Is Victron intending to add OCPP 2.x protocol support to the EV chargers?
4 Likes
This would be a very welcome feature !
A CCS charger that can integrate with the Victron ecosystem would be very nice as well.
1 Like
We are looking into it, but itâs not on our short term list. Sorry!
2 Likes
Hello Lucian,
Well I think it would be excellent if Victron Energy were able to do this - it would obviously broaden the market for the EV charger product line considerably (beyond âexisting Victron sitesâ), and by side effect it could well lead to more interest in purchasing other Victron Energy products from people who might start out with just a charger. The chargers are super products - cost effective and they work really well.
My key followup question is this 
Do you have, in your view, enough âheadroomâ in the firmware of the existing products, to do this ?
e.g. Is there enough on-board storage space and RAM to support (in principle at least) adding in OCPP support code to the firmware, concurrently with what is already in there?
1 Like
Can you give me an example, you said above âpeople who might start out with just a charger.â - where that charger would be used so OCPP is important?
Hi Lucian,
EV chargers exist from various vendors, typically as standalone products - there are lots of them out there, and many (arguably, most) of them support OCPP.
The Victron Energy chargers are cost effective (lower in cost than many others in the market with similar technical capability) - except that those other brands do have OCPP support in them already and Victron Energy does not.
There is a new market available here for Victron Energy - which is to sell EV chargers in to sites who are using solar/battery inverter/charger hardware from other companies.
The pre-requisite for a Victron Energy EV charger to âdrop inâ to a third party energy system is OCPP, because thatâs the standard way to allow a third party energy system to dynamically control the operation of the charger.
There are plenty of energy optimisation systems that can leverage an OCPP compatible charger to perform tasks like âcharge on surplus solarâ and/or to charge when the grid price is lowest, etc.
If Victron Energy supported OCPP, then you might be able to sell a lot more EV chargers to customers who are not otherwise âVictron Basedâ.
1 Like
Using that same logic victron could add OCPP caperbility to the victron system not just itâs chagers. This may help sell victron inverters etc to owners of existing OCPP capable chargers .
OCPP is mostly used for public installation, for control and payment reasons. The current version power measurement is not precise and shouldnât be used for applications like this.
EVCS v1 was designed to be used for house applications, where OCPP, in my opinion, does not make any sense.
On V2, for sure it will be added somehow, either on EVCS side or GX side.
Lucian, here is another substantial commercial reason to support OCPP:
South Australia (where I live) is one of the most ârenewable intenseâ grids on the planet - and is having to solve problems all other grid operators will face as their own grids become more renewable later.
So this state requirement - that all new chargers must support OCPP so the grid operator can have emergency access to them⌠you can expect this sort of thing to spread around the world over time.
This means that not having OCPP will become a reason why customers can NOT buy the Victron product, in more and more grids around the world.
Just pointing this out to give you a solid commercial reason to move the implementation of OCPP support higher up the priority list, if you are prepared to do so.
Kind Regards,
Simon
Thanks @simonhackett, how fast is this needed?
Is ok if the GX device is doing the OCPP communication? Or is mandatory to have it on the EVCS? Iâm asking because it might be faster to do it on the GX side, where we have more CPU power.
I donât think itâs an emergency, Lucian, but I do think there is merit in getting on with it some time in 2025 at least. I think that implementing it in the GX would be just fine - in the end, the grid operators donât care really about the IP endpoint, they just care about the outcome.
In case of existing grid operator control points over things like solar export in South Australia, there is definitely no issue with certifying an intermediate device on the customer site that acts as an agent for the actual solar/battery system. Many such devices are operating for that purpose now, in this state.
⌠So I see no reason why this would not also apply for car chargers.
In fact, it is probably better to use the GX because it would be capable of operating on behalf of more than one downstream charger, managing total power draw, rather than having to have separate connections for each charging device.
It was announced last week that V2G will be allowed Australia wide. I believe by January 2025.
Allowed by the government, or allowed by the car manufacturers?
The government. Chris Bowen announced it at the Sydney EV show.
Yeah, that government announcement in AU confused me, because I wasnât aware that there was actually any government/regulatory limitation here in the first place.
My point being this - to export energy to the grid in Australia, an EV charger/vehicle combination logically needs to comply with the latest iteration of AS4777, because it is acting just as if it is a battery and/or solar inverter on the grid.
But if it does comply with AS4777, what other regulation would stop its use, because then it is âjust a batteryâ.
Does anyone know what actual regulation or limitation the government is âremovingâ in Australia this week? Their media release, helpfully, fails to provide this obvious information, making it just an instance of âwe, the government, are magically doing something greatâ - without any detail at all
There was no ability to certify under AS4777 in the past. (There were some ways around using V2L as a generator where you could set up individual compliant systems). This is a 2025 revision to AS4777 that provides V2G/H definitions and requirements that the CEC will certify against.
Are there any updates on OCPP for the Victron EV Charge Controllers? EV adoption is picking up and Victron is missing a trick. I tried to recommend the Victron to people and OCPP is definitely a blocker for those âdoing their researchâ. I know of at least one lost sale myself. No doubt others.
Thanks for any news or roadmap on this.
Hi, the current EVCS was not designed for areas where OCPP is needed (NFC authentication is missing, power measurement is not precise enough etc).
But all this will be added to the next model. And most probably OCPP integration will be added.
Till then, you can still add our EVCS to OCPP servers, but a bridge is needed in between, to convert from ModbusTCP to OCPP
2 Likes
With an MID power meter, external authentication (NFC card or whatever) and the current Victron EVCS an OCPP solution can be built, but as @Lpopescu mentioned it would need a reasonable amount of âglue logicâ to make it all work.
Hello Lucian,
Just following this up again - to say that in South Australia the requirement for new EV chargers to be registered (as brands) with the government is fully in force now, and to achieve that registration the charger has to support either OCPP1.6 V2 or ANSI/CTA 2045-B.
Fortunately this only seems to apply if the charger is connected at more than 24 amps per phase - and in the real world, most EVâs only draw 16A maximum per phase.
But it would still be great for Victron to be capable of registering in South Australia as an approved charger. I think this sort of requirement will only get more, not less, common in the world, as grids become more ârenewableâ (South Australia is a world leader in renewable energy intensity on the grid).
I wanted to answer directly a question you asked me back in October but that I failed to answer - which is this:
âIs ok if the GX device is doing the OCPP communication? Or is mandatory to have it on the EVCS? Iâm asking because it might be faster to do it on the GX side, where we have more CPU power.â
I think that implementing this protocol inside the GX would be a very valid approach to solve for a shortcoming in CPU power inside the charger.
It would also allow, I expect, for the GX to act as an âaggregatedâ connection point for multiple EV Chargers in a site, and I think this would be an active benefit.
Thanks,
Simon