Closed consultation

Rapid charging fund: scheme design

Published 6 December 2023

Applies to England

Background

The government has committed the UK to meet net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The transport sector is the largest contributor (27%) to UK domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Two-thirds of emissions in this sector are from petrol and diesel vehicles. Decarbonisation of road transport is, therefore, vital to meet the UK’s net zero goals and improve air quality.

To make this a reality, the government has confirmed that the UK will phase out sales of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2035. From 2035, all new cars and vans must be zero emission at the tailpipe.

On 20 September 2023, the Prime Minister confirmed the UK government intends to introduce its new zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for new cars and vans in the UK from January 2024. The ZEV mandate will set annual minimum targets for the number of new zero emission cars and vans sold in the UK, starting from 22% for cars and 10% for vans in 2024 and rising steadily to reach 80% of cars and 70% of vans by 2030. The government also intends to introduce further legislation taking zero emission new sale targets for cars and vans to 100% by 2035.

Under these targets, we estimate that a quarter of the car fleet will be zero emission by 2030. By 2035, we estimate that over half of the car fleet will be zero-emission, and just under 100% by 2050.

The government must ensure that a comprehensive and accessible network of electric vehicle (EV) chargepoints is in place, allowing drivers to charge their vehicles easily and giving them confidence to purchase an EV.

EV charging on the strategic road network (SRN)

A key part of the public charging network required will be ultra-rapid chargepoints located along the strategic road network (SRN), which comprises motorways and major A-roads in England.

Throughout this document, we use SRN to mean motorways and major A-roads in England.

Both the 2021 report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on the EV charging market and the government’s UK electric vehicle infrastructure strategy, published in March 2022, identified the need for more charging infrastructure especially along motorways, to support those taking longer journeys.

This conclusion aligns with research on the views of the public and EV drivers specifically. For example, results from the June 2022 Department for Transport (DfT) Public Attitudes Tracker found that not enough charging points was the joint top disadvantage of EVs raised by the public, alongside cost to buy.

Additionally, in 2022, Britain Thinks found that 81% of EV drivers thought there were not enough rapid chargepoints at motorway service areas.

How the rapid charging fund (RCF) will address this

The rapid charging fund (RCF) will aim to ensure that the private sector can install ultra-rapid chargepoints (chargepoints capable of 150kW and overcharging speeds) where they are needed ahead of growing demand. The fund will do this by providing grants towards the cost of electricity network capacity at key sites, where it is not commercially viable for the private sector to do so alone. Grid connections at sites funded by the RCF will be future-proofed for a minimum of 10 years, to around 2035, with applicants allowed to future-proof beyond that up to 2050 where feasible.

Why the RCF is needed

There are currently around 480 open-access chargepoints (open to all road users) across motorway service areas in England. Of these, about 260 are ultra-rapid (150kW+). Significant progress has been made in expanding ultra-rapid chargepoint provision at motorway service areas and across the wider SRN over recent years. This investment has been supported by the growth in EV ownership, government commitments on the transition to zero emission vehicles, and the Green Recovery Scheme, which is supporting grid upgrades at 50 motorway service area sites across England.

While this investment is very welcome, it is inconsistent. Some motorway service area sites currently offer very limited or even no charging because of inadequate grid capacity. While existing and planned grid connections may be adequate to support charging provision required at some sites in the short term, further investment will be required to future-proof and, therefore, provide confidence that EV charging provision will remain ahead of demand in the longer term.

The government’s UK electric vehicle infrastructure strategy identified that there are some sites where high upfront costs mean that investment is likely to lag demand. It set out that the RCF will address barriers to the deployment of chargepoints at locations where the commercial case will not add up. The strategy also highlighted that this is a particular issue on motorways, where service areas are limited in number and fixed in location, and electricity supply can be inadequate.

The RCF objectives are to:

• enable the market to provide sufficient charging infrastructure at strategic locations to support the government’s vision for the ultra-rapid chargepoint network and the transition to zero emission vehicles

• increase consumer confidence in en-route charging so that the lack of en-route charging infrastructure is no longer a key barrier to purchasing and using an EV for long-distance journeys

The RCF is required to:

• supplement private sector investment where the cost of a grid connection at strategic locations is too high to be commercially viable

• ensure that grid capacity is future-proofed, allowing for adequate provision of ultra-rapid chargepoints as demand increases, minimising the need for future incremental upgrades to connections that lag demand

Given the need to ensure sufficient provision of chargepoints, if a significant proportion of sites do not apply for or receive RCF funding, government may consider developing secondary legislation using the Automated Electric Vehicles Act to require minimum chargepoint provision at motorway service areas. We have provided more information on this possibility in the Chargepoint Provision and Availability section.

What the RCF will pay for

The RCF will part-fund electricity grid connections as illustrated in Figure 1, with scope shown in the box. On-site distribution below 11 kilovolts (kV) and chargepoints themselves will be funded by the private sector.

Figure 1: Scope of RCF-funded connections

Figure 1 shows the boundary for what is eligible for a contribution towards funding is up to and including point of supply at the 11kV point, but does not include on-site infrastructure beyond 11kV point of supply, such as below 11kV on-site distribution infrastructure and chargepoints.

The RCF pilot

A pilot scheme will be used to test the design of the RCF at motorway service areas, and the application process. This will be used alongside extensive stakeholder engagement, evidence gathering and the outcome of this consultation to inform the design of the main fund. This consultation is focused on the main fund.

Why we’re consulting

The RCF will be a major government investment in the future of EV charging infrastructure. To deliver taxpayer value for money, confirm viability of the fund and enable successful delivery, we are seeking feedback and views on the proposals outlined in this consultation. We will use the evidence gathered alongside the information we have from our extensive programme of industry engagement, as well as learnings from the RCF pilot to help inform the design of the fund.

We are keen to hear from anyone with an interest in the future of EV charging infrastructure, but especially from:

• motorway service area operators
• chargepoint operators
• electricity distribution organisations
• motoring groups
• fleet providers
• businesses operating on the SRN
• manufacturers in related industries

This consultation focuses on funding for motorway service areas and whether funding for SRN, major A-road sites is required.

A-roads on the SRN

A-road service areas and other areas to stop are located across the non-motorway portion of the SRN. There has been rapid growth in the number of ultra-rapid chargepoints both on these sites and at dedicated EV charging hubs over the past 5 years. The number of chargepoints and providers continues to grow at pace. Through our engagement to date, we are aware of ambitious plans that are not contingent on public funding to expand chargepoint provision across the SRN both at existing sites and new hubs.

In comparison to motorways, the nature of A-roads allows for increased competition between sites. Specifically, there is the potential for more sites with fewer chargepoints at closer intervals. This means the electricity network capacity required could potentially be lower at many sites than at motorway service areas.

The RCF will only target sites that are commercially unviable due to grid connection costs. Our evidence gathering to date suggests that at A-road sites, the cost of a grid connection may not be the factor causing a site to be uncommercial. It may instead be a result of low demand on quieter roads, high land cost or rents, or the length of time required to make the site operational.

Where grid connection costs are the uncommercial factor, there may be other commercially viable sites in the same area, ensuring that drivers still have adequate chargepoint provision. Sites that are not currently fuel-focused, such as food, coffee or retail chains, have the potential to become charging locations and, in some cases, already are. There is also increased potential for new sites to be built in the most beneficial areas for both the driver and the chargepoint operator.

Due to these differences with the motorway network and the significant private investment plans that stakeholders have told us about, it is challenging to predict whether and where public funding would be required on A-roads.

We are looking for your views as to whether the RCF will be required to ensure there are no gaps in the provision of ultra-rapid chargepoints along A-roads on the SRN due to uncommercial grid connection costs.

Questions

• Do you think that the RCF is or is not required to part-fund uncommercial grid connection costs on the SRN A-roads?

  • If required: which section(s) of the SRN in your view requires funding?

  • If required: why isn’t private investment alone viable on this section of the SRN? If you have supporting evidence, please supply it.

  • If not required: why, in your view, is the RCF not required? If you have any supporting evidence, please supply it.

• In your view what, if any, market barriers are holding back deployment of EV charging infrastructure on SRN A-roads?

The remainder of the consultation focuses on the design and implementation of the RCF on the motorway network in England.

Future-proofing grid connections

The RCF will invest to ensure that grid connections at funded sites are future-proofed. Connections will be sized to meet future forecast demand levels which reflect the expected growth in demand for EV charging as the sales of petrol and diesel vehicles are phased out. This ‘dig once’ approach will be more time- and cost-efficient than smaller, incremental upgrades. Such incremental upgrades would risk periods of unmet consumer demand while upgrades are being built.

Under the existing regulatory framework, unused electricity network capacity can result in prohibitively high ongoing costs. We have worked closely with the following government departments, associations and companies to design a model that keeps operating costs affordable for the sites while ensuring that increases in capacity will be available as demand increases over time:

• the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
• the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (now the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
• regional electricity network companies
• Energy Networks Association (the industry body representing the companies that operate the electricity wires, gas pipes and energy system in the UK and Ireland)

The proposed approach is summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Agreed approach to future-proofing RCF-funded connections

Figure 2 shows that the network company reinforces the wider network strategically to ensure the capacity is available when needed at the RCF site based on the demand forecast. Sole use assets built by the network company for the purpose of only supplying the site can be future-proofed upfront. The non-network company-owned onsite assets and chargepoints can then be installed in line with the demand.

Distribution network operators will work together with RCF applicants to determine the capacity upgrade required and develop a viable technical solution. Distribution use of system charges will be determined by the capacity required for that specific year. This capacity phasing upgrade solution allows for at least 10-year future-proofing as a baseline and, if possible, up to 2050.

Calculating future demand

At the pre-application stage, applicants will be required to submit projections of future charging demand for their proposed site for each year out to 2050. Government has developed a demand framework to support applicants in determining what future demand could be on their site. The framework provides guidance to a recommended calculation approach, which prospective applicants are strongly encouraged to follow. The framework allows flexibility for applicants to utilise site-specific information, such as stop count data, to ensure that the best available evidence sits behind calculations of future demand. The purpose of the framework is to allow a standardised approach across all motorway service areas when considering how much power is required.

Demand is first estimated for the baseline year (by default 2022, but dependent on data availability), and then for each year to 2050, based on:

• projected growth in the number of battery EVs on the road
• advancements in technology
• the battery EV market
• changes to consumer behaviour

Finally, standardised outputs are used to project the size of grid connection to sufficiently support future charging demand.

Questions

• Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to oversize connections at motorway service area sites, so they are future-proofed to meet demand in the long-term? Please explain your rationale.

• What evidence and variables do you think we should consider when forecasting annual battery electric car, van and heavy goods vehicle (HGV) charging demand at motorway service area sites, to inform the connection size required to meet future demand out to 2050? Please supply any supporting evidence.

When the RCF will be used

The RCF seeks to intervene in a limited way, to support industry’s own investments to grow the capacity needed for EV charging at motorway service areas.

The RCF application process will include a check that there are no plans to invest at a site, without subsidy, before it makes any award. Such plans would need to be comprehensive, technically equivalent, viable, committed and comparable to the RCF objectives.

Funding will only be provided where industry cannot meet the future-proofing levels set out by the RCF, as calculated using its demand framework. Intervention will be limited to the level sufficient to support a viable business case at a site level.

Who can apply to the RCF

We are proposing that the RCF will pay for connection upgrades only and will use a grant model to cover the portion of the cost of future-proofing the connection that prevents the market from investing.

We propose that at motorway service areas, motorway service area operators will be invited to apply for funding. Other parties, such as chargepoint operators, are welcome and encouraged to collaborate with motorway service area operators in their applications to the fund, to jointly develop funded plans for long-term expansion of EV charging facilities.

We consider motorway service area operators to be the most suitable party to apply for the fund for these reasons.

Strategic importance and obligations

Motorway service area operators are required to comply with a range of conditions to maintain their status as a motorway service area. Motorway service areas are strategically important as regularly spaced stopping points which motorists can rely on when undertaking long journeys. Motorway service area operators are, therefore, required to fulfil minimum conditions around opening hours, facilities and numbers of parking spaces relative to traffic flow. They are clearly signposted and are quickly and easily accessible from the motorway. Motorway service area operators have incentives to successfully manage their sites and ensure that customers have a positive experience. To ensure motorway service areas remain fit for purpose and safe they will need to be able to provide charging as motorists transition to EVs.

Management of the site

Provision of charging at the site has significant long-term space implications including the potential requirement for site reconfiguration or land acquisition to accommodate the need for substations and other connection upgrade-related infrastructure. This could include additional room required for larger car parking spaces and potentially provision for HGV charging. This would all need to be overseen by the motorway service area operator. Given the role of the site operators, we propose that they are best placed to coordinate the assessment, design, and wider undertakings associated with managing the grid upgrade and accommodation of expanded chargepoint provision on site.

Managing competition

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) EV charging market study concluded that the RCF provides a pivotal opportunity to open up and increase charging competition at motorway services, as well as increasing grid capacity. In line with the CMA’s recommendations, recipients of the RCF will be required to ensure that there are at least 2 chargepoint operators present on site as a condition of funding. We believe securing meaningful on-site competition through the RCF will help to deliver more choice, better reliability, lower prices, and continued innovation. As operators of the site, we consider that the motorway service area operators, are best placed to manage this condition.

Minimum provision requirements

As well as competition requirements, there will be minimum chargepoint provision requirements as part of the conditions of the RCF. Motorway service area operators are the most suitable to manage chargepoint provision across the whole site and take responsibility for working with chargepoint providers to ensure adherence to the funding conditions.

For these reasons, we feel that motorway service area operators are the most appropriate organisations to apply for, or to manage a joint application to, the fund. We are interested in your views on this.

Question

• Who do you think should be the RCF applicant at motorway service area sites and why?

Why competition is important

In 2021, the CMA published a report into the EV charging market, highlighting that competition and investment in charging infrastructure had been very limited at motorway service area locations. Chargepoint operator exclusivity agreements were seen to be limiting choice and availability of chargepoints at motorway service areas. The CMA report raised concerns that, as things stand, the market alone would be unable to deliver this investment and government support is, therefore, critical.

It was recommended that “the UK government rolls out the RCF as quickly as possible and attaches conditions to this funding to enable competition between chargepoint operators within each motorway service area site”. The CMA finalised its report and investigation into exclusivity of the motorway charging sector in 2022. The resolution will mean that exclusive contracts will no longer apply once RCF-funded capacity comes online and is available to be used and, at the latest, from November 2026. The RCF was recommended as an important opportunity to open up competition within motorway service areas, as well as rolling out many more chargepoints.

We also consulted in September 2021 in the Future of Transport consultation on requiring service area operators and large fuel retailers to “have a minimum of 2 – and at some sites more than 2 – different chargepoint operators at any particular site”. We believe that securing on-site competition through the RCF will help secure better pricing and service for consumers.

DfT is committed to designing the fund in a way that will minimise the distortive impacts on competition.

How will the RCF encourage competition?

As noted, we consider that motorway service area operators are best placed to ensure effective site competition between chargepoint operators upon receipt of a grant from the RCF. As part of the application process, we anticipate that motorway service area operators will need to provide evidence demonstrating that there will be arrangements on site to deliver this competition.

We have been engaging closely with the CMA and multiple industry stakeholders on competition requirements in the RCF.

We propose that motorway service area sites funded by the RCF will be required to have at least 2 open-access chargepoint operators working on site, as per the CMA recommendation, from the point of the connection becoming available and for the duration of the RCF contractual term (at least 10 years). For the pilot, we require that no chargepoint operators may control more than 70% of chargepoints either in the car park or across the site as a whole to ensure meaningful competition at funded sites.

Motorway service area operators will be required to provide proof of these contractual agreements being in place by the time the connection goes live. They will also need to provide proof of the continuous presence and operation of both chargepoint operators on their sites through regular monitoring reports.

We are considering whether to require an open tender for chargepoint operators at RCF-funded sites. In cases where an agreement between a motorway service area operator and one of its chargepoint operators is terminated unexpectedly, we expect the motorway service area operator to notify the RCF delivery body. We are seeking views on how long the motorway service area operator would need to replace a chargepoint operator on a site.

We propose that applicants to the fund should be required to treat all chargepoint operators fairly and will not be allowed to offer preferential treatment to chargepoint operators to which they have an affiliation. This could include a requirement for legal separation between motorway service areas and affiliated chargepoint operators at RCF-funded sites and/or measures to limit the market share of any one chargepoint operator on a motorway service area.

Questions

• Do you agree or disagree that there should be a requirement for motorway service areas, funded via the RCF, to award contracts to chargepoint operators through an open tender process? Explain your rationale.

• What policies, if any, would you like to see introduced to ensure fair treatment for chargepoint operators on motorway service area sites?

• Do you think a 12-month period from notification is a reasonable or unreasonable period of time for a replacement chargepoint operator to be fully operational?

  • If unreasonable: what length of time do you think should be required? Please give your answer in months.

Inclusion of heavy goods vehicles

The government has announced that all new heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in the UK must be zero emissions at the tailpipe by 2040. To support this transition, we are considering whether to extend the scope of the RCF to also part-fund additional grid upgrades required for forecasted zero emission HGV demand. We are using this consultation as an opportunity to gather further information on stakeholder views on the inclusion of HGVs in the scope of the fund.

Through the government’s Zero Emission HGV and Infrastructure Demonstrator programme, DfT will be testing a number of different potential technical solutions to freight decarbonisation, including the use of battery electric technology.

While most battery electric HGVs are expected to recharge overnight at depots, a minority of large HGVs undertaking longer journeys are expected to charge en route and will, therefore, require high-powered charging infrastructure.

National Grid’s report on HGV decarbonisation on the SRN indicated that 10% to 30% of battery electric HGV recharging could be provided en-route at motorway service areas. As such, the RCF potentially offers an opportunity for key strategic sites to have infrastructure installed in advance of expected demand. This could be achieved through part-funding the required level of grid capacity for battery electric HGV charging and prevent the need for smaller, less efficient incremental upgrades.

Questions

• What, in your view, would be the impact if the rapid charging fund did not include additional capacity for zero emission HGV charging infrastructure at motorway service areas as part of its scope?
• In your view, in what timeframe should the rapid charging fund require HGV ultra-rapid charging to be available at motorway station areas?

Funding model

The RCF will provide grant funding to part-fund the cost of future-proofed grid connection upgrades. This will be based on quotes that applicants must obtain from a connection provider. For the pilot, the grant funding required will be assessed on a site-by-site basis to determine the proportion of costs that are not commercially viable for private investment.

We would like to make the fund application process attractive and straightforward. One approach that we are considering is to use a consistent threshold below which the market would fully fund infrastructure provision and above which investment would not generally be considered financially viable and grant funding will be required. A possible option to do this includes using a metric such as a £ per megawatt (MW) funding threshold, which could potentially be banded to group sites with similar characteristics. This could work as a single threshold or a banded threshold approach.

Single threshold approach

Figure 3 shows an example of the single threshold approach:

• a funding threshold of £X per MW for the capital cost is set (by DfT or National Highways)

• the applicant submits its estimate for the capital cost (that is, the quote from the connection provider) and the required capacity (in MW), as part of its application

• the applicant funds the capital cost below the £ per MW threshold, and the RCF funds the capital cost above it

• sites with connection costs below the threshold would not receive RCF funding as they would be considered financially viable. This would also allow applicants to determine easily if they are eligible for funding

Figure 3: Illustrative example of a single threshold approach

Banded threshold approach

Because of the different characteristics of sites, it may not be possible to establish one single funding threshold. Another option is a banded approach, which enables flexibility to offer multiple thresholds. Figure 4 shows an example of this:

• multiple £ per MW funding thresholds for the capital cost are set (by DfT or National Highways)

• the bands would be set against a pre-determined metric, which takes into account the varying nature of different sites

• the applicant submits their estimate for the capital cost (that is, the quote from the connection provider) and the required capacity (in MW), as part of its application

• the applicant also submits their estimate for the predetermined metric, which would determine which band its site is categorised as

• the applicant funds the capital cost below the £ per MW threshold in its allocated band, and the RCF funds the capital cost above it

Figure 4: Illustrative example of a banded threshold approach

Questions

These questions are aimed at motorway service area operators, chargepoint operators or any other party directly involved in providing chargepoints on the SRN. This is to target the questions at those within the industry who are best placed to respond in an informed way.

• Do you agree or disagree that it is feasible to establish a single or banded funding threshold for all sites below which costs are considered financially viable and above which grid connection costs should be considered eligible for RCF grant support? For example, is there a consistent £ per MW level of investment that is generally considered to be financially viable.

• What would your preferred option for funding be? Please explain your rationale.

  • If selecting alternative approach: what would your preferred option for funding be?

  • If selecting alternative approach: explain your preferred funding approach and rationale.

  • If selecting alternative approach: what other benefits or disadvantages do you think use of a single or banded threshold approach brings.

Chargepoint provision and availability

To ensure sufficient chargepoint availability at motorway service areas and avoid queuing, we are looking to mandate (through conditions of funding) that motorway service area operators must meet a minimum level of provision at their sites that would expand in line with growth in demand over time.

Disruption at motorway service areas due to inadequate ultra-rapid chargepoints provision would have numerous knock-on effects for the public, the economy and the safety of road users.

The Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) has been in discussions with chargepoint operators and motorway service area operators as well as industry experts to determine the best mechanism to enable adequate provision to prevent queueing most of the time while remaining commercially viable for chargepoint operators. Most chargepoint operators use a monitoring approach based on the amount of time that the chargepoints are in use and installing additional provision when a certain threshold is exceeded. This is considered to be the most commercially viable approach to implement.

We are considering either of the following options to ensure provision keeps pace with demand:

• maintaining a maximum of 25% average charge point usage per day over a 3-month rolling period

• maintaining a maximum of 25% average charge point usage per day over a 12-month rolling period

For example, if a site has 10 chargepoints that are all in use for an average of over 6 hours a day (25%) over a 24-hour period over the agreed rolling period, there will be a need to increase provision of chargepoints to ensure that the average usage stays below 25%. The amount of additional chargepoints necessary will be determined by the applicant.

To minimise queueing at sites with very high peaks in demand, we are also considering combining the proposed 25% average utilisation threshold described above, with a metric based on maintaining a maximum number of hours at 90% or over chargepoint usage over a specific period. For example, if there were 50 hours per rolling 12-month period where all chargepoints were in use for more than 90% of the hour, this would trigger the need to install additional provision to meet the demand. In recognition of the need for chargepoint provision to be commercially viable, this requirement would only apply if average utilisation over the rolling period is more than 10%.

DfT is also considering whether other levers, such as secondary legislation under the Automated Electric Vehicles Act 2018, should be used to require motorway service area operators to ensure there is a minimum provision of chargepoints available across all motorway service area sites (regardless of RCF funding). The rationale for this is to ensure that if operators decide not to apply to the RCF, they may still be required to provide sufficient chargepoints to meet future demand due to legislative requirements. The intention is that the requirements of legislation will mirror the conditions of the RCF and leave no applicant to the RCF required to meet stricter conditions than those in legislation.

Questions

These questions are aimed at motorway service area operators, chargepoint operators or any other party involved with the provision of chargepoints. This is to target the questions at those within the industry who are best placed to respond in an informed way.

Suggested metrics are maintaining a maximum of 25% average chargepoint usage over a 3-month rolling period or maintaining a maximum of 25% average chargepoint usage over a 12-month rolling period alongside maintaining a maximum of 50 hours at 90% or over usage over the rolling period.

• Do you agree or disagree that a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 25% average over a 3-month period will be effective in achieving a balance between adequate provision of chargepoints and minimised queuing?

• Do you agree or disagree that a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 25% average over a 12-month period will be effective in achieving a balance between adequate provision of chargepoints and minimised queuing?

• What is your preferred approach and why?

• What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 25% over a 3-month period?

• What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 25% over a 12-month period?

• Do you agree or disagree that to minimise queuing at sites with very high peaks in demand, a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 90% over 50 hours, over a 12-month rolling period, in combination with an average utilisation metric, will be effective in minimising queuing?

• What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 90% for over 50 hours over a 12-month rolling period?

• Do you agree or disagree with our suggested approaches to ensure provision keeps pace with demand?

• What, if any, alternatives are there to ensure provision keeps pace with demand, and queues are kept to a minimum?

• What metrics and associated target values do you currently use to ensure adequate provision of chargepoints to keep pace with demand at a site level?

• What, if any, other comments and concerns do you have that you would like to share regarding the RCF?

How to respond

The consultation period began on 6 December 2023 and will run until 11.59pm on 14 February 2024. Please ensure that your response reaches us before the closing date.

The easiest way to respond is via the online questionnaire. You can find a link to the questionnaire in the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK home page for this consultation.

If you cannot respond online, there is also a downloadable form and an email and postal address.

When responding, state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of a larger organisation, make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled.

We do not expect you to submit evidence or views in response to every question listed if not applicable.

If you have any suggestions for others who may wish to be involved in this process, contact us at rapidchargingfund@ozev.gov.uk.

What happens next

These responses will complement evidence gathered from various stakeholders and the RCF pilot to inform our work on designing the RCF. A government response will be published in due course.

If you have questions about this consultation, email rapidchargingfund@ozev.gov.uk. Alternatively, write to:

Rapid charging fund
Office for Zero Emission Vehicles
Department for Transport
33 Horseferry Road
London, SW1P 4DR

List of questions

These questions are listed here to give you an overview of what we’re asking.

See the Ways to respond section of the GOV.UK home page for this consultation for an online response form and other ways to respond.

Do you think that the RCF is or is not required to part-fund uncommercial grid connection costs on the SRN A-roads?

In your view what, if any, market barriers are holding back deployment of EV charging infrastructure on SRN A-roads?

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to oversize connections at motorway service area sites, so they are future-proofed to meet demand in the long-term? Please explain your rationale.

What evidence and variables do you think we should consider when forecasting annual battery electric car, van and HGV charging demand at motorway service area sites, to inform the connection size required to meet future demand out to 2050? Please supply any supporting evidence.

Who do you think should be the RCF applicant at motorway service area sites and why?

Do you agree or disagree that there should be a requirement for motorway service areas, funded via the RCF, to award contracts to chargepoint operators through an open tender process? Explain your rationale.

What policies, if any, would you like to see introduced to ensure fair treatment for chargepoint operators on motorway service area sites?

Do you think a 12-month period from notification is a reasonable or unreasonable period of time for a replacement chargepoint operator to be fully operational?

What, in your view, would be the impact if the rapid charging fund did not include additional capacity for zero emission HGV charging infrastructure at motorway service areas as part of its scope?

In your view, in what timeframe should the rapid charging fund require HGV ultra-rapid charging to be available at motorway station areas?

Do you agree or disagree that it is feasible to establish a single or banded funding threshold for all sites below which costs are considered financially viable and above which grid connection costs should be considered eligible for RCF grant support? For example, is there a consistent £ per MW level of investment that is generally considered financially viable.

What would your preferred option for funding be? Please explain your rationale.

Do you agree or disagree that a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 25% average over a 3-month period will be effective in achieving a balance between adequate provision of chargepoints and minimised queuing?

Do you agree or disagree that a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 25% average over a 12-month period will be effective in achieving a balance between adequate provision of chargepoints and minimised queuing?

What is your preferred approach and why?

What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 25% over a 3-month period?

What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 25% over a 12-month period?

Do you agree or disagree that to minimise queuing at sites with very high peaks in demand, a metric where additional chargepoints are required if utilisation exceeds 90% over 50 hours, over a 12-month rolling period, in combination with an average utilisation metric, will be effective in minimising queuing?

What, if any, challenges do you anticipate with a metric that requires additional provision if average utilisation exceeds 90% for over 50 hours over a 12-month rolling period?

Do you agree or disagree with our suggested approaches to ensure provision keeps pace with demand?

What, if any, alternatives are there to ensure provision keeps pace with demand, and queues are kept to a minimum?

What metrics and associated target values do you currently use to ensure adequate provision of chargepoints to keep pace with demand at a site level?

What, if any, other comments and concerns do you have that you would like to share regarding the RCF?

Consultation principles

This consultation is being conducted in line with the government’s key consultation principles. If you have any comments about the process, email consultation@dft.gov.uk.

Freedom of information

Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. 

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice with which public authorities must comply and which deals, among other things, with obligations of confidence. 

In view of this, it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on DfT. 

DfT will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties. 

Confidentiality and data protection

DfT is carrying out this public consultation to help inform the design of the RCF.     

This consultation and the processing of personal data that it entails is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. If your answers contain any information that allows you to be identified, DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information. 

As part of this consultation, we are asking for your name and email address. This is in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about any of your responses. You do not have to give us this personal information. If you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions. 

DfT’s privacy policy has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the Data Protection Officer. 

To receive this information by telephone or post, contact us on 0300 330 3000 or write to:

Data Protection Officer 
Department for Transport 
3rd Floor 
One Priory Square 
Hasting 
East Sussex, TN34 1EA

Your information will be kept securely on secure IT systems within DfT and will be destroyed within 24 months after the consultation has been completed.