Results

Outlook

How the 12-site network could grow from 2026 to 2056 under different demand scenarios, what each way of building it might cost over its life, and how much carbon it could help avoid.

At a Glance

Loading the outlook data.

Scenarios

Each scenario asks the same question: if demand for public charging grows a certain way, is the future-ready pathway planned at each site still big enough?

    Growth multipliers are provisional planning conventions, not yet calibrated to observed charging data. The earlier legacy_v2 sweep also tested long sessions, a short daily window and peakier demand; their parameters are not published here. Like base and high growth, those showed no future-ready capacity gaps, while combined stress opened two (PWC002 and PWC008, one port each).

    Ports Over Time

    Lifecycle Cost

    Net present value of three ways to build the network, at each horizon. These are screening-class planning estimates for the base-case trajectory only: useful for comparing strategies, never a budget, quote or engineering estimate.

    • Deferred (DEF): prepare the future-ready pathway but energize no ports. It is the floor the other two are compared against, not an option on its own.

    • Overbuild (OVB): energize the full future-ready pathway in 2026.

    • Staged (STG): energize the starter ports in 2026, pre-build the pathway, and energize more ports two years before each horizon’s target. The avoided overbuild cost is the net present cost of overbuilding minus that of staging.

    Avoided Emissions Higher is better

    Tonnes of CO2e avoided per year when drivers charge electric instead of burning fuel. More charging served means more avoided, so the busiest scenarios avoid the most.

    Emissions factor: EPA eGRID2023 Rev 2, SRVC, 596.3 lb CO2e/MWh.

    Data confidence is Low at all 12 sites. Electrical capacity is an unverified placeholder at every site. Every figure on this page is a modelled planning-support output, not a forecast or a commitment.