Comprehensive EV fire statistics reveal 0.0012% fire risk vs 0.1% for ICE vehicles. Explore battery fire causes, thermal runaway prevention & safety standards.
According to the Energy Saving Trust, EV fire statistics demonstrate that only 511 global EV battery fires occurred between 2020–2024. The organisation states that an EV has a 0.0012% probability of catching fire, whilst petrol or diesel vehicles face a 0.1% probability—a statistic corroborated by numerous organisations. Although both probabilities remain minimal, the percentage chance for an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle catching fire is approximately 100 times greater. Given the substantially larger proportion of ICE vehicles on roads compared to EVs, this translates to significantly more incidents.
The evidence indicates that ICE vehicles catch fire considerably more frequently than EVs. However, because high voltage battery fires result from thermal runaway rather than fuel ignition, EV battery fires prove more challenging to extinguish and persist substantially longer than ICE vehicle fires. Whilst less frequent, they necessitate caution through best fire safety practices, as they present distinct hazards for fire and rescue services.
Substantial data and EV fire statistics regarding battery fire risks exist across various sources. This analysis examines the available data, which consistently demonstrates the same trend: ICE fires remain more prevalent than EV battery fires regardless of the year examined.
Data from EV Fire Safe in Australia corroborates the 511 verified EV battery fires figure, noting that 489 ignited with jet-like, directional flames, whilst 22 fires resulted from vapour cloud explosion and violent deflagration.
The Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Department reported that Freedom of Information (FOI) request data revealed the London Fire Service addressed 1,898 petrol and diesel fires but only 54 EV fires in 2019.
Fire Rover data indicates EVs experience fires in 25 per 100,000 vehicles sold compared to 1,530 fires per 100,000 for ICE vehicles. In Sweden, EV fires occurred in 3.8 EVs per 100,000 vehicles, with hybrids experiencing the same rate. However, 68 per 100,000 ICE vehicles caught fire during the same period—almost 29 times more than EVs. In Poland, both ICE vehicles and EVs demonstrated identical incident rates of 0.23 fires per 1,000 registered vehicles (23 fires per 100,000 vehicles).
UK Parliament committees have released extensive data on EVs and ICE vehicles. In 2022, 18,991 road vehicle fires occurred in the UK, representing a 4.7% increase from 2021, but an 18% decrease from 2017 and a 10% decrease from 2012. The recent increase has been attributed not only to ICE cars but also electric scooters, which demonstrate substantially higher fire rates than electric cars. Of the 18,991 road vehicle fires, 239 were battery-related, including electric scooters, electric motorbikes, electric forklift trucks and hybrid vehicles alongside EVs. The actual EV fire figure is likely considerably lower.
UK Parliament data on US battery fires provides better segmentation. National Transportation Safety Board data demonstrated hybrids are most prone to fire in the US, with 3,474.5 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold. Petrol and diesel cars recorded a fire rate of 1,529.9 per 100,000 sold, whilst EV fires totalled only 25.1 per 100,000 sold. The data revealed that only 204 Tesla vehicles caught fire since 2013 from more than 4 million vehicles worldwide.
Autotrader reported that UK records for EV fires totalled 239 from approximately 100,000 total vehicle fires between 2022–2023—an EV fire percentage of 0.24%. The Swedish Contingencies Agency stated that only 23 fires from 611,000 vehicle fires in 2022 related to an EV—an EV fire percentage of 0.004%.
ATF Professional, based on QBE Insurance research, reported that UK fire brigades attended 279 EV fires in 2025, acquired from an FOI with 42 of 49 fire and rescue services responding. This represents a 133% increase on the 120 recorded incidents in 2022 (with 158 EV fires in 2023 and 207 in 2024). During the same period, UK EV registrations more than tripled. In 2025, over 2 million EVs were registered in the UK, equating to an EV fire rate of 0.02%. Fires involving electric scooters increased by 249% from 149 in 2022 to 520 in 2025, further confirming that numerous battery vehicle fires involve scooters rather than cars.
ATF Professional also reported vehicle recalls in 2025 due to EV battery fire risk. Volvo recalled 10,500 EX30 SUVs in the UK and 40,000 globally, whilst others received instructions to limit charging to 70% state-of-charge (SOC). Volkswagen recalled over 100,000 ID.3 and Cupra Born worldwide, including 2,261 in the UK, due to battery module faults. However, not all fire risk recalls involved EVs—Stellantis recalled 72,000 UK hybrid vehicles across their Alfa Romeo, Citroën, DS, Fiat, Jeep, Peugeot and Vauxhall brands.
Regardless of dataset, region or year, the data demonstrates that EV battery fire risk remains lower than ICE fire risk. Some data indicates similar fire levels, but most evidence shows ICE vehicles are substantially more likely to catch fire than EVs.
Whilst arson and criminal activity can lead to EV fires, the majority result from high voltage batteries undergoing thermal runaway.
EV battery fires and thermal runaway can initiate due to numerous factors: degradation causing internal temperature increases, mechanical damage and abuse leading to short circuiting, overcharging and faulty chargers causing overheating, and environmental factors (elevated temperatures) that can destabilise and overheat the battery. Poor battery quality represents another factor, as cheaper, less robust batteries typically prove less safe than those thoroughly tested by major manufacturers.
Thermal runaway commences with cell abuse—such as overcharging or mechanical damage. When cells undergo this abuse, damage occurs, leading to internal short circuiting. The chemical reactions inside the cell are replaced with electrochemical reactions generating both heat and toxic gases. This heat can reach hundreds of degrees Celsius within a rapid timeframe, preventing proper heat dissipation.
This generated heat produces two detrimental effects on the EV battery pack. First, the cell undergoing initial thermal runaway continues producing heat, which further breaks down the cell, increasing the detrimental reaction rate and continually elevating internal temperature and toxic gas generation. The thermal runaway cell becomes a self-sustaining heat source generator that spreads to other cells. Once heat becomes sufficiently elevated, it transfers between adjacent cells, causing thermal runaway propagation where all other cells in the battery pack are likely to undergo thermal runaway due to intense internal heat. This accelerates the thermal runaway process, increasing fire and explosion likelihood.
When generated heat reaches extreme levels, it causes separation structures within cells to collapse, allowing electrodes to contact and causing further short circuiting. This releases additional heat and gases inside cells. At this stage, cells will likely ignite, but can also explode due to internal pressure buildup from released gases if not properly vented during thermal runaway. Whilst battery fires present serious hazards, battery pack explosions prove worse—beyond initial explosion harm, the explosion process releases a vapour cloud of toxic gases.
Modern EV battery packs incorporate protective measures, including cell isolation barriers, fire-resistant pack materials, liquid cooling systems, advanced battery management systems (BMS) and regular temperature monitoring capabilities. However, these measures cannot prevent all fires. Some cells, such as BYD's LFMP cells, demonstrate high stability and resist thermal runaway when penetrated with a nail. Nevertheless, for most EV battery packs, risk exists if batteries undergo abuse or inadequate maintenance.
Despite lower frequency, EV fires prove substantially more difficult to extinguish and persist considerably longer than traditional car fires. The disparity is significant enough that firefighters and rescue services require specialised training for EV fires. Whilst EV fire numbers do not particularly challenge fire and rescue services compared to petrol car fires, the fires themselves present considerable difficulties. Firefighting techniques continue evolving alongside EV technology globally to address EV battery fire challenges.
In ICE vehicle fires, fire spreads because liquid fuel is highly flammable. For most ICE vehicle fires, once the affected area has been cooled and the fuel source isolated, the fire becomes easier to control. EV battery fires differ fundamentally.
Once an EV battery ignites, suppression proves substantially more challenging because battery packs contain considerably more chemical energy than fuel fires. Battery fires burn hotter, and because thermal runaway propagates through cells causing a chain reaction of self-sustaining heat generation within cells—making them their own fuel source—fires require substantially longer to extinguish and prove notoriously difficult to cool.
Ideally, EV battery packs would be left to burn out, but reality requires many thousands of litres of water for extinguishment. Fires are located deep within heavily protected structures underneath vehicles, making direct fire source access difficult for firefighters and creating the possibility that hidden hotspots are missed, prolonging fires.
EV fires vary depending on how toxic gases vent once built up, presenting additional challenges for firefighters who must learn different EV battery suppression techniques. Because EV battery packs are located under vehicle floors, vented gases can create directional 'jet-like' flames emerging from either vehicle side with heat similar to ICE vehicle fire flames. Conversely, if fire occurs in limited ventilation areas—inside basements or multi-storey car parks—generated gas during off-gassing may not escape easily and can cause explosions if the gas cloud connects with the ignition source.
Another main challenge with EV fires absent from ICE vehicle fires is their ability to reignite many hours after apparent suppression. Some reports indicate reignition can occur up to 24 hours after initial fire suppression. This reignition can happen in the EV or even when the battery is in storage facilities (or during transportation to storage facilities).
These reignition challenges, alongside other EV fire challenges, mean EV fleet operators, recycling centres and storage facilities all face unique EV battery fire suppression challenges—not solely firefighters tasked with extinguishing initial fires. One unique issue with EV battery fires is their potential to affect substantially more people than commonly expected—not only vehicle owners and those tasked with extinguishment.
Hybrid vehicles frequently appear in highest vehicle fire statistics because they incorporate both systems. Whilst batteries are not as high-performance or energy-dense as EV batteries, they carry fire risk associated with both technologies—fuel fires and battery fires—because they contain both battery packs and internal combustion engines.
Currently, no legal minimum standards exist for fire safety when charging an EV, and no single definitive standard set is industry-recognised as a best practice guide for managing fires related to high voltage EV batteries and EV charging. However, numerous approaches ensure both EV fleet fire safety and EV charging depot fire protection, with various guidelines informing fleet owners on optimal protection methods.
The UK Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) has published guidance for car park and charging depot owners installing EV charging points into existing infrastructure. The guidance identifies methods to reduce EV fire risk and impact when retrofitting EV chargers. For car park owners, this includes providing water-based fire suppression methods, increasing distance between parked cars to prevent gas buildup, providing fire-resistant barriers and thermal monitoring cameras, and ensuring any installed EV charge points are certified and installed by qualified installers.
Fleet owners with charging depots and individual charging depot owners should implement measures to assist fire services. This includes ensuring sites can provide sufficient firefighting water supply during fires, ensuring clear pathways for removing burnt EVs for easy removal, ensuring infrastructure has appropriate fire resistance to avoid exacerbating situations, and providing sufficient water runoff control and containment for the thousands of litres of water that will engulf areas over short periods.
Beyond these specifics, a range of other best practices should be included as standard, including installing sprinkler systems (especially if underground), allowing sufficient room around charging points for easy plugging without damage, providing extra space in EV parking bays, providing manual firefighting equipment, and installing automatic fire detection and warning systems.
For fleet owners and charging depots, planning should also be sufficiently robust. To ensure EV fleet fire safety and EV charging depot fire protection at planning level, fleet and charging depot owners should include EV fires in emergency planning documents, regularly rehearse emergency plans so all personnel are equipped with necessary risk-minimisation skills, and sites should have power isolation (with manual reset) to turn off charging equipment.
For tackling EV fires, a new report from UL Research Institutes (ULRI) states that water from a standard handline should be the first-choice suppression tactic, with vehicle cabin being the priority target for suppression in early fire stages. The study found that adding suppression agents was no more effective than water, and neither water nor active suppression agents halted thermal runaway. In cases where fires cannot be completely extinguished, the report states that controlling fires and allowing battery burnout is the optimal approach. The report states that EV fire blankets should be used with caution, as flammable gases can accumulate under blankets, increasing explosion risk. Blankets should not be used if vehicles are indoors or in confined spaces, as this increases explosion risk, and if used, should not be repositioned once deployed. EV fire blankets are not replacements for water-based suppression.
EV fires cannot be truly eliminated, as thermal runaway potential always exists. However, by utilising best practices for charging and at charging depot level, fire outbreak risks can be minimised. Should fires still manifest, best practices at site level can help contain fires, de-risking threats to personnel, charging points, other structural infrastructure (buildings if multi-storey or basement) and any other fleet vehicles in fire vicinity.
As part of best practices, numerous EV charging station fire codes have been implemented for EV charging infrastructure, providing baseline understanding for preventing and responding to EV fires. These are NFPA 70, NEC Article 625 and NFPA 855. All these standards are actively evolving as new information emerges, so fleet owners and charging station depot owners should actively maintain awareness of latest EV charging station fire codes and standards—as substantial differences exist in EV technology now compared to over a decade ago when some standard editions were created.
NEC Article 625 EV charger standard
NEC Article 625 EV charger is a US national standard requiring EV charger boxes or charging stations to meet specific safety requirements, such as proper wiring size and waterproof rating. The fire code treats EV charging as a continuous load, so circuits used in EV charging stations must be sized at 125% of maximum rated output—for example, for a 40 A level 2 charger, circuitry must safely hold at least 50 A.
NEC Article 625 scope has continued changing as EVs have evolved. The standard was first implemented in 1897 but focused on wiring within cars. From 1996 onwards, focus shifted to growing technologies surrounding EVs with structural wiring systems, not vehicle internal wiring. The latest standard ensures any EV charging installations are safe in both installation location and for users. Latest standards also address future vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technologies, as scope now covers bidirectional charging and associated safety requirements for feeding energy back to the grid.
NFPA 855 Energy Storage Systems Standard
NFPA 855 is the standard for energy storage systems and energy storage risk control. NFPA 855 requires companies to adhere to designs and validations addressing thermal runaway propagation in battery packs. These standards ensure manufacturers design systems that either prevent cell-to-cell fire spreading or demonstrate acceptable outcomes in UL 9540A testing at cell, module and unit level—characterising flame spread, heat release and gas output of batteries. Any systems complying with NFPA 855 are likely to have lower spread rates and reduced explosion likelihood, helping firefighters tackle fires more quickly.
NFPA 70 EV Charging Standard
NFPA 70 is the EV charging standard governing EV supply equipment (EVSE) safety and outlining infrastructure and personnel protection from electrical hazards. The standard requires EV chargers to have a service load of 7,200 W or equipment nameplate rating—whichever value is greater. NFPA also covers numerous other charging station requirements set out in NEC Article 625, including listing charging equipment, determining minimum distance of charge coupling from ground, and ensuring methods exist to disconnect vehicles from charging stations.
The 2026 edition of NFPA 70 has implemented numerous standard changes, representing a modernisation of pre-existing code to maintain pace with changing technology developments in the EV and EV charging infrastructure space, better integrating high voltage systems into the update.
Main NFPA 70 revisions include: arc-flash labelling no longer restricted by a 1,000 A threshold and requiring clearer labelling; updates to rules for installing 1,000 VDC and 1,500 VDC charging systems; formal definitions for 'Limited Energy Cable' for lower voltage systems; new chapters dedicated to how data and power function as one in modern EV charging infrastructure; updated load calculations for EV infrastructure and stricter installation rules for energy storage systems (some charging infrastructure have their own backup); new classes of Ground-Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs); and new requirements for working space around equipment. Significant additions include EVSE equipment needing to be listed (and specific systems requiring use) for other electric motor systems with non-road use, including boats, aircraft, electric golf carts, electric scissor lifts and electric forklifts.
EVs present unique considerations for insurers compared to ICE vehicles, where risk has been monitored for many years and risks have long been established. EVs present different risks, prompting insurance companies to rethink their assessment models. This is not necessarily detrimental, as ICE vehicles have greater fire risk, but numerous EVs are more expensive to replace than ICE vehicles (especially in like-for-like models where EVs are almost always more expensive) and could potentially cause wider fires affecting other vehicles or infrastructure if not properly extinguished.
With new assessment requirements emerging, fleet owners should understand EV fleet insurance fire risk to maintain compliance and remain aware of likely costs and stipulations. Beyond EVs themselves, EV charging infrastructure installation brings additional risks and liability issues, ranging from electrical faults to trip hazards from charging cables. Insurance policies now assess these risks for fleet owners, and insurers require any charging depot owner to comply with British Standards for electrical installations (in the UK). It represents different risks requiring management rather than increased risk for insurers.
Insurance companies are also reassessing value compared to traditional vehicles. Battery value in an EV represents the majority of vehicle value. Any damage, repair or replacement to batteries will substantially exceed replacing engine parts in ICE vehicles. Likewise, charging infrastructure is not inexpensive, and if fleet owners opt for latest DC fast chargers, their value can reach hundreds of thousands depending on brand, charging speed and installation requirements (if additional work or grid connection is needed). These assets must be added to any insurance policy and can increase premiums as they are also expensive to repair and replace. Proper documentation with correct charger values can help fleet owners with smoother claims processes if issues arise, as charger values can often be underestimated, leaving fleet owners with financial gaps between insured cost and actual replacement cost.
Despite new and different risks with EVs, insurance providers are creating specialist policies for business fleets addressing concerns around battery degradation and replacement costs. Some include provisions for battery health monitoring and performance guarantees, and some insurers offer lower premiums for fleets operating at optimal battery conditions. Other insurance products specifically cover charging equipment and infrastructure damage, including physical damage, electronic malfunctions, power surges and equipment faults.
Fleet owners need awareness that tailored insurance solutions exist. Policies are being developed for fleet owners currently transitioning with hybrid fleets of ICE vehicles and EVs. However, insurers are monitoring how and where vehicles are charged, and large-scale charging depots might require extra fire-safety measures to satisfy insurers that sites are safe and insurable. Fleet owners will often need to ensure charging stations are regularly inspected, maintained and routinely tested in line with manufacturer instructions to meet insurance conditions. Fleet owners should also keep detailed records of technology installations and updates in case issues or discrepancies arise between insurer statements and fleet owner documentation.
Whilst not a requirement, fleet owners should also maintain awareness of latest insurance and policy requirements to determine if they need to adapt any systems or working principles to remain insurable for the foreseeable future as conditions change. This enables fleet owners to maintain advantage in an industry that is constantly changing and likely to continue evolving in coming years.
Read more about:
Google Preferred Source
