Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Optimal scheduling for vehicle-to-grid operation with stochastic

connection of plug-in electric vehicles to smart grid
Linni Jian a,⇑, Yanchong Zheng a,b, Xinping Xiao b, C.C. Chan c,d
a
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, South University of Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, China
b
School of Science, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China
c
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong
d
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany

h i g h l i g h t s g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t

 A novel event-triggered scheduling

scheme for vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
operation is proposed.
 New scheme can handle the
uncertainty arising from stochastic
connection of electric vehicles.
 New scheme aims at minimizing the
overall load variance of power grid by
V2G operation.
 Method to evaluate the performance
of proposed scheme is elaborated and
demonstrated.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) operation of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) is attracting increasing attention since
Received 10 July 2014 it can assist to improve the efficiency and reliability of power grid, as well as reduce the operating cost
Received in revised form 5 January 2015 and greenhouse gas emission of electric vehicles. Within the scheme of V2G operation, PEVs are expected
Accepted 8 February 2015
to serve as a novel distributed energy storage system (ESS) to help achieve the balance between supply
and demand of power grid. One of the key difficulties concerning its practical implementation lies in that
the availability of PEVs as ESS for grid remains highly uncertain due to their mobility as transportation
Keywords:
tools. To address this issue, a novel event-triggered scheduling scheme for V2G operation based on the
Plug-in electric vehicle
Vehicle-to-grid
scenario of stochastic PEV connection to smart grid is proposed in this paper. Firstly, the mathematical
Optimal scheduling model is formulated. Secondly, the preparation of input data for systematic evaluation is introduced
Load variance and the case study is conducted. Finally, statistic analysis results demonstrate that our proposed V2G
Smart grid scheduling scheme can dramatically smooth out the fluctuation in power load profiles.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, energy crisis and global warming have become two

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
South University of Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, China. Tel./fax: +86
755 88018525.
E-mail address: jian.ln@sustc.edu.cn (L. Jian).
critical issues which are threatening the sustainable development
of human society. Statistics indicate that the average global
temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C since 1880, and
two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975 [1]. What is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.030
0306-2619/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161
more, the exploitable reserves of fossil fuels may be exhausted in
the near future due to the rapid growth of global energy consump-
tion. Most recently, transport electrification has been deemed as a
promising solution to address these challenges: Firstly, the trans-
port sector accounts for the largest share of the total growth in
world consumption of liquid fuels [2]. Secondly, the greenhouse
gases (GHGs) emission produced by internal combustion engines
has become one of the major contributors to the global warming.
The latest IPCC climate change report indicates that the transport
sector produced 13% of global GHGs emission [3]. In China, the
transport sector produced 709.2 million tones of CO2 in 2012,
which accounts for 8.6% of the total 8250.1 million tones of
CO2 emission in the same year [4]. Apparently, the popularization
of electric vehicles (EVs) will greatly enhance the energy security
by integrating renewable energies as well as improving the
energy conversion efficiencies. Consequently, the emission of
GHGs will be remarkably reduced. In addition, the worries on
public health risks arising from the air pollutants including
fine particulate matters (PM 2.5) become a powerful incentive to
promote EVs in many countries most recently.
Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) is an important subcategory of
EVs. Relatively large-capacity batteries are often equipped in
PEVs. In addition, these batteries are rechargeable through plug-
ging into the power grid. Hence, PEVs are a novel kind of electric
load for power grid, and on the other hand, they may also play
the potential role as distributed energy storage devices for power
grid. In this regard, PEVs are able to deposit extra electricity at
valley-load hours and then feed back electricity to grid at
peak-load hours. The bi-directional power flow between PEVs
and power grid is known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) [5,6]. Previous
research has demonstrated that V2G operation of PEVs can bring
in lots of benefits, such as, providing frequency regulation services
[7], flattening power load variation [8], reducing overall operating
cost [9–11], promoting the integration of renewable energy
sources [12–15], and reducing the greenhouse gases emissions
[16–19].
The key to the effective implementation of V2G operation is to
what extent informatics can be effectively integrated into electrical
energy conversion, transmission and distribution. Otherwise, the
deep penetration of PEVs may trigger extreme surges in demand
at rush hours, and fatally harm the stability and security of the
existing power grid. Therefore, V2G should be carried out within
the framework of smart grid [20–24], so that the status informa-
tion of power grid can be perceived. Another prerequisite is the
massive data processing capability, such as cloud computing
[25], since there are so much information should be taken into
account, for example, the traffic condition, the weather condition,
the operation condition of power grid, vehicles and charging facil-
ities, and the demand of PEV owners. The demand of PEV owners
should take the top priority among various types of information,
and this means that the fundamental function of PEVs as trans-
portation tools has to be guaranteed all the time. Another issue
which deserves special attention is the possible degradation of
onboard batteries caused by V2G operation [26,27].
An important theoretical challenge concerning V2G operation is
on the optimal charging/discharging strategy of PEVs which aims
at maximizing the potential benefits arising from V2G [28]. There
are several different targets, such as minimizing the power losses
[29,30], minimizing the peak load [31], controlling the trading risks
[32,33], maximizing the operation profits [34–39], avoiding the
frequency droop [7,40], minimizing the power load variance [41],
and maximizing the integration of renewable energies [42,43].
The PEV owner’s degree of satisfaction has also been taken into
consideration most recently [44]. The equivalence of different opti-
mization targets has been investigated. It indicates that for practi-
cal systems, minimizing load variances will minimize power losses
151
approximately, and maximizing load factor is almost equivalent to
minimizing the load variance [45].
Essentially speaking, the optimal scheduling for V2G operation
is a dynamic programming problem with various constraints ought
to be taken into account. Firstly, we should guarantee that there is
enough electricity deposited in the onboard battery of PEV for its
next itinerary. Secondly, we should make sure that the charg-
ing/discharging rate of PEVs will never exceed the capability of
its battery and the charging facility. Thirdly, the charging/discharg-
ing profiles of PEVs should match the conventional load profile of
the power grid, so that the aforementioned benefits of V2G opera-
tion can be maximized. It is easy to understand that the optimal
scheduling for V2G should be conducted by power grid operators
but not the PEVs owners, considering that PEV owners lack suffi-
cient input information and powerful computing resource.
Nevertheless, there are also some proposals for V2G implementa-
tion in which PEV owners are involved in the scheduling by engag-
ing incentive mechanisms, such as floating electricity prices and
bidding strategies [46–48]. This could be an effective way to pro-
mote V2G since it has the potential to reduce the uncertainty
and complexity of the scheduling problem by wielding influence
on people’s lifestyles. However, in our opinion, it is difficult to
achieve optimal scheduling such as minimizing the load variance
of power grid. Also, it takes the risk of threatening the security of
power grid under a failed biding. In [49], the risks arising from var-
ious uncertainties are taken into account when designing bidding
strategies.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel optimal schedul-
ing strategy for V2G operation based on the scenario of stochastic
PEV connection to smart grid. In practical applications, it is quite
difficult to acquire the information on the availability of PEVs,
viz., when and where the PEVs will be connected to or disconnect-
ed from the power grid. To address this issue, the problem formu-
lation regarding minimizing the power load variance with
stochastic PEV connection to grid will be elaborated in Section 2.
After that, the method to prepare for the input data for systematic
evaluation will be introduction in Section 3. Section 4 will be
devoted to case study and results analysis. Finally, conclusions will
be drawn in Section 5.
2. Problem formulation with stochastic PEV connection to
smart grid
2.1. General description
Within the scheme of V2G operation, PEVs are expected to serve
as a novel distributed energy storage system (ESS) to help achieve
the balance between supply and demand of power grid, so as to
smooth out the fluctuation of the power load profiles. For most
power grids which adopt centralized supervisory control schemes,
the grid operators are always eager to find effective measures to
keep the total power load curves as flat as possible. Engaging ener-
gy storages can greatly suppress the fluctuation of load curves, and
it can remarkably relieve the burden of grid operators in gen-
eration scheduling, load dispatching, frequency regulation, and so
on. However, unlike the conventional ESS, the availability of PEVs
as ESS remains highly uncertain due to their mobility as trans-
portation tools. This definitely causes headache problems to the
optimal scheduling for charging/discharging of PEVs. In the most
previous studies, this issue is artfully avoided by using either
statistics or assumptions. In order to promote the practical imple-
mentation of V2G technology, a scheme named ‘‘Event-Triggered
Scheduling’’ is proposed to address this problem.
Fig. 1 depicts the general scheme of the proposed
event-triggered scheduling for V2G operation. The scheduling cen-
ter takes charge of acquiring and processing the key signals, and
152 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161
Fig. 1. Scheme of proposed event-triggered scheduling for V2G operation with stochastic PEV connection to smart grid.
based on that, generating optimal charging instructions to guide
the interchange of electric power between PEVs and grid which
is bridged by the charging facilities. When PEVs are connected into
grid, their owners are requested to set the time slot when they will
be disconnected from grid, and what the demanded amount of
electricity will be for their next itineraries. These inputs will be
sent to the scheduling center via designated communication net-
work under specific protocols. If a PEV is disconnected from grid
before the original time slot set by its owner, it called unexpected
disconnection. Herein, the triggering events include: (1) PEV con-
nected into grid, and (2) PEV unexpectedly disconnected from grid.
Once triggering event occurs, the scheduling center will communi-
cate with the PEV involved, and acquire the necessary information,
such as, the time of the trigger point, the state of charge (Soc) and
the departure time of the newly-connected PEV, and so on. After
that, the mathematical model will be updated as per the changes
of the inputs, and the re-scheduling with updated model will be
conducted in the scheduling center. Finally, the updated schedul-
ing instructions will be sent to the charging facilities to coordinate
the energy interchange between PEVs and power grid. The proce-
dures will keep going until the next triggering event happens.
However, it will not trigger the rescheduling procedure if a PEV
is disconnected at or after the expected time set by its owner.
2.2. Basic period and time slot
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the length of the basic period is set to be
24 h which is in accordance with the one-day cycle. The starting
time ts is chosen as 06:00 AM of the current day and the ending
Fig. 2. Basic period and time slot.
time te is chosen as 06:00 AM of the next day. We use M to denote
the series number of the basic periods, for example, M = 0 for the
current period, M = 1 for the first period next to the current period,
and M = 1 for the first period previous to the current period.
The basic period is equivalently divided into several time slots.
The scheduling program will determine the charging/discharging
power for every PEVs being involved in the V2G operation. The
scheduled charging power is remain unchanged during each time
slot. Herein, the length of the time slot Dt is set as 15 min, thus
there are 96 time slots in the 24-h period. Actually, a tradeoff
should be made when setting the length of the time slot. If the time
slot is too long, a coarse optimization cannot ensure satisfactory
results, while, if the time slot is too short, the number of variables
involved will become incredible large and the complexity of the
problem will become unacceptably high. We use N to denote the
series number of the time slots, for example, N = 1 for the first time
slot and N = 96 for the last time slot.
2.3. Mathematical modeling
Each PEV is arranged to be involved into V2G operation at the
beginning of the time slot right after its connection into the grid.
Before the N-th time slot begins, the scheduling center collects
all the necessary information to build up the N-th optimization
model denoted by Model (N), where N = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 96, as
illustrated in Fig. 2.
Firstly, define the set SN to indicate the collection of all the PEVs
that could be involved in V2G operation for the Model (N). It
contains three subsets, namely:
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161 153

ðM¼0Þ ðM¼1Þ ðMP2Þ

S N ¼ SN [ SN [ SN ð1Þ the (N  1)-th time slot, otherwise, if EV kN is
 
where newly-connected, Socstart
N EV kN is equal to
 
Soccon
N EV kN , and,
 
ðM¼0Þ indicates the collection of all the PEVs which are set to Soccon EV kN indicates the Soc of the specific PEV when it is
SN N
be disconnected from the grid in the current period, connected to grid,
 
ðM¼1Þ indicates the collection of all the PEVs which are set to PNj EV kN indicates the scheduled charging power of the
SN
be disconnected from the grid in the first period next specific PEV during the j-th time slot,
to the current period, and CardðSN Þ indicates the number of elements of the set SN,
 
ðMP2Þ indicates the collection of all the PEVs which are set to Socdis EV kN indicates the demanded Soc when the specific
SN N
be disconnected from the grid after the first period PEV disconnected from the grid, and it is set by
next to the current period. the PEV owner for the next itinerary when it is
connected into grid,
 
Socmin EV kN indicates the allowed minimum Soc of the
N
Secondly, define the series number of the time slot at the end of specific PEV,
 
which the specific PEV considered will end its V2G operation for Pmax EV kN indicates the allowed maximum charging
N
the current period as: power of the specific PEV,
 
8   g EV kN indicates the charging efficiency of the specific
  < Cdis EV k ; if : EV k 2 SðM¼0Þ PEV, and
N N N N  
Cend EV kN ¼ ð2Þ indicates the capacity of the onboard battery
N
:
96; k ðM¼1Þ
if : EV N 2 SN
ðMP2Þ
[ SN BatCap
N EV kN
equipped on the specific PEV.
where

Eq. (4) defines the limitations on the Soc value of the specific PEV
indicates the specific PEV considered, and it is an considered when ending its V2G operation for the current period.
EV kN
Firstly, if the PEV will be disconnected from the grid in the current
element of SN, viz., SN = {EV 1N ; EV 2N , . . . , EV kN , . . .},
period (M = 0), this value should be equal to that set by its owner for
Cdis k indicates the series number of the time slot at the
N ðEV N Þ the next itinerary when it was connected into grid. Secondly, if the
end of which the specific PEV considered will be
PEV will be disconnected from the grid in the first period next to the
disconnected from the grid, and it is set by the PEV
current period (M = 1), this value should be larger than the allowed
owner when it is connected into grid. Moreover, it
minimum Soc of the PEV, moreover, this value should guarantee
lies between 1 and 96, even if the disconnection
that the requested amount of electricity by its owner for the next
does not happen in the current period.
itinerary could be fulfilled when it is disconnected from the grid
in the next period. In this regard, we can deduce the minimum
  Soc value by assuming that the PEV will be charged with the max-
Thirdly, Socend
N EV kN denotes the demanded Soc value of the specific imum charging power from the beginning of the next period to the
PEV considered when ending its V2G operation for the current peri- time slot when it will be disconnected. Finally, if the PEV will be dis-
od. It can be determined by (3) and should satisfy (4), connected from the grid after the first period next to the current
2    3 period (M P 2) this value should be larger than the allowed mini-
  
end
 CN X ðEV kN Þ Dt  P j EV k  g EV k mum Soc of the PEV, and with no other limitations.
N N N
Socend EV kN ¼ Socstart EV kN þ 4   5; N
N N Fourthly, for each PEV, the scheduled charging/discharging
j¼N Bat Cap
N EV kN
power should satisfy:
¼ 1; 2;    ; 96; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; CardðSN Þ; j P N ð3Þ      
Pmax
N EV kN 6 PNj EV kN 6 Pmax
N EV kN ð5Þ

8    
Socend EV kN ¼ Socdis
ðM¼0Þ
>
>
> N N EV kN ; if : EV kN 2 SN
>
>    
<
Socend EV kN P Socmin
ðMP2Þ
N N EV kN ; if : EV kN 2 SN ð4Þ
>
>        DtPmax EV k Cdis EV k g EV k 
>
> ð NÞ N ð NÞ ð NÞ
>
: Socend EV kN P max Socmin EV kN ; Socdis EV kN  N
ðM¼1Þ
; if : EV kN 2 SN
N N N Cap
BatN ðEV kN Þ

in which, Moreover, at any time, the Soc value of the onboard battery
should be lower than the allowed maximum value and higher than
the allowed minimum value, viz.:
     3
indicates the Soc of the specific PEV at the 2
Socstart
N EV kN   Dt  P Nj EV kN  g EV kN  
X J
beginning of the N-th time slot. If is EV kN Socstart EV kN þ 4   5 6 Socmax EV k ð6Þ
N N N
already involved in the previous models,
  j¼N Bat Cap
N EV kN
Socstart
N EV kN equals its Soc value at the end of
and,
154 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161

2    3
X J Dt  P Nj EV kN  g EV kN   between 12 kW h and 20 kW h. The capacity of the onboard batter-
Socstart k 4   5 P Socmin EV k ies has significant impact on the driving range of PEVs. For small
N ðEV N Þ þ N N ð7Þ
j¼N BatCap
N EV kN and mid-size cars, 20 kW h battery pack is able to ensure 130 km
  range [55]. We investigated the driving patterns of passenger cars
where J ¼ N; N þ 1; N þ 2; . . . ; Cend
N EV kN . in China by using GPS tracking devices. The statistics show that on
weekdays, the average driving range of 112 sample cars is 35.4 km,
Finally, in order to minimize the power load variance in the
while, on weekends and holidays, this figure goes to 41.7 km. We
current period, the objective function of the optimization
believe that it would be better to be very cautious to choose the
scheduling problem can be given by:
capacities of PEVs’ onboard battery pack before significant
8 92
96 < breakthroughs of battery technology have been made. Large
1 X j j
X j  k =
min P  P Av g þ PN EV N ð8Þ volume batteries definitely add the vehicle’s net weight, and
97  N j¼N : Con k
; therefore, decrease the overall energy efficiency. Moreover, the
EV N 2SN
self-discharge problem of batteries [56] also indicates that it is
where P Aj v g is determined by: not reasonable to deposit too much electricity in PEVs.
2 3 Secondly, the number of PEVs involved in the V2G operation for
1 X 96 X j k the current period is denoted by X. Moreover, 5% of them are
PAj v g ¼ 4P þ
j
PN EV N 5 ð9Þ
97  N j¼N Con selected out and assumed to be connected into grid before the cur-
k
EV N 2SN rent period by using Bernoulli distribution. For these selected PEVs,
j
some assumptions are also made: their detention time (in Hours)
and PCon indicates the power of the conventional loads (excluding follows a uniform distribution between 2 h and 14 h, their Soc at
the PEV loads) during the j-th time slot. With the development of the start time follows a uniform distribution between 0.2 and
smart grid technology, it is believed to be possible to conduct 0.8, and their demanded Soc when disconnected from the grid
24-h-ahead conventional power load forecasting with acceptably follows a uniform distribution between 0.4 and 0.7.
high accuracy in the future based on meteorological information Next, for the remaining 95% PEVs which are connected into grid
and historic data [50–52]. during the current period, their arriving time (for example, arriving
Up till now, the Model (N) has been successfully built up. Based at parking lots and ready for connection into grid) is assumed to
on this model, the scheduling center determines the optimal follow Chi-square distribution with its probability density function
charging profile for every PEV involved. If there is no triggering given by:
event occurs, the calculation model will not be updated.
However, once there is any PEV being newly-added to V2G opera- 1
f ðxÞ ¼ xn=21 ex=2 ; x P 0 ð10Þ
tion, or there is some PEV being unexpectedly disconnected from 2n=2 Cðn=2Þ
grid, the calculation model will be changed as per these updated
inputs. After that, the rescheduling will be conducted in the where
scheduling center. Z 1
CðaÞ ¼ xa1 ex dx for a > 0 ð11Þ
0
3. Preparation of input data for systematic evaluation
Herein, the degrees of freedom n is set as 5, and the obtained profile
of PEV with different arriving time is shown in Fig. 3, when the total
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed
PEV number X = 200. It can be observed that most PEVs arrive at
scheduling scheme, the input data should be generated to simulate
parking lots in the morning, and this is in accordance with the
the real situations in a reasonable and indiscriminative way.
scenario of week days when people drive to work in the morning
Nevertheless, some assumptions have to be engaged for simplicity.
and then park their vehicles in the parking lots in the vicinity of
Firstly, for all the PEVs involved, some parameters are assumed
their workplaces.
to be identical: the allowed maximum charging power is set as
Then, the detention time of the PEVs connected into grid during
4 kW, the allowed minimum and maximum Soc values are set to
the current period is assumed to follow normal distribution with
be 0.2 and 0.8, respectively, and the charging efficiency is set as
its mean equal to 10 h and its variance equal to 9 h. In most cases,
0.9. Generally, the charging of PEVs can be classified into slow
charging, fast charging and ultrafast charging (also named ‘rapid
charging’), depending on the charging power [53,54]. Slow charg-
ing is conducted via the onboard charger of PEVs, and the charging
power is around 3.3 kW. PEVs can be directly connected to the uti-
lity grid through single-phase ac cable. Therefore, slow charging
does not involve extra investments on equipping off-board charg-
ing equipments and upgrading the facilities of regional power grid.
The power levels of fast charging and ultrafast charging range from
10 kW to 50 kW. External dc charger has to be equipped due to the
charger’ bulky size and cooling requirements of the electronics
integrated. Moreover, the prerequisite for equipping high power
external charger is to increase the capacities of the regional grid’s
facilities, such as transformers, switches, cables and so forth.
Therefore, fast charging and ultrafast charging are usually used in
specific charging stations operated by power grid companies. As
aforementioned, the essence of V2G is to exploit the potential of
PEVs’ onboard batteries to help increase the stability and operating
efficiency of power grid, thus slow charging is preferable in the
scheme of V2G operation. In addition, the capacity of the onboard
batteries (in kW h) is assumed to follow uniform distribution Fig. 3. Number of PEVs with different arriving time (X = 200).
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161
Fig. 4. Number of PEVs with different detention time (X = 200).
people arrive at workplaces at round 8:00 AM, and leave for home
at around 6:00 PM. Therefore, the detention time of their PEVs is
about 10 h. Fig. 4 gives the number of PEVs with different deten-
tion time, when the total PEV number X = 200.
In addition, for the PEVs which are connected into grid during
the current period, their Soc at the start time is assumed to follows
a uniform distribution between 0.3 and 0.6, and their demanded
Soc when disconnected from the grid follows a uniform distribu-
tion between 0.4 and 0.7.
After that, we use Bernoulli distribution once again to select 1%
of all the PEVs, and assume that these selected PEVs will unexpect-
edly disconnected from grid, namely, their detention time will be
shorter than that set by the owners when connected into grid.
Then, we use uniform distribution to determine when these trig-
gering events occur.
Finally, Fig. 5 illustrates the conventional power load profile of
the regional grid considered during the current period. These data
are supplied by the local power company, and it represents the
power consuming in a typical weekday. The peak hours occur at
around 11: 00 AM and 18:00 PM. The difference between the high-
est power and the lowest power is about 27 kW, and the mean and
the variance of the curve are 92.37 kW and 108.98 kW2, respective-
ly. The load fluctuation in one-day period is quite fierce, and this
definitely results in huge energy losses.
Fig. 5. Conventional power load profile in one-day cycle.
155
4. Case study and results analysis
In order to show how the proposed event-triggered scheduling
method works, we depict the whole process step by step in Figs. 6–
8. In this case, the number of PEVs involved X is 200 and the prepa-
ration of the input data was elaborated in Section 3. As we can see,
there are some models not shown herein due to that there is no
triggering events happen. For example, there is not any triggering
events happening in the second time slot, so the Model (2) is not
shown since the rescheduling is not conducted and the planned
PEV charging profile does not change based on that scheduled in
Model (1). It can also be observed that there is not obverse differ-
ence among the scheduling results obtained in some adjacent
models, such as Model (1) – Model (5), Model (18) – Model (22),
and Model (41) – Model (47). That is because although PEVs are
newly connected into grid or unexpected disconnected from grid
during these time slots, the variation on the capacity of storage
offered by the aggregation of PEVs is tiny, and these small changes
will not lead to significant impact on the scheduling results.
Nevertheless, remarkable differences can also be observed
between Model (6) and Model (5), Model (23) and Model (22),
Model (50) and Model (47), and so forth.
Model (74) is the last one shown for this case since after that
there is no triggering events occur for the current period. The
scheduling results for the V2G operation obtained in Model (74)
will be carried out until the end of this period. In other words,
Model (74) exhibits the final performance of the V2G operation
in this case with our proposed scheduling method. With the PEVs
serving as energy storage systems, the total load power curve
become very smooth. Its variation value equals 2.53, which is sig-
nificantly smaller than the variance of the conventional power load
curve equal to 108.98 kW2. Moreover, we can tell the prominent
difference between the scheduled charging profiles obtained in
Model (1) and Model (74). The incremental changes in every step
can lead to profound impacts on the final results. That is why we
should take into account the contribution of every single PEV being
connecting into or disconnecting from the grid.
It is easy to understand that the number of PEVs involved
should affect the performance of V2G operation. For figure this
out, we regenerated the input data with different number of
PEVs X according to the procedures presented in Section 3.
Consequently, the scheduling results of these new cases obtained
by using the proposed event-triggered scheduling method are
illustrated in Fig. 9. For X = 100, the last model in the selected case
shown in Fig. 9(a) is Model (66), and the variance value of the total
power load curve is 14.52 kW2. For X = 150, 250 and 300, the last
models in the selected cases shown in Fig. 9(b)–(d) are Model
(71), Model (64) and Model (63), and the corresponding variances
are 7.71 kW2, 2.32 kW2 and 1.94 kW2, respectively. The larger
number of PEVs is involved, the smaller load variance can be
resulted in. As we all know, the reduction of load variance can
greatly improve the operation efficiency and security of the power
grid. That is why V2G is becoming a very hot issue as far as the
future smart grid is concerned.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed schedul-
ing method, the algorithm has been operated for 1000 times with
different scales of PEVs involved. The input data were generated
stochastically according to the method stated in Section 3. Fig. 10
shows the distribution of the resulted variance of load power
curves. When X = 100, the resulted 1000 variance values spans
from 7.84 kW2 to 21.72 kW2, the median equals 14.06 kW2, and
the middle 50% lie between 12.72 kW2 and 15.56 kW2. When
X = 300, the resulted 1000 variance values spans from 0.09 kW2
to 7.67 kW2, the median equals 2.15 kW2, and middle 50% lie
between 1.47 kW2 and 3.10 kW2. Again, compared with the
156 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161

Fig. 6. Scheduling results of Model (1) – Model (17) with proposed event-triggered scheduling method (X = 200).
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161 157

Fig. 7. Scheduling results of Model (18) – Model (33) with proposed event-triggered scheduling method (X = 200).
158 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161

Fig. 8. Scheduling results of Model (35) – Model (74) with proposed event-triggered scheduling method (X = 200).
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161 159

Fig. 9. Scheduling results with different numbers of PEVs involved: (a) X = 100; (b) X = 150; (c) X = 250; (d) X = 300.

Table 1
Specification of cases studied.

Number of PEVs Number of variables in Computing time

involved 1000-times experiments consumed for single
model (ms)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
value value value value
X = 100 4896 384 382 2
X = 150 7888 402 1021 2
X = 200 10764 736 1896 3
X = 250 13467 1440 2948 84
X = 300 15912 1632 4575 196

Fig. 10. Distributions of resulted variance of load power curves.
variance of the conventional power load curve which is equal to
108.98 kW2, the resulted load curves have been dramatically
smoothen out by the proposed V2G operation scheme.
Table 1 lists the specification of all the cases studied. For differ-
ent scales of PEVs involved, the number of variables and the com-
puting time consumed for single model in all 1000-time
experiments are recorded. All the models are run on the same
workstation (CPU 3.20 GHz, RAM 6 GB) in our lab. It can be seen
that the time spent on solving one single model is less than 5 s
for the cases with X = 300, and this is definitely acceptable consid-
ering the length of each time-slot is 15 min.
160 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a novel optimal scheduling scheme for V2G opera-
tion is proposed. One of the key difficulties in the practical imple-
mentation of V2G operation lies in that the availability of PEVs as a
kind of distributed energy storage system is uncertain due to their
mobility as transportation tools. The proposed event-triggered
scheduling scheme can solve this problem by updating the opti-
mization model and conducting rescheduling as long as triggering
events including PEV connected into grid and PEV unexpectedly
disconnected from grid occur. The problem formulation aiming at
minimizing the overall load variance is built up. The method to
generate the input data for systematic evaluation is introduced.
It is able to reasonably and objectively simulate the real situations.
In case study, the operating process of the proposed optimal
scheduling is depicted step by step, and it demonstrates that the
incremental changes in every step can lead to profound impacts
on the final results. The effectiveness of the proposed scheduling
method is verified by a large number of simulation tests. The
statistic analysis results demonstrate that it can dramatically
reduce the variance of total load power curves, and therefore help
improve the operation efficiency and security of the power grid.
References
[1] NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. GISS surface temperature analysis,
December, 2010.
[2] International Energy Outlook; 2013. <http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/
0484(2013).pdf>.
[3] IPCC Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. <http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html>.
[4] CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights 2014. Issued by International
Energy Agency. <http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/
publication/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-highlights-2014.html>.
[5] Guille C, Gross G. A conceptual framework for the vehicle-to-grid
implementation. Energy Policy 2009;37(11):4379–90.
[6] Tomic J, Kempton W. Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support. J
Power Sour 2007;168:459–68.
[7] Zhang J, He L, Li C, Cao Y, Wang J, Fang B, et al. Coordinated control for
large-scale EV charging facilities and energy storage devices participating in
frequency regulation. Appl Energy 2014;123:253–62.
[8] Jian J, Xue H, et al. Regulated charging of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for
minimizing load variance in household smart micro-grid. IEEE Trans Indus
Electron 2013;60(8):3218–26.
[9] Fernandes C, Frias P, Latorre J. Impact of vehicle-to-grid on power system
operation costs: the Spanish case study. Appl Energy 2012;96:194–202.
[10] Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable electric school
bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy
2014;126:246–55.
[11] Foley A, Tyther B, Calnan P, Gallachoir B. Impacts of electric vehicle charging
under electricity market operations. Appl Energy 2013;101:93–102.
[12] Liu W, Hu W, Lund H, Chen Z. Electric vehicles and large-scale integration of
wind power – the case of Inner Mongolia in China. Appl Energy
2013;104:445–56.
[13] Dallinger D, Gerda S, Wietschel M. Integration of intermittent renewable
power supply using grid-connected vehicles – a 2030 case study for California
and Germany. Appl Energy 2013;104:666–82.
[14] Kempton W, Tomic J. Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: from stabilizing
the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. J Power Sour
2005;144:280–94.
[15] Weis A, Jaramillo P, Michalek J. Estimating the potential of controlled plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle charging to reduce operational and capacity expansion
costs for electric power systems with high wind penetration. Appl Energy
2014;115:190–204.
[16] Doucette R, McCulloch M. Modeling the prospects of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles to reduce CO2 emissions. Appl Energy 2011;88:2315–23.
[17] Sorrentino M, Rizzo G, Sorrentino L. A study aimed at assessing the potential
impact of vehicle electrification on grid infrastructure and road-traffic green
house emissions. Appl Energy 2014;120:31–40.
[18] Millo F, Rolando L, Fuso R, Mallamo F. Real CO2 emission benefits and end
user’s operating costs of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Appl Energy
2014;114:563–71.
[19] Arslan O, Karasan O. Cost and emission impacts of virtual power plant
formation in plug-in hybrid electric vehicle penetrated networks. Energy
2013;60:116–24.
[20] Steer K, Wirth A, Halgamuge S. Decision tree ensembles for online operation of
large smart grids. Energy Convers Manage 2012;59(1):9–18.
[21] Silva M, Morais H, Vale Z. An integrated approach for distributed energy
resource short-term scheduling in smart grids considering realistic power
system simulation. Energy Convers Manage 2012;64:273–88.
[22] Broeer T, Fuller J, Tuffner F, Chassin D, Djilali N. Modeling framework and
validation of a smart grid and demand response system for wind power
integration. Appl Energy 2014;113:199–207.
[23] Kanchev H, Lu D, Colas F, Lazarov V, Francois B. Energy management and
operational planning of a microgrid with a PV-based active generator for smart
grid applications. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2011;58(10):4583–92.
[24] Gungor V, Lu B, Hancke G. Opportunities and challenges of wireless
sensor networks in smart grid. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2010;57(10):
3557–64.
[25] Khayyam H, Abawajy J, Javadi B, Goscinski A, Stojcevski A, Bab-Hadiashar A.
Intelligent battery energy management and control for vehicle-to-grid via
cloud computing network. Appl Energy 2013;111:971–81.
[26] Bishop J, Axon C, Bonilla D, Tran M, Banister D, McCulloch M. Evaluating the
impact of V2G services on the degradation of batteries in PHEV and EV. Appl
Energy 2013;111:206–18.
[27] Sekyung Han, Soohee Han, Aki A. A practical battery wear model for electric
vehicle charging applications. Appl Energy 2014;113:1100–8.
[28] Jian L, Zhu X, Shao Z, Niu S, Chan C. A scenario of vehicle-to-grid
implementation and its double-layer optimal charging strategy for
minimizing load variance within regional smart grids. Energy Convers
Manage 2014;78:508–17.
[29] Di Giorgio A, Liberati F. Near real time load shifting control for residential
electricity prosumers under designed and market indexed pricing models.
Appl Energy 2014;128:119–32.
[30] Oliveira D, Zambroni D, Delboni L. Optimal plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
recharge in distribution power systems. Electr Power Syst Res 2013;98:
77–85.
[31] White C, Zhang K. Using vehicle-to-grid technology for frequency regulation
and peak-load reduction. J Power Sources 2011;196(8):3972–80.
[32] Al-Awami A, Sortomme E. Coordinating vehicle-to-grid services with energy
trading. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(1):453–62.
[33] Shi L, Zhang Q, Pu Y. The reserve trading model considering V2G reverse.
Energy 2013;59:50–5.
[34] Druitt J, Früh W-G. Simulation of demand management and grid balancing
with electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2012;216:104–16.
[35] Khayyam H, Ranjbarzadeh H, Marano V. Intelligent control of vehicle to grid
power. J Power Sources 2012;201:1–9.
[36] Sortomme E, El-Sharkawi MA. Optimal combined bidding of vehicle-to-grid
ancillary services. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(1):70–9.
[37] Sortomme E, El-Sharkawi MA. Optimal scheduling of vehicle-to-grid energy
and ancillary services. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(1):351–9.
[38] Sousa T, Morais H, Soares J, Vale Z. Day-ahead resource scheduling in smart
grids considering vehicle-to-grid and network constraints. Appl Energy
2012;96:183–93.
[39] Sousa T, Morais H, Vale Z, Faria P, Soares J. Intelligent energy resource
management considering vehicle-to-grid: a simulated annealing approach.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(1):535–52.
[40] Liu H, Hu Z, Song Y, Lin J. Decentralized vehicle-to-grid control for primary
frequency regulation considering charging demands. IEEE Trans Power
Systems 2013;28(3):3480–9.
[41] Sheikhi A, Bahrami S, Ranjbar AM, Oraee H. Strategic charging method for
plugged in hybrid electric vehicles in smart grids: a game theoretic approach.
Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;53:499–506.
[42] El-Zonkoly A. Intelligent energy management of optimally located renewable
energy systems incorporating PHEV. Energy Convers Manage 2014;84:
427–35.
[43] Fazelpour F, Vafaeipour M, Rahbari O, Rosen MA. Intelligent optimization to
integrate a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle smart parking lot with renewable
energy resources and enhance grid characteristics. Energy Convers Manage
2014;77:250–61.
[44] Yang J, He L, Fu S. An improved PSO-based charging strategy of electric vehicles
in electrical distribution grid. Appl Energy 2014;128:82–92.
[45] Sortomme E, Hindi M, MacPherson S, Venkata S. Coordinated charging of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to minimize distribution system losses. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2011;2(1):198–205.
[46] Bessa R, Matos M. Global against divided optimization for the participation of
an EV aggregator in the day-ahead electricity market. Part I: theory. Electr
Power Syst Res 2013;95:309–18.
[47] Bessa R, Matos M. Global against divided optimization for the participation of
an EV aggregator in the day-ahead electricity market. Part II: numerical
analysis. Electr Power Syst Res 2013;95:319–29.
[48] Vagropoulos S, Bakirtzis A. Optimal bidding strategy for electric vehicle
aggregators in electricity markets. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2013;28(4):
4031–41.
[49] Momber I, Siddiqui A, Román T G, Söder L. Risk averse scheduling by a
PEV aggregator under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2014;PP(99):
1–10.
[50] Liu N, Tang Q, Zhang J, Fan W, Liu J. A hybrid forecasting model with parameter
optimization for short-term load forecasting of micro-grids. Appl Energy
2014;129:336–45.
[51] Deihimi A, Orang O, Showkati H. Short-term electric load and temperature
forecasting using wavelet echo state networks with neural reconstruction.
Energy 2013;57:382–401.
 L. Jian et al. / Applied Energy 146 (2015) 150–161 161

[52] Enayatifar R, Sadaei H, Abdullah A, Gani A. Imperialist competitive algorithm
combine with refined high-order weighted fuzzy time series for short term
load forecasting. Energ Convers Manage 2013;76:1104–16.
[53] Garcia-Villalobos J, Zamora I, Martin J, Asensio F, Aperribay V. Plug-in electric
vehicles in electric distribution networks: a review of smart charging
approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:717–31.
[54] Chan C, Jian L, Tu D. Smart charging of electric vehicles – integration of energy
and information. IET Electr Syst Transport 2014;4:89–96.
[55] Perujo A, Ciuffo B. The introduction of electric vehicles in the private fleet:
potential impact on the electric supply system and on the environment. A case
study for the province of Milan, Italy. Energy Policy 2010;38:4549–61.
[56] Concha P, Lafoz M, Velez P, Arribas J. Energy storage systems for electric
vehicles: performance comparison based on a simple equivalent circuit and
experimental tests. Electr Veh Sympos Exhibition 2013:1–11.