Paul Hollick, chair of the Association of Fleet Professionals, on what the new Transport Committee report could mean for fleets.

Paul Hollick, chair, Association of Fleet Professionals

The House of Commons’ Transport Committee has recently reported on the future of low-carbon fuel strategies in the UK and it makes fascinating reading. Road transport only makes up part of the document – aviation, rail and maritime are also covered – but it does fill in some of the strategic blanks that have been identified by fleet managers as our sector moves rapidly towards electrification.

If I was asked to sum up its ethos in a couple of words, it would be ‘ethically pragmatic’. This is a report promoting the idea that where no zero carbon practical solutions exist, the next-best alternative should be used instead.

Perhaps the biggest real-world point for fleets is the idea that the Government should be relatively relaxed about the use of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars in the future – especially in geographically isolated areas where electrification is likely to be difficult. The argument is that ICE vehicles will relatively soon form only a tiny part of the overall vehicle parc. Therefore, forcing EV use where it is not practical makes little sense. This approach could be interesting news, for example, for fleets that operate emergency vehicles in remote places

A related argument is the backing of synthetic and biofuels. This is a technology that gets relatively little attention in fleet discussions but is seen by the Transport Committee as a means of reducing carbon emissions from older vehicles for motorists who simply can’t afford to electrify, being described as a “socially equitable” option after 2030 for people who continue to drive ICE. More widely, it is also seen as a partial solution to problems that could arise from shortages of battery production or issues with grid capacity.

It will be interesting to see whether there is any momentum behind this line of thought. Certainly, the types of low- or zero-emission synthetic fuels that are being trialled by Bosch and Porsche, for example, are currently expensive. However, if costs can be reduced, it is not impossible that they might find a place – albeit probably a limited one – in the fleet mix of the future.

The final section that has relevance to fleets is the future of fuel for commercial vehicles. There is a recognition that no meaningful guidance has been given on which direction the Government wants manufacturers and fleets to head for bigger vehicles, as well as an acknowledgement electrification might not be suitable. Again, there is an argument for a pragmatic approach to be taken.

This is an area where the AFP has made its view clear in the past, with the almost complete absence of a hydrogen refuelling infrastructure making that choice unviable (although it is worth noting that a new 30-station network was announced recently) while today’s electric power is simply unsuitable for large vehicles travelling long distances. It is an area that needs intensive and sensible discussion – and soon.

Of course, this paper does not represent government policy, being essentially a discussion document written by  members of Parliament. However, it could undoubtedly prove influential.

Perhaps the most notable point is that this is the first serious document to emerge from Westminster in some time that does not see electrification as the answer to all low-carbon transport solutions. This is a conclusion that fleets have arguably been stretching towards over the last couple of years, that while the vast majority of road transport applications can be electrified, there remain a number where other solutions are needed. Perhaps now, that dialogue can begin.