Skip to content
Use case 004

EV Charging Station Controllers

A deployment concept for Charger manufacturers integrating controller software; Charge-point operators procuring managed charging hardware; Fleet depot integrators configuring charger and site controls.

Proposed deployment · Compatibility assessment required
Automotive and Road Mobility

Why this environment matters

At a public charger, payment success and permission to energise a connector are different decisions. A charger may need to authenticate a driver, communicate with an operator and coordinate power electronics during the same session. This proposal separates those responsibilities so a fault in the commercial interface has less authority over charging hardware.

The security challenge

A driver could begin with a card, an app or a vehicle credential. Each path introduces different messages and backend dependencies. A deployment concept would normalise these into a short-lived session record containing the authorised connector, spending or energy limit, and expiry. It would avoid giving the payment interface a general hardware-control capability.

How the capsule model could help

The control side would independently check connector state and the manufacturer’s electrical conditions before acting on an authorised energy request. NØNOS capsules could separate the user interface, operator protocol client and device adapter, provided the required hardware support exists. The electrical protection chain would remain responsible for unsafe physical conditions. Loss of connectivity during a session creates a business decision as well as a technical one. The operator might permit a bounded offline allowance or require a controlled stop. That choice should be explicit and testable; a network timeout must not accidentally become unlimited charging or an unexplained locked connector. Metering events would need durable reconciliation outside temporary process memory. After reconnecting, the system should distinguish a resent receipt from a new charge and should retain enough evidence to resolve a disputed session. A RAM-resident operating model is not a substitute for a billing ledger.

Separate address spaces and capability checks can limit cross-process reach. They cannot stop harmful use of legitimate permissions, prove AI decisions correct or substitute for domain-specific safety controls.

Deployment requirements

This is an architecture study for charger manufacturers and operators. Connector interoperability, electrical safety, metrology and payment compliance require their own evidence. A secure operating-system component alone would not establish them. Evaluation requirements: Disconnect the operator service during an active session and verify the documented offline allowance or controlled-stop behavior. Replay a payment approval against a different connector; it should not authorise that connector. Restart the interface between metering and receipt upload, then reconcile the session without duplicate billing or missing energy records.

Current public-beta limitations, hardware support and application availability must be assessed before any pilot. Neither this use case nor an industry source establishes NONOS certification or a current customer deployment.

Follow one charging session from payment to contactor

A driver could begin with a card, an app or a vehicle credential. Each path introduces different messages and backend dependencies. A deployment concept would normalise these into a short-lived session record containing the authorised connector, spending or energy limit, and expiry. It would avoid giving the payment interface a general hardware-control capability.

The control side would independently check connector state and the manufacturer’s electrical conditions before acting on an authorised energy request. NØNOS capsules could separate the user interface, operator protocol client and device adapter, provided the required hardware support exists. The electrical protection chain would remain responsible for unsafe physical conditions.

What happens when the cloud disappears?

Loss of connectivity during a session creates a business decision as well as a technical one. The operator might permit a bounded offline allowance or require a controlled stop. That choice should be explicit and testable; a network timeout must not accidentally become unlimited charging or an unexplained locked connector.

Metering events would need durable reconciliation outside temporary process memory. After reconnecting, the system should distinguish a resent receipt from a new charge and should retain enough evidence to resolve a disputed session. A RAM-resident operating model is not a substitute for a billing ledger.

Who could buy or integrate it?

  • Charger manufacturers integrating controller software
  • Charge-point operators procuring managed charging hardware
  • Fleet depot integrators configuring charger and site controls

Industry examples: ChargePoint, ABB. Organisations shown illustrate the industry. No NONOS customer, partner or endorsement relationship is implied.

Market opportunity

Market benchmarks and device scenarios.

Published industry benchmark
US$5.09 billion

US electric vehicle charging infrastructure

United States · 2024 · annual market estimate

US residential and commercial charging infrastructure; complete charging systems rather than controller software.

Modelled global devices
2.5M–5M

Candidate OS endpoints

Source-anchored modelled range · 2024

Low to medium confidence: sourced population data with assumed coverage and suitability. Hardware compatibility, procurement and adoption have not been validated.

Illustrative annual licensing
$12.5M–$200M

USD / year at full model coverage

Device scenario × assumed US$5–$40 per device / year.

Not a revenue forecast, announced price or measured serviceable market.

Device calculation

Global public-charging-only model: rounded reference of 5 million public charging points at end-2024 (IEA reports more than 5 million) × assumed 0.5–1 independently licensed cabinet/site controllers per point = 2.5–5 million candidate controllers. Multiple sockets may share a computer. Excludes private home/depot chargers, despite the broader use-case name; point-to-controller conversion is assumed. This global physical-asset model is separate from the cited US monetary benchmark. Modelled candidate endpoints, not measured NØNOS deployments. Hardware eligibility and adoption are unverified. Overlaps other cases.

IEA, Global EV Outlook 2025: electric vehicle charging ↗

Measured denominator anchor. More than 5 million public charging points globally at end-2024; use rounded 5 million reference. Charging points are not sites or independent controllers.

How to interpret the figures

Adjacent or broader commercial market benchmark; not the NØNOS OS market, licensable-device count or revenue forecast.

Modelled candidate endpoints multiplied by an assumed annual USD price per endpoint. Pricing is a planning assumption, not a vendor quote. This illustrates the full scenario range, not revenue or total addressable market. It excludes adoption timing, procurement, certification, support costs, channel economics and achievable market share. Use cases can overlap, so their totals do not represent unique devices.

Research from 2026. Publisher estimates have not been independently audited.

Read the full methodology

Explore NONOS

Choose your
NONOS experience.

Discover the platform for your organisation or explore the software.

You can reopen this chooser from the footer at any time.