Consultation outcome

Ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses consultation and coach and minibus decarbonisation: summary of responses

Updated 9 July 2025

Introduction

To accelerate bus decarbonisation, government is taking forward a measure in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill that, from 2030 at the earliest, will prevent the use of new non-zero emission buses (ZEBs) on local bus services in England. This will only affect non-ZEBs registered after the starting date – existing non-ZEBs can continue to be used.

We have published the responses we received to setting an end of sale date for new non-ZEBs consultation. This also includes a summary of responses to the calls for evidence on the decarbonisation of coaches and minibuses, both held in spring 2022. 

Government is considering mechanisms to support both coach and minibuses sectors to decarbonise.

Ending the sale of new, non-zero emission buses: summary of responses

DfT ran an 8-week public consultation on ending the sale of new non-zero-emission buses (non-ZEBs). It represented extensive engagement with a wide variety of stakeholders.

All responses to the consultation were recorded and analysed, with common issues and themes identified.

A summary of these responses is set out below.

Stakeholder views

We received 45 responses, 2 from private individuals and 43 from organisations, including:

• bus manufacturers
• bus operators
• local authorities
• trade organisations
• environmental charities
• other industry groups

Questions 1 to 5 centred on the approach to regulation and the exact date of withdrawal and are summarised below. Questions 6 and 7 refer to the coach and minibus calls for evidence and are covered later in this response.

Questions 8 to 25 focused on the accompanying impact assessment and asked respondents to provide additional evidence and data to inform further analysis. Due to the quantitative and often commercially sensitive nature of these responses, they are not covered below.

Question 1: We are interested in views on whether a ZEV mandate approach (as for cars and vans) should be applied to buses.

Summary of responses to question 1

The majority of responses supported the proposal to set a specific date for ending the sale of new non-ZEBs. Most bus operators and manufacturers expressed support, with some manufacturers’ responses supporting the idea in principle. Unanimous support for the proposals was given by the energy industry and environmental charities.

A number of respondents suggested that government should choose a single date, rather than a phased approach to ending the sale of new non-ZEBs. They proposed that this approach would provide certainty for the supply chain and would be a simpler solution for manufacturers and local transport authorities. The possibility of using a phased approach based on different European emission standards was also suggested.

Two responses expressed that, considering the small size of the UK bus market and its differences compared to that of cars and small vans, they do not consider a zero emission vehicle mandate for buses an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the sale of ZEBs.

Question 2: We welcome views on government’s proposal to end the sale of new non-zero emission buses on a specific date between 2025 to 2032.

Summary of responses to question 2

While responses were broadly supportive of the consulted proposal, a consistent view across most stakeholder groups was that a successful transition to a ZEB fleet requires government support through additional funding.

Some responses called for funding competitions like the Zero Emission Bus Regional Areas scheme (ZEBRA) to be continued and argued that further funding opportunities are essential to address the challenges involved in ending the sale of new non-ZEBs.

Some respondents said that bringing forward the end of sales date in a blanket fashion would not take account of the diverse range of vehicle types and business needs in different fleets. These respondents argued for phase out dates to be tailored for different user groups and businesses to accommodate these challenges, suggesting that urban fleets may be able to transition earlier than rural fleets, for example.

Many respondents, particularly trade organisations and operators, expressed concerns about the impact the proposals could have on rural services and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The majority of those who raised this issue said that grants and other sources of funding should be provided to rural groups and SMEs to help with the transition.

Alongside this, concerns were raised that SMEs are usually at a disadvantage when it comes to funding competitions. Manufacturers highlighted that because SMEs can lack resources, more time would be needed to increase resources to meet the end sale date.

Some respondents, particularly bus operators and manufacturers, suggested that setting an end date would act as a catalyst to promote technological development. It was also highlighted that industry requires the certainty of an end date to successfully plan their transition to a ZEB fleet.

While some manufacturers called for an ambitious date to help create market certainty, some warned that the government must deliver the end of sales date at a pace that allows manufacturers time to deliver new orders. It was flagged that an overly ambitious date may force operators to quickly order from overseas companies, which would reduce potential orders for UK-based manufacturers.

Question 3: While the range 2025 to 2032 is outlined, we also welcome views on your preferred specific end date.

Summary of responses to question 3

Respondents’ views on a specific end date varied widely, with most ranging between 2025 to 2030. The preferred year for the end of sale date was 2030 for the majority of bus industry stakeholders, with the second being 2025.

On average, bus operators preferred a later phase out date compared to bus manufacturers.

Most operators and manufacturers expressed a preference for end dates between 2030 and 2032. Both groups highlighted technical barriers to overcome before a transition is considered feasible. Some pointed to issues with the availability of technology and warned that an end date earlier than 2030 would overwhelm zero emission infrastructure providers and create increased pressures on the national grid.

Two manufacturers supported an earlier end date of 2025 and said an earlier date would act as a catalyst to promote technological development and UK manufacturing.

Trade and passenger organisations’ responses ranged from 2025 to 2030, with the majority preferring an end date of 2030. However, 2 respondents from these groups suggested there should be no end date, due to the perceived challenges of transitioning to a ZEB fleet.

Question 4: We welcome views on the proposal to use an approach based on type approval categories.

Summary of responses to question 4

Of those who responded to the question, almost all were supportive of the proposal to use an approach based on type approval categories (on the classification of the vehicle, as opposed to a usage-based approach). Trade organisations and local authorities/public bodies demonstrated the most support for the proposal. Most operators and manufacturers agreed that using existing type approval categories is the most appropriate approach.

Some responses highlighted that this approach offers consistency with other classes of vehicles. It was also pointed out that, as the majority of in-scope vehicles operate within city and urban areas, this proposal aligns with the emerging demands for low/zero emission zones in local areas.

Question 5: We welcome further views on the challenges arising from charging and refuelling infrastructure in ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses and what more might be needed to address these challenges?

Summary of responses to question 5

There was a consensus among respondents that there are still key infrastructure challenges that may make it hard to invest in and transition to ZEBs. However, most responses helped highlight some solutions to these issues.

Many respondents, particularly energy industry groups and operators, voiced concerns about the pressures on the national grid and its capacity. They identified that significant upgrades to the grid are essential to accommodate the transition to a fully electric fleet.

To achieve this, many emphasised the importance of early engagement between government, local authorities, bus operators and distribution network operators (DNOs) to commit to a strategic approach and help prevent long timescales for building the infrastructure. Energy industry groups advocated for a timely notice of the end of sales date to allow DNOs to update their plans and modelling. They also highlighted that clear, early requests for energy requirements would help prevent issues with grid capacity.

Many respondents, mainly local authorities and operators, pointed to the lack of space in some depots for ZEBs and charging facilities. Many commented that maintaining enough space for charging equipment and additional technologies like batteries is a considerable challenge for operators and should be a critical consideration.

Many responses agreed that a solution to this barrier is early discussions and collaboration between operators and local authorities to identify unsuitable depots and manage upgrades.

Some respondents said that electric infrastructure on rural routes would have difficulties in providing suitable charging facilities because there are inadequate ranges on longer-distance services. Some proposed that any future rounds of the Rural Mobility Fund should support the decarbonisation of rural bus services.

It was also suggested that government should share best practice from existing and previous funding schemes to help others overcome barriers to decarbonising rural routes. 

A few responses highlighted the need to upskill drivers and train other members of staff, as well as having to recruit new people to highly skilled jobs, believing that this will pose a challenge for operators. 

Concern over the lack of standardisation in charging and refuelling infrastructure was also raised. Local authorities said infrastructure interoperability is needed to allow operators the flexibility to move their buses between depots when required. One response recommended that government might consider how the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulations could help facilitate interoperability in depot infrastructure.

Ending the sale of new, non-zero emission coaches and minibuses: summary of responses

Stakeholder views

Coaches

We received 15 responses, all from organisations, including:

• coach manufacturers and operators
• industry groups
• sub-national transport bodies
• fuel/infrastructure providers

Respondents emphasised that coaches have significantly different operating cycles from buses in service. Coaches, for example, may not return to home depots as often as service buses do. Coaches may need to be able to find charging/fuelling locations wherever they operate and the vehicles themselves may need ranges in the order of hundreds of miles.

Respondents also identified difficulties in enabling charging/fuelling infrastructure to be put in existing coach parking sites and at motorway service areas – notably grid constraints and cost – and uncertainty in technology (battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell).

Operators and trade bodies said the coach sector has not benefited from decarbonisation funding, nor did it receive dedicated support during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, they emphasised that, unlike the bus sector, the majority of vehicles are operated by SMEs, with a very small number of large operators.

There were also concerns around setting an end of sales date given the experience of compliance with the Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (PSVAR) in the coach sector.

Minibuses

We received 12 responses, all from organisations. Respondent types included:

• local authorities
• community transport organisations
• manufacturers
• industry groupings

The need for adequate grant support was highlighted, with a focus on the vehicles themselves. This was emphasised due to the contractual nature of minibus services, particularly with public bodies, schools and religious institutions and given the market structure of the minibus market – with the vast majority of operators being SMEs.

However, due to compatibility with the existing public charging network and the duty cycles of minibuses, there was far less weight given to providing infrastructure funding.

There were also concerns about driver licensing. Due to the weight of batteries/fuel cells, zero emission vehicles may exceed the weight restrictions for category B licenses. This would mean drivers with category B licenses may not be able to drive zero emission minibuses, unless the additional weight is offset (for example, by reducing passenger capacity).

Upskilling the driver to push for zero emission minibuses would require additional training and expenditure. Responses highlighted there is currently a derogation for goods vehicles, allowing drivers of lower licensing categories to drive heavier alternatively fuelled vehicles.