Skip to content
RiDERgy RiDERgy
Smart Charge · 10 September 2025 · 58 min

Ep. 25: Johannes Pallasch von der NOW über Ladeinfrastruktur, Flotten und die Zukunft der Elektromobilität

Transcript

Cleaned up from a machine transcript. Translations are machine-generated and may contain errors.

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.

Welcome to Smart Charge. Today's guest is Johannes Pallasch, spokesperson and head of the National Control Centre for Charging Infrastructure under the roof of NOW GmbH – one of the central voices for reliable, user-friendly charging infrastructure in Germany. With Johannes, we look at his journey from entering the mobility world to the control centre, including stations and classifications, including Stuttgart, and the role of NOW and the National Control Centre in the European context. What international counterparts exist and what can we learn from each other? In terms of content, we span the arc from historical milestones of electric mobility and its

vision of a sustainable mobility system via fleet perspectives, logistics, tradespeople and so on, to range, charging, grid connection, regulation and price transparency. We talk about real-world laboratories as an innovation engine, the debate on the combustion engine phase-out and the future of autonomous driving. We also discuss tools of the National Control Centre, opportunities and challenges in the German grid, the role of funding as well as smart grids, dynamic tariffs, intelligent charging and bidirectional solutions – with a view beyond our borders: Germany versus other countries and city comparisons. Headphones on, battery level checked and here we go with Johannes Pallasch on Smart Charge. Hello Johannes, nice that

you're here today. How are you doing? Wonderful, thank you. How was your journey? You just said this was your first time here at the Royal Porcelain Manufactory. What's your impression? I'm really impressed. I didn't know this area yet. But that happens in Berlin quite often, you come somewhere and think: wow, that exists in the city too. Cool location. Yes. Before we dive into the topic of e-mobility – can you bring our listeners up to speed? How did you actually get into this topic, NOW, National Control Centre, e-mobility? What have you done so far and what's your story? Well, you could almost say it was in my blood from the start. The buses always ran electrically there, namely with overhead lines. That means I always sat in an electric school bus – and that was already 30 years ago. But then later, when I finished my studies, the path to electric mobility went through Stuttgart 21.

I worked in economic development in Stuttgart and back then I had the idea: let's make Stuttgart 21 a demonstration site for electrical applications – electric excavators, electric tipper trucks, etc., especially back then still with fuel cells. The idea went over really well, but it failed because Stuttgart 21 wasn't allowed to cost a single euro more. But I was into the topic and through that I also made contact with NOW. Shortly after, NOW took responsibility for the model regions programme for the transport ministry, and in those model regions, electric cars were conceived for the very first time, charging stations were just plonked somewhere in a corner and we generally started thinking about the topic. I was then associated with the project control centre and also made the showcase application back then. That was the second major federal government programme. And then in 2012 I switched sides, left the region and moved to the federal level, and started at NOW – back then still in a very exciting position that was 50% charging infrastructure and

50% hydrogen filling stations. And since then I've been here in Berlin driving forward the charging infrastructure topic. And getting deeper into this bus story – you can say you had contact with e-mobility relatively early. When was your first e-bus experience? My first e-bus experience was, I'd say, in 1984. Wow. Since 1984 I've been riding the e-bus. And people from Solingen always looked at us a bit funny, like: those people with their overhead line bus there

– but it always already had the added value that it was emission-free. That meant the air was cleaner. And the topic was even expanded back then. So there was a new line in my youth. And interestingly enough, the topic then came back to us here at NOW and the transport ministry, because there was a project with the lovely name BOB, five years ago, where they then also electrified the remaining routes on the basis of battery buses. That meant, where the overhead line was, you charged and then you basically switched to battery for the branch lines. And I think that's pretty cool: when I'm at home and often take the bus from the station to my parents, I sit in one of these buses and think: that was once a funding project – and now it's running in real operation, every single day. And 1984 – was that a funding project? No, in 1984 there was no funding. The BOB project, that was a funding project. That

was about five years ago. 1984 – how did that come about? That wasn't a project. So the people from Solingen had a streetcar back then that was electric, and then they switched. And I don't know why – whether it was for cost reasons. It couldn't have been ecology. I think based on the infrastructure that existed for the streetcar, they just set up these lines. And operating costs were probably cheaper from the start. Interesting. And then? How

was that actually experienced? Or was there pushback? How did people think about electric buses back then in 1984? We didn't experience any resistance. It was taken for granted. The buses ran, the air was clean, and there was nothing else to discuss. It only became interesting again much later – around 2008, 2009 – when the topic resurfaced with the e-car discussion.

Exactly. And that's exactly what makes your story so exciting – that you've basically been accompanying this journey since 1984 and now you're at the control centre. But before we talk about the structure of NOW and what you do there – what was the transition like for you? How did you get from working in Stuttgart in economic development to NOW?

Well, as I said, through this Stuttgart 21 project. That brought me into contact with NOW. And then when the model regions programme started – I think that was around 2008, 2009 – I became involved as a project manager. And that's when I really got into the topic professionally. Before that, it was more of a hobby – I was interested in the topic, I rode the e-bus, but now it became my job.

So you came to this Stuttgart experience? How – before we so to speak – that was the first contact point, then also professionally with e-mobility. What was the motivation for the project? Well, I actually never had anything to do with cars, except then in my diploma thesis at university. I wrote about the automotive cluster in the northern Leipzig region, where BMW and Porsche are located, I examined that and analyzed the cluster effects there. And through that I had the entry into the automotive topic and then naturally came to Stuttgart

where the automotive topic is a very big one. And then five years in Stuttgart, then but the path to the federal government. And that was always my dream. I did an internship in the Bundestag at some point and said: Here I want to go again, here I want to come back. And I managed to do it. Ah yes. And Stuttgart 21 briefly deepened: How do you look at the topic? There are very strong emotions about it. Yes. Well, I was there live back then, also down there in that park, when there was

the confrontation. You could really feel how emotional the topic is, and also how difficult it is in Germany to implement infrastructure that arguably may well be justified. So I say it like this: These are projects that have an impact for the next 100 years, because you really create structures. But how strong this resistance to change is in Germany, to leave things as they are, not to change anything anymore – I found that really extreme. Yes, that is definitely

a topic. We'll probably go into that more deeply. Before we come to NOW: You also mentioned briefly in the preliminary discussion that you personally drive electrically and also operate charging infrastructure. Maybe you can expand on that a bit for the listeners. That's also an interesting fact. I've always said: Whoever does e-mobility must also drive electrically. And consequently I also own an electric car from a major German manufacturer, but with a small battery. This means you have to charge a lot. But with that you can drive quite well through Europe too. So I'm also going on holiday this year beyond the Alps, to Italy, but I've also been with it in Croatia, England and Denmark. That works wonderfully. And I live on such a large farm with many other families and neighbours. And I have a charging park with a total of 17 charging points. That's my job there. So everyone has their job, and my job is charging and parking – but also with the goal of getting as many people as possible into an e-car

So you came to this Stuttgart experience? How – before we so to speak – that was the first contact point, then also professionally with e-mobility. What was the motivation for the project? Well, I actually never had anything to do with cars, except then in my diploma thesis at university. I wrote about the automotive cluster in the northern Leipzig region, where BMW and Porsche are located, I examined that and analyzed the cluster effects there. And through that I had the entry into the automotive topic and then naturally came to Stuttgart where the automotive topic is a very big one. And then five years in Stuttgart, then but the path to the federal government. And that was always my dream. I did an internship in the Bundestag at some point and said: Here I want to go again, here I want to come back. And I managed to do it.

to get there. And I would say, I have a good track record. We are at six or seven electric cars and one electric buggy by now, I believe. If it continues like this, I would say we will have converted the fleet in five years. And do you operate it completely by yourself? Yes. Is that almost a full-time job or a side job? No, I'm hitting my limits when there are more and more vehicles and you don't have a good backend. So I actually need to think about this soon on how to really handle that on a large scale.

And the biggest challenge is basically always this chip programming. I have a system where you have to program each chip at each charging station. That is a bit complicated. Okay, okay. And then to NOW – for those who might not be in the industry: How did NOW come about, what does NOW stand for, and also in relation to the National Charging Infrastructure Control Centre? NOW was set up back then to advance the hydrogen fuel cell topic in Germany, and also had a funding program as a foundation, which it coordinated and coordinated for the ministry. And then at some point the topic of electromobility was added to it, meaning the coordination of model regions. Both topics were always actually at home in NOW – it's just that people didn't perceive it that way outside. And meanwhile it is actually the case that the battery electric topic is also the bigger one. At some point I realized that there is an enormous amount of work involved in the charging infrastructure topic and that you also need an institution

within the federal government where a lot of expertise is located – essentially where the know-how is made available to all departments, but especially to the Federal Ministry of Transport, our client – and that there is a certain necessity for it. And then back then – there was a backstage person from Minister Scheuer – we contacted them and presented the idea to them, it was a huge hit. They said: Boom, we want that. And with that the idea was born that there would be a National Charging Infrastructure Control Centre. It is located under the roof of NOW. And yes, since then we have been on our way for five and a half years now. I would say we are doing pretty good work. We've always had the approach that we absolutely want to achieve effectiveness with what we do. So either we create tools that help people out there – meaning municipalities – or we support the federal government with tenders. But we also support them with other regulatory questions. But we also especially always help the federal government to understand: what is actually the current phase, as an electrician would say. Where are we right now? Where do we have problems? Where are we doing well? And for this assessment, it makes sense to also have your own expertise, because otherwise you are always dependent on others, meaning lobbyists. And then decisions might turn out differently. That makes sense. And you also mentioned that NOW is increasingly moving more towards electro. Can you also explain how that exactly is, how much hydrogen, how much electromobility then

To translate this paragraph, I need the complete text as it appears to be cut off in the source.

To translate this paragraph, I need the complete text as it appears to be cut off in the source.

To translate this paragraph, I need the complete text as it appears to be cut off in the source.

in the constructs? Well, actually from the beginning it was always fifty-fifty, with half the people working on the battery-electric topic. But of course there was always an internal attitude: battery is a niche. That was justified at the time, because batteries weren't advanced enough yet and hydrogen could certainly demonstrate higher range. But that has now shifted dramatically, and we're seeing that battery technology in particular has made enormous leaps. So battery technology, charging power – we're in ranges that

we probably couldn't have imagined ten years ago. And that's why I'm still quite optimistic that if we look ahead another ten years, we can achieve even more. Yes, and are there comparable organizations like NOW or the National Control Centre internationally? Yes, we have a sister organization, in Austria. There's also a control centre there, which we exchange information with regularly. Otherwise there are comparable organizations in China and Japan. But – and this always makes us very happy – we see this

as recognition of our work. The control centre principle is also being demanded at the European level. There are actually calls saying that every member state basically needs a kind of control centre to coordinate the charging infrastructure issue. Why would that make sense? We're living in an enormous transformation, which is fundamentally shaped by the shift from combustion engines to electric motors. And the infrastructure required for that naturally needs to be developed appropriately everywhere. And that doesn't happen by itself. We're talking about an ecosystem

here, and having a strong partner who knows the ropes on the state side makes sense. And before we look into the future, let's take a step back into the past. You also have a neutral perspective on market conditions and developments. What were some milestones in the history of e-mobility for you, which is still very young – or you could go back to the nineteenth century. Where would you like to start? The interesting question is,

how did it all actually begin with e-mobility? There was this economic stimulus programme 2 back then. And if I'm getting this right, they put an incredible amount of money into scrapping vehicles. There was the scrappage premium. And somehow I think people already had a guilty conscience, I'd almost say. And the idea that you had to come up with something innovative in response – that is, you had to create a path for alternative drives that are emission-free or low-emission. And there was already a programme for fuel cell technology, the so-called NIP, and the NOW. And for battery cars, there was nothing yet. And that's when they invented model regions. And that was a good funding programme because you could actually test the demonstration first and see: can this work at all? A kind of real-world laboratory.

Exactly. And then there was another programme. Those were the showcases. And through that you first understood where the challenges lay and that it works. But the issue was actually made aware to everyone very early on. That's why I rub my eyes a bit when people say they're hearing about e-mobility in industry for the first time, and that it's a nasty transformation waiting for them. I say: people, anyone who's walked through the country with open eyes has known this for ten years. The question is: did you want to believe it or not? And those were the big steps. And I think then for us of course another very big

step was when the Federal Government had a master plan, where people really sat down with great focus and laid out what actually needed to be done, and where coordination between departments also improved. And of course, clearly – the founding of the control centre was of course also a booster to make quite different activities possible. At federal level, and for us of course also always the highlights when we get to support funding programmes for the state, but also these large tenders, like now for example the Deutschlandnetz, passenger cars in the regions and

on the motorways, but especially now also the tender around the truck topic, because you really shape how such a system ultimately looks. You of course stick to everything that's also been tested in the market, but you can also push things forward at that point. Simple example: when we had funding for public charging infrastructure back then, we insisted that roaming capability also had to be there. Not everyone loved that – it's standard today.

And so it is that the government is able to open up innovation fields through targeted measures. And how far do you see your remit extending? Does it go in the direction of mobility, in the direction of ships, in the direction of planes? And what's your vision? Will we manage it? So e-trucks we've already addressed, that surprisingly it will now also be battery-electric – very likely. How about the others? Are there use cases where

We see potential? What's your assessment? I think we need to differentiate. Ships – that's definitely an important topic for Germany as a maritime nation. But I think there we need to look at different drive technologies. For short distances and lower payloads, battery electric is certainly an option. For longer distances and heavier payloads, we're probably looking more at hydrogen or synthetic fuels. Aircraft – that's even more complex. For short-haul flights, maybe battery electric could work in the future. For long-haul flights, we're probably looking at sustainable aviation fuels or hydrogen. But these are all still developing fields where a lot of research and development is needed.

You see: oh, that becomes difficult? Or will it. Yes. What is your solution for that? The control center basically covers everything that runs on four wheels or three or two and is somehow on public roads or needs to be charged somewhere privately. But of course, there are applications – rail, ships, air – where we're not involved in those right now. But there are colleagues who do that at NOW. And they also have exciting jobs. I have a fantastic colleague who is driving the whole shipping topic and is also

really doing great things with it. So we basically offer the full range to support in that area. And of course there are also big levers to save emissions when I think about shipping and air traffic. And those topics exist too. Yes, exciting. And the electric trucks – that's probably also one of the topics taking the most time or attention right now. What else is there? You've already mentioned a few. If you want to have the full range: what's occupying your mind the most right now,

or yours? Well, there are topics where I would say: that's working. The market is moving. Stuff is being delivered. Infrastructure is being built. We don't really need to worry about that much. That's mainly the topic of charging along the corridors. I see a great offering there. That's why I'm totally relaxed when I go on vacation in two weeks. I haven't even thought about where I'll charge, because I know: okay, I can look at that half an hour beforehand. It works.

I would have done it differently five years ago. Where we still have a challenge is when I live in an apartment building at home and need charging infrastructure there. Even now it's very difficult when I have to coordinate with my neighbours to get to a point. We need charging infrastructure now – that's sometimes a cost problem too. And the big challenge is that for people who are parked on the street and need to charge there, we don't really have a good offer. That means conversely: we haven't managed to

activate all buyer groups yet. When we talk about e-mobility sales figures that I personally don't think are bad – but I also say: they could be better. Specifically, if we had tackled this street charging use case more consistently, because we're leaving, let's say, a third to a quarter of potential buyers on the table. And we need to focus on them now in the next step. Yes. So let's dig deeper into this topic. I'm also very curious and thinking a lot about

how we solve the problem with the population that doesn't have their own home or can't charge at their employer – which is the case for many. I don't know if you have numbers in your head about how many we're talking about who basically can't charge at their employer or at home. How many charging points do we need? Because there's always this capacity utilization topic. I think there's already 15 % – that's what people say, that the charging points on average – you had, yes, I think you even

presented it quite well – have a utilization of 15 %, not that much per charging point. That means one would actually say there are enough charging points. But at the same time there's something to it: if the charging point is too far away, it's also not realistic that citizens will use it in their daily lives. How do you see it? That's a really exciting question. How can it actually be that there are two different perceptions about the topic of charging infrastructure? One that says: we actually have a totally underutilized

charging infrastructure, and there's actually enough of it, or everyone should really be happy. But then we have citizens out there driving around and complaining that there isn't enough. And that's why you have to dig deeper. It depends on one hand of course on the location. We have charging infrastructure that is very much in demand. And we also have charging infrastructure that is sometimes not in demand at all, that was simply built in the wrong location or that doesn't work. So you have to be careful with average values. Utilization is

in my view a toxic number, because it suggests that more is possible without saying where the limit actually is. If I say I have 15 or 20 % utilization, everyone would think: hurray, there's still 80 % free. But now think about it: how do people move through life? People don't arrive evenly over 24 hours at the charging station, but actually we all have a very similar pattern. We sleep at night,

Then we wake up. Then we drive somewhere. Then we work and then we drive back again. And then there's dinner, a bedtime story and sleep. That means there's a kind of standard load profile for the user too. Of course there is. Now everyone will have an example where that's different. But I would say: the vast majority of citizens behave very similarly. That means everyone wants to charge in a similar time window. That means this idea that I could put them in completely different hours, that doesn't actually work. And that's why these 15 %

well – they really need to be put in context. We know there's a ceiling at about 25 %, roughly speaking. So the best-utilized charging stations are around 20 to 30 %. If you take the top 5 % of those, then we know: actually nothing more is possible there. And then we have to honestly say, we need to set 50 % against 30 %. And then you have a proper assessment.

What we're trying to do now as the next step, together with industry, is to say: we too want better utilisation. Of course. The better the ratio of charging infrastructure to vehicles, the more economical it becomes from a macroeconomic perspective. And of course we want to see what effect it actually has when we also offer dynamic pricing. So if I say: okay, I'm trying to increase my utilisation through cheaper prices – how many percentage points can we still squeeze out? And from my perspective, that's something that's still unclear. We need to

tackle that now. But I also want to warn here – I'll be personal: I wouldn't get out of bed at night just because it's particularly cheap, but I too am bound to my patterns as a human being. Yes, there was that announcement recently in Berlin – we're sitting here in Berlin – that the city of Berlin removed the blocking fee from a certain evening time onwards, which makes a lot of sense. Yes, that's exciting too. And that's why, for example, that would be something where I

would now say, if I were advising at the ministry: yes, that's all well and good. But the problem actually arises with the end customer when he uses his EMP product, his e-mobility contract. The penalty fees are charged in the e-mobility contract. So what happens is: sometimes penalty fees are charged to me, even though the charging infrastructure operator isn't actually demanding them. That's free-riding that has become widespread – that's what I'd call it – and it's a huge problem. It's 100% margin for the e-mobility provider. And I personally don't know of any case where

that money is transferred to the CPO, the charging infrastructure operator. But he's actually the one who has the problem when someone parks there too long. So that's something we really need to tackle. But I still think the step from my Berlin colleague is good, clarifying it that way, because then you can also tell your e-mobility providers: what's this all about, guys? That can't be right. Yes, that definitely sounds like trickery. You can of course consider – and I think that's a really fascinating question too – whether the prices are justified,

the high prices at public charging points, where many people complain that they're not as low as at home. Of course you have to factor in the acquisition costs of the charging infrastructure and the operating costs of a charging point operator – you can't just assume the same prices as at home. But what then is a realistic price? Have you modelled that in any way? Of course we think about that, and we have very good insight into the costs. And that's the foundation. So ultimately, if

I take every business case, so to speak – if I take a beer coaster, I would say: okay, what capex do I have? What opex do I have? What margin do I need to achieve? And what depreciation period do I have? If I take that and put it against utilisation, then I can actually calculate quite well what markup is necessary so that my costs – capex, opex, margin – amortise. That's a calculation anyone can do on a beer coaster. That's how we do it too. And

of course you very quickly get to the point where you understand: okay, what would be justified and what not? Which means, there's definitely still room downwards, so to speak, broadly speaking? Or is the criticism from citizens justified, where many say we're paying too high prices at public charging points? We have a problem. We underestimated that for a long time: that a lot of people today are still driving around with company cars and

simply have a card where they personally are not affected by it being expensive – it's just paid. That means there wasn't even that pressure from the customer side. Of course there are voices in the market, but that's changing now: we increasingly have really people who don't come from the fleet business and have a fleet card, but who hold their own card in front of it and pay for it themselves. And in your vision – back again – for citizens who don't have a charging point at home, will we

then, a vision that I would have, also maybe once more to bring you and the listeners along. We do talk a lot about intelligent charging. I'm an energy engineer and try to look at the whole thing systematically. One thing is: I understand the charging point operators who want to maximise their utilisation as much as they can. But of course at the energy system level there's the incentive, if you delay the charging process and have these dynamic electricity prices and then bidirectional charging et cetera. For this systemic view it would actually be so good that

there are as many charging points as possible and that utilisation is not the decisive optimisation variable, but that you look at it at system level. There are, as you say, certain restrictions. People won't change their lifestyle behaviour that much. That means, somewhere you can maximise it, but up to 25 percent, as you said. And then it's really about: How can we delay charging as much as possible or make it bidirectional and thereby make money as a charging point operator? How do you see

the entire topic? So this is something that we discuss far too rarely as an industry: what contribution would we actually have in the context of the energy system? When we talk about dynamic pricing, it's mainly about optimised utilisation. It's not about optimising ourselves against energy generation. That works in other systems. So where I have fast charging, I try through pricing to distribute visits so that people come earlier or later. But we still have all the, let's say,

street chargers, but also people who park at home or at their employer. They're plugged in for a very long time. And they can certainly charge very flexibly and are able to, so to speak, wait for price signals that say: okay, it's very cheap on the market right now, please charge now. That also relieves the system. And I think we need that – we need to bring these price signals from the electricity market all the way to the end customer. And that's a discussion we're having right now with

trucks with the pass-through model, where we say: at that point, because the batteries are so large, we also want to think in a system-friendly way. What we will have in the future – if we just look ahead ten years – what my vision would be, if I'm in a neighbourhood: so first of all in a neighbourhood it would be that I have a charging option within walking distance – and within walking distance means within easy walking distance, let's call it that, that's roughly 250 metres in front of my house. I can reserve this charging option in principle, because it's not just one

charging point, but is always thought of as a network, and I have high reliability that I can actually get to the charging point. And then the main question here is: how do we actually manage to give citizens who don't have their own PV system on their roof access to PV? So I could also imagine saying: okay, in the future that's possible – I own shares in a PV system somewhere. But it doesn't sit at home on the roof, it's somewhere

else. But I can bring that electricity into my car. That would be a conceivable option. And I think we need not only the topic of fast charging for neighbourhood offerings, but especially also the topic of normal charging, because cars are simply parked for long periods. And as you said earlier, it also makes sense to have many cars on the grid. And you already mentioned the pass-through model. Why is that so important? That's a very topical issue right now, especially in the e-mobility context. But I think

not only that. Exactly. So it's always very important to state upfront: I personally have no preference for what's better or what you're a fan of. I'm a fan of one thing – that's fair competition and a level playing field. And what we've experienced in the past is this: that many operators didn't want citizens to charge ad hoc. So someone came to Berlin, explained to us: "nobody needs ad hoc charging, nobody does it." At what price

did you set that? They named us a price, and it's twice as much. That's clear that nobody does it. And above all, we need to get there: we want to give citizens the choice – whether they charge ad hoc or with a driving electricity contract. That's the issue with cars. And that's very important. I don't see the pass-through at all in the topic of fast charging for cars. You have to keep in mind: I won't drive to a charging station at night just because there's a lot of wind blowing at night,

I don't think that effect is there. It's different – possibly with neighbourhood charging. But with trucks it's like this: we're not just building charging points for quick top-ups where you stand for three-quarters of an hour, but also for the long times a driver has to take a break, meaning eight to ten hours. And it makes sense if I have a truck on the grid for eight to ten hours, to look at when it can charge in a system-friendly way. And for that

I have to pass through the price signal from the market. And it's also important: we looked at when trucks are at the locations. And that's very flexible. That means trucks start arriving in the morning, the first ones that need to take a break. And more come at midday and more in the evening. That means it distributes quite well over a day. So I actually have a gigantic storage facility on the road, and it would be stupid, it would be foolish if I

didn't use it. That means this is what we're planning: we say, okay, there should be a third access option – this "Bring Your Own Power" or EMP plus. But whether it will be used, how intensively it will be used, and whether that's really the solution in the end and significantly cheaper price-wise, we don't know. One thing is clear though: we have fair competition between the three different access options. And is it possible now – so if I'm a shipping company

or a fleet operator of an e-truck, could I actually use it right now today in Germany, or do we have to wait for something? What are some obstacles that are still in the way? Well, the application rule is there. There are practically none. We don't have to wait for the Federal Network Agency or any laws anymore. That's all there really. I think the application, the implementation here in this context is new. So of course we have to look carefully to make sure it's something we need to introduce. So

It won't all be there at once. But I believe it will be a competency that will also have significance beyond the truck network in the market. And I think it's not wrong to engage with the topic. But as I said, I'm also still a big advocate for – if we're staying with cars – talking about ad-hoc charging. Next year we'll reach the point where all public charging points have to be connected to what's called the national access point. That means there will be

a platform where all occupancy statuses are available. And so I can see where a charging station is, whether it's free or not – reserve it or not. But I can also check the pricing for the ad-hoc rate. Why is that so important? In the past, I actually only got this information through my power supplier's app. There was no other way to get it. That meant if I wanted to move into the world of electric mobility, I needed that app. And in the future I can get this data on

my navigation system or always on my phone. And I know where a location is and can use it without a contract. I can imagine that this will significantly strengthen ad-hoc charging. We know from large supermarkets that the rate of ad-hoc charging there is quite different. So there, ad-hoc charging is priced so attractively that people mostly do it. And I think that's an interesting thing: if the pricing is right, then people go for the ad-hoc charging

topic. And ad-hoc charging also out of curiosity: this is regulated Europe-wide through the AFIR regulation, so it also has to be available at every charging point – AC and DC, so fast charging and slow charging – everywhere. And in the AFIR it's also laid out that it has to be non-discriminatory and fair in terms of pricing. In practice, from my perspective, that's not quite being lived out. But the AFIR already has the tendency to ensure that people say: actually, they really do have to move at a

very similar price level. And then ad-hoc charging is suddenly interesting. And how do you see the topic of corporate fleets? I think that's also one of the biggest levers for e-mobility. Two-thirds of new electric vehicles go to corporate fleets. Are we on a good path there? Are there still hurdles that you see? What else comes to mind for you on the topic of corporate fleets? Yes, it's actually the case that there are fewer and fewer people who really buy a first car themselves and put money

on the table for it. That means, to bring electric cars to the market, it's of course a very important route through corporate fleets and company vehicles. And we need to manage that.

Beyond that: the fleets that worry me even more right now are the really big ones, the truck fleets – how we get those electrified. I already said that we're working on the charging network for public charging infrastructure. But this is very important: we also need to be able to charge everywhere in the depot. And we have enormous tasks there. And that at least is conscious in the planning we've done on the motorway. So the needs planning has as a basic assumption that trucks actually always leave 100

percent charged. Getting this basic assumption right – that will be hard work. What do you mean by that – how you manage to get them to 100 percent? The question is: we think in a cascade logic. How much charging infrastructure do we need to build? And of course we don't want to build too much. That means you say: okay, charging needs that can be solved more cheaply somewhere else should also happen there. So a charging process at the depot will probably always be cheaper than at some public charging point.

because certain requirements simply fall away. And that's why we say in our logic: OK, we want them to also charge accordingly there and ideally leave fully charged. But as I said, there are enormous tasks with depots. What worries me is that the grid connections are usually not enough for everyone. And then you have such an industrial estate. If there are five logistics companies there, possibly only the fastest one gets served at the start and the rest are out of luck. And that can't be it. Can we

go a bit more into detail here, because you know what typical grid connection capacities are in such an industrial estate and what's realistic for a logistics company in terms of what they have now and what they can then ask for in terms of grid upgrades from the distribution network operator? Of course that's very different, because of course there are commercial applications that need a lot of power, and some that need very little. But if you look at what a depot actually needs in terms of power – so if I just look at a simple goods handling depot: I need power for lighting, I need power to open and close the roller door. Those aren't the big machines, it's not a metal shredder. Maybe if it's a refrigerated depot, then a bit more because of cooling. But standard depots – let's say one that just sorts unrefrigerated packages – the requirement isn't high. But maybe I have 100 trucks at the

same time

ramps. If I now say: OK, every ramp must have a charging plug, then suddenly I end up with connection capacities that an operator of such a location has never seen or heard of. And they probably fall over backwards at first. And then of course it also depends on how such a business is connected overall. And that can be very, very different. It also always depends on how the upstream network is structured. Sometimes you're lucky and there are also spare capacities. Although that

is always just a snapshot in time. It could also be that tomorrow somehow a large battery storage or a data center comes along and the capacity is gone. And that's why it's very, very important that we make transparent from the start, especially to the distribution network operators, what's coming their way. And that is an essential task of ours that I think is the least well known. When we all complain that distribution network operators are actually too slow with connections – they can't do much about it now, because the

rules are as they are, and the staffing levels are often as they are too. And if you want to solve the problem, then you also have to give the distribution network operators the advance notice they need. So if a distribution network operator tells me they need ten years to lay a high-voltage line somewhere, I can't wait ten years and then say: I want high voltage now – and then it's not there. Rather, I would have to tell them today, with proper advance notice: Listen, in ten years I'll need

a network connection there. Then they'll make it happen. And that's what we do: we basically plan the demand for charging infrastructure and the capacities behind it for all of Germany, and give this data to the network operators so they have a picture of what's coming their way. You know, I've also been wondering for a while what the main reasons are why it can take up to ten years, especially with high-voltage applications. Can you go into more detail on that? Well, it's certainly not that the

excavator drives from the dump truck, digs the hole and closes it up again – that's done in a few days. It's actually this whole planning phase, all the coordination, which is extremely time-intensive. And I mean, there are good reasons for that. Of course you have to balance the various interests in the country, but that's very time-intensive. And yes, I would certainly hope that there are some acceleration measures that also apply to this area. The key phrase: overriding public

interest, which we did with wind power. That would help reduce this time by nine years or so – with the problem that by now pretty much everything is considered a matter of overriding interest. I mean, we have to be honest about that. From our perspective, of course the most important topic is charging infrastructure. For others, it's battery storage. Then the next person comes along and says: Yes, but if we don't have our own data centers, we'll eventually be in trouble. And so on. Which means,

the distribution network operators and transmission network operators are of course faced with a wave of applications that they can hardly cope with. We simply have to support them as best we can. And that's our aim when we say: Listen, folks, we'll explain to you what the target picture for 2030, 2035, 2040 looks like, so that you can make the necessary upgrades especially in the upstream networks. You support them mainly in an advisory function. Do you also have a tool, or how exactly should one imagine that? Exactly,

our leading tool in this regard is the location tool. With that we do the demand planning and calculate it too. And it's actually written into the Energy Industry Act that our planning must be adopted. That means it's not somehow voluntary, but it's a binding service that we provide and that must also be used. That's of course, as I said, unknown to most people, but it also shows that the state can act quite intelligently – in the sense of: yes, we have models and forecasts that help us cope with the major challenges

that lie ahead of us. One keyword: the state. I also find that very interesting, and I think we see it similarly – and perhaps more controversially in Germany. I'd like to explore that further: to what extent the state has a right to plan certain processes, and particularly in this case infrastructure, and how much one should let the market have free rein. I hear from you, and I think I agree, that the state in certain

aspects absolutely must take the lead and assume responsibility, in this coordinating function. How do you see this issue – not just limited to e-mobility, but that the state doesn't just have a laissez-faire mentality where the market sorts everything out, but also has to take leadership? I think you need a balanced relationship between the state and the economy here. There are – and this is deliberate – many things that the economy can do better. But there are also things that the state can do better,

or where you might act more in the interest of citizens. And I think you always have to be very honest about what the interests are in each case. I think that especially when it comes to infrastructure, the state of course always has a strong role, but the state would not be better at, for example, building and operating charging infrastructure itself. I remember a conversation ten years ago with a member of parliament who said: "Mr. Pallasch, you have to do all of that." I said: "God in

Frankly, if we want to achieve anything here – we as government institutions would not be capable of keeping up the pace because we have completely different rules for building and operating charging infrastructure nationwide. This is an industry task. But when it comes to the question of what the framework conditions should be and how such an overall system needs to function, how we can ensure it's fair for citizens, or how we can create uniformity – well, we still have a role there.

And then of course there are special topics, like the truck tender now. There the federal government has the land, and then you're in a different role again. When you're the one providing the land, you have to handle those lands responsibly, because I can't just give the land to anyone, but it has to be a proper procedure. When it comes to e-mobility strategy, if you look at China in particular and then the USA – to give you very concrete extreme examples – Germany and the EU are somewhere in between.

China: five-year plans, a very clear strategy for electric mobility. The plan certainly has certain negative aspects when you look at the market, but still a very clear line in favour of e-mobility and crazy registration numbers when it comes to e-mobility. And then the USA: just now a new government, and suddenly "drill, baby, drill" – and then it's all about making sure there are no e-vehicle imports. The ruling government doesn't believe in it. Here I have the feeling we're driving somewhere in between. Are we going the right

way? Should we adjust something – more in the direction of China, or keep everything as it is? Sometimes you get the impression that we lack the courage to really make the leap. A half leap can be quite painful. From an industrial policy perspective, I think it's clear to everyone who knows anything about the subject: tomorrow's money won't be earned with yesterday's products. That's really clear to everyone. And so of course the question is, with what intensity and with

what speed we enter these new markets. Every car I sell more in this new market, I sell less in an old market – and that's of course still a challenge. We argue very often still with fleet limit values, saying: "Yes, that's why we basically have to enforce it through fleet limit values." I often wish that we would think about it completely differently: "Listen, people, we need to unlock the iPhone moment for the e-car." In

At that point where people say: "I want that thing. My neighbor has it, I want it, and everyone else wants it too." That's when we need to get to, because then the thing sells itself. What does it take for that? On the CapEx side, such an electric car of course can't be much more expensive, and on the operating costs – i.e. charging costs – it also can't be more expensive. And I think what's also really important is this functionality. That's why I am

I'm just as keen as everyone else on the topic of bidirectional charging. That's essentially the first functionality that sets the electric car apart from the classic combustion engine, because everything else is more or less identical. Except for range, we have a bit more problems, let's say, so too little range. I've got the charging issue. But the electric car can do something that the combustion engine can't. And that's essentially a piggy bank or a goose that lays golden eggs, as you might call it – that you can really hook it into the energy system.

And I think that can really bring people a lot of fun. You see all those people with their app, when they see how many PV hours they've charged, and I think that's going to become economically attractive. Let's go into detail on the topic of bidi, because it's also about cheap charging. How we see it: with the combustion engine you could maybe save a few cents here and there

at a different time of day, or a gas station that was cheaper. But now with electricity you have so much more leverage – already when charging and then potentially with bidirectional charging. There was that big announcement from Octopus and BYD recently that made quite a splash. With 300 pounds in the UK you can now, if you do bidi and so on and Octopus allows it, drive for free. When is that coming to Germany, in your view? That's definitely also an iPhone

moment for me, or rather a Xiaomi moment, because Apple didn't really bring its electric car and Xiaomi, the Apple of China, has already brought it. I see that the colleagues in the Ministry of Economy are also very active on this. We support that too. We helped draft the foundational paper for it back then as the control center, to sort out where there are still issues and where there aren't. I read that. It was very good, I can really recommend it. Our advisory board did that back then. The poor colleagues, they had to – I

was almost a bit embarrassed because I was on vacation and the advisory board of the control center was sitting there working that thing out. But they did a fantastic job. I hope that everyone recognizes that we need to go at this topic with full throttle, because we see others are already doing it now. And we can't let ourselves get scattered now and say we need to clarify the last detail. I think we also need to have the courage to get to market quickly with this

with a robust solution, and it must be clear: in the future, every vehicle must be able to do this, so it's simply state of the art. Every vehicle can do this from a software perspective. There's one thing that's still important to me, which is discussed too rarely. We've talked endlessly about what the interfaces look like, what the processes are, and so on. But there's one thing we haven't clarified: How should people actually behave with their car in relation to this? And that brings us to the following

interesting point: If I want to benefit from this – that is, the arbitrage between "I can use my PV electricity cheaply and then replace an expensive kilowatt-hour in the evening" – if I want to tap into this potential, then the car must be plugged in at the right time, meaning when PV electricity is being generated cheaply. But it's not necessarily parked at home. Usually the car is somewhere else. And then the question is: How does my electricity actually get to my employer? Then I'm back

to the topic of grid feed-in. And there's been a green light for that recently, so that it can be considered in this context too. There was a court ruling, so now nothing stands in the way. And I see the potential here. The experts who know about this topic are now saying: grid feed-in will be an important foundation for bidirectional charging. I think that's been discussed and recognized too little. Absolutely. We're also talking about complexities. I don't know how much detail you're

involved in and how you can navigate grid feed-in. But all the complexities of bidirectional charging include on the one hand all these business model aspects and the regulatory hurdles: feed-in model – is that possible, yes or no? Tax aspects, that kind of issues. Then the IT-heavy aspects that come with it. And then of course the user – they also need to know: How do they handle it? Now I can do bidirectional charging, or now I have to leave quickly and charge as fast as possible. And then of course all the electrical

aspects: Is the charging station able to direct the current in the other direction – AC or DC, et cetera? That is, there's quite a bit. Where do you see the biggest hurdles in this construct? And how quickly do you see us actually allowing this in Germany? There was one actor missing from the list. That's the grid operator. We especially need to bring them along and get them on board, in the sense that they need

the assurance that this functionality doesn't endanger the stability of the electricity grid. And the worst-case scenario you can imagine is: there's a price signal, and you can make money by feeding electricity back into the grid. Now imagine everyone does this. You have a street, everyone has an electric car, everyone does this at the same time – everyone somehow pumps 11 kW into the grid. Then of course I have a problem if that can't be controlled, and that's why

it's absolutely justified that grid operators raise their concerns about this. But I think good solutions have been found in the meantime. And I think it will also need clarification in the next step on how to implement this relatively simply, meaning affordable wallboxes that enable it. And that will be an interesting question too. We have lots of players out there. They're not doing this out of pure altruism, they want to make money with it too. And it will

be interesting to see what these business models look like, what takes hold and what doesn't. But I think, and this is the most interesting case for me: for me it's not so exciting that I'm now offering some system service to the grid, but rather this optimization at home. This idea: I have my car out there. And I use it to supply myself. Now it's dark, my sauna is running, the pizza oven is already going, and everywhere

lights are on, and someone has plugged in all their devices. Then it's fun. And when I then realize: okay, I generated this myself during the day and can use it myself in the evening – I think then it becomes a real story. Yes. And are there other topics where you think innovations are coming that bring you joy and optimism for e-mobility? There's another big topic on the horizon that we're increasingly paying attention to: the topic of

autonomous driving – perhaps even more from the truck side, because that would of course bring quite different demand planning with it. So if, for example, cars were driving autonomously for passenger vehicles, then what I mentioned at the street charger – this walkable distance of 250 meters – wouldn't be an issue at all anymore. Then I'd say: it can drive wherever it wants. As long as it's back at the door at the right time. Yes. And it's completely unclear what the world will look like in the future.

But it of course has a massive impact on charging infrastructure planning. Why is it so important to think about this? What we're putting into the ground, the grid connections – we're actually putting those in for 50 years. And then you realize: okay, if after 10 years we see that autonomous driving changes the world completely, then you've already made bad investments. You have to keep that in mind. Those are the big things coming. Otherwise we're also watching with interest how the technology

developed themselves, so to speak efficiency, but also battery sizes and the performance of batteries, solid-state batteries and so on. We expect more innovations there as well. And fundamentally – and I think this is a very important message – this is a topic that can be solved. It's not like you say, this is a completely unsolved question like with nuclear fusion, but actually everything is there. Now it's about configuring it in such a way that it works for the customer in the end. And I'm optimistic about

things. Yes. And on the topic of autonomous driving: What do you think? How will charging work? There are various concepts. If no driver can plug the cable into the wallbox, will there be battery swap stations? Will there be robotic arms? Will it be a service from entrepreneurs who have employees who do that for you? Very exciting question. We can already see today – and it works – fuel robotics or charging robotics, that it happens automatically. But it could also be that we then get to the point

where we think more about inductive charging. Yes, inductive, I forgot about that. That it can be taken as an argument for battery swapping, I don't quite see. But of course, you have to answer this question. And we don't know today. Yes, it remains exciting. And on the topic of autonomous driving, you can see that Germany has recently made a lot of headlines with the VW ID boss. Things are moving fast there. Not just from Elon Musk

and Tesla, who make big announcements and sometimes don't always deliver, but others too. So it's definitely already happening. You should definitely prepare yourself for the change. Exactly. So on my last vacation I was in Bavaria. On the way back I drove past the test site on the highway. My family kept giving me strange looks because I kept excitedly shouting: Look at that! And it actually was an Idi bus, driving autonomously. And

that was already impressive when you think about it: the A9 is heavily trafficked. And then you have a vehicle in between where you know, okay, there's no active driver really sitting there anymore. Yes, I think we were always very euphoric about how quickly it could come. Now there's a bit less euphoria. But I think it has its merit. Especially when I think about how I could organize public transport in rural areas based on such systems. I could solve a lot of problems

if autonomous driving were here. And finally: What can we learn from other regions, countries or cities – here in Berlin or in Germany? What are exciting developments elsewhere? My favorite country in this regard is the Netherlands. We've picked up a lot of things from them. Above all, that it makes sense to have an overarching needs planning. Everyone does that in Amsterdam or in other cities. The municipality or the state

there simply has a plan in the sense of knowing what you would actually need. And then you let industry build it in the end and see how you can make it happen. Which they also have. And that's different from our tender process here in Germany in that they recognized: It doesn't help if I only make the initial move and then nobody cares about it afterward, but rather I need a system that grows with the development. And the colleagues in Utrecht did that very well. That

is also incidentally the model for the highway for trucks, in that we say there are KPIs that show us when such infrastructure will become full, and that we then trigger the further expansion in time. So I would say, if you're asking for a travel tip: Amsterdam, Utrecht. Well, exciting. So then, if listeners want to learn more about all your activities, about you – what advice would you give them? And maybe you also have one last message you want to share. That's always of course the control center

follow on LinkedIn or also look at our tools on our website. Otherwise we also offer a portfolio of events, coming up on November 20 the Gliscon, which is very large. And I always have one request for all my industry colleagues: really keep the user perspective in mind once more. And that's something: What does it take to convince citizens to buy an electric car? And to make yourself aware of that: what worked at the beginning with the

early adopters is still not what we need for the mass market. I think we still need to get this way of thinking into everyone's head, where we say: okay, mass market is something different. That's something demanding. And we need to put that on our own agenda too. But I'm optimistic we'll make it happen. Yes, I can also recommend "Crossing the Chasm" as a book, which tries to answer exactly this question. I have that somewhere in the hallway at home too. Yes. Then thank you for your time

and your thoughts. And see you soon. Thank you very much.

And that was the episode with Johannes Ballasch from the National Control Center. Today we saw how passion can create real impact – whether it's your own charging park at home or in a coordinating role that brings together strategy and vision, from business to government. It was also particularly exciting to see how municipalities can advance electromobility with the help of location tools and sharing best practices. And the exchange with international organizations from the Netherlands and Austria once again shows: we are part of a movement that thinks and acts across borders.

These very impulses make us want to continue actively shaping the transformation. So please share, subscribe, and see you next time.

Episode notes

In dieser Folge von Smart Charge sprechen wir mit Johannes Pallasch, Sprecher der Nationalen Leitstelle Ladeinfrastruktur unter dem Dach der NOW GmbH. Er erzählt von seinem Weg in die Elektromobilität, von den ersten E-Bus-Erfahrungen in Solingen über Stuttgart bis zum Aufbau der Leitstelle in Berlin. Gemeinsam diskutieren wir, wie Deutschland Ladeinfrastruktur koordiniert, welche Rolle Förderprogramme und Reallabore gespielt haben und wo die größten Chancen und Baustellen liegen. Kernpunkte - Nationale Leitstelle als Kompetenzzentrum und Koordinator für Bund, Länder und Kommunen - Standorttool: gesetzliche Grundlage für Netzausbau und Bedarfsplanung - Ladeinfrastruktur im Alltag: Straßenladen, Mehrparteienhäuser und Depotladen für LKW - Faire Preise, Blockiergebühren und Ad-hoc-Laden als Schlüssel für den Massenmarkt - Bidirektionales Laden, Smart Grids und autonome Fahrzeuge als Zukunftstreiber Im Gespräch wird deutlich: Der Aufbau einer verlässlichen Ladeinfrastruktur ist mehr als Technik und Regulierung – es geht um Nutzerfreundlichkeit, Vertrauen und eine Vision für den Massenmarkt. Johannes Pallasch zeigt, wie Politik, Industrie und Bürger zusammenarbeiten können, um die Mobilitätswende voranzubringen.