Replay and transcript of eMobility Open Standards webinar.

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

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

On October 14th Piotr Majcher and Krzysztof Ciombor led a webinar in which they discussed open standards applied in emobility. Below you can find a video recording of the presented use case, and a transcript for those of you who prefer the written form.

Unlocking eMobility platform using Open Standards - video:

Unlocking eMobility platform using open standards - transcript:

 Hello and welcome to our meeting about the emobility. We'd like to talk today about unlocking the eMobility platform using open standards. OK. Two important things worth sharing before we start. The first one is, as you can see in the topic, we'd like to talk today about 

, but not only. We'd like to also mention different approaches to unlock mobility platform, which are, for instance, OICP by Hubject. And other different protocols allowing to do the same, but in a different way. And the second important thing, we would like to show you, is that we are going to talk about the use case. It's not going to be a theoretical presentation. We would like to show you a step by step description of how we unlock mobility platform using open standards. Let me just quickly go through the agenda. We'll start from the short introduction and just off ahead, we'll go through the description of how we open eMobility platform using the open standards. We'll start from the initial state of the project. That was the point when we decided to introduce open standards to the platform. Then we'll go a bit deeper into technical details. We will describe the transition process and at the end of that part, we will tell you a bit about the challenges and risks. The last part of the presentation is about the results. So, actually what we achieved by opening the platform using open standards. I'm Piotr Majcher and I am a CTO and co-founder of Solidstudio. Three years ago, I and my partner decided to stop working as consultants and we started a software house.

 Now, apart from being IT experts, we are also focused on the EV market, especially in the field of the integration between different components and different partners in that market. Here with me is Krzysztof Ciombor. Krzysztof, can you say a few words about you?

 Yes. Hello, everyone. I am Krzysztof. I've been working with Solidstudio for almost two years now. I am the lead developer in eMobility project. I was primarily a backend developer specializing in JVM technologies and I particularly love the Kotlin programming language

 Thanks Krzysztof. Just let me add a few more things about us. So, why do we share these insights? We have been cooperating with one of the European EV leaders for two years and we have experience in developing both sides of this market. So we were responsible for delivering features normally recognized as something delivered by eMobility service provider. But we are also responsible for the development of the charge point operating platform, and we were involved in the integration between the partners using both approaches. So we were using open standards like OCPI standards and OICP, but we are also using custom APIs.

I'd like to show you a few numbers about the EV market now and in the future. I'd like to focus only on the first number. As you can see here, in 2018 in the UK, almost two percent of all cars sold were electric. I've seen quite hot Twitter news a few days ago that in Norway last month, more than half of the cars sold were electric. I think it proves that the movement of introducing electricity into transport is 

. And there's no question ‘if we should do that’, but ‘how should we do that effectively?’. Before we go to the technical description of our journey from closed to open platform...

 ...let’s talk a bit about the benefits of open standards. I'd like to start with the question. So the first benefit is business model optimization. The question I'd like to ask you is ‘what limits you and your company when making a decision about the integration with partners?’ We have a technical background, but we are working with sales and other business teams.

So how does it work? Normally, the ideas about integration with the partner are brought by the sales reps to the company. They have ideas, because they see some potential benefits from integrating with network parties. But before making the decision about integration, they have to know the time needed to deliver that. They have to somehow involve the delivery team, and in general, integrations with other partners are time-consuming tasks, because we have to remember about two things. If we are integrating with another company using a custom API, we are synchronizing two things. We are synchronizing models and we are synchronizing work of two teams working in a separate organization.

When it comes to the model, we know that the same things can be molded in a different way. For instance, one CPO (Charging Point Operator) may use only sockets and that's enough for their business. But another company may use a much more sophisticated model of charging infrastructure. They may use location, charge points, maybe electric vehicle supply equipment, connectors. And when we are doing the connection between those two different boards, we need to establish some common language. So we have to synchronize our models to be able to talk to each other. And the second point is synchronizing two teams and it's always challenging, even inside one company. My experience says that integrating using custom APIs is a matter of months, not weeks or days. The business knows the answer and that is let's assume three months. That starts during the calculation because they need to compare possible benefits coming from the integration of the partner with the cost of the delivery of such integration. And we just realized that in some cases, business decisions are driven by the cost of technical, by the cost of the delivery of the integration. That's, of course, not good.

Now, imagine a different scenario. Imagine that business doesn't have to ask tech teams about the estimation because they already know that integration with the partners normally takes four days. And for instance, there are some cases when no code has to be changed because everything is done on the platform. Such flexibility to our business can be brought by introducing open standards. The second point, our OCPs are also very important. And the point is our users. We believe that no matter what we are doing, so if you are the CPO, ESP (eMobility Service Provider), or as we are Solidstudio, a software house, users are the central point of our business. It's because scaling in most cases means that more and more users can benefit from our services.

So I’d like to start again from the question, what can make our users' life easier? According to the surveys, users are still worried about not having enough access to efficient charging stations. This is recognized as one of the most serious barriers to purchase EVs. Imagine that the user of the platform, which is not integrated with many partners, is somehow locked to the infrastructure provided. We can compare that to the situation of traditional cars. In order to buy gasoline, you are forced to look for the petrol station of the partner that you have a contract signed with. That's, of course, not a user-friendly approach. But by introducing open standards and by integrating more and more partners, with a quick integration, we can change that. And we can open as a CPO, our charge points to be used by any user on the market. And on the other hand, from the ESP perspective, we can allow our user to charge at any charge point. That brings us to that next point, which is, I believe, a long term goal for the whole market, so it's building a real European charge point network.

I think that the current state of the charge point network in the world can be compared to what we saw in the early years of electricity. There were a lot of small power plants and they produced energy without any kind of standards. Now we have one single grid in Europe and the end-user is not even aware of all those technical details under the hood. Any device can be plugged in and in any place in Europe and it just works. On the other hand, multiple power plants are also connected to the same grid. We can build the same type of experience by introducing more and more operators and mobility service providers into the same network.

I think that we can conclude the introduction now. And now we'd like to dip a bit deeper into the transitional process.

Initial state of the project - scattered, custom-made API

 Thank you very much, Piotr. OK, now we'll talk a little bit more about the technical details, starting with the initial state of the project, which we had a couple of years ago. And it was actually the point where we started to wonder if we can do better. We had many custom-made APIs exposed specifically to the partners that we were integrating with. And it quickly became apparent that this solution is not going to work for the future and it's not going to be maintainable. So let's start with the initial state of the project. As I said, we had multiple custom-made APIs. Those APIs were very limited in the scope of the data that we were exposing. Those APIs were only capable of exposing basic static data out to charge points, which means including the location data, for example.

But it definitely did not support full e-raming flow. And moreover, there were no real-time updates. So whenever a partner wanted to have the current state of the charge points, for example, they had to do it in a polling fashion, which is, of course, not very efficient. Also, we had multiple different APIs exposed to our partners. And as I said, this solution was not very scalable.

Main challenge with this approach was that we had to implement monitoring in multiple places in order to make sure that our APIs work correctly. We also wanted to have those APIs secured. But since we had contractual obligations different in the set up with every partner, we had to have multiple different security mechanisms in place, and we had to test every one of them independently to make sure it worked correctly

Finally, as I already mentioned, the maintainability was not so high, because any change done to our system would then need to be propagated and updated in every single one of those APIs. So, as you can imagine, this leads to an exponential explosion of the cases that we need to cover.

We need to make sure that we test them and we are exposing the correct things in production. And the biggest issue with that approach was also something that we already mentioned from a business perspective. Since we did not have the opportunity to create new integrations in short time This leads to scaling problems because we are only limited to a single user group, which are actually the users that have contracts signed directly with us. As, for example, CPO, use our touchpoints. And we can not extend this to a larger group of people that will be able to use our charge points.

So let's briefly talk about the transformation process and how we applied those changes from a technical perspective.

The transformation process itself is relatively simple. We first decided on the open standards that we want to use and then implemented the simple use case to confirm that the standard is really suited for our needs and we can actually implement it correctly. Then we added successive modules to enrich the API and exposed new functionalities. And finally, we achieved this huge milestone, which is the full e-roaming functionality.

This allows us to open our charged points to more external users and more external integrations. And this is like the full e-roaming functionality is beneficial for both the MSP (Mobility Service Providers) because the MSPs want to attract more users by having more access to more charging networks. This approach is also very attractive for CPOs because we want to increase the utilization of our charge points, and if we are exposing them to a much larger user base, and this means that the utilization will eventually grow, and our charge points will be used more and more. And finally, we can apply the testing and monitoring staff directly to these open standards and have centralized in one place.

As you probably are aware and you have probably seen this picture many times before, there are basically four open standards available on the current market. Of course, for the purpose of this presentation, we are focused mostly on the CPO and MSP connection, which may or may not include the clearinghouse in between. In this area, we have basically four open protocols which are widely used across Europe. This includes the OICP protocol, the Open Intercharge Protocol, which is a proprietary protocol, developed by Hubject, we have the OCPI, which is actually a peer to peer protocol, but it also can be used in a peer to hub fashion and this is currently maintained by the EV Roaming Foundation (previously, it was maintained by a Dutch company). We have the eMIP, the eMobility Interoperation Protocol, which is a kind of proprietary protocol developed by a GIREVE platform. They are a French market player and it also is a hub connection to their platform. And finally, we have the OCHP protocol. Again, to a clearing house and is maintained by the e-Clearing Net Foundation.

So even though those protocols are very similar to the functionalities they expose, like every single one of them allows you to do, the basic authorization exposes the charge information, has a possibility to get information about the session and CDR, and finally, support for e-roaming info. We still need to decide which bridge protocol suits our use cases the best. Having selected the protocol, we can continue with the step by step implementation.

It's important to realize that most of those protocols and in particular OCPI protocol allows us to do the integration step by step. What I mean by that is that OCPI protocol exposes so-called modules which can be implemented basically independently, and that allows us to start with a very simple use case. Then out successive modules along the way for the simple use case, we selected POI data sharing. This, even though it comes with the initial spike in the development effort, because we need to, for example, implement the credentials module in order to perform the full handshake flow.

After completing that once for the first partner, we can basically reuse the implementation for any successive integration with any new partner. And POI data is only about a single module, which in OCPIs the locations module. And in our OICP for Hubject, we can use EVSE data exchange in order to achieve basically the same result. So even though this process is simple, we can already see after completing that, we can already see the benefits, because we can expose to POI data, which can then be used, for example, for display purposes on external partner modules.

Having done that, as I said, we can continue with our successive model implementation along with the new requirements that come from new integrated partners and for this purpose. We can then start, for example, sharing the CDR if a partner is interested in that and finally complete the e-roaming milestone, which for OCPI I would include command sessions and CDR module and remote start-stop session for Hubject OICP protocol. By doing that, we can already start switching existing partners and deprecating the legacy integrations in favor of using open standards. This allows us to successfully remove those custom made APIs and centralize everything within this one open protocol. But that's not the end. We can push it even further and include additional modules like, for example, tariffs, token and charging profiles to improve this platform even more and expose more functionalities to our users.

OK, let's talk about the challenges or risk factors that we encountered along the way and explain what are the main problems and what you should be aware of? OK, so first of all, this is a brief overview of the challenges we encountered. The situation may be different for your company, but in general, we believe that those are accurate representations of everything that everyone is trying to use open platform struggles with. This includes actually a standard selection, many internal processes and data models to the open standards, applying some modifications and extensions to the standard, migrating to a newer version. And finally, the necessity of supporting multiple open standards and open standard versions.

First of all, accurate standards, selection, as we described. There are multiple standards available on the market. So it's important to realize which standard you should implement. This is, of course, dictated by two factors. If we want to achieve wide market coverage, we should probably support the standards which are used by most of the players on the market. But it quickly turned out that this is actually difficult to find out. And it may come only from experience or by, for example, being a member of this larger EV market or EV platform. For example, the EV Roaming Foundation, if you are a member, they may have some data about that. This is particularly important for OCPI where the latest version is 2.2, the 3.0 is in progress, but actually, the most used one is still the 2.1.1 Version.

Selecting the appropriate variant is also important,if you want to apply additional features that are needed for your company, like, for example, supporting the charging profiles and thus enabling the smart charging because this is available only in OCPI 2.2 and it's actually not supported in previous versions. So depending on the use cases in your company, you may want to implement a different standard.

When it comes to matching internal processes and data models to the standard, it comes in two ways.

So first of all, as we already mentioned, you for your purposes internally may model the data differently and the OCPI or OICP or any other open standard requires you to do so. That may need additional transformation/mapping layers in between your internal data models and the open protocol itself. So even though this representation you may already have in your system, in order to fulfill the open standards requirements, you will probably need to remap them to comply with the schema, when it comes to the process adjustments. This is particularly important for the CPI protocol, where this protocol is bi-directional. That means that it supports both a push and pull source. This is not usually the case for developing rest APIs.

For example, where it is mainly about getting the data and there is no active push. However, by doing the bi-directional communication, we achieve real-time updates where we can immediately push, for example, the EVs status change to our partners. And thus they can, for example, show it to the user if a charge point is available or not. I also want to mention the data quality, and this is a part of the processes adjustments since we want to ensure the best experience for both our integrations and our partners, but also for our users.

We want to make sure that the data we're exposing is actually of high quality, which includes, for example, checking the location data, if it's accurate, checking the street name, if correct, et cetera. So some partners are already doing that on their side. For instance, Gireve has their own team, which handles data quality. But for some integration, it is up to you to make sure that the data you're exposing is of high quality.

When it comes to standard modifications and extensions, this is again driven by both sides. It can be driven by us or it can be driven by our partner. What we mean by driven by us is that sometimes we actually want to expose more data than the standard provides. Imagine a case where you as a CPO have a platform for gathering telemetry data from a charge point, and you want to share it with telemetry data with your partner. But there is no property for doing that inside the open standards. If there is an agreement between you and your partner, you can proceed with extending the protocol and thus exposing more data for this particular integration. This is very useful in some cases, but the modification itself can be also driven by our partner, which is a very prominent case in OCPI 2.1.1 where there is actually a slight gap in the standard itself. Basically, there is no property to properly connect CDR to a session. So some partners are forcing you to adjust the standard and again. For Gireve for example, they introduced their own property called authorization idea, which they're using for these purposes. But it means that you will need to adopt the standard on your side and comply with those requirements if you want to integrate with Gireve when it comes to new standard migration.

So, as we already mentioned, the OCPI 2.1.1. version is the most widely used and adopted version on the market. Both version 2.2 Introduces some major changes, which, for example, enabled the smart charging, so you may be tempted to do the upgrade to the latest version. But this also needs to be coordinated properly with the partner you want to integrate with. And it's not always so simple.

Finally, we want to mention that there will be at least for the next couple of years it will be necessary to support several open standards for two reasons. The first reason is that those standards are constantly evolving and they serve different purposes. So if you want to integrate, for example, with Hubject you are basically forced to use OICP protocol. But the other reason would be to enable more peer to peer integrations. You would want to go with OCPI, but the reality for the next couple of years is probably that we either end up with this status quo where we need to have our support for multiple standards.

There are a couple of predictions that it may happen that there will be some kind of unification of the standards, and that will be one open standard. It's up to discussion whether or not this is a probable scenario. But if not, and if the open standards are there on the market, we may need to support them for the future.

So to conclude this section, we want to compare this current status with the status that we had before. So all of the issues we had previously are now solved. For monitoring, we have a single centralized place where we can monitor our APIs and make sure that we are not doing anything wrong. For security, it's not only about a single entry point but also about the unified mechanism where previously every single API of ours could be secured using a different mechanism like basic authorization. Some API can use authorization talk and now they're all forced to use the authorization mechanism provided by the standard. And finally, maintainability. And it should be pretty obvious any change applied directly in our system, can be updated only in one place and propagated to all our partners. It also includes easier testing because we can use some open-source testing tools. We can use interoperability tools to confirm that our APIs are working. Finally, there are also some events called plugfests where everybody gathers and tests their integrations all together to make sure that everything works. If everyone is speaking the same language, which is in our case the open protocol, they can communicate seamlessly and confirm that their APIs are working correctly.

 Thank you Krzysztof for taking us on a journey of opening the platform, using open protocols. I'm sure that this type of information would be very useful before someone decides to introduce open protocols onto their platform.

This is actually the last thing we'd like to share with you, and these are the results of what we did. And we needed four months in order to introduce OCPI into the charge point operation platform. And after that, we were asked by the business ‘How long does it take to integrate the next partner?’ and we estimated the effort to several days. It was about four days. It means that we reduce effort to integrate a partner by 95 percent.

I think that does answer the question that I asked you when we started, how to make our business not limited by the technology. Thank you. That's the end of our presentation and we still have the space for the questions. So if you have any questions, please, use the chart on the right side, and we will do our best to answer.

OK, so you see the first question from Chris. Could you briefly describe some main differences between, OICP and OCPI. How about the cost effectiveness of OCPI? Is it worth a shot? I think this is a question for Krzysztof

 Sure, I can try to explain. So the main difference between OICP and OCPI would be the connection type because OICP's strictly pure to hub connection and Hubject in this example. Where the OCPI is an open protocol which allows both peer to peer and peer to hub connection. Now, in terms of the properties that are exchanged through those protocols, the OCPI is actually more flexible and includes more data. This is especially important, for example, for the German market, where we need to have the signed meter values included in the standard for Eichrech conformity, which is a German specific case, but it's still needed for the open protocols when it comes to the cost effectiveness.

This is rather a question of what is your use case and how you want to integrate with the partner. If you can do a peer to peer connection and this suits you best, it's probably good to try the OCPI. But if you want to integrate the subject, there's no other way. And to use the OICP.

 Thank you Krzysztof. And I hope that answered the question. Here we have another question from Michael. Do you operate on your own network or do you support other networks in those integrations? Solidstudio is a software house and we are supporting our partners, who are looking for technical support. So we have an 

 so we know how to do that, but we don't have ours as a Solidstudio, we don't have our own network. Please let me know if that answers your question.

And we can go to another one from Adam. Question: What is the adoption of OCPI among EV charger manufacturers or suppliers? As Krzysztof mentioned, in order to know such details, we would have to be the member of some bigger organization, some organization that connects similar companies. We know that those four open standards that were presented are widely used, and we have an experience that since we introduced that OCPI into the company, we already have a few other partners that are willing to use that. We also have one partner that used our custom API and now is willing to switch. So I only can say that the adoption is quite, quite big, but I can't give you an exact number.

OK. And the next question: in your opinion, what are the missing features you would like to see in the future of OCPI versions?

 So first of all, I think the standard is relatively good for the cases that we are apparently trying to do, considering the whole EV market. But for the future, they would definitely need to be supported for the upcoming things like the new ISO 15118 standard, which is about the plug and charge functionality, which basically means that you can skip the whole authorization process because the car itself will be authorized within the charge point. So I would like to see OCPI supporting that, maybe not for the features of the OCPI, but I would really like to have a well-defined testing suit and maybe some testing plasma for OCPI because from our perspective, especially, the handshake flow is pretty tweaking OCPI and a lot of people make a lot of mistakes there. It would be nice to have it improved for future integration.

 Thank you Krzysztof. That was the last question we have for now. Let's wait five minutes more. And we have another question, from the US? Some are saying there are problems with PKI governance. Can you please discuss the role of PKI in OCPI?

So by PKI, I mean Private Key Infrastructure. So it's not included, at least in the version 2.1.1 OCPI defines the shape of the data that are replaced by their partners. So it's rather the definition of the in short, JSON's that they're sent from one partner to another and also defines something else. OK, so the concern is with the PKI in OCPP. Well, OCPI, but you know, OCPP. So OCPP is a bit above what is the scope of our webinar. So we are talking about the integration. OK. Sorry for interrupting, but I'm getting more and more information from Michael. So the first question was for the PKI in the context of OCPI, but it's in the OCPP. So is there a similar concept OCPP. OK.

 I would try to clarify that. I already mentioned that while telling you about differences between OCPI and OICP in version 2.2, we do have support for signed meter values which can be used to exchange those authorization data, and also assigned data through the OCPI protocol. As I mentioned, this is required for German conformity. But is still up to our partners to decide on the standard of the encryption and the key exchange, but it's technically supported in OCPI 2.2 but as far as I know, there are plans to improve these OCPI 3.0. I hope that answers your question.

 Thank you, Krzysztof for the support. OK. So if there are no questions. Please feel free to reach us out using our emails. If you have any questions regarding our presentation or in general if you'd like. If you are looking for support in those topics that we presented, do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you very much again for your time for being with us here. And see you next time, hopefully in the next webinar by Solidstudio.

Replay and transcript of eMobility Open Standards webinar. Click to learn more.

Unlocking eMobility platform using Open Standards - #OCPI use case

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:

EV roaming with open standards - OICP and eMIP

EV roaming with open standards - OCPI and OCHP


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

Open Charge Point Protocol

Open Charge Point Protocol migration from 1.6 to 2.0.1

Keeping IT systems up-to-date, even with basic tasks like dependencies or newly coming company-wide best practices is challenging. Even if all components are maintained in-house, it’s time-consuming to keep all areas updated. This applies also to keeping up-to-date external protocols our system uses. Whether we are integrated with Stripe over HTTP API, or with thousands of charging stations over OCPP, it’s good to know what the latest API version introduces. All this in order to examine if there are new opportunities upfront our business that can be supported by the newest version of the protocol we use. Or maybe our market requires covering long-waited, flow enabling updates. Let’s dive deeper into the new features introduced in OCPP 2.0.1 to see if it’s worth spending time upgrading your CPO platform.

OCPP 2.0.1 introduced business-oriented features but also technical improvements like device management or security. Those aspects are likewise very important, but this article gathers the latest OCPP updates focusing on the business angle.

More sophisticated support for smart charging is OCA’s (Open Charge Alliance) answer for a growing interest in this area. Energy cost fluctuates during the day. Also, the amount of energy available on different levels (charging station, building/parking, grid) changes according to the current consumption, production, and network capabilities.

Having that fact in mind we can use it to plan the charging process, buy cheaper energy for the end-user, and not overload the network. We need to know when energy is cheaper or the network load is too high. It’s out of the scope of OCPP, but once we have such information, we should inform the charging station how to apply it to finally reduce the cost of charging and limit network load.

OCPP 1.6 already supports smart charging. What is new, OCPP 2.0.1 is being open for new types of input having an impact on the charging process. Let’s start from a quick overview of OCPP 1.6’s support for smart charging and then move to things that are new in version 2.0.1.

Whole smart charging is based on charging profiles. A single profile describes time intervals with power/current limits, for instance, a profile can define that between 0:00 and 10:00 we can charge using 5kW, and between 10:00 and 0:00 maximum energy is limited to 2kW.

Profiles can be stacked and merged in order to build complex profiles. There are three types of charging profiles:

ChargePointMaxProfile - profile of whole charge point

TxDefaultProfile - default profile for a transaction (can be for whole charge point or for specific connector)

TxProfile - profile for a single transaction, deleted once a transaction is finished.

The second essential concept is a type of smart charging. There are three types of smart charging setup supported in version 1.6:

From a technical perspective, everything is covered by three OCPP API operations:

As it was mentioned earlier, 2.0.1 is open to new sources of information driving smart charging. Since now we can consume information from:

electric vehicles connected to charge point (through the ISO 15118)

Imagine a situation where there are some external indicators saying the energy our charge points transfer to EVs has to be limited. We can handle that on the CPO side, consuming the information and preparing an adequate charging profile being sent to the charging station over OCPP. But the 2.0.1 version supports direct integration between charge points and EMS. An extreme example of such integration can be a hospital with a lot of critical health-related systems consuming energy and with parking having charge points. It’s obvious that charging cars is less important than keeping the core hospital’s infrastructure running. This is an example in case of a bigger load, the energy management system should limit energy flowing to the charging stations. It can be done directly between the EMS and charging stations outside the OCPP. But such an approach introduces a problem. The CPO platform can be lost because the charging station behaves not the way it was requested by the system. OCPP 2.0.1 solves this problem by introducing a notification mechanism that informs CSMS (Charging Station Management System) about some external limitations. There are many cases that can be solved by support for direct smart charging inputs from an energy management system:

integration with Building Energy Management System

integration with Home Energy Management System

From a technical perspective, a new charging profile type (ChargingStationExternal) has been introduced. External signals changing the charging profiles should be stored as a charging profile of this type. Once an external charging profile has been added, the charging station has to notify CSMS and it does it using the new message - NotifyChargingLimitRequest.

The issue of support for ISO 15118 will be covered in the next paragraph, now let’s focus on the parts of ISO 15118 related to smart charging. Smart charging is nothing more than gathering information about the state of the network (including prices, load, etc.), processing the data, and steering the charging process. Standard ISO 15118 introduces another one source of information that can be processed in order to plan charging processes effectively. The source of information is an EV. One of the most important pieces of information when planning a charging process is the amount of energy the car wants to consume. There are many options to provide such information to the CSMS:

user can enter requested energy using a mobile app (delivered by the eMSP) and through the backend-to-backend integration send it to the CPO’s CSMS,

the charging station may send this data directly to the CSMS using a custom API

We could even use a new measurand introduced in OCPP 1.6 called SoC (State of charge of charging the vehicle in percentage). All those approaches have significant drawbacks. They assume the user's manual action, using a custom API or doing some approximations (when translating percent of battery already charged to the energy to be consumed without knowing the capacity of the battery). None of those solutions is good enough to become a standard. But ISO 15118 together with OCPP 2.0.1 covers this part of smart charging. ISO 15118 as a standard describing communication between an electric vehicle and a charging station specifies what type of information can be exchanged between those two parties. EV sends:

energy request (target, minimum and maximum)

charging parameters (current, power, and voltage)

discharging parameters (current and power)

Once the data is sent to the EVSE, it can be translated to the OCPP message and sent to CSMS which can use this input to prepare the charging schedule and send it back to the charging station (taking into account other inputs like price info, network load from DSO, etc.).

OCPP 2.0.1 introduces the message NotifyEVChargingNeedsRequest to share ISO 15118 based information with CSMS. It has four parameters describing charging details sent by EV:

Once CSMS prepares a charging profile for the current transaction, it sends it using SetChargingProfileRequest OCPP message. EVSE is proxying the information to the EV and as a last step, EVSE can notify CSMS about the charging schedule calculated by the EV using the NotifyEVChargingScheduleRequest OCPP message.

What is also worth mentioning OCPP 2.0.1 introduced ISO 15118 based renegotiation of the charging schedule. Renegotiation can be triggered by both sides - EV and CSMS. It’s useful in order to quickly react to the latest changes in the grid, no matter if it’s to reduce costs or unstress the network.

Very often the eMobility world is compared to the petrol industry. One of the most frequently compared areas is the transfer of energy from the station to the car. It’s said that we still have to wait years to bring the same user experience for the eMobility users as gasoline-based car users have today because of the time needed to charge the car. There is one improvement that has never been available for classic cars, but some charging stations and electric cars already have it. It’s Plug & Charge. In short, it’s a technology that allows users to start charging sessions without manual authorization. A user just needs to plug in the cable and without scanning the RFID token or using a mobile application car starts to drain energy from the station. Once charging is done, users can be automatically billed, also without entering payment details anywhere. Everything thanks to the PKI based solution introduced in the ISO 15118 and also covered by the OCPP 2.0.1.

Plug & Charge is built on a trust that is guaranteed by the Public Key Infrastructure. The most interesting part of it is how it replaces the need for human intervention when doing the authorization. The EV has the contract certificate stored (X.509 certificate). The certificate associates the end-user with the public key. Because the certificate is issued by a trusted Certificate Authority, the charging station is able to check it, and if it’s valid, the charging station believes that the user presented in the certificate is not fake. User is identified by the ID called E-Mobility Account Identifier (eMAID) stored in the contract certificate. eMAID is also known to the eMSP for billing purposes. Thanks to that, eMSP knows which user has to be charged for the transaction started automatically just by plugging the cable.

Two main parts of OCPP cooperating with ISO 15118 in order to provide Plug & Charge are:

Whole ISO 15118 is built upon Public Key Infrastructure. That’s why the separate component managing certificates has been introduced in order to open OCPP for integration with EVSE supporting ISO 15118. There is a set of OCPP messages including:

that are designed to manage certificates related to ISO 15118.

The second part of OCPP allowing to implement Plug & Charge is Authorization flow. AuthorizeRequest message contains (among other fields) information about the token used for authorization. This is a message used to send RFID token or a Central token in a remote transaction. There are multiple types of tokens supported in OCPP version 2.0.1 (more about it in the next paragraph), but one of them is called eMAID. eMAID is sent together with the data allowing to verify contract certificate (certificate and iso15118CertificateHashData).

OCPP 1.6 and previous versions were designed to support RFID-based authorization. Version 2.0.1 introduced a set of new authorization mechanisms, among them:

Central - used in for example in remote transactions

KeyCode - for authorization using PIN-code

It opens new possibilities for the development of user-friendly interfaces that may make charging easier and more accessible for the end-users.

OCPP 2.0.1 introduces significant changes that bring new opportunities for the whole eMobility world. In order to develop an efficient smart charging system or introduce Plug & Charge, we have to involve many parties, to mention only well-known ones like CPOs, eMSPs, and OEMs. The connection between the charging station and the backend system (CSMS) is a piece of a puzzle - linked with an upgrade of OCPP to the latest version. The decision has to be made wisely because it has many consequences, however, the features OCPP 2.0.1 provides can give CPO business a notable boost.

OCPP 2.0.1 introduced business-oriented features but also technical improvements.

OCPP migration

Discover benefits and scalability potential of licensed EV charging software! Our calculator compares your SaaS costs with what it looks like with our licensed model. You can enter whichever amount of charging stations you like (the more stations, the more you save).



The calculation is based on a three-year period.

Operational costs reduction

Instant increase in company valuation

Price transparency

Modern technology stack

High flexibility levels of the solution

Possibility to hire a dedicated dev team that will work on your Key Selling Points implementation

Improved time to market

Opportunity to add features to improve competitiveness and uniqueness

Unlike with SaaS, with license costs don’t rise linearly with an increased amount of chargers, meaning that even if the price is higher upfront, it becomes a lot less expensive with time and growth.

The benefits go beyond just the financial aspects, as license also comes with an opportunity to gain total ownership of the solution. It includes the right to manipulate the source code, giving our clients full control over the intellectual property of developed functionalities. This approach liberates our partners from reliance on third-party providers and allows them to tailor the software precisely to their needs


Finally, technical support and overview can remain provided by Solidstudio, which leaves out the necessity of any operational changes. All this, while keeping the benefits of full ownership that comes with license.

Our license in a nutshell

Charge Point Operator Platform that saves money as you scale up your business?

Learn about our license model and calculate the savings for yourself!

With the growing number of available solutions, we believe that the correct software decisions require evaluation beyond just features and technicalities. Most digital products are available strictly via SaaS, which becomes financially and operationally problematic once businesses start to grow. 

With that, at Solidstudio we put thought into the solution that would meet the financial benefits for bigger operators or those who wish to grow. That is a license.

CPO pricing model calculator

Charge Point Operator Platform that saves money as you scale up your business? Learn about our license model and calculate the savings for yourself!

Trusted by

Get in touch & let’s talk!