Ep. 14: Andreas Jahn of RAP – How Regulation Shapes the Future of Smart Charging & Flexibility

0:11 Welcome to the Smart Charge by RiDERgy podcast. This is Claudio Geyken, founder and CEO of RiDERgy. This is your show to learn about all things energy management and smart charging innovation for electric vehicles and fleets.

0:39 Welcome to a new episode of Smart Charge. Today we're joined by Andreas Jahn, senior associate at the Regulatory Assistance Project, RAP, one of Europe's leading experts when it comes to smart energy regulation and power market reform and grids. He has over 20 years of experience, joining Lichtblick, one of the first utilities in Germany, then the government, the ministries and associations, and then with RAP, being responsible for several topics internationally. He takes us behind the curtain of energy policy. Why does flexibility often remain untapped?

1:17 How do outdated network tariffs and regulatory frameworks stand in the way of innovation? And what needs to change so that demand-side flexibility, storage, and smart EV and fleet charging can truly scale? We also take a look at international best practices, Germany's regulatory bottlenecks, and what a truly future-proof electricity system could look like. Let's dive in.

1:41 All right, Andreas, nice to have you today. How are you doing? Great to be here. I'm doing well and looking forward to that podcast. Awesome. Before we start talking about geeky energy systems topics and regulations, can you introduce yourself for the listeners, so that they know who Andreas Jahn is? Sure. I've been in the energy business for more than 20 years now. I started with an energy

2:14 retailer and ended up with regulatory authorities - with the ministry in Germany for a while, with associations, and now with the Regulatory Assistance Project. All of that happened because the framework wasn't properly set by then and developed over time, and human resources were required to address that. That's why I'm now with RAP - to improve the framework, because there are benefits across the world

2:53 to improving it, and in the end it benefits consumers, and supply can contribute to the system and to a clean future in this regard. Makes sense. One step back - how did you get into the energy sector? What drew you to it? Actually, it was the liberalized market. There were plenty of jobs on offer and I didn't know exactly what to do with

3:28 my studies once I finished, so I said let's try the energy business - and I'm still here. It was clearly a good market opening. So we're talking around 2000? Yes, around 2000. Because 1997 was when the EU decision for liberalization was made, but then maybe you can elaborate a bit on how long

4:04 it took for that to arrive in Germany, or at which point you entered and what the situation was here. Right. It was indeed a process. The energy markets we have today were actually driven mostly by the UK, because they liberalized first and their industry got cheaper electricity prices. The German industry was keen on that and said, well, we want

4:35 competitive markets too, to get prices down. There was pressure from industry, and with that - while the UK was still part of the EU - they developed mostly in Brussels the internal energy market for Europe, with all the guidelines and regulations we have in place now. That was indeed in the last millennium. But initially, in Germany, it was a bit different.

5:06 There was no authority appointed to regulate the energy market. It was driven by agreements among participants, among network associations and industry associations, and that was quite weak. There wasn't really any ex-ante regulation - it was only ex-post, meaning you could go to court if you didn't agree with what they had figured out or what the contract situation was by then. And it didn't work out

5:45 well for a couple of years. Then the majority at EU level decided: no, we need stricter regulation, we need an authority setting the framework ex-ante. That framework covers third-party access to the network, and also the costs - the regulation of network fees and the methodology behind them. Around 2001 or 2002, the regulator - until then it had only been the

6:23 Telecommunications and Railway Authority - was appointed to become the energy regulator as well, and with that they became responsible for the gas and electricity grids. That is the Federal Network Agency, or Bundesnetzagentur in German. Right. And so your first job was at a new electric utility - which one was it? It was Lichtblick. When I started there it was like

7:00 jumping into unknown waters, but after just a few weeks I was ahead of all the established network and energy utilities, because we wanted to get access and they had never provided access to any other supplier. That was a great learning experience. After a while I said, OK, I can do this, and then I got the opportunity to come to Berlin with

7:40 The Ministry of Economics, which had been operating by then - it has been called a task force for third-party access because there wasn't a regulatory authority, and that's why I'm in Berlin still. That was the time, as I said, when the BNetzA has been appointed. And for how long did you work at the ministry then? Oh yeah, that was only a year, but that was much more learning as well, because it was highly political. At the end, this

8:16 task force has been quit because - well, political issues, let's say. We've been kicked out, so it wasn't just me. There have been 5 or 6 from the industry helping the ministry with that, and there have been investigations on that later - even if that has been lobbying, etc. and all that. So I would say it was in between. It was because Germany wasn't really driving that forward to have an authority. Yeah, let's say Germany

8:53 is sometimes keen about the benefits but not that keen about really establishing the framework to achieve them. And that was probably the 2 or 3 year time period that has been required. And what were the other key responsibilities you had before your current one with RAP? Well, I've been with associations and retailers, and then it became more to be on the regulatory side, because there have always been issues on the access and on the regulation of the tariffs

9:29 and what came with all of that. That has been with retailers and with the associations on the regulatory side - talking with the ministry, with the regulator, in public as well. OK, so you drove that forward. You saw the topic of regulations both from a ministry, then from an association, and then now as an NGO, one could say - so you have different viewpoints on

10:01 the topic of regulations, right? Yes, indeed, and actually that was the initial point when I've been thinking about - well, we can only achieve an efficient transformation of the system if the framework is set right, if the incentives for the economy are there, and that wasn't the case back then. And that was when I met my today's colleagues. They said, yeah, of course we know that every regulation sets incentives. The other question is if

10:36 these are the incentives you're after. OK, then we'll dive into that question in a second. Before doing that, maybe you can give some background on RAP - the history behind it, the mission, and your concrete responsibilities? Sure, thanks. RAP has been founded already 30 years ago, I think, in the US. That was even before the markets in the US had been liberalized. In the US it's a bit different in

11:09 that way that the regulators are appointed or elected for a period of time only. And when the time ends, the knowledge is gone with the person. That's why two regulators had been thinking about how to keep the knowledge in the system, in the market. That's when they found some other people to finance that, and that's when RAP became a project - and that's what we are still named for. We are operating in a bit different way

11:43 globally. In the US it's more that they are former commissioners working, while in Europe, for example, there is more varied experience in our team as well, and even cross-sectoral - not all from the power system and not all from the regulatory perspective. It is as well from a transport perspective, from a heat perspective, and from industry, which we added to the team, because it's all on the electrification side. So that is

12:17 why Europe is a bit different. We are working in India and China as well, but those systems are much further away - at least from the European system - and within our organization, unfortunately too. OK, and how can one imagine the role of such an organization? What do you aim to achieve? What are the main goals and reasons to exist, so to say? Well, actually I would say to make

12:49 myself useless. The idea is of course to decarbonize the system at the lowest cost. That means to electrify, setting the right incentives so that all folks are running in the same direction. Unfortunately we are not doing that yet. So that is what we are financed for - by foundations mostly, sometimes by contracts from authorities, but not from the private sector, though of course we are engaging with the private

13:29 sector, with other NGOs, and helping to make things public in one jurisdiction. What we found out is that energy markets and even regulation are very fragmented across the world, and that it is very helpful to have examples from elsewhere - how things work - and to explain what we can do and what has been proven elsewhere. In the German context, I would say Germany is running 10 studies before they are changing

14:08 a dot in a sentence, while others are just running pilot projects and figuring things out - and that's why it is a cross-fertilization of that. Makes sense. So you try to spread these different best practices across the world as well, in the regions you named and operate in especially. Yes, and actually this is what I like to do - to learn and to think about how this can be adapted to other jurisdictions. That is actually great. And let's dive

14:40 into some examples, or topics of regulations that you think are key in this new world to enable electrification and decarbonisation. Maybe you can give some examples that come to mind. Sure, so yeah, I think the first is that we know that decarbonization works through electrification. This is probably one of the biggest achievements over the last decade, because that wasn't clear when I started in that field. So that is definitely

15:18 good, but how to achieve that at lowest cost - that is, I would say, unclear. And, for example, still - and then we're diving much more into the details - we need grids to serve the customers for all the needs they have. That is at least how the energy system has been built over the last century: to serve the load, so we need flexible supply. But that has changed. With the electrification, with the

15:54 decreasing cost of supply, mostly of PV and of wind, and now of storage and batteries as well, that is a huge chance to change the system. If we continue in the old fashion, it is probably not that beneficial. So, as we all know, we have flexibility, but we are not yet using that flexibility in the best manner. Mhm. So what are the hurdles for unleashing flexibility, and what regulatory best practices have you identified? The thinking, actually, we are not there

16:33 yet. I explored that a couple of times - quite a lot of people with responsibility for operations, or even policies on regulation, still have in mind there is a need and we have to serve that need from a central perspective. But the system of the future is so different. It is much more decentralized, it is flexible and bidirectional, and we can help each other with that - but neither the practice nor the framework is there yet. It has to be developed; partially it

17:10 is, in some jurisdictions, but it has to be combined for local needs in the first instance. On the other hand, that is why electricity is so special: we have a huge benefit by sharing across huge regions. For heat, for example, we don't supply a load pocket 1,000 miles away, but with electricity that might make sense to some extent. To some extent it is good to have local assets and

17:48 flexibility as well, and that is the difficulty of the system - it has more dimensions than the old system and other systems too. Maybe one step back: there are different regulatory systems across the world. Can we create pockets? There are liberalized markets and non-liberalized markets. Is that a good way to look at the different energy regulatory environments across countries in the world? Yes, definitely, that is a very good question, thanks for that. So, yeah, and

18:24 to start with that - Europe, for example, has huge differences, but it is still very homogeneous. The US, for example, is very different in this regard: they have liberalized markets, but they have fully regulated markets as well. And with that we can learn from each other. China, of course, is totally regulated - there is more or less no competition at all. Looking at energy markets globally, I would say there are three steps. In the first, you can

19:05 liberalize the supply side and set up third-party access by independent power producers - that is usually the first step. Then as the second step you can set up competitive wholesale markets, and the third - the top of the ice cream - is the competitive retail market. We do have that in Europe. But if you're coming from a totally regulated market, you shouldn't look straight up at that in the first

19:42 instance. It has its issues, but these are the three steps, and for each of them you need a different kind of regulatory framework. Is it fair to say that the UK is among the most advanced systems in terms of a regulatory framework that is very favorable to the new energy world? Yeah, at least in Europe, in some regards - and actually, that's why it's a

20:14 pity that the UK left the EU. They had been driving that development in Europe. Now, well, they're still in Europe geographically but no longer part of the regulatory and policy-making machine. But yeah, for example, in Europe the UK was the first state to establish incentive-based regulation for network operators. It's the 2nd or 3rd edition they have established now, setting detailed

20:52 incentives for what the network operators should do. That is definitely helpful - not just having a framework that provides incentives you ultimately don't act on. But there are other places as well that have done things well in Europe, and of course elsewhere in the world too. Right, let's get a bit more into the details. Just to name a few of the dimensions that I'm aware of that I would love to have you comment on or

21:26 perhaps add to. There are the grids, there is the production side, and there is the retail part in the regulatory frameworks. In the grids part, for example, having more dynamic grid fees would be very fruitful. We still have a lack of dynamic tariffs in the grid fee structure that reflect congestion availability in the grids or the availability of renewables - and therefore the capacity of those grids. There will be

21:57 One interesting topic, if you can elaborate: then the second is to what extent the retail tariffs are going dynamic, going to the spot tariffs where you have 15-minute changes of electricity tariffs. Some markets have them, some don't. So how that impacts things and how it will spread - we see that the EU has, with the Clean Energy Package since 2021, mandated that dynamic tariffs need to come. To what extent do they have to be every 15 minutes,

22:31 and will everybody implement them, or are we still in the process of implementing them? And will other countries in the world take notice as well and copy that? So just to give two examples, and then a third one maybe is bidirectional charging, where we see that there are grid fees or taxes involved with charging and discharging a battery in a vehicle, and oftentimes this is a fundamental hurdle for that value to be unleashed. So

23:04 are there others that you would highlight, or would you comment on the ones I mentioned? Yeah, sure, I'd definitely like to. So on the first one: the networks in the past had been built for the load and not charged based on the time when the network has been used, and that is in quite a lot of places still the truth. What that means is that the asset owners - and actually that is the incentive

23:36 to build assets, so to extend their asset base - at the end, what regulation quite often provides is building a copper plate. But we know that with the flexibility we do have on the demand side, which we can use - or if we are not incentivized, maybe we are not using - and if we are all plugging in our car in the evening when returning back home from work, that means building these networks is something no one is up for.

24:09 We can't afford it in the end. That is why we have to think about flexibility. And initially, flexibility came into play through wholesale market prices, because we know the sun is not shining at night, obviously. Wind is fluctuating as well, and that needs to be reflected in tariffs to adjust demand to the load. But since the energy industry, I would say, had been quite comfortable with their former revenue streams

24:45 and their cash cows, and with regulation there was not much innovation - that is why the EU set up the framework and said with this obligation you have to offer a dynamic tariff based on the wholesale market price, which is driven more by renewables. So it is good that we now have that across Europe, but that is only on the generation side. The networks are still in discussion, or in the making, let's say. Some of the

25:17 European countries do have that pricing already - or let's say it is a majority: about 20 out of 22 member states have time-varying network fees in place. Germany just introduced this year for some customers - indeed - and it is not mandatory. So we are a bit behind, and then we have the discussion in Germany about how you can deal with the system if you can't meter, if you can't measure, if you can't charge. Well, hopefully we are speeding up. Of course we need smart meters,

25:55 digitalization. I would say we can learn a lot from others. And are the countries that are not as advanced as others - like the UK or other liberalized markets - adjusting? Is there a trend for the world to harmonize regulatory environments, say developing countries for example? If it's globally, I would say there is maybe a trend, but it is not so obvious. Let's say on the EU level first, I would say

26:33 yes. We have seen, for example, that there are a lot of guidelines at the EU level and regulation, but for example the network regulation or the methodologies of tariff design are all with the member states. Luckily Germany moved that now to the BNetzA, to the regulator, whereas before it was with the government only - so that is a step forward. And now we are finding that Europe is still so diverse by tradition: what some countries did or what they

27:08 explained as their reasoning, others didn't even explain, or whatever. We need more harmonization. We have a wholesale market that is interacting and, I would say, in most places in a good way, but the retail markets across Europe are so different - and that is why businesses are struggling with it. Because you are established in the UK and then you step into the German market and wonder: how is that working? What do I have to know to establish a business? Where is

27:44 a revenue stream within that? How can I learn from that? That is the UK, but even from Denmark to France there are huge differences, and that is why the Commission is pushing for harmonization now. For example, they are expected to come out this month - I think they promised - with guidelines on network tariffs. Interesting. Yeah, there is also a good overview by SMARD, and I think they also have good

28:16 overviews on the regulatory frameworks of different countries regarding network tariffs. Yeah, indeed. And sorry - one thing: it is not an official guideline by the Commission, it is a suggestion first, but they said publicly: well, if no one is listening to this suggestion, we might think further. Makes sense. And talking about grid tariffs, is there also a hurdle for electric vehicles in particular in having high enough capacity to charge? At

28:52 different sites, and there are also huge grid fees related to connecting to the grid. Is that something that you see will change, or is there something in the making as well from a regulatory standpoint? What's your view on what should be the best way to enable more companies to move to electric vehicles without being forced to pay these massive amounts of grid reinforcement fees? Yes, and in this regard Germany is at the forefront. Germany has a lot of studies

29:23 about what we might face in grid investments if we want to fulfill our transitional targets, and we learned this might - or it should be - about €700 billion in the next 20 years that we have to invest in the networks only. And it's, I would say, too much. But the question is: where are these numbers coming from? And I would say there's a huge chance to deal with much less than that. But we have to think about

29:58 how we can be smarter and use what we have in a better way. For example, some places do have regulations in place where the utilization of the network is part of the incentive given to the operators. And I think this is a very good thing - that the network operator can say, yeah, before I'm investing into a new substation, maybe I can give an incentive to the users to avoid the peak hours and thereby avoid the investments. And by doing so,

30:33 we can probably cut a lot of these predicted investments. And you already mentioned the grid fees becoming more dynamic, coming in in Germany with the §14a EnWG - that's more for the very low voltage than for the medium voltage. There's also in Germany the so-called atypische Netznutzung, and the StromNEV §19. Is there going to be a lot of change related also to medium voltage? We're talking fleets - it's going to be more

31:07 and more electric trucks that will also have that incentive. Yeah, definitely. And to your previous question about the cost to build up the interconnection to the system - the Baukostenzuschuss, for example, which is what we have in Germany - I would say this is all still from the old system where we charge people to connect. But from my perspective, that is not the crucial issue; it is how we use the system.

31:40 We should connect everyone who wants to be connected at the cost of what the interconnection is, but everything else is for the use of the system. If I want to use the system at peak times, of course I have to be charged for that. And at the end, you get real value by doing so if you avoid the demand that is usually in Europe or in Germany in the winter evenings. Whereas it is

32:14 quite cheap to use a network at noon when the sun is shining, and we shouldn't penalize the demand by charging a lot at that moment in time. Makes sense. So you're referring as well to the fee structure that penalizes based on the peak you generate, but doesn't determine which time - it doesn't matter which time you generate the peak. But we should measure at which time the peak was generated:

32:48 if the network is not congested at that time, it's not a big problem, whereas if it was congested, it's a bigger problem, right? Right. And the point is regulation should provide the incentives ahead of time. That is why we need pricing ahead of time, and it's not helpful for the customers if we inform them the day after that the charging they did yesterday cost them their annual vacation because it was a peak time. They should get some kind of incentive or

33:24 information ahead of that to avoid it. And that's actually what we need. Since the future system is driven mostly by weather conditions - wind, sun, and temperatures - and of course by our behaviors, so whether it's a holiday or a weekday, that matters as well, and that is known 24 hours ahead. Exactly. I've seen you published a few interesting case studies with RAP. One is called "The Savings for Smart

34:00 Charging Electric Cars and Trucks in Europe," a case study for France, and another one is "Unlocking Flexibility: No-Regret Actions to Remove Barriers to Demand Response," addressed to NRAs - the regulators in Europe. And I think you also met Habeck at the bidirectional charging event, which was a while back. Out of all this work, are there a few highlights you would like to share with the audience? What are your takeaways? I would say the highlight is: we're

34:36 on the right track. And it is good to hear, for example, that Habeck has been aware that this is not just charging - it is bidirectional charging, which is a huge opportunity, and we should roll out the red carpet for that. It isn't there yet, at least not in all places, but I'm still seeing that we are moving forward. And we have been talking about bidirectional charging for quite some time, so perhaps

35:15 a meeting like the one you saw with Habeck - where a very powerful politician, at least someone in a powerful role, took that topic high up on his agenda - was significant. But still, we are not seeing progress as fast as we would like. What's your take on why it takes so long? I would say we are still locked into the old thinking, with the network operators, with

35:44 The utilities, how they have been established and what their revenue streams are - and that is even partially driven by regulation. So they are looking at the ones they are regulating first, and not having in mind how a future system could look like or should look like, and how we can achieve the lowest costs. So that is not always there yet. And to come back to that - the bidirectional charging - that is definitely complex, because we have responsibilities in the system.

36:18 We don't want to face a blackout, as it happened recently in Spain and Portugal. And therefore we need responsibility for all these tiny assets connected to the system, making it big and useful and beneficial to all. But we have to know when you charge your car, at least partially. And we need IT structures for that. We need coordination, we need information, transparency - all of that. And I think it is still - when

36:57 I started my job - the same: looking across borders is helpful. It is in the energy business, but it is for our entire life - it is helpful to see something else than the things you're used to. Yeah, that goes back to one of the concepts I like to use. There's software-defined vehicles, and I think the energy sector is also software-defined energy. And as you also highlighted in the beginning, the software world was

37:31 not ingrained in the way the energy system operated in the past as much as it is today, and this requires a completely new way of operating from traditional players. And it is when, let's say, network operators are thinking: well, there's a huge potential of the EVs, of all this battery storage we can use to balance the system. Their thinking is: I want to operate these resources to make my system cheaper, but they are not asking the customers. I wouldn't say that we

38:06 have to ask the customers first, but we have to put the right prices in place. So if we say, yeah, if it costs a lot right now, then there will be market providers, aggregators, suppliers - they will come up with offers to the customers, and they have to convince the customers on their products. And then they can help the system, the network operators, to come up with the cheapest solution. But with that, it is up to the customer

38:42 and to the market. So sometimes I'm still surprised by learning what markets are doing if they have the right prices - and that is great. When I've been asked how that could look like, I say: well, I have apps on my phone. I don't know how they work, but if they are telling me the right things, I can decide, or I can adjust them so that they are doing the right things, instead of looking every 5 minutes at my phone. And that's what we need

39:10 as well, and I don't have to set that up by myself. The only thing I know is we have to set the prices right. If we come up with the wrong price incentives, people will not do the best that they could do. Yeah, so in other words, we need the grid operators and the utilities to set a certain price structure and then let the market do the rest - exactly, that's the truth from my perspective. But Germany has

39:44 almost 900 distribution network operators in place. And I wouldn't say that they are really digitalized yet. They don't have smart meters implemented, and asking them about time-varying pricing of networks - they say: oh wow, that sounds fancy. How about dynamic pricing? Oh my God.

40:14 So we can speed up a bit on that end. Yeah, no, I agree. And then for the electric fleets - as this is also a lot about electric fleets and smart charging - is there any challenge you foresee in the upcoming years to electrify our fleets, and what would you suggest are ways to tackle those challenges? So first, I think fleets are much easier than a private car in a private household. Fleets are much easier because you know

40:45 usually when and where they're driving. You have certain points where you can charge, and you can adjust first the infrastructure for charging and then the price optimization with a wholesale or retail market and the networks. So there is a huge potential, and even there it is much easier to start with bidirectional charging. The grid connection to the system is usually the most cost-intensive investment for flexibility, and that's why quite a lot are

41:22 hesitating to install a bigger connection to the system. But I say I'm in favour of making it as big as possible, but putting the right prices for the operation in place. And with that, bidirectional charging of fleets is the initial step - and then eventually even with private households or, let's say, apartments and car charging on the streets. Makes sense. And do you distinguish between types of fleets where you see more

41:59 potential than other types of fleets? Well, I would say it's economies of scale. The biggest are easiest to start with. If you're operating a DHL or someone of that size, of course it's something else than having 3 cars for whatever kind of delivery in my neighbourhood. And it is connected to how much depot charging you have in place. If you can, at least partially, rely on nighttime charging,

42:39 that means you're more flexible than if you have a fleet that operates on long distances and relies on fast charging. So what we see is that it will be much more expensive to charge a truck after 4 or 5 hours of running full speed on a highway and then recharge in another 35 minutes - that is more expensive and doesn't have a lot of flexibility. But the combination of both - that is where the benefits even for businesses

43:18 Makes sense. And for nowadays, a big hot topic is electric trucks that are coming more and more and growing very fast, even though they started with a very small share in the last few years. But they're really picking up momentum. I think the goal is in 2030 to have a third of newly sold trucks be electric in Europe. Do you have any views on the challenges ahead, or the opportunities as well, for

43:48 electric trucks? Yeah, I think the development will be more straightforward than the private car sector. We have seen so many ups and downs with it, but trucks - that is a commercial business, so it depends on the TCO, the total cost of ownership. And that's what we heard from the manufacturers. The trucks will be there, they will be sold to the market, they will be used, and no one is up for their strawberries ending up in Cologne because of lack

44:26 of charging and can't be delivered to Munich, for example. So that is what we can predict for the future. But what we can see on the other hand is that the network connection, as we've done it for the last decades, requires almost a decade to implement a fast charging point that has to be connected to the high-voltage level. And I would say the car manufacturers or truck manufacturers are a bit faster. Yeah, so the high-

45:04 voltage lines need to be sped up to be able to cope with all that capacity, right? Right, right. And the markets can deal even with limited infrastructures and congestion, but it is so important to have these incentives in place so that they are building at the right spot, that they're using capacity when it's available or when it's cheap. And yeah, making the most of what we do have, to avoid unnecessary or avoidable investments. Makes sense. Is

45:42 there any other last message you would like to leave here in the podcast for the listeners - that you feel is important to consider across the wide array of topics that we touched? Well, I think: participate in the system, because it is different from the past when the consumer had to be supplied. Now the consumer can act - if it starts with a balcony solar panel, with your car, with a heat pump, with a battery, whatever. I think

46:16 it is, first and foremost, more independency, resilience to the system - to some it might just be fun, whatever it is. Check it out. Yeah, nice. Definitely - the prosumer, as it's also called, can have a big role compared to the past where it was maybe boring. There are challenges but also great opportunities. Yeah. And finally, how can people learn more about you or about your work, or connect in case they have questions? Well, sure, I'm on social

46:50 media, for example on LinkedIn or Bluesky. You can find me there, or on raponline.org. There is all the information about what we are doing globally, locally, etc. - even on the industry side, on decarbonization, which has its own challenges as well, on the heat side, etc. Excellent. Thanks, Andreas, and wish you still a great day. Yeah, thanks a lot, pleasure to be here. And this was a great episode with Andreas Jahn from RAP, the Regulatory Assistance Project. My key takeaways are that there are

47:30 several differences between markets and regions. We see liberalized markets and unliberalized markets - the UK being at the forefront, the US having a mixed system, and the EU being quite harmonized, but some markets having more or less great regulatory aspects. We see grid fees being a very important issue and how their structure, or bidirectional charging, is being impeded by how taxes and grid fees are structured. There are traditional players that lack software skills to enable these types of business models. We see that

48:18 the world gets more and more harmonized, and it is also changing fast - considering that 25 years ago there were nearly no liberalized markets in Europe, and it changed due to the cost advantages that come from that. And that the keyword flexibility is also very much shaped by regulations - and that was the key objective of RAP from the get-go as well: to make sure that we have a cost-effective transition through great regulatory frameworks. And they do this globally, which is fascinating, as they

48:57 might be one of the very few organizations having such a deep understanding of regulatory frameworks and trying to share best practice across different markets. He also identified fleets as a plannable source of flexibility for both smart charging in one direction or bidirectional charging. And really his final take was to be engaged and try to improve the system as a prosumer or as an active participant. Thanks for tuning in - please leave a review, follow us, give us 5 stars, that would be great, and

49:37 share this with somebody who could enjoy listening to this episode. See you soon.