There are already many fast chargers along highways, and now numerous providers are increasingly turning their attention to commuter traffic. From the very beginning, Jolt Energy has specialized in fast chargers in urban areas. Since September, Jörg Lohr has been the new CEO and now explains his strategy for the company in an in-depth interview with electrive.
December was a busy month for Jörg Lohr. After taking over as CEO of Jolt Energy GmbH in September 2025, he not only had to get to know the team and the company in greater detail, but also make important, fundamental decisions at breakneck speed. A strategy review with the investor was on the agenda—nothing less than the question of how the new CEO intends to steer the company going forward. Will there be a complete break from the previous strategy, a fresh start? Or a careful but significant adjustment to the existing course?
Lohr had already given an initial answer about the future strategy before the major interview with electrive: in December, Jolt—together with Lohr—commissioned a new charging station. It is located at Leipziger Platz, directly in front of the Spy Museum. What makes it special is not only the integrated battery storage system, but also the fact that it was installed on public land owned by the City of Berlin. Jolt Energy is therefore staying true to its focus: fast charging in urban areas, usually combined with a buffer battery due to grid connection constraints.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to discuss: In which cities does Jolt plan to operate? And at which locations within those cities? What will the future pricing model look like, who will supply the hardware? And what does the new managing director of a charge point operator (CPO) expect from policymakers?
Mr. Lohr, you have been Managing Director of Jolt Energy since 2025 and have since had the opportunity to get to know the company. What is your assessment? Where does Jolt stand today?
The assessment was very insightful, as it also reflected the state of the industry when I joined the company. Like many players in the market, Jolt had a fundamentally well-conceived business model. High-power charging in urban areas has gained significant public attention over the past six months or so. And Jolt was involved in this approach very, very early on.
The challenge, however—as is so often the case—lies in the consistent execution of a strategy that is fundamentally sound and in deriving clear strategic actions from it. That begins with the selection of suitable charging hardware, continues with the quality of the sites, and also concerns the company’s overall focus. In hindsight, we must be self-critical and admit that customer satisfaction did not always receive the priority it should have. I am firmly convinced that sustainable business success is not driven by investor capital, but by satisfied customers. Accordingly, the customer must be at the centre of our efforts. In this context, there have been—and still are—specific challenges, particularly in terms of uptime, reliability, and charger availability. These key metrics were not at the level we define as our standard. This is precisely where we are now taking action.
In my view, a key advantage for Jolt is the strong backing of an investor who not only firmly believes in electric mobility but also provides sufficient resources to enable the company’s next phase of growth. In a still highly volatile market environment, this is anything but a given and creates an important foundation for the company’s continued development.
You’ve already touched on several key points for the rest of our conversation. Let’s start with your expansion targets, as new charging stations are the most visible sign of growth for customers. There are still major gaps in Germany, while charging points already exist in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. Where does Jolt want to be represented with its fast chargers—and where not?
With its infrastructure, Jolt is already operating in the very areas many other CPOs are only now targeting—namely urban environments. What had been missing so far was a clear focus. We now have that with our strategic plan: in Germany, we will serve the largest cities and their surrounding regions, viewing the Ruhr area as a single metropolitan region rather than as individual cities. In major metropolitan areas, we have learned that it makes more sense to operate, for example, 30 chargers in one city than to install a single charger in each of 30 different cities.
Take Munich as an example. In the metropolitan region, we want to be present where commuters are. Around half a million people commute into Munich every morning and leave again in the evening—travelling as far as Ingolstadt, Augsburg, Landsberg am Lech, or 30 to 40 kilometres to the east. In addition to further densifying the inner-city network, it is therefore important to be present along commuter corridors. The goal is for users—especially those without charging options at home—to be able to rely on a seamless network from a single provider on their way home.
We are not only evaluating this approach in Germany; there are also major cities in other European countries where this model could be attractive. Sweden and the Netherlands are historically established markets, as they are among the company’s original locations. However, we are assessing additional markets to determine whether and in what form market entry would make sense. This strategic review is still ongoing.
On one point, however, the investor and I were quickly aligned: we do not intend to compete with providers such as Ionity or Fastned. Highway locations are not a focus for Jolt. There is already sufficient competition in that segment.
What does an ideal location for Jolt Energy look like? So far, the best-known sites have primarily been at Esso gas stations, where typically only two charging points are installed. Will you continue with such locations, or are larger sites with more than two charging points also of interest?
Both. As part of the strategy review we completed shortly before Christmas, we categorized our customers and locations into different use cases. These range from classic inner-city sites with very few, expensive parking spaces to urban locations along ring roads and feeder or federal highways with service areas. All of these locations have one thing in common: they are situated along typical commuter routes. The farther you move away from the city center, the more space is generally available. At the same time, the likelihood of access to a medium-voltage grid connection increases. This opens up the possibility of developing larger sites with more than two charging points. This flexibility, depending on the type of location, lies at the heart of our concept.
Jolt currently uses two different models: an all-in-one solution with the buffer battery integrated into the charging unit, and the Chargebox with slim charging columns, where the battery can be positioned separately. Are these two products sufficient to cover the various use cases?
In principle, these two technical solutions cover the majority of use cases very well. The split unit from ADS-TEC Energy was the first generation we procured. Building on that, we jointly developed the all-in-one solution with integrated battery together with ADS-TEC Energy. Both solutions enable fast charging even with a low-voltage grid connection—a scenario that will continue to play a central role for us and in which we have extensive experience, particularly in inner-city areas.
At the same time, the following applies: if we implement a medium-voltage grid connection at larger sites, a battery storage system is not necessarily required. In such cases, we will also deploy other charging unit models in the future. Accordingly, we are currently evaluating which solutions will be the best fit for us going forward.
Both the split unit and the all-in-one solution incorporate technology from ADS-TEC Energy. Other CPOs—some of which have since exited the market—have also relied on ADS-TEC Energy for battery-supported fast chargers. Is it an advantage or a risk to depend on a single partner?
For a CPO, it is rarely advisable to rely exclusively on a single source. It is not wise to build a business model around one specific technology—after all, we are not Apple. What matters is that the technology serves our business model, not the other way around. That is precisely what we are currently reviewing in a very rigorous manner.
The same applies to charging parks without battery storage: as a CPO, we need a clear brand identity rather than a colorful mix of numerous different hardware models. Customers need to know exactly what to expect at a Jolt site and how to operate the charging unit. When using an ATM, it doesn’t matter which manufacturer built it—you can operate it intuitively. Our charging stations must be just as straightforward to use.
But who would be an alternative supplier for battery-supported fast chargers? ADS-TEC Energy is behind many products. Off the top of my head, I can think of XCharge’s battery solution. How large is the market?
That’s true—the selection in Germany is very limited. However, in Europe there are individual providers that have explored how to combine HPC charging technology with battery storage. ABB offers such solutions, and Wallbox Chargers has developed one together with Pramac. Not necessarily as an all-in-one unit, but that is not required at every site. If you look beyond Europe, particularly toward Asia, you will find additional interesting approaches, especially in battery technology. New solutions are emerging there that we are currently examining and evaluating more closely.
Will Jolt continue to develop and operate all sites itself? What if a municipal utility were to ask whether Jolt could build ten sites on its behalf?
We discussed this question in depth as part of the strategy review and reached a very clear conclusion together with our investor: the resale of installations or white-label operations on behalf of third parties is and will remain out of the question for us. We are a charge point operator—“asset heavy,” as consultants would put it. We invest specifically in our own sites, which we either own outright or operate under long-term lease agreements. This includes procuring the hardware, operating it under our own brand, and taking full responsibility for day-to-day operations. That is our business model. Especially in a market that is still undergoing consolidation, I am convinced that, in the long term, those companies with a clear focus and a consistently developed business model will prevail.
What kind of costs are we talking about for a Jolt site? Batteries are certainly not cheap, but you do save on certain civil engineering works and the medium-voltage transformer.
It really has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. At Jolt, we don’t have “standardized” sites with, say, six charging units, a transformer, and a medium-voltage connection—like we did during my time at Ionity. That is primarily due to the nature of our locations. We have projects that we consider to be excellently situated, yet even a low-voltage connection is either not feasible or so expensive that it simply isn’t worthwhile. In some cases, we have sites where we can draw up to 300 kW via a low-voltage connection and therefore need neither a battery nor a transformer. So it is not a standardized process with predictable costs, but always a standalone project with its own specific procedures.
And that naturally tends to make it more complex and more expensive than a pre-planned solution that you simply roll out.
Exactly—potentially more expensive. It is then up to us to create economies of scale nonetheless. That starts with operational questions: do I work with 20 different construction contractors for 20 sites, or do I bundle the volume with a smaller number of partners? At what quantities and conditions do we procure the hardware? And are there technically equivalent but more cost-effective solutions available? My role is to maintain this comprehensive 360-degree entrepreneurial perspective and to examine where we can further improve both quality and cost efficiency—without sacrificing the necessary individuality of our sites.
What does sales and site acquisition look like at Jolt? Esso is a major site partner. Are you specifically looking for large partners like that, or is the approach more individualized?
Our target areas are clearly defined: we focus on metropolitan regions. This simplifies acquisition, as we generally work with regionally experienced site scouts. In Berlin, for example, we use a local scout who reviews our defined search areas and filters potential sites. Based on this groundwork, we either approach prospective site partners proactively or work closely with municipalities—as we already do in many cases. The location at Leipziger Platz in Berlin, which we opened just before Christmas, is located on public land. We also have strong cooperation with municipalities in other cities, and several application processes are currently underway. In Düsseldorf, for instance, we hope to open our first site on public land this year, provided our applications are approved.
In addition, there are established site partnerships through which we regularly receive site lists—for example, covering multiple gas station or supermarket locations. At the same time, through our own scouting activities, we continuously keep an eye out and seek to convince property owners with attractive sites to partner with us. The spectrum ranges from individual supermarket operators to regional management entities with larger branch networks. We are also present at real estate, commercial property, and retail trade fairs to approach potential partners and identify new site opportunities.
The all-in-one unit also features large displays that can show advertising. How are these screens marketed, and is it financially worthwhile? Other providers pursuing this approach have already exited the market.
I initially approached this topic with a certain degree of scepticism, as there are examples in other markets where such models have not been successful—for instance, Volta Charging in the United States. At the same time, I have seen how this segment has evolved and become more professionalized at Jolt, which has led me to reassess my initial view over time.
What is crucial is that we treat the operation of the screens with the same level of rigour as the operation of the charging infrastructure itself. This includes, among other things, proper screen positioning, defined minimum sizes, reliable uptime, and clear processes for maintenance and troubleshooting. In this area, we work with professional marketing partners who specialize in this field and ensure the required quality standards. At the same time, we remain open to local partners, for example businesses located in the immediate vicinity of a site. This approach is still being further developed and professionalized. Overall, we see the displays as an additional, economically relevant revenue stream that continues to evolve and meaningfully complements our business model.
But that is not feasible at every site, since not every hardware solution includes displays.
That is precisely why this has now become a relevant selection criterion when choosing hardware. If marketing display space is part of our business model and intended to contribute to revenue, then the technology we deploy must support that function. If it does not, the solution does not fit our approach. Alternatively, one could consider separate screens, but that in turn raises more fundamental questions about positioning. Ultimately, it is about having a clear market positioning. If we see ourselves as an urban HPC provider that integrates advertising space into its overall concept, then we must also ensure from a technical standpoint that this capability is available at our sites.
As an “urban HPC provider,” does the focus remain on solutions with 150 kW and above? There are also inner-city locations with longer dwell times—such as sports facilities, cinemas, or restaurants—where 50 kW charging power would be sufficient.
That is fundamentally correct. In such usage scenarios, lower charging power may indeed be technically sufficient. At the same time, it is crucial for us to maintain a clear focus. Jolt cannot and does not intend to cover every possible use case. Our value proposition is clearly defined: we stand for inner-city high-power charging. We must consistently deliver on that promise. Accordingly, we concentrate on charging capacities in the HPC range and deliberately leave applications with lower power requirements to other market participants.
How has utilization developed? I know a site in the north of Düsseldorf where the two charging points are often well utilized; in my view, there seems to be demand for four charging points.
Utilization rates are among the most sensitive key performance indicators for any CPO, so I won’t be sharing specific figures. However, I can say that I have been positively surprised by the usage levels at some of the sites we have installed more recently. These charging points are being very well received. Overall, our utilization is above the market average, which confirms our highly selective approach to site development.
That said, we also have a number of sites—particularly from earlier phases—that are not achieving the desired performance. That, too, is part of the reality. In such cases, we rigorously assess what the future of those locations should look like. This is simply part of responsible and consistent corporate management.
An important way to increase utilization is through customer charging tariffs. At Jolt Energy, aside from roaming, there are currently three options: ad-hoc charging at €0.79/kWh and two tariffs with lower per-kilowatt-hour prices but monthly base fees. In addition, charging is cheaper at night between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.—though this does not apply to ad-hoc charging. Why is that?
(Laughs) Dynamics don’t just take place between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.—there is certainly still room for adjustment. Pricing is one of the central elements of our strategy, alongside site selection and the overall focus of our business model. In the past, Jolt’s pricing system—like that of many CPOs—was largely flat-rate in structure. However, the market has become much more price-sensitive. As an industry, we face a structural challenge here: on the one hand, charging infrastructure and operations require high investments and ongoing operating costs. On the other hand, to reach the mass market, we need to offer simple and transparent pricing models. This may mean achieving higher margins in certain tariffs and deliberately lower ones in others, depending on usage behaviour.
Pricing, however, always has two dimensions: if I lower the price, utilization typically increases. In the end, the gross profit may still be comparable—albeit with different cost structures. We are currently analysing these interdependencies in great detail. Our goal is to establish a transparent pricing model that also rewards customer loyalty. To achieve that, however, we first need to gain further relevance. In many cities, we are still in the expansion phase. We need a larger, denser network for that, which in turn requires additional investment.
One thing is certain: quite a bit will change over the next twelve months. Since November 1, Dennis Hampe has joined us as COO and is responsible, among other things, for these topics. Sooner or later, there will also be greater competition in urban fast charging—at the moment, it is still manageable. When that happens at the latest, we will need to position ourselves clearly against competitors. Accordingly, offering attractive pricing is currently high on our agenda.
What does Jolt expect from policymakers at the federal, state, and municipal levels in order to better establish its business model?
Starting at the highest level, my main wish would be continuity. It is somewhat absurd that policymakers want to hold on to the internal combustion engine longer, while manufacturers have already transitioned. Let’s communicate clearly and unequivocally that electric mobility is the long-term first choice. We are building networks that will operate for at least ten years. For that, we need operational certainty—that is something all CPOs are looking for.
In our day-to-day business, federal structures sometimes present challenges, particularly due to the large number of municipal utilities and grid operators. Historically, there is a very close relationship between municipalities and local energy providers. Not all of these players pursue electric mobility as a business model of their own, which is perfectly fine. At the same time, this means the market is still far from truly open: in some cases, those who want to invest are not allowed to do so. And those who could invest do not, for various reasons. There are highly committed municipal utilities building powerful grid infrastructure. But there are also regions where private investors, despite having both the willingness and the capital, are denied access to public land. Here, we would like to see more equal treatment, including at the local political level.
At times, I hear about negative experiences with individual operators, for example regarding reliability or uptime. These concerns are understandable, but they can be addressed objectively. Clear requirements for uptime or for the share of successful charging sessions can be transparently defined. And anyone who persistently fails to meet these criteria should lose their licence—equal rules for all. The key point, however, is that those who are willing and able to invest must first be given the opportunity to do so.
Jolt aims to grow, which typically also requires a larger team. What are your plans in this regard? And can Jolt secure the necessary expertise?
Essentially, we do not need to grow significantly in terms of headcount. Of course, international expansion requires local expertise on the ground. However, during the boom phase, many companies in the industry hired staff in anticipation of growth that ultimately did not materialize. It is never pleasant to tell colleagues that you can no longer plan with them. That is why we are acting very cautiously when it comes to bringing additional expertise into the team. For Germany, I see a team size of around 50 to 60 employees. Structures extending into the mid-three-digit range are not envisaged for our business model. It does not take 600 or 700 people to operate as a CPO in several European countries. Those times are over.
Can we attract the necessary talent? Unfortunately, yes, one has to say. Due to the ongoing market consolidation and workforce reductions at some providers, many qualified professionals are currently available. I am therefore not concerned about being able to fill open positions at Jolt. What concerns me more is ensuring that all the talented, experienced, and committed individuals who have driven electric mobility forward in recent years will continue to have secure employment in the long term.
What does the strategic plan say: how long does Jolt have to become profitable?
We are not that far away from profitability. Our ambition is to demonstrate as early as this year that Jolt has a sustainable and viable business model. To achieve this, we have defined clear measures, and I am confident that we can reach this goal. Our growth targets are significantly more conservative than those of other CPOs—and also far more restrained than in earlier phases of Jolt. Our clear focus is on quality rather than quantity.
At the same time, it is no secret that our investor is an infrastructure fund. The business model of such funds is to build up companies, develop them further, and ultimately sell them at a profit. This fundamentally also applies to Jolt. What matters, however, is the time horizon. InfraRed Capital, our investor, takes a long-term approach and gives us the necessary room to develop the company in a solid and sustainable manner. On this basis, we have drawn up a five-year plan that I am confident is achievable.