Electric Car Chat

How Will They Charge EVs 3p Per Mile? The Answer's In Your Dashboard!

• Graham Hill • Season 2 • Episode 17

Share episode

Send us a text

Following on from my last podcast the Chancellor has confirmed the road mileage charge for EV's at 3 pence per mile in her budget but it would seem as though the Treasury is clueless as to how it will be measured and charged. But I have the simplest of answers. 

Headlines say “new EV tax,” but the numbers tell a different story. We break down the hidden nine pence per mile already paid by petrol drivers through fuel duty and VAT, then show why a visible three pence per mile for electric cars is a 67% reduction—not a penalty. The bigger challenge isn’t the maths; it’s the psychology. When costs are hidden in the pump price, they feel like fuel. Make them explicit, and they feel like tax. So we focus on the message that actually resonates: switch to electric and cut your road duty from nine to three pence per mile while protecting your privacy and funding safer roads.

We dig into a practical, privacy‑preserving plan that uses over‑the‑air connectivity already built into modern EVs to transmit a single data point: total UK miles. No GPS trails, no routes, no black boxes. We also solve the “holiday problem” by cleanly excluding foreign miles through simple geofenced counters, ensuring you never pay UK duty for journeys in Europe. For plug‑in hybrids, we propose a fairer system: charge three pence for electric miles only and keep fuel duty at the pump for petrol miles. Most PHEVs already track these figures, so accuracy is achievable without complexity.

Funding matters too, and not just for budgets. Instant‑torque EVs demand better road surfaces and grip, yet resurfacing cycles have slipped toward seventy years. Linking a visible slice of per‑mile revenue to maintenance strengthens trust and improves safety for everyone—drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. We lay out a three‑year path from legislation to full rollout, including standards, a large‑scale pilot, and OTA billing for EVs and PHEVs, with MOT‑based fallbacks for older cars. The takeaway is clear: EVs remain far cheaper to run, even with a three pence charge; the policy is technically feasible, economically necessary, and politically winnable when framed as a real saving with robust privacy.

If this reframing helps you see the issue differently, subscribe, share with a friend who’s EV‑curious, and leave a quick review—what part of the plan would you improve?

To buy a copy of Electric Cars - The Truth Revealed visit grahamhilltraining.com. Buy the current copy and receive the totally updated version in early 2026. If you are interested in sponsoring this podcast or would be interested in working together please visit grahamhilltraining.com/contact


Hi, I'm Graham Hill and I'd like to welcome you to another episode of Electric Car Chat.

Now, you might remember a few weeks back I recorded an episode on road pricing for electric vehicles, explaining how Over-The-Air technology could make it work without any Big Brother surveillance nonsense. That episode got a lot of attention, and since then I've been doing some deeper thinking - and I've had some really interesting conversations that have made me realise we need to reframe this entire discussion. It also meant that I have created and sent a proposal to the Treasury and created a press release on this subject of EV road charging. Hence the reason why this latest podcast has been delayed so apologies for that.

Now, here's the thing: every headline I'm seeing says "Government to charge electric vehicles 3p per mile" - and people are up in arms about it. "New tax on EVs!" "Punishing people for going green!" "This will kill EV adoption!" And so on and so on. All very negative.

But nobody - and I mean NOBODY - is talking about what petrol drivers are ALREADY paying. And when you look at that comparison, suddenly the story becomes completely different.

So today, I'm going to explain why the proposed 3p per mile for electric vehicles isn't a new tax at all. It's actually a 67% REDUCTION in what drivers currently pay. And I'm going to show you exactly how the numbers work, why the psychology matters more than the mechanics, and how we can make this fair for everyone - including plug-in hybrid drivers and people who take their cars abroad.

This might be the most important episode I've done, because if we don't get the messaging right on this, we could see this policy fail simply because nobody explained it properly.

So let's dive in.

The Hidden Tax You're Already Paying

Let me start with a question: If you drive a petrol or diesel car, do you know how much tax you pay per mile?

Most people would say "no idea" or "I pay road tax, but that's annual, not per mile."

But here's the reality: you've been paying a per-mile tax since 1909. It's called fuel duty, and it's baked into every litre of petrol you buy.

Let me break down the numbers for you.

When you fill up your petrol car, the taxation breaks down like this:

Fixed fuel dutyis currently 52.95 pence per litre. That's been frozen for years, but it's still substantial.

VAT is 20 percent, but here's the clever bit - VAT is charged not just on the fuel, but on the fuel PLUS the duty. So you're paying tax on the tax. At current petrol prices, that works out to about 24 pence per litre in VAT.

Total taxation per litre: 77 pence. Just in fuel duty and VAT.

Now, there are 4.546 litres in a gallon. So 77 pence times 4.546 equals £3.50 per gallon in taxation.

The average petrol car does about 37.5 miles per gallon. So £3.50 divided by 37.5 miles equals...

9 pence per mile. Just in fuel duty and VAT.

Think about that for a second. The average petrol price right now is about £1.42 per litre. Of that £1.42, a full 77 pence - that's 54 percent - is taxation. Only 65 pence is actual fuel.

So if you drive 10,000 miles a year - which is pretty typical for most drivers - at 37.5 miles per gallon, you're buying about 267 gallons of petrol. At £3.50 tax per gallon, that's £900 annually in fuel duty and VAT. Just in taxation. That's before you've even paid for the actual petrol, before your annual vehicle excise duty and before everything else.

Now, nobody thinks about it this way because it's invisible. It's hidden in the pump price. You see "£1.42 per litre" and you think "that's the cost of petrol." You don't think "53p of that is duty, 24p is VAT with just 65p being actual fuel."

The taxation is psychologically invisible. And that makes it acceptable.

But here's what makes this fascinating from a psychological perspective: even though we're all paying this 9p per mile, when the Government says "we're going to charge electric vehicles 3p per mile," people lose their minds.

Three pence per mile! Around a third of what petrol drivers currently pay! And yet the headlines scream about new taxes and killing EV adoption.

This is a perfect example of what I call the visibility paradox. Make taxation explicit - even when you're REDUCING it - and it feels worse because it's visible.

So let me be absolutely clear about what's being proposed here:

The Government wants to replace the 9 pence per mile that petrol drivers currently pay in fuel duty with 3 pence per mile for electric vehicles.

Now, why does this matter? Why do I keep banging on about this 9p versus 3p comparison?

Because psychology matters more than the actual numbers.

If the Government announces "we're introducing road pricing for electric vehicles at 3p per mile" without that comparison, people will think it's a NEW tax. They'll think electric vehicles are being punished. They'll think the Government is trying to claw back the savings they were making by going electric.

But if the Government says "we're reducing road taxation for electric drivers from 9p to 3p per mile - a 67% saving," suddenly the entire narrative changes.

Same policy. Same numbers. Completely different perception.

And this is where I think the Government is about to make a massive communication mistake if they're not too careful. They need to lead with the comparison. They need to make it absolutely clear that this isn't about making electric vehicles more expensive - it's about making them LESS expensive than petrol cars while still maintaining road funding.

Because here's the uncomfortable truth: roads cost money to maintain. About £35 billion a year. And that money currently comes from general taxation and fuel duty.

As we transition to electric vehicles, that revenue stream evaporates. By 2030, when new petrol and diesel sales end, the Treasury faces a catastrophic shortfall. So, we knew that electric vehicles would have to pay their share of duty, we now know when. 

The OTA Solution - Quick Recap

Now, in my previous episode I explained in detail how Over-The-Air technology makes this work without GPS tracking or Big Brother surveillance. Let me give you a very quick recap because it's important for what comes next.

Modern electric vehicles - most of them built from 2020 onwards - have OTA connectivity. That's the same technology that lets Tesla update your car's software overnight, or lets Polestar add new features remotely. There are a handful of makes and models that don’t have OTA technology installed but they have until 2028 when the new rules come into effect, to design and install the necessary systems. Others will need to tweak their software to enable them to comply with a pre-defined set of rules and standards.  

Once compliance has been completed the OTA connection will transmit one number: your total mileage. Not where you've been. Not when you drove. Not your routes or destinations. Just total miles.

Your car already stores mileage in multiple systems - the instrument cluster is the one we know about but there are many others. The motor ECU, the Body Control Module, the ABS system. Cross-referencing these mileage readings will automatically detect tampering. And because the system tracks your historical mileage, you can't wind it back - you can't report fewer miles this month than you reported last month.

For electric vehicles specifically, there's an additional check: battery management systems track energy consumption with extraordinary precision. If you've supposedly driven 10,000 miles but only consumed enough electricity for 8,000 miles, that's an automatic red flag.

So the system is tamper-resistant, privacy-preserving, and uses infrastructure that already exists in your car. No new hardware. No GPS tracking. No billions spent on black boxes or toll roads.

Just one number per month: total miles driven.

Simple. Effective. And far less invasive than your mobile phone, which tracks your location constantly.

Right, that's the technical solution. Now let me talk about some of the enhancements and refinements I've been thinking about since that first episode on this subject.

The Foreign Travel Problem - Solved

One of the biggest responses I got after the last episode was: "Graham, what about when I take my car to France? Or Spain? Am I going to be charged UK road tax for miles I drive in Europe?" The answer from the Chancellor was ‘Yes’ in an unbelievable display of a poorly thought through policy. 

And I realised - this is a massive psychological barrier that the Government absolutely MUST address upfront, or it'll sink the whole policy.

The good news is: it's incredibly easy to solve.

Your car already knows which country it's in.

Think about it: when you drive from the UK into France through the Channel Tunnel, your car's navigation system doesn't suddenly stop working. Your speed limit warnings adjust from miles per hour to kilometres per hour. Your radio picks up French stations. Your car KNOWS where it is geographically.

Modern EVs use GPS - or more accurately, GNSS, which is the global navigation satellite system - for all sorts of functions. Navigation, obviously. But also geofencing features. Some cars won't let you exceed certain speeds in school zones. Some adjust their performance based on location. Tesla's Autopilot knows which country it's in and adjusts its behaviour accordingly.

So using that same GPS data to separate UK miles from foreign miles is trivially simple.

Your car would maintain two mileage counters: UK miles and international miles. When you're driving in the UK, it increments the UK counter. When you cross into France, it switches to the international counter.

Once a month, the OTA system transmits your UK mileage. Not your international mileage. Not where you’ve been whilst abroad. Not your routes through France or Spain or Germany. Just one number: "I drove X miles in the UK this month."

Foreign miles: not charged.

Problem solved. Privacy maintained. No complexity.

And frankly, this needs to be front and center in any Government announcement. Not buried in the small print. Not mentioned as an afterthought.

"The road pricing system will use GPS to charge only for miles driven on UK roads. Miles driven in Europe or elsewhere will not be charged. Your privacy is protected - only the total UK mileage number is transmitted, not your location data or routes."

One sentence. Massive anxiety eliminated.

Because I guarantee you, if the Government doesn't say this explicitly, the press will run a headline: "Brits to be taxed for continental holidays" - and suddenly you've got a political firestorm over something that isn't even true.

Get ahead of it. Explain it clearly. Move on.

The Plug-In Hybrid Problem - And The Solution

Right, here's where things get a bit more interesting technically, and where I think the Chancellor's reported proposal needs some serious rethinking.

The Treasury has said that it will charge plug-in hybrid vehicles - PHEVs - a flat rate of 1.5 pence per mile for ALL miles driven.

On the surface, that sounds reasonable. It's half the rate for pure electric vehicles, which kind of makes sense because PHEVs use a mix of electric and petrol, right?

Wrong. That approach creates fundamental problems especially if you’re only travelling low electric miles. Let’s say you’re travelling 10,000 miles a year of which only 2,000 are electric. The 8,000 electric miles already costs duty and VAT amounting to 9 pence per mile, you are now being charged an extra 1.5 pence per mile, an extra £120 with the 2,000 electric miles being charged at 1.5 pence which equals £30 instead of what it should be, £60.

Now some might consider this a reasonable compromise but as it’s possible to segregate the electric miles from the petrol miles why not make the calculations more accurate. Where cars are unable to segregate the miles then we can still revert back to the 1.5 pence per mile for the combined usage.  

To be clear, most modern PHEVs track electric miles versus petrol miles separately. They have to - it's displayed on your dashboard. You can see your EV range, you can see your petrol range, you can see how much of your driving was electric versus petrol.

This isn't new technology. It's standard equipment on most, if not all PHEV’s. Toyota Prius PHEVs have it. Mitsubishi Outlander PHEVs have it. BMW, Mercedes, Audi, VW - most PHEV’s track this data because it's essential for driver information and emissions compliance.

So here's my proposal:

Charge PHEV drivers 3 pence per mile for their electric miles only. Petrol miles continue to pay fuel duty at the pump, exactly as they do now. Couldn’t be more simple.

I genuinely think the Treasury needs to reconsider the 1.5p flat rate and move to electric-mile-only charging for PHEVs. It solves every problem the flat rate creates.

Making It Psychologically Acceptable

Right, let me talk about the elephant in the room: perception.

I said earlier that psychology matters more than mechanics. Let me explain what I mean.

Fuel duty is what I call psychologically invisible taxation. Yes, drivers know they're paying tax. But it's baked into the price at the pump. As I mentioned earlier, you see £1.42 per litre, not "65p fuel plus 77p tax."

The taxation becomes mentally categorised as "cost of fuel" rather than "road tax I'm paying per mile."

Per-mile road pricing makes taxation explicit. "You drove 1,000 miles this month. That's £30 please."

This is the psychological barrier the Government needs to overcome.

And the way to overcome it is through consistent, clear messaging that always includes the comparison.

Wrong message: "Electric vehicles will now pay 3p per mile."

Right message: "Electric vehicles will pay 3p per mile - 67% less than the 9p per mile petrol drivers currently pay in fuel duty and VAT"

Every single communication needs to include that comparison. Every press release. Every ministerial statement. Every government website.

Lead with the reduction, not the charge.

"Switch to electric and cut your road duty from 9p to 3p per mile."

"Save over £600 a year in road taxation by going electric."

"Electric drivers will pay LESS tax than petrol drivers, not more."

Concrete examples. Comparison. Savings.

Because if the Government continues to announce "3p per mile for EVs" without context, the headlines will continue to be "New Tax on Electric Vehicles" - even though it's actually a massive reduction.

And that would be a tragedy of communication, not policy.

Now, I've been thinking about this psychological barrier quite a bit, and I've got a suggestion for a potential enhancement - not for immediate implementation, but maybe as a Phase 2 once the basic system is up and running.

What if we introduced a monthly mileage allowance?

Here's what I mean: Give every driver say 200 free miles per month. Beyond that, you pay 4 pence per mile or maybe even a little bit more.

Average driver does about 625 miles per month. With 200 free, they'd pay for 425 miles. That's 425 times 4p = £17 per month.

Over a year, that works out to £204, not as much as 3p per mile for all miles. But psychologically, it feels very different. The figures might need to be tweaked and possibly banded but the principle is a positive one and a little more palatable. 

Instead of "I'm paying for every mile I drive," it becomes "I get 200 free miles, then I pay for extra."

The first 200 miles covers most people's essential local travel - the school run, the commute, popping to the shops. That feels "free." The charging only kicks in for longer journeys, which feels more like "excess usage" rather than "taxing basic mobility."

Now, I'm not saying we should do this from day one. There are complications:

  • It adds complexity to what should be a simple system
  • It reduces total revenue unless you increase the per-mile rate for chargeable miles
  • People might game it - stay just under 200 miles to avoid charges
  • It's harder to explain simply

But as a Phase 2 enhancement, once the basic system is established and people understand it? I think it could significantly improve psychological acceptance.

You could position it as: "The Government recognises that essential local travel shouldn't be charged. We're giving everyone 200 free miles per month to cover daily needs."

That's a very different political message than "we're charging you for every mile." And we’ve suddenly turned lemons into lemonade which is more likely to encourage rather than create a barrier to the transition from ICE vehicles to electric.

Something to think about for 2030 or beyond, once the initial 3p-per-mile system is bedded in. It could act as an incentive to the majority of ICE car drivers still to transition to actually make the move.

It is clearly much cheaper to service, maintain and fuel electric cars compared to petrol and diesel cars. And that's before we factor in:

  • Company car tax benefits (still massively in favour of EVs)
  • Zero/low emissions zones (no charges for EVs)
  • Lower insurance in some cases (not all)
  • Quieter, smoother driving experience
  • Never visiting a petrol or charge station if you home charge

The financial case for electric vehicles remains overwhelming. Road pricing at 3p per mile doesn't change that.

What it DOES do is help to maintain funding to the Government including the overdue maintenance of our roads in a fair, usage-based way - and it does so whilst charging electric drivers LESS than petrol drivers.

That's the message. That's what needs to be hammered home.

The Road Safety Argument

Now, let me add one more argument for why we need to maintain road taxation revenue - and this one's about safety, not just money.

Electric vehicles are fundamentally different machines from petrol cars. We've talked about that before in previous episodes. But there's one aspect that doesn't get enough attention: the demands EVs place on road surfaces.

Think about it. An electric vehicle delivers instant torque. 100% torque from the moment you touch the accelerator. Torque is another more techy word for acceleration. A petrol car builds torque progressively through the rev range. That instant power delivery places massive reliance on tyre-to-road adhesion.

Now, according to the Asphalt Industry Alliance, roads should be resurfaced or re-dressed every 12 to 15 years to maintain proper grip levels.

What's the current average in the UK? 70 years.

Let that sink in. Our roads should be getting fresh surfaces every dozen years or so. Instead, they're averaging 70 years between proper resurfacing.

That means the adhesion - the grippiness - of most roads in the UK is dangerously low. And that's before we even talk about potholes.

Now add this into the mix: high-performance electric cars are becoming seriously affordable.

I was looking at Auto Trader the other day. Tesla Model 3 Performance - that's 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds, which is genuinely supercar territory - you can pick one up used for as little as £11,250.

Eleven thousand pounds for a car that'll do 0 to 60 in just over three seconds.

And here's the thing about EVs: whilst the battery capacity might deteriorate over time, the acceleration pretty much stays the same. That instant torque doesn't fade.

So you've got high-performance EVs becoming accessible to people on tight budgets. And when you're on a tight budget, what do you do? You economise. You don't fit specialist EV tyres - you fit budget tyres to keep costs down.

Budget tyres. On a car with supercar acceleration being driven on roads that should have been resurfaced decades ago.

Now add in the statistics: most road accidents involve drivers aged 17 to 25. Young, less experienced drivers.

Can you see where this is going?

Affordable high-performance EVs + young drivers + budget tyres + degraded road surfaces = a recipe for disaster.

This is why maintaining road taxation revenue isn't just about fiscal responsibility. It's about safety.

We desperately need to accelerate road resurfacing programmes. We need to get that 70-year average down to something closer to the recommended 12 to 15 years. Especially motorways and A roads. We need road surfaces with proper adhesion to handle the instant torque of electric vehicles, the heavier weight, different weight distribution and cornering in these heavier cars at speed.

And that requires money. About £35 billion a year worth of money, which currently comes from the general pot that includes fuel duty.

Cutting road taxation revenue at precisely the moment when we need to improve road surfaces to safely accommodate electric vehicles? That would be genuinely dangerous.

The 3p per mile charge isn't just replacing fuel duty. It's helping to maintain the funding we need to keep our roads safe as the vehicle fleet changes.

Better road surfaces benefit everyone - cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, all drivers. But they're particularly crucial as we transition to vehicles with instant torque delivery that demands better adhesion.

This is another example of why we can't just abandon usage-based road taxation. We need that revenue. Not so much for general government spending. For the specific purpose of maintaining and improving the infrastructure that EVs require.

I also feel that if the Chancellor made a commitment that say 10% of all money collected as a result of the 3p per mile duty, would be specifically assigned to road maintenance and repair, we would see a lot more acceptance, even support for the mileage charge. Especially if we could come up with a way of charging on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Right, before I get into implementation, let me quickly address two things I keep seeing in the media: the adoption argument and the infrastructure question. Because both of these actually lead us right back to why the collection method matters so much.

The Adoption Question

First, this idea that 3p per mile will kill EV adoption.

Let me see if I've got the logic right. The Government offers grants of up to £3,750 on qualifying new electric vehicles. But apparently, charging £300 a year - that's 10,000 miles at 3p - will suddenly stop people buying them?

Meanwhile, petrol drivers are paying £900 a year in fuel duty and VAT. That's three times as much. And nobody's ever claimed that this has at any moment in time killed ICE car ownership.

So it's fine to charge petrol drivers 9p per mile, but 3p for electric vehicles is somehow a bridge too far? That makes no sense at all.

And the numbers bear this out. According to ThisIsMoney, 69% of current electric car drivers have access to a home charger.

Standard domestic rate is about 26.35 pence per kWh. At 4 miles per kWh, that's 6.6 pence per mile. Over 10,000 miles, that's £660 in electricity. Add the £300 road pricing charge, you're at £960 a year total.

Petrol for 10,000 miles? £1,720. You're saving £760 a year.

But most people with home charging use dedicated EV tariffs - as low as 7 pence per kWh. That's 1.75 pence per mile. Add the 3p charge and you're at 4.75 pence per mile total, or £475 a year.

You're saving £1,245 a year compared to petrol. Over a thousand pounds.

Of the remaining 31% without home charging, most are company car drivers with either access to workplace chargers or the public charging is paid for by the employer. Employers often provide work charging as a benefit to non-company car driving employees. So, the employees will just be paying the 3p per mile duty and maybe a nominal charge for the electricity which may attract benefit in kind tax, and they're still miles ahead of petrol costs.

And remember - fuel duty increases are coming back. 5 pence per litre from 2026, rising annually. Petrol prices keep increasing. EV efficiency keeps improving – some cars are already getting 5 miles per kWh or better.

By the time this comes in in 2028, the financial advantage of EVs will be even bigger.

So the adoption argument? It just doesn't hold water.

Which Brings Me To The Real Point

The economics work. EVs remain far cheaper to run even with the 3p charge.

The infrastructure need is clear. Roads need the money, particularly for EV safety.

The fiscal necessity is undeniable. £35 billion doesn't replace itself.

So the question isn't WHETHER to do road pricing.

The question is HOW.

How do you accurately record mileage? How do you collect the charge? How do you do it without spending billions on infrastructure? How do you protect privacy? How do you prevent tampering?

This is where every other proposal I've seen falls apart.

Black boxes? We're talking billions of pounds to fit telematics to 34 million cars. Massive privacy violations. Political nightmare.

MOT-only recording? Three-year gaps for new cars. Easily manipulated odometers. It doesn't work. But it might be the only option for older cars that don’t have OTA technology fitted. 

GPS tracking? The privacy concerns alone would sink it. People don't want the government tracking every journey.

So what's the answer?

The technology already exists. It's sitting in your driveway right now. It's called Over-The-Air connectivity.

And that's what the rest of this podcast is about. Not defending whether we should do this - we should, and the numbers prove it works. But explaining HOW we actually make it happen.

Because I haven't seen anyone else proposing this solution. Everyone's still talking about black boxes and GPS tracking and MOT checks.

Nobody's talking about using what's already there.

So let me explain exactly how Over-The-Air technology solves every single one of these problems...

Implementation Timeline - Realistic and Achievable

Let me talk briefly about implementation, because I think a three-year timeline is realistic and achievable.

Year One - 2026:

  • Parliament passes the Road Pricing Act
  • Treasury works with vehicle manufacturers on standardised OTA protocols
  • PHEV electric-mile tracking standards agreed
  • MOT centres get updated equipment
  • Massive public information campaign explaining the 9p-to-3p comparison
  • Foreign travel exemption clearly explained
  • PHEV fairness messaged

Year Two - 2027:

  • Large pilot programme - 50,000+ volunteer drivers
  • Test the OTA reporting at scale
  • Validate PHEV electric-mile segregation
  • Test GPS geofencing for international travel
  • Refine the billing systems
  • Gather feedback and adjust

Year Three - 2028:

  • Full implementation for OTA-capable vehicles
  • BEVs report total UK miles
  • PHEVs report electric UK miles only
  • Monthly or quarterly billing goes live
  • Older vehicles use enhanced MOT system
  • Continuous messaging campaign

By 2035, the vast majority of the UK fleet will be OTA-capable through natural replacement, and the system will be fully mature.

Three years from legislation to implementation. That's not rushed, but it's not dragging our feet either.

Why This Matters - The Bigger Picture

Let me wrap up by zooming out to the bigger picture, because this isn't just about collecting tax. It's about the transition to electric vehicles and how we make that transition successful.

The UK has committed to ending new petrol and diesel sales by 2030. That's less than five years away. By 2035, the vast majority of vehicles on our roads will be electric.

This is happening. The question isn't whether we transition to EVs - that's already decided. The question is whether we do it smoothly or whether we create unnecessary barriers.

I mentioned at the start of this episode that I've submitted a detailed proposal to the Treasury. It covers all of this - the OTA technology, the PHEV electric-mile solution, the GPS geofencing for foreign travel, the messaging strategy, the implementation timeline.

If you're interested in the full technical details, I'll be making the proposal available on my website. There's also a press release version that's more concise.

But the core message is simple and consistant across all documents:

It's technically feasible. It's politically achievable if explained properly. And it's economically necessary.

The question is whether we have the political courage to explain it honestly and get on with it.

Because if we don't, we'll be sitting on potholed roads in ten years wondering why nobody thought of a practical solution - whilst the answer was sitting on our driveways all along.

That's it for this episode of Electric Car Chat. I know this has been heavy on policy and messaging, but I genuinely think this is one of the most important discussions we can have about the transition to electric vehicles.

If you've got thoughts on this - whether you agree or disagree - I'd love to hear from you. You can reach me through the website, on social media, or drop me an email.

And if you found this useful, please share it. The more people who understand the 9p-to-3p comparison, the harder it is for misleading headlines to dominate the conversation.

Next episode, I promise I'm getting back to the psychology of the transition from petrol to electric. We've done insurance, we've done road pricing - now it's time to talk about what actually goes on in people's heads when they're thinking about making the switch.

I'm Graham Hill, still making a ruckus about things that matter.

Catch you on the next one.

Bye for now.