Matteo Oberto - Co‑Founder & CEO at JUNA

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。这是你了解电动汽车和车队能源管理与智能充电创新的节目。

0:38 今天这期节目关于道路货运电动化的严峻现实。这不是一次简单的技术转换,而是一次完整的运营系统变革，涉及车辆、充电设施、路线、利用率和融资，其中最薄弱的环节决定了商业模式能否成立。我的嘉宾是Matteo,Juna的首席执行官。他分享了自己从在伦敦BCG的早期职业生涯到在物流领域的规模化企业工作的历程,尤其是在Senda的经历,以及这段经历如何塑造了他非常务实的观点:如果你想让电动卡车规模化,解决方案必须适用于那些

1:18 真正运输欧洲大部分货物的承运商,而且涉及许多维度。然后我们深入探讨了Juna正在构建什么以及为什么，为车队降低风险、构建可行的商业模式,并让充电在场站充电、公共充电以及新兴的半公共共享基础设施之间的世界中成为可行的现实。如果你关心电动卡车不只是试点项目,这次对话就是一个关于需要哪些要素契合的蓝图。开始吧。你好Matteo,很高兴你能来。今天怎么样?你好,感谢邀请我。

1:54 我非常高兴能来这里和你一起讨论。很好。那么首先,在我们深入探讨Juna的更详细话题之前,你能介绍一下自己吗?你的背景是什么,让大家了解一下Matteo是谁?好的,很乐意。我叫Matteo,意大利人。我在一个叫都灵的城市长大,靠近阿尔卑斯山。从教育背景来说,我学的是工商管理。我在

2:25 都灵读的经济学本科,然后去丹麦哥本哈根学习工商管理。之后我进入了职业世界。我从咨询行业起步,然后进入创业公司,最后来到Juna。很乐意深入讲讲这些,但工商管理和现在的创业就是我的背景。好的,你参与的第一批创业公司是哪些,或者说你学业结束后的第一个职业路径是什么?好的,实际上我是在

2:55 伦敦开始的。我在沃达丰工作,一家电信公司。那时候,硕士毕业后,我其实不太清楚自己想做什么,所以我参加了一个培训生项目，典型的跨职能项目,基本上每六个月做一些不同的事情。在沃达丰的时候我想明白了:我想更多地参与公司的战略领域。因此我转向了咨询行业。我加入了一家战略咨询

3:29 公司叫波士顿咨询集团,最终在那里工作了4年半。我在BCG主要从事私募股权业务，基本上是与私募股权基金合作,帮助他们做两件事:要么帮他们决定一家公司是否是值得买入或卖出的好资产,也就是所谓的商业尽职调查,要么在他们实际收购一家公司后,帮助他们理解该如何处理这家公司，典型的转型或战略蓝图,他们试图

4:02 加速公司的增长。到了某个时候,可以说我对咨询环境感到厌倦了,主要是因为我有种感觉，很多做咨询的人在某个时候都会有这种感觉，就是我的职责在基金工作开始时就结束了,也就是实施阶段。因此我在想我的职业生涯还能做什么,才能更接近实施过程,看到我的

4:35 思考和工作的实际成果。那时我开始觉得创业生态系统对我来说可能是一个非常有趣的选择，主要是因为在一个小到中型但非常有活力的环境中工作,会让我有机会真正看到自己工作的成果,产生影响,同时保持在一个非常有活力、充满能量、快节奏的环境中。那时我基本上遇到了Senda。那时它已经处于规模化

5:08 阶段,不算是早期创业公司了。我们说的是哪一年?大约是2021年,基本上是4年半之前。那时我和Senda的创始团队进行了第一次对话。他们在寻找一个人来基本上负责领导他们的战略团队。我对Senda的故事、在Senda工作的人印象非常深刻,几乎是一夜之间就决定离开咨询行业,搬到柏林,开始我在

5:45 Senda的旅程。从那以后一切都进展得很快。我在Senda工作了几年,帮助处理不同的战略课题,其中一个课题实际上就是电动化，Senda在这次技术转型中可以扮演什么角色。从那时起,基本上就开始了Juna的工作，与团队的讨论,然后我负责启动公司并建立运营。今天我作为

6:20 首席执行官和总经理之一领导这家公司。非常有意思。也许在我们继续讨论Juna之前,再往回退一步说说私募股权的角色。你当时分析的是哪类公司，规模上，或者有没有你必须处理的特定主题,你从那段时间得到了什么关键收获?好问题。我确实做了各种各样的事情,主要是中到大型的公司。

6:50 跨越各种行业,所以我真的研究过很多东西，我记得能源领域。我记得研究过一家氢能公司,非常有意思,因为那是我对氢能的入门。我接触过汽车行业,做过媒体,所以真的是各种东西的混合搭配。所以我会说我并没有真正形成一个垂直的、特定行业的知识体系。我主要学到的是一种方法

7:24 真正去处理一个问题或一个重大议题,而这个问题不一定有直截了当的答案,并试图将问题分解,试图将议题拆分成小块,然后逐一解决,最终得出最终答案。我认为这也正是我今天在职业活动中所做的事情,因为创业,或者说发展一家公司,非常像是在处理未知,并试图

7:57 面对那些未知,找到一条道路,一条成功穿越那些未知的道路。所以我会说,我非常认为咨询就像一个健身房,你在那里锻炼肌肉,你在那里打造技巧,然后你需要，我倾向于说，进入真实世界,然后运用那些肌肉、那些技巧去真正应对挑战,并且能够像我所说的那样,也能看到你工作的结果和实施。有道理。那么

8:27 对于Sennder,你开始直接从事电动出行,围绕电动出行的整体战略。那么你是如何得出与斯堪尼亚一起建立Juna是个好主意的结论的?Juna的起源故事是什么?基本上,一开始我在为Sennder处理各种战略议题,但有一个特定的问题一直在首席执行官兼联合创始人之一David的脑海中,那就是Sennder应该如何在

9:00 技术转型方面定位自己。如果我们看道路运输行业,我们可以看到已经发生了几次重大转型,未来还会有更多转型到来。所以当然,Sennder是建立在数字化基础上的,这是运输行业一个非常具有变革性的转型。而Sennder当时关注的下一个转型是电动化,然后如果我们展望

9:33 未来,当然我们在某个时候会有自动驾驶。所以当时人们在思考电动化面临什么样的障碍,以及Sennder可以扮演什么样的角色来加速电动化,因为当然Sennder的DNA中有一个重要部分,就是他们所说的绿色部分，即如何基本上实现运营脱碳。所以我们在讨论，我记得和David以及Nico一起,他

10:08 当时是首席战略官,还有Graham,他是Sennder绿色部门的高级总监，我们在讨论Sennder可以扮演什么样的角色。当时我们的想法,也是Juna的主要概念之一,是:Sennder有大量的货运量,与实际上需要电动运输的大型货主有很多联系。如果我们将这种需求与卡车供应结合起来会怎样?所以基本上我们

10:40 会给普通运输公司，通常是不想承担太多风险的中小型公司，不仅提供技术,即电动卡车,还提供现成的使用率。我们不就解决了今天阻碍,或者甚至当时阻碍电动卡车采用的问题吗?这个问题就是投资一项非常昂贵、非常新的新技术的风险,而没有确定能够获得投资回报。所以这就是

11:14 起点。然后Sennder和斯堪尼亚之间有着长期的关系,因为斯堪尼亚是Sennder的投资者之一。因此,基本上我们接触了斯堪尼亚,向他们讲述了我们的叙述和思考。当时,斯堪尼亚也在推出他们的第一批纯电动卡车,他们也在经历类似的推理:从OEM的角度来看,我们如何加速电动卡车的采用,因为新技术、昂贵、操作不那么容易?这就是基本上

11:53 他们喜欢这个想法的地方。我们成立了一个工作组,开始完善这个想法,建立典型的商业模式、商业计划等,最终我们进入了关于如何建立公司的更具体讨论，围绕建立合资企业的法律谈判,这从来都不是小事。从那里开始,基本上我们进入了公司的注册,这发生在2023年底。从那时起,我们就有了Juna。所以现在

12:28 我们已经过了运营的第二年,我认为这是一个非常好、非常值得的成就,因为从我的角度来看,我们正在取得巨大进展。很好。让我们深入了解一下你已经服务的用户,你正在帮助的用户，所以是司机或物流公司,据我了解通常都非常小。也许你也可以提供一些关于你帮助的典型目标公司的统计数据。如果我理解正确的话,你识别的问题是

13:05 一方面他们在资本支出方面有困难，为这些卡车融资,这是一个大问题，然后不确定他们能否赚取足够的收入,因此能够应对运营成本。因此,你通过Sennder网络的使用率和你将提供的资本支出融资来解决这两个问题,对吗?没错。你说得对,如果我们看公路货运行业,80%的运输公司是中小型

13:41 公司。它们平均拥有7辆卡车,范围大约在5到50辆卡车之间。这些公司当然没有资源,也没有能力去研究电动化,而且它们规避风险。现在,卡车运输行业的典型模式是要么向运输公司出售卡车,要么租赁给它们。这些模式并不真正适合新技术的采用,因为它们将新技术的所有风险都转移给了

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. 现在Juna，或者说Juna解决采用问题的方式，是着眼于谁真正需要电气化或脱碳。通常是货运买家,他们可以是托运人，可口可乐、

14:59 百事,这些百事之类的公司，甚至是更大的物流服务提供商。想想DHL,想想Kuehne+Nagel,那些大型物流服务提供商。这些公司主要通过分包商运营。基本上他们80%到90%的货运都是由我们之前提到的那些小型运输公司来运送的。现在,他们需要一种方法来激励这些运输公司采用电动卡车,否则他们无法实现运营脱碳。所以Juna采取的逻辑是与物流服务提供商和托运人，货运买家，合作,确定在哪里

15:42 可以实现电气化,制定电气化路线图,然后接触运输公司,也就是分包商,并使他们能够采用电动卡车,采用的模式不是典型的租赁或租用,而是我们所说的订阅模式。所以这是一种即服务模式,运输公司获得卡车,获得与卡车相关的所有服务,他们还根据使用情况付费,按公里计费。正如你正确指出的,这解决了两个问题。一方面,解决了所谓的新资产融资问题,

16:22 考虑到这些资产比典型的柴油卡车贵2到3倍,但它也解决了使用率问题，这些卡车将在哪里被使用，并帮助运输公司获得收入保障来覆盖他们的成本。而Sennder起着核心作用,因为Sennder是一家大型货运代理商,与大量需要绿色运输的托运人有联系。所以Sennder,特别是在开始时,现在仍然如此,在提供

17:01 我们与订阅模式结合的使用率方面发挥了重要作用,这使得电气化能够以比公司独自投资电动卡车更快的速度实现。明白了。所以一个基本论点,或者说你正在解决的新技术的潜在问题，如果我理解正确的话,那将是最大的一个,房间里的大象，就是续航里程,对吧?那就是如何处理电动卡车更有限的续航里程。因为归根结底,如果

17:35 你能够加油或充电,然后像使用柴油卡车一样使用电动卡车来运行你的路线,就这样,你的运营不会有太大变化，但你需要了解什么路线在什么续航里程下是可行的,然后充电影响是什么,对吧?这就是复杂性,这是你用这种方法解决的最大复杂性,对吧?这确实是一个很大的复杂性,我会说。

18:06 从运营角度来看,这可能是最大的。当我考虑复杂性时,我通常倾向于分成不同的类别。所以肯定有一个运营类别,这基本上意味着电动卡车续航里程有限,而且给卡车充电的基础设施也不像典型的汽油和柴油加注系统那样密集。所以这在运营方面确实是一个需要克服的大障碍。然后当然我们不能

18:43 忘记财务障碍，这些卡车在资本支出、成本方面更昂贵,在运营方面也是如此。在运营支出方面,它们需要以某种智能方式使用,以实现有竞争力的运营成本。所以用我们的模式,我们解决了这两个问题,因为我们代表运输公司找到我们知道从运营角度可以电气化的线路。所以我们知道

19:16 续航里程不是太长,或者中间有充电站。我们进行所谓的技术分析,我们说我们检查过了，从技术角度来看可以电气化。第二层,这非常重要,也解决了这个问题:运营这条线路是否也具有成本效益?我们能否以接近，通常的术语是TCO,总拥有成本，在这条线路上运行卡车的成本接近

19:45 用柴油运行这条线路的总拥有成本?所以我们能否用电动卡车以接近柴油成本的方式运行?这是我们需要解决的第二层复杂性。我们如何解决?嗯,我们需要采取更广阔的视角。我们通过我们为电动卡车融资的方式来解决这个问题，我们通过融资模式降低电动卡车的成本。这是一个要素。我们通过关注

20:14 充电来解决这个问题。充电和能源是运营电动卡车成本的重要组成部分。它大约占运营电动卡车总成本的三分之一。所以我们有一种关注smart charging的方法。我们与充电服务商建立合作模式来降低充电成本。然后第三层是我们如何构建路线,我认为这也是你一开始提到的,这基本上意味着因为资产更昂贵,

20:43 它们需要以非常有效的方式运行,所以尽可能减少空驶里程。我们有一个技术团队,他们已经开发,或者正如我们所说的正在开发一个技术解决方案,我们有一个所谓的解决方案设计师团队。他们所做的基本上是在物流网络中为电动卡车构建有效的路线,确保这些电动卡车尽可能充分利用,并关注电动卡车的使用方式,这样的使用率有助于

21:20 商业案例并帮助降低运营成本。是的,我很喜欢这个细分。我认为我们现在做了一个很好的概述。我们可以更深入地探讨第三个类别。我认为这也需要为不太熟悉物流行业的人提供一些背景。了解今天的情况将会非常有趣。今天的现状是什么?是不是可以简单地说一辆卡车有一个订单,你

21:47 需要执行从A到B的订单,然后他们就空车返回到起点A。这就是90%的情况。还是这只是一种夸张的说法,你们最终想要实现的是在返回车场之前做更多的A、B、C、D类型的路线?也许你可以在这方面提供更多背景。

22:16 当然,现实是没有一刀切的答案,因为这取决于市场的特点。我给你一个明确的例子:在德国,从明年开始在荷兰也是,电动卡车在高速公路上不需要支付通行费。这基本上意味着，而且柴油卡车在高速公路上每公里要支付非常高的费用,大约34欧分，要找到最好的商业案例,实际上最好的商业案例之一就是让电动卡车尽可能多地完全

22:57 在高速公路上行驶。这基本上意味着最大化司机驾驶电动卡车在高速公路上的时间。这基本上意味着你优先考虑，或者我们优先考虑，单程最多400或500公里的长距离线路,主要在高速公路上。但这也意味着卡车必须返回,如果空车返回,就会有很多低效,因为柴油卡车不会空车返回。柴油卡车可能会继续做另一个

23:35 装载,甚至可能不返回,可能会去其他地方,因为它足够灵活,可以接另一个装载并移动到其他地方。对于电动卡车,你需要知道卡车要去哪里,因为你需要知道卡车在某个时候会在哪里充电,无论是白天还是晚上。这基本上意味着你建立那些100%完成的循环路线,或者尽可能接近100%,并且你尝试在高速公路上建立这些循环路线

24:03 以最大化电动卡车可以给你带来的成本节约。在其他国家,情况并非如此。在其他国家,如果我们大量在高速公路上行驶,我们没有优势。我给你举意大利的例子,在这些情况下,例如,我们看到的是减少公里数但增加运输次数更具成本竞争力,因此我们优先考虑频繁进行A到B工作的运营。

24:38 所以卡车频繁地从A移动到B。单程满载,空车返回,通过空车返回,节省时间再做另一个循环,另一次运输。所以在这种情况下,我们所做的是优化运输次数,并将卡车的成本，卡车的高成本，分摊到大量的运输上。因此,根据市场条件,不仅取决于高速公路,还取决于能源成本,取决于

25:12 不同市场中卡车的成本,我们制定了不同的策略,使我们能够建立适合电动卡车的智能路线,其目的、范围和目标是尽可能缩小或弥合电动卡车运营成本与柴油卡车运营成本之间的差距。有道理。然后在第二个类别,充电方面，也许在那之前,你说三分之一的成本是充电,

25:42 三分之一是资本支出,然后另外三分之一通常是我们所说的承运商或运输公司成本,所以想想司机、拖车和他们的固定成本，但主要是司机。那么在这三分之一的成本,即充电方面,你用什么方式帮助这些公司?你说你有合作伙伴负责车场充电基础设施的设置,我想是这样。然后第二个是公共充电,你与充电点运营商CPO或MSP有合作伙伴关系,所以是卡或应用程序。这两种充电场景的方法是什么?

26:11 是的,没错。所以基本上我们在两个垂直领域都与合作伙伴合作。第一个垂直领域,也就是你提到的第二个,是公共充电。也许一些听众会惊讶地知道,在某些市场,实际上有相当多的卡车充电站。现在,我并不是说这个数量

26:47 足以使公路货运电气化。我们才刚刚开始,我们只是触及表面。你是指像Minas这样的世界专用的,还是指一般可以被卡车使用的?也是为了，这是一个好问题,所以有两类。有所谓的，我们称之为为卡车建造的，所以那些是为卡车建造的。你提到了Minas,它绝对是这个领域的领先参与者之一。BP Aral也为

27:15 电动卡车开发了充电站。我们也看到壳牌进入这个垂直领域。所以既有来自柴油世界的传统老牌参与者,也有可以说是新来者,为卡车建造充电站。这些是典型的充电站,可以同时容纳拖车和牵引车,它们提供最好的充电体验,因为它们是专门为卡车设计和建造的。然后还有另一类,我们称之为所谓的卡车友好型充电站。那些是充电站,可以说,

27:53 这些充电站在建造时的初衷并不是为了接待电动卡车,而仅仅是为了乘用车,但由于基础设施的功率和物理空间,它们也能容纳牵引车头,不过不包括挂车,只是牵引车头而已。当然,在这些情况下,我们需要更加小心。我们需要始终与充电点运营商达成一定的协议,确保我们可以使用这些充电站,因为我们不希望，出于安全原因,同时也

28:23 出于运营原因，我们不想干扰这些充电站的正常运营。但如今确实有一些案例,充电点运营商会允许牵引车在为乘用车建造的充电站充电。所以在这一大类,可以说是面向卡车的公共可用充电站中,我们采用的是一种合作伙伴模式,基本上意味着我们与所有所谓的CPO,也就是充电点运营商保持联系。我们与他们合作,确定哪些充电站可用以及位置在哪里。我们

29:03 拥有自己的充电站数据库,我们与充电点运营商共同维护这个数据库,我们使用这个数据库来支持我们在高效路线规划方面的工作。我们对这个数据库所做的另一件事是了解我们能为每个充电点运营商带来多少利用率,并与他们讨论如何降低在他们充电站充电的成本。对我们来说,想法从来不是利用折扣在我们这边赚更多的钱。我们不转售

29:40 电力,但我们所做的是将任何折扣直接传递给我们的最终客户,也就是运输公司。因为我们的使命是降低电动卡车的运营成本,增加我们共同部署的电动卡车的数量和规模。很好。第二类是车场充电,现场充电。在这里我们也在生态系统中拥有多个合作伙伴,我们所做的是与他们合作，比如说,首先评估:根据我们的使用情况,建设车场充电

30:15 基础设施是否有意义,如果有意义,我们基本上会共同建立商业案例,然后让他们建设和/或管理充电站,因为我们没有，或者说这不是我们Juna内部拥有的能力。还有一种介于两者之间的混合模式,我认为非常有趣,特别是在电动化的初始阶段,那就是半公共充电站模式。这些充电站会有充电桩，没错。所以

30:48 这些充电站是由物流公司建造的,但没有被充分利用。这基本上意味着这些公司可以将多余的容量开放给其他物流公司使用。有许多参与者正在建立市场平台来整合这些充电站,我认为这是一个绝佳的机会,因为它能够更有效地利用基础设施,这应该会为整个行业的转型带来效率。哪些类型的参与者在建设这些共享基础设施项目?

31:24 有不同的参与者。这些共享充电站通常实际上是为特定公司设计和建造的,但该特定公司可能只在夜间或白天需要它们。所以他们会有多余的容量,他们可以将这些多余的容量开放出来。也有一些参与者正在建设，可以说更加共享的，枢纽,他们基本上会在某个位置识别出充电需求,因为那是一个高频的物流

32:01 位置,然后他们基本上会建设充电站,知道，或已经有某种承诺，来自特定公司或多家运营该物流走廊的公司。所以这也是另一种,也许可以说是那些半公共基础设施的类型。为了确保我理解正确:对于CPO合作伙伴关系,你们不与MSP合作,只直接与CPO合作。没错，这是90%的情况。我们确实与某些MSP有协议;特别是有一家斯堪尼亚

32:40 公司叫做Scania Charging Access,它是一家MSP,我们确实在某些有良好协议的特定充电站上与他们合作。但可以说我们的标准策略是直接接触,原因是:在这个阶段,我们尽可能与CPO建立直接关系,以支持他们确定在哪里可以建设新充电站,也能频繁交流他们计划在哪里建设充电站,然后尽可能获得

33:16 可以说是低费率,没有中间商,然后能够将其传递给我们的客户。而这种方法，我想你们现在已经在多个国家了,对吧?你们不仅在德国或意大利。然后建设充电基础设施车场的方法，我猜欧洲也不是只有一个合作伙伴,而是每个地区有多个。这样说对吗?所以根据地理位置和合作伙伴的可用性,我们与多个参与者合作。想法始终是

33:47 将定位最好的参与者引入合作,以确保我们能够共同建立对运输公司和货主都有效的商业案例。好的。让我们谈谈，你说你们在2023年成立了公司。市场的反响如何?到目前为止运输公司的反应如何?你们面临的障碍、反对意见和挑战是什么,你们如何应对?当你在提出这个问题时,我想到了

34:20 我们投入运营的第一辆电动卡车,实际上是在我们成立公司后不久就上路了。我仍然记得将那辆卡车交付给运输公司的经历,因为我本人和Juna的管理团队,我们实际上是和卡车一起出行的。CEO、COO Johann和CFO Andred,他们开的就是那辆卡车,因为他们来自斯堪尼亚生态系统,所以他们有驾驶卡车的执照。所以

34:53 我和Thomas，Thomas是我们的CTO，我们开着一辆车跟在后面,我们一起从柏林开到斯图加特,把卡车交付给这家名为Ava的运输公司,他们现在是我们最强大的合作伙伴之一。我确实记得那位车主收到他们第一辆电动卡车时的那种能量和激动。所以我想要传达的是

35:24 直到今天,我们看到的仍然是,我们合作的大多数公司对这项技术都非常接受。这并不意味着公司在一开始不会持怀疑态度,他们会提问,他们在某种程度上也会担心这项技术、成本以及可能发生的不可预见的事件，但一旦他们被置于正确的条件下,他们实际上非常愿意进行这种转变。原因有两个

36:01 。我并不天真，肯定有可持续性方面的考虑。我真的认为运输行业有很多公司在思考并希望将脱碳纳入考量,因为他们确实理解他们所做的事情,他们的服务,对社会是至关重要的,但它确实对世界产生了影响。所以是的,可持续性是一个

36:30 重要的驱动因素。第二个驱动因素是:他们明白,要在一个非常注重成本的市场中保持竞争力并继续具有竞争力,他们需要将自己与竞争对手区分开来。特别是中小型运输公司，他们在优化成本基础方面有一定的底线,因此押注于提供不同服务的能力成为他们在市场中保持竞争力的一种方式。所以我会说,对

37:03 新技术的接受度是非常积极的,特别是我想说我们的模式似乎非常好地回应了运输公司的需求和问题。因为到目前为止,每当我们从货运买家那里获得需求承诺,然后我们与他们的运输公司交谈或引入一家运输公司来完成这项工作时,我们从未收到过拒绝。在运输公司得到支持的那一刻，他们得到了

37:38 资产,他们得到了需求，他们非常开放、愿意并且积极主动地运营。然后当他们进入运营时,他们承担所有责任。如果出现问题,他们知道如何应对。显然,运输和运输运营是他们的领域,他们会变得极其专注,以确保项目以积极的方式发展,从而可以延长、确认项目,他们也可以扩大他们的电动卡车车队。很好。这些

38:10 卡车的使用场景，我是说,有很多:可以是长途运输,或者更多是中程运输,或者是配送,在不同类型的使用场景或行业中。自你们开始以来,目前最常见的是什么?如果你想这样说的话,典型的使用场景是哪些?是的,所以今天,说到我们已经部署卡车的地方,我会说我们主要做的是我所说的区域配送或区域运输。这基本上意味着

38:44 区域配送通常是一种枢纽辐射型的运营,所以卡车每天早上从同一个枢纽出发,然后根据货物的可用性,它会前往不同的目的地。或者区域运输,意味着卡车实际上每天都会在A点到B点然后B点到A点之间往返。距离可以从，让我们说当我看的时候，每天50公里到600公里不等。所以如果我们显然只做50公里的点对点,我们

39:20 会做多个点对点,然后在每天的基础上,我们从不少于300、350公里,因为少于这个我们发现在经济上不具竞争力。所以我们需要最大化电动卡车的利用率。可以说我们跨越各种行业工作。有一些行业更适合电气化,特别是我们看到稳定货量和回程的行业。我举个例子:饮料行业是一个典型的行业,你

39:58 在一段行程中运送满瓶,然后带着空瓶返回。这些显然本身就已经是高效的循环。其他行业,例如快消品,通常只是单向的,因此我们是需要在回程中找到优化的那一方。但可以说,我们既与面向消费者的行业合作,在这些行业中,将运输和绿色运输作为营销、作为传播

40:34 杠杆的能力得到了利用，所以我们与面向消费者的行业合作,但也与工业行业合作,在那里有时运输成本对最终商品成本的贡献低于面向消费者的行业,因此对更高的电动运输成本的接受度略高一些。明白了。在你们到目前为止测量的TCO中,你们设法使其与柴油相当甚至更低。我会说这也是一个

41:06 因具体情况而异的答案。我们在某些设置中工作,在那里我们为托运人带来了优化,同时部署了电动卡车。我想到一个我们在汉堡运营的例子,基本上我们合并了传统上由多辆卡车完成的货物,我们把它们放在一辆卡车上,因此我们减少了车辆数量,但

41:43 也转换为电动车辆,我们通过基本上在他们的网络中建立效率使其TCO中性。有些情况下,我们能够转换在高速公路上广泛运行的运营,因此我们能够达到TCO平价。还有其他情况,托运人需要进行投资。所以这在很大程度上取决于我们如何设计运营以及运营必须如何进行,但我们的目标

42:19 始终是缩小差距,原因是我们理解,电动化要大规模实现,必须以具有成本竞争力的方式进行。我们不能假装、也无法预见电动化会被广泛采用,如果用电动卡车运输货物的成本是用柴油卡车的3到4倍的话,所以我们需要实现总拥有成本(TCO)的平价。这显然是一项共同努力。我们Juna建立的模式,我非常相信能够帮助推动电动化朝着这个

43:01 方向发展。我们肯定需要原始设备制造商(OEM)的支持。我们需要他们的卡车成本降下来。我们需要他们在所谓的残值方面更加大胆。我们需要充电运营商的支持。我们需要他们也承担风险，不是只在充电站满负荷运转时才降低电价,而是要接受为了让充电站满负荷运转,他们需要在电价上提供支持。然后我们还需要货主

43:33 愿意有时灵活调整他们的运营，让某些效率提升成为可能。有时我们需要做出某些改变。我们需要引入所谓的备用挂车,这基本上允许我们在同一天完成更多的装载和运输。所以我们也需要这种灵活性。本质上这有点像一个生态系统的协同。我确实仍然看到今天每个人都在朝着正确的方向努力,但要提高采用速度,我们

44:04 可能也需要加快朝着TCO平价方向努力的速度。是的,我脑海中没有确切数字,关于电动卡车成本到目前为止降低了多少,但电池成本已经大幅下降,而且趋势仍在下行。所以我不确定你是否也记得，几年前电动卡车的成本是多少，而现在我们说的是2到3倍

44:28 的差距。它可能最终会降到不到2倍,从这个角度看这将是一个游戏规则改变者。这是一个非常合理的观点。所以是的,直接回答你的问题,自我们开始以来,我们看到了电动卡车成本的下降,那也是所有OEM推出首款电动车型的第一年。到现在为止,我会说我们看到的总体降幅大约是两年内10%到15%。这个速度会

45:07 一直这么快吗?我会说有不同的观点。我认为在未来2到3年内,它可能每年会再下降大约10%，我认为这是可能的，然后可能会趋于平稳。当然有不同的趋势,可能会加速这种下降。一个重要因素是中国厂商进入市场,我们已经看到他们从

45:42 2026年开始，有几家中国厂商应该会基本开始在欧洲提供他们的产品,我们确实知道价格点非常有竞争力。关于他们的产品竞争力如何、他们的服务，也就是维修和保养，是否有竞争力,还有很多悬而未决的问题,但他们肯定会对欧洲制造商施加一些压力,促使卡车价格下降。所以是的,

46:14 成本下降是显而易见的,而且会继续。我也相信,如果我们借鉴乘用车的经验,这条曲线会继续下降,对吧?因为有规模经济、学习曲线效应。同样真实的是,我们谈论的是不同的技术,所以我们需要做的是在电动卡车电池方面获得规模效应。

46:47 基本上,如果我们希望这些规模经济发挥作用,就需要更多卡车进入市场。在充电方面,我也看到很多降低成本的有利因素。我很好奇,一方面,现在公共充电和私人充电(即场站充电)的分布比例是多少,以及你预期这在这些使用场景中会如何发展?第二，这也是我们RiDERgy非常

47:14 热衷的事情，如何让能源使用的灵活性成为降低成本的资产:在现货市场电价很低时充电,无论是公共充电桩还是私人充电桩,而且如果你有场站,还有安装光伏的机会,试图最大化利用那些能源并支持电网。所有这些方面，双向充电、在车辆停放时从这些电池售电，我认为也能大幅降低成本。你怎么看

47:47 这个?是的,关于分布比例,如果我看Juna的经验,今天我们在很大程度上依赖公共充电。我会说我们大约60%到70%的卡车在公共充电站充电。原因当然是公共充电的电价更高,但你能够部署电动卡车的速度是不同的,因为你不必等待基础设施

48:23 准备就绪。有时电网容量不够,所以确实如此。当你使用公共充电时,你可以更快行动,特别是当你最初部署数量有限的电动卡车时,使用公共充电并没有真正的限制。今天，我在开头提到过，我们有一个非常有趣的案例在汉堡运行,我们为1家货主和1家承运商部署了5辆电动卡车,全部在公共充电基础设施站充电,没有任何

49:01 问题,因为在正确的设置下,我仍然会说,当你为正确的项目找到正确的充电站时,通常容量是足够的。那么未来这会改变吗?是的,当然会,因为我确实预期会有更多电动卡车进入市场,而电动卡车进入市场的速度比我们部署基础设施的速度更快。所以是的,我们也需要依赖场站充电,因为

49:37 车场充电也有助于提高效率，它有助于在不同方式之间做出正确的权衡,比如慢速夜间充电与白天或运营期间的快速充电之间的权衡,以及休息时的慢速充电。展望未来,我听到和读到过不同的数字。我确实相信车场充电将发挥重要作用,具体取决于运营类型。取决于我们讨论的是区域运输还是长途运输,它可以占到40%

50:10 到60%之间,因为这当然高度依赖于运营结束时车场的可用性，卡车需要在车场附近运行并需要返回车场。而且它们都有车场吗?这也是一个有趣的问题:大多数运输公司是否有足够的容量在其车场安装充电桩?这是一点。它们有车场吗?车场是否位于它们运营卡车的地方?有时运输公司在距离车场数公里之外的地方运营卡车,因此卡车不会返回车场。这说得通。同样事实是,在车场充电这个范畴内,你还可以考虑货主现在在其仓库建设的充电桩。毫无疑问,车场充电将发挥重要作用。今天它也在发挥重要作用。我们与许多正在进行这项投资的运输公司合作,我们确实看到

50:37 如果基础设施设计得当、规模合适并且使用效率高,这项投资是会有回报的。回到你关于动态充电和双向充电的观点，这些绝对是行业中极为重要的概念。我认为这正是你作为充电服务商建立价值的地方:软件部分,建设一个不仅仅是充电桩连接到电网的基础设施的能力,还包括配置电池、增加

51:10 光伏发电,然后通过充电管理系统管理所有不同的资产。今天我看到的是行业正在这一点上迎头赶上。例如,在公共充电领域,动态定价还不是现实,因此充电站运营商正在设计定价策略来覆盖最高成本,因为他们无法预测需求,也还不能按照他们希望的方式进行动态定价，但我知道

51:48 他们都在朝那个方向努力。所以我有信心不仅基础设施会变得更加可用,而且基础设施的使用和优化方式也将降低能源成本。这完全说得通。你还提出的一点,至少在我的对话中经常听到的是:"我们不能使用公共充电桩,因为它不可靠。"但你似乎暗示,根据经验,你没有看到如果必须依赖公共充电桩会有任何可用性风险

52:22 充电桩，它们通常是可用的,对吧?你不需要预订它们。预订的能力也经常被提及。你怎么看?是的,这是个好问题。预订绝对是行业中的热门话题。我会说今天,根据经验,这更多是一个心理问题而不是实际问题,意思是我们经常听到货主或货运买家,甚至运输公司问:"如果充电站被占用了怎么办?如果它不可用怎么办?"在大多数

52:56 情况下,这不会发生。而且无论如何,当我们设计一个项目时,我们总是根据历史数据检查充电站运营商,了解该充电站在特定时间窗口内通常的占用程度。所以是的,这是我们考虑的因素，可用性，但今天我会说,考虑到路上的卡车数量,预订可能不是必需的。未来会需要的,特别是在某些准时性极为重要的运营中。想想电子商务。想想

53:29 汽车行业。所以我们也在与充电站运营商合作,确保在他们建设时段预订系统时能获得我们的意见。但作为一个总体概念,今天,这可能不是充电的瓶颈。说到公共充电桩的可靠性,我会说我们的经验是充电站运营商，特别是,我只能主要谈论卡车充电站，平均来说反应极快,如果我们提示他们的某个充电站

54:06 不工作,他们的响应速度极快。这里显然有一个很大的声誉博弈,因为一旦你的充电站不工作，对于乘用车,你也许可以移动几公里或更换插座,因为你有多个可用选项，但对于卡车来说不是这样。如果你有一次糟糕的体验,你可能不会再回到那个充电站。因此我会说我可以看到充电站运营商

54:45 在这方面有强烈的努力,到目前为止我们还没有遇到充电点质量方面的问题。嗯,那很好。那残值呢?你把它作为附带提到了。那里的风险是什么?你承担风险,还是运输公司、主机厂承担?电池寿命也总是一个话题。是的,所以在我们的模式中,以及我看到行业的发展方向,残值要么留在

55:14 主机厂手中，所以通常如果我们有租赁安排就会这样,或者在我们的情况下,通过我们的电动卡车即服务模式,我们在任务结束时收回卡车,所以我们承担残值风险,但我们与主机厂有协议，或者另一种方式是公司购买电动卡车,然后在其账面上保留残值。我认为行业将朝着

55:48 残值留在主机厂手中的方向发展。所以基本上电动卡车即服务模式将成为主要模式,资产的所有权留在主机厂手中，或者在这种情况下是RiDERgy,RiDERgy与主机厂有协议。因为一旦资产被收回,其价值高于柴油卡车过去存在的残值。柴油卡车最终只是铁,如果你想简化的话

56:14 那样说的话

56:43 极其有限,所以一旦它们退回,实际价值是相当低的,相当有限。当电池退回时，也就是在卡车生命周期结束时，电池仍然有80%的容量。低于80%时,它就不再适合运输了;它变得不可靠。但它可以用于其他应用，比如储能，这基本上意味着对于原始设备制造商来说,保留和拥有电池的所有权是有一定

57:18 价值的,因为他们可以在其他应用中将其货币化,而运输公司则无法做到这一点,因为他们玩的是不同的游戏,他们很难同时专注于这种循环经济游戏。所以我的观点是,原始设备制造商希望在资产生命周期结束时保留其价值，他们基本上想要

57:46 保留这种残值风险。现在,我确实看到改进潜力的地方是能够更准确、更激进地定价残值。如今,由于经验有限以及卡车数量有限,所有这些回购协议往往具有相当低的残值,因为这是一个非常保守的估值。这意味着以卡车形式支付的成本涵盖了大部分,所以

58:20 与柴油车的差距就变得更大了。而我们正在做的事情,例如与斯堪尼亚合作，这非常有趣，我们正在与他们的一个团队合作,该团队基本上负责了解残值如何根据卡车的运营而变化。所以他们不仅具有了解电池市场趋势的能力,还具有了解电池在运营过程中如何根据运营类型而损耗的能力。所以我们正在

58:54 与他们合作,以确保我们基本上可以做两件事。一是我们可以在残值上承担更多风险,而且，这对Juna来说特别有趣，我们可以建立一种更灵活的按使用付费模式,甚至更加灵活,因为如果你以某种方式使用卡车并且你节省了残值,那么你也可以回馈或降低客户的价格,因为你有更多的电池可以用于

59:20 以后的其他应用,进一步延续下去。我们在RiDERgy正在考虑的另一件很酷的事情是将充电与能源优化和电池寿命优化结合起来,如果你研究电池化学,你可以做很多事情。考虑电池化学，如果你看C倍率或电芯温度,并考虑当前温度是什么、C倍率或SOC是什么，你还可以运行可操作的充电策略,然后你可以

59:49 证明它以积极的方式影响了电池,因此也提高了残值。这太酷了。是的,这太酷了,我认为在这个垂直领域有很多事情正在发生,如果你愿意这样说的话。当然我们在提供帮助，也就是说我们试图将卡车投入不同类型的运营,从这些运营中学习,然后了解哪些运营是最有效的,在从电池中提取

1:00:20 价值方面也是如此。我认为我们仍然处于非常非常初期的阶段,但我看到了如此多的进展,这是一个如此有趣的领域,我非常期待看到在这个领域还能做什么。而且我在领英和社交媒体上看到你们一般在谈论的关键项目之一是与Gruber Logistics的合作。也许你可以分享更多关于那个项目的细节。这是一个有趣的项目,也就是说Gruber

1:00:46 不是我们服务的典型客户,因为它是一家相当大的运输公司。他们通常购买卡车并进行投资,他们在电动领域也这样做过。与Gruber的讨论中有趣的是,当我们取得联系时,他们需要一些额外的运力来完成一些相当短期的任务。所以他们不想承担购买资产的风险,只是知道这些资产

1:01:20 只有有限的任务。而且,我记得与Gruber的一次讨论是,是的,他们是一家大公司,到现在为止他们在电动运输方面也有很多经验,但当时他们说,当他们审视电气化时,他们在某种程度上也是一家小公司，他们也只有几辆车，所以他们也需要那种支持,也需要那种陪练伙伴来帮助他们成长得

1:01:46 更快。因此,我们决定一起部署几辆车,基本上让他们有能力回应客户的短期需求。这是一次非常富有成效和有趣的讨论。我们的卡车运营了一段时间。现在我们正在讨论如何进一步增加合作,总的来说,与那些传统物流公司交谈,但他们在

1:02:22 电气化方面又如此走在前列,总是让人耳目一新,因为这帮助我们了解如何更精确地塑造我们的价值主张,以帮助过渡的发生。是的,在这一点上,还有Electro Trucker和Nano Jansen公司。你对这些类型的公司及其故事有什么看法?同样,我会说这些都是非常积极的故事。正如我所说,我感到耳目一新

1:02:57 当我看到传统公司拥抱变革并且也在承担风险时。显然他们的策略与使用Juna不同，他们购买资产并承担自己的风险，但我认为这些都是很棒的故事,因为它们真正展示了行业如何积极地试图拥抱这种变化。而且说实话,这些都是良好且成功的用例,我们能够传播的良好且成功的用例越多,我认为我们就越能扭转叙事

1:03:30 电动化并没有发生,成本太高,太复杂了。我们能够吸引物流领域参与者以及监管机构的积极关注,我认为这最终会加速整个进程。是的。你是意大利人,现在住在德国,Juna服务德国公司。你们如何看待要进入的国家和服务的地理区域,哪些国家有更好的政策和监管激励措施?你们根据哪些因素决定,好,现在我们进入那个市场?我想中国排第一，那算是个市场吗,还是你们怎么考虑?

1:04:01 我很想在意大利开个办事处,也许在意大利南部某个地方，开个玩笑,我觉得短期内不太可能。认真说,我们把自己看作一个欧洲参与者,所以目前

1:04:30 我们不打算在欧洲以外开展业务,我们认为欧洲市场已经足够大,挑战也足够大,我们在这里有足够多的事情要做。我们如何看待不同市场?今天这是多个因素的组合。我们的北极星始终是所谓的TCO平价(总拥有成本平价)。我们通常做两件事。一方面,我们看货运费率，也就是在某个国家

1:05:01 运营柴油车的成本有多高。通常对于中长距离运输我们使用每公里成本,对于非常短途的运输使用日费率,然后我们自己做商业案例分析,如果我们使用电动卡车会是什么情况。所以是的,我们把所有因素都考虑在内:基本上是卡车成本、服务成本、电力成本、过路费成本,

1:05:32 我们考虑所有成本投入。这帮助我们做商业案例分析,然后我们看基础设施。基础设施发展得如何,充电运营商建设基础设施的计划是什么。最后同样重要的是,我们看是否已经有潜在合作伙伴或客户,可以说,我们可以与他们合作找到第一批商业案例,然后从具体业务开始启动运营,而不只是成立一个新法律实体的成本。

1:06:02 所以是的,成本、基础设施和业务拓展机会。对于电动卡车,在欧洲的电动化率与乘用车类似,北欧国家和挪威最先进,然后是荷兰,然后是英国,越往南走就越少。我想总体上确实如此,这也有点遗憾,因为我是意大利人。我很想看到意大利有很多电动卡车。但情况就是

1:06:32 这样。我想显然这两件事是相关的,对吧?人们在个人层面对这项技术、对电动技术越熟悉,在商业应用时就越不害怕。所以完全是的,我们看到北欧国家在推动转型,然后是中欧,我会说德国做得很好,尽管最近有点落后,因为德国过去

1:07:05 有非常

1:07:09 ，是一个非常大的激励计划。我是说,它的构建方式是否最有效和最高效是有争议的,但它绝对是一个非常有趣的激励方案。法国现在发展相当强劲,因为能源成本非常低,主要由核能驱动,然后不幸的是南欧有点落后。我会说北欧国家可能正在经历商业电动化的第三波。中欧

1:07:36 可能是第二波,南欧是第一波。有道理。所以你们有一个相当独特的模式。尽管如此,在每个有吸引力的市场都有竞争对手。我知道的一个是Einride。你会说与竞争对手相比你们的独特卖点是什么?是的,这是一个非常有趣的点。所以Einride也是一个非常有趣的故事,非常成功的企业。他们更像是一家运输公司,意思是他们也做运输业务,也拥有车队。所以在某种

1:08:10 程度上,是的,我们在几个客户讨论中与他们竞争。他们可能是竞争对手,也可能是我们的客户,也可能从我们这里租卡车。但总的来说,更传统的竞争对手是租赁公司或主机厂,他们基本上只能提供资产。现在我们做的不同之处，顺便说一句,还有更多,可以说,电动卡车即服务公司,

1:08:41 也提供按公里付费类型的服务,正在不同市场涌现。在德国我们有几个大例子,然后欧洲各地还有其他小例子。总的来说,我们真正独特的点是这个利用率要素。市场上没有其他参与者拥有像Sennder这样的支持。Sennder如果你愿意这么说,是启动这种模式的合作伙伴。今天我们不只从Sennder那里获得

1:09:13 利用率。我们直接与其他货主、货运买家和物流服务提供商合作,他们提供对其利用率的访问。所以Sennder仍然是我们非常重要的合作伙伴,但现在我们正在走向基本上完全独立的道路,当然我们仍然会用Sennder的利用率为承运商服务,但想法是基本上我们的投资组合中有多个Sennder。这个要素是市场上没有其他人拥有的,因为

1:09:46 像Einride这样的模式,他们也会是运输公司。所以要么他们赢得运输合同,要么基本上就不会电气化某个特定项目。我们不需要赢得运输合同。对我们来说,我们对运营的运输公司是谁持中立态度。我们可以用我们的模式向任何类型的运输公司销售。我们会帮助他们找到利用率，我们会与货运买家沟通以确定利用率,然后货运买家可以决定将运输合同给哪家运输公司。

1:10:19 我们将与他们合作以实现电气化。明白了。展望未来,在短期内让你对Juna最兴奋的事情是什么,以及在中长期内,比如自动驾驶或其他可能影响它的技术方面?是的,我想说在短期内,对我来说最令人兴奋的因素是，我的意思是,这不言而喻，基本上就是扩大Juna的规模,将团队和公司扩展到我可以为之自豪的规模。我对我们现在的规模非常自豪,但当然这只是沧海一粟,我希望这一滴水基本上变得越来越大。所以我非常专注于理解我和团队如何改进商业模式。我们还如何确保我们的商业模式和我们提供的服务保持

1:10:51 非常相关,考虑到这个行业是一个非常动态的行业。它将经历不同的迭代。卡车的成本会下降,基础设施会被建设。那么最艰难的挑战将是什么,在这个动态和不断演变的场景中,我们如何保持相关性并保持我们的竞争优势?所以这是我的重点,我想说对于中短期来说,这已经足够了,因为事情发展得如此之快,真正重要的是能够与

1:11:25 客户交谈,获得他们的反馈,与团队就商业模式和技术模式可以开发什么进行迭代,然后将其付诸实施。长期来看,我确实仍然认为电气化在某种程度上是一个长期旅程,因为如果我们看数字和估计,到2030年,估计新售出卡车中有三分之一将是电动卡车。所以

1:11:54 到2030年仍然只有三分之一。要达到50%,然后60%,等等,将需要很长时间。所以我想说长期来看电气化仍然是一个大话题,但当然下一波将是自动驾驶。我认为这需要另外5年,甚至10年才能变得非常相关,但预测这样的技术转变总是很困难的。它们可能

1:12:29 会更早发生,这取决于不仅技术,特别是监管框架将如何演变。所以我认为物流总体上,运输总体上,是一个如此动态的行业,是一个值得从事的行业。这是一个不会让人感到无聊的好行业,总是在思考下一个转型是什么,下一个会颠覆动态的事情是什么,以及在这种情况下,Juna如何保持相关性,甚至可能重新思考

1:12:57 他们的商业模式,以便在某个时候甚至可能解决自动驾驶问题。是的,很有意思。作为给听众的最后一条信息,你有什么特别想留给他们的吗,人们通常如何联系你?好的,我想留给听众的是一种与我们联系的方式，如果他们是第一批有兴趣采用电动卡车的人,如果他们是运输

1:13:30 公司,或者是在电气化领域工作的合作伙伴,他们可能看到与Juna、与Juna模式的联系。总的来说,我想说这是一个系统性空间,所以我们不仅在寻找客户,也在寻找合作伙伴。一定要访问Juna.com,或者甚至直接通过我的专业电子邮件地址联系我,地址是matteo.oberto@juna.com。我会非常高兴开始对话，但即使是这个

1:14:00 行业的爱好者,他们可能从个人角度参与较少,但会好奇更多地讨论这些话题，也许他们有好的想法。我个人非常愿意讨论,因为这是一个在办公时间之外也让我着迷的话题。所以一定要联系我们，不仅是我,还有

1:14:34 整个团队。我认为我们是一群充满热情的人,我们很乐意讨论电气化。是的,我能感受到这种热情。非常感谢,Matteo,继续前进。非常感谢。我最欣赏这次对话的地方是它保持了多么具体。Matteo没有将电气化框定为一个炒作周期。他将其框定为一个物流方程。如果你无法确保可靠的利用率、可预测的充电和运营商可以信任的经济模型,你就没有

1:15:03 电动卡车的推广，你只有一个演示。我们涵盖了该方程背后的机制:为什么场站充电通常是锚点,公共充电何时可行,以及半公共共享站如何通过服务多个物流参与者来解锁规模。我们还触及了隐藏的商业层面，订阅、按公里付费思维,以及一个不舒服但必不可少的话题,即残值以及电池性能如何随时间推移影响融资和风险。在你离开之前,这一集中值得记住的三句话:电气化需要需求信号,而不仅仅是车辆;

1:15:37 基础设施不仅仅是一个建设问题,它是一个运营和接入问题;赢家将是那些将卡车、充电和商业结构打包成运营商可以自信运营的东西的人。感谢收听,继续前进。

1:16:15 基础设施不仅仅是一个建设问题,它是一个运营和接入问题;赢家将是那些将卡车、充电和商业结构打包成运营商可以自信运营的东西的人。感谢收听,继续前进。

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.