# England revisits motorway charging after a pilot awarded no grants

*A proposed replacement would change how motorway electricity upgrades are funded. The opportunity is to follow that change through to charging people can reach, use and afford.*

For a driver arriving at a motorway service area, a charging programme has a practical purpose: an available bay, equipment they can use, a clear price and enough power to continue the journey.

A £70 million pilot intended to help fund England's motorway grid upgrades closed without awarding a grant. Every applicant withdrew. The £70 million was available funding; the administrative cost is not established in the material reviewed here. [Independent pilot evaluation](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a9fb4c36beb520655555623/rapid-charging-fund-pilot-process-evaluation.pdf)

The failure exposed a problem that government could address. A proposed successor would change who carries the risk.

The question now reaches beyond whether the new scheme can get construction moving. Can it carry the lesson all the way to a driver looking for a working charger, a manageable cable and a reasonable price?

## Put responsibility within reach

The Rapid Charging Fund pilot opened in December 2023. Its purpose included both supporting grid upgrades and learning how to deliver them. A process evaluation published by the Department for Transport on 8 September describes why the motorway service-area operators withdrew: they considered repayment and cost-overrun risks unacceptable when network delays could lie beyond their control. [Independent pilot evaluation](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a9fb4c36beb520655555623/rapid-charging-fund-pilot-process-evaluation.pdf)

By June 2026, government was already consulting on the proposed Strategic Charging Infrastructure scheme. With an indicative allocation of £190 million, it would contract with connection providers, reserve capacity and offer subsidised access to charging businesses. Private firms would provide the chargers.

This proposed route addresses the mismatch between responsibility and control. Its practical test will be whether the new agreements attract participation and lead to completed connections. [Government's successor proposal](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/electric-vehicles-strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme/strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme)

## What happens to choice?

One condition would change for a different reason. The pilot required at least two open-access charging operators at funded sites. [Pilot evaluation](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a9fb4c36beb520655555623/rapid-charging-fund-pilot-process-evaluation.pdf) The successor proposal would not retain an equivalent requirement.

The original condition served a public purpose. The Competition and Markets Authority had warned that grid subsidies could strengthen existing market power unless competing charging businesses could enter motorway sites. More electricity capacity could support more chargers while leaving drivers dependent on one provider. [CMA charging market study](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electric-vehicle-charging-market-study-final-report/final-report)

Government argues that expiring exclusivity, growing competition and CMA oversight make a specific condition unnecessary. It also proposes competition for eligible connection work. [Successor proposal](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/electric-vehicles-strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme/strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme)

The dates matter. Gridserve's commitment to stop enforcing specified exclusivity rights at Extra, Moto and Roadchef applies after November 2026. That milestone was still ahead when this article was prepared. [CMA announcement, March 2022](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-unlocks-electric-vehicle-charging-competition-for-motorway-drivers)

An earlier caution also deserves attention. Reviewing the pilot in 2023, the CMA's Subsidy Advice Unit said reliance on later enforcement should not serve as protection against competition distortions. That was advice about the earlier scheme, rather than a verdict on the 2026 proposal. [Subsidy Advice Unit report, paragraph 2.8(a)](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/648ae8565f7bb700127faab7/B._Subsidy_Advice_Unit_Report_on_the_Rapid_Charging_Fund_Pilot_Scheme.pdf)

Competition to build a connection concerns what government pays for infrastructure. Competition among charging providers concerns the options available to drivers. And a charger described as open to all car brands does not, by itself, give another charging business access to land or electricity capacity.

There is a serious counterargument to requiring two operators everywhere. At a constrained site, a second business might be commercially unviable, occupy scarce space or delay investment that drivers need. A condition designed to widen choice could then obstruct additional service. This is a possibility the design must examine, rather than an outcome established by the pilot.

The answer therefore needs evidence about actual access: which firms can apply, on what terms, who obtains capacity, and what prices and reliability follow. If competition develops without a funding condition, that would support government's judgment. If access favours an incumbent, there should be a way to correct the terms while alternatives remain practical.

## Follow the connection to the driver

A completed grid upgrade is an important achievement. Its public value depends on what happens next.

A charging business must obtain access, install equipment and keep it operating. A driver must be able to reach a bay, handle the cable, pay and receive the expected service. Each step can succeed or fail separately.

Nigel Melly, a disabled EV driver whose experience appeared in a September 2025 Transport Focus report, described planning around familiar motorway sites and choosing an end bay with room to get in and out of his car. He also recommended electric driving despite the barriers. His account predates the proposed scheme. It shows how a usable network can depend on knowledge and workarounds that a count of charging bays will miss. [Transport Focus report, page 14](https://d3cez36w5wymxj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/24232639/Plugging-the-gap-the-need-to-improve-the-EV-charging-experience-for-disabled-drivers.pdf)

In January 2026 evidence to Parliament, Motability Operations called for accessibility requirements for publicly funded charging infrastructure. It also described the price burden facing disabled customers reliant on public charging. For someone unable to charge at home, an accessible public network can make a substantial difference to the journeys they can afford. [Motability Operations evidence](https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/162297/html/)

Existing policy already addresses accessibility. The DfT circular cited in the consultation says chargepoints should be accessible and asks providers to consider PAS 1899, the accessibility specification. The consultation does not set a separate accessibility test for allocating grid capacity. The practical question is how those expectations will be checked as publicly supported connections become charging sites—and how problems will be corrected when people cannot use them. [DfT Circular 01/2022, paragraphs 110–111](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development/strategic-road-network-and-the-delivery-of-sustainable-development)

Forecasts need a similar connection to reality. Building ahead of demand can spare a site repeated upgrades and give businesses confidence to invest. Low early use may be a legitimate reserve. The assessment should make the case for each site's scale and timing visible, including alternatives and phased work. The proposal says unused capacity would return to the wider market after the reservation period; the practical terms and outcomes remain to be tested. [Successor proposal](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/electric-vehicles-strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme/strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme)

The pilot's process evaluation drew on organisations involved in design and delivery. Driver experience belongs alongside that evidence when judging the service that follows. Existing published accounts offer a starting point for that work, without becoming newly reported reactions to the proposal.

## Make learning visible

The evaluation reports improved expertise, relationships and demand planning. Those may be worthwhile gains. Their value becomes easier to assess when each claimed lesson has an observable consequence.

A public record could follow each selected site from contract to connection, then to operating chargers and user experience. Delays and excluded sites would deserve explanation alongside completed works. It should show whether private investment followed, how the public subsidy changed what would otherwise have happened, and whether drivers gained affordable, reliable and accessible charging.

Publishing those answers would give the successor two clear tests: whether it delivers the infrastructure, and whether the resulting service delivers for the public.

The consultation page reviewed on 14 September still displayed the proposal and no government response. The proposed changes cannot yet answer those tests. They offer something precise to follow: a response to a problem in delivery, with its practical value still to be established. [SCI consultation page](https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/electric-vehicles-strategic-charging-infrastructure-scheme)

There is a worthwhile possibility here: a pilot that awarded no grants could help shape a programme that is easier to deliver and more attentive to the people it serves. That requires keeping the public purpose visible as responsibilities pass from government to network provider, site operator and charging business. The lesson reaches the driver when those arrangements make an ordinary journey easier to complete.

*This analysis draws on published documents and previously reported experiences. Experimental Newsroom conducted no new interviews for this article. Sources were checked on 14 September 2026.*