting the long-term emissions target in 2050. With these
factors in consideration, the analysis is done based on individual carbon budgets without considering
any roll-over effect as advised by the CCC.

4.Results
In order to show how the pace of BEV transition and charging behaviour of PHEV users would affect
the performance of GHG emissions reduction, in the analysis, the percentage of BEV over the total EV
population and probability of PHEV user operating in electric mode are varied by 5% intervals and the
respective GHG emissions in each scenario is tabulated. The 5% variance in each interval for percentage
of BEV over the EV population serves to represent the different pace of adoption of BEV within the
UK. As for the charging behaviour of the PHEV users, the 5% variance in each interval for probability
of PHEV in electric mode serves to represent the likelihood of PHEV users choosing to adopt the
electric mode for daily commute trips over the 5-year carbon budget period.

An example is given in Table 11 to demonstrate how the 3D plots can be used to assess the performance
of GHG emissions under each scenario against the carbon budget allocated to EVs.

Table 11. Example on interpreting 3D plots on GHG emissions against carbon budget

3rd Carbon Budget allocated to EVs (MtCO2e): 13.42

Fraction of BEV in total EV population (BEV/BEV+PHEV ratio): 0.2
Likelihood of PHEV (0.8 of EV population) operating in electric mode: 0.5
GHG emissions from EV population (MtCO2e): 2.62

Assuming that the pace of adoption of BEV at the end of the 3rd carbon budget reaches 20% out of the
total EV population and out of the 80% PHEV population, 50% of the PHEV users operate in the electric
mode in their daily commutes, then the total GHG emissions from the EV population will be
2.62MtCO2e.

Comparing against the 3rd carbon budget allocated to EVs of 13.42MtCO2e, under this scenario, the
GHG emissions will be within the carbon budget allocated. Therefore, the bar is blue. As the GHG
emissions of a particular scenario gets closer to the 3rd carbon budget allocated to EVs, the colour will

23
change according to the colour bar on the right. The colours above blue (green, yellow and red) mean
that the allowable carbon budget is gradually exceeded for the corresponding scenario.

4.1 Performance of EV transition against the 3rd carbon budget (2018-2022)

Based on the results illustrated in Figure 12, it shows that the GHG emissions performance of the EV
population, regardless of the pace of transition to BEV or whether PHEV users operate in electric or
gasoline mode, the emissions levels from EVs will operate within the 3rd carbon budget with a margin
of 9.72MtCO2e under the highest emissions scenario giving rise to the blue plot.

Figure 12. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 3rd carbon budget

This result is consistent with the projections made in 15 which estimates that the UK would achieve the
3rd carbon budget (2018-2022) with a margin as low as 18MtCO2e to as high as 145MtCO2e in its
overall performance across all sectors.

Furthermore, the results also show that if the pace of transition of BEV increases, the GHG emissions
will decrease, regardless of whether the PHEV users choose to operate in the electric mode for their
daily commute. This result is aligned with the findings obtained from the literature review that BEVs
have less environmental impact relative to PHEV in the use-phase40. The same GHG emission reduction

24
trend is observed when the likelihood of PHEV users operating in the electric mode for their daily
commutes increases. However, a larger percentage reduction of GHG emissions is observed when the
pace of transition to BEV increases compared to more PHEV users adopting the electric mode.

4.2 Performance of EV transition against the 4th (2023-2027) carbon budget

After attaining some preliminary understanding of how the factors will affect the GHG emissions from
the 3rd carbon budget, the corresponding projections from the regression analysis for the 4 th carbon
budget (2023-2027) are used to plot the GHG emissions performance of the EVs as illustrated in Figure
13.

Figure 13. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 4th carbon budget

Unlike the performance against the 3rd carbon budget, the plot is entirely red when compared against
the carbon budget allocated for EVs. Mathematically, the difference between the carbon budget
allocated to EVs and the highest emission scenario is 63.24MtCO2e. However, physically, there are no
surplus carbon budget allocated to EVs.

The reasons are firstly, as previously stated in Eq. (3.5), the carbon budget allocated for EVs is
calculated by subtracting the GHG emissions of ICEVs and HFCVs from the total allocated carbon
budget to the UK car population (𝐶𝐵𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑠 ). However, because the emissions from ICEVs alone exceeded
the entire amount of carbon budget for the UK car population, there was no remaining carbon budget

25
allocated for EVs. This is mainly due to the slow increase in the number of ULEVs (BEVs, PHEVs and
HFCVs) as shown in Figure 5 previously and the high numbers of ICEVs that remained in the UK car
population during this period resulting in excessive GHG emissions levels beyond the carbon budget
set for the UK car population.

Secondly, as can be seen in Table 10, the increment for the percentage reduction of GHG emissions
relative to 1990 levels between 2023-2027 increased significantly to 14% compared to previous years
of 6% increment. As a result, the overall carbon budget reduced for all sectors in the UK. This trend
15
exhibited from the UK car population is consistent with the projections as reported in which states
that the overall GHG emissions from UK will be greater than the cap set by the 4th carbon budget ranging
from 70MtCO2e to as high as 230MtCO2e.

4.3 Performance of EV transition against the 5th (2028-2032) carbon budget

Using the 5th legislated carbon budget in the UK, the corresponding carbon budget allocated to EV is
calculated and evaluated against the GHG emissions of the EV population as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 5th carbon budget

26
Similar to the situation in the 4th carbon budget, the plot is all red when evaluated the GHG emissions
performance against the carbon budget allocated to EVs. In fact, the situation has gone downhill as
mathematically, the difference between the carbon budget allocated to EVs and the highest emission
scenario increased from 63.24MtCO2e to 78.30MtCO2e.

It is important to state that physically, there are no surplus in carbon budget allocated to EVs just like
the situation in 4th carbon budget as the GHG emissions from the ICEVs far exceeded the entire amount
allocated for UK car population, leaving no remaining carbon budget for the EV population. Although
the percentage reduction of GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels reduces back to 6%, due to the large
number of ICEVs in the UK population and the gradually increasing trend of the EVs as illustrated in
Figure 5, the GHG emissions from EVs continue to exceed the carbon budget allocated to it. This trend
is also consistent with the projections as reported in 15 which states that the UK emissions will be greater
than the cap set by the 5th carbon budget ranging from 176MtCO2e to 353MtCO2e. Furthermore, the
report also forecasts that the level of GHG emissions will exceed further as the years progress as many
policies which will affect the 2020s and beyond have not been factored into account as they have not
been developed to the point at which they can be included in the projections. However, the DfT
mentioned in the report that it will continue to facilitate the ambitious implementation of the policies
and proposal set out in the Clean Growth Strategy to address the gap.

4.4 Performance of EV transition against the 6th (2033-2037) carbon budget

As the allocation for the 6th and subsequent carbon budgets have not been legislated in the UK
parliament, the 6th and subsequent carbon budgets are derived based on regression analysis as presented
in Figure 11. It is worthy to note that with the high consistency of trend observed in the analysis in
alignment with the projections made in the Government projections from 4 thus far, the results obtained
for the performance of GHG emissions for the UK car population for the 6th to final carbon budget will
serve as a good reference in assessing the performance and pace of the EV transition policy and whether
it is suitable to meet the UK carbon targets. The GHG emissions performance of the EV population
over the 5-year period is as illustrated in Figure 15.

27
 Figure 15. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 6th carbon budget

Based on the results, even though the plot is still red, the GHG emissions performance improved
marginally with a mathematical difference between the carbon budget allocated to EVs and the highest
emission scenario decreasing from 78.30MtCO2e to 78.24MtCO2e. The distinctive part of the
performance against the 6th carbon budget relative to the previous 4th and 5th carbon budget is that the
difference between the GHG emission level and carbon budget allocated is no longer increasing. This
could be attributed to the following factors that is considered in the projection of FES2018. Firstly, due
to the upcoming petrol ban on sales of Diesel and Petrol cars from 2040, implemented by the UK
Government, the uptake of EVs started to accelerate rapidly replacing the ICEV population. As can be
seen in Figure 5, the growth of ULEVs within the 6th carbon budget is almost at its peak. With less
ICEVs incurring the majority of the GHG emissions, the EVs will begin to have a positive carbon
budget allocated after subtracting the GHG emissions from the ICEVs and HFCVs. Physically, in the
period of 6th carbon budget, there is a surplus of 1.65MtCO2e of carbon budget allocated to EVs after
deducting the GHG emissions incurred by the ICEVs and HFCVs. However, as the EV population is
rapidly accelerating, the GHG emissions performance still exceeded the carbon budget allocation for
EVs.

28
4.5 Performance of EV transition against the 7th (2038-2042) carbon budget
The GHG emission performance of the EVs are plotted against the 7th carbon budget allocated to EVs
and was found that the overall shade of red has lightened slightly relative to the red plots from 4-6th
carbon budgets as shown in Figure 16.

Figure 16. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 7th carbon budget

Even though the GHG emissions from the EV still exceeds the carbon budget allocation to the EV due
to its rapid growth, the difference reduced significantly from 78.24MtCO2e to 70.41MtCO2e under the
highest emissions scenario. In fact, for the best-case scenario where all EVs are BEVs, the difference
between the emissions level and the carbon budget allocated is merely 0.06MtCO2e and is almost to
the point where the GHG emissions from the EV can operate within the carbon budget allocated to the
EVs. This means that if the pace of BEV transition can take place quickly, replacing the existing ICEV
fleet in the UK, GHG emissions can be reduced rapidly and GHG emissions from the car population
can operate within the carbon budget allocated. Notably, as the period of the 7th carbon budget falls
during the period which the EV uptake is the most rapid and the corresponding decrease in ICEVs are
most significant as well, the improvement in GHG emissions level is found to be significant.

29
4.6 Performance of EV transition against the 8th (2043-2047) carbon budget
For the GHG emissions performance of the EV population against the 8th carbon budget allocated to
EVs as illustrated in Figure 17, the results begin to show that if the pace of BEV adoption increases,
BEV to total EV population increases to more than 0.3, the GHG emissions performance will operate
within the carbon budget, subjected to PHEV users driving behaviour.

Figure 17. GHG emissions performance of EV population against 8th carbon budget

From the results, it can be seen that under the highest emissions scenario, the difference between the
carbon budget allocated to EV and the EV emissions level exceeds by 60.83MtCO2e. However, under
the best emissions scenario, the GHG emissions from EVs is able to operate within the carbon budget
allocated by 24.812MtCO2e. At this point, it can be clearly seen that the pace of transition to BEV
(BEV to total EV ratio) and likelihood of the PHEV user operating in electric mode both play an
important role in influencing the level of GHG emissions of the UK EV population and whether it can
operate within the 8th carbon budget.

An example illustrated in Table 12 highlights how the same pace of transition to BEV (30% of EV
population) can result in failing to meet the carbon budget allocated to EVs if the PHEV user behaviour
is not considered.

30
 Table 12. Impact of PHEV users operating in electric mode in meeting carbon targets

8th Carbon Budget allocated to EVs (MtCO2e): 81.05

BEV in total EV population (BEV/BEV+PHEV ratio): 0.30
Likelihood of PHEV (0.8 of EV population) operating in electric
0.50
Scenario 1 mode:
GHG emissions from EV population (MtCO2e): 95.60
Within 7th carbon budget allocated to EVs? No

Scenario 2 BEV in total EV population (BEV/BEV+PHEV ratio): 0.30

Likelihood of PHEV (0.8 of EV population) operating in electric 0.90
mode:
GHG emissions from EV population (MtCO2e): 79.13
Within 7th carbon budget allocated to EVs? Yes

While a fast pace for BEV transition is necessary, it is also instrumental for the remaining PHEV users
to utilise the electric mode for their commutes to ensure that the GHG emissions can be kept to the
minimal.

An important point to note in the analysis so far is that unlike the general assumption where transition
to BEVs and PHEVs from ICEVs would mean a reduction in GHG emissions, the pace of BEV adoption
and driving behaviour of PHEV users would influence the GHG emissions performance significantly.
These factors can be improved through policy and regulation changes, incentives and alleviating
concerns of PHEV users which may result in them using the gasoline mode for their daily commute
such as installing more charging stations in accessible areas, public and workplaces.

4.7 Performance of EV transition against the final (2048-2050) carbon budget

Finally, in the GHG emissions performance against the last carbon budget leading to 2050, if the EV
population increases and the corresponding ICEVs decreases to the level as predicted by the regression
analysis based on the projections by the FES 2018 25, a large proportion of the scenarios states that the
UK transport sector will meet the Final Carbon budget allocated to cars by 2050 as shown in Figure 18.

31
 Figure 18. GHG emissions performance of EV population against final carbon budget

Under the highest emissions scenario, the GHG emissions level from the EV population will exceed the
final carbon budget allocated to EVs by 8.45MtCO2e. In more than 80% of the plot as can be seen in
Figure 18, most scenarios of varying BEV to EV ratio and proportion of PHEV user travelling in electric
mode will work within the final carbon budget allocated to EVs. However, implementation measures
have to be in place to ensure that the pace of BEV adoption continue to keep up so that it forms beyond
20% of the total EV population and PHEV users continue to operate their cars in the electric mode for
daily commute.

5. Conclusion
With the continuation of the current transport policies and slow-moving pace of climate action, the
GHG emissions in the UK transport sector is projected to exceed the caps of the upcoming carbon
budgets. The EV transition proposed by the DfT in the “Road to Zero strategy” policy paper in 2018 as
one of the main strategies in reducing GHG emissions is instrumental but the actual pace of transition
is uncertain. Furthermore, PHEV users have the option to operate in the full gasoline mode instead of
full electric mode depending on factors such as range anxiety and availability of charging infrastructure.
Therefore, reduction in GHG emissions through the use of PHEVs cannot be generally assumed.

32
Current research relating to pace of transition to EVs focuses more on grid utility and charging
infrastructure planning and whether the utility and charging infrastructure network is able to sustain the
different pace of growth of EVs. Similarly, researches relating to EV user driving and charging
behaviour focuses on the positioning of the charging stations by investigating if the users prefer to
charge at home, at the workplace or publicly accessible areas. These studies illustrate a gap in analysing
how these factors can impact the performance of GHG emissions reduction.

In this paper, a mathematical equation is proposed using the relevant projections, biofuel targets,
improvements in EV efficiency and regression analysis to calculate the GHG emissions performance
of the UK car population. Scenario-based models were then developed to analyse how the pace of
transition to full electric BEVs and the driving behaviour of PHEV users can impact the GHG emissions
reduction performance of the UK transport sector. Using the existing carbon budget allocations, future
carbon budgets are forecasted to evaluate if the current GHG emissions performance from the UK car
population is able to achieve the carbon targets by 2050. The findings indicate that the pace of BEV
adoption and the likelihood of PHEV user operating in electric mode would both result in a reduction
on the level of GHG emissions. It was also observed that a larger percentage reduction of GHG
emissions occurred when the pace of BEV adoption increases compared to more PHEV users adopting
the electric mode in their daily commute.

This paper also highlights that regardless of the current pace of BEV adoption, the UK transport sector
will likely fail to achieve the 4th – 7th carbon budget allocations, due to the slow reduction in ICEVs.
Furthermore, for subsequent carbon budgets (8th and Final), if factors that may affect PHEV users from
using the electric mode are not addressed quickly such as availability of charging infrastructure, GHG
emissions may still exceed the carbon budget allocated despite transiting the car population to an EV
population. The proposed model will serve as a useful reference for the UK transport sector to assess if
the current policies relating to GHG emissions and pace of EV adoption needs to be revised and further
actions need to be taken to meet the upcoming carbon targets by 2050. The model can also be amended
accordingly to help other countries or cities evaluate their policies and performance on GHG emissions,
based on their pace of BEV adoption and PHEV user driving behaviour, against a desired carbon target.

We may summarise key findings and policy recommendations as follow:

• We do not expect any breakthrough in EV efficiencies. Rather, the efficiencies will likely to
improve gradually.
• ICEV efficiencies are assumed to be constant due to petrol car ban by 2040.
• It is hard to model user behaviour since consumers do not necessarily have to take economically
rational decisions all the time. Thus, it is a challenge to model the driving behaviour in electric mode.

33
• There is a considerable probability of failing the emission reduction target of 2050, if the PHEV
adoption ratio is over 20% and the driving on petrol mode is over 20%.
• To reach 2050 targets, we recommend the policy makers to classify the hybrid cars as ICEVs
rather than as ULEVs.
• Hybrid cars should not be ultimate targets, rather they should be valuable transition assets to
an ‘all-electric road surface transport future’.
• The authorities might have to start discussing of a hybrid car ban in the near future.
• The promotion of low carbon fuels such as syngas and hydrogen, is not a sufficient remedy.
• Policy makers should take precautions to reduce number of cars via supporting public transport,
car-pooling, car sharing and cycling.

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers.

In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas
emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat
of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018).
2 Mazur, C., Contestabile, M., Offer, G. J. & Brandon, N. Assessing and comparing
German and UK transition policies for electric mobility. Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions 14, 84-100 (2015).
3 Priestley, S. & Bolton. P. UK Carbon Budgets. (The Stationery Office, 2019).
4 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Updated Energy
And Emissions Projections 2018. (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, 2019).
5 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Updated Energy
And Emissions Projections 2018. (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, 2019).
6 Department for Transport (DfT). The Road to Zero: Next steps towards cleaner road
transport and delivering our Industrial Strategy (Department for Transport, 2019).

34
7 Climate Change Committee (CCC). Net Zero - The UK’s contribution to stopping
global warming. (2019).
8 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Plan for roadside
NO2 concentrations published (Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, 2017).
9 Deloitte LLP. New market New entrants New challenges: Battery Electric Vehicles.
(Deloitte LLP, 2019).
10 Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau‐Bettez, G. & Strømman, A. H. Comparative
environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 17, 53-64 (2013).
11 Peng, T., Ou, X. & Yan, X. Development and application of an electric vehicles
life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis model.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design 131, 699-708 (2018).
12 Faria, R., Moura, P., Delgado, J. & De Almeida, A. T. A sustainability assessment
of electric vehicles as a personal mobility system. Energy Conversion and
Management 61, 19-30 (2012).
13 Smith, W. J. Can EV (electric vehicles) address Ireland’s CO2 emissions from
transport? Energy 35, 4514-4521 (2010).
14 Casals, L. C., Martinez-Laserna, E., García, B. A. & Nieto, N. Sustainability
analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions reduction. Journal
of Cleaner Production 127, 425-437 (2016).
15 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Updated Energy
And Emissions Projections 2018. (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, 2019).
16 BBC. Government-subsidised plug-in cars may never have been charged. Available
at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46152853. (Accessed, 23 June 2019).
17 Tal, G., Nicholas, M. A., Davies, J. & Woodjack, J. Charging behavior impacts on
electric vehicle miles traveled: who is not plugging in? Transportation Research
Record 2454, 53-60 (2014).
18 Boston, D. & Werthman, A. Plug-in Vehicle Behaviors: An analysis of charging
and driving behavior of Ford plug-in electric vehicles in the real world. World
Electric Vehicle Journal 8, 926-935 (2016).

35
19 Plötz, P., Funke, S. Á. & Jochem, P. Empirical Fuel Consumption and CO2
Emissions of Plug‐In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology 22,
773-784 (2018).
20 RAC Foundation. Plug-in vehicles on the road. Available at:
https://www.racfoundation.org/data/plug-in-vehicles-on-the-road. (Accessed, 10
June 2019)
21 EV Database. Electric Vehicle Database. Available at: https://ev-database.uk/.
(Accessed, 13 June 2019).
22 Department for Transport (DfT). Anonymised MOT Tests and Results.
(Department for Transport, 2019).
23 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2018 Government
GHG Conversion Factors For Company Reporting. (Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Department for Environment, 2018).
24 Hill, G., Heidrich, O., Creutzig, F. & Blythe, P. The role of electric vehicles in near-
term mitigation pathways and achieving the UK’s carbon budget. Applied Energy
251, 113111 (2019).
25 National Grid. Future Energy Scenarios. (National Grid, 2018).
26 Department for Transport (DfT). Vehicle Licensing Statistics Table VEH0203:
Licensed cars at the end of the year by propulsion / fuel type, Great Britain from
1994; also United Kingdom from 2014. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/veh02-licensed-cars.
(Accessed, 10 June 2019).
27 Department for Transport (DfT). Road Traffic Forecasts 2018. (Department for
Transport, 2019).
28 Government Office for Science (GOS). A time for unprecedented change in the
transport system. (Government Office for Science, 2019).
29 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). Updated Energy
And Emissions Projections 2018. 18 (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial
Strategy, 2019).
30 Department for Transport (DfT). Vehicle Licensing Statistics Table VEH0101:
Licensed vehicles by body type (quarterly): Great Britain and United Kingdom.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/all-vehicles-
veh01 (Accessed, 10 June 2019).
31 Climate Change Committee (CCC). Hydrogen in a low carbon economy. (2018).

36
32 Department for Transport (DfT). Transport Energy Model Report. (Department for
Transport, 2018).
33 The Society of Motor Manufacturers & Traders (SMMT). Ultra Low Emission
Vehicles (ULEVs). Available at: https://www.smmt.co.uk/industry-
topics/technology-innovation/ultra-low-emission-vehicles-ulevs/ (Accessed, 27
June 2019).
34 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). On the Road toward 2050. (MIT,
2015).
35 Department for Transport (DfT). Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation statistics:
Legislative Amendments. (Department for Transport, 2018).
36 Climate Change Committee (CCC). Sectoral Scenarios For the Fifth Carbon
Budget. (Climate Committee, 2015).
37 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Climate Change:
Taking Action, Delivering the Low Carbon Transition Plan and preparing for a
changing climate (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2010).
38 Department for Transport (DfT). Statistical data set: Cars )(VEH02) Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/veh02-licensed-cars
(Accessed, 20 June 2019).
39 Climate Change Committee (CCC). Carry-forward of surplus emissions: Letter
from Lord Deben to Claire Perry. Available at:
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/carry-forward-of-surplus-emissions-letter-
from-lord-deben-to-claire-perry/ (Accessed, 27 June 2019).
40 Xiong, S., Ji, J. & Ma, X. Comparative Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission
Analysis for BEVs and PhEVs: A Case Study in China. Energies 12, 834 (2019).

37