America’s electric vehicle charging network is getting bigger, but the pace of expansion is slowing, and where you live can make an enormous difference in how much charging infrastructure is available. A new iSeeCars study projects nearly 300,000 charging ports nationwide by the end of 2026, while finding wide differences between states and major metropolitan areas. For consumers considering an EV, the findings are a reminder to look beyond the national numbers and examine the charging options where they actually drive.
Released Oct. 13, the study uses U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center records through Sept. 23, 2026, and Census Bureau population figures. iSeeCars counts Level 2 and DC fast charging ports and projects the full-year 2026 totals from the data available. These are estimates for the end of the year, rather than a completed count of what was installed during 2026.
A Bigger Network Growing More Slowly
iSeeCars projects 299,798 charging ports nationwide in 2026, up from 259,555 in 2025. That would mean 40,243 additional ports and growth of 15.5%. The previous year’s growth rate was 25.7%, making the projected slowdown 10.2 percentage points, or approximately 40% relative to the 2025 growth rate. That distinction matters: the study is describing slower growth in the charging network, not a 40% reduction in the number of chargers.
The national population ratio would also improve, falling from 1,317 residents per charging port in 2025 to 1,143 in 2026. That is a 13.2% improvement in the study’s measure of charger availability relative to population. More equipment is being added, but the projected expansion rate is considerably lower than it was a year earlier.
Los Angeles Leads in Numbers and San Francisco in Density
Among the 50 largest metro areas examined, Los Angeles leads with a projected 36,318 ports. The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose region follows with 22,430, ahead of New York at 19,036 and Boston-Manchester at 12,017. Denver rounds out the top five with 8,300. Seattle-Tacoma, Washington-Hagerstown, San Diego, Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto and Atlanta complete the top 10.
At the other end, Louisville, Kentucky, has a projected 621 ports, followed by Greensboro-Winston Salem, North Carolina, with 700. Milwaukee has 852, Birmingham, Alabama, has 857, and Oklahoma City has 867. Los Angeles has more than 58 times Louisville’s projected total, although raw counts do not account for differences in population.
That is where the density rankings become useful. The San Francisco region has a projected 334 residents per port, compared with 432 in San Diego, 500 in Los Angeles, 569 in Denver and 571 in Boston-Manchester. Lower numbers mean more charging ports relative to the size of the population. Hartford-New Haven, Sacramento’s broader metro area, Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, round out the top 10 on this measure.
Louisville ranks last at 2,904 residents per port, followed by Indianapolis at 2,758, Milwaukee at 2,716, Greensboro-Winston Salem at 2,669 and San Antonio at 2,666. Houston, Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Birmingham, Oklahoma City and Harrisburg-Lancaster-York also fall in the bottom 10. Louisville’s ratio is nearly nine times the San Francisco region’s figure, illustrating how different the infrastructure picture can look from one market to another.
ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.
California Has the Most Ports but Vermont Takes the Density Crown
California’s projected 81,932 ports put it far ahead of every other state. New York follows with 24,519, Florida has 17,069, Texas has 14,345 and Massachusetts has 13,280. Washington, Colorado, Georgia, New Jersey and Illinois complete the top 10 by total ports. California alone represents more than one-quarter of the projected national network, and the 10 leading states together account for about 65%.
The smallest totals are in Alaska, with 227 ports, North Dakota with 288, South Dakota with 345 and Wyoming with 349. Montana, West Virginia, Mississippi, Nebraska, Delaware and Idaho make up the rest of the bottom 10 by count. These figures describe network size; they do not, by themselves, establish how well a state’s drivers are served.
Adjusting for population moves Vermont to first place, with 450 residents per port, narrowly ahead of California’s 480. Massachusetts follows at 539, Colorado at 651 and Connecticut at 677. Washington, Maine, New York, Oregon and Maryland round out the 10 states with the most ports relative to population.
Louisiana has the highest ratio, at 4,717 residents per port, followed by Mississippi at 3,541, Kentucky at 3,270 and Alaska at 3,254. West Virginia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas and Nebraska complete the bottom 10. Louisiana’s ratio is more than 10 times Vermont’s and more than four times the national figure.
ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.
The Fastest Improvements Do Not Always Mean the Best Access
Minneapolis-St. Paul leads the metro areas in projected improvement, with residents per port declining 22.5%, from 2,478 to 1,921. Seattle-Tacoma follows at 19.7%, while Milwaukee improves 18.4%. Boston-Manchester, Denver, Sacramento’s broader region and New York also post improvements of at least 17.9%.
Milwaukee illustrates why progress and current standing need to be considered separately. It has the third-largest improvement among the metros studied, yet still ranks third from the bottom in charger density. Oklahoma City improves 17.6% but also remains in the bottom 10. Las Vegas has the smallest improvement, at 5%, although its projected 1,054 residents per port is still lower than the national ratio.
Among states, New Jersey leads with a 22.2% improvement, closely followed by Washington at 22.1% and Minnesota at 21.7%. Illinois improves 19.3% and Idaho 18.3%. North Dakota shows no improvement in the study’s ratio, while Wyoming improves 2.8% and West Virginia 3.9%.
What the Numbers Can and Cannot Tell Buyers
The word “charger” needs some explanation. The Department of Energy defines a charging port as equipment that can charge one vehicle at a time. A station location can contain multiple ports, so a projected network of nearly 300,000 ports does not mean nearly 300,000 separate places to stop. The study also combines Level 2 and DC fast charging ports, rather than presenting its headline rankings as a count of fast chargers alone.
According to the Department of Energy, Level 2 charging uses 208- or 240-volt service and is commonly used at homes, workplaces and public locations. DC fast charging serves a different purpose, offering faster charging for drivers who need a shorter stop. Combining both types provides an equipment count, but it cannot tell a traveler how many quick charging options are available along a particular highway.
There is another limitation: residents per port is not the same as EVs per port. The population includes people who do not drive electric vehicles. These ratios therefore should not be read as the number of EV owners competing for a plug, nor as a prediction of waiting times. The published methodology also does not describe an evaluation of charging prices, equipment uptime or the compatibility of individual ports with a buyer’s vehicle.
For consumers, my takeaway is to use the study as a starting point for questions. Before buying, check the charging locations near home and work, the equipment your vehicle can use, and the stops available on your regular road trips. If you plan to charge at home, confirm that arrangement before signing the paperwork. A promising statewide ranking cannot answer those questions for your driveway, and a weak ranking does not describe every neighborhood. The national network is expanding, but the charging plan that matters most is the one you can actually use.