No need for Smart Charging Points on your blockchain. A call to get to real smart charging in the Netherlands.

To make the electric vehicle the hero of the energy transition, we have work to do. One thing we can’t seem to agree on in this country, is who does what. Especially for public charging, it is crucial that all parties involved in the chain start focusing on their own responsibilities. But what are they?

Let me start with stating the (not so) obvious.

1. Keeping the grid (i.e. the cables that make it up) working is not a revenue opportunity for CPOs but a constraint. It should only be about compliance. Without a working grid, the energy transition will become a transition towards Flintstone mobiles.
2. Optimizing when and where current flows through the grid (a.k.a. the energy market) is a huge business model. It will drive the energy transition and make it affordable.
3. Grid operators should not have to care who is charging or how much current their car is getting.
4. CPOs (the party that commands and operates the charger, sets the tariffs etc.) should not have to introduce more QR codes or apps to get drivers to earn smart charging points on a blockchain.
5. MSPs (the charge card / app providers) should not run the algorithm to decide who charges when on public chargers.
6. Drivers should not have to explicitly configure when they will pick up their car again as a requirement for a good charge.
7. Drivers should not have to bring their own electricity contract to a charger. Whether the actual electrons come from your solar panels or a from a windmill on the North Sea is of no consequence to the energy transition.

You may notice the order Grid --> CPO --> MSP --> Driver. This sequence is crucial for my point and is sorted by development speed and level of detail. A small detour to explain why that is important to keep in mind.

Development speed

The energy transition isn’t just a mathematical problem that we solve with numerical analysis, generative AI or cryptocurrency. To solve it, we must behave like ants finding food. Taking lots of different actions with short feedback loops, remembering what we worked on and then calling the troops to spread the word about the good paths.

There’s a reason why elephants behave differently – they are just too inert to change direction all the time and it would take them too much effort.

In the energy transition, we should direct most of the action towards the peripherals where most of the change can be made at the lowest cost.

Much of what grid operators (both DSO, Distribution System Operators and TSO, Transmission System Operators) do is bound by law. The law is the kind of code that just doesn’t change easily.

The necessary agility also isn’t generally found with the CPOs. Being able to squeeze oil out of sand is impressive, but can you share the tariffs of your chargers yet?

The ability to change and evolve fastest is found with the driver. By the time the Dutch parliament has decided whether something is a crisis or not, drivers will have tried 3 different phones with 4 operating systems and 100 new favourite apps. ?

Of course, drivers don’t generally develop their own software. MSPs like Tap Electric are the best example of how fast innovation can earn the favour of drivers and introduce new solutions to existing problems.

MSPs will play a vital role in the energy transition, as they represent the driver and form the ant colony together.

Level of detail

Whether MSPs supply charge cards, a great app or an integration with the Plug and Charge ?kosystem, their sole task is to represent the driver. That means optimizing a charge for their car, for their agenda and their wallet.

Grid operators cannot be expected to care about this, all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Instead, they have a mandate to care about the cables, big and small, that make up the grid.

CPOs are right in the middle of that and need to be instructed from both sides. The big picture from the grid operators, the individual preferences from the MSPs.

That, and the fact that they directly command the charger, makes CPOs the best party in this chain to make decisions on how to charge cars.

Who does what?

A component we haven’t yet discussed is the energy provider. As solar and wind become major influences on when electricity is produced and at what price, dynamic energy contracts become more attractive when the load can be optimized.

Guess who generally owns the energy contract on a charger and sometimes even produces the electricity themselves? CPOs.

CPOs

CPOs are in the best position to bundle information from grid operators, MSPs (hence drivers) and energy markets, and they are the only party in direct contact with the charger. There is only one reason why they wouldn’t run the show on the chargers: no access to the right technology.

That is not an excuse to hand over the keys to grid operators or MSPs. CPOs can work together with technology providers that can execute one algorithm per controlled group of chargers, instead of allowing MSPs to each run their own algorithm for a single charge session. Tap Electric has algorithms available that can be run from the CPO’s perspective, and I reckon we’re not the only one.

Based on input from grid operators and energy markets, the most profitable CPOs will optimize for lowering the cost of electricity, while staying within the constraints of the grid.

MSPs

The difference between optimizing for electricity cost and constraining for grid capacity will not always be obvious. MSPs have the important task to advocate for the driver when it comes to optimizing.

Halting a charge because the (local) grid is operating at maximum capacity is healthy, if it is communicated properly with drivers.

Halting the charger so the CPO can rake in extra profit while the driver is forced to take the bus, is not cool.

Luckily, the best MSPs and CPOs already communicate in real time via the OCPI protocol about charger availability and charging progress. MSPs should be able to register the driver’s preferences and appetite for cost optimization with the CPO, and negotiate the best charging curve on behalf of the driver.

Grid operators

Grid operators, and especially TSOs, deserve another blog that is written by an actual expert on this matter – not me. I can however say that it is vital that MSPs treat the problems of constraints (the maximum current or power any component of an electricity grid can handle) and balance (the task of keeping the frequency of the European nets at 50 Hz) as abstract problems. Grid operators and ‘energy markets’ need to send control signals to CPOs – not to MSPs.

Next steps - a call on the market

As an MSP and CPO technology platform, we are usually one step away from dealing with the (national) grid directly. The interaction between (public) CPOs and grid operators will most likely require changes in the law that cannot come fast enough. We cannot sit on the sidelines while that discussion goes on.

CPOs must invest in smart charging technology. To protect their business, they cannot sit and wait until the grid operators declare a crisis and demand that chargers are powered off completely during peak hours.

Secondly, there is money to be made in the optimisation of charging rates. Even though the CPO’s energy contract may not yet discriminate in time-of-use, it is good to anticipate that this will happen soon. The spoils of charging at cheaper rates can be shared with drivers who don’t mind if their car is fully charged by 8am instead of 3am.

This is where MSPs come in. Regardless of the UI they offer their drivers, the interface between CPO and MSP needs to support charging expectations and charging preferences – in the simplest way possible. How many kWhs do we expect to deliver in the next 4 hours and does the driver want a fast or a cheap charge?

As we have seen from the persistent lead in roaming support in the Netherlands, designing for scale is crucial. I cannot emphasize this enough: we need to design our interfaces for scale and ease of adoption, not for the support of every distinct use case.

If you design for scale, you cannot expect that MSPs are the ones executing the charging algorithm. Most of them can’t even handle dynamic tariffs yet, so how can they be expected to merge grid constraints, energy contract and market information and inputs from multiple drivers with different providers and then command the charger?

Whether this new interface starts with trials between CPO and MSPs or with direct implementation in the OCPI protocol – is of lesser importance, as long as we move while we’re not in crisis mode yet.

We don’t need generative AI, cryptocurrencies or smart charging points on a blockchain. We need interfaces and clear responsibilities, and we need them now.

In the meantime, Tap provides the driver interface and can help CPOs with Charge Control algorithms developed under our new Charge AI umbrella. New algorithms, with the support of AI-based priority mechanisms, will be released this fall. Dan and I are keen to talk to you about it.