Upon the recently launched CPO pricing calculator, we elaborate on the business models!

Martyna Tonia

Charge Point Operator platforms, eMobility Service Providers apps for end-users, Open Standards and facilitations for their integrations, eRoaming, smart charging, connected cars and the list that goes on - software solutions have 

solidified their place in the eMobility ecosystem

 and they’re now making up for a huge part of its proper functioning.

While an ordinary EV driver may not be aware of the amount of software running in the background and facilitating the whole electric car experience, it’s a case well-known to any eMobility operator, of which a great majority came across a rather difficult task of choosing the right digital products at some point.

There is a fair share of such on the market and quite a few available as ready-made products already. Many of them remain very similar in terms of the integrated functionalities and features. This includes open standards facilitations, user management, remote start/stop features, etc. While it’s fantastic to see the technology growth behind the industry, an operator choosing the right software must take into account a broader range of needs than just a great software. Here’s where the situation may get tricky for some of them. Existing solutions are usually offered via strict purchase patterns, which often start and end at SaaS (aka Software as a Service).

Much like in any other situation, SaaS has strong benefits for some of those operating in the eMobility ecosystem, yet it’s not a one-fits-all solution. In order to see why, we’ll elaborate a bit on both.

Software as a Service (SaaS) is a way of delivering software applications to customers over the Internet. Instead of buying and installing software on their computers, customers access the application through a web browser or mobile app. They can then share data and collaborate with other users in real-time. SaaS eliminates the need for expensive hardware and software licenses, meaning businesses save money and time on IT (at least when it comes to the upfront costs). With SaaS, users can access their applications anywhere and anytime, giving them flexibility and control over their data. Additionally, maintenance and upgrades are handled by the provider so users don’t have to worry about keeping their systems up-to-date.

There is however a major drawback of SaaS. Namely, the costs often increase as the business expands, which can make scaling a costly venture.

With that, for small business owners, SaaS can be an invaluable tool for streamlining business processes and increasing productivity – all without breaking the bank. By eliminating costly investments in hardware and software, businesses save money while still getting access to all the features they need.

Unlike SaaS, a software license is a traditional way of purchasing and using software. With this approach, businesses buy a specific number of licenses for the software they need and install it on their systems.The advantages to this approach are many. First and foremost, businesses don’t have to pay ongoing fees for the application. They’re also able to customize their software as needed, and they can use the licenses for any number of users.The main disadvantage of a license is that (sometimes) businesses have to take care of maintenance and upgrades themselves. Additionally, since businesses must pay upfront for the licenses, it can be more expensive to start with than using SaaS.

The biggest difference between SaaS and software license is the cost structure and ownership. With SaaS, businesses pay a monthly or annual fee to access the application. With a software license, businesses purchase a one-time license for the number of users they need and own it outright.

Another difference lies in who is responsible for maintenance and upgrades. With SaaS, the provider is responsible for keeping the software up-to-date. With a license, companies must take care of maintenance and upgrades themselves (it must be noted here, that there are however licensed solutions offering the updates).

We have covered a lot more on the similar topic in our article 

 - check it out to learn more in greater detail.

Having worked with all kinds of CPOs out there, whether small or big, we’ve noticed that said differences can directly affect the businesses depending on their scale or future goals. We have also noted that EV charging software is usually available only via SaaS, which in this particular case results in higher prices as the charging stations are added. In simple terms, the more the charging network grows, the more the monthly fee is bound to increase. While it may not be an obstacle for small operators with no views of siginifiacnt growth, the case gets slightly difficult for those who get to operate numerous sockets.

Given the rapid pace of growth within the eMobility industry and the fact that more and more CPOs are entering the market, at Solidstudio, we strongly believe that the freedom of choice is required when picking up the business model of the software, so that all can have a cost-effective and most optimal solution.

Knowing this and knowing the nuances behind the software purchase models, we decided to make our products available via either SaaS or license and even more… Namely, we give the flexibility to change the the model once either becomes more efficient. That way one can start with SaaS and then move to license once the amount of charging stations under control becomes more expensive to be held under SaaS than it would be with license. With that approach we made sure that our digital products are serving equally well for each and every client.

Since the two concepts of purchasing software may get a bit complicated and unclear at first, we thought it would be best if anyone could compare the specific prices and see the numbers for themselves.

With that in mind, we made available an online tool allowing for exactly that.

 compares any costs you choose with what it looks like with us - whether its licence or SaaS. You can enter whichever amount of charging stations you like (the more stations, the more you save). We also elaborate on some more details in terms of the benefits and drawbacks of each business model.

SaaS vs license - what works best for eMobility software?

Learn about OSCP and see how it nourishes (not only) the eMobility environment.

Piotr Majcher

The rather steep uptake in electric vehicles can be observed across all the transportation branches at a fairly constant rate. To match the pace of this new era, it is crucial that market players communicate and work together in order for there to be an accessible environment. EV Roaming can help create open infrastructure by providing seamless access between cars equipped with wireless charging capabilities or electric batteries as well as those without such technology through mobile phone networks which would allow them roam free at any time.

With contributors from all over the world, up-to-date solutions for any participant are an absolute must to ensure high levels of interoperability. This is why open standards play such a crucial role in this industry's growth and continued expansion into new markets. The global eMobility market has seen rapid developments thanks largely to open networking capabilities that provide equal opportunities across borders

On our blog, we have covered quite a lot on the topic already. Some of the articles are:

EV roaming with open standards - OCPI and OCHP

EV roaming with open standards - OICP and eMIP

Open standards, however, are not the only reason behind the galloping of the whole industry. New technologies, like smart charging are nourishing the business just as much and are, to a great extent, responsible for the significant growth. We’ve launched a comprehensive PDF on smart charging, that can be downloaded here:

With the ever-growing popularity of electric vehicles, one must remember that the industry’s responsibilities grow linearly. As the charging infrastructure expands, conscious steps need to be taken in terms of its impact on the grid. Smart charging plays quite a role here.

As much as some of the open protocols cover in fact a lot of smart charging functionalities, one primarily stands out. Open Smart Charging Protocol is designed to “collaborate” with the grid on a much more advanced level.

Open Smart Charging Protocol - the introduction

OSCP was established by Open Charge Alliance, the same company that runs the OCPP protocol. So far, OSPC has been launched in two versions. The first one, OSCP 1.0 was officially released in 2015, meanwhile its successor, OSCP 2.0 in 2020.

The major difference between the two versions is that the latter has been amended in terms of the terminology used in the specification documents so that it would fit a broader range of audience. The changes also included an architecture revision.

In general, OSCP enables communication between the charge point and the energy management system or a DSO system. That way it can be integrated not only by the EV side but also by the energy suppliers. The core function of OSCP is that it is able to communicate a 24h forecast of the grid capacity to the Charge Point Operator, who can then adjust the charging profiles to create the most optimal EV charging energy demand, without overloading the grid.

Passive charging (aka the charging that occurs when any charger is working at its maximum capacity, no matter the demand’s condition) may theoretically pose a threat to the energy grid and impose steep electricity prices in cases when the demand already runs very high. The spike in prices is strictly related to the need for enlarged electricity input to match the increased demand, and what comes with it, the extended energy production, which is costly. Such a scenario also negatively impacts the “cleanliness” of electric vehicles as with the higher energy production, the emissions increase.

Smart charging seeks to respond to the above issue by an appropriate maneuvering of the energy intake and outtake in order to achieve a satisfactory equilibrium. Given the drastic changes undergoing throughout the entire energy sector it is vital that eMobility (being an integral part of it) matches the innovatory trend.

Given OSCP 2.0 is the leading version, we will focus on its specifications.

The creators of Open Smart Charging Protocol have introduced a well-specified domain model to serve as the grounding behind the entire specification. In the picture, there are:

: a device (i.e.: EV, battery-run devices, heat pumps, etc.) that can consume energy in a controlled manner. The flexibility here adheres to either time or amount of energy that is consumed or generated

: a unit that controls the flexibility resources (i.e. Charge Point Operators). The control mechanisms are not specified by OSCP

a unit that manages certain energy network (i.e. DSO aka Distribution System Operator or EMS aka Energy Management System). It imposes boundaries to the flexibility providers, but does not have a direct access to the control of flexibility resources.

The OSCP also leaves room for a fourth player - Capacity Optimizer whose role is to support flexibility providers in ensuring the most optimal solutions.

As stated before, the main function of OSCP is to provide a 24h forecast of the grid capacity to the Charge Point Operator. The way this works in the above-mentioned setting is that a Capacity Provider informs the Flexibility Provider of foreseeable events and potential predictions in terms of the grid’s capacity. There are few types of forecasts mentioned in the OSCP documentation. Below, the quote:

“Consumption Capacity (CC) - specifies for the given time interval the maximum total amount of capacity that the group of Flexibility Resources can consume

Generation Capacity (GC) - specifies for the given time interval the maximum total amount of capacity that the group of Flexibility Resources can generate

Fallback Consumption Capacity (FC) - specifies the maximum total amount of capacity that can be consumed in island mode, i.e. when the Flexibility Provider and the Capacity Provider have lost connection

Fallback Generation Capacity (FGC) - specifies the maximum amount of capacity that can be produced in island mode, i.e. when the Flexibility Provider and the Capacity Provider have lost connection

Optimum (O) - ) specifies for the given time interval the Optimum amount to be generated or consumed.”

OSCP allows for the communication between involved parties. That is, when a Flexibility Provider requires more/less energy, it can issue a specific request via the ‘AdjustGroupCapacityForecast’ message. Based on the received information, the Capacity Provider then acts accordingly if possible. In cases when there is no option of adjusting the energy flow, a ‘GroupCapacityComplianceError’ is sent to notify all involved parties.

Open Smart Charging Protocol also precisely states the rules and important issues behind the connection of all the involved parties. This entails the registration, connecting and handling connection issues. The registration (meaning registering endpoints) consists of the creation of a unique token to use for authentication in order for the parties to connect to one another. Then connecting is facilitated via “handshaking”. This mechanism allows for expressing the preferences to one another. OSCP also presumes the possibility of detecting whether a certain party remains offline for the time being and it is enabled via the heartbeat mechanism.

Please note, that this is a brief introduction into the OSCP, the full documentation with all the features listed and explained can be downloaded from Open Charge Alliance official website.

Open Charge Alliance did a solid work in creating a protocol allowing for such communication. Even if there’s still room for improvement and it’ll take some time for OSCP to be implemented on a large scale, its biggest benefit lies in the fact that the protocol (in the second version; after the changes) can be used either well for EV-related cases or for others who fall under the energy control spectrum.

The global energy system is a vast and complex network that supplies energy to homes and businesses across the entire planet. It includes everything from power plants and transmission lines to distribution systems and end-use customers. With that in mind, open protocols enabling smooth information exchange are beyond important in ensuring seamless operation.

About Open Smart Charging Protocol (OSCP)

See a little insight into the world of energy efficiency and learn what it brings to the table.

Gabriela Stawiarska

As we have stated before, we’re going to elaborate slightly more on the topic of energy. Rooted deeply in said matter, eMobilty plays an important role and fits right into the subject of energy management and distribution. Given the ever-circling debates on potential impact of electric vehicles on global energy resources, the need to extend the narration is even more grounded.

The practice of energy efficiency is the act or ability to use less resources on a task, followed by decreased consumption and waste. In general, energy efficiency is the ratio of the useful output to the total input of any resource. For example, high-efficiency appliances use less electricity than standard appliances, and better insulation in a home reduces the amount of heating and cooling energy required.  The study of energy efficiency looks at the ways to reduce the amount of energy required to provide a given service or function and the research is being conducted at nearly every aspect of the usage. It also includes improving the overall efficiency of systems, such as a power grid or transportation system.

Energy efficiency is a vital component in achieving net-zero emissions of carbon dioxide through decarbonization. It can be one the easiest and most cost effective ways to combat climate change while also providing consumers with lower prices on their electricity bills as well improving competitiveness among businesses

The motivation to improve energy efficiency is vast and diverse. The act of decreasing our use of fossil fuels can result in financial savings, while also reducing cost on consumers.The need or desire for economical practices has never been greater than it currently stands: with the prices at an all-time high. The economic crisis has forced people to re-evaluate the way they use energy in their homes and businesses. According to the 2012 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, improving commercial building energy efficiency could save American businesses $40 billion annually by 2030.

It's not just businesses that can benefit from saving money on their energy bills; households can also make a significant dent. The same study found that if households across the United States improved their energy efficiency by 10%, they would collectively save $19 billion annually on their utility bills.

While there are many motivations to pursue energy efficiency, one of the most important is simply that it is better for the environment. Burning fossil fuels emits harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is leading to irreversible climate changes. In fact, improving energy efficiency is one of the most effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In the short-term, some energy efficiency improvements may require a higher upfront investment, but offer significant long-term savings. In the long-term, energy efficiency improvements can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a healthier environment. Nevertheless, there is a whole plethora of possible adhibitions in nearly every area that requires energy.

Improving the energy efficiency of industrial manufacturing and processes can be challenging, but it can also lead to significant reductions in energy consumption and emissions. In many cases, energy-efficient technologies can be readily adopted in existing facilities with minimal investment.

In other cases, more comprehensive approaches may be required that involve changes to production processes or the adoption of new technologies. Improving the energy efficiency of industrial manufacturing and processes can also require changing equipment, upgrading controls and instrumentation, and modifying operating procedures.

Extracting and processing raw materials generally requires a significant amount of energy. Reducing the energy intensity of these operations can have a major impact on overall energy consumption.

There are a number of ways to improve the energy efficiency of resource extraction and processing, including using energy-efficient equipment, optimizing processes, and adopting best practices.

Buildings account for a significant portion of total energy consumption. Improving the energy efficiency of buildings can help to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

There are a number of ways to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, including improving insulation, upgrading heating and cooling systems, air conditioning, smart thermostats and using energy-efficient lighting i.e. LED. Many incorporate renewable sources as well, such as solar panels on the roofs.

Appliances and consumer electronics are also a big part of total energy consumption. Improving the energy efficiency of appliances and consumer electronics can help to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

There are a number of ways to improve the energy efficiency of appliances and consumer electronics, including using more efficient models, turning off devices when they are not in use, and properly disposing of old or broken devices.

The transportation sector is one of the most energy-intensive sectors of the economy. Improving the energy efficiency of transportation can help to reduce energy consumption and emissions.

There are a number of ways to improve the energy efficiency of transportation, including optimizing routes and consolidating shipments. In some cases, it may also be possible to substitute energy-intensive transportation modes with less energy-intensive alternatives. Interesting fact may be that with electric vehicles, the efficiency is estimated to be around 90%, meaning that only 10% of the energy is not directly used.

One of the most important benefits of energy efficiency is that it can help to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the main drivers of climate change, and they have a variety of negative impacts on human health, agriculture, and natural ecosystems. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases is thus a key goal of many energy efficiency programs.

In addition to reducing emissions, making buildings more energy efficient can also save money on energy bills. This is because using less energy generally leads to lower energy costs. For example, switching to more efficient lighting can lead to significant savings on electricity bills. In some cases, the savings from energy efficiency measures can be used to offset the costs of implementing those measures.

Finally, improving the energy efficiency of buildings can also improve the competitiveness of businesses. This is because businesses that use less energy often have lower operating costs. In addition, energy efficient buildings often have higher resale values than their less efficient counterparts.

Overall, the benefits of energy efficiency are wide-ranging and significant. By reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, saving money on energy bills, and improving the competitiveness of businesses, energy efficiency provides a key solution to many of the world’s most pressing problems.

A few words about energy efficiency

Learn more about the battery swapping and its benefits and drawbacks.

While the electric vehicles popularity keeps increasing all over the world, range anxiety and charging time still pose a threat to mass EV adoption. It’s not really a surprise, given electric vehicles on a broader scale are still relatively new and those who tend to travel often and on lengthy distances may find them slightly intimidating. In response to the issue, many technologies are being introduced aiming to better the charging experience and shorten the time it takes to charge the battery before setting back on the road.

Some, like rapid chargers, are welcomed with great enthusiasm, others, like battery swapping, not so much.

In this piece, we’ll try to shed some light on what battery swapping is, what the benefits are and why there are so many skeptics.

In a nutshell, battery swapping is a take on omitting the charging session wait time and exchanging the discharged battery for a fully charged one. The main goal behind it is to even out the charging experience with the one everyone knows from fuelling up an ICE car.

The good part of this solution lies in the fact that the process aims for its full automation. With the use of robotic cranes, the battery changing time can in fact be shortened to somewhere between 6 and 10 minutes - approximately as much as one spends at a gas charging station.

Certainly, this solution leaves a major question - what about the batteries? In order for it to work, the car batteries can’t really be owned by the EV owner. In this case, the EV driver must lease them from either the car manufacturer or the battery supplier.

The way this works on paper is rather simple. EV owner drives up to the specialized battery swapping station. The car then goes on a dedicated platform, where the vehicle gets slightly lifted in order to retrieve the battery. The battery is then disconnected from the vehicle and lifted out by a crane or other lifting device (the vision expects this to be an automated process). A new, charged battery is then put into place and connected to the vehicle. The EV is driven off the platform and away from the station. Batteries which have been taken out, stay at the station and are being charged up again. Once they’re fully charged, they're ready to be used for another swapping session.

Up until recently, battery swapping was just a bold idea, not really firmly in practice. However, a Chinese company - Nio managed to put the vision in life on a rather big scale.

Nio is a Chinese super-company producing electric cars. Some call the Shanghai-based EV manufacturer the new Tesla. In April 2021 Nio started its European expansion by launching services in Norway - currently the biggest EV market in this part of the world.

Apart from quite a few car models, which are doing exceptionally well in China, Nio has aroused a lot of interest by introducing the battery swap stations on a rather big scale - earlier this year they announced completion of the 1000th battery swap station. In terms of how this works, the mechanisms are similar to the ones described above.

The swap station looks a bit like an automatic car wash. The car drives in, straight on the platform. Automatic mechanisms unbolt the battery pack and exchange it for a new one. This works for all Nio’s models and is available in three different battery capacities - 75kW, 100kW and 150kW. The exchange takes up to 6 minutes.

Given the amount of swap stations available and the lighting-speed in which one goes for a full battery, it may seem like great technology. There are however quite a few issues to be taken into account before even starting to think about applying this on a larger, international scale.

Nio's battery swapping station, source: https://www.nio.com

Battery swapping - will this ever work on a larger scale?

In order to answer this question, one needs to take into account all the advantages and disadvantages of such a solution. Certainly, at least at the first glance, it may seem like an extremely attractive and efficient way, especially on lengthy distances or when time matters. Such instances occur especially with heavy-duty transport (meaning trucks) or buses in cases when lengthy stop for charging is not possible. However, there’s a lot more to the story.

As it has been mentioned before, “charging” time is the number one attractive feature behind the solution. Given that loading up the EV battery will alway be compared to fuelling up an ICE car, battery swapping may be the closest experience in terms of the length of the procedure. Battery swapping stations (in their more advanced forms) can also pose as an energy storage and a hefty way of incorporating the demand response practices. As batteries are (usually) stored within the charging station, they make up for quite a capable power system. In cases of a high demand, some of the energy could be fed back to the grid - this would’ve happened in cases when there a quite a few idle but charged batteries available. Another positive aspect lies in the fact that with battery swapping stations, the possibilities of installing solid solar panels on the roofs are quite significant. With that, EV drivers could not only enjoy a fast car charge, but also the satisfaction of having it done mostly or entirely via green energy. Both aspects - the battery storage and the chance of using PV are a great way of ensuring the EV charging business remains eco-friendly and contributes to the overall grid’s health. Lastly, battery swapping directly impacts the cost of an electric vehicle. With a solution expecting to lease batteries rather than buying them as a part of a vehicle, EV drivers are exposed to prizes reduced of what often times might be the most expensive part - the battery.

As much as the benefits look rather promising, too bad, it seems like the disadavtages outweigh the whole solution. First and foremost the costs of building a battery swap station are inordinate. It is estimated that one such station may cost anything between 450 000 - 600 000£, which means that with the current prizes, building up a whole network must cost millions of dollars. Naturally, like with any other tech advanced solution, the prizes are likely to go down in the future, yet still, they’ll probably be higher than the majority of CPOs could invest. On top of that, it must be remembered that the cost does not include the land they’re supposed to be built on. Here’s where another issue emerges. While “classic” EV chargers does not require much space and can be installed in existing infrastructure, the battery swap stations are a lot more spacious and require a construction to be set in order for it to run.

The biggest obstacle though may be the interoperability of such stations. As much as Nio is settling strong in the Chinese market, it must be remembered that their stations only work with their own car models. Given, more and more brands are introducing their own electric vehicles, the diversification of available models gets bigger and bigger, making it extremely difficult to match. This more or less leaves three options for the battery swapping;

each car manufacturer starts developing their own swap stations, which would involve a huge investment and most probably the lack of space

battery swapping stations are developed in such a way as to serve various models, which in practise would cost even more, if at all possible

car manufacturers agree on universal battery instalment, which in many cases would require significant changes in the whole production process

All of the above are beyond complicated in terms of their broad-range adoption. Things complicate even more with the battery ownership in the above scenario. Simultaneously, the concept of universal batteries emerges, making it a whole another case to be discussed.

Some battery-swapping ventures have taken place already in the past. For example Tesla has put forward the idea as they were looking for investors. However, the plan got cancelled probably faster than it has been introduced. Renault also tried. They even launched a sub-brand called Better Place in order to facilitate the managing and setting up the swap stations. After almost 5 years, the company filed for bankruptcy.

As much as we might have brought some negativity into the narration, it must be underlined, that although extremely difficult for a wide-range adoption, battery swapping may still be a decent option in some cases. Looking at China’s example, there are definitely instances where the solution can work. For European standards it may not necessarily be cars, but there’s a whole plethora of other ways to facilitate it, i.e. with the scooter businesses.

What is battery swapping?

Take a look at some of the electrification ventures across the industry.

As much as we’ve been focusing heavily on the electric cars (which are at the forefront of eMobility), there’s much more to the whole electric transportation industry. Some are already fairly popular, others are still in development phases. However, the scale of electrification grows rather rapidly all over the world and across different means of transportation.

In the city, we can most commonly see electric buses, trolleys, and trams. The first two usually share the same infrastructure – they both have batteries that need to be regularly recharged and often use the same routes.

Trams are a bit different as they’re almost always connected to an overhead wire that powers them constantly. This limits their range but makes them more reliable, which is important for public transportation.

Buses are the most common type of electric city transportation. In Europe, the majority of new buses being put into circulation are electric. The same goes for China – where air pollution is a pressing issue, and the government is investing a lot in eMobility.

Electric Volvo Bus, source: https://www.volvobuses.com

The two biggest bus manufacturers are BYD and Yutong, both from China. In Europe, the most popular models are those made by Volvo, Scania, and MAN.

Trolleybuses are very similar to regular buses but draw power from wires suspended above them, much like trams. These are mostly found in Eastern Europe and Russia – countries with large areas and long distances between cities.

Taxis and ride-hailing services are also starting to switch to electric cars. In Europe, the Netherlands was one of the first countries to make this transition. The country’s two biggest taxi companies, Connexxion and TCA, have both announced that they will only buy electric vehicles from 2020 onwards.

Ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are also starting to switch to electric cars in some cities. In London, for example, Uber has committed to having all of its cars be electric by 2025.

Trains are another area where electrification is happening rapidly. In Europe, a lot of new trains being put into circulation are electric. The same goes for China, which is investing heavily in high-speed rail.

The two biggest train manufacturers are Siemens and Alstom, both from Europe. In China, the most popular models are those made by CRRC.

In the United States, Amtrak – the national rail operator – has announced that it wants to replace all of its diesel-powered trains with electric ones by 2035.

Trucks are another area where electrification is starting to happen. Tesla has already launched an all-electric truck – the Tesla Semi. The truck has a range of 500 miles (800 km) and it can haul up to 80,000 pounds (36,000 kg).

Daimler – the parent company of Mercedes-Benz – is also working on an all-electric truck. The truck – called the Freightliner eCascadia – has a range of 250 miles (400 km).

Volvo – one of the world's largest truck manufacturers – is also working on electric trucks. There are already some models in place – such as the Volvo FL Electric – but the company is also working on an all-electric truck that will have a range of 300 miles (480 km).

The aviation industry is starting to explore electrification as well. Eviation Aircraft's Alice is the first all-electric passenger plane. It's a small aircraft that can seat up to nine people and has a range of 650 miles (1,046 km). The company is planning to start commercial operations in 2022. 

Airplane Alice, source: https://www.eviation.com

Wright Electric is another company working on electric passenger planes. It's planning to launch a short-haul plane that can seat up to 150 people by 2027.

However, Wright Electric is not the only company working on electric planes. Airbus, Boeing, and Embraer are all exploring the possibility of making electric planes. In the cargo sector, Airbus is working on an all-electric plane called the E-Fan X. It's a hybrid plane that will have four electric motors and two gas turbines. For now it operates as a technology showcase and it's paving the path for future electric airplanes to come.

Electric airplanes are still in development but there are already a handful of companies working on them. The most promising designs are those that use electric motors to power the propellers or turbofans.

The biggest obstacle to electric airplanes is their range. Current battery technology can only provide enough power for short flights. This is why most of the research is being focused on hybrid designs that combine electric motors with traditional combustion engines.

Ships are one of the last areas to be electrified. It is happening slowly but surely. The first electric ship was put into operation in 1881 but it wasn’t until the 2010s that the technology started to be used on a larger scale.

The two biggest manufacturers of electric ships are ABB and Siemens, both from Europe. In China, the most popular models are those made by CIC.

The most common type of electric ship is the ferry. In Europe, there are already several hundred electric ferries in operation. The world's first all-electric container ship – the MV Yara Birkeland has debuted in Norway. It will be able to carry up to 100 containers and it will sail between three Norwegian ports. 

Yara Birkeland, source: ​​https://www.yara.com/ 

Norway is also a home to the largest fleet, where over 60% of all ferries are electric. Generally, there are only a handful of electric cargo ships in operation but that is expected to change in the coming years.

In terms of the electric cruise ships, there aren’t many but the world's largest electric cruise ship,” the Yangtze River Three Gorges has recently set on its maiden trip. The new, 100 meter long ship is a marvel of technology and sustainability. It can haul up to 1,300 passengers at one time with its 7500kWh battery pack.

Transport electrification takes place in nearly all kinds of areas. Including things like construction and farm equipment. As much as the changes in how we power the utilities are widely visible, there’s still a long way to go before it’ll take over for good.

eMobility outside of the passenger cars - some of the electrification ventures

Download our paper on Demand Response and learn all about it!

Lately, there has been quite a lot of debate about the capacity of the grid all over the world. With tensions rising, many people are voicing their concerns in terms of the potential grid overburdening. However, while speaking about it, one must remember how complex the whole ecosystem is.

The global energy system is a vast and complex network that supplies energy to homes and businesses across the entire planet. It includes everything from power plants and transmission lines to distribution systems and end-use customers. At the heart of this system is energy management. This is the process of planning, controlling, and optimizing the use of energy resources to meet specific objectives. It involves countless operations making sure that the entirety runs smoothly.

Demand response is one of the technologies involved in grid’s proper operation. 

Per definition, demand response is a change in electricity consumption by consumers to help keep the supply and demand of electricity in balance. This can be done by either reducing or increasing their electricity usage depending on the needs of the grid.

Through demand response, utilities can reduce the need for investment in new generation capacity, as well as improve grid stability and resilience. For consumers, demand response programs can offer financial incentives and other benefits.

The whole technology, however slightly complicated at first glance, brings a whole plethora of benefits for both - energy consumers and the grid itself.

In our downloadable PDF, we shed light on all the important aspects of demand response:

What are the main branches of the energy system?

What’s the role of the grid in the ecosystem?

Examples of demand response in practise (including eMobility solutions)

How does demand response impact the energy system?

All about demand response

Refresh the knowledge on OCPP and see what changes have been implemented over the last years!

 on OCPI. Given how widely read it was, we thought it’d be a good idea to continue the series on open protocols in the EV charging diligence.

Standing at the forefront of EV mass adoption, open standards and protocols are essentially responsible for the communication within the industry. They connect all involved parties (i.e. CPOs, EMPs, EVSE) altogether and allow for the data exchange, staying up-to-date and allowing for EV drivers to actually facilitate the charging sessions.

We have already covered quite a lot on the subject of open standards, for those interested, here’s the list of some entries so far:


In this piece, all the focus goes into the Open Charge Point Protocol - OCPP.

OCPP has been developed by the Open Charge Alliance, a consortium of electric vehicle infrastructure providers, automakers, utilities, and other stakeholders. OCPP is a communication protocol used by charging stations and electric vehicle service providers. It enables two-way communication between the EVSE and CPOs, allowing for the monitoring and control of charging sessions.

OCPP is an open protocol, and anyone can develop applications that use it. Yet, it has not been officially deemed as standard, meaning that as much as OCA highly recommends using it, it’s not obligatory for EVSE manufacturers to produce hardware compliant with OCPP.

In terms of what it does, understanding of the OCPP placement in the entire ecosystem is crucial. As it has been stated earlier, OCPP is the syntax connecting the CSMS (Charging Station Management System used by CPOs to control their networks) with the actual hardware appliances (charging stations). Amongst operations covered by OCPP there are:

: enables identifying the EV driver and starting/finishing the charging event

: the charging event data is transferred to the backed system to define the chargers and bill the EV user accordingly

: CPOs can monitor the stations’ statuses (i.e. which are currently occupied, which have some issues detected)

Throughout the years, there have been a few versions of OCPP published. Two most recent ones are - OCPP 2.0 and 2.0.1. We’re gonna focus on these two, as they’re currently the most relevant.

In terms of the migration from the previous version (OCPP 1.6), we have covered that subject in this article. When it comes to OCPP 1.6, this version was enriched with multiple new features compared to its 1.5 predecessor (now mostly out of use). As we read in the documentation, to OCPP 1.6 there have been added:

A binding to JSON over WebSocket as a transport protocol is added, reducing data usage and enabling OCPP communication through NAT routers, see: OCPP JSON Specification

Extra statuses are added to the ChargePointStatus enumeration, giving the CPO and ultimately end-users more information about the current status of a Charge Point Structure of MeterValues.req is changed to eliminate use of XML Attributes, this is needed for support of JSON (no attribute support in JSON).

Extra values are added to the Measurand enumeration, giving Charge Point manufacturers the possibility to send new information to a Central System, such as the State of Charge of an EV

The TriggerMessage message is added, giving the Central System the possibility to request information from the Charge Point

A new Pending member is added to the RegistrationStatus enumeration used in BootNotification.conf

More and clearer configuration keys are added, making it clearer to the CPO how to configure the different business cases in a Charge Point

The messages and configuration keys are split into profiles, making it easier to implement OCPP gradually or only in part

Known ambiguities are removed (e.g. when to use UnlockConnector.req, how to respond to RemoteStart/Stop, Connector numbering)

(please note, this extract comes from the OCPI 1.6 documentation and can be downloaded in full from their website)

Now let’s focus on the two latest versions. OCPP 2.0 was first introduced in April 2018. Since then, some issues have been found. As it turned out, some of the problems couldn't have been solved by fixing textual nuances in the documentation and needed bigger changes, to the point where they weren’t backward compatible. This included i.e. messages improvements (like the length of the security message certificate which happened to be too short). This is when OCPP 2.0.1 was introduced and it's recommended by OCA to use this one only.

As the OCPP standard continues to evolve, it is important for charging station operators to stay up-to-date on the latest version of the OCPP protocol. Doing so will ensure that their charging stations are compatible with the latest CSMS software and able to take advantage of the newest OCPP features.

In terms of how OCPP 2.0 followed by 2.0.1 have changed compared to OCPP 1.6, there’s been some major changes. First and foremost an ISO 15118 support has been introduced. In return, this has opened up the possibilities such as the Plug and Charge functionality. In the newest version SOAP is no longer supported as it has been entirely replaced by JSON websockets. There have also been some major improvements in the security area. Amongst some slightly smaller changes,

device management & monitoring replaced formerly used Status Notifications. The transaction handling has been improved so that it could support bigger and more complex networks.

The official OCPP documentation consists of 7 parts:

JSON over WebSockets implementation guide