The government’s plans to introduce Electric Vehicle Excise Duty (eVED) are intended to plug a growing gap in Treasury revenues as fuel duty declines. Much as we might prefer otherwise, that may be fiscally inevitable. What is not inevitable is that the burden once again falls disproportionately on rural communities.
For years, the Countryside Alliance has warned that any move towards road pricing must properly reflect the realities of rural life. People in the countryside often have no choice but to travel further and rely more heavily on private vehicles. Our research, highlighted in a 2023 parliamentary report, shows that rural households already spend almost £800 more each year on fuel than urban households, and often pay higher prices at the pump. Defra’s own figures confirm the picture: even in 2020, a year of restricted movement, rural residents travelled over 5,700 miles on average, compared with just 3,600 miles for urban residents.
Electric vehicles do not change these fundamentals. In fact, they introduce new disadvantages for rural drivers. Charging infrastructure remains sparse in many rural areas, with limited off-street charging and the risk of long detours and chargers being unavailable. Early adopters already face higher costs and greater inconvenience.
Against that backdrop, a strictly mileage-based eVED system that takes no account of rurality is unfair. Rural drivers will, on average, pay more because they must drive further – despite contributing less to congestion than urban motorists who drive shorter distances on far busier roads. With a 2,000-mile excess over urban counterparts, rural EV drivers would pay £60 more each year solely because of where they live. This risks actively discouraging EV uptake in rural areas, undermining the government’s own net-zero ambitions and penalising those trying to do what it claims to want.
A transition from fuel duty to road pricing could be an opportunity to address the ‘rural premium’ – the extra cost of living in the countryside – rather than entrenching it. Options such as lower per-mile rates for rural vehicles, tapered pricing, or a rural mileage allowance would go a long way towards making the system fairer and properly rural-proofed.
We are also concerned by proposals to require drivers to estimate their future mileage and pay in advance. A simpler system could charge retrospectively based on actual mileage recorded at the MOT, avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, error and distrust.
The government is consulting on these proposals now. It is vital that ministers hear clearly from rural residents, businesses and communities about the real-world impact of eVED, and you can read our full response here.
If you would like to share your perspective on the government’s plans, we would encourage you to do so. The consultation closes on 18 March; you can read the proposals and respond here.