IN Brief:
- A Zest and The Fast Charge assessment puts model rapid charger fixed grid charges at £440.13 weekly in 2026.
- Published 2027 tariffs imply £541.73 per week for the same model, compared with £61.47 in 2021.
- The assessment identifies capacity-related network charges and low initial charger utilisation as barriers to infrastructure economics.
Zest and The Fast Charge estimate that fixed electricity network charges for a representative rapid EV charging installation will rise from £440.13 a week in 2026 to £541.73 in 2027. Their Reverse the Charge assessment uses published network tariffs and examines costs payable even when a charging site has little or no vehicle use. The figures are modelled averages for a specified charger configuration, rather than bills applying uniformly to every public charging site.
For the same model, the research calculates charges of £61.47 a week in 2021 and £440.13 in 2026. Published 2027 tariffs produce an estimated £77.39 a day, equivalent to £541.73 a week. Charging operators encounter those recurring network expenses before accounting for the electricity delivered, land costs, maintenance, payment processing, and repayment of their installation investment.
A fixed network charge differs from the unit price of electricity. Operators may pay charges associated with the capacity made available by their grid connection even when few charging sessions take place. Those costs reflect an electrical connection designed to support substantial peak demand, but the number of vehicles using a new location may take time to build. When utilisation is low, the same fixed charge must be recovered from a smaller amount of delivered energy.
At a new rapid charging site, the grid connection and associated switchgear, protection, cables, and metering have to support the maximum contracted demand. Revenue develops differently: it depends on how frequently drivers charge and how many kilowatt hours they buy. A site therefore can carry network costs sized for anticipated peak demand while selling relatively little energy in its early operating period. Each additional charging session spreads the fixed cost over a larger number of delivered units.
The Fast Charge and Zest estimate that UK rapid charging operators will pay approximately £336m in grid charges during 2026, rising to £413m in 2027 even if no more chargers are built. That £77m increase is the report’s projection, derived from the published tariff structure, not a regulator forecast or a confirmed final sector bill. Individual charges depend on capacity, regional network arrangements, voltage, and contractual terms.
The study also examines examples drawn from Zest’s own operational sites. At an urban Birmingham hub, it says electricity and grid costs account for 48p of a 58p per kWh customer price before VAT, leaving 10p to cover other obligations. At an on-street London ultra-rapid charger, the equivalent figures are 58p of 64p, leaving 6p. These are specific site examples, not representative national average margins across the public charging sector.
Expenses excluded from those residual amounts include the capital cost of charging equipment, connection works, civil engineering, site acquisition or rent, commissioning, support, and ongoing maintenance. Payments processing and operation of the network platform also have to be funded. The resulting margin is therefore not the operator’s net profit. The report uses the examples to illustrate how limited energy sales can make it difficult to recover the broader costs of developing and running a rapid charging location.
Operators may respond to rising fixed costs by changing their tariffs, absorbing some of the increase, or delaying development where utilisation is expected to remain low. The report suggests prices of about £1 per kWh could become common in 2027, compared with the 79p average it cites for 2026. That forecast is contingent on operator decisions and charging demand; it is not an observed industry price for 2027.
The assessment links its findings to the structure of network charging established through regulatory decisions. It argues that capacity-based charges create particular difficulties for charging infrastructure because a connection may need to be built before demand is fully established. Two industry modification proposals, identified as DCP 420 and DCP 454, are cited as potential routes to reform. The report says those proposals have spent several years in industry working groups and had not reached Ofgem for a final decision when the assessment was published.
Rapid charging hubs can impose high instantaneous demand on local networks when several vehicles connect at once. Transformer sizing, network reinforcement, protection arrangements, and the power requested in a connection agreement help determine what the infrastructure costs. Distribution networks must recover their investment and maintenance expenditure, while charging developers need sufficient initial capacity to serve drivers reliably. The assessment questions the allocation of those costs when a relatively new site has not yet reached steady utilisation.
Zest has called for changes to capacity-based network charges, arguing that they are delaying otherwise viable rapid charging investment. The report identifies code modification proposals DCP 420 and DCP 454 as potential reforms. The Times separately reported that Ofgem was reviewing the study’s findings and emphasised fair recovery of electricity network costs. The projected financial effects and the case for reform therefore remain contested rather than settled regulatory conclusions.
The immediate test for network economics is how the already published 2027 charges are applied to individual sites and whether the cited code modifications progress. The figures from Zest and The Fast Charge provide a modelled indication of the pressure on rapid charging development; actual site costs, retail tariffs, and investment decisions will depend on usage, regional tariffs, and the contractual capacity of each connection.
