Open consultation

Strategic charging infrastructure scheme

Published 26 June 2026

Applies to England

We are seeking views on proposals for a scheme that addresses high electricity network upgrade costs at motorway service areas (MSAs) in England.

Introduction

Policy overview

The UK has committed to reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Domestic transport remains the largest emitting sector of greenhouse gas emissions, with 30% of the UK’s total emissions in 2024.

The government is committed to decarbonising road transport and ensuring the UK transitions to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), which include electric vehicles (EVs). This supports the government’s ambition for the UK to be a clean energy superpower, as well as supporting jobs and strengthening economic growth.

A visible charging network ahead of need is essential for successful EV uptake in line with the ZEV Mandate (government’s commitment that all new cars and vans will be zero emission at the tailpipe from 2035) and government strategic goals on decarbonisation.

Improving the charging network will give confidence to current and future EV drivers. Among car drivers, concerns about the ability to charge on long journeys continue to be a key barrier to the uptake of EVs – 72% of participants in the DfT technology tracker named it as a barrier.

Motorways and major A-roads, together known as the Strategic Road Network (SRN), support the vast majority of long-distance journeys in England, carrying a third of all traffic and two-thirds of all freight regularly.

There are currently 116 MSAs in England. MSAs perform a vital safety function by providing opportunities for drivers to stop and take a break during their journey and refuel/charge if needed. To remain both fit for purpose and safe for motorists, these sites need a strong EV charging offer. This requires there to be sufficient electricity network capacity at MSAs. EV charging at MSAs has grown over the last few years – and this growth will need to continue as the number of EVs on the road increases.

The EV charging market has developed over the last few years. Industry has strengthened its capability, regulatory changes mean there is more scope for connection providers to socialise the costs of some grid upgrades (with the cost spread across all bill-payers) and onsite battery energy storage systems are reducing the need for costly grid upgrades in some cases. This means that industry is in a good position to respond to growing demand at many MSAs.

However, there is a minority of MSAs at which the cost of grid capacity to meet demand is still not commercially viable. These high costs at some sites are the principal barrier to achieving a comprehensive network of EV charging across the motorway network.

The scheme will support the development of a strong open-access EV charging offer across the motorway network by removing electricity upgrade costs as a barrier to EV charging provision at a subset of impacted MSAs in England. Government will do this by strengthening electricity networks to selected MSAs where costs are uncommercial. The resulting network capacity will then be available to industry at a subsidised, commercially viable price.

Previous interventions relevant to this scheme

Government has been working closely with industry over several years to overcome this lack of affordable electricity network capacity. Two interventions have provided lessons that have helped shape this scheme, alongside previous consultation responses.

The Rapid Charging Fund (RCF), announced in 2020 by the previous government, sought to support the delivery of EV charging by part-funding electricity network upgrades where costs were not commercially viable for industry.

To test how best to provide this funding, the government ran a £70 million pilot scheme, the RCF pilot, which was launched in December 2023. After close working between government and applicants, the pilot concluded without making awards. A critical lesson from the pilot was that MSA operators which applied were not willing to contract directly with government to receive grant funding for such upgrades, on the terms required by government, despite extensive good faith negotiations on both sides.

Other valuable learning included improved understanding of electrical capacity requirements to meet future EV demand and barriers to charger rollout, as well as helping to build capability in both industry and government.

In December 2023, alongside the announcement of the RCF pilot, the previous government also launched a consultation on the wider RCF scheme design. Responses to the RCF consultation supported government addressing the high cost of grid upgrades at MSAs.

For example, of the 55 responses received, 87% agreed with the need to oversize connections at MSAs. This consultation will build upon the fundamental questions asked in the RCF scheme design consultation. Responses to relevant questions from the previous consultation will be published alongside those from this consultation.

In August 2021, Ofgem’s £300 million Green Recovery Scheme (GRS) announced support for a range of net zero projects through network upgrades in strategic locations. This included 37 MSAs, where upgrades would make it more affordable to secure electricity capacity and support charger rollout. The funding came from a combination of new and existing reallocated network company allowances. Many of these network upgrades have been completed and EV chargers deployed, with some projects still ongoing.

Scheme design

Scope

The scheme aims to address the barrier of a lack of affordable electricity network capacity at some MSAs. It will do this by ensuring that by 2030, any MSAs where government intervenes will have enough electricity network capacity to meet projected EV driver demand until at least 2035 and that this capacity will be available to industry at an affordable price.

The scheme will strengthen network capacity to existing, already operational MSAs only. MSAs are well-established rest areas at fixed locations along the motorway network with facilities for cars, vans, HGVs, coaches and other vehicles. To remain both fit for purpose and safe for motorists, these sites need a strong EV charging offer.

There is very limited scope to move these large, well-established sites to locations with affordable grid capacity. This challenge is exacerbated by the limited entry and exit points on motorways, which narrow the options for locating rest areas.

This motorway network of rest areas is critical to the safety of long journeys in general. According to the National Travel Attitudes Study, of those who make long trips, 37% tended to stop at MSAs ‘always’ or ‘often’.

Government advice is that motorists should take a break of at least 15 minutes every 2 hours. Facilities at MSAs must meet the requirements set out in DfT’s strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development, which ensures sites provide operational safety to the motorway network.

In comparison to motorways, the nature of A-roads allows for increased competition between sites. More frequent entry and exit points, there is the potential for more sites with fewer chargers at closer intervals. This means the electricity network capacity required could potentially be lower at many sites than at motorway service areas. This all creates more flexibility for where charging can be sited, enabling greater access to lower-cost grid connections and more straightforward build-out of provision.

This has enabled strong growth in EV charging on major A-roads. Between January 2024 and October 2025, stretches of ‘cold spots’ on SRN major A-roads decreased by roughly 75% (DfT analysis of Zapmap data). Where there are issues, government will continue to work with industry to overcome barriers to charger rollout on these roads, including through the £10 million SRN innovation fund. Government will also continue to monitor closely the progress of EV charging provision on these roads.

The geographical scope of the scheme is England only. Transport powers in this area are devolved. We will continue to work with the devolved administrations to support a UK-wide network of EV charging on motorways and major A-roads.

The scheme will only strengthen the electricity network capacity at a subset of MSAs. Our evidence suggests that there are many MSAs at which electricity network capacity is more affordable and there is less need for intervention. The scheme will focus on sites where securing required capacity is not commercially viable for industry, as well as taking into consideration other factors set out in the site selection process.

The number of sites that the scheme targets will also be constrained by the scheme budget. An indicative allocation of £190 million has been made for the scheme. This is part of the £400 million to support EV charging infrastructure that was announced as part of the Spending Review 2025, which covered funding for 2026 to 2030.

The scheme will deliver electricity upgrades to meet projected EV charging demand at selected sites to at least 2035 and potentially up to 2050 in some circumstances. This will balance the benefits of strengthening electricity networks to a larger number of sites, with the benefits of a longer future-proofing horizon, where it is appropriate.

Projected demand will be estimated using the DfT demand framework. This tool has been produced by Environmental Resource Management (ERM), a consultancy, with DfT and National Highways, following comprehensive engagement with MSA operators and charge point operators (CPOs) operating on the SRN.

The guidance and tool ensure a robust and consistent calculation approach when estimating future charging demand and electricity network capacity requirements at MSAs. The demand modelled using the framework covers cars, vans, eHGVs, coaches and motorcycles out to 2050.

If you would like a copy of the demand framework, contact: strategiccharging@dft.gov.uk.

How the scheme will work

The scheme will involve government, with the support from the scheme’s delivery body, strengthening electricity connections near a subset of MSAs (from here on also ‘sites’) and then making the resulting network capacity available at a subsidised rate to firms installing EV charging at the site.

Government plans to strengthen the electricity network connections at these sites by contracting with connection providers using standard connection agreements that will also include a limited number of bespoke provisions.

The bespoke provisions in the agreements will enable government to reserve the resulting electricity network capacity for a specific period. This will give firms installing EV charging an opportunity to enter into their own agreements with connection providers to access this capacity.

The agreements that government enters with connection providers will set the terms by which the capacity can be accessed by firms installing EV charging during the period that it is reserved. These terms will specify that the capacity will only be available for the purpose of installing open-access EV charging. Open-access chargers can be used with any EV regardless of manufacturer. The terms will also set the price at which the capacity can be accessed from the relevant connection provider.

The intention is for firms to be able to access capacity from connection providers in the usual way. The approach will follow closely what would usually happen when a connection customer utilises electricity network capacity that has been funded by another connection customer.

Firms installing EV charging will access capacity with a standard connection agreement with the relevant connection provider, paying for it via what is known as a ‘second comer charge’. This charge will then be paid to government by the connection provider.

The principal difference in this case, however, is that the ‘second comer charge’ (that the customer will pay to access the capacity) will be subsidised by government. The intention is that the subsidised rate will be within what is commercially viable for firms to install EV charging at these sites.

Headline process and assumptions

The headline process by which the scheme will operate involves 4 steps.

1. Site selection

Sites will be selected by government to target support where it is needed most to strengthen EV charging at MSAs.

2. Contracting

Government will contract with connection providers for electricity network upgrades. Contracts will include bespoke provisions to reserve the resulting capacity and set terms by which it can be accessed.

These terms will include a subsidised ‘second comer charge’ which firms will need to pay to access capacity.

3. Build

Connection providers will undertake works to strengthen the electricity network to create additional capacity to the selected sites.

4. Post-build

Government will reserve the resulting network capacity for a fixed period. Upon application to the connection provider and payment of the ‘second-comer charge’, capacity will be released to firms for the purpose of installing open-access EV charging at the MSA.

Any unused capacity at the end of the reservation period will then be available to the wider market.

Assumptions

Several headline assumptions will guide the scheme’s operation.

The scheme will be designed to comply with the Electricity Act 1989, standard licence conditions, and other rules and regulations that govern the development, operation, and maintenance of the electricity distribution network.

Government will subsidise the cost of ‘extension assets’ only. These are the parts of the electricity network built to supply a single customer. For example, this could include:

• modifications to existing substations at the point of connection (bulk supply point 132,000/33,000V)
• associated trunking and cabling
• installation of a new substation at the MSA (33,000/11,000V)
• creation of an exit point where the connection provider’s network infrastructure connects to the customer’s on-site private infrastructure

This example assumes a 33,000V connection, but for some sites, this could be a 132,000V or 11,000V connection.

Reinforcement works, which upgrade the network to supply multiple customers, will remain the responsibility of distribution networks operators (DNOs), National Grid Electricity Transmission and the National Energy System Operator (NESO).

Firms installing EV charging at sites will be responsible for private on-site assets, such as the metering, on-site 11,000V/400V substation and installation of EV chargers.

The market will determine which firms access the capacity. Government has no plans to determine which firms installing open-access EV charging at MSAs will be eligible to access the capacity. Instead, either the MSA operator or one or more CPOs will be able to access the capacity using the usual connections process.

The terms for accessing capacity will not include conditions relating to competition, for example, requiring more than one CPO to offer provision at sites. With exclusivity arrangements between CPOs and MSA operators coming to an end this year, greater competition is already being seen at some MSA sites without government intervention.

Given this, we believe that industry is best placed to ensure effective EV charging competition at MSAs and on the wider SRN, overseen by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which has acted previously in this market.

To ensure competition and competitive pricing, government intends to tender competitively for any eligible contestable works. This is to secure the best value from connection providers.

Site selection

Principles

As set out above, the scheme will be focused only on those sites where the grid capacity required is not commercially viable for industry, as well as taking into consideration other factors set out in the site selection process.

The number of sites that the scheme targets will also be constrained by the scheme budget.

There is a need, therefore, to identify and prioritise sites for intervention to ensure funding is focused on strengthening electricity networks for sites where it is needed most, as well as securing value for money for the taxpayer. The principles by which government plans to select sites are as follows.

Focus on sites for which accessing affordable electricity network to meet future demand looks most challenging

This is to ensure that government intervenes where the market would find it most difficult to justify investing, due to the costs involved.

Of those sites, prioritise those with the largest gaps between current grid capacity and what is likely to be needed as the EV transition proceeds

The intention is to focus on sites where power constraints would be likely to cause the most disruption for EV drivers, and where there is the least scope for power constraints to be overcome in the short to medium term by using alternative technologies. For example, solar or on-site battery energy storage systems.

Before finalising the selection, consider deliverability and impact

The intention is to maximise the electricity network capacity that can be made available at sites by 2030.

Site selection and prioritisation will draw on evidence and stakeholder engagement. Evidence includes:

• strategic surgeries undertaken in 2024 (more information in Annex A)
• feasibility studies (a standard product offered to all customers by DNOs, which outlines a proposed connection solution with costings at a specified location) undertaken in 2026
• outputs from DfT’s demand framework tool (updated in 2026), secured capacity data and historical investment data (supplied by industry)
• the responses to this consultation

Process

The process for site selection reflects the principles set out above.

Stage 1: in-scope sites

The subset of sites for which accessing affordable electricity network capacity looks most challenging is identified. This is done by comparing the estimated costs of electricity network capacity needed at sites to meet projected demand in 2035 with industry data on historical investment decisions.

Given the need to target funding within a fixed budget, a site is considered in scope only if it meets both of the following criteria:

1. Estimated total grid connection costs of meeting projected 2035 demand are at least £3 million.
2. The associated cost per MVA of resulting capacity is at least £300,000/MVA.

These thresholds have been set above the average investment levels observed for approved projects in the historical investment data we have seen. See the illustrative site list (Annex A) for more information.

Stage 2: long list

In-scope sites are ranked according to the gap between current secured capacity at the site and the projected demand in 2035, as calculated using the DfT demand framework.

The illustrative site list (Annex A) outlines sites in order of priority using this criterion and data held as of June 2026.

Stage 3: feasibility studies for long-list sites

Feasibility studies are commissioned for long-list sites to improve cost and delivery timeline estimates. The studies will focus on potential delivery solutions to meet projected demand in both 2035 and 2050.

The outputs from these studies will inform cost estimates for sites and the deliverability assessment.

Feasibility studies have been commissioned by government for the majority of the list of sites provided in Annex A. If required, for example, because of new or improved evidence including responses to this consultation, government may commission feasibility studies for further sites.

Stage 4: deliverability assessment

On a site-by-site basis, deliverability is assessed against a set of criteria (Table 1). This ensures that funding is targeted at sites where there is a good level of confidence that the additional network capacity can be delivered by 2030.

For each site the scale of electricity network strengthening options are identified. For example, to meet demand in 2035 or towards 2050, to determine what offers the best balance of future-proofing benefits, cost and energisation date.

Stage 5: portfolio assessment

Site-by-site deliverability assessments are then used to take a cross-portfolio view on which sites to shortlist for intervention. A key element in the portfolio assessment is optimisation of the total available budget to balance providing support for the greatest number of sites against greater future-proofing. Other factors, such as geographical spread, may also be considered at this stage.

This assessment will establish a short list of sites for intervention.

Stage 6: connection offer for short-list sites

Government requests connection offers from connection providers for the selected sites. Once offers are received, a final assessment is undertaken. As part of this, the deliverability by 2030 of individual sites is reconfirmed and decisions are taken on which sites are selected for intervention.

Deliverability criteria

Decisions at each stage will use the best evidence available at the time, from the sources set out above. If this process generates further relevant evidence, for example, through updates to the demand framework, outputs from feasibility studies or evidence supplied through this consultation, we will take this into account.

If at any stage of the site selection process the delivery of the connection at the site is no longer feasible, for example, if one of the delivery criteria is no longer met or costs increase disproportionately, government reserves the right to remove this site from the scheme.

The table below sets out the proposed deliverability criteria for assessing sites on an individual basis to inform the portfolio assessment.

Table 1: Proposed deliverability criteria for MSA sites

Deliverability Criteria	Description
D1: Scale of network capacity	Government will need to decide how much network capacity is procured at each site. The intention will be to procure (as a minimum) at least enough capacity at each site to meet projected demand in 2035, if that is achievable by 2030. Beyond that, government will need to determine what network capacity offers the best balance of future-proofing benefits and cost
D2: Land availability at the site	Government will need confidence that there is enough available space at the MSA to build sufficient EV chargers to make full use of the network capacity being created. Where space is limited, it may be appropriate to reduce the scale of connection or not to prioritise the site for support
D3: Land access to the site	Government, in conjunction with connection providers, will assess the land access required and associated costs to deliver capacity to the site. If costly or difficult land access issues are identified, further feasibility work may be commissioned to explore alternative routes, or the site may not be prioritised for support
D4: Alternative technology use	Government will assess whether the use of alternative technologies, such as battery storage, at the site could reduce the need for the electricity network to be strengthened. Following this assessment, it may be appropriate to reduce the scale of connection or not to prioritise the site for support

Terms for access to the resulting electricity network capacity

Government’s intention is for access to the capacity created by the scheme to be reserved for use by firms installing open-access EV charging at sites. The aim is that this capacity is taken up quickly by firms so that there is sufficient EV charging capacity at sites ahead of demand, thereby giving drivers the assurance they need to switch to an EV for longer journeys. This will also limit the period over which government needs to reserve capacity.

To minimise government subsidy, the intention is for firms to access the reserved capacity by paying a ‘second comer charge’. They will pay the charge to the relevant connection provider via the standard connection process. Exact details of how the charge is administered by the connection provider will be set out in due course.

Access to capacity will be on a first-come, first-served basis via a connection request to the connection provider. This means that the MSA operator and/or a CPO, or multiple CPOs, could access the reserved capacity at each site.

Government will reserve the capacity for a fixed period, so firms have time to secure investment capital. Government is considering an appropriate duration for this reservation period and is seeking views on what would be required to enable full take-up of capacity for EV charging by industry as part of this consultation.

To encourage greater take-up of the capacity and minimise administrative burden, government will set a minimum amount of capacity that can be accessed at one time. For example, requiring a minimum of 2MVA per connection.

For increased flexibility and to encourage early take-up of the capacity, it is expected that firms will be able to implement capacity phasing with the relevant connection provider. Capacity phasing will be documented in the connection agreement. Capacity phasing allows customers to reserve larger amounts of capacity but take this up in increments over time.

‘Second comer charge’

Government’s intention in subsidising the ‘second comer charge’ is that it should be commercially viable for firms to install EV charging at these sites. The intention is that the charge is calculated in a way that is simple for connection providers to administer and easy for firms to predict, so firms can build this into their investment plans.

The Electricity Connection Charges Regulations 2017 (ECCR) provide for a reimbursement payment to be made by a ‘second comer’ back to the ‘first comer’. This is known as a ‘second comer charge’. Under this scheme:

• government is the ‘first comer’

• the firm installing EV charging at the MSA is the ‘second comer’

Second comer payments are administered by connection providers, which pass payments back to the ‘first comer’, in this case, the government. The same principles will apply to the charge if more than one firm accesses the capacity.

There is an established methodology that connection providers use to determine what level of payment should be made by the ‘second comer’ and paid back to the ‘first comer’.

However, in this case, government intends to partially waive the payment to make the resulting electricity network capacity available at a subsidised, commercially viable price. This price would apply to second and subsequent comers.

Government has assessed a range of options to set this price, for example, how much of the charge should be waived.

Table 2: Options assessed for the calculation of the ‘second comer charge’

Option	Description
1. Percentage (%) split	Government sets a flat percentage split for the costs across all sites (for example, government funds 70% and industry contribution is the remaining 30%)
2. Single £ per MVA price	Government sets a flat £/MVA level for the industry contribution across all sites (for example, the level is set at £200,000/MVA, meaning that if 2MVA is requested, the industry contribution would be £400,000 to access the capacity)
3. Banded £ per MVA prices	Government sets a series of bands to categorise sites. Each band will then be assigned a £/MVA level for industry contribution (for example, £150,000/MVA for category A sites and £250,000/MVA for category B sites)
4. Open book site-by-site approach	Government uses individual site data to determine the level of industry contribution. This would be done on a site-by-site basis

Proposed approaches and preferences

Government’s preferred option is a single £/MVA (option 2) as this will allow connection costs to be set at a pre-determined commercially viable level, ensure connection providers can treat all customers equally, avoid complicated administrative requirements and has the potential to be compatible with ECCR.

Option 1, while simple to administer, is not preferred as it is more likely to result in either under or over-subsidy across the subset of sites due to differences in future-proofing horizons and costs.

Options 3 and 4 are also not preferred options as they are significantly more complex to administer and less likely to be compatible with ECCR.

This is a developing market and there is a judgment to be made about where to set the price, balancing the intention to make access to the capacity commercially viable for firms, while at the same time minimising government subsidy.

From the evidence we have of historical investments, we understand that where grid upgrades at a price level of £150,000/MVA to £250,000/MVA have been available, the necessary investments in grid capacity have generally been made by industry to strengthen EV charging at MSAs.

As a result, our starting point would be to set the £/MVA price at a level within this range. Government is seeking views on how this charge is calculated and the level it is set.

Further to this, government is also asking respondents to provide further evidence on where investments would and would not be deemed commercially viable and how this may differ across sites.

How to respond

The easiest way to respond is to use the online response form. It includes the option to save and continue your response if you are unable to complete it in one go. 

If you cannot use the online form, email or post your response to us: 

Email: strategiccharging@dft.gov.uk. 

Write:  

Strategic Charging Infrastructure Team 
Office for Zero Emission Vehicles 
Department for Transport 
33 Horseferry Road 
London, SW1P 4DR

If you send your response by email or post: 

• answer the questions asked in the consultation and, if required, provide further comments and evidence 
• tell us if you are responding as an individual or on behalf of an organisation 

If responding on behalf of an organisation, you need to: 

• make it clear who the organisation represents 
• outline how the views of members were assembled (where applicable) 

You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt if you submit your response by email. Check your junk/spam folder if you do not receive this within 15 minutes of sending your email. If you do not find a receipt, email strategiccharging@dft.gov.uk with ‘missing receipt’ in the subject line.

We will only accept responses received before the closing date: 11:59pm on 28 July 2026.

Full list of questions

The questions are listed here to give you an overview of what we are asking.

Background

Question: What is your name?

Question: What is your email?

Question: Are you responding on behalf of an organisation?

Question: What is the name of your organisation?

Question: What is your organisation type?

• CPO
• connection provider
• EV hub operator
• local authority
• MSA operator
• trade body
• vehicle manufacturer
• other

Site selection

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for the prioritisation and assessment of sites?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed future-proofing/size of connection deliverability criteria (D1, Table 1) that will be used to assess sites?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed land availability deliverability criteria (D2, Table 1) that will be used to assess sites?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed land access deliverability criteria (D3, Table 1) that will be used to assess sites?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed alternative technology use deliverability criteria (D4, Table 1) that will be used to assess sites?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Are there any other deliverability criteria that should be used? Provide details.

Question: What factors do you think government should consider as part of the portfolio assessment? Explain why and provide supporting evidence.

Question: Are there any sites that should not receive funding, as set out in Annex A?

Question: If yes, specify which sites should not receive funding. Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Are you aware of any potential or current investment plans at a specific site that will be taken forward without government support, as set out in Annex A?

Question: If yes, specify which sites. Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Is there any further information you wish to submit relating to the sites listed in Annex A?

Question: If yes, provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you think any other MSA sites in England, that are not listed in Annex A, should be prioritised for funding?

Question: If yes, specify which sites. Provide evidence to support your answer.

Accessing capacity

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the firm installing EV charging at the MSA, the ’second-comer’, should fund a proportion of the connection costs?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with a proposed additional term of setting a minimum amount of capacity, for example 2MVA, for the onward connecting customer?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: What value should the minimum amount of capacity be set at?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed additional term of connection providers offering capacity phasing to ‘second comers’?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: What duration of reservation by government do you think is appropriate to enable the full capacity to be taken up for EV charging? Provide evidence to support your answer. 

Question: Do you agree or disagree that a standardised £ per MVA value should be the approach to calculate the ‘second comer charge’?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: What approach do you think government should take to calculate ‘second comer charge’?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the value of the charge for the ‘second comer charge’ should be set between £150,000/MVA and £250,000/MVA?

Question: What exact value do you think the £/MVA approach should be set at?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

Question: What do you think is the appropriate value of the charge?

Question: Why do you think this? Provide evidence to support your answer.

The easiest way to submit your answers is to use the online response form. For other ways to submit your answers, see how to respond.

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 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, amongst 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 the department.

Data protection

This consultation is seeking your views on selected policy elements of the new strategic charging infrastructure (SCI) scheme. Your personal data collected through this consultation is processed in line with our online forms, surveys and consultations privacy notice.

In addition to third-party research organisations, as outlined in the privacy notice, responses may be shared with DfT’s consultants. Personal data, such as names and email addresses, will not be shared.

Artificial intelligence  

Artificial intelligence (AI) may be used to analyse responses to this consultation. Where the consultation asks for directly identifiable information, such as your name or contact details, this will be removed before processing with AI tools.

Illustrative site list (Annex A)

The tables below set out the current long list of MSA sites in order of priority for intervention, as described in the site selection section. As additional evidence is received, including from further feasibility studies and from this consultation, this list is subject to change.

The final list will be prioritised to enable intervention at a short list of sites compatible with the available budget.

Evidence that feeds directly into site selection to date is as follows.

DfT demand framework (2026)

This consists of a guidance document with an accompanying Excel workbook which supports operators in projecting future battery electric vehicle (BEV) charging demand from cars, vans, HGVs, coaches and motorcycles out to 2050.

It was produced by the Environmental Resource Management (ERM), a consultancy, with DfT and National Highways, following comprehensive engagement with MSA operators and CPOs operating on the SRN.

The framework ensures a robust and consistent calculation approach across MSAs when estimating future demand and grid connections required at an MSA site.

Strategic surgeries (2024)

High-level technical assessments of electricity network requirements at MSAs conducted by DNOs for DfT and National Highways in 2024. The assessments identified the cost of strengthening the electricity network to meet projected future BEV charging demand at each MSA in England. They also considered other factors, including estimated delivery times for the required grid connections.

Current electricity capacity secured (2025)

MSA operators have shared data with government on the amount of power MSA operators have secured with connection providers at respective sites.

With a small number of exceptions, this has been used to inform the gap in secured power and projected 2035 demand levels.

Historical investment decisions (2022 and 2025)

Data on historical connection costs and associated investment decisions have been shared by industry with government. This has been used to inform the 2 cost-related thresholds that have been applied in the proposed site selection criteria.

Feasibility studies (2026)

Feasibility studies have been commissioned for the majority of the sites in the illustrative site list and where government has received the outputs, this information has been included below. Studies were requested for firm network connections, which would provide reliable access to power.  

In some cases, network providers were only able to provide a study for a non-firm connection where access to power may be curtailed under certain network conditions. These sites are identified in the table.  

If required, for example, because of new or improved evidence including responses to this consultation, government may commission feasibility studies for further sites. Not all sites submitted for feasibility studies will be funded as part of this scheme.

Illustrative site list

The tables of sites below are based on the available evidence at the point of publication. All costs and energisation dates are estimates. As set out above, the sites included in the tables are subject to change as further evidence is gathered, including responses to this consultation. 

Responses to this consultation will inform the final prioritisation and assessment criteria. The criteria to be applied using the process is set out in the site selection section. 

There are 2 tables. The first table comprises sites that meet all proposed site selection criteria based on the latest evidence. If the criteria and the evidence relating to sites were to remain the same, then these sites would be considered for short-listing subject to the process set out in the site selection section.  

The second table comprises sites that earlier evidence suggested would meet the site selection criteria and for which feasibility studies were commissioned. However, the most recent evidence suggests that they would not meet the criteria, for example, because more capacity has now been secured than is projected to be required in 2035. If the criteria and the evidence relating to sites were to remain the same, then these sites would not be considered for short-listing.  

In each table, sites are ranked by the gap between current secured capacity and projected demand in 2035, in line with one of the proposed site selection criteria. 

Where 2 of the 116 MSAs in England are in the same location, due to the 2 respective sites serving opposite directions of traffic respectively and have the same operator, these MSAs have been combined and treated as a single site. This is because a single technical solution across both MSAs is typically the most cost-effective approach for large-scale, future-proofed connections. 

The tables also give a confidence rating to reflect the robustness of the underlying cost estimate data. These are defined as follows: 

• high: the cost estimates are based on feasibility study outputs (2026) and fully align with the latest demand framework projections (2026)

• medium: costs estimates are based on feasibility study outputs (2026) and broadly align with the latest demand framework projection (2026)

• low: cost estimates are based on strategic surgeries outputs (2024) or on a feasibility study for which further clarification is required (2026)

Table 3: Current sub-set of the long list of MSA sites that currently meet proposed criteria (by power gap to 2035)

Number	MSA name	MSA operator	DNO	Gap to 2035	Energisation date: 2035	Total cost (£ million): 2035	£/MVA: 2035	Energisation date: 2050	Total cost (£ million): 2050	£/MVA: 2050	Source/date	Confidence level
1	Warwick	Welcome Break	NGED	More than 10 MVA	2029 to 2030(*)	£10 million to £20 million(*)	£1 million to £2 million per MVA(*)	After 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
2	Keele	Welcome Break	NGED	More than 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030(*)	£10 million to £20 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	High
3	Clacket Lane	Roadchef	UKPN	More than 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	More than £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
4	Taunton Deane	Roadchef	NGED	More than 10 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
5	Leicester Forest East	Welcome Break	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
6	Tebay	Westmorland	SPENW	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	£1 million to £2 million per MVA(*)	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
7	Hartshead	Welcome Break	NPG	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
8	Woodall	Welcome Break	NPG	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
9	Sedgemoor South	Roadchef	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
10	Sedgemoor North	Welcome Break	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
11	Stafford South	Roadchef	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
12	Blackburn	Extra	SPENW	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030(*)	£3 million to £10 million(*)	£1 million to £2 million per MVA(*)	2029 to 2030(*)	£3 million to £10 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	High
13	Donington Park	Moto	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20million	More than £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Medium
14	Gloucester	Westmorland	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Medium
15	Killington Lake	Roadchef	SPENW	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2024 strategic surgery	Low
16	Reading	Moto	SSEN	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	More than £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2024 strategic surgery	Low
17	Bridgwater	Moto	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
18	Cullompton	Extra	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2024 strategic surgery	Low
19	Norton Canes	Roadchef	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2024 strategic surgery	Low
20	Hilton Park	Moto	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High

Table 4: Current sub-set of the long list of MSA sites that do not meet proposed criteria (by power gap to 2035)

Number	MSA name	MSA operator	DNO	Gap to 2035	Energisation date: 2035	Total cost (£ million): 2035	£/MVA: 2035	Energisation date: 2050	Total cost (£ million): 2050	£/MVA: 2050	Source/date	Confidence level
1	Fleet	Welcome Break	SSEN	More than 10 MVA	After 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	After 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Low
2	Membury	Welcome Break	SSEN	More than 10 MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Low
3	Corley	Welcome Break	NGED	More than 10 MVA	After 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	After 2030	£3 million to £10 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
4	Charnock	Welcome Break	SPENW	More than 10 MVA	After 2030(*)	£3 million to £10 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	After 2030(*)	£3 million to £10 million(*)	Less than £300,000 per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	High
5	Strensham	Roadchef	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	2029 to 2030	More than £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
6	Beaconsfield	Extra	SSEN	5 to 10 MVA	After 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Low
7	Gordano	Welcome Break	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	2029 to 2030	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	2029 to 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
8	Newport Pagnell	Welcome Break	NGED	5 to 10 MVA	After 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	After 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
9	Cherwell	Moto	SSEN	5 to 10 MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Low
10	Bolton Rivington	EG On The Move	SPENW	5 to 10 MVA	After 2030(*)	£10 million to £20 million(*)	£1 million to £2 million per MVA(*)	After 2030(*)	£10 million to £20 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	2026 Feasibility Study	High
11	Toddington	Moto	UKPN	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	After 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
12	Southwaite	Moto	SPENW	Less than 5 MVA	After 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	More than £2 million per MVA(*)	After 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	High
13	Wetherby	Moto	NPG	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	2029 to 2030	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
14	Lancaster	Moto	SPENW	Less than 5 MVA	After 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	More than £2 million per MVA(*)	After 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	Medium
15	Chieveley	Moto	SSEN	Less than 5 MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	After 2030	More than £20 million	£1 million to £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Low
16	Rotherham	Welcome Break	NPG	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Medium
17	Trowell	Moto	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	More than £2 million per MVA	2029 to 2030(*)	More than £20 million(*)	More than £2 million per MVA(*)	2026 feasibility study	High
18	Rugby	Moto	NGED	Less than 5 MVA	After 2030	Less than £3 million	Less than £300,000 per MVA	After 2030	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	High
19	Thurrock	Moto	UKPN	Less than 5 MVA	2027 to 2028	£3 million to £10 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2029 to 2030	£10 million to £20 million	£300,000 to £1 million per MVA	2026 feasibility study	Medium

Note for tables

(*) Feasibility studies were requested for firm network connections, which are more reliable and remain available under a first fault scenario. These sites received a non-firm connection solution within feasibility studies, where access to power may be curtailed under certain network conditions.