Stochastic Energy Management for Microgrids with

Constraints under Uncertainty

Jianzhe Liu
Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering
Center for Automotive Research
the Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Email: liu.2430@osu.edu
Giorgio Rizzoni
Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering
Center for Automotive Research
the Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Email: rizzoni.1@osu.edu
Benjamin Yurkovich
Center for Automotive Research
the Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Email: yurkovich.7@osu.edu

Abstract—This paper studies two energy management prob-
lems for microgrids with constraints involving uncertainty. The
first energy management problem has constraints on the utiliza-
tion of certain components. It can be used to ensure the pene-
tration level of renewable generation or plug-in electric vehicles.
The second energy management problem aims at refraining the
output power of the microgrid. It is required by applications
such as peak power shaving and instrument protection. With
the integration of components having random output power
such as photovoltaic panels and plug-in electric vehicles in the
microgrid, the two problems have uncertainty in the constraints.
A unified chance constrained programming formulation of the
two problems is proposed in the paper. This formulation provides
probabilistic guarantees on the satisfaction of the constraints and
transforms the two problems into convex programs that can be
solved efficiently. A practical case study verifies the effectiveness
of the proposed approach.
I. INTRODUCTION
The power system is gradually evolving into a smart grid
that is safer and greener. With advanced cooperative operation
techniques, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) together with
distributed resources such as energy storage systems (ESSs)
and renewable energy sources (RESs) will play important roles
in the future smart grid.
Microgrid is an emerging distribution infrastructure that
coordinates PEVs, ESSs, and RESs with other local energy
components. With proper energy management, a microgrid
is able to act as one controllable energy entity that pro-
vides grid-friendly power outputs. The energy management
problems (EMPs) of microgrids seek to minimize the energy
or operating costs with respect to certain time-of-use (TOU)
energy prices [1]. The challenges of the microgrid EMPs are
contributed by the uncertain output power of the microgrid.
Different approaches to tackle the uncertainty have been
presented in the literature. In [2], [3], the authors exploit
numerical prediction techniques to forecast the uncertainty in
the microgrid and solve the EMPs in a deterministic way.
However, the credibility of meteorology and load forecasts
drops substantially with the extent of time [4]. To reduce
the accumulation of numerical forecasts errors, in [5]–[7] the
EMPs are solved through a rolling horizon strategy, which
makes planning at each time step to refine the forecasts
with time. Furthermore, robust and stochastic programming
approaches have been employed to solve the EMPs [4], [8]–
[10].
Despite the rich literature about the Microgrid EMPs, the
EMPs with constraints under uncertainty have not been ade-
quately studied. This paper solves two microgrid EMPs with
uncertain constraints on output power. The first EMP attempts
to ensure a level of utilization of certain components. The
utilization of a component is represented by a percentage
share of the output power of the component in the overall
microgrid output power. This constraint is required by the need
to increase the penetration of RESs [11] or to prevent excessive
usage of expensive components such as battery packs. For
example, if the power consumed by RESs is required to be at
least 50% of the overall microgrid power, then a constraint
needs to be formulated to ensure this utilization of RESs
withstanding the random nature of the RESs. The second EMP
endeavors to refrain the magnitude of the microgrid output
power. This EMP is required by applications such as peak
power shaving or instrument protection [12]. For example, to
reduce energy cost microgrids typically tend to defer the con-
sumption to the time with lower energy prices. This may cause
large rebounds in power demands, and the rebounds could
be dangerous for distribution facilities. Therefore, constraints
on the output power magnitude are needed for instrument
protection purpose. In conclusion, the two EMPs are originated
from practical applications, and they set different constraints
on the microgrid output power, which is uncertain.
A unified chance constrained programming (CCP) formu-
lation is proposed in this paper for the two EMPs. The CCP
approach involves probabilistic constraints that only need to
be satisfied with a high probability. Through utilizing the pro-
posed method, the two types of constraints are formulated by
one generic chance constraint that sets probabilistic guarantees
on the satisfaction of the two constraints. The proposed CCP
can be transformed into equivalent convex programs that have
computationally efficient algorithms to find the solution. This
unified formulation is an extension of the chance constraint on
output framework (CCOF) proposed in the authors’ work [13].
Notice that the CCP formulation of this paper is more generic

978-1-5090-0403-4/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

such that it covers more applications, like the utilization
bounding problems, than the CCOF does.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the model of the microgrid and the two EMPs,
Section III presents the unified CCP formulation, Section IV
uses a practical microgrid application to verify the proposed
method, and Section V concludes the paper and discusses
future research directions.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM D ESCRIPTION
A. System Model
We consider a microgrid consisting of n batteries, m on-
site plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), p types of renewable
energy sources (RESs), and 1 composite uncontrollable load
in this paper. This configuration represents many microgrids
in practice [14]–[18].
Batteries can improve the reliability of and provide more
flexibility for the microgrid operations. In this paper, we
assume that a battery management system is installed for each
battery, so we can observe the battery state of charge (SOC)
estimation and control the battery output power within its
physical limits. In addition, we assume that the batteries have
no power loss during operation. Under these conditions, the
dynamics of the i-th battery is given as follows,
 B
xi (k + 1) = xBi (k) + uBi (k),
(1)
xBi (0) = Ei0
B
/Capi , i = 1, 2, · · · , n
where xBi (k) is the i-th battery’s SOC at time k, uBi (k) is the
control variable that indicates the change of SOC at k with
positive sign indicating increase of the SOC, Ei0B
is the initial
energy stored in the battery, and Capi is the rated capacity.
Notice that Capi · uBi (k) is the energy output at k. Define xBi
and uBi be the upper bounds on the state and control, xBi and
uBi be the lower bounds on the state and control, and fiB be
the designated final SOC of the battery. The constraints on the
control uBi (k) are given by,
uBi (k) ≤ min{xBi − xBi (k), uBi }, (2)
uBi (k) ≥ max{xBi − xBi (k), uBi }, (3)
xBi (N ) = fiB , (4)
where (2) and (3) implement physical constraints for output
power, and (4) ensures the final SOC reaches the desired
values.
When one PEV plugs into the microgrid it becomes on-site.
i We assume that agreements are signed between the PEV
owners and the microgrid so that an on-site PEV provides
the microgrid with its required energy and charging deadlines
upon plugging in, and the microgrid is allowed to control each
on-site PEV’s charging power as long as the required energy
and charging deadlines are respected. For the j-th on-site PEV,
its dynamics is given as follows [19]:
 P
xj,1 (k + 1) = xPj,1 (k) − uPj,1 (k)
xPj (k + 1) = , 
xPj,2 (k + 1) = xPj,2 (k) − uPj,2 (k) (5)
xPj (0) = xPj,0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m
where xPj,1 (k) and xPj,2 (k) are the minimum charging time
and maximum waiting time of the j-th on-site PEV at time k
respectively. The initial state is given by xPj,0 = [ej /E¯jP , tj −
ej /E¯jP ], where ej is the required energy and tj is the number
of time steps from time 0 to the charging deadline. The two-
dimensional control inputs uPj take values in set U defined as
U = {(a1 , a2 ) ∈ {0, 1}2 |a1 + a2 = 1}. The constraints on
uPj (k) are given by,
uPj,1 (k) + uPj,2 (k) = 1, (6)
uPj,1 (k) ≤ min{xPj,1 (k), 1}, (7)
uPj,1 (k) ≥ max{1 − xPj,2 (k), 0}, (8)
uPj,1 (k) = 0, k > tj (9)
Constraint (6) is set due to the fact that an on-site PEV is
either waiting or charging at one time step. Equations (7) and
(8) set constraints on the energy consumption of the PEVs and
ensure the required energy to be charged before the deadline.
Constraint (9) ensures that the PEV charging event do not
happen after the specified deadline.
RESs, like solar and wind generation, can provide clean
energy for the microgrid to reduce electricity cost and CO2
emission, but their volatile and uncertain output power makes
it hard for their integration to the grid. The microgrid co-
ordinates the RESs with other controllable components to
alleviate their volatility. With adequate historic data and proper
estimation technique, the probability distributions for RESs
generation can be obtained over a certain time span [20]. In
this paper, we assume that for the l-th RES its output energy
at time k, wlR (k) is given by
wlR (k) ∼ WlR (k), l = 1, 2, · · · , p (10)
where WlR (k) is the distribution of the l-th renewable resource
at time k.
An uncontrollable load cannot be deferred. We assume that
there is a composite uncontrollable load in the microgrid which
is composed of lighting load, computer load, etc. Like a RES,
the probability distribution of the composite load can also be
estimated. Define wU (k) as the energy consumption of the
composite load at k, it is given by
wU (k) ∼ WU (k), (11)
where W (k) is the distribution of the composite load at k.
U
Define x ∈ Rn+2m , u ∈ Rn+2m , y ∈ R, w ∈ Rp+1 , where
 T
x(k) = xB1 (k) · · · xBn (k) (xP1 (k))T · · · (xPm (k))T ,
 T
u(k) = uB1 (k) · · · uBn (k) (uP1 (k))T · · · (uPm (k))T ,
 T
w(k) = w1R (k) · · · wpR (k) wU (k) .
Using (1), (5), (10), and (11), an aggregated discrete time
linear model of the microgrid is given by,
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k),
y(k) = Du(k) + Ew(k),
(12)
where y is the overall power output of the microgrid, which
equals the sum of all the energy generation and consumption
within the microgrid, matrices
 
In 0
A = In+2m , B = , For utilization of component bounding problem, the co-
0 −I2m
where In is an n-dimensional identity matrix. D ∈ R1×(n+2m)
and E ∈ R1×(p+q) are two row vectors, where D =
[Cap1 , · · · , Capn , E1P , 0, · · · , Em
P , 0] and E = [1, 1, · · · , 1].
B. Problem Description
In this paper, we solve two microgrid EMPs with constraints
under uncertainty. The first EMP requires a probabilistic
guarantee on the utilization of certain components. It is rooted
in applications with special demands on the usage of some
components. For example, when bidding in the energy markets
the user may want to make full use of the renewable generation
to save operation costs. Therefore, a constraint to guarantee
the minimum utilization of renewable generation is needed.
In addition, to have a desired penetration level of PEV a
constraint can be set to refrain the utilization of PEVs. These
constraints involve the uncertain output power in microgrids.
The second EMP incorporates a probabilistic bound on the
output power of microgrids. It can be applied to refrain de-
mand rebounds and to protect power instruments. For example,
some switching power instruments such as power transmission
lines have capacity limits. Without considering these limits
may cause impractical or harmful planning. Due to the random
nature of the output power, the constraints are also under
uncertainty.
III. C HANCE C ONSTRAINED P ROGRAMMING
F ORMULATION
In this section, a unified chance constrained programming
(CCP) formulation is proposed for the two EMPs described in
Section II-B. The formulation is given as follows,
N
 Chance constraint (13b) can be transformed into a linear
min E c(k)y(k) , subj. to (13a)
u(1),··· ,u(N )
k=1
(2), (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (12),
P({w(k): gk (u(k), w(k)) ≤ 0}) ≥ 1 − , k = 1, · · · , N (13b)
where N is the optimization horizon, c(k) is the energy price
of the k-th time step. We aim to minimize the expectation of
the energy cost over a time horizon N .
The chance constraint (13b) requires that the probability
measure of the set {w(k) : gk (u(k), w(k)) ≤ 0} to exceed
a confidence level 1 − . The constraint function gk (·, ·) :
Rn+2m × Rp+1 → R is given by
gk (u, w) = ηkT diag(D)u + θkT diag(E)w + γk , (14)
n+2m p+1
where ηk ∈ R , θk ∈ R are two coefficient vectors,
and diag : Rn → Rn×n is a function which yields a diagonal
matrix with its diagonal entries being the elements of the
argument, and γk ∈ R is an additive coefficient.
The constraint function gk (u(k), w(k)) is a linear com-
bination of the energy output of all the controllable and
uncontrollable components at time k. The coefficients ηk , θk ,
and γk are chosen according to different applications.
efficients are chosen to be the weight of each component’s
energy output, and the linear combination in the constraint
function is a weighted sum of the energy outputs of all
the components. Therefore, by varying the coefficients the
penetration of certain components’ energy output in the overall
energy output can alter. If we want the penetration of PEV to
be less than pk ∈ (0, 1) to reduce the stress on power supply,
the coefficients are given by,
 T
ηk= −pk 11×n (1 − pk )11×2m , θk=−pk 1(p+1)×1 , γk=0,
where 1i×j is an i × j matrix with all its elements being 1.
For example, we have 1 PEV and 1 composite load in the
microgrid, and pk = 0.1. For simplicity, define PEV energy
output as Ep and that of load as El . Then the chance constraint
is given by,
P({El : 0.9Ep −0.1El ≤ 0})≥1 − 
Ep
→ P({El : ≤0.1})≥1 − .
Ep + El
To bound the utilization of other components, the coefficients
can be chosen similarly.
In addition, if at time k we want to constrain the microgrid
energy output with an upper (resp., lower) bound bk , we can
choose ηk = 1(n+2m)×1 (resp., ηk = −1(n+2m)×1 ) and
θk = 1(p+1)×1 (resp., θk = −1(p+1)×1 ), and γk = −bk (resp.,
γk = bk ). For example, for the microgrid with 1 PEV and a
composite load, we want the energy output at k to be less than
bk , then the chance constraint is given by,
P ({El : Ep + El ≤ bk }) ≥ 1 − .
Therefore, the unified chance constraint (13b) can be used to
represent the constraints under uncertainty of the two EMPs.
constraint in decision variable u(k). From (13b) and (14),
P {w(k):ηkT diag(D)u(k)+θkT diag(E)w(k)+γk ≤ 0} ≥1 − ,
→P {w(k):θkT diag(E)w(k)≤−ηkT diag(D)u(k)−γk } ≥1 − ,
→ F −ηkT diag(D)u(k) − γk ≥ 1 − ,
→ F −1 (1 − ) + ηkT diag(D)u(k) + γk ≤ 0, (15)
where F is the cumulative distribution function of random
variable θkT diag(E)w(k). F −1 is the inverse function of F .
Notice that given WRl , l = 1, · · · , p, and WU , F −1 can be
obtained. In (15), F −1 (1 − ) and γk are constants, thus (15)
is a linear constraint in u(k).
The cost function (13a) is also a linear term in the decision
variable. Substituting y(k) = Du(k) + Ew(k) in the cost
function, then (13a) is given by,
N

E (c(k)Du(k) + c(k)Ew(k)) ,
k=1
 N
 N

  We have level 2 PEV chargers in the microgrid whose
→ c(k)Du(k) + E c(k)Ew(k) ,
charging power is uni-directional and ranges from 0 to 6kW .
k=1 k=1
We suppose that there are 80 charging jobs for these PEV
where the second term cannot be optimized by the decision chargers in one day. Half of the charging events take place in
variable, therefore it can be removed from the cost function. the morning, and the other half occur in the afternoon. The
The cost function (13a) is transformed into distributions for the arriving and leaving events are summa-
N
rized in TABLE II, where U (i, j) is the uniform distribution

c(k)Du(k), (16) between the hours of i and j. In all the events, each charging
k=1
job would need 24kW h of energy to charge. From the table,
all the charging events need to finish in one day.
which is a linear term in the decision variable.
Notice that cost function (16), constraints (2), (3), (4), (6), TABLE II: Distributions of PEV charging job
(7), (8), (9), and (15) are all linear in decision variables, and
the system (12) is a discrete time linear model, CCP (13a) Events Distribution
can be transformed equivalently into a static linear program. Morning arriving event U (7, 9)
In [13], there is a similar transformation that has a detailed Morning leaving event U (12, 15)
Afternoon arriving event U (13, 15)
derivation, thus we do not report the reasoning here. Afternoon leaving event U (18, 20)

IV. CASE STUDY

The PV generation and building consumption are assumed
A. Microgrid Testbed
to be uncontrollable. The joint probability distribution of these
In this section we verify the proposed CCP formulation two components can be obtained from historical data. For
using a case study. We use a microgrid testbed motivated by simplicity, here we assume that the joint energy distribution
a microgrid constructed at Center for Automotive Research at time k is N (μ(k), 5). The values for μ(k) are listed in
(CAR), the Ohio State University (OSU). The configuration TABLE III. Notice that the power rises in the morning since
of the microgrid testbed is shown in Fig. 1. The PV panels people come to work. The PV generation reaches its peak
and batteries are connected to a DC bus through DC/DC in the noon, compensating some building consumption. When
converters. The DC bus links to the AC side which supplies people leave for home in the afternoon the overall power drops.
PEV chargers and a building.
TABLE III: Average Hourly PV and Building Load
DC Bus Grid
Grid
PV DC/DC
Hour(k) μ(k) (kW )
DC/AC 1-5 30
6-9 80
10 - 15 50
Battery DC/DC 16 - 20 80
21 - 24 30
AC Bus
Building

There is a grid-coupling controller in the microgrid. It

provides local coordination of all the components. At each
C trolllle
Con
Controller
PEV Chargers time step, it collects information of all the components and
then implements the CCP formulation in Section III for one
Fig. 1: Microgrid configuration designed and being building time step. In this paper, we assume that N = 6, and one time
at CAR, OSU step is one hour. After solving the CCP at one time step, the
optimal planning for this time step is assigned to each of the
We connect 50 20kW h lithium-ion batteries to the mi- controllable component.
crogrid, and we assume that they are identical. TABLE I B. Power Line Protection
concludes the specifications of each battery.
We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method
in this subsection. In this case study, the power line that
TABLE I: Specifications of one battery
connects the grid and the microgrid has a power capacity.
Capacity 20 kW h Since excessive usage of the power line may cause dangerous
Initial and final SOC 0.5 over heating issue, to protect the power line the absolute
Upper bound of SOC 0.9 switching power of the microgrid to the power grid should
Lower bound of SOC 0.1 be refrained with an upper bound. In addition, we minimize
Upper bound of power 4 kW
Lower bound of power -4 kW the energy costs of the microgrid based on a time of use
(TOU) price. The TOU pricing scheme is meant to use time
varying prices to leverage load imbalance by giving incentives
to customers to adjust their consumption profiles.
TABLE IV: Three-tier Energy Price
Peak Hours (12-18) $0.18/kWh
Part-peak Hours (8-12 & 18-22) $0.09/kWh
Off-peak Hours (1-8 & 22-24) $0.04/kWh
TABLE V: Absolute peak power of the microgrid with differ-
ent risk levels
Risk Level () Absolute Peak Power (kW )
 =0.01 244.27
 =0.10 249.51
 =0.20 251.72
 =0.30 253.32
 =0.40 254.67
 =0.50 255.95
 =0.60 257.25
 =0.70 258.59
 =0.80 260.18
 =0.90 262.38
Greedy planning 452.21
The simulation is set up as follows. The capacity of the
power line is 300kW . For the instrument protection purpose,
we use a conservative upper bound for the absolute power out-
put of the microgrid as 250kW . The TOU price is concluded
in TABLE IV. The TOU price has three tiers according to
the different stress of the power grid to supply the load. The
time span for each tier and its energy price are set according
to realistic data [21]. We simulate the electrical profile of the
microgrid testbed in Section IV-A for one day.
We use the CCP formulation described in Section III to
solve this problem. Two chance constraints are formulated
respectively to refrain the microgrid power to lie in the range
[−250kW, 250kW ]. Define gk1 and gk2 : Rn+2m × Rp+1 → R
to be constraint functions in the chance constraints. From (13b)
and (14), the chance constraints are given as follows,
P({w(k): gk1 (u(k), w(k)) ≤ 0}) ≥ 1 − , k = 1, · · · , 6
P({w(k): gk2 (u(k), w(k)) ≤ 0}) ≥ 1 − , k = 1, · · · , 6
gk1 = 11×(n+2m) diag(D)u(k)+11×(p+1) diag(E)w(k)−250,
gk2 = −11×(n+2m) diag(D)u(k)−11×(p+1) diag(E)w(k)−250.
With the two chance constraints this power line protection
problem can be formulated by the proposed CCP method.
We vary the risk level  in the chance constraints and com-
pare the simulation results with that of the simulation scenario
in absence of chance constraints to showcase the effectiveness
of the chance constraints for instrument protection.
The absolute peak power of each simulation scenario is
collected and shown in TABLE V and Fig. 2. For the scenario
with the chance constraints,  varies in [0.01, 0.90]. As for
the greedy planning scenario, it stands for the one without the
chance constraints. From Fig. 2, when  ≤ 0.10 the absolute
peak power is refrained under 250kW . This shows that using
the proposed CCP formulation the 250kW constraint can be
fulfilled. When  ∈ [0.2, 0.9] though the absolute peak power is
higher than 250kW it is still much smaller than 300kW . This
demonstrates that the risk level of the chance constraints plays
an important role for their satisfaction. The smaller the risk
level is the better the constraint can be met. Nevertheless, as
long as the chance constraints are incorporated the microgrid
can still operate under safe condition. When the chance
constraints are removed from the planning, the absolute peak
power is soaring to over 452.21kW , which is much higher than
the line capacity 300kW . This shows that using the proposed
CCP formulation for this problem is crucial for instrument
protection and safe operation.
500
450
Absolute Peak Power (kW)
400
350
300
250
200
0.01 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Greedy
Risk 
Fig. 2: Peak power at different risk levels
In this case study, for each planning the time horizon is
composed of 6 time steps, and each time step equals to 1
hour. On a laptop with Intel Core i7, one planning takes 8.31
seconds in average using toolbox CVX [22], [23].
V. CONCLUSION
This paper solves two EMPs for microgrids integrated with
uncertain components such as PEVs and distributed resources.
The first EMP requires constraints on the penetration level
of certain components in the microgrid output power. It
can help boost the utilization of renewable generation and
the penetration of PEVs. The second EMP seeks to bound
the output power of the microgrid for applications such as
peak power shaving and instrument protection. The difficulty
of the problems lies in the uncertain constraints concerning
the microgrid output power. A unified CCP formulation is
proposed for the two problems in which the two types of
constraints under uncertainty are formulated by one generic
chance constraint. By doing so, probabilistic guarantees on
the satisfaction of the constraints are obtained. Since the
proposed CCP formulation can be transformed into convex
programs with numerically effective solutions, the proposed
CCP formulation has good applicability for practical usage.
A case study is presented to verify the proposed method. For
future research, we will investigate optimization problems for
large-scale power systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. Xiang, J. Liu, and Y. Liu, “Robust energy management of microgrid
with uncertain renewable generation and load,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[2] A. Chaouachi et al., “Multiobjective intelligent energy management for
a microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1688–1699,
2013.
[3] H. Beltran et al., “Daily solar energy estimation for minimizing energy
storage requirements in pv power plants,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 474–481, 2013.
[4] E. Dall’Anese and G. Giannakis, “Risk-constrained microgrid reconfig-
uration using group sparsity,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 4,
pp. 1415–1425, 2014.
[5] R. Palma-Behnke et al., “A microgrid energy management system based
on the rolling horizon strategy,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2,
pp. 996–1006, 2013.
[6] P. O. Kriett and M. Salani, “Optimal control of a residential microgrid,”
Energy, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 321–330, 2012.
[7] A. Bemporad, F. Borrelli, and M. Morari, “Model predictive control
based on linear programming - the explicit solution,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1974–1985, 2002.
[8] Y. Zhang, N. Gatsis, and G. B. Giannakis, “Robust energy management
for microgrids with high-penetration renewables,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 944–953, 2013.
[9] Z. Wu et al., “Economic optimal schedule of CHP microgrid system us-
ing chance constrained programming and particle swarm optimization,”
in proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–11.
[10] D. T. Nguyen and L. B. Le, “Risk-constrained profit maximization for
microgrid aggregators with demand response,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 135–146, 2015.
[11] Q. Wang, J. Wang, and Y. Guan, “Price-based unit commitment with
wind power utilization constraints,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst, vol. 28,
no. 3, pp. 2718–2726, 2013.
[12] W. Zhang et al., “Aggregated modeling and control of air conditioning
loads for demand response,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 4,
pp. 4655–4664, 2013.
[13] J. Liu et al., “Energy management problems under uncertainties for grid-
connected microgrids: a chance constrained programming approach,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2016.
[14] D. Boroyevich, I. Cvetkovic, R. Burgos, and D. Dong, “Intergrid: A
future electronic energy network?” Emerging and Selected Topics in
Power Electronics, IEEE Journal of, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 127–138, 2013.
[15] X. She et al., “On integration of solid-state transformer with zonal dc
microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 975–985, 2012.
[16] D. Dong et al., “Grid-interface bidirectional converter for residential dc
distribution systems-part one: High-density two-stage topology,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1655–1666, 2013.
[17] X. Tang, W. Deng, and Z. Qi, “Investigation of the dynamic stability of
microgrid,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 698–706, 2014.
[18] H. Kanchev et al., “Energy management and operational planning of a
microgrid with a pv-based active generator for smart grid applications,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4583–4592, 2011.
[19] J. Liu, S. Li et al., “Planning and control of electric vehicles using
dynamic energy capacity models,” in proc. IEEE 53rd Annu. CDC, 2013,
pp. 379–384.
[20] Y. Atwa et al., “Optimal renewable resources mix for distribution system
energy loss minimization,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst, vol. 25, no. 1, pp.
360–370, 2010.
[21] N. Zhou et al., “Assessment of distributed energy adoption in commer-
cial buildings. part 1: An analysis of policy, building loads, tariff design,
and technology development,” Bulletin of The Faculty of Engineering
Kyushu Sangyo University, vol. 42, p. 8, 2005.
[22] M. Grant and S. Boyd, “CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex
programming, version 2.1,” http://cvxr.com/cvx, Mar. 2014.
[23] ——, “Graph implementations for nonsmooth convex programs,”
in Recent Advances in Learning and Control, ser. Lecture Notes
in Control and Information Sciences, V. Blondel, S. Boyd, and
H. Kimura, Eds. Springer-Verlag Limited, 2008, pp. 95–110,
http://stanford.edu/∼boyd/graph dcp.html.