Matteo Oberto - Co‑Founder & CEO at JUNA

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

0:38 Today's episode is about the hard reality of electrifying road freight. It's not a single technology switch, it's a full operating system change - vehicles, charging access, routes, utilization and financing - where the weakest link determines whether the business case holds. My guest is Matteo, CEO of Juna. He shares his journey from early roles with BCG in London into scale-up work in logistics, most notably at Senda, and how that experience shaped a very pragmatic view: if you want electric trucks to scale, the solution has to work for the

1:18 carriers who actually move most of Europe's freight, and many dimensions play a role. We then unpack what Juna is building and why - reducing risks for fleets, structuring viable commercial models and making charging a workable reality across depot charging, public charging, and the emerging in-between world of semi-public shared infrastructure. If you care about e-trucks beyond pilots, this conversation is a blueprint for what needs to click. Let's go. Hello Matteo, nice to have you here. How are you today? Hi, and thank you for having me.

1:54 I'm very excited to be here and to have this discussion together. Great. So first, before we move into more detailed topics about Juna, can you introduce yourself? What's your background, so that people get a feel of who Matteo is? Yeah, very happy to do so. My name is Matteo, I'm originally Italian. I grew up in a city called Torino, near the Alps. My background from an educational standpoint is business management. I studied economics in my

2:25 bachelor's in Turin, and then I moved on to study business management in Copenhagen, Denmark. After that I moved into the professional world. I started from consulting, then ended up in startups and finally at Juna. Happy to dive a bit more into that, but business management and now entrepreneurship is my background. OK, and which were the first startups you were involved with, or what was the first career path you took after your studies? Yeah, so I actually started

2:55 in London. I started at Vodafone, a telecommunications company. Back then, after my master's degree, I didn't really know what I wanted to do, so I started a graduate program - the typical cross-functional program where every six months you basically do something different. While at Vodafone I figured it out: I wanted to be a bit more involved in the strategy areas of companies. And hence I moved on to start in consulting. I joined a strategic consulting

3:29 firm called the Boston Consulting Group, where I ended up spending 4.5 years. What I did at BCG was mostly working in the private equity practice - basically spending time with private equity funds, helping them on two things: either deciding whether a company is a good asset to buy or to sell, the so-called commercial due diligences, or helping them, once they had actually bought a company, understand what to do with that company - the typical transformation or strategic blueprints where they try

4:02 to accelerate the growth of their companies. At some point I was, if you want, tired of the consulting environment, mostly because I had the feeling - as many people who do consulting at some point have - that my responsibilities were ending when the fund's work was starting, which is basically the implementation. And hence I was wondering what else I could do in my career to be a bit more close to implementation, to see the actual result of my

4:35 thinking and my work. That is when I started thinking the startup ecosystem could be a very interesting one for me - mostly because working in a small to medium, yet very dynamic environment would have given me the chance to really see the result of my work, to build an impact, but also to remain in a very dynamic, energetic, fast-paced environment. At that point I basically came across Senda. Back then it was already in its scale-up

5:08 phase, not really an early-stage startup. We're talking which year? So now we're talking 2021, basically about 4.5 years ago. Back then I had the first conversation with the founding team at Senda. They were looking for someone to take over basically the leading of their strategy team. I was very much impressed by the story of Senda, by the people working at Senda, and I decided almost overnight to leave consulting, to move to Berlin, and to start my journey

5:45 at Senda. From there it went all quite quickly. I did a couple of years at Senda helping on different strategic topics, and one of those topics was actually electrification - what kind of role could Senda play in this technology shift. From there, basically, it started the work on Juna - the discussions with the team, and then I took ownership of launching the company and setting up the operations. Today I lead the

6:20 company as CEO and one of the managing directors. Very interesting. Maybe before we proceed with Juna, one step back again on the private equity role. Which type of companies did you analyze back then - size-wise - or are there any topics in particular that you had to work on, and what key takeaways do you take from that time? Yeah, interesting question. I really did a mix of a lot of things, mostly companies in the medium to large size.

6:50 across a variety of industries, so I really looked into stuff that was - I remember energy. I remember looking into this hydrogen company, very interesting because it was for me an introduction to what hydrogen is. I went into automotive, I did media, so it was very much a mix and match of a lot of things. So I would say I didn't really develop a vertical, industry-specific type of knowledge. Mostly what I learned was a method

7:24 to really approach a problem or a big question which does not necessarily have a straightforward answer, and try to break down the problem, try to break down the question into small pieces and work on them to then get to a final answer. Which I believe is also what I do today in my daily life when it comes to my professional activity, because entrepreneurship, or anyway growing a company, is very much like dealing with unknowns and trying to

7:57 face those unknowns and find a way, a successful way through those unknowns. So I would say I very much consider consulting like a gym where you build your muscles, where you build your technique, and then you need to go - I tend to say - into the real world, and then use those muscles, those techniques to tackle challenges for real, and being able to, as I was saying, also look into the result and the implementation of your work. Makes sense. And

8:27 for Sennder, so you started working directly on e-mobility, that whole strategy around e-mobility. And how did you get to the conclusion that building Juna together with Scania was a good idea? What was the origin story of Juna? Basically, at the beginning I was tackling for Sennder a variety of strategic topics, but there was one specific point which was in the mind of David, the CEO and one of the co-founders, which was how Sennder should position itself when it comes

9:00 to technological shifts. And if we look into the transportation industry, in road transportation, we can see that there have been a couple of big shifts and a couple more are coming up in the future. So of course Sennder was built on digitalisation, which is a very transformative shift of the transportation industry. And the next shift that Sennder was looking into was, back then, electrification, and then if we were to look into the

9:33 future, of course, we would have autonomy at some point. And so back then there was thinking around what kind of hurdles there were for electrification to happen and what kind of role Sennder could play in order to allow electrification to accelerate, because of course there is an important part of the Sennder DNA which is what they call the green part - which is how to basically decarbonise operations. And so we were discussing - I remember together with David and Nico, who

10:08 back then was the Chief Strategy Officer, and Graham, who is the Senior Director of the Green department at Sennder - we were discussing what kind of role Sennder could play. And back then the idea that we had, which is still one of the main concepts of Juna, was: well, Sennder has a lot of volumes, has a lot of connections with the big shippers who are actually demanding electric transport. What if we were to combine that demand with the supply of trucks? So basically we

10:40 would give to the average transportation company - which is a small to medium company that doesn't want to take a lot of risk - not only the technology, so the electric truck, but also ready utilisation. Wouldn't we solve what today is preventing, or even back then was preventing, the adoption of electric trucks, which is the risk of investing into a new technology that is very expensive, very new, without the certainty of having a return on that investment? So that was the

11:14 starting point. And then there is a long-lasting relationship between Sennder and Scania, because Scania is one of the investors in Sennder. And hence, basically, we approached Scania, telling them a bit about our narrative and our thinking. Back then, Scania was also launching their first battery-electric trucks, and they were going through a bit of the same reasoning: how can we, from an OEM perspective, accelerate the adoption of electric trucks, knowing that again, new technology, expensive, not that easy to operate? And that's where basically

11:53 they liked the idea. We started with a working group, we started refining the idea, building the typical business model, business plan, etc., and eventually we moved into the more concrete discussion of how to set up a company - the legal negotiation around building a joint venture, which is never trivial. And from there, basically, we moved into the incorporation of the company, which happened at the end of 2023. And since then, we have Juna. So now

12:28 we are past the second year of operation, which I think is a very nice and very rewarding achievement, because we're making great progress from my perspective. Nice. And let's dive into the users that you already addressed, that you're helping - so the drivers or the logistics companies that are usually very small, I understand. Maybe you can also give some stats on what the typical target company is that you help. And if I understand correctly, the problem you were identifying is

13:05 that they struggle with having the capex on the one hand - financing these trucks, that's the one big issue - and then being unsure that they make enough revenue and therefore are able to cope with the costs of running operations. And thus you were solving those two problems with the utilisation through the Sennder network and the capex financing that you would provide, right? That's correct. And you're right, so if we look at the road freight industry, 80% of transportation companies are small to

13:41 Medium companies. They have on average 7 trucks and they range between, let's say, 5 to 50 trucks. Those companies of course do not have the resources, neither do they have the competencies to look into electrification, and they are risk-averse. Now, the typical model in the trucking industry would be to either sell trucks to transportation companies or to lease them. These models do not really fit the adoption of a new technology because they put all the risks of the new

14:20 technology into those small transportation companies who, let's say, traditionally would have to buy or lease the asset, learn how to optimize the utilization of those assets, and then find utilization to pay for their CAPEX or OPEX depending on how they get access to those assets. Now what Juna - or the way Juna, in a way, solves the adoption problem - is by looking at who really demands electrification or decarbonization. Those are typically the freight buyers, and they can be shippers - Coca-Cola,

14:59 Pepsi, the Pepsis of this world - or even larger logistics service providers. Think about DHL, think about Kuehne+Nagel, the big logistics service providers. Those companies mostly operate via subcontractors. Basically 80 to 90% of their freight is moved by those small transportation companies we were talking about. Now, they need a way to incentivize those transportation companies to adopt electric trucks, otherwise they can't decarbonize their operations. So the logic Juna adopts is partnering with the logistics service providers and shippers - the freight buyers - and identifying where

15:42 electrification can happen, devising a roadmap for electrification to happen, and then approaching the transportation companies, the subcontractors, and enabling them to adopt electric trucks with a model which is not a typical rental or lease, but is what we call a subscription. So it's an as-a-service model whereby transportation companies get the truck, all the services related to the truck, and they also pay based on utilization, so per kilometer. That, as you were correctly saying, solves two problems. On the one hand, the so-called financing of

16:22 the new asset, considering that those assets are 2 to 3 times more expensive than typical diesel trucks, but it also solves the utilization problem - where those trucks will be utilized - and helps transportation companies have security of revenue to cover their costs. And Sennder plays a central role because Sennder is a large freight forwarder and has a connection with a large number of shippers who demand green transport. So Sennder, especially at the beginning and still today, played an important role in providing access

17:01 to that utilization that we combine with our subscription, that allows electrification to happen today at a faster pace than if companies were left alone to invest into electric trucks. Got it. So one fundamental thesis, or also underlying issue of the new technology that you're solving - if I understand correctly, that will be the biggest one, elephant in the room if you want - is range, right? That's how to deal with the more limited range of electric trucks. Because at the end of the day, and if

17:35 you are able to refuel or charge and just run your routes as you're just putting an electric truck as you would put a diesel truck, and that's it, you don't have much change in your - but you need to understand what routes are feasible with what range, and then what the charging implications are, right? That's the complexity, the largest complexity that you're solving with that approach, right? That's definitely one big complexity, I would say.

18:06 From an operational perspective, it's probably the largest. When I think about the complexities, I usually tend to look into different buckets. So there is definitely an operational bucket, which basically means electric trucks have a limited range and also the infrastructure to charge the trucks is not as dense as the typical fueling system for gas and diesel. So that is definitely, on the operational side, a big barrier to overcome. Then of course we don't have to

18:43 forget the financial barrier - the fact that those trucks are more expensive when it comes to the CapEx, the cost, but also when it comes to operating them. When it comes to the operational expenditures, they need to be used in a certain smart way in order to realize competitive operational costs. So with our model, if you want, we tackle both, because we find on behalf of the transportation companies the lanes that we know can be electrified from an operational standpoint. So we know the

19:16 range is not too long, or there is a recharging station in between. We do the so-called technical analysis and we say we've checked it - it can be electrified from a technical perspective. The second layer, which is extremely important, is also solving the question: is it also cost-effective to run the lane? Can we run the lane at a cost which is near - the usual term being the TCO, the total cost of ownership - of running a truck on

19:45 that lane near the total cost of ownership of running the lane with diesel? So can we run close to the diesel cost with an electric truck? And that is the second layer of complexity that we need to solve. How do we solve that? Well, we need to take a bit of a broader perspective. We solve that through the way we finance electric trucks - we bring down the cost of electric trucks through our financing model. That's one element. We solve that by looking

20:14 into charging. Charging and energy is an important component in the cost of running electric trucks. It's roughly one third of the total cost of running electric trucks. So we have, let's say, a way of looking into smart charging. We have a partnership model with charging players to bring down the cost of charging. And then the third layer is how we build the routing, which I think is also what you were referring to at the beginning, which basically means that because the assets are more expensive,

20:43 they need to be run in a very effective way, so reducing as much as possible the empty kilometers. We have a tech team that has developed, or is developing as we speak, a tech solution, and we have a team of so-called solution designers. What they do is basically build, within logistic networks, effective routings for electric trucks, ensuring those electric trucks are as much as possible fully utilized and looking at the way electric trucks are used, so that utilization helps

21:20 the business case and helps the cost of operation to go down. Yeah, I love this breakdown. I think we did a great overview right now. We can deep dive a bit more into the third category. I think it would also require a little bit of context setting for people who are not so familiar with the logistics industry. It will be very interesting to understand how it happens today. What's the status quo today? Is it as simple as saying a truck has an order, you

21:47 They need to run that order from A to B and then they just go back to their point A empty. And that's 90% of the cases. Or is that a caricature, and where are you trying to get at eventually - that they do more A, B, C, D type of routes before getting back to the depot? Maybe you can give some more context there.

22:16 Sure, and the reality is that there is no one-size-fits-all type of answer, because it depends on the characteristics of the market. I'll give you a clear example: in Germany, and from next year also in the Netherlands, electric trucks don't pay tolls on highways. That basically means - and also diesel trucks pay a very hefty tariff per kilometer, roughly 34 cents on highway - that to find the best business cases, one of the best business cases is actually to make electric trucks run as much as possible, fully

22:57 on highways. Which basically means maximizing the time a driver spends driving on a highway with an electric truck. This basically means that you prioritize - or we prioritize - longer-distance lanes that run up to 400 or 500 kilometers one way, mostly on highways. This also means, though, that the truck has to come back, and if it comes back empty, you have a lot of inefficiency, because the diesel truck will not come back empty. The diesel truck would continue maybe doing another

23:35 load, maybe not even coming back, maybe it would go somewhere else because it's flexible enough they can pick another load and move somewhere else. With an electric truck, you need to know where the truck is going because you need to know where the truck will charge at some point, either during the day or at night. Which basically means you build those loops which are 100% completed, or as much as possible, as close as possible to 100%, and you try to build those loops

24:03 on highways so that you maximize the saving in cost that electric trucks can give you. In other countries, this is not the case. In other countries, if we run on a highway extensively, we don't have an advantage. I'll give you the example of Italy, and in those circumstances, for example, what we're seeing is that it's more cost competitive to reduce the number of kilometers but to increase the number of shipments, so that we prioritize operations where we do a frequent A to B job.

24:38 So the trucks move frequently A to B. It goes one way full, it comes back empty, and by coming back empty, it saves time to do another loop, another shipment. So in that case, what we do is we optimize the number of shipments and we split the cost of the truck - the high cost of the truck - on a high number of shipments. So depending on the market conditions, and depending on not just highways but also cost of energy, depending on the cost

25:12 of the trucks as well in different markets, we have developed a different strategy that would allow us to build those smart routings which are suitable for electric trucks, with the intent, the scope and the goal of bridging or closing the gap as much as possible between the cost of operating an electric truck and the cost of operating a diesel truck. Makes sense. And then on the second category, the charging - and maybe before that, you said a third of the cost is charging, and

25:42 a third would be CapEx, and then the other third is typically what we call the carrier or the transportation company cost, so think about the driver, the trailer and their fixed costs - but mostly it would be the driver. And so on this third of the cost, the charging, what are the ways you help these companies? You said you have partners for the depot charging infrastructure setup, I imagine. And then the second would be on public charging, you have partnerships with charge point operators, CPOs, or MSPs, so the card or app. What's the approach for the two scenarios of charging?

26:11 Yeah, that's correct. So basically we work with partners in both verticals. Vertical one, which is the second you mentioned, is public charging. Maybe some of the listeners would be surprised to know that there are, in certain markets, actually a rather high number of charging stations for trucks. Now, I'm not saying that number

26:47 is enough to electrify road freight. We are barely at the beginning, we are scratching the surface. You mean exclusively like the of this world, or you mean that could be used by trucks in general? Also for - it's a good point, so there are two categories. There are the so-called - we call them truck-built - so those have been built for trucks. You mentioned Minas, which is definitely one of the leading players in this segment. Also BP Aral has developed stations for

27:15 electric trucks. We've seen also Shell playing into this vertical. So there are both traditional incumbent players coming from the diesel world and, let's say, newcomers in a way, building stations for trucks. Those are the typical stations that can fit both the trailer and the tractor together, and they offer the best experience for charging because they are exclusively thought and built for trucks. Then there is another category which we call the so-called truck-friendly stations. Those would be stations where, let's say,

27:53 the intention when they were built was not to host electric trucks, but only passenger cars, but because of the power of the infrastructure and because of the physical space, they can also fit not the tractor plus the trailer, but the tractor only. Of course, in those instances, we need to be a bit more careful. We need to always have a certain agreement with the CPO that we can use those stations, because we don't want - from a safety reason, but

28:23 also from an operational reason - we don't want to disrupt the normal operations of those stations. But today there are a number of instances where CPOs would allow tractor units to charge at stations which were built for passenger cars. So in this big bucket of, let's say, publicly available stations for trucks, we play with a partnership type of model, which basically means we have contact with all the so-called CPOs, the charging point operators. We work with them to identify which stations are available and where. We

29:03 have our own database of stations which we maintain together with the CPOs, and we use that database to basically support our work on efficient routing. The other thing that we do with that database is having an understanding of how much utilization we can bring to each and every CPO, and discuss with them how we can bring down the cost of recharging at their stations. The idea for us is never to use discounts to earn more money on our end. We don't resell

29:40 electricity, but what we do is we pass any discount directly to our end customers, being the transportation companies. Because our mission is to reduce the cost of operating electric trucks, to increase the volume, the number of electric trucks that we deploy together. Nice. Second bucket is depot charging, on-site charging. Here also we have a number of partners in our ecosystem, and what we do is we work with them to - let's say, first assess: does it make sense building a depot charging

30:15 charging infrastructure, depending on the utilization case that we have, and if so, we basically build together the business case and then we let them build and/or manage the charging station, because we don't have - or it's not a competence that we have internally at Juna. There is also a hybrid model in between, which I think is very interesting, especially in this initial phase of electrification, which is the model of the semi-public stations. So those would be stations that have chargers - exactly. So

30:48 stations that would have been built by a logistics company but are not fully utilized. That basically means that those companies can give access to the spare capacity to other logistics companies. And there are a number of players who are building marketplaces aggregating those stations, and I think that is a fantastic opportunity because it allows a more efficient utilization of infrastructure, which should bring efficiency to the whole transformation of the industry. What type of players are building these shared infrastructure projects?

31:24 So there are different players. Those shared stations usually are actually designed and built for a specific company in mind, but that specific company might only need them overnight or over the day. So they would have spare capacity and they can make that spare capacity available. There are also players who are building - let's say, more shared, if you want - hubs, where they would basically identify in a certain location a need for charging because it's a high-frequency location

32:01 for logistics, and then they would basically build the station knowing - or having a certain commitment already - from a specific company or multiple companies operating that logistics corridor. So that is also another, maybe if you want, species of those semi-public infrastructure. And to make sure I understood correctly: for the CPO partnerships, you don't work with an MSP, you work only with the CPOs directly. That's correct - that's the case in 90% of cases. We do have certain agreements with MSPs; specifically there is a Scania

32:40 company called Scania Charging Access, which is an MSP, and we do partner with them on certain specific stations where they have good agreements. But let's say our standard strategy would be to go directly, and the reason being: in this phase we try to get as much as possible a direct relationship with the CPOs to support them in identifying where new stations can be built, to get also a frequent exchange on where they are planning to build the stations, and then to get as much as possible

33:16 Let's say a low rate, so without intermediaries, to then being able to pass that on to our customers. And the approach - I think you're now already in multiple countries, no? You're not only in Germany or Italy. And then the approach for building charging infrastructure depots - there are also, I guess, not one partner in Europe, but several in each geography. Is that correct? So depending on geography and depending on availability of partners, we work with multiple players. And the idea is always

33:47 to bring the best-positioned player into the game, to ensure that we can build together the business case that works for the transportation company and for the shipper. OK. And let's talk about - so you said you created a company in 2023. What's been the reception of the market? How are transportation companies reacting so far? What are the hurdles, objections, and challenges you're facing, and how are you addressing them? When you were phrasing the question, it came to my

34:20 mind - the very first electric truck we brought to the road, onto the road, which happened soon after we incorporated the company. I still remember the experience of handing that over to a transportation company, because myself and the management team of Juna, we basically traveled together with the truck actually. The CEO, the COO Johann, and the CFO Andred, they drove the truck because they come from the Scania ecosystem, so they have a license for driving a truck. So

34:53 myself and Thomas - and Thomas is the CTO - we were driving behind in a car, and together we drove from Berlin to Stuttgart to deliver the truck to this transportation company called Ava, which is one of our strongest partners today. I do remember the energy and the emotion of the owner receiving their first electric truck. So what I'm trying to convey

35:24 here is that still today, what we see is that there is a very open acceptance of this technology from most of the companies we work with. This doesn't mean that companies are not skeptical at the beginning, that they don't ask questions, that they don't also fear, to an extent, the technology, the cost, the unforeseeable events that can happen - but once they are put in the right conditions, they are actually very much willing to go through this shift. And there are two

36:01 reasons. I'm not naive - there is definitely a sustainability type of reasoning. I really think there are a lot of companies in transportation that think and want to bring decarbonization to the table, because they do understand that what they do, their service, is fundamental for society, but it does have an impact on the world. So yes, sustainability is a

36:30 big driver. And the second driver is: they understand that to become and to remain competitive in a market that is very much cost-driven, they need to distinguish themselves from their competitors. Especially small and medium transportation companies - they have a certain floor to how much they can optimize their cost base, and hence betting on the ability to offer a different service becomes a way to remain competitive in the market. So I would say the acceptance of

37:03 the new technology is very positive, and specifically I would say our model seems to be very much answering the needs and questions of transportation companies. Because until now, whenever we had a demand commitment from a freight buyer and then we talked to either their transportation companies or brought in a transportation company to do the job, we never received a decline. In the moment transportation companies are supported - they are given

37:38 the asset, they are given the demand - they are very much open, willing, and proactive to operate. And then when they go into operations, they take all the responsibilities. If there are problems, they know how to behave. Obviously, transportation and transport operations is their field, and they become extremely attentive to ensure that the project develops in a positive way so that it can be prolonged, confirmed, and they can also grow their fleet of electric trucks. Nice. Use cases for these

38:10 trucks - I mean, there are many: can be long haul, or more the middle mile, or the distribution, in different types of use cases or sectors. What are the most common right now since you started? Which are the typical use cases, if you want to put it that way? Yes, so today, when it comes to where we have deployed trucks, I would say mostly we do what I would call regional distribution or regional haulage. Which basically means the

38:44 regional distribution is typically a hub-and-spokes type of operation, so the truck every morning starts from the same hub and then, depending on availability of loads, it would move to different destinations. Or regional haulage, meaning the truck would actually do A to B and then B to A within the same day, every day. The distance can range from - let's say when I look at it - 50 kilometers to 600 kilometers on a daily basis. So if we do obviously only 50 kilometers point to point, we

39:20 do multiple point to point, then on a daily basis, we never do less than 300, 350 kilometers, because less than that we've seen is not economically competitive. So we need to maximize the utilization of the electric trucks. And let's say we work across a variety of industries. There are some industries which are a bit more suitable for electrification, especially the industries where we see stable volumes and also return trips. I make an example: the beverage industry is a typical industry where you

39:58 bring full bottles on the one leg, and then you return with empty bottles. Those are obviously already efficient loops by themselves. Other industries, FMCGs for example, usually go only one way, and hence we are the ones who have to find an optimization on the return leg. But let's say we do both consumer-facing industries, where the ability of also using the transportation and the green transport as a marketing, as a communication

40:34 lever is exploited - so we work with consumer-facing industries, but also with industrial industries where sometimes the contribution of the cost of transport on the cost of the final good is lower than in consumer-facing industries, and hence there is a slightly higher acceptance of a higher cost of electric transport. Got it. In the TCO that you have measured so far and you managed to get

41:06 it equivalent or even lower than diesel. I would say it is also here a case-by-case type of answer. We do work in certain setups where we brought to the shipper an optimization together with the deployment of electric trucks. I have one in mind that we are running in Hamburg, where basically we combined loads that were traditionally done by multiple trucks, we put them on one truck, and hence we have reduced the number of vehicles but

41:43 also switched to electric vehicles, and we made it TCO-neutral just by basically building efficiency into their network. There are cases where we've been able to switch an operation which is running extensively on the highway and hence we've been able to reach TCO parity. There are other cases where the shippers need to make an investment. So it is very much dependent on how we can design the operations and how the operations have to run, but our objective

42:19 is always to close the gap, and the reason is that we do understand that electrification, to happen at scale, has to happen in a cost-competitive manner. We cannot pretend and we cannot foresee high adoption of electrification if moving goods with electric trucks costs 3 to 4 times moving goods with a diesel truck, so we need to come to TCO parity. It is obviously a joint effort. We as Juna have built a model which I very much believe can help steer electrification in that

43:01 direction. We definitely need the support of OEMs. We need the cost of their trucks to go down. We need them to take and be more brave on the so-called residual value. We need support from charging players. We need them also to take a risk - not lowering the cost of electricity only when their stations will be full, but also accepting that in order to have the stations full, they need to support on the cost of electricity. And then also we need the shippers to be

43:33 willing to sometimes flex their operations - to allow certain efficiencies to happen. Sometimes we need to make certain changes. We need to include the so-called stunt trailers, which basically allows us to do more loads, more shipments, in the same day. So we also need that type of flexibility. It is in essence a bit of an ecosystem play. I do still see that today everyone is working in the right direction, but to increase the speed of adoption, we

44:04 probably need also to increase the speed of the work in the direction of TCO parity. Yeah, I don't have it on top of my mind in terms of how much electric truck costs have decreased so far, but batteries have been decreasing in cost tremendously, and the trend is still going downwards. So I'm not sure if you have it on top of your mind as well - what the cost of an electric truck was a couple of years back - and now we're talking 2 to 3 times

44:28 when. And it will probably end up less than 2 times, which would be a game changer in that perspective, for example. It's a very fair point. So yes, to answer directly to your question, we've seen a decline in the cost of electric trucks since we started, which was also the first year all OEMs introduced their first electric models. Up until now, I would say we've probably seen, across the board, a 10% to 15% decrease over two years. Is that rate going

45:07 to be so quick? I would say there are different perspectives. I would assume it will probably go down in the next 2 to 3 years another probably 10% per year - I think that's possible - and then it will probably plateau. There are different trends, of course, that could potentially accelerate that decrease. One big one is the entrance of Chinese players in the market, and we already see them starting

45:42 from 2026 - there are a couple of Chinese players who should basically start operations with their offering in Europe, and we do know that the price point is very competitive. There are a lot of open questions as to what extent their product is competitive, their servicing - so their repair and maintenance - is competitive, but definitely they will put some pressure on European manufacturers to bring truck prices down. So yes, the

46:14 The cost decrease is visible and it will continue. I also believe that if we take the experience from the passenger cars, the curve will continue to decrease, right? Because there are economies of scale, economies of learning. It is also true that we're talking about a different technology, so what we need to do is gain scale in the batteries for electric trucks.

46:47 Basically, we need more trucks to be pushed into the market if we want those economies of scale to kick in. And in the charging aspect, I also see a lot of tailwinds to reduce costs. I'd be curious, on the one hand, how much the distribution is right now from public to private charging, so depot charging, and how do you expect this to develop for these use cases? And second - and that's something that we are here at RiDERgy also

47:14 very passionate about - is how to make the flexibility in energy usage an asset to reduce costs: charging when spot markets are very low cost, both in public chargers and private chargers, but also, if you have a depot, the opportunity to install solar, trying to maximize that energy and supporting the grid. All these aspects - bidirectional charging, selling energy from these batteries when they are parked - I think can also decrease the cost a lot. How do you see

47:47 that? Yeah, so when it comes to the split, if I look at the June experience, today we are relying to a great extent on public charging. I would say roughly 60 to 70% of our trucks charge on public stations. The reason is that of course there is a cost of electricity which is higher when you charge publicly, but the speed at which you can deploy electric trucks is different because you don't have to wait for the infrastructure to

48:23 be ready. Sometimes the grid power is not there, so exactly. When you go with public charging, you can act faster, and especially when you initially deploy a limited number of electric trucks there is no real limitation in using public charging. Today - I was mentioning at the beginning - we have a very interesting case which runs in Hamburg where we have 5 electric trucks deployed with 1 shipper and 1 carrier, all charging at the public charging infrastructure station without any

49:01 problems, because in the right setup I would still say that when you find the right charging station for the right project, usually the capacity is available. Now, will this change going forward? Yes, of course, because I do expect that more electric trucks will enter the market, and the speed at which electric trucks can enter the market is faster than the speed at which we can deploy infrastructure. So yes, we need to also rely on depot charging, because

49:37 depot charging would also help efficiency - it would help to take the right trade-off between, for example, slow overnight charging and fast charging during the day or during operations, and slow charging when there is a break. Moving forward, I've heard and read different numbers. I do believe depot charging will play an important role depending on the type of operations. Depending on whether we're talking about regional or long haulage, it can account for anything between 40

50:10 and 60%, because of course it is highly reliant on availability of a depot at the end of the operation - the trucks need to run close to the depot and need to return back to it. And do they all have a depot? That's an interesting question as well: do most transportation companies have enough capacity to install chargers at their depots? That's one point. Do they have the depots? Are the depots located where they run the

50:37 trucks? Sometimes transportation companies run trucks kilometers away from their depot, and hence the trucks do not go back to the depot. Makes sense. It is also true that within the bucket of depot charging, you can also consider the chargers that shippers are now building at their warehouses. Definitely, depot charging will play an important role. Today it is also playing an important role. We work with a number of transportation companies who are making the investment, and we definitely see that

51:10 this investment pays off if the infrastructure is well designed, is the right size, and is also used efficiently. Going back to your point on, for example, dynamic charging and bidirectional charging - those are definitely concepts which are extremely important in the industry. I would think that's where you build the value as a charging player: the software part, the ability to build an infrastructure which is not only the charger connected to the grid, but also placing a battery, adding

51:48 PV, and then managing all the different assets through the charging management systems. Today what I see is that the industry is catching up on that point. For example, in public charging, dynamic pricing is not yet a thing, and hence CPOs are designing pricing strategies to cover the highest cost, because they cannot foresee the demand and cannot yet do dynamic pricing the way they would like to - but I know that

52:22 They are all working in that direction. So I'm confident that not only infrastructure will become more available, but also that the way infrastructure will be used and optimized will bring down the cost of energy. That makes total sense. And one point you raised as well, that I at least in my conversations get often, is: "We cannot use public chargers because it's not reliable." But you seem to suggest that from experience you don't see any uptime jeopardization if you have to rely on public

52:56 chargers - they're usually usable, right? You don't need to reserve them. The ability to reserve them is often also mentioned. How do you look at that? Yeah, it's a good point. Reservation is definitely a hot topic in the industry. I would say today, from experience, it's more of a psychological point and not an actual point, meaning we often hear shippers or freight buyers, but even transportation companies, asking: "What if the station is occupied? What if it's not available?" In most of

53:29 the cases, this is not going to happen. And anyway, when we design a project, we always check with the charging point operator to what extent that station is usually occupied given historical data in certain windows. So yes, it is something that we take into consideration - availability - but today I would say booking is probably not needed given the number of trucks on the road. In the future it will be needed, especially on certain operations where being on time is extremely important. Think about e-commerce. Think about

54:06 automotive. So we are definitely also collaborating with CPOs to ensure that they get our input when it comes to building slot booking systems. But as a general concept today, it's probably not the bottleneck in charging. When it comes to reliability of public chargers, I would say our experience is that CPOs - especially, I can only speak mostly for the truck stations - are on average extremely reactive and extremely fast if we signal that one of their stations is

54:45 not working. There is obviously a big reputation game here, because the moment your station is not working - with a passenger car you can maybe move a few kilometres or change the socket because you have multiple options available - with trucks this is not the case. And if you have a bad experience, you probably won't go back to that station. Hence I would say I can see that there is a strong effort from

55:14 CPOs, and so far we haven't been experiencing problems with the quality of charging points. Well, that's very good. And what about residual value? You mentioned it as a side note. What's the risk there? Do you bear the risk, the transportation company, the OEM? And battery lifetime is also always a topic. Yeah, so in our model, and also how I see the industry moving, residual value is something that either stays in

55:48 the hands of the OEM - so typically this would happen if we have a leasing arrangement, or in our case with our e-truck-as-a-service model, we take back the truck at the end of the assignment, so we bear the residual value risk, but then we have agreements with the OEMs - or the other way would be companies buying electric trucks and then having the residual value on their books. I think the industry will move in

56:14 a direction where residual value will stay with the OEMs. So basically the e-truck-as-a-service model will become the main model, where the ownership of the asset stays in the hands of the OEM - or in this case of Juna, and Juna has an agreement with the OEM. Because there is a value in the asset once it goes back, which is higher than the residual value that used to exist for diesel trucks. Diesel trucks in the end are iron, if you want to simplify

56:43 extremely, so once they go back the actual value is quite low, quite limited. When a battery goes back - meaning at the end of the life of a truck - the battery still has 80% of its capacity. Below 80% it is unfortunately no longer suitable for transportation; it becomes unreliable. But it can be used for other applications - think about storage - which basically means there is a certain

57:18 value for OEMs to keep and retain ownership of the batteries, because they can monetize them in other applications, while transportation companies would not be able to do so because they play a different game and it would be difficult for them to specialize in this circularity game as well. So my view is that OEMs would want to keep the value of their assets at the end of their lives - they basically want to

57:46 retain this residual value risk. Now, where I do see potential to improve is the ability to price the residual value correctly and in a more aggressive way. Today, due to limited experience and the limited number of trucks, all these buyback agreements tend to have a rather low residual value because it's a very conservative one. This means that the cost of what is paid in terms of the truck covers most of it, so

58:20 the delta with diesel then becomes even larger. And what we are doing, for example with Scania - which is very interesting - we are cooperating with one of their teams who are basically responsible for understanding how residual value changes depending on the operations of the trucks. So they have not only capabilities in understanding trends in the battery markets, but also capabilities in understanding how the battery is depleted during operations depending on the type of operations. So we're

58:54 Working with them to ensure that basically we can do two things. One is we can take more risks on the residual value, but also - and this is specifically interesting for Juna - we can build a bit of a more flexible pay-per-use, even more flexible, because if you use the trucks in a certain way and you are saving a residual value, then you can also give back or reduce the price to the customer because you have more battery that you can use in

59:20 other applications later on, further down the line. Another cool thing that we are thinking about at RiDERgy as well is to combine charging with energy optimization and battery lifetime optimization, so you can do a lot of things if you work with the battery chemistry. Considering battery chemistries - if you look at the C-rates or the temperatures of the cells and consider what's the current temperature, what's the C-rate or the SOC - you also have operational charging strategies that you can run and you can then

59:49 prove that it affected the battery in a positive way and therefore also improved the residual value. That's super cool. Yeah, it's super cool, and I think there are a lot of things which are going on in that vertical, if you want. Of course we are helping - meaning we try to put trucks on different types of operations, learn from those operations, and then understand which operations are the most efficient, also when it comes to extracting

1:00:20 value from the batteries. I think we're still at the very, very beginning here, but I see so much progress and it's such an interesting field that I'm very much looking forward to seeing what else can be done in the space. And I've seen on LinkedIn and on social media that you're generally one of the key projects you were talking about with Gruber Logistics. Maybe you can share a few more details on that one. It's an interesting one, meaning Gruber is

1:00:46 not the typical customer that we serve because it's a rather large transportation company. They usually buy trucks and make investments, and they've also done that in the space of electric. Where it was an interesting discussion with Gruber is that when we got in contact, they needed some additional capacity for some assignments which were rather short-term. So they did not want to take the risk of buying assets, only knowing that those assets

1:01:20 would have had a limited assignment. Also, one of the discussions I remember having with Gruber was that, yes, they are a large company and by now they also have a lot of experience in electric transport, but back then they said that when they look into electrification, they are also in a way a small company - they also have only a few units - so they also need the type of support, but also the type of sparring partners to help them grow

1:01:46 faster. Hence, we decided to deploy a few units together, to basically give them the ability of answering that short-term demand they had from a customer. It was a very fruitful and interesting discussion. We had trucks in operation for some time. Now we are discussing how to potentially increase the cooperation further, and in general, talking to those companies who are traditional logistics companies but are so much on the

1:02:22 front row when it comes to electrification is always refreshing, because it helps us to understand how to even more precisely shape our value proposition to help the transition happen. Yeah, and on that note, there is Electro Trucker and the Nano Jansen company. What's your view on those types of companies and their story? Similarly, I would say those are very positive stories. As I said, I feel refreshed

1:02:57 when I see traditional companies embracing the change and also taking risks. Obviously they have a strategy which is different from utilizing Juna - they buy assets and take their own risks - but I think those are such great stories because they really show how the industry is proactively trying to embrace this change. And to be fair, those are good and successful use cases, and the more we can spread the good and successful use cases, the more I think we can turn the narrative

1:03:30 that electrification is not happening, that it is too expensive, that it is too complex. We can gather the positive attention from the players in logistics but also from the regulators, and I think that would eventually just speed up the process. Yeah. You are Italian, now living here in Germany, and Juna serves German companies. How do you look at countries to enter and geographies to serve, and which ones have better policy and regulatory incentives? What are the factors where you decide, OK, now we enter that one? I think China is number one - is that even a market, or how do you consider it?

1:04:01 I would love to open an office in Italy, maybe somewhere in the south of Italy - I'm just joking, I think it's not going to happen in the short term. On a serious note, we see ourselves as a European player, so for the time

1:04:30 being we don't foresee anything outside Europe, and we believe Europe is a big enough market, with a big enough challenge, that we would have more than enough here to do. How do we look at different markets? Today it's a combination of elements. Our North Star is always the so-called TCO parity. What we usually do is two things. On one hand, we take what we see as the freight rates - so how costly

1:05:01 is to run diesel in a given country. Usually we use either the cost per kilometer when it comes to the more medium-long distance, or the daily rates for the very short distance, and then we make our own business case when it comes to what would be the equivalent if we were to run electric trucks. And so yes, we take all the elements into consideration: basically the cost of the trucks, the service, cost of electricity, cost of tolls

1:05:32 so we take all the cost inputs. And that helps us with the business case, and then we look into infrastructure. How well developed is infrastructure, what are the plans from the CPOs to build infrastructure. And then last but not least, we look into whether we already have potential partners or customers that we can, let's say, work together with to find the first business cases, to then launch the operations starting with concrete businesses and not only with, let's say, the cost of a new legal entity.

1:06:02 So yeah, the cost, the infrastructure, and the business development opportunities. For electric trucks it's similar to passenger vehicles in terms of electrification rate in Europe, where the Nordics and Norway are the most advanced, then the Netherlands, and then the UK, and then the more southern you go, the less they are. I would say generally that's the case, which is also a bit unfortunate because again, I'm Italian. I would love to see, let's say, a lot of electric trucks in Italy. But that's

1:06:32 the case. I think obviously the two things are connected, right? The more people are acquainted with the technology, with electric technology on a personal level, the less scared they are when it comes to adopting it also for business. So totally, yes, we see the Nordic countries driving the shift, then we have, say, Central Europe, where I would say Germany did a great job, although lately has been lagging a little bit because Germany used

1:07:05 to have a very

1:07:09 - it was a very big incentive scheme. I mean, it's debatable if the way it was built was the most effective and efficient one, but it was definitely a very interesting incentivization scheme. France now is coming up quite strong because the cost of energy is very low, mostly driven by nuclear, and then unfortunately we have Southern Europe lagging a bit behind. I would say the Nordics are probably going through their 3rd wave of electrification when it comes to business. Central

1:07:36 Europe is probably the 2nd, Southern Europe the 1st. Makes sense. And so you have a quite unique model. Nevertheless, in every attractive market there are competitors. One that I think I know is Einride. What would you say is your USP compared to competitors? Yeah, it's a very interesting point. So Einride is also a very interesting story, super successful business. They are more of a transportation company, meaning they also do transport operations and they also own a fleet. So to an

1:08:10 extent, yes, we are competing with them on several customer discussions. They could also be a competitor, they could also be a customer of ours, they could also, you know, take trucks from us. But let's say in general, the more traditional competitors would be rental companies or OEMs that basically can only provide assets. Now what we do, which is different - and sorry, by the way, there are also more, let's say, e-truck-as-a-service companies

1:08:41 that also have a pay-per-kilometer type of offering that are emerging in different markets. In Germany we have a couple of big examples and then there are other smaller examples across Europe. In general, what is our truly unique point is this utilization element. There are no players in the market who, let's say, have a Sennder behind them. Sennder was, if you want, the partner to kick off such a model. Today we don't only gather

1:09:13 utilization from Sennder. We work directly with other shippers, freight buyers, and logistics service providers who give access to their utilization. So Sennder is still a super important partner to us, but now we are on our journey to be basically fully independent, and of course we will still serve carriers with utilization from Sennder, but the idea is that basically we have multiple Sennders in our portfolio. And this element is something that no one else has in the market, because

1:09:46 models such as Einride, they would also be the transportation company. So either they win the transportation contract or they will basically not electrify a specific project. We don't have to win the transportation contract. For us, we are agnostic as to who the transportation company operating is. We can sell with our model to any type of transportation company. We would help them to find utilization - we would talk to the freight buyers to identify the utilization, and then the freight buyer can decide what transportation

1:10:19 company they want to give the transportation contract to. We will work with them to enable electrification. Understood. And looking at the future, what are the things that excite you most in, let's say, the near term for Juna, and more medium-to-long term in terms of technology, like for example autonomous driving or other things that might affect it? Yeah, I would say in the short term, to me the most exciting element is - I mean, it goes without saying - basically scaling Juna and scaling the

1:10:51 team and the company to a size which I can be proud of. I'm very much proud of the size we are at now, but of course it's a drop in the ocean and I would like this drop to basically become bigger and bigger. So I'm very much focused on understanding how can I and the team with me improve the business model. How can we also ensure that our business model and what we offer remains

1:11:25 very much relevant, considering that the industry is a very dynamic one. It will go through different iterations. Cost of the trucks will go down, infrastructure will be built. So what will be the hardest challenge, and how can we, in this dynamic and ever-evolving scenario, remain relevant and keep our competitive advantage? So that is my focus, and I would say for the short to medium term, it's enough, because things are moving so quickly that it's really the ability of talking

1:11:54 to customers, getting their feedback, iterating with the team on what can be developed from a commercial model and from a technology model, and then bringing that to implementation. Long term, I do still think that electrification is to an extent a long-term journey, because if we look at the numbers and the estimations, by 2030 the estimation is that one third of newly sold trucks will be electric trucks. So

1:12:29 it's still one third by 2030. To arrive at 50% and then 60%, and so on and so forth, will take a lot of time. So I would say long term there is still electrification as a big topic, but of course the next wave will be autonomous. It is something that I think will take another 5, if not 10 years to become very much relevant, but it's always hard to predict such a technology shift. They can

1:12:57 happen much earlier, depending on how not only technology but especially the regulatory setup will evolve. So I think logistics in general, transportation in general, is such a dynamic industry that it's a good industry to be in. It's a good industry not to get bored in, and to always be thinking about what is the next transformation, what is the next thing that will disrupt the dynamics, and how can, in this case, Juna remain relevant and maybe even rethink

1:13:30 their business model to potentially even address autonomous at some point. Yeah, fascinating. And as a last message for listeners, do you have anything special you would like to leave them with, and how can people reach out to you in general? Well, what I would like to leave with the listeners is a way to get in touch with us - both if they are interested in the first person in adopting electric trucks, if they're transportation

1:14:00 companies, or partners working in electrification who might see a connection with Juna, with the Juna model. In general, I'd say it is a systemic space, so we are always not only looking for customers but also partners. Definitely visit Juna.com or even reach out directly to me on my professional email address, which is matteo.oberto@juna.com. I would be very happy to pick up a conversation - but even enthusiasts in the

1:14:34 industry who might be a bit less involved from a personal perspective, but would be curious to discuss these topics more - maybe they have good ideas. I personally am very much open to discussion, because it's a topic that fascinates me beyond office hours. So definitely reach out to us - not only to me, but to

1:15:03 the full team. I think we are a great group of passionate people and we are happy to discuss electrification. Yeah, I could feel the passion. Thanks a lot, Matteo, and keep on trucking. Thank you very much. What I appreciate most about this conversation is how concrete it stayed. Matteo doesn't frame electrification as a hype cycle. He frames it as a logistics equation. If you cannot secure reliable utilization, predictable charging, and an economic model that carriers can trust, you do not have

1:15:37 an electric trucking rollout - you have a demo. We covered the mechanics behind that equation: why depot charging is often the anchor, when public charging can work, and how semi-public shared stations can unlock scale by serving multiple logistics players. We also touched on the hidden commercial layer - subscriptions, pay-per-kilometer thinking, and the uncomfortable but essential topic of residual value and how battery performance over time shapes financing and risk. Before you go, three lines from this episode worth keeping in mind: electrification needs demand signals, not just vehicles;

1:16:15 infrastructure is not only a build-out problem, it's an operations and access problem; and the winners will be the ones who package trucks, charging, and commercial structures into something a carrier can run with confidence. Thanks for listening and keep on trucking.