Wider fleet adoption of electric vans is dependent on faster charging speeds, the Association of Fleet Professionals (AFP) has warned.

Paul Hollick, chair at the AFP, said that current industry talk centres around issues of range and payload but charging speeds tend to be a bigger real-world frustration.

Available van charging speeds now lag far behind typical electric cars. Current models from major manufacturers are rated from around 50-125kWh, meaning that even the best will take around 40 minutes to charge from 10-80% in ideal circumstances – and are usually slower in real world conditions.

“Having a driver sitting around for an hour while their van charges is expensive,” Hollick pointed out.

“If vans were capable of faster charging then, to a significant extent, other issues affecting them tend to become more manageable. For example, the negative impact of higher payloads on range becomes less important if you can recharge to 80% every 125 miles in 15 minutes.”

The issue was spotlighted at a recent meeting of the AFP’s Mega Fleet Committee, which consists of members who operate very large fleets.

Hollick said there was a perception among AFP members generally that vans were being built with slower charging capabilities because manufacturers believed achieving the lowest possible purchase price was crucial.

“This misconception is understandable. However, the message that we are hearing from our members is that they would be willing to pay more for faster charging capacity. Over a typical six-year fleet lifecycle, the additional cost of a rapid charging van would be more than outweighed by increasing the availability of the driver.”

Hollick said: “We believe that many more fleet operators would be won over to electric vans if an 80% charge was achievable in 10-15 minutes.”

He added it was also important to ensure drivers were accessing charge points capable of matching the highest speed of the vehicle.

“If the van can charge to 150kWh, fleets need to get as close to this figure as possible from the public charger. Too often, drivers are charging at 50kWh because of the high number of other vehicles tethered.”

Hollick said that a further boost to electric van practicality could be delivered soon by the removal of some compliance requirements for 4.25-tonne electric vans.

“As has been widely reported, the Government is working its way through the technical issues in this area and we hope to see progress soon on eliminating what we consider unnecessary tachograph, driver hours and MOT requirements.”

The AFP’s comments come a day after FleetCheck reported that fleet resistance to electric vans remains high for reasons of range, payload, charging speed and charger availability – making them “simply not fit for purpose for many operators”. The fleet software firm has called for sales targets for electric vans to include low-emission options as it warns that the year-to-date market share of 9% for fully electric vans is far short of the UK’s objective of 16% for 2025 – and the figure shoots up to 24% in 2026.

Hollick said AFP members were very aware that the ZEV mandate was now rapidly ramping up sales targets for electric vans.

“Sales continue to lag some way behind the government targets but manufacturers are going to come under increasing pressure to push electric vans onto fleets.”

FleetCheck has said fleets are simply planning to keep their old diesel vehicles on the road as long as possible, but the AFP has warned that the point in time when most operators can carry on buying diesel and no longer ignore electrification “is coming soon”.

“With that moment approaching, we’d like to see a greater understanding between manufacturers, fleets and government about the practicalities of electric van adoption, something we have been working on via the Zero Emission Van Plan created alongside the BVRLA and others. Rapid charging speeds and friction-free use of 4.25-tonne models are examples of this.

“Also, it’s sadly true that many of the electric vans introduced so far have proven unreliable in day-to-day use, sometimes because of faults that should have been recognised at the design stage. We need more effectiveness from the next generation of models.”