Wojciech Andryszek

Covid made opting out of digital tools uneconomic. Adoption timelines collapsed from years to months. The oil shock is now doing the same to liquid fuel, and charging software (not vehicles or batteries) is the next constraint.

Airlines hedge their jet fuel. It's the first thing you learn about the industry. The second is that hedges work against noise, not against tankers refusing to leave the Gulf. CNN reported as much this week. Five years out, shocks like these tend to leave fingerprints all over an economy.

Five years ago, Covid didn't invent remote work, telemedicine, or e-commerce. It just made opting out impossible. Something similar is now happening to liquid fuel, and aviation is where the alarms went off first.

The Zoom call existed before 2020. So did Shopify, Peloton, DoorDash, electronic signatures, and telehealth. What the pandemic changed was the cost of refusing them. A GP who had avoided video consultations for a decade did one on Tuesday. Cloud ERP contracts that had sat unsigned on manufacturers' desks for years went through by Friday.

, surveying executives mid-pandemic, found that companies had compressed three to four years of digital adoption in customer interactions, supply chains, and internal operations into a matter of months. Digital product roadmaps moved forward by closer to seven.

Forcing functions doesn't invent technology. They shorten the runway. The tech is usually waiting already, the economics are usually close enough, and the only thing missing is a reason to stop deferring the decision. Then somebody cuts off the oil.

Why jet fuel is the trigger, not the story

Airlines show up first because they sit at the end of the most exposed supply chain in the global economy.

 puts jet fuel at close to 30% of the industry's operating expenses. There's no substitute you can drop into a 737 tomorrow. When Brent moves, earnings move with it.

And when a shooting war threatens the Strait of Hormuz, the move isn't gentle. Twenty million barrels of oil a day pass through that chokepoint, about a fifth of global petroleum consumption, per the

But airlines are just where it gets loud first. Road freight, maritime shipping, commercial fleets, municipal buses, last-mile delivery. Every sector on that list runs on refined hydrocarbons. The arithmetic the airlines just worked through applies to all of them.

A cost line that used to be merely volatile becomes one that's also strategically indefensible. The conversation changes. Procurement stops asking whether to electrify. The question becomes how fast.

. Money pencilled in for the 2030s quietly slides into this decade's budgets. Companies that were hedging politically against the transition stop mentioning that they ever were.

Not electric long-haul planes. That timeline hasn't changed. Short-haul electric and hybrid aviation, sustainable aviation fuels, hydrogen for specific routes. These are decade-long bets with physics to solve.

The ground transport side is different. It's already further along, and it moves first. Battery-electric cars reached

. Norway sits at 95.9%, which is basically the whole market.

China, meanwhile, has spent more than a decade building its EV industry as a national project and is now exporting the results. The

 counts 12.4 million electric cars produced there in 2024, over 70% of global output.

Commercial fleets, the part of the market that cares about total cost of ownership and not the showroom experience, have been running these numbers for years. At today's price, diesel barely wins. On the forward curves, it's already lost.

The trucks are coming too. Slower than the cars, faster than the sceptics think. IEA figures put electric medium- and heavy-duty truck sales past 90,000 globally in 2024, up nearly 80% year on year.

The cars are built. Batteries are rolling off the line in volume. The component supply chains are scaling, messily and loudly but scaling. The constraint has moved somewhere else.

Europe's public charging network grew by more than 35% in 2024, crossing one million points, according to the IEA. That sounds like progress, and it is. Hardware in the ground is a different thing from a charging session that actually completes.

Ask anyone running a charging network today what keeps them up at night. Almost never hardware. It's what sits behind the plug: 

 backends. eMSP apps that don't crash at peak. Roaming protocols so a driver in Warsaw can charge in Lisbon without a second account.

 balancing so a depot doesn't trip its own grid connection. Billing reconciliation across twenty payment providers. Authentication that actually works at minus ten degrees.

The Open Charge Alliance exists precisely to make all of this interoperable and unremarkable. It isn't there yet. 

 found that 14% of EV owners had shown up at a public charger and left without successfully charging. Nobody takes pictures of that layer. It's also where most of the things that go wrong, go wrong.

Building it is specialist work. That's the bet we've made at 

, working on exactly this layer for charge point operators and mobility service providers across Europe. The people actually doing this for a living stopped debating the transition a couple of years ago.

Timing is now the argument. Specifically, whether the software stack will be ready when the volume arrives.

Energy transitions don't happen on enthusiasm. Price makes them happen, specifically the moment the alternative becomes more expensive than the switch. Covid was that moment for digital. The oil shock is playing out the same mechanic in slower motion, across everything that currently burns.

Adoption is no longer the open question. The volume is coming. Whether the charging network and the software behind it can keep up is.

Why are airlines hit first by oil shocks?

IATA puts jet fuel at close to 30% of airline operating expenses. That's structurally higher than for most other industries. Aviation has no short-term substitute either: you can't drop a new fuel into a 737 tomorrow. When Brent moves, airline earnings move with it, which is why aviation is usually where oil shocks surface in the financial press before anywhere else does.

How much oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz?

About 20 million barrels per day in 2024, according to the U.S. EIA. That's about a fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption moving through a single chokepoint. The concentration is why geopolitical risk in the Gulf moves prices so quickly. The route carries both crude and refined products bound for Asia, Europe, and North America, with no easy alternative.

What's the real bottleneck for EV adoption today?

Increasingly, it's the software layer behind public charging, not vehicles or batteries. The IEA reports Europe's public charging network crossed one million points in 2024, a 35% year-on-year jump. JD Power's 2025 survey still found that 14% of EV owners had visited a charger and left without successfully charging. That gap is where protocols like OCPP, backend reliability, roaming, and load management live.

How is the oil shock like Covid for digital adoption?

Both function as forcing events rather than invention events. Covid didn't create Zoom, telehealth, or cloud ERP. It just made opting out of them uneconomic. McKinsey found adoption timelines compressed by three to four years in months. Oil volatility does the same thing to electrification. It doesn't invent EVs or chargers; it removes the option of deferring them.

Where does electric truck adoption actually stand?

Electric medium- and heavy-duty truck sales exceeded 90,000 globally in 2024, per the IEA, up nearly 80% year on year. The segment trails passenger vehicles but is on a steep curve. Total cost of ownership for fleets keeps narrowing the gap with diesel, and volatile fuel prices accelerate the math. Expect the pace to pick up, not slow down.

OCPP (Open Charge Point Protocol), maintained by the Open Charge Alliance, is the open standard that lets charging stations communicate with backend management systems. Together with OCPI (for roaming between networks), it's what makes public charging work across operators and borders. When drivers can't charge in another country or on another network, OCPP/OCPI implementations are usually where the failure sits.

The pandemic didn't invent Zoom or telemedicine — it just made opting out uneconomic. The oil shock is doing the same to electrification. Aviation feels it first, but the math runs through every fleet burning diesel. Vehicles and batteries are no longer the bottleneck. The software sitting behind the plug is. That's where the real race is being run.

The last pandemic forced digitalization. Now, the fuel crisis pushes electrification

In the Netherlands, ERE replaced HBE and pulled EV charging into fuel-supplier obligations.

The Netherlands' ERE scheme (live since January 2026) turns every public-charger kWh into a tradable CO₂ credit worth €0.06–0.18 per kWh (example estimation). 

Chargers need an integrated MID meter by January 1, 2027. The real winners will be operators whose software stack feeds clean data into the NEa register.

From 1 January 2026, every kWh delivered into an electric vehicle at a Dutch public charger mints a new revenue stream. Not through the tariff. Through a tradable emission credit worth 1 kilogram of verified CO₂ reduction. The ERE (Emission Reduction Unit) system has replaced HBE and wired EV charging economics into fuel-supplier obligations. The spreadsheet just changed.

For CPOs, aggregators, and fleet operators, the implications run deeper than compliance. A charging session in the Netherlands now carries two revenue streams – energy sold and a compliance credit that can be traded. Margin models need to be rebuilt around that, and so does the reporting stack. Accurate metering and verifiable session data stop being a back-office concern.

. Article 25. The register is run by the 

The obligation ramps from 14.4% GHG-intensity reduction in 2026 to 27.1% by 2030, split into three non-fungible credit codes: LRE (road), BRE (inland shipping), ZRE (maritime). The 

 is 183 g CO₂eq/MJ, against 94 g CO₂eq/MJ for general fuel – which is why removing the 4× multiplier didn't gut the EV case.

Dutch public fast chargers have lived with low utilization for years. ERE doesn't fix that, but at April 2026 prices and the 2026 national renewable share of 50.5% (derived from 

A typical ultra-fast site with decent throughput lands a five- to low-six-figure annual ERE line. System-wide effects are modeled in 

MID meters and the 1 January 2027 deadline

Every booking must originate from a charger with a MID-certified meter built into the unit itself. However, external meters in the distribution cabinet can be problematic. A 

 showed that 52% of kilometers driven in the Netherlands come from private (home) electric vehicle chargers. 

However, meters from older models, such as the Easee Charge, EV Box Elvi, Wallbox Pulsar, Tesla Wall Connector Gen. 2, and go-e Gemini, are on the swap list. Exchanges cost €800–1,500 per point.

That's only the physical layer. The second, often underrated, is software.

Where CPMS, OCPP and OCPI decide ERE outcomes

ERE settles event by event. A session has to travel from the charger into the NEa register through a validated data chain, with energy metrics, timestamps, and renewable-origin proof where the 100% rate is claimed. A CPO's CPMS has to:

aggregate and normalize data from heterogeneous chargers (multiple vendors, multiple OCPP versions)

expose that data through OCPI to roaming and settlement counterparties

, the brokers that book EREs into the register

Operators who bought a SaaS CPMS a few years back are finding the vendor has no ERE roadmap, or that the custom-build quote is prohibitive. Platform migration to a solution with full control over data, in a licensed or bespoke model, is becoming a live procurement topic. 

The bigger the network, the louder the economics argue for system ownership and source access.

Dynamic pricing is the adjacent angle. ERE income lets operators subsidize off-peak tariffs without destroying margin – but that needs a tariff engine wired to network data and an ERE calculator running close to real time. Not an out-of-the-box feature.

Depot-charged EV fleets. The strongest B2B case

Biggest single wins go to fleets with their own depot charging and onsite PV documented at the same WOZ-registered address. Worked example, 100% verified renewable:

That's not a subsidy. It's the market price of a tradable right. For fleet operators, backend software (CPMS, settlement, emissions reporting) stops being a maintenance cost and starts landing directly on the P&L.

; 40–50 are operationally active, with commissions between 15% and 27.5%. Under the hood it's a data business: telematics ingest, NEa rule validation, batch booking, settlement. A broker without solid automation won't hold margin.

consolidation among brokers through 2026–2027 (M&A looks near-certain)

valuation premium for CPOs with compliant hardware and a mature CPMS

The pressure on EV software vendors is running hotter than on charger manufacturers.

Germany's THG-Quote and the French, Spanish and Italian transpositions of RED III each carry their own flavor. A single European carbon-credit market for transport doesn't exist and won't for several years. Cross-border fleets and networks have to plan for country-by-country compliance, not one API for everything.

That's regulatory risk – and an opportunity for anyone building a software layer ready to port to the next market. The Netherlands is first. Not last.

ERE is live and already rewriting the investment math. Most of the value won't go to the operator with the best hardware or the cheapest energy. It will go to the ones that control their own network data, integrate it into the NEa register without friction, and read the ERE price signal in hours rather than months. It's a test of digital infrastructure, not of steel in the ground.

The bottleneck is no longer the charger (alone).

It's the layer between the charger and the register. Session data has to be clean enough to report and fast enough to react when the price moves. CPOs running on a closed CPMS are now discovering they don't actually own the data their business depends on.

 develops CPMS platforms that operators actually own. The data schema, regulator integrations, settlement logic – the operator controls all of it. No vendor lock-in on what gets reported, or when.

Is the scheme actually in force, or still being debated?

In force. The Brandstoftransitieverplichting took effect on 1 January 2026 and the Eerste Kamer formally adopted the implementing legislation on 31 March 2026 with retroactive application.

Can businesses outside the Netherlands participate?

Only Dutch-registered operators with Dutch charging infrastructure and a Dutch grid connection can book EREs. Foreign-owned businesses operating Dutch subsidiaries can participate through those subsidiaries.

They convert automatically after the 2025 compliance year closes on 1 May 2026, at a rate of 1 HBE = 46 ERE, preserving category labels (advanced, Annex IX-B, conventional). No HBEs convert to ERE-E – new ERE-E can only be created from 2026-forward bookings.

No. The market is bilateral and OTC. Brokers publish indicative ranges (roughly €0.30–€0.47 per ERE in early 2026). From May 2026 onwards, the NEa will publish volume reports six times per year.

Is the ERE income from home charging taxable?

Tax treatment for private users is unclear pending 

guidance. Businesses should treat it as ordinary revenue.

How do I know if my charger has a MID meter?

. When in doubt, ask the manufacturer directly – installation-era documentation is the most reliable source.

When can solar panels increase my ERE yield?

Only for businesses, and only with a separate certified production meter 

 installed on the PV system, co-located with the charger on the same WOZ-registered property. For private users, solar panels have no effect on the ERE calculation.

External MID meters become non-compliant. Only chargers with integrated MID-certified meters (or a dedicated separate grid connection) can continue booking EREs. Expect hardware churn through 2026.

Is this something other EU member states will copy?

Some variation already exists (Germany's THG-Quote). Full harmonization isn't on the short-term EU agenda, but the ERE model is the most consumer-accessible implementation of RED III so far and is being studied by other national regulators.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2023/2413/oj


https://dieselnet.com/standards/eu/fuel_renewable.php

Energieverbruik uit hernieuwbare bronnen stijgt naar 20 procent:


https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2025/23/energieverbruik-uit-hernieuwbare-bronnen-stijgt-naar-20-procent

https://cedelft.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/04/CE_Delft_240338_Prijseffecten_ERE-systematiek_Def.pdf

https://www.emissionsauthority.nl/topics/renewable-energy-for-transport

Verbruik van hernieuwbare energie, 1990-2024 

https://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl038541-verbruik-van-hernieuwbare-energie-1990-2024

https://www.emissieautoriteit.nl/documenten/2026/02/02/lijst-van-inboekdienstverleners

The Netherlands' ERE scheme (live since January 2026) turns every public-charger kWh into  a tradable CO₂ credit worth €0.06–0.18 per kWh. 

The Dutch ERE system in 2026. What CPOs and EV fleets need to know

See how open protocols enable roaming, pricing, authorization, and real-time EV charging operations.

Being an eMobility leader in various projects across multiple startups, Piotr was responsible for OCPI and OCPP integration as well as EMP and CPO platforms development. With extensive expertise in the open standards field and eMobility tech solutions, he is leading teams of experienced developers and contributing with invaluable knowledge and experience.

Piotr Majcher

Every new EV charging network begins with the same question. How do we make our stations visible, usable, and trusted across multiple EV charging systems without drowning in custom integrations? The answer sits in the 

 run the data exchange that keeps charging locations discoverable, sessions authorized, tariffs clear, and roaming partners synced. They help CPOs, eMobility Service Providers, and enterprise teams launch scalable charging services without rebuilding the wheel for every partner.

The next sections break down how OCPI and OICP work and why they matter for the future of efficient charging networks.

Why open standards matter for EV charging networks

EV charging businesses grow through partnerships. You run charge points, connect with eMSPs, exchange data with roaming platforms, and support EV drivers who expect accurate information at all times. Every partner depends on clean data and fast synchronization. When each system uses its own logic, integrations slow down and operations get messy.

Open standards fix this. OCPI and OICP give the market a shared way to exchange charging point locations, tariff information, session data, authorization, and 

 commands. They help CPOs and eMSPs expand coverage, cut down onboarding time, and keep billing consistent across different EV charging networks. For electric vehicle owners, this means predictable access to charging stations with a single account and a unified experience across multiple networks.

Open communication protocols keep EV roaming stable, operations efficient, and allow any 

 to scale without building one-off workarounds for every partner.

Open Charge Point Interface (OCPI) is a structured protocol designed to let EV charging systems exchange data precisely and reliably. It defines how CPOs, eMSPs, and roaming partners share information on charging stations, live status, 

, pricing, tokens, and session progress. Instead of building custom logic for each partner, companies follow one standard that keeps data aligned across different EV charging networks.

The strength of OCPI comes from its clarity. It defines how platforms connect, how they sync real-time updates, and how they handle the charging process from discovery to billing. This removes a large amount of technical overhead and cuts integration time for any operator entering new markets.

OCPI runs in real time and is known for transparent data exchange, which helps service providers deliver accurate information to EV drivers. It also has global recognition and is actively maintained by the EVRoaming Foundation, which ensures the protocol remains open, neutral, and aligned with industry needs. As the foundation states, 

“OCPI facilitates roaming by enabling seamless data exchange between market players,”

 a rule that keeps modern charging infrastructure scalable and predictable.

Learn more about OCPI versions (OCPI 2.1., OCPI 2.2, OCPI 3.0) in our 

OCPI works through a set of modules that cover the full charging journey. Each module solves a specific part of roaming, authorization, smart charging, or billing. Together, they give CPOs, eMSPs, and roaming partners a reliable way to exchange data across different EV charging networks.

This module sets up trust between partners. It handles the tokens that allow two platforms to open a secure connection.

Both sides confirm which OCPI version they support and which modules are available. It keeps the integration clean from day one.

This module shares static charge point information and real-time details about availability, connector types, power levels, and opening hours. Drivers depend on this data to find the right charging point.

It tracks the entire charging process. You get time stamps, energy usage, charging status, and session progression. This data powers smart charging decisions and session monitoring.

The module allows operators or eMSPs to send actions like remote start or stop. It supports smart charging commands that keep the process smooth for drivers and reliable for network operators.

This module manages authorization. It verifies RFID cards, app users, Autocharge IDs, or any identifier needed to start a charging session.

Tariff information helps eMSPs and CPOs keep pricing clear. It defines energy rates, time-based fees, parking time, and flat components that shape the final charging cost.

Charge detail records represent the financial truth of a charging session. They include signed meter data, tariff details, timestamps, and energy consumption.

With these modules, OCPI supports peer-to-peer connections, direct bilateral connections, and EV roaming through platforms that rely on the protocol. It keeps data consistent across charging stations, service providers, and charging management systems.

Implementation starts with exchanging initial tokens and confirming the OCPI version through the Credentials and Versions modules. After that, both sides map their internal data to OCPI models and expose the required endpoints.

Once the handshake is active, partners test key flows such as location updates, session authorization, smart charging commands, and CDR delivery. When tests pass, the connection moves to production, and the roaming data sync begins.

’s protocol for roaming between many EV charging networks through a single connection. It sits in the backend layer of the EV charging ecosystem. This means it does not operate at the moment when the car 'talks' to the charging station. That handshake is handled by OCPP and the charger’s hardware. OICP steps in after that point, when platforms exchange data about charging locations, availability, 

, session authorization, and CDRs across different networks.

In practice, a car connects to an EV charger, the charger connects to the CPO backend, and the CPO backend uses OICP to communicate with Hubject. The hub routes roaming requests to the correct eMSP or partner network. This setup removes the need for direct connections between each pair of operators.

OICP covers the core roaming use cases: discovering charging stations, authorizing sessions, passing smart charging commands, and delivering CDRs. Companies that join Hubject gain access to many networks with one integration, which speeds up market expansion and simplifies operations. It is a strong fit for businesses that value reach and fast scaling across multiple countries.

OCPI vs. OICP within the EV charging industry

OCPI and OICP solve the same problem, but they take different routes.

OCPI uses a peer-to-peer model. Each CPO or eMSP connects directly to another partner. This gives you strong control over data exchange and flexibility in how you shape business models. It works well for organizations that want tight integrations, custom agreements, or clear ownership of every roaming link.

OICP leans on the power of the hub. You integrate with Hubject once and gain access to a wide network of charging partners. This cuts technical effort and speeds up expansion. It fits companies that focus on reach and simplicity rather than managing every connection themselves.

OCPI brings granular control. OICP brings scale through a central hub. Many operators use both to cover different charging networks and meet market demands. The choice depends on your roadmap, partner strategy, and the level of control you expect over roaming flows.

How CPOs and eMSPs implement these protocols

CPOs and eMSPs use OCPI and OICP to sync their EV charging infrastructure with roaming partners and keep charging sessions flowing without friction. The process starts by exposing the correct endpoints and aligning internal data with protocol models. Charging locations, connector details, tariffs, tokens, and session data must match the structure expected by the partner or roaming hub.

Once the handshake is active, the platform begins to exchange key data in real-time. Charging stations share status updates, smart charging commands flow between systems, and session authorization happens through tokens or app-based IDs. After a session ends, CDRs with signed meter data, timestamps, and costs move between systems to support billing and reporting.

CPO platforms use these protocols to publish charging station data and accept authorizations from roaming EV drivers. eMSP platforms use them to display accurate charging locations, manage payments, and start or stop sessions on external networks. Together, these standards help companies expand their footprint and operate across many charging networks with predictable data and clear financial flows.

What this means for your charging business

OCPI and OICP give you a practical way to grow your charging network without juggling endless custom integrations. These standards help your platform stay compatible with roaming partners, keep tariffs clean, and maintain the real-time data flow your operations depend on. They support clear pricing, accurate CDRs, authorization, and the smart charging features EV drivers expect from a modern network.

If you run a CPO business, these protocols make your stations visible, accessible, and ready for roaming. If you run an eMSP platform, they help you present reliable charging locations, manage payments, and start sessions on external networks without friction. Teams that adopt OCPI or OICP early onboard partners faster, scale across multiple networks, and keep operations predictable.

Solidstudio builds EV charging software systems that match this reality. Our CPO Platform and eMSP Platform support OCPI, OICP, and major roaming partners out of the box. You get a production-ready system with charging station management, roaming configuration, tariff handling, payments, smart charging features, and the admin tools your team needs to run a growing EV charging business.

If you want to build or scale your EV charging offer with infrastructure that’s already aligned with industry standards, explore 

Learn how OCPI and OICP power roaming, data exchange, and scalable EV charging networks for CPOs, eMSPs, and enterprise charging businesses.

OCPI and OICP Protocols for EV Charging Networks Explained

Learn how utilities use OCPP Proxy to manage EV chargers across multiple backends. 

Aldona is a Content Manager whose ultimate goal is to tell you a good story, not compromising on the knowledge-sharing part.

Aldona Krysiak-Adamczyk

Utilities are leading the shift to electrified mobility. But when it comes to EV charging, the technology stack often gets in the way.

Mixing charger brands, backend systems, and data platforms quickly turns interoperability into a full-time job.

 changes that. It gives utilities control over charger–backend communication, allowing them to switch, scale, and monitor their networks without reconfiguring a single charger.

Expanding into EV charging as part of the energy transition

For most utilities, entering EV charging is a natural next step. It connects directly to grid management, renewable integration, and long-term energy strategy.

But expanding into charging also means stepping into a fragmented ecosystem. Every charger OEM, backend vendor, and platform integration adds another layer of complexity and a growing risk of vendor lock-in.

 enables utilities to maintain control as they scale. By sitting transparently between chargers and backends, it keeps communication flexible and interoperable across all vendors. That means new hardware or software can be added without redesigning the network or breaking what’s already working.

It’s a small architectural change with big strategic impact; one that lets utilities evolve their charging networks at their own pace, not their vendors’.

Interoperability with multiple charger OEMs and backends

Utilities rarely operate in a single-vendor world.

Utilities often operate charging networks built from different hardware vendors and connected to several backend systems. In many cases, these systems run in parallel across regions or business units.

That’s where the challenge begins. Each vendor comes with its own interpretation of 

, connection quirks, and integration processes. Without a flexible control layer, every addition or change introduces risk, delays, and new dependencies.

The OCPP Proxy simplifies this landscape by standardizing how chargers communicate. It routes OCPP traffic consistently, regardless of manufacturer or backend platform, ensuring that all components stay interoperable.

Instead of building new integrations for every vendor combination, utilities can focus on scaling, confident that their network will remain compatible as it grows.

Switching or adding backends without touching charger configurations

Switching backend platforms shouldn’t mean reconfiguring thousands of chargers. Yet for many utilities, that’s still the reality. Every time a new 

 is introduced, whether for testing, migration, or vendor change, each charger needs to be manually updated.

It’s slow, error-prone, and disrupts network operations.

The OCPP Proxy eliminates that bottleneck. Decoupling chargers from the backend allows utilities to redirect traffic centrally, without touching a single device in the field. Switching or adding a backend becomes a configuration change, not a field project.

This flexibility enables testing new systems, migrating gradually, or operating multiple platforms side by side. For utilities, that means faster decisions, cleaner transitions, and 

Running multiple backends in parallel to support diverse use cases

Utilities rarely move all at once. Pilots, regional rollouts, and parallel testing are part of how large networks evolve. But traditional OCPP setups make this almost impossible - a charger can connect to one backend at a time, and switching means downtime.

The OCPP Proxy changes that dynamic. It allows OCPP traffic to be routed, duplicated, or segmented across multiple backend systems simultaneously.

Test a new backend in production conditions

Run analytics or staging environments in parallel

Migrate gradually instead of all at once (check how 

This multi-backend setup keeps operations stable while innovation continues in the background. For teams balancing reliability with experimentation, it’s the safest way to move forward without slowing down.

Retaining ownership of data independent of backend providers

For utilities, data is a core strategic asset that drives every operational decision.

 to customer analytics, visibility into OCPP communication directly supports smarter energy management.

In many vendor-dependent setups, that data sits within backend systems outside the utility’s direct control. Access is often limited, delayed, or restricted by the vendor, making it difficult to create unified insights or stay fully compliant.

The OCPP Proxy changes that. It acts as a transparent communication layer, capturing and routing all OCPP traffic between chargers and backends. That gives utilities full visibility into message flows, performance metrics, and connection states in real-time.

With this control, data ownership stays where it belongs: within the utility’s infrastructure. And that means analytics, optimization, and strategic planning can move forward without dependency or compromise.

Scaling pilots and rollouts without migration headaches

For most utilities, EV charging starts small - a pilot here, a local rollout there. But scaling those early projects into a national or regional network often exposes the limits of the original setup.

Every new site adds chargers, vendors, and configurations. Without a flexible communication layer, expanding the network can mean rebuilding integrations or managing 

The OCPP Proxy removes that barrier. Once deployed, it serves as a stable control layer that supports continuous scaling. New chargers or backend systems can be added through configuration changes, not infrastructure overhauls.

Learn how utilities use OCPP Proxy to manage EV chargers across multiple backends. Gain flexibility, retain data ownership, and scale without downtime.

Let’s read our posts

The last pandemic forced digitalization. Now, the fuel crisis pushes electrification

Recommended

eMobility Fundamentals - the eBook

Why does software matter in eMobility?

The Ultimate Guide to EV Charging Software Migration - the ebook

The Dutch ERE system in 2026. What CPOs and EV fleets need to know

OCPI and OICP Protocols for EV Charging Networks Explained

How Utilities Use OCPP Proxy for EV Charging Control

OCPP Proxy: Simplifying EV Charger Management

Open Smart Charging Protocol (OSCP) for CPMS & EMSPs Explained

Range Anxiety Is Real, But It’s Not the Problem You Think