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.

That means pilots can evolve naturally into production networks - no downtime, no migrations, no technical debt. Utilities can grow their EV operations at the speed of strategy, not the pace of system reconfiguration.

Expanding into EV charging doesn’t have to mean handing over control to vendors or rebuilding infrastructure every time your plans evolve. The most successful utilities are the ones treating flexibility as part of their foundation, not a feature to add later.

 gives you that control. It keeps your network interoperable, your data independent, and your rollout strategy on your own terms.

If you’re planning to scale your EV charging operations or preparing for your next backend integration, our engineering team can help you design the right setup for your environment.

 to see how the OCPP Proxy can fit into your architecture, and make flexibility a built-in part of your EV strategy.

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

How Utilities Use OCPP Proxy for EV Charging Control 

Learn how the OCPP Proxy simplifies backend switching, monitoring, and multi-system integration.

Krzysztof is our Head of Products and he leads the technical development behind the suite of our ready-made solutions. Throughout the years in Solidstudio, he gained an invaluable insight into the eMobilty industry’s requirements and is now more than qualified to share his knowledge with others.

Krzysztof Ciombor

, you already know the promise: open standards, vendor independence, seamless interoperability.

As soon as you start mixing charger brands, backend systems, and testing environments, one small change can ripple through the whole setup. Want to switch a backend? You’ll need to reconfigure every charger. Want to test a new platform in parallel? Good luck without creating chaos.

In most networks, each charger is still manually tied to a single backend. That static setup means every small change, like switching systems to test new platforms, becomes a full reconfiguration exercise. The flexibility promised by OCPP gets lost in the process.

This is exactly where a smarter approach comes in: 

It doesn’t reinvent OCPP, but it adds the missing piece that makes interoperability 

On paper, OCPP is supposed to make your life easier. In practice, it can feel like you’re wiring a house with spaghetti.

: each charger knows exactly one backend, and every change means touching configuration at the edge. It works fine when you’re managing a few dozen units. But scale that up to thousands, across sites or vendors, and suddenly you’re juggling:

Charger reconfigurations for every migration or test

Compatibility quirks across OCPP versions or vendor stacks

Vendor lock-in, where flexibility turns into dependency

And let’s not forget visibility. Once a charger connects to a backend, the communication flow becomes a bit of a black box. If something breaks, you’re relying on limited logs or guesswork to find out 

So even though OCPP gives you a common language, what’s missing is a 

, in other words, a way to route, observe, and manage that traffic dynamically, without ripping apart your setup every time requirements change.

That’s exactly the gap an OCPP Proxy fills.

The OCPP Proxy functions as an intermediary layer that manages communication between chargers and backend systems.

It operates transparently between the two, routing and duplicating OCPP messages without modifying their structure or content.

In other words, it doesn’t interfere; it orchestrates.

Technically, it’s a transparent middleware layer that handles JSON-over-WebSocket communication between chargers and one or more backends. But the real value is in the control this architecture provides.

Switch backends dynamically, without reconfiguring chargers or interrupting sessions

Run multiple backends in parallel for testing, analytics, or multi-tenant setups

Monitor and debug live OCPP traffic without touching production systems

Stay compliant with OCPP 1.6 and 2.0.1 across vendors

Deploy efficiently, whether on-premise, in the cloud, or in hybrid environments

You can think of it as a lightweight, scalable, and fully transparent OCPP broker. The Proxy doesn’t alter messages; it simply manages where they go and how they flow.

A utility operating thousands of chargers wants to test a new backend while keeping the old one live. Traditionally, that means reconfiguring every charger or running two isolated networks. With the OCPP Proxy, engineers can define new routing rules, and the switch happens in real time. Some chargers connect to Backend A, others to Backend B. No downtime, no disruption.

It’s the kind of flexibility OCPP was designed for, but rarely achieved in production.

The result is a more flexible and future-proof architecture, one that gives operators full control over OCPP communication without touching the chargers themselves. But the real impact of this pattern becomes clear when you look at how different organizations use it.

The OCPP Proxy has become a practical enabler of interoperability across the EV charging landscape, including utilities running multi-vendor networks, integrators building complex infrastructure projects, or backend migration projects, avoiding unnecessary downtime

How the OCPP Proxy fits into real-world operations

The OCPP Proxy isn’t tied to one business model or network size. Its role is to make complex OCPP communication manageable, regardless of how your charging ecosystem is built. Here’s how different types of organizations are already using it in practice.

Many operators eventually face the same challenge: moving from one backend system to another. Whether it’s due to scaling, vendor changes, or platform consolidation, backend migrations have a reputation for being slow, risky, and disruptive.

In a traditional OCPP setup, migrating means reconfiguring every charger, scheduling downtime, and hoping no connection breaks in the process. The OCPP Proxy makes that process far more controlled.

Decoupling chargers from the backend allows live backend switching through dynamic routing. Operators can direct a subset of chargers to the new system, keep the old one running in parallel, and observe message flows before committing fully. Once validated, the transition can happen without interrupting service or touching a single charger configuration.

For many organizations, this becomes the first real proof point of what a decoupled OCPP architecture can do: deliver operational flexibility without sacrificing uptime.

For utilities expanding into EV charging, interoperability is everything. Their networks combine chargers from multiple OEMs, often managed across different backend platforms. The OCPP Proxy allows them to switch, segment, or duplicate traffic between those platforms in real-time without touching the chargers.

During backend transitions, the proxy lets teams operate new and legacy systems in parallel, verify message flows, and cut over when ready. The result is a flexible architecture where utilities retain ownership of their infrastructure and data, independent of backend vendors.

Turnkey providers deliver end-to-end charging services such as equipment, installation, software integration, and operations. What slows them down is the integration complexity: every client has unique hardware and backend preferences.

With the OCPP broker in place, these providers can unify communication between diverse charger models and backend systems, supporting multi-tenant or client-specific setups.

It turns custom integration work into configuration, shortening deployment timelines, reducing maintenance, and allowing fast iteration across projects.

Technology and mobility service providers

Fleet management, telematics, and energy optimization platforms increasingly include EV charging as part of a broader offering. But integrating chargers into those digital ecosystems usually means rewriting parts of the backend or building custom connectors.

The OCPP Proxy eliminates that friction. It routes and replicates OCPP traffic between chargers and internal systems, enabling data sharing and analytics without backend rewrites.

This approach keeps platforms modular, scalable, and backend-agnostic, ideal for fast-growing technology environments.

For system integrators working on industrial sites, transport infrastructure, or citywide charging projects, reliability and transparency matter more than anything.

They need visibility into OCPP traffic during deployment and commissioning, and they often deal with layered or distributed networks.

The proxy provides a controlled communication layer, allowing engineers to manage routing, inspect message flows, and debug in real-time. It replaces ad-hoc middleware with a proven, production-ready component that reduces development risk and improves stability at scale.

Operators managing multiple depots or regional networks face another challenge: maintaining stable connections across mixed hardware and backend systems.

With the Proxy, they can segment traffic by region, manage backend transitions without downtime, and centralize monitoring across the entire network.

It ensures consistent operation and visibility even as the fleet grows and infrastructure evolves.

OCPP Proxy is designed to stay out of the way. It doesn’t replace your backend or change the OCPP protocol. It simply manages how communication flows between chargers and central systems, transparently and in real time.

The architecture follows a lightweight, scalable model built around a few key principles:

The proxy passes OCPP messages exactly as they are, maintaining full protocol compliance. Both the charger and the backend remain unaware that a proxy is sitting in between.


Routing rules define where traffic goes: per charger, per backend, or per message type. Those rules can be adjusted at runtime, without restarting the OCPP broker or reconfiguring hardware.

Each instance can handle thousands of concurrent WebSocket connections with minimal resource overhead. The proxy runs as a containerized service and scales horizontally using standard load balancers or orchestration tools.

It runs anywhere Docker does, be it cloud, on-premise, or hybrid. This makes it simple to integrate with existing CI/CD pipelines or infrastructure setups.

Routing rules and connection states are stored in a lightweight, persistent layer so that configurations survive restarts or redeployments.

In short, the OCPP Proxy adds control without adding complexity. It’s a modular building block that can sit neatly inside almost any EV charging architecture giving engineers the flexibility to manage, migrate, or monitor at scale.

At the end of the day, managing EV charging infrastructure shouldn’t feel like juggling cables in the dark. If switching backends, adding systems, or troubleshooting OCPP traffic still feels complicated, that’s a sign your architecture is doing too much heavy lifting on its own.

A simple routing layer, like the OCPP Proxy, can take that complexity off your plate. It gives your team control without chaos, visibility without risk, and the freedom to evolve your setup at your own pace.

If you’re ready to make your OCPP environment a little smarter 

, let’s talk about where this fits in your network.

Manage and scale EV charging networks easily. Learn how the OCPP Proxy simplifies backend switching, monitoring, and multi-system integration.

OCPP Proxy: Simplifying EV Charger Management

Discover what really drives EV range anxiety, and how to combat it with smarter charging software 

. It’s blamed for hesitant consumers and slower EV adoption, yet the irony is, the technology outgrew the fear years ago.

. When charging networks, apps, and vehicles don’t communicate smoothly, trust takes the hit. For operators and OEMs, that perception gap isn’t just psychological; it’s a software challenge.

Modern EV technology is closing that gap. By syncing real-time data, reliability, and user experience, it turns anxiety into assurance. In this piece, we’ll break down what range anxiety really is, why it lingers, and how better digital ecosystems help the industry leave it behind.

Range anxiety is the fear that an electric vehicle won’t have enough charge to reach its destination, a concern rooted more in psychology than in physics. It’s what happens when a driver’s mental model, built around a century of gasoline stations, meets the reality of charging networks that operate differently.

At its core, range anxiety isn’t about batteries running out. It’s about 

: not knowing where to charge, how long it will take, or whether a station will even work when needed. This lack of predictability makes EV drivers question the reliability of the entire system, not just their vehicle.

Yet the numbers tell a different story. Nearly 90% of daily trips fall under 100 miles, a distance any modern EV can easily handle on a single charge. Studies also show that most drivers stop worrying about range after a few months of ownership, once experience replaces assumption.

In other words, the fear is real, but the problem isn’t range. It’s the 

 between how EVs perform and how the charging experience is delivered, a gap that software and data integration are uniquely positioned to fix.

Why range anxiety isn’t really about the range

It’s easy to assume that range anxiety comes down to numbers: miles, kilowatts, or battery capacity. In reality, the problem runs deeper. Most electric vehicles today already offer enough range for typical use, often exceeding 250 miles on a single charge. The issue isn’t how far EVs can go. It’s how much 

Many drivers still measure electric range by internal combustion standards, expecting a quick top-up anywhere, anytime. When that expectation meets a charging infrastructure that’s fragmented, data-poor, or poorly integrated, the result is uncertainty. And uncertainty feels like risk.

This is where perception outpaces reality. Even with reliable technology, the 

, or how drivers access, plan, and interact with charging, shapes confidence far more than the spec sheet does. When the digital experience fails to communicate availability, price, or time-to-charge clearly, it amplifies the psychological gap.

In other words, range anxiety isn’t about the battery running out. It’s about the 

system’s failure to prove that it won’t

That’s not a hardware issue, it’s a software one.

If range anxiety is the fear of running out of energy, 

 is the fear of not being able to recharge when you need to. It’s newer, more grounded in experience, and far more relevant for today’s EV ecosystem.

Drivers now trust that most EVs can cover their daily needs. What they don’t always trust is the 

 Arriving at a charging station only to find it offline, fully occupied, or charging at a fraction of its advertised speed instantly replaces confidence with frustration.

 reveals the real pressure point for the industry. When a driver’s experience depends on infrastructure uptime, software coordination, and data accuracy, even one broken link in that chain can ripple across perception.

harge point operators and eMobility service providers

, charge anxiety highlights the need for systems that do more than track chargers; they need to predict faults, update availability in real-time, and maintain network transparency across partners. It’s about making the existing charging stations 

Until EV drivers can rely on the data as much as the hardware, anxiety won’t disappear; it will simply evolve.

The truth about EV charging infrastructure

The global charging network has already come a long way, but public perception has not yet caught up. The assumption that charging points are scarce or unreliable still dominates headlines, even as infrastructure quietly scales in the background.

In reality, growth has been rapid and coordinated. For example, in the United States, 

 alone allocates funding for 500,000 new EV chargers by 2030, while the UK’s £950 million 

 aims to install at least six high-speed points at every motorway service area. Governments across Europe, North America, and Asia are making similar moves because range anxiety isn’t solved by cars; it’s solved by networks.

Still, availability is only half the equation. 

 is what makes infrastructure meaningful. A charger that’s installed but offline adds no confidence. That’s where digital infrastructure, the software connecting chargers, operators, and EV owners, becomes critical.

Smart charging management and monitoring systems can ensure uptime, detect issues before they affect users, and maintain transparency across multiple networks. For operators, that means stable revenue streams and regulatory compliance. For drivers, it means predictability—the antidote to both range and charge anxiety.

The next step isn’t just expansion; it’s 

. Platforms that unify data, automate network oversight, and deliver consistent user experiences will define which operators earn long-term trust.

Electric vehicle types that minimize range concerns

Not every electric vehicle triggers range anxiety the same way. The type of drivetrain and how it connects to available infrastructure play a major role in shaping driver confidence.

BEVs run entirely on stored battery power. They rely on the availability and visibility of charging infrastructure but benefit most from the ongoing improvements in 

Many modern BEVs now exceed 250–400 miles on a single battery charge, enough to cover the vast majority of real-world driving needs. For fleet or public charging operators, this means usage patterns increasingly favor 

 charging sessions, especially on longer routes.

PHEVscombine an electric motor with a small internal combustion engine (and a fuel tank). When the battery depletes, the engine recharges it or powers the drive directly, effectively eliminating range anxiety.

For new EV adopters, especially in regions with limited charging coverage, PHEVs often act as a “transition technology” that bridges the psychological gap between fuel and electricity.

Manufacturers have also made meaningful design moves to counter perception. Models like the Chevrolet Volt or BMW i3 with range extenders gave early drivers a backup system, while 

 stretch battery performance in newer BEVs.

From a software perspective, these differences matter. The more diverse the vehicle ecosystem becomes, the more critical interoperability, energy routing, and charger compatibility become.

A network’s ability to support both BEVs and PHEVs seamlessly, powered by data, standards, and integration, is what turns variety into an advantage rather than a new source of complexity.

How a good eMSP app can combat range anxiety

Range anxiety fades fastest when drivers feel in control. And that control comes from data, not horsepower. A well-built 

 turns uncertainty into predictability by connecting users to what really matters: real-time visibility, accurate planning, and trust in the network.

Live data on charger availability, power levels, and operational status removes guesswork. When a driver can see which points are online, how fast they charge, and whether they’re occupied, range anxiety drops before the trip even starts. For example, Solidstudio’s app architecture pulls this information through 

Modern EV journeys shouldn’t rely on static maps. By combining a vehicle’s current battery state, driving conditions, and route distance, a smart eMSP app can automatically suggest optimal charging stops. This turns “Will I make it?” into “Where’s my next stop?” - a psychological shift that defines confidence.

Transparent pricing and charging session details

Unclear pricing is another trigger for anxiety. Drivers want to know what they’ll pay before they start charging, not after. A well-designed eMSP app should present costs, energy rates, and estimated session duration upfront, making the experience predictable and transparent.

When users understand what to expect, both financial and functional uncertainty disappear.

Knowing a charger will be waiting is a game-changer. Through remote reservations and session control, drivers can plan without detours or downtime. For operators, these features also optimize network distribution and prevent congestion during peak hours.

EV drivers shouldn’t have to think about network boundaries. 

 and interoperable platforms make cross-operator charging seamless, giving drivers freedom to travel without worrying about which network they’re on.

When access feels universal, perceived range extends far beyond what the battery alone provides.

 give operators access to network reliability metrics, usage analytics, and real-time alerts. This kind of proactive oversight keeps uptime high, and when the network performs consistently, drivers stop second-guessing it.

In short, a good eMSP app doesn’t just locate chargers. It builds 

 between drivers, operators, and infrastructure. The moment the experience feels consistent, range anxiety stops being an adoption barrier and becomes a solvable design problem.

How drivers can beat range and charge anxiety

Even the most advanced charging network can’t eliminate anxiety if drivers don’t know how to use it effectively. Experience, awareness, and small behavioral adjustments make the difference between uncertainty and confidence, and that’s where smart digital tools help.

Using intelligent route planning and charger visibility features built into modern eMSP apps, drivers can map their journey based on 

 along the way. What used to be pre-trip stress becomes part of the planning flow.

Maintaining at least 20% charge offers peace of mind, especially in less dense charging areas. Modern apps can even send reminders or range-based notifications when drivers drift too far from that comfort zone.

Most EV owners realize that the best time to charge isn’t always when they’re out of energy, it’s when they’re taking a break. Integrating charging stops with natural pauses in a journey (coffee, food, or meetings) makes the process feel less like maintenance and more like convenience.

Aggressive acceleration or high-speed driving increases battery drain, but real-time energy feedback and eco-driving insights can help. Many modern EV dashboards, and some eMSP apps, display consumption trends so drivers can adjust on the go.

Understanding the basics, such as connector types, charging speeds, and session behavior, removes hesitation. When the driver app clearly communicates the charger type and power output, the experience becomes transparent instead of technical.

Starting each day with a full battery remains the simplest cure for anxiety. Combined with dynamic network tools, it gives drivers a hybrid model of convenience: charge privately, travel publicly, worry less.

Ultimately, range and charge anxiety shrink when the user experience feels intuitive. The more information and reliability the software delivers, the more empowered drivers become, and empowered drivers don’t fear the limits of their battery; they trust the system that supports it.

Turning range anxiety into range confidence

Range anxiety is real, but it’s not the real problem. What holds drivers back isn’t limited range or missing chargers. It’s uncertainty, the gap between what EVs can do and what the system shows them they can trust.

That gap is closing fast. As networks grow, software becomes smarter, and data flows seamlessly between vehicles, apps, and infrastructure, anxiety gives way to assurance. The future of electric mobility won’t be decided by who installs the most chargers, but by who builds the most reliable, transparent, and connected experience around them.

For operators, OEMs, and eMobility ventures, that shift starts now. Range confidence is engineered through interoperability, uptime, and clear communication, the kind of digital foundation that defines the next generation of EV services.

If you’re exploring how to strengthen your own ecosystem’s reliability or planning a scalable eMobility platform,

 We help businesses design and implement software architectures that turn driver uncertainty into trust, and networks into competitive advantage.

Discover what really drives EV range anxiety, and how smarter charging software and connected infrastructure are turning fear into range confidence.

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

See how smart charging systems use software to make EV charging efficient and cost-effective.

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

Electric vehicle adoption is growing faster than the digital infrastructure managing it. Most networks still treat charging as a hardware problem, installing more stations instead of managing the ones already online. However, 

And smart charging systems create that coordination layer. They connect chargers, users, and energy data in one place. They let charging sessions adjust automatically to grid load, energy prices, and demand in real time. For operators, that control comes from the software: the 

 that manages the infrastructure and the 

 that handles users, payments, and access.

Discover how smart charging systems, CPMS, and eMSP software improve EV efficiency, reduce costs, and make charging networks scalable.

Let’s read our posts

How AI Secures EV Charging Networks and Prevents Fraud

Recommended

eMobility Fundamentals - the eBook

Why does software matter in eMobility?

The Ultimate Guide to EV Charging Software Migration - the ebook

OCPP Proxy: Simplifying EV Charger Management

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

Smart Charging: Making EV Energy Use More Efficient

Telcos and EV Charging: An Unlikely Pair That Makes Perfect Sense

OCPI Protocol Guide: From 2.1.1 to 2.3.0 Updates

Different Types of EV Chargers by Level and Plug: How To Choose the Right Setup