Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on
Cyber Technology in Automation, Control and Intelligent Systems
May 26-29, 2013, Nanjing, China
A Stochastic Model for Quantifying the Impact of
PHEVs on a Residential Distribution Grid
Jun Tan and Lingfeng Wang
Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
The University of Toledo
Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA
Abstract— This paper presents a methodology for modeling
and controlling the load demand in a residential distribution
grid due to plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) battery
charging and discharging. To take the stochastic nature of start
charging time, charging during and initial state of charge (SOC)
into consideration, this paper built a stochastic model for PHEV
in a residential distribution grid close to real-world scenarios.
The authors proposed a smart charging and vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) strategy based on particle swarm optimization algorithm.
The objective of this control strategy is to improve the power
quality and flatten the load demand in the studied system. Then
simulations are carried out at different PHEV penetration levels
for three different charging scenarios: the uncoordinated
charging, the proposed smart charging without V2G and the
proposed smart charging with V2G. The results show that
uncoordinated charging will seriously increase the peak load
and cause large voltage deviation, while the proposed smart
charging method can effectively reduce the voltage deviation
and flatten the load demand curve. It is found that when V2G is
considered in the proposed smart charging method, the peak
load will decrease and the voltage deviation will be smaller too
at a low PHEV penetration level, but with the increase of PHEV
penetration level, the advantages of V2G will decrease.
Index Terms—Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, stochastic
modeling, smart charging, vehicle-to-grid, power quality,
particle swarm optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
The increasing concerns over environment problems and
energy depletion have brought the development of electric
vehicles (EVs) into a fast growing stage. According to an
environmental statistics, the transportation sector produced
about 29% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emission in 2006 and
this number is still increasing [1]. The emissions can be
reduced by EVs due to fact that the power generated by power
plants is more efficient than fuel burned in gasoline cars, and
the emissions of power plants is easier to control. Besides, if
the EVs are charged by renewable resources, they can achieve
zero emission. One significant drawback of EVs is the limited
drive range. PHEV can overcome the drawback of EV as it
has both electrical and internal combustion engines. PHEV
has the same advantages of EV when it is operated in all
electrical mode and it can satisfy the drivers with large drive
‹,(((
range by operating the combustion engine when the battery’s
charge is not sufficient [2].
Nowadays, PHEV are accepted by more and more
consumers, and its penetration level is rapidly increasing
around the world. The estimated number of PHEVs may reach
1 million in U.S. by the year 2015 [3] and the penetration level
may reach 60% by the 2050 in U.S. according to the Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) [4]. The high penetration of
PHEVs in the near future leads to an increase in electrical load
demand. The new load demand will pose a challenge to the
power system especially in small residential distribution grids.
In the distribution system, the large load demand caused by
PHEVs may increase the peak load, cause the voltage and
frequency deviation. The PHEVs can also increase the total
harmonic distortion (THD) in the system. The high harmonic
current together with the increased peak load may damage the
transformers in the distribution system. To study the PHEVs’
impacts on power system, much research has been done to
model and control the PHEV load demand. Most studies are
focused on developing algorithms to control the PHEVs’ load
demand such as sequential quadratic optimization [5], [6] and
dynamic programming [7]. But the PHEV models of [5]-[7]
are based on pre-determined charging scenarios which are not
very close to real-world situations. References [8]-[10] built
stochastic models for PHEVs but the analysis is limited to
demand modeling. Reference [11] studied the ancillary
services provided by PHEV through V2G technology such as
spinning reserves and frequency regulation, but no
quantitative analysis is included.
To date, seldom studies have been done to develop a
stochastic model for PHEV when power quality issues are
considered. This study established a stochastic model for
PHEV and makes reasonable assumptions close to real-world
scenarios in terms of beginning time of PHEV charging, initial
state of charge (SOC) and the departure time. This paper also
applied the V2G technology to improve the power quality in
the residential distribution grid. The simulations are carried
out in MATLAB based on a modified PSO algorithm.
This paper is organized as follows: section II introduces the
stochastic model for PHEV, section III discusses the
mathematical model for PHEV charging and proposes a PSO
algorithm based control strategy, section IV introduces the
120
case studies and simulation results, and section V draws The distribution of the arriving PHEVs can be expressed as
conclusions. normal distributions as shown in Fig. 2.
0.45

II. STOCHASTIC MODEL OF PHEV 0.4

A. Charging Demand of PHEVs 0.35

Probability density
0.3
The charging demand of a PHEV is associated with many
0.25
factors, such as initial battery SOC, charging power, the 0.2
charging start time and the plug-in duration. This study is 0.15
based on a residential distribution grid environment, so the 0.1

PHEVs will only be plugged into the grid once a day when 0.05

the drivers come back home after a home to home trip. It is 0

assumed that the drivers will plug in their PHEVs 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Arriving time (h)
20 21 22 23

immediately after they come home at night and the PHEV Figure 2. Probability distribution of arriving time of PHEVs.
will be fully charged when they leave home the next morning.
The PHEVs are assumed to be operated in all electrical mode The PDF of the arriving time of PHEVs is as follows:
until the battery SOC reaches to 20% to extend the battery 1 మ
life. ‫ܨ‬஺் (‫= )ݐ‬ ݁ ି(௧ିఓ)Τଶఙ , 0 < ‫ < ݐ‬24 (3)
ߪξ2ߨ
The initial SOC of a PHEV can be derived from its daily where t is the time in a day, μ=18, ߪ = 1
travel distance. According to the US National Household Also, the distribution of departure time of PHEVs in the
Travel Survey (NHTS) [12], the distribution of travel distance next morning can be expressed as:
can be described by a lognormal distribution as shown in Fig. 1 మ
1. This distribution has zero probability for negative values of ‫ܨ‬஽் (‫= )ݐ‬ ݁ ି(௧ିఓ)Τଶఙ , 0 < ‫ < ݐ‬24 (4)
travel distance and a low probability for long travel distance. ߪξ2ߨ
where μ=7, ߪ = 1
According to Fig. 1, most travelers have a daily travel range
As the arriving and departure time of a PHEV can be
between 5 to 20 miles.
obtained from (3) and (4), the plug-in duration could also be
0.06 calculated.
0.05
B. Vehicle to Grid
The basic concept of V2G is that the PHEV can provide
Probability density

0.04 power to the grid while it is plugged in. Usually, the PHEV
can charge during off peak time and discharge when power is
0.03
needed by the grid. In this study, the V2G technology is used
0.02 to shave the peak load demand.
III. PROBLEM FORMULATION
0.01

A. Mathematical Model of PHEV charging

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 The studied system is based on a small residential
Travel distance (mile)
distribution grid. PHEVs are charged in houses which have a
Figure 1. Probability distribution of daily vehicle travel distance. 120-V/15-A standard wall outlet. PHEVs studied here have a
battery capacity of 16 kWh [2], and the charging and
The PDF of daily vehicle travel distance can be expressed as : discharging efficiency is set to 92%, so it takes about 8 hours
1 మ
‫ܨ‬ோ (݀) = ݁ ି(௟௡ௗିఓ)Τଶఙ , ݀ > 0 (1) to charge a battery from 20% SOC to full SOC. An
݀ߪξ2ߨ aggregator is installed in the distribution grid to control the
where d is the travel distance, μ is the mean of lnd, and ߪ is charging process of PHEVs. When a driver plugs a PHEV
the standard deviation of the lognormal distribution. In this into the grid, the aggregator is supposed to be notified by the
case, μ=2.7, ߪ = 0.6. driver of the initial SOC, arriving time and the departure
Assume the PHEVs have a maximum all electrical travel time. So the charging process can be expressed as follows:
range ݀ோ , and the energy consumption of the PHEV is
proportional to the travel distance ݀. The initial SOC of a ்
PHEV with a daily travel distance ݀ can be expressed as: ܴெ ή ߩ න ‫ܧ = ݐ݀ )ݐ(ݎ‬ (5)
ௗ ଴
1 െ , 0 < ݀ < ݀ோ
ܱܵ‫ = ܥ‬ቊ ௗೃ (2)
20%, ݀ ൒ ݀ோ where
Assume the PHEVs studied here have a battery capacity of ܶ is the expected plug-in time;
13kWh and an all electrical travel range of 40 miles. The ܴெ is the maximum possible charging power;
initial SOC of PHEVs in the studied residential grid can be ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬is the charging rate, 0 ൑ ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬൑ 1;
generated according to (1) and (2). ߩ is the charging efficiency;
‫ܧ‬ is the energy required to satisfy the target SOC.

121
 The basic principle of the proposed smart changing is to maximizing the load factor should have a good effect on
manage the load demand of PHEVs to improved load factor reducing voltage deviation. Also, mazimizing load factor will
of the system by charging at off peak times. In order to shift obviously flatten the load demand. Thus, the objective
more loads from peak times to off peak times, the charging function is to maximize the load factor:
power of PHEVs should be set to the rated power. Then the
charging process of a PHEV can be designed as a charging ‫ܦ‬௔௩௚
sequence as follows: max{ (15)
݉ܽ‫ݔ‬൫σ௡௢ௗ௘௦
௡ୀଵ ‫ܦ‬௡,௧ ൯
் where
ܸ௜௡ is the system input voltage;
ܴெ · ߩ ෍ ‫ܧ = )ݐ(ݎ‬, ‫ = )ݐ(ݎ‬0,1 (6)
ܸ௡ is the voltage at load point ݊;
௧ୀଵ
When V2G is considered, then: ‫ܦ‬௡,௧ is the load demand of load point n at time ‫;ݐ‬
‫ܦ‬௔௩௚ is the average of the total system load demand;
் ் ܴ௟ is the resistance of line ݈;
ܴ஼ெ ή ߩ න ‫ݎ‬௖ (‫ ݐ݀ )ݐ‬+ ܴ஽ெ න ‫ݎ‬ௗ (‫ܧ = ݐ݀ )ݐ‬ (7) ‫ܫ‬௟,௧ is the line current of line ݈ at time ‫ݐ‬.
଴ ଴
where C. Particle Swarm Optimization
ܴ஼ெ is the maximum possible charging power; A particle swarm optimizer is developed to solve the
ܴ஽ெ is the maximum possible discharging power; formulated problem. The basic principle of PSO is to find the
‫ݎ‬௖ (‫ )ݐ‬is the charging rate at time t, 0 ൑ ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬൑ 1; best position of a particle in order to optimize the objective
‫ݎ‬ௗ (‫ )ݐ‬is the discharging rate at time t, െ1 ൑ ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬൑ 0; function in the search space.
For simplicity, assume: The PSO algorithm [13] has many particles in the system
and every particle has its own location and velocity. These
ܴ஼ெ ή ߩ = ܴ஽ெ = ܴெ (8) particles can learn from their own experiences and the
‫ݎ‬௖ (‫ )ݐ‬+ ‫ݎ‬ௗ (‫)ݐ(ݎ = )ݐ‬, െ1 ൑ ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬൑ 1 (9) experiences from other particles. The position and velocity of
each particle are adjusted according to equations (15)-(17).
So equation (7) can be rewritten as: The velocity of a particle is affected by the its own best
் position ‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ݌‬and best position of all the particles ݃‫ݐݏ݁ܤ‬.
ܴெ න ‫ܧ = ݐ݀ )ݐ(ݎ‬, െ1 ൑ ‫ )ݐ(ݎ‬൑ 1 (10)
௞ାଵ ௞ ௞
଴ ‫ݒ‬௜ௗ = ‫ݒݓ‬௜ௗ + ‫ܥ‬ଵ ή ‫݀݊ܽݎ‬ଵ · ൫‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ݌‬െ ‫ݔ‬௜ௗ ൯ + ‫ܥ‬ଶ ή ‫݀݊ܽݎ‬ଶ
Similarly, the charging and discharging power of PHEV ௞
· ൫݃‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ‬െ ‫ݔ‬௜ௗ ൯ (15)
should be as large as possible to shift more charging loads to
the off peak times and provide more power to the grid during
௞ାଵ ௞ ௞ାଵ
peak hours. The charging process can be designed as a ‫ݔ‬௜ௗ = ‫ݔ‬௜ௗ + ‫ݒ‬௜ௗ (16)
charging sequence as follows:
‫ݓ‬௠௔௫ െ ‫ݓ‬௠௜௡
் ‫ݓ = ݓ‬௠௔௫ െ ݇ ή (17)
݇௠௔௫
ܴெ ෍ ‫ܧ = )ݐ(ݎ‬, ‫ = )ݐ(ݎ‬െ1,1 (11) where
௧ୀଵ
subject to (12)-(14): ‫ݒ‬௜ௗ is the velocity of particle ݅ at dimension ݀;
௧భ
‫ݔ‬௜ௗ is the position of particle ݅ at dimension ݀;
ܱܵ‫ݐ(ܥ‬ଵ ) = (ܱܵ‫(ܥ‬0) ή ‫ܧ‬ெ + ܴெ ෍ ‫ ) )ݐ(ݎ‬/‫ܧ‬ெ (12)
௧ୀଵ
‫ݓ‬ is the inertia weight;
0.2 ൑ ܱܵ‫ݐ(ܥ‬ଵ ) ൑ 1 (13) ݇ is the iteration number;
0 ൑ ‫ݐ‬ଵ ൑ ܶ (14)
where ‫ܥ‬ଵ and ‫ܥ‬ଶ are the learning factors.
ܶ is the expected plug-in time; In the PSO algorithm, the fitness value of each particle is
‫ܧ‬ெ is the battery capacity; calculated according to the objective function at each
ܱܵ‫ݐ(ܥ‬ଵ ) is the battery state of charge at time ‫ݐ‬ଵ . iteration. When a best fitness value is found for a specific
According to equation (11), the charging process of a particle, the position of this particle will be the ‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ݌‬value
PHEV can be simplified as a charging sequence based on for this particle. Similarly, when a best fitness value for all
each hour. The charging sequence consists of “1” and “-1”, the particles is found, the position of the particle will be the
where “1” means charging at this specific hour and “-1” ݃‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ‬value. After all iterations are over, the best position
indicates discharging. ݃‫ ݐݏ݁ܤ‬can be found in the searching space.
B. Tested objective functions In this specific problem, we need to find the optimal
In this study, the basic goal to control the sequences of charging and discharging sequence of each PHEV in the
PHEVs is to achieve better power quality and flattened load system. So the location of a particle in the search space should
include the information on the sequence of each PHEV. The
demand. As voltage deviation is due to the system over load,
number of PHEVs is set to be the dimensions of the search

122
space of each particle and the number of possible charging and
discharging sequences of PHEV is the searching range of the
dimension. For example, if a PHEV will be plugged in for 9
hours and needs 5 hours to be charged to full SOC, it will has
7 hours for charging and 2 hours for discharging when V2G is
considered. One possible charging sequence could be “1-1-
1111111”, and the number of the total possible charging
sequences for the PHEV is ‫ܥ‬ଽଶ = 36. Then this 36 different
sequences are encode as 1 to 36 as the searching range for this
dimension.
IV. CASE STUDIES
A. The Test System
The topology of the studied residential distribution grid is
based on the IEEE 34-node test feeder [14] as shown in Fig.
3. In the system, node 1 is connected to the grid and node 2-
34 are load points. For simplicity, each load point has 2
houses connected to each phase of transformer. Assume every
house has 2 vehicles, then the penetration level of PHEVs can
be defined as the ratio of the number of PHEVs by all the
vehicles. Fig. 4 shows the basic load profile of a house in
winter and other two load profiles are generated by shifting
±1 hours of Fig. 4. The load profile of each house is
randomly chosen from the three load profiles. A power flow
analysis is carried out based on a backward-forward sweep
method [16] to assess the voltage and current information for
each iteration of the PSO algorithm.
12
11
10
4 13
Grid
2 3 6 7 8 9
1 5
15 16 17 18
Figure 3. The topology of the studied residential distribution system.
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
Power(W)
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10
Time(h)
Figure 4. Household load during winter [15].
An aggregator is in place in the residental distribution grid
to manage the charging process of the PHEVs in the system.
The aggregator makes contracts with vehicle owners, so once
a PHEV is plugged into the system, the vehicle owner should
provide the information about arriving time, initial SOC and
departure time. Then the aggregator can control the PHEVs
based on its own algorithm. In this study, the aggregator is
designd to improve the power quality of the system by
minimizing the load voltage deviation and flattening the
system load demand. As the a basic performance index of an
aggregator, the revenue will also be considered in this study.
The revenue is caculated based on the varying electricity
price. Fig. 5 is an locational marginal pricing (LMP) from
PJM [17]. Although the price curves are not the same
everyday, the daily pattern is similar. Fig. 5 is a typical price
curve and it is used in this study to generate charging cost in
the system for differnent control strategies.
60
55
Electricity Price (cent)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
0 5 10 15 20
Time (hour)
Figure 5. Electricity Price for the residential distribution system.
B. Simulation Results
When the charging processes of PHEVs are not controlled
29
in the system, the vehicle owners will charge their PHEVs
28
immediately after they come home. The simulation studied
the impacts of this uncoordinated charging. A PSO algorithm
27
based aggregator is designed to control the charging
24 26 processes of PHEVs, and both the control strategies with and
31
23 32 without V2G technology are studied and compared. The
14 25 30
20 33 simulations are carried out at different PHEV penetration
21 22 levels of 10%, 20%, 40% and 60%.
19 34
As shown in Fig. 6, there is a huge deviation of the load
voltage when PHEVs are under uncoordinated charging in the
residential distribution system, and the voltage deviation
increases drastically with the increase of PHEV penetration
level. When smart charging algorithms are applied, the
voltage deviation is mitigated and the system load demand
profile is flattened as shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively.
According to Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, at low PHEV penetration
levels, the smart charging has a better performance on
reducing voltage deviation and flattening the load demand
when V2G technology is applied. But when PHEV
penetration level increases, the advantage of V2G is reduced.
This phenomenon can be explained by the following analysis:
15 20
When PHEV penetration level is low, after the aggregator
allocates PHEV charging load to the off peak time, there is
still a large gap between peak load and off peak load, so the
V2G strategy can still shave the peak load as shown in Fig. 7
(a)-(c). But when the PHEV penetration level is very high,
after aggregator flattens the load demand, there is no peak
load demand existing. The V2G strategy can not make the
load demand more flattened. So the V2G strategy exhibits a
better performance at low PHEV penetration levels.
123
  





Load Voltage (V)

Load Voltage (V)

 







 
Uncoordinated charging Uncoordinated charging
 Smart charging without V2G Smart charging without V2G
Smart charging with V2G  Smart charging with V2G


 
                       
Time (hours) Time (hours)
a. Load voltage curves at 10% PHEV penetration b. Load voltage curves at 20% PHEV penetration
 






Load Voltage (V)


Load Voltage (V)




 




 Uncoordinated charging Uncoordinated charging
Smart charging without V2G  Smart charging without V2G
 Smart charging with V2G Smart charging with V2G


 
                       
Time (hours) Time (hours)
c. Load voltage curves at 40% PHEV penetration d. Load voltage curves at 60% PHEV penetration
Figure 6. Load votage curves for node point 34 of the residentail distribution grid at different PHEV penetration levels.

 
Base Load Base Load
 Uncoordinate charging 
Uncoordinate charging
Smart charging without V2G Smart charging without V2G
Smart charging with V2G  Smart charging with V2G
Load Demand (KW)

Load Demand (KW)














 
                       
Time (hours) Time (hours)
a. Load demand curves at 10% PHEV penetration b. Load demand curves at 20% PHEV penetration
 

 Base Load Base Load

Uncoordinate charging  Uncoordinate charging
 Smart charging without V2G Smart charging without V2G
Smart charging with V2G
Load Demand (KW)

Load Demand (KW)

Smart charging with V2G





 









 
                       
Time (hours) Time (hours)
c. Load demand curves at 40% PHEV penetration d. Load demand curves at 60% PHEV penetration

Figure 7. Total load demand of residential distribution grid at different PHEV penetration levels.

124
 
Uncoordinate charging

Smart charging without V2G
Cost of Charging ($)
 Smart charging with V2G




 smart charging algorithm with and without V2G
   
PHEV Penetration Level
Figure 8. Costs of charging by different control stategies.
Fig. 8 shows the charging cost of PHEVs based on
different control strategies. Compared to uncoordinated
charging, the smart charging strategies reduce the cost
effectively by avoiding charging at peak hours. When
PHEV penetration level is low, the V2G stategy saves
more money than the smart charging stategy without V2G
by selling electricity back to the grid at peak hours. When
PHEV penetration level is higher than 40%, the V2G
stategy costs more money than smart charging stategy
without V2G as the peak load does not exist after smart
charging as shown in Fig. 7(c), (d). In this situation, as a
portion of energy is wasted in the converter during the
charing and discharging process of V2G, the V2G strategy
REFERENCES
[1] U.S. environmental statistics [online]. Available: www.bikesbelong
.org/resources/stats-and-research/statistics/environmental-statistics/.
[2] A. K. Srivastava, B. Annabathina, and S. Kamalasadan, “The
challenges and policy options for integrating plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle into the electric grid,” Electr. J., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 83-91,
2010.
[3] K. Sikes, T. Gross, Z. Lin, J. Sullivan, T. Cleary, J. Ward, Plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle market introduction study: Final Report U.S.
Dept. Energy, Rep. No. ORNL/TM-2009/019, 2010.
[4] M. Duvall and E. Knipping, “Environmental assessment of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles,” EPRI Jul. 2007 [online].
Available: http://mydocs.epri.com.docs/CorporateDocumnet/Sector
Pages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV-ExecSum-voll.pdf
[5] K. Clement, E. Haesen, J. Driesen, “The Impact of Charging Plug-
In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on a Residential Distribution Grid”
IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol. 25, pp. 371-380, Feb. 2010.
[6] H. Sekyung, H. Soohee, K. Sezaki, “Development of an Optimal
Vehicle-to-Grid Aggregator for Frequency Regulation” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 1, pp. 65-72, Jun. 2010.
[7] E. Sortomme, M. Hindi, S. Macpherson, “Coordinated Charging of
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Minimize Distribution System
Losses” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, pp. 198-205, Mar. 2011.
125
actually costs more money than the smart charging
strategy without V2G.
V. CONCLUSION
This study presents a methodology to integrate PHEVs
in a residential distribution grid. The paper builds a
stochastic model of PHEVs in residential distribution grid.
According to this model the authors proposed a smart
charging and V2G method based on a modified PSO
algorithm to improve the power quality in the studied
system. The authors study the performance of the proposed
technology at different PHEV penetration levels. The
simulation results show that when PHEVs are charged
without control, there will be a very large deviation on load
voltage, but when smart charging is applied, the voltage
deviation is reduced, load demand profile is flattened and
charging cost is reduced. The simulation also proved the
V2G strategy exhibits a better performance at low PHEV
penetration levels. When the PHEV penetration level
increases, the advantages of V2G technology will decrease.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is in part supported by California Energy
Commission through the Energy Innovations Small Grant
(EISG) Program.
[8] G. Li, X. Zhang, “Modeling of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Charging Demand in Probabilistic Power Flow Calculations” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, pp. 492-499, Mar. 2012.
[9] P. Zhang, K. Qian, C. Zhou, B. Stewart, D. Hepburn, “A
Methodology for Optimization of Power Systems Demand Due to
Electric Vehicle Charging Load”, IEEE Trans. Power Systems, vol.
27, pp. 1628-1636, Aug. 2012.
[10] K. Qian, C. Zhou, M. Allan, Y. Yuan, “Modeling of Load Demand
Due to EV Battery Charging in Distribution Systems”, IEEE Trans.
Power Systems, vol. 26, pp. 802-810, May. 2011.
[11] W. Kempton, J. Tomic, “Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals:
Calculating capacity and net revenue,” J. Power Sources, vol. 144,
no. 1, pp. 268-279, 2005.
[12] National Household Travel Survey. [online]. Available: http://
nhts.ornl.gov.
[13] J. Kennedy, R. C. Eberhart, “Particle Swarm Optimization”, IEEE
International Conference on Neutral Networks, Australia, 1995, pp.
1942-1948.
[14] W. H Kersting, “Radial distribution test feeders,” in Proc. IEEE
Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, Jan. 28-Feb. 1, 2001. [online].
Available: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/.
[15] J. A. Jardini, C. M. Tahan, M. R. Gouvea, “Daily load profiles for
residential, commercial and industrial low voltage consumers,”
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 375-380, Jan. 2000.
[16] W. Kersting, Distribution System Modeling and Analysis. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 2002.
[17] [online]. Available: http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/
energy/lmp-model-info.aspx.