Ep. 29: Davide De Michino, Speaker of the Grid Integration & Energy Focus Group at CharIN - V2G, Grid Codes and the Future of E‑Mobility

0:11 欢迎收听Smart Charge by RiDERgy播客。我是Claudio Geyken,RiDERgy的创始人兼首席执行官。这是您了解电动汽车和车队能源管理及智能充电创新的节目。

0:39 欢迎回到Smart Charge。今天我们与David Demichino交流,他在罗马。他是CharIN电网整合能源焦点小组的发言人,就职于意大利大型公用事业公司Enel X Way。我们直接深入探讨车网整合的具体方法,将充电会话转化为灵活性，从削峰填谷和时间转移到辅助服务，以及V1G与V2G(或双向充电)今天真正可行的部分和仍需实现的部分。我们剖析动态电价、小型资产聚合,以及为什么光伏加储能加智能

1:25 充电应该纳入一个统一的方案。很大一部分内容是互操作性:CCS和ISO 15118的作用、北美连接器转型,以及CharIN推动的全球协调,包括拉丁美洲现实世界中的混乱挑战，混合进口使市场碎片化。如果您关心让充电桩成为电力系统的一部分,而不仅仅是电源插座,这一期将政策、标准和产品连接成一个完整的工作堆栈。接入吧。你好David,今天怎么样?很好,谢谢。嗨Claudio,很高兴你来了。你在

2:09 罗马,还是我今天在哪里找到你?对,在罗马,在罗马。那也是你主要驻扎的地方,对吗?是的,通常是的。好的。那么,在我们深入探讨电动汽车和能源的详细话题之前,为了让听众了解他们在听谁讲话,你能介绍一下自己吗?稍微介绍一下背景,以及你是如何走到今天这个职位的?好的,当然。我是David Demichino。目前我是Enel X Way的全球产品管理和能源服务负责人。我还担任不同的角色，比如今天我代表CharIN参加。我是电网整合能源焦点小组的发言人,同时我也是Smart Tian协会内部的电动出行主席。我来到Enel和CharIN，好吧,这是另一场革命。我在2006年加入Enel,所以我已经是Enel集团的一员将近20年了,是的，非常忠诚，担任过不同的角色。

2:45 我会说我花了很大一部分时间在我们称之为全球交易的部门,该部门负责我们发电厂的运营和交易，交易是指在能源市场上。所以日内市场、辅助服务。我大约有10年时间参与这类业务。然后我转到Enel的零售部分,负责智能家居产品，首先是意大利的,然后Enel X成立了。所以我

3:35 转到Enel X在全球层面负责智能家居。然后在2020年我转到出行领域,首先作为高级产品经理负责我们称之为能源服务的部分，那是我们对车网整合服务的花哨名称，然后我负责那部分,接着我负责Enel X的整个出行产品,最近还负责其他产品。所以我基本上负责超越商品的解决方案,包括B2C和B2B的出行,以及

4:20 其他B2B解决方案,如能源监控、光伏储能,以及我们称之为小型资产灵活性的业务。然后自然而然地我加入了，我成为CharIN电网整合和能源焦点小组的发言人。这发生在我负责出行领域的能源服务部分时。我的前任老板离开了那个职位,所以Enel很自然地推荐我作为CharIN这个职位的候选人。所以我帮助

5:06 推动这个小组大约2到3年了,这个小组专注于车网整合，既从连接的角度,也从灵活性服务的角度:V1G、vehicle-to-grid等等。嗯,你拥有相当广泛的专业知识，这相当独特。那么也许听众可能想知道的一个问题是:你对电动出行方面更感兴趣,更像是一个出行领域的人,还是更像一个能源领域的人?或者你会说你同样喜欢这两个领域?

5:53 正如我解释的,我的背景，我会说我的DNA是能源。但自然而然地我也正在成为一个出行领域的人,这意味着多年来我需要进入和理解，我不想说汽车行业,也许那太雄心勃勃了，但至少要理解什么是出行,以及电动出行如何改变汽车在整个行业中的角色。而且

6:34 不仅仅是能源,因为这对我们作为公用事业公司来说是一场革命,对汽车行业也是如此，也许那里的革命比公用事业领域更大。是的,当然,这两个领域都在经历革命,然后它们汇聚在一起。关于这两个领域,你的愿景是什么?你已经在这个行业相当长时间了,所以你见证了演变,你可能也在密切关注长期趋势。

7:09 有没有趋势,有没有你认为会在能源领域和出行领域发生的愿景?好的,当然。我看到两个世界正在日益对话。我会说当我加入负责出行方面时,我看到两个行业虽然相连但并没有一起对话。现在,主要由于监管,也由于车辆能够为电网提供灵活性的机会,它们正在

7:43 融合。当我加入负责出行事务时,我看到两个行业我会说是相连的但没有一起对话。现在,主要由于监管,也由于车辆能够为电网提供灵活性的机会,它们正在

8:26 我会说这是正在一起工作的行业。我不想说他们正在合作,但他们正在一起工作,因为双方有着相同的目标。而且日复一日,似乎他们也会开始有一点竞争，这两个原本互不接触的行业。所以也许不是现在,但已经有不同的例子。汽车行业,你知道,正在尝试进入能源领域。显然这是一种自然的迁移

9:07 因为有了电动汽车,所以我认为未来他们会和我们有一点竞争。我们作为一家公用事业公司,可以将其视为我们领域的一个新进入者，显然这还处于非常早期的阶段,但确实如此。你认为,就能源领域而言,主要会是可再生能源加上一点电池吗?也许还有核能?你对我们的发展方向有什么看法吗?然后

9:41 交通出行领域，会全部电动化吗,会不会有一些例外情况?你在这方面有什么观点吗?让我们一步步来回答。关于能源,是的,肯定是可再生能源。我认为没有人会改变主意。我们正处于这场革命之中,所以我认为不会有什么改变。核能是不同的。核能也被归入可再生能源技术类别。所以它肯定会在未来发挥作用

10:16 多大的作用，我想这也取决于技术演进。核能领域正在发生不同的事情。我不是这方面的专家,但有不同的技术正在开发中,这些技术可以改变的不仅是人们对核能的看法,还有它在特定国家发电结构中的价值。在交通出行方面,是的,这有点有趣。乘用车，当然,无论如何,它们都会

10:55 是电池车辆,所以这一点毫无疑问。只是时间问题。几年前我可能会说只有重型车辆上的氢能还有空间。说实话,看到汽车领域和主要卡车制造商的情况,似乎很清楚重型车辆也将由电池驱动。我认为尚未做出决定的是海运。我认为电池可以发挥作用,但让我们拭目以待。所以有

11:41 挪威的不同例子,比如渡轮,已经实现了电动化。但长途货运,让我们拭目以待。还没有，我认为用电池来实现会很有挑战性。所以也许氢能可以在这个组合中占一部分。然后是航空航天,我不知道。我会说我不是很专业的专家。我看到一些关于电池驱动飞机的研究项目,还处于初期阶段。让我们拭目以待。老实说,我不知道。

12:34 这确实处于非常早期的阶段。也许氢能也可以在这方面发挥一点作用，谁知道呢,是的。就更日常的话题而言,我们可以想象，你最关注的话题是什么,你最常处理的是什么?作为这个领域众所周知的权威人士,我认为有几个技术要点和几个监管要点是我们经常

13:16 讨论的。一个是关于物理资产接入电网的电网规范的所有新修订。有需求连接要求和对发电机的要求，这是正在修订的两个主要文件,整个行业可能已经为此工作了两年。这将改变很多事情,特别是对发电机的角色,他们正在制定关于vehicle-to-grid、车辆

13:55 和充电器的具体要求。从监管角度来看,这肯定是主要话题之一。还有，目前还没有涉及CharIN,但我认为未来会涉及，需求响应网络规范,这是一个新的网络规范,将推动需求响应服务需要如何提供的技术规范。有一个关于子计量的特定部分，我不记得他们具体怎么称呼它，专用测量设备,如果我没记错的话是DMD。

14:39 这也将开启很多机会,因为它提供了进行子计量的能力,仅在专用设备上进行灵活性管理和性能管理。所以你可以只用充电器来进行灵活性调节,而不需要整个建筑或整个房间。一旦它变得适用,这将是一个游戏规则改变者。我不想涉及监管方面正在发生的其他也影响交通出行的事情。有数据法案。还有

15:10 涵盖汽车共享数据新要求的法规，本质上是SOC,这是最重要的数据点之一。在技术话题方面,显然我们仍在研究vehicle-to-grid解决方案,或者我们在CharIN中称之为双向充电。虽然现在我们看到越来越多的DC商业试点，姑且这么称呼，我们需要在AC双向充电方面更加努力。对于

15:56 乘用车的最终客户来说,这有更大的价值,主要是因为充电器的成本更低。我们还在研究电池退化的问题。当我们进行双向充电时,行业中有一些，我想说，误导性信息,不是来自汽车行业,这是好的一点,而是来自其他行业,暗示如果我们进行双向充电,电池可能会降低健康度。所以他们去X,去B，那就是你想去的地方。

16:35 所以作为充电行业,我们正在努力就此发布一份出版物。我想说这是桌面上的主要议题,是的,没错。也许在我们更详细地深入讨论这些话题之前退一步:CharIN是什么?你能提供一些背景,以及它是如何创建的吗?是的,CharIN是推广充电标准的国际协会,比如CCS或任何标准化工作。它是一个协会

17:14 诞生于好几年前,这在行业里很正常,最初主要是汽车制造商和充电桩制造商的融合,但现在规模更大了一些,也包括了公用事业公司和配电运营商。我想说它是一个把不同行业聚集在一起的协会,讨论出行,讨论电动出行。我认为它分成了不同的工作组。我所代表的，我是发言人，是电网整合与能源

17:55 工作组,主要聚焦于各种形式的电网整合,如我之前所说,涉及电网、物理连接,以及服务。而其他工作组更侧重于充电桩连接、通信协议等技术方面。这是一个推动行业标准化的专家小组。此外,显然CharIN在布鲁塞尔很有名,也就是说布鲁塞尔的监管机构，我想说，很重视它的声音,并且

18:41 在倡导方面为所有代表公司提供了很多帮助。是的,这基本上就是CharIN在倡导方面所做的事情。然后还有他们所谓的"Plugfest"活动,把技术聚在一起提前测试。这是一个只有会员才能参加的活动。显然这不是免费的,但这是一个很有意思的活动,因为他们每年在欧洲举办两到三次这样的活动,

19:20 在美国也有两三次,等等。所以我认为对于有技术需要测试的人来说,这是一个很有意思的机会,因为你能找到汽车厂商,能找到充电桩制造商,可以和不同品牌一起测试。这很不错。那么CharIN，它是主要标准吗?我认为它以CCS而闻名。我想这也是CharIN推动的关键标准。CCS和ISO 15118在多大程度上由CharIN推动,而CharIN

19:56 的界限在哪里?我理解，我是说CharIN不是，是的,CharIN不是监管机构。它不是ISO或标准化机构。它是一个推动标准化的行业参与者协会。所以显然我们支持CCS,我们支持ISO 15118-20等等。我们只是推动技术的标准化和互操作性。显然CharIN内部的不同成员有时也是那些坐在

20:38 监管机构谈判桌旁的人,是的,比如ISO等等。所以活动范围既包括CCS的直流侧,而且主要是，我理解，CHAdeMO会不在范围内,对吧?CHAdeMO由另一个协会推动,即CHAdeMO协会,而且它似乎正在走向终结。我知道过去他们曾努力合并到一起,也包括与新的中国标准合并,但我没有很多

21:17 相关信息,所以我们拭目以待。现在我想说欧洲，这很清楚，是的。在美国现在有著名的特斯拉接口的故事,即北美充电接口,我想说未来仍不明朗。当他们宣布时这是个大新闻,因为所有汽车制造商逐日宣布他们正在转向北美充电接口。我们拭目以待，我仍然看到充电运营商在

21:52 推广CCS1,所以还不清楚CCS1是否已死。看起来是这样,但仍不明确。这有点混乱,对用户、对消费者来说不是好事,因为当标准存在不确定性时,也会减缓技术的采用，在这种情况下就是电动出行。拉丁美洲也还在讨论中,虽然在智利我们可以说这是确定的,

22:30 其他国家却不一样。而且CharIN也在努力，我想说是在最近一年，在拉丁美洲倡导标准化,因为有一些国家,大多数,主要是巴西,我想说受到了中国的影响,所以他们有大量进口的中国电动汽车,给市场造成了混乱。因此CharIN正在努力推广CCS2作为主要标准。

23:07 其他国家，不,这很好，其他国家仍然很混乱,也就是说归根结底,在欧洲我们很幸运,因为我们有CCS2。这方面没有争议。我们在其他事情上有争议,但在基础技术上没有,而在其他国家他们仍处于电动出行的第一步，你知道的,他们需要采用什么标准，而在欧洲我们已经过了这些讨论阶段。

23:38 差不多。说得通。而在交流充电方面,老实说我不太确定有多少交流标准。我想有美国的Type 1,是这么叫的,对吧?然后欧洲有Type 2。CharIN也在关注Type 2,对吧?也就是说CharIN现在也在关注北美充电接口,意思是它不是在推广一个特定标准,而是在推广CCS2的标准化。

24:10 被推动了,然后是CCS1,因为那似乎是标准。老实说,我认为情况类似。我们在欧洲会有Type 2,似乎在美国会有北美接口，这是从物理角度来看。从通信角度来看,我想说至少在那方面我们会有相同的标准,所以ISO 15118-2和ISO 15118-20似乎会是标准。这

24:44 很好,因为至少在语言方面我们会说同样的语言。是的,明白了。在你所涉及的标准世界里，你已经提到了一些,比如电网规范，还有其他与充电非常相关的重要标准吗?我也在想感应充电,例如,或者任何与V2G相关的东西。我想说,是的,在感应充电方面,我不是跟进这个的人,

25:19 但确实有相关讨论。ISO 15118-20也支持无线充电，这是否会实现,我不知道。我只看到特斯拉的机器人出租车会有这个功能;这是其中一项技术,你知道的,我们是否会扩大规模，我认为,是的,你说得对。就我关注的那些标准而言:电网规范是最重要的之一,因为

25:51 这影响很大。正如我所说,ISO 15118-20也是主要标准,也因为现在有不同的法规在推动20标准。AFIR的新授权法案也要求从2027年起在私人充电中使用20标准。所以这也会产生影响,因为20标准带来了不同的技术复杂性和运营成本。现在我们有IEC 61851，也就是脉宽调制、电流

26:38 PWM标准，这是交流充电的历史性标准。我认为它本质上是模拟协议,因为它们不交换任何信息。归根结底,它是驱动全球交流充电过程的标准。现在的赌注是,似乎推动力是让20标准也应用于交流充电,也包括私人充电。这将是一个具有挑战性的过渡，我认为需要数年时间，因为需要充电桩

27:15 支持20标准,车辆也需要支持,而汽车行业在采用新技术方面并不是特别快。这是一个复杂的行业,监管严格,所以需要数年时间。所以我们现在看到直流车辆上有20标准,但在交流方面还有其他不同的复杂性。20标准仍需要一些正在进行的修订。所以这是一个复杂的标准、复杂的生态系统,也因为我们需要让不同的标准共存。我们有来自汽车行业的标准,有

27:58 来自能源行业的标准等等，这也没有简化事情。我认为你处在最佳位置。有很多人想知道:我们已经讨论V2G和双向充电很多很多年了。我觉得此时这个对话也稍微阐明了为什么它还没有到来。也许你也可以分享你对这个复杂环境的看法，因为V2G这个术语是在1997年由特拉华大学的一位教授创造的

28:33 所以已经有一段时间了;这个想法已经存在,但我们仍然只是看到最近的公告和试点项目,仍然没有真正的商业化、大规模应用。那么你的看法是什么?为什么需要这么长时间?那里的复杂性是什么?什么时候会大规模应用?也许对于那些听过我过去其他演讲的人来说,我会重复一些内容。

29:05 我认为作为一个行业,几年前我们制造了一个泡沫,当时在欧洲基本上只有两款车:雷诺Zoe和日产Leaf。Leaf使用CHAdeMO,而CHAdeMO从一开始就具有双向能力。所以，我买了一辆，不出所料,基本上整个行业都说,"哦,伙计们,我们有一个巨大的机会;我们将部署所有具有双向能力的汽车,"这就奠定了基础。在那个时期,不同的试点项目也开始启动

29:41 对我们来说,显然。车辆不仅仅是车辆,还可以成为移动电池，即使对非专业人士来说，这个信息开始深入人心。但后来发生了一些事情:CHAdeMO基本上消亡了。CCS正在强势进入,而一开始CCS没有双向充电能力。所以我们需要等待整个标准化过程,直到至少从

30:19 技术角度来看,你可以以可互操作的方式实现它。所以我认为过去3到4年整个行业有点处于待命状态,因为我们在等待一些东西，等待ISO 15118,等待数据共享等等。现在,去年我们说2026年将是关键之年。我认为现在这是真的:2026年将是我们开始拥有商业解决方案的一年。

30:52 雷诺去年开始推出雷诺5，显然这是一个封闭的生态系统;你需要从雷诺购买所有东西。我认为这是一个好的开始,因为归根结底这是一个商业试点,不是现在需要扩大规模的东西,所以很好。在英国还有Octopus Energy与比亚迪和Zaptech合作，也是一个封闭的生态系统,但归根结底是在英国向前推进的东西。然后

31:30 上周有一个关于新宝马iX3的展示,它也具有直流双向能力,他们也在销售充电桩。德国的业主与宝马一起宣布了这个方案。这很好,因为似乎这不是一个封闭的生态系统，阅读一些文章和文本表明它不会是一个封闭的生态系统。这很好,因为这是我们实现可互操作V2G所需要的。奔驰

32:14 也在推出新的电动GLC,似乎具有双向能力。所以,意味着2026年将是重要的一年。此外,沃尔沃正在推出具有双向能力的EX60,如果我没记错的话还有EX90。所以这也意味着高端汽车品牌正在开始更大规模地做一些事情。雷诺也在我认为是入门级细分市场，雷诺5、雷诺4,似乎还有Mégane，这些车现在都是双向的,意味着行业正在推进。我认为明年将是

32:59 我们可以开始拥有解决方案的一年,客户将开始尝试,我预计我们会有很多经验教训,因为那将是我认为大型试点的一年，不是数百个,而是数万个，所以整个行业都会有经验教训。你想补充什么吗?不,我想问:只是想了解,标准化过程是如何运作的?你说CHAdeMO有这个

33:39 双向功能。是因为福岛事件,日本人，因为CHAdeMO来自日本，比我们在欧洲使用CCS建立得更快。尽管如此,似乎并非没有挑战。让它运行起来需要很多很多年,但也许从外部来看,从电动车驾驶员的天真视角来看,你能否解释一下，鉴于你如此深入地参与标准化过程、电网规范以及ISO 15118,其中涉及车辆

34:11 与充电桩通信，它在哪里,什么东西这么耗时?换句话说,最大的工作量在哪里?我想说,要让V2X服务落地,需要很多要素。因为首先你需要有技术，车辆和充电桩。正如我之前所说,V2G正式定义已经有几年了,但仍需要一些修订。而开发一辆汽车通常需要一个新平台,所以一个完整的

34:55 新汽车平台通常需要大约8年时间,也就是很多年。所以这就是时间表,而充电桩制造商会快一点,但汽车行业不会。所以这是第一点需要知道的。你只有技术,然后你需要把这项技术投入现场。这意味着充电桩需要连接到电网。而要连接到电网,V2G充电桩需要

35:28 被视为发电机。这和连接电视或洗碗机不一样，我想说,发电机需要适当的安全要求。简单来说:连接的安全法规通常因国家而异,有时甚至因配电系统运营商(DSO)而异。你住在德国,你知道,这个国家有，如果我没记错的话，800个、4000个……但这变得很复杂。这是个问题,因为对于

36:10 行业参与者来说,你需要为不同的市场或子市场认证设备或汽车。这就是复杂性。然后你只是买一辆电动车,买一个充电桩,连接到电网。然后你需要用这些能量做点什么，你想把它注入电网,但你需要做什么?所以你需要一个服务提供商来做这件事。虽然很自然地认为服务提供商可以是电力公司或汽车制造商,但并不

36:47 总是这样。它也可以是第三方,需要与充电桩通信,需要从汽车部分接收一些数据,但他们需要从这种灵活性、从这种能量中提取价值。所以你需要在市场上运营,或者只是在电力公司内部运营,比如平衡投资组合等等。所以这就是复杂性。有很多不同的要素,每一个都很复杂,有时这些要素需要涉及不同的行业。

37:21 这些行业中的大多数都受到严格监管,比如汽车、电力公司等等。所以这就是为什么要实现既能正常工作又能互操作的东西并不那么简单,这意味着我可以像更换电力合同一样更换运营商。这不仅仅是一个合同，它需要各方之间的数字通信,所以需要标准等等。所以很多事情需要从价值链的不同层面发生

38:01 。我认为这是一个非常好的解释。谢谢你。你已经给出了一些例子，你认为现在,一旦26年到来,会有快速扩展吗,可能是指数级扩展?例如,是否也有一条路径可以改装一些已经安装的AC硬件,这样AC充电桩，不是所有基础设施都需要更换，而且价格足够便宜、足够有吸引力,以便

38:31 通过这种潜力释放的价值可以被利用?这种过渡会很缓慢,因为没有改装的可能性。如果车载充电器没有设计成具有双向功能和-20标准,就不可能改装。而-20标准,正如我之前所说,有一些技术要求需要特定的技术。我会简化说明,但这不像发送一个，我会发送更新然后

39:09 就能工作,事实并非如此。所以显然我不期待这个会更快地扩展,或者也许会更快地扩展,是的,但是在新销售上,不会有改装的机会。我想说不会,V2G不会是这种情况。

39:32 然后,从经济角度来看是否有意义,这取决于客户细分市场与技术。虽然目前我们可以说V2G在DC上是一个技术问题,但DC在乘用车上没有太大意义,尤其是因为DC充电桩的成本会是2000欧元。所以要从V2G获得2000欧元的收益,我想说你需要好几年。所以这就是为什么所有行业都在推动

40:11 AC方案。但在AC上,从监管角度来看技术还没有确定。作为一个行业,我们仍然需要解决一些问题,本质上也包括电网连接法规。但这将是游戏规则改变者,这就是为什么最终Octopus、比亚迪和Zaptec有一个专有解决方案,它不是专有的,但它没有利用标准。因为当我看到仍然没有

40:48 事实标准,没有批准的标准。但这是我们可以扩展的地方。所以正如我所说,我不认为明年会是扩展之年,不会是成千上万、数以万计V2G用户的一年。我们会有很多经验教训。但我认为标准化将在明年结束,尽管显然你需要适应。所以我认为我们仍然

41:15 需要几年时间才能达到作为一个行业可以认真扩展的时刻,这意味着每辆车都将是V2G,每个新用户都将有一个双向充电桩等等。显然,欧盟委员会以及成员国可以在激励措施或其他政策方面发挥很大作用来加快这一进程。有道理,是的。只是为了理解,从物理角度

41:56 来说,从第一性原理的角度来看,DC和AC双向充电之间存在很大争议。为什么AC要便宜得多?是因为车辆中的组件规模更大,所以如果你把双向逆变器放在那里,车辆端会有更大的规模吗?不,让我们消除行业的另一个偏见。不是V2G使车辆或充电桩比V1G更贵。

42:33 因为过去要用CHAdeMO实现V2G,你需要直流电,而自然地,直流充电桩内部有一个转换器将交流电转换为直流电,这是有成本的。这就是改变一切的部件。所以如果你可以利用车载充电器,也就是车辆上的转换器,显然你可以购买一个便宜的交流充电桩,它仍然会有一点V2G的额外成本,主要是因为那些部件,正如我之前说的,

43:10 有一些技术规格会贵一点。但这意味着从底层技术角度来看,单向充电和双向充电之间并没有太大区别。是所有其他需要协同工作才能实现的东西让成本增加了一点。但直流电的成本之所以高,仅仅是因为你在直流充电桩里有一个转换器,所以你需要支付转换器的成本,它最终

43:43 是一个逆变器,而且很贵。这就是为什么你看到宝马V2G充电桩售价2000欧元或1800欧元左右,而雷诺充电桩包括安装和所有费用可能也在2000欧元左右。这意味着它是另一个量级的产品,本质上就是因为这个原因。是的,有道理。那你们和其他标准化委员会合作吗，比如国际能源署有Task 53工作组,或者其他不同的，你们在

44:28 试图与他们保持一致吗?是的,意思是CharIN显然是一个历史悠久的协会,与不同的组织合作。我想说最近最大的合作是与国际能源署Task 53工作组的合作,这是一个由专家组成的新团体,推动V2G的互操作性，意思是你可以在充电桩之间、在配电系统运营商之间移动车辆,而一切都能正常工作。作为CharIN,我们在一个框架内建立合作,因为我们的

45:05 DNA就是要有互操作的解决方案。CharIN通常会加入其他允许协会参与的团体,因为有些团体不允许协会参与。例如,CharIN在可持续交通论坛中,这是欧盟委员会交通总司的一个处理交通问题的团体。所以是的,CharIN最终是唯一专注于

45:48 电动出行垂直领域的协会。电动出行垂直领域没有其他协会。有道理。除此之外,我们谈了很多关于双向充电和V2G的话题,正如我们讨论的,这不是现在的机会,但它正在到来。所以车网融合的话题，已经有不少今天就相关的。你们主要关注哪些方面?是配电系统运营商服务,还是更多能源市场方面,或者更多例如平衡服务?而那

46:22 这取决于具体情况,这与特定国家的电力市场设计密切相关。虽然在电力市场方面有一个总体的欧洲方法,但我想说各个国家之间差异很大。不同的国家在做不同的事情。而隐性灵活性，意思是,为那些不了解这个领域的人简化一下,意思是稍微利用一下电价,稍微投机一下，

47:03 对于V2G来说,意思是我可以在电价高的时候放电,用这些能量为我的家庭或建筑、商业建筑供电,并在电价低的时候充电，真正的价值更多来自提供辅助服务,意思是向公用事业公司或配电系统运营商提供灵活性服务。那时价值可能会更有吸引力一些。此外,真正的大价值在于如果你能叠加这些，如果你能

47:41 尝试将隐性价值与例如配电系统运营商项目叠加，这是第三个价值,在某些国家,根据监管规定,你可以叠加,这就是对用户来说开始变得有吸引力的地方。也许在B2C方面,是的,意思是最终我有一辆电动汽车和一个充电桩。但让我们想想每天需要充电数千辆车的大型车队。或者让我们想想重型车辆或卡车,它们将

48:18 每辆车有一兆瓦时的电池。这就是价值在任何情况下都会变得有吸引力的地方,因为我们谈论的是令人难以置信的能量交换。所以这大概就是价值所在。显然,输电系统运营商是一个更成熟的市场,因为输电系统运营商侧的辅助服务,我想说,是现代电力市场的核心DNA元素之一。配电系统运营商市场在整个欧盟是一个更新的事物。不同的国家有不同的

48:55 成熟度水平。我想说灵活性市场仍在发展中,但有好的例子也有不那么好的例子。希腊,我想说,很复杂，它非常依赖地理位置。所有小型资产的灵活性,包括V2G,在你能够聚合的时候才有意义。这意味着你需要聚合数千个资产才能做出有意义的事情,而配电系统运营商服务有时基于变电站按表计聚合,有时

49:40 规模非常非常小,所以你没有流动性。你不能聚合1000个用户;你只能聚合10个,但那个你无法妥善管理。所以这就是为什么配电系统运营商还不够成熟。在北欧国家有不同的试点项目,意大利也有一些试点项目已经运行了大约一年。法国也有一些配电系统运营商的试点项目在运行,但我仍然会说这还处于早期阶段。是的,有道理。然后你已经暗示了

50:12 成熟度水平的问题,一个推测是,更成熟的市场,比如平衡服务,流动性较低或潜力较小,最终现在随着所有电池的到来和越来越多的电动汽车参与,它们也会很快饱和。然后现货市场有更多的流动性,因此长期来看会更有吸引力,而配电系统运营商市场确实还有待确定,因为它太不成熟了,对吧?

50:47 那么,你同意这一点吗?这取决于谁在管理这件事。如果你想想那些大型的、垂直整合的电力公司,它们拥有发电、配电、输电以及零售和批发业务，是的,有足够的流动性,但这些并不是在批发市场上改变头寸的花生米。日内市场在价格飙升方面会变得更有趣一些;你可以玩一玩。但真正的钱,正如我所说的,是在

51:31 辅助服务中。为什么是辅助服务?因为这些市场中的大多数都有容量付费。如果你提供容量,你通常会收到，每年一些可观的欧元金额,这就是大部分价值所在。然后,当你需要操作资产时也会有价值，你需要给车辆充电或放电,如果我们谈论的是双向车辆的话。但那就是

52:06 固定部分所在。然后是流动性,意思是显然现在只是花生米,但在未来我们需要了解这些技术将如何与发电厂和公用事业规模的电池竞争。它们会更有竞争力吗?因为归根结底,V2G资产是用户为了另一个目的而购买的，我买我的电动车是为了移动,然后我可以做灵活性服务,所以我不需要通过灵活性来收回电动车的投资,也许,或者

52:45 也许不是,因为用户对价格更敏感,所以他们会表现得好像:如果你不给我每年几百欧元,我什么都不想做，我只会给我的车充电并用它来移动。所以也许公用事业规模的资产可以发挥作用。说实话,没有人知道这一点;在行业中这仍然是一个问号。是的,这是一个非常开放的问题。我认为你无法在大规模上进行研究。这是

53:17 时间会告诉我们,一旦你尝试出售它,人们是否愿意为他们获得的价值而牺牲车辆的可用性,对吧?这就是你的观点,对吧?这是一个关于用户意识和信任的问题。我认为我们将会有越来越多了解情况的用户,他们理解这样做的概念,信任正在销售服务的合作伙伴，

53:53 服务,以开始这种转变,但我们需要多年时间,是的。我相信你对此也有看法。我的意思是,我们在非常高的层面上讨论,我认为这也是我们的泡沫。我们意识到这些机会,但确实传达和教育市场、让最终用户参与这些机会(如果他们不了解的话)也是一个挑战,对吧?这也是一个很大的挑战。是的,这是主要的

54:24 挑战,而且你还有不同的子挑战,因为说"用户"太笼统了。你有一个住宅用户,他有一些挑战。你有一个最后一英里配送公司的车队经理,他有其他挑战、对这类服务的其他看法。你有大型办公室的设施经理,需要向员工提供充电服务,有其他需求和其他意识,或者可能对服务有其他期望。你可能有一个拥有

55:08 电动公交车的公共交通公司,他们有其他事情。所以这也很复杂，不同的客户细分。你不能以同样的方式管理他们。你需要为每个细分市场提供不同的东西和不同的价值主张。而且你有这个特权，我认为这是我们第一次在播客上有来自意大利的嘉宾。所以我们绝对需要也谈一谈意大利。你对意大利市场在

55:41 出行电气化方面的看法是什么,与你观察到的其他市场相比,对国际观众来说可能有哪些令人惊讶的事实?意思是我们在欧洲电气化图表中不是第一名国家，电动车的市场份额仍然非常小。虽然我们在公共充电基础设施方面有优势,我们有很多公共充电桩,这显然也是Enel的努力,但也来自

56:22 近年来很多公司的努力,所以我们在CPO方面有一个真正有竞争力的市场。从充电的角度来看,我会说意大利是定位良好的国家之一。在电动车采用方面,正如我之前所说,我们仍然需要增长。上个月我看到一些报告显示了非常有希望的新电动车销售数字,所以这是一个有希望的迹象。不过,还有

56:57 一些激励措施即将在意大利开放,不是针对所有公民,而是针对特定的公民和特定的企业。所以让我们看看，我会说我对未来有良好的感觉。我认为现在在意大利发生的事情只是一个问题,就是我们是否想要从政治角度、从激励角度加快速度。我认为现在我们比

57:38 几年前的一些国家更幸运一些,因为我们有很多当时没有的入门级电动车。所以不仅有,我会说,现在销售很多的纯中国公司比亚迪,还有来自知名汽车品牌的低入门级汽车，有雷诺的一款有趣的车,现在有雪铁龙发布入门级汽车,有菲亚特，所以对于,我会说,一个

58:16 不是大公司高管的客户,而是一个普通公民来说,开始在电动车生态系统中进行这一旅程,有很多机会。未来会有更多,因为我看到了一些汽车公告即将到来。所以,正如我们在开始时所说的,我认为未来对所有乘用车来说都是电动的,在意大利也是如此。是的,完全正确。嗯,我们有一位嘉宾，

58:52 也许你认识他,Electric Felix,他在欧洲各地旅行。他在意大利充电,然后在西班牙,他提到很遗憾意大利的价格作为CPO与西班牙相比如此之高。你对此有解释吗,你认为价格会变得更便宜,以便人们更有动力转向电动车吗?而且

59:18 这是我们在意大利一直面临的问题之一，我们总体上能源成本很高,不仅仅是电动汽车的能源成本。这是由于我们对能源征收的一些特定税收,但电价监管结构本身也导致了高价格。而且在发电方面,我们的边际技术有时仍然是煤炭或天然气。意大利没有核电。

1:00:00 所以过去基础负荷一直是煤炭。现在是绿色能源了,好的,但过去不是。而且现在欧洲对市场的系统边际价格有很大的争议,可能无法反映当前欧洲发电厂的发电和现状。但这就是事实。所以目前意大利的电价总体上很高,不仅仅是

1:00:35 电动汽车，到处都是。能在家充电的人没有大问题,因为你可以支付低于每千瓦时0.20欧元的价格,这是非常非常低的,没有问题。但在公共充电,尤其是在大功率充电桩上,价格开始接近1欧元。现在最近几个月稍微低一些，0.60欧元、0.80欧元,取决于充电点运营商,取决于移动服务提供商。但是的,这是一个因素，在意大利,电力,我会说,

1:01:10 基本上比其他国家更贵,但这不是针对电动汽车或针对电动汽车充电的特定税收，而是总体上基于意大利的电力结构。你认为有没有趋势转向现货电价或动态电价,无论是私人充电还是公共充电桩,这能否成为让人们在电价便宜、绿色能源充足时充电的机会?这是一个很大的

1:01:42 现在整个行业都在争论的问题,因为过去每个人都在推动:"我们需要动态费率,我们需要在所有方面都有动态费率。我们需要能源的动态费率,电网费用的动态费率,我们需要在所有方面都有动态费率。"然后像英国这样的成熟市场开始意识到:也许我们把普通客户的生活搞得太复杂了。然后其他形式，我会说更成熟的形式，诞生了,行业称之为"分时段使用"电价。

1:02:21 当你有一个特定的电价，与正常价格相比大幅折扣，只针对你可以远程控制的特定设备,并且客户给予同意:客户授权公用事业公司或服务提供商控制,例如,电动汽车充电器。作为这种控制的交换,也就是说公用事业公司会自动优化充电过程,你会在充电过程中获得高度折扣的费率。

1:03:03 动态费率现在似乎仍然只在北欧国家更常见,因为那里提供的服务更成熟。在其他国家,我们拭目以待，欧盟委员会有一些义务,或者说建议,要有动态费率,但并不是所有成员国都普遍采用。客户也希望更确定他们支付的电价,并且对这种

1:03:42 机制了解不够。所以这又回到了我之前说的,我们需要建立的认知机制。但也许现在我们有更有创意的解决方案,比如分时段使用电价,而不是动态费率,这给公用事业公司带来一点风险,但从客户角度来看更容易理解和更安全。有道理。你说有几件事在

1:04:12 你的脑海里,比如数据法案,如果我没记错的话,它几天前刚刚生效。嗯,是的,星期五。所以是个及时的话题。是的,所以，我们在9月15日录制，你对此有什么看法?它在多大程度上真正是一个游戏规则改变者?数据访问和数据定价会发生很大变化吗?你的看法是什么?显然现在只是开始。

1:04:43 当然,对于这个行业内的人来说,这实际上是一颗炸弹。这是一颗炸弹,因为它改变了很多东西。它说每个服务、每个向云端发送数据的设备，也就是我们所说的物联网设备或服务，这些数据是用户的财产。但这也是过去的情况;它需要实时向客户或客户授权的第三方开放访问。这意味着

1:05:22 这可以为想要在这些数据上提供额外服务的服务提供商开辟很多机会。而且,第二点开启了服务互操作性的浪潮。也许我有一台将数据发送到一个云端的洗碗机,我想把洗碗机迁移到另一个云端，这必须是强制性的。显然这是一个大爆炸。我的一位关注监管机构的同事总是说,该法案就像是非个人数据的GDPR。这就是大

1:06:04 爆炸。对于那些在GDPR生效时在场的人来说,那是一团糟，合同、网站和所有方面都发生了巨大变化。该法案也是一样,但它甚至更大,因为它涵盖了所有其他数据:使用数据,以及很多，我会说有巨大的数据流需要被监管,需要被共享。每个人都需要调整他们的系统等等。所以我认为,这肯定只是

1:06:42 开始,9月12日生效,但我认为我们需要数年时间才能在整个行业，应该说是多个行业，中得到适当部署,因为数据是跨行业的。当然,对于想要基于数据构建额外创新服务的初创公司和服务提供商来说,这是一个机会。作为一个初创公司本身,其中一件仍然不明确的事情是:是否涉及

1:07:19 成本,对吧?管理这些数据，无论是云服务、存储还是数据传输。显然,管理数据的一方，举一个例子，是汽车OEM。他们会有成本,而且他们将如何为这种数据访问定价尚不清楚。这是行业正在讨论的另一点,因为该法案说

1:07:54 用户你会免费提供这些数据,但对于第三方，也就是想要提供B2B2C服务的B2B参与者，你也可以收费。具体多少还不清楚。欧盟委员会似乎会发布一份文件或某些常见问题解答,说明这个费用可以有多高以及应该如何计算。但在汽车领域,当我们谈论某些数据时,还有一条红线,即SOC，也就是电池电量，和SOH，健康状态,也就是我能

1:08:31 充多少电,我简化一下,还有GPS和位置信息(在适当的时候)需要免费共享。所以没人知道未来这会如何运作。我最近在LinkedIn上写了一篇帖子讨论这个问题,提出了一种可能的模式。在数字服务领域有一个众所周知的模式,就是免费增值模式。也许汽车行业会开放一些服务,包括B2B2C服务免费提供,只提供一些法规要求的简单数据,而更多的高级服务可能会收费。让我们拭目以待,这才刚刚

1:09:14 开始。这个行业要消化的东西很多,是个复杂的事情。是的,这是一个非常有趣的观点,时间会告诉我们它将如何发展。你也提到了LinkedIn，你总是在那里发布有趣的内容。我也推荐大家关注你。你说过的其中一件事是电动汽车、充电桩、聚合商、公用事业公司和电网运营商必须说同一种语言。这意味着不仅仅是ISO 15118-20和OCPP,还有面向灵活性的协议,比如OpenADR、IEEE

1:09:50 2030.5,不幸的是还有很多其他的。这些协议支持实时协调、预测和调度。你能详细说说你发这个帖子时的感受,以及你的想法，你想让大家知道什么?我的感受，我认为不只是我这么想，是这很混乱,就像我们之前说的。充电桩和车辆只是

1:10:22 我们需要构建的复杂生态系统中的一部分,才能让V2G成为现实。还有很多额外的东西需要标准化。我提到过,比如灵活性提供商和灵活性服务运营商之间的通信，配电系统运营商或者任何将参与其中的机构。这种连接仍然缺失。有OpenADR,它似乎正在成为事实上的标准,但它仍然不是正式的标准。就像我说的,这有点

1:11:07 混乱,因为有很多事情需要发生。我们需要连接整个端到端。每一方都需要与其他方通信,对于每个部分你需要一个协议,而有时它没有标准化,所以有很多事情要做。有一个双向的联盟

1:11:43 充电联盟,这是德国经济和气候行动部推动的行业组织之一,两年前启动,他们决定把所有欧洲行业聚集在一起,了解我们需要做什么才能让双向充电成为现实。他们的成果之一，每个人都可以免费下载，正是这个:如果我们看车辆到电网的端到端,我们在数据、通信、协议等方面需要什么。

1:12:16 如果你下载这份报告,你会明白这很混乱，不是混乱,而是有很多事情需要发生,由不同机构创建的大量数据需要交换。这就是为什么,回到我之前说的,我们在市场上看到的第一批服务是完全，我会说苹果风格的服务,你知道，比如雷诺:你需要从雷诺购买所有东西;比亚迪和Octopus:你需要

1:12:48 在同一个套餐里购买所有东西。这简化了服务,因为他们完全控制一切,控制所有数据。开发起来很容易,维护起来很容易,测试起来也很容易,而互操作性显然更具挑战性。是的,我认为这种复杂性，这也是欧盟委员会沙盒提案背后的意图。我想你也暗示过这一点,你认为拥有更多这样的大规模沙盒会

1:13:20 非常有用。这是否仍然只是汽车行动计划中的一个条目?让我们看看，我们需要成员国在欧洲层面实施自愿的V2G沙盒。不同的国家正在研究这个问题,我也在和欧盟委员会一起,试图理解拥有一个沙盒意味着什么。但我

1:13:55 担心的是它是自愿的。每个成员国需要决定他们是否想要有一个。所以我预计这会非常分散地部署。但让我们看看，未来几个月会有不同的会议讨论这个问题。我们会看到的。有道理。当我们接近尾声时,再次展望未来,你对哪些趋势或创新特别感到兴奋,无论是在出行

1:14:32 领域还是在能源领域?

1:14:38 当然,V2G是其中之一，无论如何它都将是一个游戏规则改变者。所以如果有人在听而且还不了解它,你需要关注它,在这个行业的投资方面也要关注,因为它将成为整个世界的游戏规则改变者。我们将拥有

1:15:06 巨大的电池容量,闲置很多小时，对行业来说是一个巨大的机会。你提到了AI。显然我认为每个人都在关注AI,包括那些只是使用ChatGPT之类的人。这将改变一切。在能源领域，这仍然不是一个快速发展的行业，它还处于开始阶段,但我预计在流程和创新方面会有颠覆,但

1:15:47 在交易和所有这类事情方面,到目前为止技术只是帮助人类操作员做某些事情。我认为这将在能源领域改变很多事情。然后,就像我之前说的,重型车辆电动化将是值得关注的东西,因为它会很庞大。这不仅仅是关于卡车。

1:16:27 这涉及重型车辆,涉及农业车辆,涉及废物管理车辆。它是采矿业的一部分，我们专门设立了一个采矿工作组,因为他们想要将这部分流程电动化,以便为绿色电池保留供应链组成部分。因此,重型车辆将成为整个行业中一个非常非常重要的话题,对此感兴趣的人可以关注一下,因为这将是一个改变游戏规则的

1:17:01 事物。我也觉得这些大型车辆及其有时需要补充的能量容量非常令人着迷。那么您对听众还有什么最后的寄语,人们如何能联系到您呢?我想说两件事。CharIN是一个非常有趣的组织,拥有大量专家,所以如果您想加入,请访问CharIN网站。如果您想联系我,

1:17:31 可以在LinkedIn上找到我。有时您也会在公共活动中见到我,所以联系我和找到我是非常容易的。最后,我认为V2G将是一场革命。它需要很多东西,而我们才刚刚开始。我认为整个行业、消费者、监管机构和标准化机构都会拥抱这场革命,因为它对于电动化以及

1:18:10 建立一个更绿色、更可持续的社会来说将是一个真正改变游戏规则的因素。我迫不及待地想看到这一切发生。感谢您与我们分享您的专业知识,David,祝您工作顺利，希望我们很快能见面。还有很多话题我们没有涵盖,但也许会有另一个机会。祝您今天剩余时间愉快。谢谢您,Claudio。谢谢,再见。再见。这就是来自CharIN电网整合小组的David Demichino。快速要点:现在是V1G,

1:18:47 以后是V2G。时间转移和削峰今天就能规模化实施。V2G需要更明确的规则和AC经济性。价值堆叠:在TSO辅助服务和DSO服务中有实际收益，本地化、试点驱动;仅在法规允许时堆叠。关税简化:用使用类型选项处理复杂性,同时测试动态定价。互操作性是战略:考虑CCS、ISO 15118加OCPP,并添加灵活性协议，例如OpenADR用于调度。然后将其打包:smart charging加光伏加储能加EMS，一个手册,而非孤岛。如果这

1:19:37 对您有帮助,请关注、评分并分享Smart Charge by RiDERgy。下次见。

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

0:39 Welcome back to Smart Charge. Today we're talking with David Demichino, who is in Rome. He's a speaker of CharIN's Grid Integration Energy Focus Group and works for Enel X Way. The big Italian utility. We dive straight into the how of vehicle-grid integration, turning charging sessions into flexibility - from peak shaving and time shifting to ancillary services - and what really works today with V1G versus what still needs to happen for V2G, or bidirectional charging. We unpack dynamic tariffs, small asset aggregation, and why PV plus storage plus smart

1:25 charging belongs in one playbook. A big chunk is interoperability: the role of CCS and ISO 15118, the North American connector shift, and CharIN's push for global harmonization, including messy real-world challenges in Latin America where mixed imports fragment the market. If you care about making chargers part of the power system, not just power outlets, this one connects policies, standards and products into a single working stack. Plug in. Hello David, how are you today? Fine, thank you. Hi Claudio, good that you made it. You are

2:09 in Rome, or where do I find you today? Yeah, in Rome, in Rome. That's where you're also based, mostly, right? Yes, normally, yes. OK. Then, before we jump into detailed EV topics and energy topics, so that the listeners understand who they are listening to, can you introduce yourself, give a bit of background, and yeah, how you arrived at the role where you are today? Yes, sure. So I'm David Demichino. Currently I'm the global head of product management and energy services at Enel X. I also have different roles - like today I'm participating on behalf of CharIN. I'm the speaker of the Grid Integration Energy Focus Group, but I'm also the e-mobility chair inside the Smart Tian Association. My arrival at Enel and at CharIN - OK, it was another revolution. I joined Enel in 2006, so it's almost 20 years that I've been part of the Enel group, yes - very loyal - with different roles.

2:45 I would say a good portion of this time I spent inside what we call global trading, which is the unit responsible for the operation and trading of our power plants in terms of generation - trading meaning on energy markets. So intraday, ancillary services. More or less 10 years I was involved in that kind of business. Then I moved into the retail part of Enel, following the smart home product - first the Italian one, then Enel X was built. So I

3:35 moved to Enel X to follow smart home at a global level. Then in 2020 I moved to mobility, first as a senior product manager in what we call energy services - that was our fancy name for vehicle-grid integration services - then I took responsibility for that part, then I took responsibility for the whole mobility product at Enel X, and recently also other products. So more or less I follow the beyond-commodity solutions, including mobility for both B2C and B2B, and

4:20 other solutions for B2B like energy monitoring, PV storage, and what we call small asset flexibility. Then naturally I joined - I became speaker of the Grid Integration and Energy Focus Group in CharIN. That happened when I took charge of the energy services part in mobility. My previous boss had left that position, so it was natural for Enel to put me forward as a candidate in CharIN for this role. So it's more or less 2 or 3 years that I've helped

5:06 to drive this group, which is all about vehicle-grid integration - both from a connection point of view, but also from a flexibility services point of view: V1G, vehicle-to-grid, etc. Well, quite a broad scope of expertise that you have - that's quite unique. And so maybe as a question that listeners might wonder: are you more interested in the e-mobility aspects, more of a mobility person, or more an energy person? Or would you say you like both fields equally?

5:53 So as I explained, my background - I would say my DNA is energy. But naturally I'm also becoming a mobility person, meaning that over the years I needed to enter and understand - I don't want to say the automotive sector, maybe that's too ambitious - but at least to understand what mobility is, and also how e-mobility is changing the automotive role in the entire industry. And

6:34 not only energy, because it's a revolution for us as a utility, but also for the automotive sector - and maybe an even bigger revolution there than in the utility space. Yes, for sure, both spaces are being revolutionized and then they come and merge together. And what's your vision related to those two spaces? You've been around for quite some time, so you've seen the evolution and you're probably also closely monitoring long-term trends.

7:09 Are there trends, is there a vision you believe will happen in the energy space and the mobility space? OK, for sure. I have two worlds that are, day by day, talking more. I would say when I joined to follow the mobility side, I saw two industries that were connected but not talking together. Now, essentially due to regulation but also due to the opportunity in terms of flexibility that the vehicle can give to the grids, they are

7:43 converging. When I joined to follow the mobility things, I saw two industries that I would say were connected but not talking together. Now, essentially due to regulation but also due to the opportunity in terms of flexibility that the vehicle can give to the grids, they are

8:26 I would say industries that are working together. I don't want to say that they are collaborating, but they are working together because both have the same goal. Also, day by day it seems that they will also compete a little bit - the two industries that didn't touch each other. So maybe not now, but there are different examples of that. Automotive, you know, is trying to enter the energy space. Obviously it's a natural migration

9:07 since EVs, so I think that in the future they will compete a little bit with us. We, as a utility, can see this as an incumbent on our space - obviously it's at a very early stage, but yes. And do you think, in terms of the energy space, will it be renewables mostly and a bit of batteries? Is there maybe nuclear? Do you have views related to where we are heading? And

9:41 then the mobility space - is it going to be all electric, and are there going to be exceptions here and there? Do you have any beliefs there? Let's respond step by step. So regarding energy, yeah, renewables for sure. I don't think that anyone will change their mind on that. We are inside this revolution, so I don't think anything will change. Nuclear is different. Nuclear is also being placed inside the renewable technology category. So that for sure will have a role

10:16 in the future. How big - I would say that depends also on the technology evolution. There are different things happening in the nuclear space. I'm not an expert on that, but there are different technologies under development that can change, you know, not only the perception of nuclear, but also its value inside the generation fleet in a specific country. Inside mobility, yeah, that's a little bit interesting. Passenger vehicles - sure, no matter what, they will

10:55 be battery vehicles, so there is no doubt on that. It's only a question of time. A couple of years ago I would have said only maybe hydrogen on heavy-duty vehicles will have space. To be honest, seeing the automotive space and the main truck manufacturers, it seems clear that it would also be battery-driven for heavy-duty vehicles. I think where the decision has not been taken is marine. I think battery can have a role, but let's see. So there are

11:41 different examples in Norway, like ferries, that are a reality - electrified. But long-haul cargo, let's see. Not yet - I think that will be challenging to do with batteries. So maybe hydrogen can take a part of this mix. Then aerospace, I don't know. I would say I'm not a big expert. I saw some research projects about battery-powered airplanes that are in the first phase. Let's see. I don't know, to be honest.

12:34 It's something really at the early stage. Maybe hydrogen can also play a little bit of a role on that - who knows, yeah. And in terms of more day-to-day topics, how can we imagine - what are the topics that are mostly on your mind, that you're dealing with most? As a well-known reference person in this space, I think there are a couple of technical points and a couple of regulatory points that are usual

13:16 on our table. One is all the new amendments of the grid codes in terms of connection of physical assets to the electricity grid. There are the demand connection requirements and the requests for generators - those are the two main dossiers under amendment, and the whole industry has been working on them for maybe two years now. This will change a lot of things, especially for the role of generators, where they are putting specific requirements on vehicle-to-grid, the vehicle

13:55 and the charger. That's for sure one of the main topics from a regulatory point of view. There is also - it's not touching CharIN currently, but I think it will in the future - the demand response network code, which is the new network code that will drive the technical specifications on how demand response services need to be provided. There is a specific part on submetering - I don't remember exactly how they call it - dedicated measurement device, DMD if I remember correctly.

14:39 This will also open a lot of opportunities because it gives the capability to do submetering, to do flexibility, managing performance only on the dedicated device. So you can play with flexibility just with the charger, but not with the entire building or the entire room. That would be a game changer as soon as it becomes applicable. I don't want to touch other things that are happening on the regulatory side that also affect mobility. There is the Data Act. There is the

15:10 regulation that also covers the new requirements for automotive to share data - the SOC essentially, which is one of the most important data points. In terms of technical topics, obviously we are still working on vehicle-to-grid solutions, or as we call it in CharIN, bidirectional charging. While now we are seeing more and more commercial pilots - let's call it that way - on DC, we need to push a little bit more on AC bidirectional charging. There is more value for the

15:56 end customer in passenger vehicles, essentially due to the lower cost of the charger. There is also something we are working on regarding battery degradation. When we do bidirectional charging, there is a little bit of - I would say - misleading information in the industry, not from automotive, that's a good point, but from other industries, suggesting that batteries can reduce their health if we do bidirectional charging. So they go to X, they go to B - that's where you want to go.

16:35 So as charging, we are working to have a publication on that. I would say that that's the main point on the table, yes, correct. And maybe one step back before we dive into some of these topics in more detail: what is CharIN? Can you give some background as well, and how it was created? Yeah, so CharIN is the international association that promotes the charging standard, like CCS or any standardization. It's an association that

17:14 was born quite a few years ago, which is quite normal in the industry, and it merged essentially at the beginning automotive and charger manufacturers, but now it's a little bit bigger and also has utilities inside, also DSOs. I would say it's an association that puts together different industries in the same place, talking mobility, talking about e-mobility. I would say it's organized in different working groups. The one I'm speaking for - I'm the speaker - is the grid integration and energy

17:55 group, which is mainly focused on grid integration in each form, as I said before, talking about the grid, the physical connection, but also about the services. While there are other groups more technical about the charger connection, the communication protocols. It's a group of experts that promotes standardization in the industry. In addition, obviously CharIN is well known in Brussels, meaning that the regulatory office in Brussels - I would say - has a good voice and

18:41 Help a lot in terms of advocacy for all the companies that are representing. Yes, that's more or less what CharIN did in terms of advocacy. Then I have all the what they call "Plugfest" events to put together technologies to test in advance. That's an event that, yes, also only members can join. Obviously it's not a free event, but it's an interesting event since they have these two or three events per year in Europe,

19:20 two or three in the US, etc. So I would say it's an interesting opportunity for people that have technology to test, because you find automotive, you find charger manufacturers, you can test together with different brands. That's nice. And CharIN - is it the main standard? I think it's well known for CCS. I think that's also the key standard that CharIN is pushing. To what extent is CCS and ISO 15118 pushed by CharIN, and where

19:56 does CharIN stop? I understand - I mean CharIN is not the - yeah, CharIN is not the regulatory body. It's not ISO or a standardization body. It's an association of industry players that promotes standardization. So obviously we are for CCS, we are for ISO 15118-20, etc. We just promote the standardization and the interoperability of technology. Obviously the different people that are inside CharIN are the ones that are also sometimes at the table of

20:38 The regulatory bodies, yes, like ISO, etc. So the scope of activities is both on the DC side with CCS, and mostly - I understand - CHAdeMO would be out of scope, right? CHAdeMO is promoted by another association, the CHAdeMO association, and it seems like it is coming to an end. I know in the past they were working to merge together, also with the new Chinese standard, but I don't have a lot

21:17 of information on it, so let's see. Now I would say Europe - this is clear - yes. In the US there is now the famous story of the Tesla connector, the North America connector, and I would say it is still not clear what the future holds. It was a big bang when they announced it, because all the automotive manufacturers day by day announced that they are moving to the North America charging connector. Let's see - I still see CPOs that

21:52 are rolling with CCS1, so it's not clear if CCS1 is dead. It seems so, but it's still not clear. That's a little bit of a mess, and it is not good for the user, for the consumer, because when there is uncertainty around standards, it also slows down the adoption of the technology - in this case, e-mobility. Also Latin America is still under discussion, while in Chile we can say this is true,

22:30 Other countries are not the same. And also CharIN is working a lot - I would say in the latest year - to advocate for the standardization in Latin America, because there are some countries, the majority, the main one is Brazil, that I would say have a Chinese effect, so they have a lot of EVs imported cars that create a mess on the market. And so CharIN is working to promote the CCS2 as the main standard.

23:07 Other countries - no, this is good - other countries are still a mess, meaning that at the end of the day, in Europe we are lucky, because we have CCS2. There are no rumors on that. We have rumors on other things, but not on the basic technology, while in the other countries they are still at the first step of electric mobility - you know, what is the standard that they need to adopt - while in Europe we are past these conversations.

23:38 Close. Makes sense. And on AC though, honestly I'm not sure how many AC standards there are out there. I think there's the American Type 1, it's called, right? Then there's Type 2 in Europe. And CharIN is focusing on the Type 2 as well, right? Meaning CharIN is focusing also now on North America's charging connector, meaning that it is not promoting one specific standard, it's promoting the standardization of CCS2.

24:10 was pushed, and then CCS1, because it seems that was the standard. Honestly, I think the story is similar. We will have Type 2 in Europe, it seems, and the North American connector in the US - that's from a physical point of view. From a communication point of view, I would say it seems that at least on that side we will have the same, so ISO 15118-2, and ISO 15118-20 seems that it would be the standard. That's

24:44 good, because at least in terms of languages we will talk the same language. Yeah, got it. And in the world of standards that you are involved in - you already mentioned a few, like grid codes - are there other big standards that are very relevant to charging? I'm also thinking inductive charging, for example, or anything related to V2G. I would say, yeah, in terms of inductive charging, I'm not the one that

25:19 is following this, but there are conversations about that. ISO 15118-20 also supports wireless charging - whether that will happen, I don't know. I just see the robot taxi from Tesla; that will have this. It's one of the technologies that, you know, whether we scale or not - way more, I think, yeah, you're right. In terms of the ones that I follow: the grid code is one of the most important ones, because

25:51 it is impacting a lot. ISO 15118-20 is also, as I said, the main one, also because there are now different regulations that are pushing on 20. There are new delegated acts from AFIR that also mandate 20 from 2027, also in private charging. So that will also be impacting, because 20 brings a different technology complexity and cost to operate. And now we have this IEC 61851 - that's the pulse-width modulation, the current

26:38 PWM one - that is the historical one on AC. I would say it is the main, essentially analogue protocol, because they don't exchange any information. It is the one that, at the end of the day, drives AC charging processes all over the world. Now the bet is that it seems the push is for 20 also on AC, also private. That would be a challenging transition - I would say it will require years - because it's the charger that needs to

27:15 speak 20, but also the vehicle, and automotive is not a super fast industry to adopt things. It is a complex industry, very regulated, so it will take years. So we are now seeing 20 on DC vehicles, but on AC there are different other complexities. 20 still requires some amendments that are ongoing. So it's a complex standard, a complex ecosystem, also because again we have different standards that need to coexist. We have standards from automotive, we have

27:58 standard from energy, etc. - and this is not simplifying things either. And I think you're in the best position. There are many people that wonder: we're talking a lot about V2G and bidirectional charging since many, many years. And I think at this point this conversation also crystallizes a little bit why it's not coming. And maybe you can also share your thoughts on why this complex environment - since the term V2G was coined in 1997

28:33 by a Delaware professor. And so it's been a while; the idea has been around, but we're still just seeing very recent announcements and pilots, and still no real commercial, big scale. So what's your view? Why does it take so long? What's the complexity there? And when will it come at scale? Maybe for those that also listened to other talks I had in the past, I will repeat a little bit.

29:05 I think that as an industry, we created a bubble some years ago, when there were essentially, in Europe, two cars: the Renault Zoe and the Nissan Leaf. The Leaf had CHAdeMO, and CHAdeMO from the beginning had bidirectional capability. So - I bought one - not surprisingly, essentially all the industry said, "Oh guys, we have a huge opportunity; we will deploy all the cars with bidirectional capability," and that set the stage. At that period also different pilot projects started to kick off

29:41 for us, obviously. The fact that the vehicle is not just a vehicle but can become a battery on wheels - even for the non-expert - was information that started to sink in. But then something happened: CHAdeMO more or less died. CCS was entering in force, and at the beginning CCS had no capability for bidirectional charging. So we needed to wait for the entire standardization process to arrive at a point where, at least from a

30:19 technology point of view, you can do it in an interoperable way. So I think that the last 3 or 4 years the whole industry was a little bit on standby, because we were waiting for something - waiting for ISO 15118, waiting for data sharing, etc. Now, last year we said 2026 will be the year. I think that is now true: 2026 will be the year where we will start to have commercial solutions.

30:52 Renault started last year with the Renault 5 - obviously it's a closed ecosystem; you need to buy everything from Renault. I would say that's a good start because at the end it's a commercial pilot, not something that needs to scale right now, so it's good. There is also Octopus Energy in the UK together with BYD and Zaptech - also a closed ecosystem, but at the end something that is moving forward in the UK. And then

31:30 There was last week a presentation on the new BMW iX3 that also has a DC bidirectional capability, and they are selling also the charger. The owner in Germany announced together with BMW the offer. That's good because it seems that it is not a closed ecosystem yet - reading a little bit of articles and text suggests it will not be a closed ecosystem. That's good because this is what we need to arrive at an interoperable V2G. Mercedes

32:14 is also launching the new electric GLC, which seems to have bidirectional capability. So, meaning 2026 will be significant. Also, Volvo is launching the EX60 with a bidirectional capability, also the EX90 if I remember correctly. So also meaning that premium car brands are starting to do something more massively. Renault also, in what I would say is the entry-level segment - the Renault 5, Renault 4, and it seems also the Mégane - these cars are now bidirectional, meaning the industry is moving on. I think next year will be the

32:59 year where we can start to have solutions, customers will start to try, and I expect we will have a lot of learnings, because that will be the year of, I would say, big pilots - not hundreds, but we're talking tens of thousands - so the whole industry will have learnings. You want to add something? No, I was going to ask: just to understand, how does the standardization process work? You said that CHAdeMO had this

33:39 bidirectional thing. It was because of Fukushima that the Japanese - because CHAdeMO comes from Japan - had built it faster than we had in Europe with CCS. Nevertheless, it seems it's not without challenges. It would take years and years to get it going, but maybe from the outside, from the naive perspective of the EV driver, can you just explain - given that you are so closely involved with standardization processes, with grid codes, and with ISO 15118 where the car

34:11 communicates with the charger - where is it, what is taking so much time? Where is the big workload, so to say? I would say that to make V2X services live, a lot of ingredients are needed. Because you need first to have the technology - vehicle and charger. As I said before, it has been a couple of years since V2G was officially defined and it still requires some amendments. And to develop a car normally requires a new platform, so a proper

34:55 new automotive platform normally takes around 8 years, something like that - a lot of years. So that's the timing, while charger manufacturers are a little bit faster, automotive will not be. So that's the first thing to know. You have only the technology, then you need to put this technology in the field. This means the charger needs to be connected to the grid. And to be connected to the grid, a V2G charger needs to

35:28 be considered as a generator. And it's not like connecting a TV or a dishwasher - a generator needs proper safety requirements, I would say. To simplify: the safety regulations to be connected depend, usually, country by country, sometimes also DSO by DSO. And you live in Germany, you know, a country where there are - if I remember correctly - 800, 4,000... but it gets complex. That's a problem, because for

36:10 an industry player, you need to certify devices or cars for different markets or submarkets. That's the complexity. Then you just buy an EV, buy a charger, and connect to the grid. Then you need to do something with this energy - you want to inject it, but what do you need to do? So you need a service provider that needs to do this. While it's natural to think that the service provider can be the utility or can be the automotive, it's not

36:47 always the same. It can also be a third party that needs to communicate with the charger, that needs to receive some data from the automotive part, but they need to extract the value from this flexibility, from this energy. So you need to operate on the market, or maybe just inside the utility in terms of balanced portfolio, etc. So that's the complexity. There are a lot of different ingredients, each one is complex, and sometimes the ingredients need to touch a different industry.

37:21 A majority of these industries are heavily regulated, like automotive, like utility, etc. So that's why it's not so simple to arrive at something that is working properly and also is interoperable, meaning that I can change operator as I did with the electricity contract. It's something that is not only a contract - it's something that requires a digital communication between parties, so it requires standards, etc. So a lot of things need to happen from different levels of the value

38:01 chain. I think that was a very good explanation. Thank you for that. And you already gave some examples - do you think now, once '26 arrives, there will be a quick scaling, potential exponential scale? And is there, for example, also a path to retrofit some of the hardware, AC hardware that has been installed, so that AC chargers - not everything needs to be replaced in terms of infrastructure - and it's going to be cheap enough, attractive enough so that the

38:31 value that is unleashed through this potential can be taken advantage of? The transition will be slow, because there is no possibility to retrofit. If the vehicle charger was not designed to have the bidirectional capability and the -20, it's not possible to retrofit. And the -20, as I said before, has some technical requirements that require specific technology. I will simplify, but it's not like taking one - I will send over the update and

39:09 This work, it's not the case. So obviously I did not expect a faster scale of this, or maybe a faster scale, yes, but on new sales, there will be no retrofit opportunity. I would say no, that would not be the case of V2G.

39:32 Then, in terms of will it make sense from an economic perspective, that depends on the customer segment versus technology. While currently we can say that V2G is a technology matter on DC, DC doesn't make a lot of sense on the passenger vehicle, not least because the DC charger will cost €2,000. So to have €2,000 of earnings from V2G, I would say you will require some years. So this is why all the industries are pushing

40:11 to have AC. But on AC, the technology from a regulatory point of view is not settled. We still need, as an industry, to solve some problems, essentially also on the grid connection regulation. But this will be the game changer, and this is why, at the end, Octopus and BYD and Zaptec had a proprietary solution that is not proprietary, but it's not leveraging the standard. Because when I see there is still no

40:48 de facto standard, not an approved standard. But this is where we can scale. So as I said, I don't think that next year will be the year of scale, the year of thousands, tens of thousands of V2G users. We will have a lot of learnings. But I think the standardization will be closed next year, though obviously you need to adapt. So I think we still

41:15 need a couple of years before we can arrive at a moment when we can, as an industry, scale this seriously, meaning that every car will be V2G, every new user will have a bidirectional charger, etc. And obviously the European Commission, but also member states, can have a lot of voice in terms of incentives or other policies to speed this up. Makes sense, yeah. And just to understand, physically

41:56 speaking, from a first principles perspective, there's a big debate between DC and AC bidirectional charging. Why is AC so much cheaper? Is it because the components in the vehicles scale more, so there's simply more scale at the vehicle side if you put the bidirectional inverter there? No, let's remove another bias of the industry. It is not V2G that makes the vehicle or the charger more expensive than V1G.

42:33 It's because in the past, to do V2G with CHAdeMO you needed DC, and naturally a DC charger has an internal converter to transform AC to DC, and that has a cost. That's the component that changed everything. So if you can leverage the onboard charger, the converter that is on board your vehicle, obviously you can buy a cheap AC charger that will still have a little bit of extra cost for V2G, essentially for the components that, as I said before,

43:10 have some technology specifications that are a little bit more expensive. But meaning that from a low-level technology point of view, there is not a big difference between one-directional charging and bidirectional charging. It's all the other things that need to work to make it happen that increase the cost a little bit. But the cost of DC is simply because you have a converter in DC, so you need to pay a converter cost that is at the

43:43 end an inverter, and it's expensive. This is why you have the BMW V2G charger at €2,000 or €1,800 something like that, while the Renault charger is maybe also around €2,000 with installation and everything. Meaning that it is another scale of the offer, essentially for that reason. Yeah, makes sense. And do you cooperate with other standardization committees - like there's the IEA that has Task 53, or different ones - that

44:28 are trying to align with them? Yeah, meaning that CharIN obviously is a historical association that collaborates with different ones. I would say the latest big collaboration is with the IEA Task 53, which is this new group of experts promoting interoperability of V2G - meaning that you can move the vehicle between chargers, between DSOs, and everything will work. As CharIN, we are set up in a framework to collaborate because of our

45:05 DNA to have interoperable solutions. CharIN is usually inside other groups where it's possible to have association participation, because in some groups association participation is not allowed. For example, CharIN is in the Sustainable Transport Forum, which is the group in the European Commission, in DG MOVE, that deals with mobility. So yes, CharIN is at the end the unique association for

45:48 that, and there are no other associations on the vertical of e-mobility. Makes sense. And beyond that, we talked a lot about bidirectional charging and V2G, which, as we discussed, is not the opportunity right now but it's coming. So vehicle-grid integration topics - there are already quite a few that are relevant today. What are the ones you're looking into mostly? Is it the DSO services, or is it more for the energy markets aspects, or more for, for example, balancing services? And that

46:22 It depends, and that's strictly connected to how the electricity market is designed for a specific country. While there is a general European approach in terms of electricity market, I would say state by state this changes a lot. There are different countries that are doing different things. While implicit flexibility - meaning, to simplify for those who are not inside this, meaning playing a little bit with the electricity price, speculating a little bit -

47:03 for V2G, meaning that I can discharge when the price is high and use this energy to power my home or my buildings, my business building, and charge when the electricity price is low - the real value comes more from providing ancillary services, meaning providing flexibility services to a utility or a DSO. That's when the value can be a little bit more interesting. In addition, the real big value is that if you can stack this - if you can

47:41 try to stack implicit value with, for example, a DSO program - that's a third value that in some countries, depending on regulation, you can stack, and that's where for the user it will start to become interesting. Maybe on B2C, yes, meaning that at the end I have one EV and one charger. But let's think about big fleets that can have thousands of vehicles to charge every day. Or let's think about heavy-duty vehicles or trucks that will

48:18 have a megawatt-hour battery per single vehicle. That's where the value will become interesting in any case, because we are talking about incredible energy exchange. So that's more or less the value. Obviously, TSO is a more mature market because ancillary services on the TSO side are, I would say, one of the core DNA elements of the modern electricity market. The DSO market is something newer across the European Union. There are different countries that have a different

48:55 maturity level. I would say the flexibility market is still developing, but there are good examples and not-so-good examples. Greece, I would say, is complex - it's very locational. All the small-asset flexibility, including V2G, makes sense when you can aggregate. This means that you need to aggregate thousands of assets to make something interesting, while DSO services are sometimes based on substation aggregation per meter, which sometimes

49:40 is very, very small, so you don't have liquidity. You cannot aggregate 1,000 users; you can aggregate 10, but that you cannot manage properly. So that's why DSOs are not yet mature enough. There are different pilots in the Nordic countries, and there have been some pilots running for about a year now in Italy. France also has some DSO pilots up and running, but still I would say it's an early stage. Yeah, makes sense. And then you already hinted

50:12 on the level of maturity, and one speculation as well is that the more mature markets, like the balancing services, are less liquid or there's less potential, and eventually now with all the batteries coming and more and more EVs participating, they would also saturate quickly. And then the spot markets have more liquidity and therefore would be long-term more attractive, and the DSO market is indeed still to be determined as it's so immature, right?

50:47 So, would you agree with that? That depends on who is managing this. If you think about a big, vertically integrated utility that has generation, distribution, transmission, and also retail and wholesale - yes, there is enough liquidity, but these are not the peanuts that are changing positions on the wholesale market. Intraday will become a little bit more interesting in terms of price spikes; you can play a little bit. But the real money, as I said, is

51:31 in ancillary services. Why ancillary services? Because the majority of these markets have a capacity payment. If you offer capacity, you receive - normally - some interesting euro amount per year, and this is where the majority of value is. Then you also have value when you need to operate the asset - you need to charge or discharge the vehicle, if we are talking about a bidirectional vehicle. But that is where there is the

52:06 the fixed part of this. Then there is liquidity, meaning that obviously now it's just peanuts, but in the future we need to understand how these technologies will compete with power plants and utility-scale batteries. Will they be more competitive? Because at the end of the day, a V2G asset is bought by the user for another purpose - I bought my EV to move, and then I can do flexibility, so I don't need to recover the investment of the EV with the flexibility, maybe, or

52:45 maybe not, because the user is more price-sensitive, so they will behave as if: if you are not giving me some hundreds of euros per year, I don't want to do anything - I'll just charge my car and use it to move. So maybe utility-scale assets can have a role. No one knows this, to be honest; in the industry it's still a question mark. Yeah, it's a very open question. I think you cannot run a study at massive scale. It's

53:17 the time will tell, once you try to sell it, whether people are willing to sacrifice the availability of the vehicle for the value they get, right? That's what your point was, right? That is a question of awareness and the trust of the user. I think we will have more and more well-aware users that understand the concept of doing it, that trust the partner that is selling the ser - the

53:53 services, so to start this transition, but we require years, yeah. And I'm sure you also have an opinion on that. I mean, we're talking on a very high level and I think that's sort of also our bubble. We are aware of these opportunities, but indeed it's a challenge as well to transmit and educate the market and have the end user engage with the opportunities if they're not aware, right? That's a big challenge as well. Yeah, that's the main

54:24 challenge, and also you have different sub-challenges because saying "users" is too generic. You have a residential user that has some challenges. You have the fleet manager of a last-mile delivery company that has other challenges, other perceptions of that kind of services. You have a facility manager of big offices that needs to provide the charging services to the employees, with other needs and other awareness, or maybe expectations of the services. You can have a public transportation company with

55:08 electric buses that have other things. So it's complex also for that - different customer segments. You cannot manage them in the same way. You need different things and different value propositions for each segment. And you have the privilege - I think this is the first time we have a guest from Italy on the podcast. So definitely we need to talk a little bit about Italy too. What's your view of the Italian market in terms of electrification of

55:41 mobility, compared to other markets that you observe, and what might be some surprising facts for the international audience as well? Meaning that we are not the first country in a European graph of electrification - the market share of electric vehicles is still very small. While we have advantages on public charging infrastructure, where we have a lot of public charging points, this is obviously also the effort from Enel but also from

56:22 a lot of companies in recent years, so we have a really competitive market in terms of CPOs. From a charging point of view, I would say Italy is one of the well-positioned countries. In terms of EV adoption, as I said before, we still have to grow. Last month I saw some reports showing very promising numbers in terms of new EV sales, so that's a promising sign. Still, there

56:57 are some waves of incentives opening soon in Italy, not for all citizens, but for specific citizens and specific businesses. So let's see - I would say I have good feelings about the future on that. I think what is happening in Italy now is just a question of whether we want to speed up, from a political point of view, from an incentives point of view or not. I think that now we are a little bit luckier than

57:38 some countries were some years ago, because we have a lot of entry-level EVs that were not available back then. So there is not only, I would say, the pure Chinese company BYD that is selling a lot now, but also low entry-level cars from well-known automotive brands - there is Renault with an interesting car, there is now Citroën releasing an entry-level car, there is Fiat - so there are a lot of opportunities also for, I would say, a

58:16 customer who is not the executive of a big company, but is a normal citizen starting to have this journey in the EV ecosystem. There are a lot of opportunities, and even more in the future because I've seen some automotive announcements coming. So, as we said at the beginning, I think that the future is electric for all passenger vehicles, also in Italy. Yeah, totally. Well, we had a guest here -

58:52 maybe you know him, Electric Felix, who is traveling around Europe. He was charging in Italy and then in Spain, and he mentioned that it was a shame that in Italy the prices were so high compared to Spain as a CPO. Do you have an explanation for that, and do you think it will get cheaper so that people would be even more incentivized to switch to EVs? And

59:18 that's one of the problems that we always have in Italy - we have high energy costs in general, not only for EVs. That's due to some specific taxes that we have on energy, but also the tariff regulation was structured in a way that makes it high. And also in terms of electricity generation, our marginal technology is sometimes still coal or gas. We don't have nuclear in Italy.

1:00:00 So the base load in the past was always coal. Now it's green, OK, but in the past, no. And also now there is a huge debate in Europe about the system marginal price of the market, which maybe is not reflecting the current European power plant generation and status. But that's the fact. So currently the electricity price is high in Italy in general, not only

1:00:35 for EVs - everywhere. The ones who can charge at home don't have a big problem because you can pay less than €0.20 per kilowatt-hour, which is very, very low, no problems. But on public charging, and especially on high-power chargers, the price is starting to become close to €1. Now it's a little bit lower in recent months - €0.60, €0.80, depending on the CPO, depending on the MSP. But yes, it's a factor - in Italy the electricity is, I would say,

1:01:10 It's more expensive compared to other countries essentially, but it's not for EV or for particular taxes on EV charging - it's in general for the electricity structure that is based in Italy. And do you think there's a trend to spot tariffs or dynamic tariffs, both for private but also for public chargers, that this could be an opportunity for enabling people to charge when it's cheap, when there is abundant green energy? That's a big

1:01:42 debate in the entire industry now, because in the past everyone was pushing: "We need dynamic rates, we need dynamic rates on everything. We need a dynamic rate on energy, a dynamic rate on grid tariff, we need dynamic rates on everything." Then mature markets, like the UK, started to understand: maybe we are overcomplicating the life of a normal customer. And then other forms - I would say more mature forms - were born, what the industry calls "time of use" tariffs.

1:02:21 When you have a specific tariff - very, very discounted compared to the normal price - just for the specific appliances that you can control remotely, and for which the customer gives consent: the customer gives the utility or the service provider consent to control, for example, the EV charger. In exchange for this control, which means the utility will optimise the charging process automatically, you get a highly discounted rate on the charging process.

1:03:03 Dynamic rates still seem, now, much more common just in the Nordics, because of the maturity of the services that were available there. In other countries, let's see - there are some obligations, or rather suggestions, from the European Commission to have dynamic rates, but it's not common to have them in all member states. Customers also want to be more certain of the electricity price they pay, and are not

1:03:42 well aware of this mechanism. So it's again, as I said before, a mechanism of awareness that we need to build. But maybe now we have more creative solutions, like time of use, rather than dynamic rates, which put a little bit of risk on the utility, but from a customer point of view are easier to understand and safer. Makes sense. And you said there are a few things on

1:04:12 your mind, like the Data Act, which just entered into force a few days ago, if I'm correct. Well, yeah, Friday. So timely topic. Yeah, so - we're recording on September 15th - what's your take on that? To what extent is it really a game changer? Will data access and data pricing change a lot? What's your take? Obviously now it's just the beginning.

1:04:43 For sure, for the ones that are inside this industry, that actually is a bomb. It's a bomb because it changes a lot of things. It says that every service, every device that sends some data on the cloud - so what we call IoT devices or services - those data are property of the user. But that's also in the past; it needs to be accessible in real time to the customer or by a third party authorized by the customer. That means that

1:05:22 this can open a lot of opportunities for service providers that want to provide additional services on that data. And also, the second point opens the wave of interoperability of the services. Maybe I have a dishwasher that sends the data on one cloud and I want to migrate the dishwasher to another cloud - that needs to be mandated. Obviously it's a big bang. One of my colleagues who follows the regulators always says that act is like the GDPR for non-personal data. That's the big

1:06:04 bang. For the ones that were there when GDPR came into force, it was a mess - big changes in everything: in the contracts, in the websites, and everything. That act is the same, but it's even bigger because it covers all the other data: usage data, and a lot of - I would say there are huge data flows that need to be regulated, need to be shared. Everyone needs to adapt their systems, etc. So it's for sure, I think, just

1:06:42 the beginning, taking force on 12 September, but I think we will need years to have a proper deployment in the entire industry - industries, I would say, because the data is cross-industry. For sure, it's an opportunity for startups and service providers that want to build additional, innovative services on data. And as a startup myself, one of the things that is also left unclear is: is there

1:07:19 a cost involved, right? For this data to be managed - be it cloud services, storage, or transmission of this data. Obviously the one that has managed the data - taking one example - is the vehicle OEMs. They will have costs, and it is unclear how they will have to price this data access. That's one other point the industry is talking about, because that act says that to

1:07:54 the user you will provide it for free, but to third parties - meaning B2B players that want to deliver B2B2C services - you can also ask for money. It's not clear how much. It seems that the European Commission will release a paper or some FAQ about how big this cost can be and how it should be calculated. But on automotive, when we talk about some data, there is also the red line that says that SOC - meaning level of battery - and SOH - status of health, meaning how much energy can I

1:08:31 charge, I will simplify, and the GPS and the location when appropriate need to be shared for free. So no one knows how this will work in the future. I recently wrote a post on LinkedIn about that, suggesting a possible model. There's a well-known model in digital services that is the freemium model. Maybe automotive will open some services, also B2B2C services for free, just delivering some simple data mandatory from the regulation, and maybe more premium services will ask for money. Let's see, just

1:09:14 at the beginning. And the industry is a lot to take in, it's a complex thing. Yeah, no, that's a very interesting point, and time will tell how it will develop. You also mentioned LinkedIn - you always post interesting stuff there. I can also recommend following you. And one of the things you said is EVs, chargers, aggregators, utilities, and grid operators must speak the same language. That means not just ISO 15118-20 and OCPP, but also flexibility-oriented protocols like OpenADR, IEEE

1:09:50 2030.5, and unfortunately many others. These enable real-time coordination, forecasting, and dispatch. Can you elaborate on what your feeling was when you posted that, and what was your sense - what did you want to let people know? My feeling - and I don't think it's only mine - is that it's a mess, as we said before. The charger and the vehicle is just

1:10:22 one part of the complex ecosystem that we need to build to make V2G happen. There are a lot of additional things that need to be standardised. I mentioned, for example, communication between the flexibility provider and the flexibility services operator - the DSO or whoever will be involved. That connection is still missing. There is OpenADR, which seems to be becoming a de facto standard maybe, but it's still not officially so. As I say, it's a little

1:11:07 bit of a mess because there are a lot of things that need to happen. We need to connect the entire end-to-end. Each party needs to communicate with the others, and for each part you need one protocol, and sometimes it's not standardised, so there are a lot of things to do. There is the Coalition of the Willing on Bidirectional

1:11:43 Charging, which is one of the industry groups promoted by the German Ministry of Economy and Climate Action, launched two years ago, where they decided to bring all European industry together to understand what we need to do to make bidirectional charging a reality. One of the deliverables from that - which everyone can download for free - is exactly this: if we look at the end-to-end of vehicle-to-grid, what do we need in terms of data, communication, protocols, etc.

1:12:16 If you download the report, you understand that it's a mess - not a mess, but there are a lot of things that need to happen, and a lot of data created by different bodies that need to be exchanged. And that's why, just to reconnect to what I said before, the first services we are seeing on the market are services that are completely - I would say Apple-style, you know - like Renault: you need to buy everything from Renault; BYD with Octopus: you need

1:12:48 to buy everything in the same package. This simplifies the service because they have full control of everything, of all the data. It's very easy to develop, very easy to maintain, very easy to test, while interoperability is obviously more challenging. Yeah, and I think this complexity - that's also the intention behind the European Commission sandbox proposal. I think you had also hinted at that, and you think it's going to

1:13:20 be very useful to have more of these very large-scale sandboxes. Is that something that is still just a line item in the automotive action plan? Let's see - we need member states to implement a voluntary V2G sandbox at European level. Different ones are working on that, me too, together with the European Commission, to understand what it means to have a sandbox. But my

1:13:55 concern is that it is voluntary. Each member state needs to decide whether they want to have one or not. So I expect a very fragmented deployment of this. But let's see - there are different meetings in the coming months on that. We will see. Makes sense. As we are coming towards the end, looking again into the future, what are the trends or innovations that you are particularly excited about, be it in the mobility

1:14:32 space or be it in the energy space?

1:14:38 Well, for sure V2G is one of them - it will be a game changer no matter what. So it's something that, if someone is listening and doesn't know about it, you need to keep an eye on it, also in terms of investments in this industry, because it will be a game changer for the entire world. We will have a

1:15:06 huge battery capacity available, idle, for a lot of hours - a huge opportunity for the industry. You mentioned AI. Obviously I think everyone is looking at AI, including those who are just using ChatGPT or something like that. It's something that will change everything. In the energy sector - which is still not a very fast-moving industry - it's still at the beginning, but I expect disruption in processes and innovation, but

1:15:47 In terms of trading and all this kind of stuff, up to now technology just helped a human operator to do something. I think that this will change a lot of things in terms of the energy sector. And then, as I said before, heavy duty vehicle electrification will be something to take a look at, because it will be huge. It's not only about trucks.

1:16:27 It's about heavy duty vehicles. It's about agricultural vehicles. It's about waste management vehicles. It's part of mining - we have a dedicated task force on mining just because they want to electrify that part of the process, to still have a supply chain component for the green battery. So heavy duty vehicles will be a really, really huge topic in the entire industry, and for those who are interested, take a look at that, because it will be a game

1:17:01 changer. I also find it fascinating with these massive vehicles and the capacity they need to repower sometimes. So what is a last message that you would have for the listeners, and how can people reach out to you? I would say two things. CharIN is a very interesting organization with a lot of experts, so if you want to join, please visit the CharIN website. If you want to reach me,

1:17:31 you can find me on LinkedIn. Sometimes you also find me at public events, so it's very easy to contact me and reach me. To close, I think that V2G will be a revolution. It requires a lot of things and we're just at the beginning. I think that all of industry, consumers, regulatory bodies, and standardization bodies will embrace this revolution, because it will be a real game changer for electrification and for

1:18:10 becoming a greener and more sustainable society. I can't wait for that to happen. Thanks for sharing your expertise with us, David, and I wish you lots of success in your work - hopefully we'll meet soon. There were lots of topics we couldn't cover, but maybe there will be another chance. Have a good rest of the day. Thank you, Claudio. Thank you, bye. Bye. This was David Demichino from CharIN's Grid Integration Group. Quick takeaways: V1G

1:18:47 now, V2G later. Time shifting and peak shaving scale today. V2G needs clearer rules and AC economics. Value stack: real money in TSO ancillary and DSO services - local, pilot-driven; stack only when regulations allow. Tariffs simplified: handle complexity with type-of-use options while you test dynamic pricing. Interoperability is strategy: think CCS, ISO 15118 plus OCPP, and add a flex protocol - for example, OpenADR for dispatch. Then bundle it: smart charge plus PV plus storage plus EMS - one playbook, not silos. If this

1:19:37 helped, follow, rate and share Smart Charge by RiDERgy. See you next time.