Skip to content
RiDERgy RiDERgy
Smart Charge · 24 November 2025 · 1 hr 1 min

Ep. 35: Christian Hahn, CEO von Hubject – Interoperabilität, Regulierung 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.

Today's guest: Christian Hahn, Managing Director of Hubject. Hubject connects charge point operators and e-mobility service providers worldwide as a central marketplace - with one goal: one contract, charge anywhere. This also includes direct payment by credit card at public charging stations, a building block for easy access and better customer experiences. Hubject operates globally from Europe, the USA, China, and recently Singapore, connecting its diverse user groups from private drivers to fleets. We talk about scaling across 70 countries, 2,500-plus connected operators, and the question of how testing and standards prevent outages. And of course we also talk extensively about

smart and bidirectional charging. Let's get started. Hello, Christian. Great to have you here today. How are you? Good, so far. Many thanks for the invitation. Thank you. Yes, before we dive into Hubject topics proper, please introduce yourself - feel free to go into some detail. Yes, gladly, Claudio. Many thanks for the invitation. My name is Christian Hahn. I'm currently Managing Director at Hubject and I'm genuinely passionate about this industry - I've been in it for quite a long time now. I've had the pleasure of working in

the energy sector since 2006. Like many others, I started out as a consultant, spending a lot of time on energy market liberalisation back then - that is, the unbundling of networks and electricity suppliers - at a consultancy, specifically at PricewaterhouseCoopers. Very, very exciting. I still remember that there was this well-known saying at the time that energy market liberalisation had kept twelve generations of new graduates employed, simply because there was so much regulatory pressure and in a short space of time many utilities, many energy suppliers, had to

unbundle. And - we'll come back to this in a moment - of course we see today in electric mobility as well that regulation plays an important role, but naturally always with the question in the back of one's mind: is it the right approach? Is it too much? Is it too little? So we can dig into that in a moment. Exactly. Around 2009 I had my first points of contact with the topic of electric mobility. Why 2009? Precisely - a group of German energy suppliers wanted to buy and operate their first charging stations. And

at PWC we developed the concept for that and ran a supplier selection process. Back then it was about 22 kW charging stations. So you can tell it was still very, very early days. AC, of course, exactly. And at that point there were exactly three suppliers in Germany. Which ones, out of curiosity, if you remember? That's a good question. Definitely RWE at the time, Eni was involved, Smart Lab, and the third supplier - I think it must have been Mennekes. So RWE and Eni,

sorry, Eni and Smart. I think Smart was selling charging stations from other manufacturers back then, and Eni had built its own charging stations at the time. But that also shows how much the market has fortunately evolved in the meantime, so that today there are a large number of manufacturers and suppliers. Exactly - accompanying that project back then was also very exciting.

So RWE and Smart had manufactured their own hardware? Exactly. Eni had built its own charging stations at the time, and I think Smart had bought charging stations from other manufacturers and resold them. Very interesting project, learned a great deal. And even back then I recognised that this combination of technology on the one hand and regulatory requirements on the other was very compelling to me. I then spent a lot of time on smart grids and smart metering as well. A wonderful topic, exactly. Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but so far we haven't made much progress

in Germany. But in many other countries the smart meter rollout has fortunately been completed. I'm also confident that we'll manage it in Germany at some point, because it's simply a very important component of a modern energy system. I then ultimately joined Hubject in 2012, shortly after it was founded. A really exciting situation - five or six people had set up a start-up around the topic of roaming. I'll explain what that is in a moment. And I was totally fascinated by it, because I

knew the typical start-up feeling: small office, we were sitting on crates because we didn't have any furniture yet, figuring out how to set the whole thing up. Here in Berlin? In Berlin, exactly, already on the EUREF Campus back then. That was also still in the early years of the EUREF Campus - it had just started to take shape. And it became fairly clear fairly quickly that the EUREF Campus wanted to develop in the direction of sustainable mobility; it is of course one of the leading locations in that space today. And exactly, but

a different office - very simple, but it worked wonderfully. And I still remember the early days, when I was also thinking about that interplay between the various regulatory roles and the question of how closely we could orient ourselves to the energy industry system versus whether we perhaps needed to define new roles. I still remember to this day how I would sometimes drive home and wonder: how is one supposed to make sense of all this? How is one supposed to bring it all together? Truly an exciting time.

I've been at Hubject ever since - a really exciting role that has of course continued to evolve, just as the field itself has. It started out in Business Development, and then together with Thomas, who has already been a guest on your show, I became Managing Director in 2015. Today I'm ultimately responsible for everything around strategy, our subsidiaries, and very much the external perspective - sales, marketing, and so on. And I still find it incredibly exciting. The market has developed enormously.

The question, of course, is always: how quickly will things move forward now? And I'm really proud to be, together with my team, an important part of the current ecosystem. I think the team has genuinely achieved a great deal there. Yes, great. Once more, before we move on to Hubject: I also saw on LinkedIn that you gained experience at both Daimler and, I believe, Thyssen as well. Maybe you could say a few words about that. Yes, absolutely. So, towards the end of my

studies I had decided to go into the automotive industry. I found it really exciting - partly that combination of technology and customer requirements and bringing all of that together somehow. And that's exactly it: at ThyssenKrupp, which was an important automotive supplier at the time, I worked during my studies. And at Mercedes, which was still called Daimler back then, I was at the Mercedes-Benz Classic Center - also quite an interesting niche, so to speak, because for many German car manufacturers there is actually a strong connection between classic car owners and new car buyers. If you have a Mercedes classic vehicle,

there is a certain probability that you'll also buy a new Mercedes, and the same is very much true for Porsche and other manufacturers. That's why Mercedes has a strategy of offering spare parts for these classic vehicles for as long as possible. I find that absolutely fascinating, because on the one hand it's about applying very traditional manufacturing methods to reproduce forged parts or similar items - which is of course not entirely straightforward, because hardly anyone knows how to forge anymore, for example. But bodywork panels and similar parts were also previously

made by hand. And that simply wouldn't work today, especially because you might only want to produce 50 wing panels, knowing that there are exactly 50 of those vehicles left in the world, or something like that. And that was a really, really exciting challenge for me, because you were also very actively exploring new manufacturing methods. I still remember back in 2002 - that was right around the beginning of new manufacturing processes like water jet cutting, where sheet metal parts were cut using high-pressure water jets and similar techniques. And we then tried to apply that to

smaller production runs, to meet exactly that kind of demand. So very creative, very fascinating. And as I said, it was already formative for me: this affinity for the technical side of my work - that has always been very important to me. And I think that's also why I'm still a big fan of electric mobility, because it too involves a great deal of technology and engineering, and of course the application of all that in customer solutions. So I think that was already

an important component of my professional life early on. Yes, great. So: Hubject in simple terms for someone who, let's say, doesn't come from the industry and doesn't know Hubject. How do you usually describe it - to your family, for example? Yes, that's a good question, and it's actually not that easy to describe simply, because at Hubject we don't really interact with the end customer at all. I think the easiest way to explain it is by comparing it to how mobile phone roaming works today. Today

I can travel anywhere in the world and still make calls with my phone and my SIM contract. And that's exactly what we want to achieve for electric mobility as well. Because there are so many companies building and operating charging stations, it would simply be very complicated and time-consuming for the EV driver to somehow enter into a contract with each of those providers. So we've built a marketplace - a purely B2B marketplace. We connect all of these charging station operators to our marketplace. This means they can simply do business with each other more easily,

scale more easily. Data exchange is simplified, security and interoperability are enhanced. And what that means for you as an EV driver is simply: you can pull up to any charging point and it works. You don't have to think about which operator is behind it or how the whole thing works. In the end it shows up on your bill - on your e-mobility service invoice. And through your chosen e-mobility service provider you can see which charging station you used and what price you paid. Yes, it's definitely great that you can draw that analogy to telecommunications.

Maybe just to reinforce the analogy - the comparison with the telecommunications industry is, I think, very well chosen. It makes it really tangible. Maybe, just to make it even more tangible from a different angle: when I want to buy something, I usually pay by credit card - at least nowadays - or with cash. You probably can't pay with cash at a charging station. One could imagine paying with a credit card, of course. To what extent is that scenario not workable, so to speak, or to what extent have you, so to speak,

established that you don't pay with a credit card – or what role do you play there? Exactly. So that is actually also possible – today it is a regulatory requirement in Europe that at every public charging station you must also be able to pay with a credit card. And I think that actually makes sense, because of course electric mobility is a topic where there are simply very, very different customer needs. There are of course the people who essentially charge at home, who perhaps have a garage or a

parking space in front of their own house. A wallbox is installed there. And they'll probably be able to get 99% of their driving energy from that. And maybe when they go on holiday once a year, they also need to charge at a different charging station. And in that case it would be very simple, for example: I take my credit card and pay with it. That's one customer group. Then of course there's the complete opposite extreme. Those are the high-mileage drivers. These can be fleet drivers. It's the typical field sales rep who drives his electric car all across Germany,

who charges almost exclusively in public, because he perhaps doesn't have his own wallbox or his company simply can't support him. And we can already see that there's more to it than just the pure act of paying. We always talk about the customer journey, and the customer journey naturally includes the question: how do I actually pay for my charging session? But it also starts much, much earlier, namely with the question: where is the nearest charging point? Is it available? We talk a lot today about reliability. That means

of course it would also be ideal if the customer could see that his vehicle works particularly well with this charging station, because he can see that the last 1,000 charging sessions there have also worked well – for example. Price information is very important today. Quite typical for any young market is of course that you always need a certain amount of time to find the optimal pricing model. I believe we are in exactly that phase in electric mobility as well, where a great many different pricing models are being tried out. And that doesn't always lead to a positive customer experience,

because sometimes it can also get very expensive as a result, or it's very complicated – similar, by the way, to the telecommunications era 20, 25 years ago, when we worked a lot with call-by-call and preselect tariffs. So back then there was a solution where you dialled a different telephone number and then dialled the actual telephone number afterwards in order to make your phone call cheaper. Relatively complicated. And of course there was also a lot of fine print involved. That means that as a rule you probably ended up paying more than you

actually wanted to, because you had triggered some kind of special case. And I would say that is exactly the time we're in today with electric mobility as well. There are many attempts to establish new pricing models, but they are all very complex. And we'll get to that in a moment: because we perhaps also don't yet have the level of a digital customer journey that we need, this frequently leads to major problems from a user perspective. Because of course the users of electric vehicles are not people like you and me,

who are at home in the industry, but completely ordinary people who don't want to understand how many charging station operators there are and what roaming is – they simply want to charge. And I think we're not yet positioned well enough today to say: we've already built simple solutions specifically for these customers that are also transparent and cost-effective. But I also believe that we'll get there relatively quickly, because, as I said, this is a very typical development for new industries, where there's always

a kind of storming phase where new things are tried out that then sometimes don't only lead to positive outcomes. But coming back to the customer journey: search, find, charge – that's what we used to call it. Concise. Exactly. And I think that's still valid, because at the end of the day the customer simply has far, far more needs. A lot of it is also about vehicle integration, for example. I also think, regardless of the vehicle manufacturer, the easiest way to help customers

reduce this complexity is by displaying as much information as possible in the vehicle. There are many HMI and navigation systems that can already do some of this today. But I think there's more that can be done there as well. And that's also why I believe that simply paying alone never fulfils the customer's need on its own – it's always about a combination of different things. But it's also important to note: there are simply very many different customer groups. And yes, there are also customer groups who say that direct payment – that's what we call it when you pay with a credit card –

is perfectly sufficient for me. Okay, so in other words: there are different use cases. Sometimes you just want to pay with a credit card, sometimes you want more – searching, finding, or paying directly via the vehicle, and so on. And you play a role there in orchestrating the interaction between the various stakeholders, as a marketplace. Exactly, exactly – and we also offer a direct payment solution there, for example. So we've always said we don't want to make a dogmatic decision about what the right way is

but rather we want to give our customers options, because even B2B customers all have very different needs. There are of course charging station operators who run 100% of their charging network publicly. They have very different requirements from, say, charging station operators who also serve a lot of company premises, for example, and then perhaps make 12 charging stations publicly available on weekends so that other electric vehicle drivers can charge there too. That's why we try to offer our solutions in as agnostic a way as possible, in order to ultimately serve scalability as well. That means a solution that

works in exactly the same way for public charging as for private charging – we believe that leads to greater scalability, because you don't need to build two separate processes and systems, but simply one system that serves different use cases. I see. And to get a bit of a sense of where you stand as a company: can you give a few key figures? You started in 2012. And now: how many countries, how many CPOs or MSPs – just to recap: a CPO is a charge point operator, an MSP is a mobility service provider, which provides the apps and so on and

the cards – and how many countries exactly. Exactly. We've been active for 13 years now, just under 150 employees, and we've built up a global footprint. I believe that the e-mobility industry functions in a very similar way worldwide. A charging station is a charging station, whether it's in California, France, or India. That means the e-mobility ecosystem has also developed in a very similar way – with precisely those roles you just described: charge point operators, e-mobility service providers. You find them in every market around the world today,

as you can see. And ultimately the customer needs are the same again too, just as we've already discussed. That's why we're active globally today. We have our headquarters in Berlin, we've built up a team in Europe, in the US a few years ago, we have an active team in China, and this year we've set up a small team in Singapore for the Southeast Asian market. And our solutions are running in more than 70 countries worldwide today. That's quite fascinating. And we currently have contractual relationships with over 25,000 charge point operators and

e-mobility service providers. So it also shows how many companies are active today and how complex the market is. I always find Germany a nice example. There's the BDW there. The BDW maintains a register for all charge point operators and e-mobility service providers. You can register there to get your company ID. And is that essentially mandatory? It's definitely necessary, because otherwise data exchange doesn't work, for example – you need to be able to uniquely reference companies, and that's

what the BDW is a central register for. And I actually think it's even become an obligation to register there by now. Interesting. But it definitely helps. We always recommend that our customers go there too. And in other European markets there are different agencies respectively, and the aim going forward is to also standardise this across Europe. And you can see the developments of recent years quite clearly there – over the last four to five years you can see a doubling in the number of companies in the German market.

And today we're talking about roughly 1,400 charge point operators in Germany alone. It's also important to note that of course the small sole trader who has set up a charging station for their baker is included in that – which I find totally fascinating when that happens. But that's obviously not a huge impact, because we currently have around 175,000 public charge points – operating one of them is of course not particularly significant. But we are already talking about roughly 30% of these companies that genuinely have relevance, i.e. those with 50 or more – Pareto principle, a bit of a

Pareto principle, exactly. And that still means we have 400–500 companies in Germany alone. And you can apply that picture very well to other markets. The UK is a market we've gone somewhat deeper into recently. And I think that's a good thing. It's also necessary in the UK, as far as I know, because they haven't yet established roaming. That's still – exactly, that has a lot to do with the past and how a certain misallocation of investment funds came about at the time.

So, there was a funding programme in the UK over ten years ago that supported the so-called "Plugged in Places" scheme. There were nine of those, and relatively quickly these regions consolidated into three large operators. And they were at each other's throats. You couldn't even put the employees of those companies in the same room, which actually isn't that typical for our industry. Most of the time it's a very open industry, everyone says, compared to other industries, in that people

I think it's both. I also think that in the industry – and I find this very fascinating – people are always very open about everything. What I do see, though, as a major challenge, is turning that into actual business cooperation. And that's ultimately what moves companies forward, the idea that you work together to enable a business jointly. I think the industry is still at a relatively early stage there, and it also has a lot to do with

the fact that there are of course certain overlaps. I mean, we talk a lot about the ecosystem. And an ecosystem implies, among other things, that there are roles, but that companies can take on different roles, and at the same time the market is still very dynamic. That means we don't yet know 100% which roles will be successful. We're still learning an enormous amount. There are certain topics that we now understand relatively well, I think. So, what does it take to

successfully build and operate public charging stations? I think there's significantly more clarity on that than there used to be. But that's just one role among many. We're talking a lot right now about energy market integration – an absolutely crucial building block for the future. But how does that actually happen? What roles are needed for it? And then – because Germany is divided into around 800 grid areas – are there then 800 roles, or companies somehow filling those roles, or does that consolidate too? Is there then one

or two, or what other forms can you imagine? And I think you can already see that many companies are hoping to perhaps take on that role themselves at some point, and are therefore still being somewhat cautious about cooperation, because they're saying: I haven't quite figured out yet whether this is for me, but because it might be something for me one day, I'll hold back on cooperation for now. Yes, as you can imagine, because we

also operate in that space, I can definitely see that there is a certain degree of hesitancy. Also the topic of market timing – I don't know whether you'd see it the same way – since we're already on the subject of energy, that in e-mobility it was the case that you first had to say: okay, there are various topics that had to be tackled in order of priority, like simply getting a charging point installed and making sure billing works, and that those topics were prioritised, and then the timing

is now actually much more relevant for the energy topics, and that the energy topic had been somewhat deprioritised and the focus is now shifting more towards it – that's how I'd see it. I think on the other hand, Claudio, it's also a very complex topic, of course. That has to be said as well. And I think it's also one of the topics that we in Europe need to tackle at a European level. I think any purely national approach will simply result in it not working in the long run

in the end. But of course that's also an even longer road ahead – that's clear too. We don't yet have a unified European energy market, nor unified European energy market regulation. There are still a great many national differences, and that is of course a major challenge. Then we also see the role and importance of renewable energies – unfortunately there's renewed debate about that right now, which I find very unfortunate, because Germany had already built up a very, very strong leading position there. And all the more would

we then also need storage capacities in order to better accommodate renewable energies. And that's a personal perspective of mine. I think it's also important that we as Europe become less dependent on raw material imports, particularly energy-relevant raw material imports, because if you look at how much crude oil is still imported every year into Europe – even though we could compensate for a large part of it through our own power generation. I think we as Europe still need to develop a clear perspective on that. But yes, a lot is happening. And I also think that

European regulation is trying, in my view, to set quite positive markers there. So there is now a European regulation requiring charging stations built from 2026 and at the latest from 2027 onwards to be equipped with the so-called ISO 15118 standard. What is ISO 15118? It's a global standard – ISO is fundamentally a global standards body – that defines the communication between the vehicle and the charging station, including smart charging and V2G use cases. That means through this standard we have at least clearly

defined one part of the ecosystem. How do we want to handle the communication there? And now of course it's about connecting to that and bringing in the other players. Difficult, but at least helpful that we now have a starting point like this. By the other players – do you mean the energy players, for example? Exactly. So for example also: who controls the charging process? Is it the vehicle manufacturer, who currently does so for technical reasons? The vehicle today defines what charging demand it actually has. Is it then more the CPO, or is it more the DSO, which

may itself have grid bottlenecks and therefore also has a certain need for control? Is it perhaps the energy supplier, who wants to optimise their own energy procurement costs by not exceeding certain threshold values? Is it perhaps the operators of battery storage systems, who want to deliver a lot of electricity right now because they'll soon be buying cheaply, and so on and so forth. So precisely this complexity within the ecosystem – I think orchestrating that, bringing the players together, and at the same time of course for each company

enough room to allow the company to participate in it as well, because these concepts are only successful if they also generate commercial success. And I think that's well summed up. It's a good sign of the complexity that still lies ahead of us, which we need to solve together – as an industry. Yes, very well summed up. One comment on that: I think one thing is this interoperability. That's already a tough nut to crack, which hasn't been achieved yet – that every

charging station can actually communicate with every vehicle and every software system from the various players you just mentioned. And certain players, I think, are still more closed off and haven't yet understood that they really need to be open – as open as possible – so that this new energy world can function, and that it won't be a closed system like Apple. And the second thing is the logic: who controls it? Who then also has the right to develop these logics, to bundle them, and then to build the

control mechanisms? I think that's also still an open question. In the fleet segment, I believe that won't be an OEM, for example, because you simply have too many different vehicle manufacturers. At home it might be a different story, but in the fleet segment it will be someone who looks at these various systems in an agnostic way. I believe that too. There will be a lot of players, but at the end of the day that interplay is of course also necessary, because in the fleet segment – as I hope – the control will then

still go via the charging station, because accessing the vehicle directly isn't quite so straightforward yet. That will improve. There are incredibly good interfaces into vehicles today. You might need to think about data protection and cybersecurity there, but a lot does work. But exactly as you said: this topic of interoperability – how can you ensure that vehicle A works with charging station B across 23 software layers in between? And you have to be honest about it: the current

state of affairs is still rather sobering. Part of our activities actually involves running our own testing facility. That's unusual at first glance, because as a capital-city company we're primarily operating in the digital ecosystem. We now actually have a large hall where we have a lot of charging stations and a lot of vehicles that we test – unfortunately not at the Euref Campus, but a little further out in Hennigsdorf. Still very cool though. Exactly, yes, because it really isn't that simple. And that brings us back to

another fundamental problem of electric mobility: finding sufficient grid connection capacity – in other words, finding a hall that also has enough connected power for many charging stations, plus all the insurance-related framework conditions. We've learned a great deal working together with the Brandenburg fire service when it comes to operating an e-mobility testing lab – absolutely fascinating. And we use this testing lab for exactly that purpose: to map out the topic of interoperability even in simple use cases – i.e. normal charging, Plug and Charge. We've learned a lot from that. And then we actually notice that a

whole new challenge is coming in, namely the question: how relevant are software updates actually for the technical players in the ecosystem? That might sound relatively abstract at first, but who ensures, for example, that a software update on a charging station works, and that all the players involved are informed about it? Today we genuinely face the challenge at times that a hardware manufacturer pushes a new software update to a charging station, perhaps without informing everyone about it, and then charging no longer works. And by the time you've worked out through all the operational processes of a charging station operator that

that's the problem, hours or maybe even days can easily have passed. The solution, of course, would be simple: you keep each other informed, you test things properly beforehand, and so on and so forth. On the other hand, you naturally can't test everything either, because the number of vehicles as well as charging station manufacturers plus software providers keeps growing. So how do you actually ensure that it really works? A fascinating situation. Yes, I think there's still a great deal of need for harmonisation and standardisation there.

One question we've just touched on, which also preoccupies me a great deal – I don't know whether you're familiar enough with it, because it's quite detailed – is: OCPP is actually a success story. It's essentially the open standard for charging communication between the charging station and the backend. And we've already mentioned the vehicle manufacturers. While there are more and more software interfaces for vehicle manufacturers, there's no standard that has established itself there. And one thing I find interesting is: who will then, in terms of this

charge control we've been discussing, set the direction? There's also the smart meter context we touched on. This very rigid German approach – for example, the requirement to install that control box at home – which I also argue against as a sensible way forward. It just makes everything more expensive and more complicated, and the security concerns are, in my view, manageable. So, to cut a long story short: do you know why vehicle manufacturers haven't established a standard there, and whether something along those lines might be in the making?

would be? Because that would of course simplify a lot of things – controlling things directly through the vehicles rather than always through the charging station, which is the more reliable path as of today. Yes, absolutely, exactly. I think there are two points that need to be taken into account. One is: OCPP is a great standard, but it wasn't the only way from the very beginning to connect charging stations with backend systems. I remember when we started at Hubject: the majority of hardware manufacturers had their own proprietary interfaces back then. And what

then simply happened was: it was simply a problem of a growing mass market – with limitations, but of course many more software providers came on board. And then charging station operators also said they might want to be able to capture data from the charging station itself. That then led to this regulatory pressure. And today it is ultimately the case that in many markets worldwide there are actually requirements to use OCPP. That's why I think a lot of things came together that ultimately

made the need for a unified standard necessary. But it's also important to keep in mind – as is always the case with APIs, with these interfaces – that there is no single OCPP. Every implementation looks slightly different. Again, from experience in our testing lab – we went in perhaps a little naively ourselves and said: "Dear hardware manufacturers, have you implemented OCPP?" And they said: "Yes, here, I even have certificates I can show you." And we already found out: on the one hand,

these certifications only ever look at positive tests. So: does charging work? And they rarely describe how the charging station must behave when edge cases or negative scenarios arise – that is, what should the charging station do when charging doesn't work? That's actually where the complexity lies. On top of that, there are also different versions and different integrations. I think that absolutely helps. Where we as an industry still need to develop further is in understanding: how do we also deal with newer versions? So, to come back specifically to the OCPP example:

there are today, I would say, four versions that play a role in the industry. Those are OCPP 1.5, 1.6, 2.0.1, and 2.1. The most widely used versions today are 1.5 and 1.6. And that also prevents a lot of innovation, because new use cases somehow have to be squeezed into them. Of course everything is possible somehow – it's a data exchange protocol, you can achieve anything with it. But when it comes to security, when it comes to scalability, when it comes to stability,

the newer versions are significantly better. But that of course also comes with costs. It also means in some cases that you have to acquire new software systems or update existing ones. And we can already see that as an industry we haven't yet found a good, unified way to enable ourselves to work with more modern protocols and versions, while at the same time there is of course strong economic pressure on companies. That mustn't be forgotten. But it matters, because the topic of

cybersecurity has already been brought up. Electric mobility is becoming part of the energy system. And we know that this system is constantly under attack, and that Europe in particular is very much in the crosshairs of many regions that don't have positive intentions toward us. And I think we shouldn't underestimate that. But as you said: it has to be weighed up with the right sense of proportion, because too much is of course not helpful either, but too little is equally not the right path. And why is there no similar initiative among

the OEMs? I think that also simply has to do with the fact that OEMs have developed in very different ways. You can see it today in the varying degrees of digitalisation among vehicle manufacturers, which have turned out to be very, very different. I'm saying that – and you're smiling for those listening who can't see that. Exactly. And I mean, you can still see it in the news: I read last week that one OEM is moving away from Apple CarPlay and Android Auto and is now building its own digital

ecosystem again. I think that can make sense too. So don't get me wrong. I think there can be a lot of added value in it. It's just that we've seen: many OEMs are of course struggling as well, because they are simply not a digital company by nature – they are good, reliable, hardware-oriented companies. They build things, and as scalably and reliably as possible. And a software-driven business model is of course a completely different perspective. I know plenty of examples where OEMs have failed at exactly that. And I think that's why

I always find it difficult when someone says they're going to do everything themselves, even though they may not yet have developed or built up those core competencies. But that's of course where the path needs to lead, because I do believe – also driven by electric mobility – that vehicles are becoming more comparable. You know it yourself – the acceleration, the driving behaviour of electric vehicles. There's a certain comparability there. It's all fun, it all makes sense. But I would say, aside perhaps from the extreme models: a standard mid-range electric car – there

the acceleration is very, very similar across all the models. There's no gearshift anymore either. So what are actually the distinguishing features between vehicle manufacturer A and vehicle manufacturer B? Maybe price – yes, but that's always a bit tricky as a competitive strategy. And I think the topic of digital service offerings plays a major role there. Exactly, when it comes to integrating vehicles into smart home solutions as well. Of course I'd also think it was cool if I could somehow use an app to tell my car: please charge more now, because there's a lot of

sunshine right now; please charge less soon, because the sun isn't shining as much. That's still very complicated today. I have to stay within the vehicle ecosystem. So I have to buy the one wallbox that the vehicle manufacturer offers and that can do this. I have to buy exactly that one vehicle. I even have to – I read about this again recently – buy exactly the one inverter for my solar system at home that can do this. And that obviously doesn't match customer needs, because I don't want to replace my inverter just because I've now bought a new

vehicle. Interoperability, which is what I meant earlier. Exactly, this topic of interoperability. That's why I think there's still a long way to go. And I suspect that regulatory pressure is somewhat lacking there too. I don't see that many discussions in Europe yet that are specifically addressing this interface. On the other hand, one also has to say: today we have, worldwide, depending on how you count, 60 to 80 automotive manufacturers versus more than 1,000 hardware manufacturers, i.e. charging stations. So I think we may also have a

different quality problem. And there's another thing to add: most OEMs have already opened up their interfaces today. You can already integrate with a great many vehicles today. You obviously have to register as a supplier, so to speak. But today you can access vehicles to a much, much greater extent than in the last five years. And I do think a lot is happening there. But of course, just as you said, you also have a new interoperability problem there, because every interface works differently and the data looks different – which in turn could also be a business model

for companies to harmonise that. Yes, absolutely, totally. And a key word: regulatory requirements coming from the EU or from other member states that are primarily enabling smart charging or V2G. Are you active in that space in Europe? What regulatory – there's the AFIR, there are all sorts of different regulators that also influence e-mobility and this direction. What's the latest state of your knowledge on what's relevant right now? Exactly. There's the AFIR of course – the Alternative

Fuel Infrastructure Regulation. That's essentially the overarching European directive for everything related to sustainable infrastructure – so hydrogen is included and similar things, but also electromobility. And on one hand there are the so-called Delegated Acts, which is precisely this obligation regarding ISO 15118 that we already mentioned, which comes into effect from 2026 and 2027. And ISO 15118-20 is important to mention in this context as well. Exactly, that's where we get into the versions – exactly, the different versions. There is indeed ISO 15118-2 and ISO 15118-

20. That is also quite confusing at times, I think, and of course they are also only partially compatible with each other. That adds to it. It has a lot to do with the security mechanisms. So one very well-known use case from ISO 15118-2 and from ISO 15118-20 is the topic of Plug & Charge – plug in and start charging. I always explain it like this: the Tesla charging experience, just everywhere and with non-Tesla vehicles too – which of course is significantly more complicated than when I only have to do it within my own network like Tesla does,

no longer interoperable. And this is about Plug and Charge, and Plug and Charge comes with a new feature. It's about encrypted communication. And this encrypted communication is of course security-relevant. For this we use certificates, and certificates can of course also be hacked by quantum computers under certain conditions. We already know that today. That means, if quantum computers were ever to become widespread, there would probably be a security problem there too. But it will still be a while before quantum computers are widespread. And whether

you would then target Plug and Charge certificates first, or rather tackle other issues, that also needs to be discussed. But from a pure risk assessment perspective, a risk does exist. That's why we see that the -20, as the newer version, has a higher level of encryption and even offers so-called post-quantum-computing security mechanisms, which are even more complex. But the major disadvantage is that there is a lack of backward compatibility, which is why we at Subject believe – since we also offer Plug and Charge as a relevant service – that probably the majority of vehicles in the coming years,

at least passenger cars, will continue to implement Plug and Charge using the -2 version. Why? Because both the vehicle and the charging station must be able to support exactly that. And we will also see -20, but more likely in commercial vehicles, electric commercial vehicles, because electric commercial vehicles are only now entering the market. That means they haven't actually implemented Plug and Charge on the -2 version yet, and they're going straight to the next version, the -20 version. And I think that brings a lot of clarity. Now

There's a lot to discuss about this: Is it all too fast? Is it all too demanding? And I think there are also good arguments suggesting that perhaps one could approach it a bit more slowly. On the other hand, one must not forget that European regulation works somewhat differently from national regulation. If you have a national regulation, you have to implement it. And if you violate it, there is generally a financial penalty. European regulation works a little differently: Directives and Regulations. Exactly. There are

the Directives and Regulations. The Regulations are: as soon as they are published, they are also valid in national law. But there are no penalties. That means – and I'll put this a little bluntly now – you first have to be taken to court by the European Court of Justice before the necessity to impose penalties is derived from that, so to speak. And I don't think there will be many companies that will sue someone because they perhaps didn't implement the -20 by 01 January 2027. Let's see. But, and this is what I think is important: the EU has

already achieved something very important with this. Namely, it has achieved investment security. Because before this regulatory requirement existed, there were of course many discussions: Is it Plug and Charge? Is it Auto-Charge? There are so many concepts out there. And now the EU has said: ISO 15118 is the way forward – please implement it, you now have a timeframe. My personal opinion is that there probably won't be anyone who, as I said, on 02 January 2027 says: You haven't implemented this now, so you're getting a penalty. Instead,

a transition period was of course deliberately chosen that allows for some flexibility. But there is a clear requirement. That means all tenders currently taking place should of course include these specifications. And with that, the market will naturally develop in this direction. And I think that's important. I'm genuinely also positively surprised that the EU has set such strong requirements. And I think that will help us as an industry, because otherwise – you know this yourself – we often get lost in these discussions

about which standard is actually better. And reality actually says: there isn't just one single standard, there are many standards that somehow exist in parallel with each other. That's actually also the reason for this complexity – talking too much about different solutions without us as an industry being able to agree on one direction. And is that then not only smart charging but also bidirectionality? So with the -20 as well: this version also enables V2G or bidirectional charging. It would also work under the -

two, but you do have to move away from the standard a little bit again. And then you're back to the topic of: how much do you trust standards? But the -20 already defines this quite well. And that's why we also believe that from this period onwards more vehicles will come that implement the -20 in a standards-compliant way. An important point to take away is that today some vehicles can already do the -20, but in a proprietary context. That means I can't charge with it at any wallbox, but rather I can

only charge bidirectionally at the wallboxes approved by the vehicle manufacturer. And I think that will change, so that any bidirectional wallbox can then be used, because that's the big step. I don't want to have to buy a new wallbox just because I bought a new vehicle; rather, I basically want to keep my equipment. And if my new vehicle can do it, great. But then I want to keep that relatively easily. And I think that's the path we'll now slowly start to take.

we can as an industry, on the basis of these regulatory requirements. And what's your opinion on DC versus AC bidirectional charging? Do you have any preferences? Or do you think, pros and cons, about what will develop there? Well, I think – I personally am a fan of resolving as much as possible through technical arguments. And there are good technical arguments for both options. But I think the question is also linked to this: Where does bidirectional charging actually tend to take place? Is it more

home charging or fleet charging? You already touched on that. Does bidirectional charging even take place in public spaces? Does that even make sense? I actually do think it makes sense. But under different conditions than at home. To be honest, I wouldn't want to commit too early on this, because the advantage of AC is of course that it's significantly cheaper. The advantage of DC is of course that it's significantly more efficient, because I don't have to constantly convert and therefore don't have conversion losses. But of course,

I've also been thinking for a while about screwing an 11 kW DC box onto my wall at home, because I just find it technically interesting. But to put it in very black-and-white terms: 250 euros versus 2,500 euros is quite a difference, plus the installation costs on top of that. I still remember the process of getting my AC box mounted on the wall a few years ago. That still isn't quite so highly standardised. And that's why I think I would

be a bit more open about it personally, and I would assume there will be both. And then the customer will also decide to some extent what they use more. Is it AC – generally lower costs, higher power losses – or is it DC – higher costs, but fewer losses in return. And yes, we've talked a lot about interoperability and all the challenges involved. Let's assume we're in the future and all of that has been resolved, and it's now a matter of saying: we've built the ideal system with

electric vehicles that are a fully load-bearing pillar of the energy system. You've already hinted at a few use cases: public charging, proof-of-charging. If you could sketch an outline, a vision of what that would look like. Yes, and that's why – I'm also a big advocate of saying that the regulatory requirements aren't fast enough or good enough. But what I really have to say, now in the context of smart and bidirectional charging: I see a lot of very positive highlights there, including

examples.

I personally found the draft from the Bundesnetzagentur very exciting, because they had already thought quite far ahead. I found one particular figure very telling, where they discussed capacities. I hope I get the units right now. What was it? 17 GWh of capacity already exists at home today, versus 3 GWh that exist through industrial battery storage. I believe that was the ratio. 17 GWh – yes, that somehow adds up. And when you

look at that, it also highlights the potential that we can only achieve the energy transition still ahead of us if we find a good way to integrate the home storage systems – namely the vehicles – into it. Especially because we're also noticing that battery degradation through bidirectional charging is probably not as severe as always assumed. We're also learning more and more through the relevant trials that the batteries can probably handle significantly more than thought. And

I think that's exactly how it will be: in the future I come home, I plug in my car, my vehicle is made available to the energy market. The next morning I drive off, I still have 70% battery capacity and arrive comfortably at the office or wherever I'm going. And I think the big difference from the status quo will be that I believe charging everywhere will also become reality. That's still a bit of a limitation today, in that right now I

generally drive specifically to charging spots in order to charge. And I personally believe this future energy system will be very strongly characterized by the fact that I can actually charge wherever I go. That means if I drive to your place for the podcast now, there will be lots of charging stations everywhere that I can plug into. When I drive to the office, there will be charging stations everywhere. When I go somewhere to do some shopping. That's still not the case today. It's getting better. But I think this everywhere-

charging will be a very important component for this future system. There will be far more charging stations, even significantly more. Do you also think – something that was on my mind when I started getting to grips with the whole topic – that there will be charging stations at every parking space in the city? Is that realistic, or do you think there will be fewer at the roadside? Yes, so the challenge is always: building charging stations everywhere is relatively complex, because you

then have to take into account a great many actors and stakeholders again. Particularly in, well, a space – we all know the examples. But I do believe that is actually the most sensible approach, because on the other hand we will of course also have fast-charging hubs in many places, but specifically along mobility corridors, on motorways, at transport hubs. And that for all other charging processes we simply have relatively straightforward, perhaps even AC charging infrastructure, because if I park here for two hours, I don't need a DC station, since my battery will be

fully charged after 30 minutes anyway. But with a slow-charging AC charging point I can of course still charge up, while at the same time naturally also being able to feed energy back into the grid if needed, should there be a bottleneck somewhere or whatever. And that's why I do believe this will be an important component, because if we continue to use only point-based charging infrastructure, then precisely this integration effect into the energy system will not be able to take place. We're almost at the end. That went incredibly fast. And I can tell we'll have to record a second episode

because there were so many topics I couldn't get through. Before we wrap up: once more, what's driving you right now? Then we can do a second episode in about a year or so. What are the topics that are most relevant for you right now? Yes, exactly. So it's now October 2025. The big question is of course what 2026 will look like in terms of electric mobility. I'm positive about it. And you also have to say quite clearly: when you look at

this year's growth – in Europe, around 17% growth in electric vehicles to date – that's a great rate. I mean, which other industry is still growing that strongly? On the other hand, we also know of course that the general perception of the industry's growth is rather more cautious, because around the topic of Green Deal targets from Brussels in recent weeks we have obviously not only received positive news. Yes, unfortunately. So there were the 2035 targets: all newly sold vehicles

must be emission-free. And that is now being debated all over again. Which brings us back to the topic of investment security and future orientation that we already touched on. I would of course have preferred us to stick to the targets, because I do believe that the challenges facing many automotive manufacturers and suppliers in particular won't get any smaller if we now broaden and fragment things further - because significant investments in electromobility are still needed to reach the mass market. And if you now send the

signal of technological openness, that can actually lead to people not making the necessary level of investment, but instead trying to spread as many investments as possible across as many topics as possible - and losing focus in the process. Exactly. And that's why we'll see what the EU Commission ultimately proposes at the end of the year. But I would have preferred us to stick to the targets, because there's now a certain unease, perhaps even a certain anxiety

emerging in the industry as well: where exactly does the road go from here? We know that many companies are still very heavily dependent on investors. And investors have naturally become a bit more cautious, because they already sense - regardless of what comes out of Brussels - that the ramp-up of electric vehicles will probably no longer happen quite as quickly. And that's why you have to take a bit of a wait-and-see approach. We're also currently thinking through what this means for us and how next year will develop.

At the end of the day, you also have to say: the goal is still the same - to enable mobility that is as emission-free as possible. That's why I'm still confident it will continue to happen. The only question from a business perspective is: how quickly will it happen now? Because we're all still waiting for that hockey stick, which in reality keeps shifting by a year or two. And now it's probably shifting again by a bit. And that's naturally a certain challenge, particularly in the

context of business models, business plans and the like, because everything we just discussed - standardisation, harmonisation, interoperability - also requires investment. And that has to be borne by the industry. You simply have to look at how that plays out. Aside from that, we're of course looking forward to many new developments. An enormous number of exciting vehicles have been announced for next year. We can see that many charging hardware manufacturers are pushing major projects forward. And that's why I'm fundamentally positive, but I do see

some question marks there, as other market participants probably will too. But I do hope we can continue on this growth path. Yes, just a brief personal comment: about eight years ago, when I first saw forecasts for how many electric vehicle models there would be - back then there was only the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Model S and so on - it was simply unimaginable that there would be hundreds of vehicles by 2025. That was a target figure, I believe 500 models by 2025. I thought to myself,

if we actually get there. I think you can say quite confidently that we've come an incredibly long way over the last few years. And I think what's still missing for that S-curve and that exponential growth to really happen is that we have very affordable models available. And we're actually almost there now. So accordingly, I'm optimistic too. And last but not least, do you have a final message for our listeners, and what's the best way to

reach you? Sure, LinkedIn is always a great way to get in touch. We're always easy to reach there. My colleagues are all on there too. So if there are any follow-up questions about the details of what we discussed today, very, very welcome. And otherwise, we're of course also preparing our Intercharge Network Conference again. You were there as well. What is that, briefly? It's an event where we deliberately try to bring together a large part of the industry - ideally the entire industry - to discuss exactly these kinds of topics together. But

I think we can only solve the challenges together. And I think this year it was very, very well received. Over three days we had more than 8,000 participants, which was significantly more than expected. And there was a very strong sense of positive momentum in the air. That was my main takeaway from the event - that there was a lot of positive energy. Very many good ideas. And seeing how many start-ups are now slowly re-entering the market - that's actually an important indicator too, I

think. How much interest there is from start-ups. And we're already preparing the 2026 edition. So if anyone has ideas about which topics we should discuss there, please do reach out to us so we can factor that into our planning. Great. Many thanks for the conversation. Thank you too. Many thanks. The key insights from my conversation with Christian: standardisation is becoming the pacemaker - ISO 15118 will bring Plug and Charge into the mainstream by 2027, while interoperability between vehicles, charging points and backends remains the central construction site - from OCPP versions to

to stable update processes. Particularly valuable is Hubject's test environment, which checks compatibility and new use cases. What's exciting for the energy system: electric vehicles already hold a double-digit gigawatt-hour storage capacity – a real lever for load management and future bidirectional charging. Europe's market is growing steadily, also thanks to positive regulatory changes such as AFIR, even though political uncertainties can slow down the ramp-up. Anyone who wants to learn more about Hubject and the industry should definitely come to the ICC, organized by Hubject. If this episode was helpful: subscribe, rate it, and share it – see you in the next episode.

Episode notes

"Ein Vertrag, laden überall" – das ist Hubjects Versprechen: Christian Hahn, Managing Director, hat es in 15 Jahren vom Berliner Start-up zum globalen Marktplatz für 2.500 Betreiber in 70 Ländern gebaut. In dieser Folge spricht Claudio mit ihm über Interoperabilität als Rückgrat der Ladeinfrastruktur, warum AFIR und ISO 15118-20 den Durchbruch für Plug & Charge bringen, und wer am Ende das Laden steuert: OEM, CPO, DSO oder Energieversorger. Er erzählt, wie Hubject 2012 mit einem kleinen Team in Berlin startete und heute über 2.500 Ladeinfrastrukturbetreiber und E-Mobility-Provider in mehr als 70 Ländern verbindet. Gemeinsam sprechen wir darüber, warum Interoperabilität das Herzstück der Ladeinfrastruktur ist – und welche technischen, regulatorischen und wirtschaftlichen Herausforderungen noch zu meistern sind. Themen der Folge: - Von PwC-Berater zur Gründungsgeschichte von Hubject – und wie das Start-up die Branche geprägt hat - Parallelen zwischen Telekommunikation und E-Mobilität: Wie Roaming Laden überall möglich macht - Regulatorische Treiber: AFIR, ISO 15118-20 und Plug & Charge als Basis für Smart & Bidirektionales Laden - Komplexität des Ökosystems: Wer steuert das Laden – OEM, CPO, DSO oder Energieversorger? - Herausforderungen durch Software-Updates, Cyber Security und fehlende Standardisierung - AC vs. DC – warum beide Technologien im bidirektionalen Laden ihren Platz haben - Europas Rolle im globalen Wettbewerb: Regulierung, Investitionssicherheit und gemeinsames Handeln Christian gibt zudem Einblicke in Hubjects eigenes Interoperabilitäts-Testlabor, erklärt, warum ISO 15118-20 ein Meilenstein für die Industrie ist, und teilt seine Vision eines Energiesystems, in dem Fahrzeuge, Netze und Gebäude nahtlos zusammenarbeiten. Zum Schluss spricht er über die Intercharge Network Conference, die Hubject jährlich organisiert, um die Branche zusammenzubringen und die Zukunft der Elektromobilität gemeinsam zu gestalten.