One logic, all use cases: How §14a fits into your charging strategy

With Germany’s paragraph 14a taking effect in January 2024, charge point operators (CPOs), charge point owners and charging infrastructure developers must now share control with grid operators.  The new regulation allows distribution system operators (DSOs) to curtail charging loads at private or semi public charging sites – especially critical as EVs draw significant power. Meanwhile, drivers expect their vehicles charged fully and on time, without disruptions. Without proper coordination, this creates a recipe for conflict, inefficiency and frustration.

The good news? We’ve got a solution that keeps the grid stable, charging stations compliant, and EVs ready to go.

The problem of parallel control 

First, let’s look at why too many cooks create more hassle: in this analogy, §14a brought the new chefs (DSOs) to the kitchen. DSOs now have the authority to turn down the heat when the soup threatens to boil over. In practical terms, that means grid operators can remotely limit power consumption at EV charging sites to prevent local grid overload. In return, site operators benefit from reduced grid fees – if they comply.  

Many charging sites already leverage some form of smart charging or dynamic load management (DLM) in order to avoid grid overloads, optimize charging across multiple vehicles and maximize comfort while minimizing costs. Now with paragraph 14a, an additional control layer has been introduced which can potentially disrupt the existing load profile of the DLM if not properly managed.

Two control layers, two logics 

Managing charging infrastructure with multiple layers of control makes conflicts inevitable. The on-site DLM might decide that one charging station should ramp up to full power because the vehicle is scheduled to depart soon, yet the DSO, via §14a, might send a Limit Power Consumption (LPC) signal, like a 22 kW capacity limit, for all 14a relevant assets. In this case, both systems work independently in different directions potentially creating flickering power levels and instability. 

Misaligned priorities

Each of the two control layers has its own logic in deciding where charging flows are directed. If they’re not aligned, it results in unpredictability, which can create a poor customer experience. For example, an EV driver may want to depart a charging site but their vehicle hasn’t charged as much as they expected. This is then a bad experience for both the driver and the charge site operator as they could lose a loyal customer. 

The same can happen if both control logics decide to independently apply power limits and thus overcompensate, throttling power more than is necessary. LPC limits only apply to 14a-relevant assets. aka. chargers over 4.2 kW that don’t have a transformer or were installed after December 31, 2023. If a system cannot differentiate between 14a-relevant assets and other loads, it could end up curtailing everything. 

Lack of transparency and complex commissioning

Oftentimes, site operators can’t comprehend which system caused a certain change in charging behavior. For example, imagine the DSO sends an external gridsignal via the control box just as the DLM curtails energy. In this case, it’s difficult to trace which system triggered the cutback. This also makes monitoring, diagnostics and support more challenging. For installers, this increases complexity as it is no longer sufficient to only set up one logical path. They must now configure and align two paths with commissioning to §14a, which increases the time, effort and risk of errors during setup.

A crowded kitchen

As you can see, a crowded kitchen allows for inefficiencies, potential compromises on user comfort and creates compliance risks under paragraph 14a. This can not only lead to a loss of reduced grid fees, but it can also turn a regulatory opportunity into an operational liability. With the right solution, §14a can become an additional revenue stream and foster a stable and secure clean power grid without affecting EV drivers’ mobility needs.

The solution: Unified logic with XENON

The answer to this parallel control isn’t adding more control – it’s smarter control. With XENON, users can ensure that §14a signals and DLM logic work together, not against each other. And the new §14a compliant control for charging sites feature, a part of our Grid Signal Processor, does just that. 

The new feature creates one single logic for all signals by treating §14a signals like any other curtailment signals. Instead of layering two systems, XENON integrates the §14a signal into the existing curtailment logic. Thus, only one logic tree is applied which ensures a clear and smooth prioritization across all assets, not only those that are 14a relevant. 

Let’s see what this looks like in practice:

No conflict thanks to one logic

With the new feature, LPC signals are read and processed the same way as DLM signals. They first enter through the Energy Edge Controller (EEC) — our local control gateway that combines hardware and software. Installed onsite, the EEC is typically the gridBox and acts as the interface between the grid and the energy management system (EMS). It receives signals from external sources (like Steuerboxen or the grid operator), preprocesses them, and forwards them to the EMS. There, the signals are evaluated and the appropriate curtailment limit is applied to ensure that both DLM rules and §14a constraints are respected — with no conflicts.

Transparency

As all signals flow through and are tracked centrally by XENON, operators and support teams gain full transparency into the system’s decision process, supporting monitoring and diagnostics. 

Seamless commissioning

CPOs don’t have to worry about configuring and coordinating multiple layers with external logic. Enabling §14a is just as simple as toggling a setting in XENON’s System Details page. After doing that, XENON takes care of the rest.

Expert insights and future outlook

Just like too many cooks can spoil a soup, charging sites can struggle with layered control systems. One logic is supposed to handle grid constraints, while the other tries to adjust local site priorities. Somewhere in between, critical functions might get dropped. In our kitchen analogy, the soup is expensive yet inedible. At a charging site, charging sessions are interrupted or the available charging power is not used to its full capacity, leading to dissatisfied EV drivers and missed revenue opportunities

As grid requirements grow exponentially with the rise of electrified mobility and regulation forces assets to become more responsive, energy flexibility is becoming a must. With XENON, CPOs can swap out their big, layered control systems for a singular, holistic one. The §14a compliant control for charging sites feature doesn’t simply reduce complexity, it treats regulatory signals the same way as a DLM signal and adjusts its logic accordingly.

As Akash Roshan, gridX Senior Product Manager – eMobility B2B, explains: “We’re not just throwing in another ingredient, we've written a cleaner recipe. With §14a integrated into XENON, operators don’t have to juggle two systems anymore. It’s one logic, one place, that’s built to handle today’s compliance and tomorrow’s grid needs.”