International Journal of Computers and Applications

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjca20

Optimal scheduling of vehicle-to-Grid power

exchange using particle swarm optimization
technique

Arkan Mulla & H. T. Jadhav

To cite this article: Arkan Mulla & H. T. Jadhav (2021): Optimal scheduling of vehicle-to-Grid
power exchange using particle swarm optimization technique, International Journal of Computers
and Applications, DOI: 10.1080/1206212X.2021.1903707

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1206212X.2021.1903707

Published online: 01 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 37

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjca20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS
https://doi.org/10.1080/1206212X.2021.1903707

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Optimal scheduling of vehicle-to-Grid power exchange using particle swarm

optimization technique
Arkan Mulla and H. T. Jadhav
Department of Electrical Engineering, Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Islampur, Maharashtra, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Electric vehicles (EV) are the inevitable future of the transportation industry considering the current energy Received 17 October 2020
scenario and all the incentives and benefits they provide. Nonetheless, EVs exhibit a novel characteristic of Accepted 11 March 2021
a distributed energy storage device (ESD) owing to their large onboard batteries. This feature of EV can be KEYWORDS
utilized to provide many ancillary services by the virtue of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) operation. One such service Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G); valley
is the minimization of load variation on the grid. Two key challenges, concerning the practical execution filling; peak shaving; optimal
of the V2G operation, are the availability of EVs for V2G operation and their ever-changing State of Charge scheduling; particle swarm
(SOC). Due to the mobility of EVs as a transportation medium, their availability is highly uncertain. This paper optimization; flattening the
addresses these issues by introducing a scheduling scheme for V2G power exchange by considering the load curve
stochastic nature of EV grid connectivity. This is done by first developing an optimization algorithm using
the particle swarm optimization technique, with input data that best represents the stochastic nature of EV
availability. Then, the performance of the algorithm is evaluated by conducting several case studies. The
results obtained for various case studies by performing simulations are represented and elaborated. Finally,
the statistical analysis of the results signifies that the proposed V2G scheduling scheme can substantially
flatten the load profile. Apart from the algorithm itself, another novel nature of the paper lies within the
wide range of analyses carried out to study the effect of such scheduling schemes. These studies include
the effect on the SOC level of different EVs, the effect on price fluctuation, time complexity analysis of the
algorithm, etc.

List of Symbols and Abbreviations Pi comparative parameter

Pd,after the difference between peak and valley point in
EV Electric Vehicle
load curve after optimization
ESD Energy Storage Device
Pd,before the difference between peak and valley point of the
V2G Vehicle- to-Grid
load curve before optimization
SOC State of Charge
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle 1. Introduction
GA Genetic Algorithm Human history has seen many revolutionary events that have
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization shaped our future for better or worse. At present, global warm-
Pt Target Load ing and climate change happen to be such events that we, among
Pl Actual Load all other species living on this planet, are going through. These
P Load Difference issues, along with the depleting fuel reserves are posing a grave
PEV total power exchanged by all EVs threat to energy security and the sustainable development of
K number of EVs connected to the grid that at the society. According to a recent report on global temperatures, the
same time fulfill SOC limits combined land, and ocean surface temperatures has increased
Pevi power exchanged by the ith EV at an average rate of 0.07˚C (0.13˚F) per decade since 1880,
SOCi State of Charge of the ith EV however, this rate has only gone up to 0.13˚C (0.32˚F) since
SOCmin minimum SOC limit 1981 [1]. Fossil fuels on the other hand are on the verge of
SOCmax maximum SOC limit depletion owing to the rapid exploitation of these resources in
Pev,max maximum power exchange rate of the EV the industrial and transportation sectors [2]. The transporta-
Pgrid power injected into the grid by generation stations tion sector accounts for the largest share of fuel, and within
Eb energy capacity of the battery it, passenger transportation (light-duty vehicles such as cars,
SOCnewi new updated SOC of the ith EV buses, 3-wheelers, 4-wheelers, etc.) accounts for about 61% of
Plnew new load after optimization
SOCi Initial SOC

CONTACT H. T. Jadhav htj.rit@gmail.com Rajarambapu Institute of Technology, Rajaramnagar, Islampur, Maharashtra, India
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV
transportation energy [3]. Apart from energy consumption, the
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles that are powered by
the combustion of fossil fuels, pose an even greater threat to
human health due to the increasing emission rate of pollutants
and hazardous gases [4]. The transportation sector accounts for
25% of global CO2 emissions and about 14% of greenhouse
gas emissions [5]. Electrification of the transportation indus-
try, including the re-introduction of electric vehicles has been
deemed as a prominent solution to these issues [6]. Due to a
huge boost in the popularity of EVs and their integration with
advanced renewable energy technology, the future of energy and
human health can be secured.
There are different types of electric vehicles introduced, such
as hybrid EV (HEV), plug-in EV (PEV), plug-in hybrid EV
(PHEV), etc. Plug-in EV (PEV) has the advantage of large
capacity onboard batteries making them more effective in V2G
operations. PEVs are the main focus of the proposed work,
hence, hereon they are simply referred to as EVs. Day by day,
the penetration of EVs on the power grid is only going to
increase which also increases the number of issues and sever-
ity of these problems [7]. The impact of EVs on the distribution
grid may include wearing of transformers, power quality issues,
grid congestion, etc [8]. But these issues and their impact can
be nullified by the proper management and strategic integration
of EVs into the grid, and one such strategy is V2G opera-
tion. As discussed, EVs have relatively large-capacity batteries
that can be recharged by extracting power when plugged into
the grid. With bi-directional power flow, they can also inject
power back into the grid. V2G operation is feasible with a
large number of EVs participating in the power exchange and
an aggregator managing the operation. This V2G operation of
EVs, along with the novel characteristic of EV as a distributed
energy storage device, can be utilized for many applications and
ancillary services. These services include frequency regulation
[9,10], voltage regulation [11,12], minimization of operating
cost [13–16], valley filling in load curve[17,18], peak shaving
in load curve [19,20], or both called as flattening the load curve
[21–24] etc.
Speaking of the V2G scheme for load leveling objective (i.e.
peak shaving and valley filling), many authors have presented
different algorithms primarily using a genetic algorithm. The
authors of [21] have introduced a GA based V2G algorithm with
a vehicle sample size of 1800. A primary drawback of this study
is that authors have taken the time step of one hour which is
clearly not ideal. Meanwhile, authors of [24] have introduced
a time step of fifteen minutes which is relatively better con-
sidering the computational limits but suffers from a smaller
sample size. Similarly, [22] and [23] have also introduced the
V2G algorithm with the same drawbacks. One more issue with
all the methods proposed in the literature so far is that all the
vehicles in the sample size used for simulations have the same
specifications (i.e. battery capacity, initial SOC, power exchange
rate, etc.) which is not ideal, as the EV market in the actual
world is much more diverse. This paper aims at addressing these
issues and proposing a possible solution. Apart from this, there
are other novelties of the study carried out in this paper. The
scheduling method used in the algorithm handles each EV indi-
vidually, i.e. connection disconnection, and desired SOC level of
each EV is accounted separately. The performance superiority of
the proposed algorithm is demonstrated and justified using time
complexity analysis, which, to the best of the authors’ knowl-
edge, hasn’t been performed in any other method proposed in
the literature. The authors have also included a study of the effect
of the proposed scheduling on hourly price fluctuations as part
of sensitivity analysis.
While V2G operation can be beneficial on many fronts,
its effectiveness and practical implementation comprise many
challenges and constraints as discussed by authors of [25–27].
The major challenge associated with effective V2G operation
is the stochastic nature of the EVs when it comes to their
availability and connectivity with the grid. Since EVs have a
prime function as a transportation tool, their availability for
V2G operation becomes highly uncertain. We cannot say for
certain when a vehicle will be connected to the grid or get
disconnected. Therefore it is important to incorporate this ran-
dom nature of the EV connectivity while developing the V2G
algorithm [28]. Another key challenge is to maintain the bat-
tery SOC within permissible limits with the intent that the
batteries should have sufficient range at any time. EV batter-
ies go through frequent charge and discharge cycles during
V2G operation which considerably affects their lifespan. There-
fore, the SOC levels must be regulated to prevent any dras-
tic effect on battery life. The satisfaction of the EV’s owner
and their demands are important issues that should be con-
sidered, and they are primarily concerned with previously dis-
cussed arguments. Hence, all these issues must be addressed
while developing an algorithm for V2G operation concerning
any objective.
The work in this paper deals with the development of an
optimal scheduling algorithm for V2G power exchange. The
objective of this algorithm is to minimize the fluctuations in
the load profile around a predefined target load and effectively
flatten the load curve, while at the same time comply with all
the constraints. First, we need to clearly define the objective,
which in this case is the minimization of the load variations.
Then, a mathematical form of this objective function is cre-
ated for the optimization. Then, all the constraints are defined
and modelled. These constraints are of two types, equality con-
straints, and non-equality constraints. These constraints are EV
availability, EV charging/discharging rate, battery SOC limit,
and power balance. There are various optimization techniques
available for V2G optimization. Two of the most popular opti-
mization techniques are particle swarm optimization (PSO) and
the genetic algorithm (GA). Both techniques have their fair
share of pros and cons, but for our objective, we selected the
PSO technique [29]. All these points are further elaborated in
section 2.
Apart from the algorithm itself, a profound amount of
thought is given in preparing data for simulation purposes. The
random and uncertain nature of EV availability was considered
while developing EV availability data. A relatively large sam-
ple size of about 2000 EVs is considered, with different types
of EVs having different specifications, such as battery capacity
and charging/discharging rate. In the real-world, the status of
EV connectivity to the grid can change at any given moment in
time. However, to best represent this case, a sample time of 15
min is chosen. This means, once an EV is connected or discon-
nected from the grid, its connectivity status will remain as such
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 3

Figure 1. V2G Power Exchange Scheme.

for 15 min. And once 15 min have passed, their connectivity sta-
tus will either change or remain the same. Even though choosing
a shorter sample time is ideal, it increases computational stress
and memory requirements for the hardware. Speaking of EVs,
authors of previous work done on a similar subject [21–24]
have assumed a small sample size of EVs, all of them having
the same battery capacity and charging/discharging rate. This
assumption is not accurate in the real-world where EVs come
in different categories and specifications. Contrary to this, the
authors of this paper have considered 5 different types of EVs, all
having a different share in sample size and specifications based
on the EVs available in the market.
The paper is organized section wise with a total of six
sections. Problem formulation containing objective function
and all the constraints are elaborated in section 2. Section 3
deals with the development and description of the optimization
algorithm. Preparation of input data such as vehicle availability,
load curve, EV specification, etc. is discussed in section 4. The
algorithm is then tested for different scenarios, and with such
thorough input data, it further helps to validate the practicality
of the algorithm in the real world. The different case studies and
their results are discussed in section 5. A performance index is
introduced to evaluate the effectiveness of the algorithm. Finally,
a conclusion is drawn in section 6. A graphical depiction of the
proposed V2G scheme is shown in Figure 1.
Before diving into the algorithm, there are some assumptions
made that are listed below.
2. Problem formulation
The optimal scheduling of V2G power exchange involves find-
ing an optimal solution to the defined objective function. How-
ever, the achievement of the best solution is limited by multiple
conflicting constraints. Therefore, to optimally schedule and
execute the V2G operation, the particle swarm optimization
technique is used. This section discusses the mathematical mod-
elling of the objective function and the various constraints of the
problem.
2.1. Objective function
The objective of the V2G optimization problem in this paper
is to minimize the load variation occurring on the grid by
effectively utilizing the charging and discharging power of the
grid-connected EVs. This can be achieved by performing func-
tions called valley filling (while charging) and peak load shaving
(while discharging) depicted in Figure 2. These functions are
performed by defining a target load (Pt) around which, the
algorithm will try to flatten the load curve. Whenever the actual
load (Pl) exceeds the target load, the algorithm will instruct all
available EVs to inject power into the grid. Similarly, when the
actual load falls below the target load, the EVs are instructed to
extract power from the grid by charging the onboard batteries.

• The car parks have a sufficient amount of space and are

equipped with V2G chargers.
• Even though current EVs don’t have the feature of bi-
directional power flow, it is assumed that the external V2G
charger control circuit can bypass this limitation.
• The aggregator has access to vehicle information such as
current SOC status and battery capacity.
• The aggregator is given full authority over the amount and
duration of power to be exchanged as long as the vehicle is
connected to the grid. Figure 2. Depiction of Valley Filling and Peak Load Shaving.
4 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV
In the situation when the actual load is equal to the target load,
no power is shared between EV and the grid. This objective
function is mathematically expressed in equation number (1).
minP = Pt(t) − Pl(t) − PEV(t) (1)

N In equation (6) and (7), Pev,max is the maximum allowable
PEV(t) = Pevi (t) (2)
i=1
In equation (1), P is the load variation in the grid with
respect to the target load, and PEV is the power exchanged by
all (N = 2000) EVs, which is depicted in equation (2). Mean-
while, the target load (Pt), actual load (Pl), and total EV power
exchanged (PEV) are all time (t) dependant. Deconstructing the
equation (1) on the level of an individual vehicle, we get
Pt(t) Pl(t)
minp = − − Pevi (t) (3)
K K
In equation (3), parameter K is introduced, which is nothing but
the total number of EVs connected to the grid that at the same
time satisfies the SOC limit. The parameter K is introduced to
equally distribute the total power to be exchanged amongst all
the EVs that are eligible for V2G operation. It should be noted
that equal distribution of power to be exchanged isn’t always
ideal since each EV will have a different V2G capability. The
term Pevi , which is power shared by the ith vehicle, is positive
when power is extracted from the grid and negative when power
is injected into the grid.
2.2. Optimization constraints
The best possible solution to the optimization problem is limited
by several constraints on both the EV and the grid side. And the
algorithm has to comply with all these constraints in order to be
compatible.
2.2.1. EV SOC limit
There are two primary reasons behind keeping the battery SOC
of the vehicle within the limit. The first is to reduce the possi-
ble degradation of the battery pack. As V2G operation requires
frequent charging and discharging, it is not feasible to fully
discharge and charge batteries since it imposes stress on the elec-
trochemical elements of the battery which causes a reduction
in their lifespan. Another reason for not fully discharging the
battery is to keep a sufficient amount of reserve available at any
instance for the vehicle’s next commute. By taking both reasons
into account, the EV battery SOC for integration in V2G oper-
ation is limited between 50% to 90%. The upper limit of SOC is
set at 90% considering the overcharging issues. Now, the grid-
connected vehicle will be allowed to discharge only if its SOC is
greater than SOCmin, similarly, it will be allowed to charge only
if its SOC is less than SOCmax.
Allow discharging only if SOC > SOCmin (4)
Allow charging only if SOC < SOCmax (5)
2.2.2. EV Power Exchange rate
The maximum rate at which EVs can either charge or discharge
is generally limited by the battery and charging station hard-
ware. Therefore, the power exchange rate between EV and grid
must not exceed this limit.
Pev, charging ≤ Pev, max (6)
Pev, discharging ≥ −Pev, max (7)
power exchange rate. Since the EV fleet developed in this paper
includes five different models of EV, they will have different
power exchange limits. This is further discussed in section 4.3.
2.2.3. Power balance
Power balance is an important constraint from the power grid’s
point of view since its violation may result in the fluctuation of
system parameters. Therefore, the algorithm must comply with
this constraint by equating injected power and load on the grid.
Pgrid(t) = Pl(t) + PEV(t) (8)
Here, Pgrid is the power injected by the generation plants.
2.2.4. EV availability
The availability of EV for V2G operation is one of the constraints
and sort of a challenge when it comes to effective implementa-
tion of the V2G power exchange. Since it will act as input data
to the algorithm for simulation purposes, more on this topic is
discussed in section 4.2.
3. Optimization algorithm
The proposed algorithm has many time iteration loops and has
a large number of EVs to take into account, hence an effective
optimization technique is required for good performance. In
this paper, the particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique has
been selected for the optimization of the V2G power exchange.
PSO is a memory-based computational algorithm that searches
for a globally optimal solution within a population for a given
problem. The population is a randomly generated solution,
found by updating the generations. In PSO, random potential
solutions named particles, are moving in free sample space with
a specific velocity. Each particle can interact with other particles,
and all of them tend to move towards a global-optima. This is
achieved by constantly updating the velocity and the direction of
a particle which depends upon the personal best solution of that
particle and the global best solution. This process is repeated
until the stopping criteria is reached, which is generally a spe-
cific number of iterations. For the algorithm, a population size
of 100 and stopping criteria of 100 iterations are chosen.
The proposed V2G algorithm can be divided into four stages.
In the first stage, input data is gathered for optimization and the
target load is defined. In the second stage, the time loop is initi-
ated and the target load and actual load are compared. Based on
the comparison, vehicles are instructed to either charge or dis-
charge. No action is taken if the target load and actual load are
equal. In the third stage, PSO is initiated to optimally distribute
total power and calculate the power to be shared by individual
vehicles. And in the final stage, battery SOCs are updated for
the next time iteration. A detailed step-by-step operation of the
algorithm can be understood by observing the flow chart given
in Figure 3. A pseudo-code of the proposed algorithm is given
below.

Figure 3. Flowchart of the Proposed V2G Optimization Algorithm.
A pseudo-code of the proposed algorithm is given below.
1. Start the algorithm
2. Initiate by defining target load (Pt) and PSO parameters
such as population size, stopping criteria, and constants.
3. Load input data, e.g. vehicle availability, battery capacity
(Eb), and SOC limits.
4. Initiate the time iteration loop.
5. Compare target load (Pt) and actual load (Pl) for the given
time and decide necessary action to be taken. i.e.
Charge if (Pl) < (Pt)
Discharge if (Pl) > (Pt)
No action if (Pl) = (Pt)
6. Update the value of K, which is the number of EVs con-
nected to the grid which at the same time satisfies the SOC
limit.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 5
7. Initialize the vehicle iteration loop.
8. Check for the SOC limit given below. If not, then return
the power to be exchanged by that vehicle equal to zero (i.e.
Pev = 0) and jump to step 21. If SOC limits are satisfied, then
proceed to the next step.
Allow discharging only if SOC > SOCmin
Allow charging only if SOC < SOCmax
9. Check whether the vehicle is connected to the grid. If not,
return the power to be exchanged by that vehicle equal to zero
(i.e. Pev = 0) and jump to step 21. If connected proceed to the
next step.
10. Initialize PSO by generating the initial population of the
solutions (i.e. power to be shared by the vehicle).
11. Evaluate fitness function, which is
minp = Pt(t) Pl(t)
K − K − Pev (t)
i
6 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV
Figure 3. Continued
12. Find the personal best (Pbest) and global best (Gbest)
solution.
13. Initiate the iteration count.
14. Calculate velocity and a subsequent new set of solutions.
15. Check if the new solutions are within the bounds that are
given below. If not, bring them within bounds and proceed to
the next step.
Pev, charging ≤ Pev, max Pev, charging ≥ −Pev, max
16. Evaluate objective function using the new set of solutions.
17. Now check for Pbest and Gbest solution. If the new Pbest
and Gbest solution is found, update them and proceed.
18. Advance the iteration count and return to step (14) until
the stopping criteria is reached which is 100 iterations.
19. Now we have found power to be shared by the
vehicle which is equal to the global best solution, i.e.
Pev = Gbest.
20. Update the SOC of the vehicle by using the equation given
below
(SOCi ∗ Ebi ) + (0.25 ∗ Pevi )
SOCnewi =
Ebi
Here, Pevi is multiplied by 0.25 to find the energy shared in
15 min of sample time, and Ebi the battery energy capacity of
the ith vehicle.
21. Check if all the vehicles have been accounted for. If no,
advance the vehicle count and return to step (8). If yes, proceed
to the next step.

22. Now calculate the total power shared by all the vehi-
cles (PEV) by taking the summation of power shared by all the
vehicles.
23. Calculate new load (Plnew) using the following formula
Plnew = Pl + PEV
24. Check if the time iteration has ended. If no, advance time
iteration and return to step (5). If yes, then print the results of
all the time iterations.
25. END
4. Preparation of input data
In order to validate the effectiveness of the proposed schedul-
ing scheme, several simulation studies are required to be carried
out using some input data. This input data should be pre-
pared in a reasonable and indiscriminative way to best represent
real-life scenarios. The SOC limits are set at 0.5–0.9 consider-
ing all the reasons and arguments presented in section 2.2.1.
Meanwhile, the initial SOC of each EV is randomly distributed
around a mean value. Other inputs used for simulation studies
are discussed in the following sections.
4.1. Load curve
A 24-hour load curve of a regional grid shown in Figure 4. is
prepared for simulation purposes. The load curve is sampled
Figure 4. Load Curve.
Figure 5. EV Grid Connection Probability.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 7
every 15 min, which means we have a total of 96 load curve
data points. In the real-world, load curve forecasting can be
used for a day-ahead or real-time scheduling of the V2G power
exchange [30,31]. Meanwhile, our algorithm and simulation
studies depict real-time scheduling.
4.2. EV availability
The V2G power exchange is possible only if there are EVs con-
nected to the grid. However, the availability of each EV cannot
be predicted due to its mobility and stochastic nature. The driv-
ing pattern of the individual vehicle is influenced by many fac-
tors that are not feasible to collect and study [32]. But, a rough,
collective driving pattern of EVs can be prepared for the sim-
ulation study of the proposed V2G algorithm which is shown
in Figure 5. [21]. Consider a generic town, having about 2000
EVs, and all of these EVs have access to V2G bidirectional charg-
ers in car parks. The car parks are divided into two categories,
residential car parks, and commercial car parks. In residential
car parks, the majority of EVs are available during night time
up until 6.00 am After that, the number of EVs in residential
car parks starts to decrease as people leave for offices, schools,
and their respective workplaces. Exactly opposite to this, the
number of EVs in commercial car parks is highest during office
hours, i.e. from 9.00 am up to 6.00 pm And on the other side, at
night time, commercial car parks are sparsely populated. Even
8 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV

Figure 6. Optimized Load Curve with 8 MW Target Load and Average SOCi of (a) 40%, (b) 50%, (c) 60%, (d) 70%, and (e) 80%.

though the EV availability, shown in Figure 5., is sampled at Table 1. EV Models Used for Simulation.
every hour, the connectivity status of each EV changes randomly Battery Power
after 15-minute. Capacity Exchange Range Percentage
EV Model (kWh) rate (kW) (km) Share
Model 1 (Tesla Model 3) [34] 50 11 354 30%
4.3. EV specification Model 2 (Chevrolet Bolt) [35] 60 7.2 383 24%
Model 3 (Nissan Leaf) [36] 40 6.6 243 20%
As discussed earlier, there are 5 different EV models used for the Model 4 (Volkswagen e-Golf) [37] 35.8 7.2 233 12%
simulation study. These EVs and their specifications such as bat- Model 5 (Other) 25 3.3 150 14%
tery capacity, power exchange rate, range of vehicle along with
their share in the vehicle fleet have been listed in Table 1. The
specifications and the share in the sample size of all these vehi- 5.1. Simulation of algorithm
cles have been referred from actual EVs available in the market
[33]. A total of 20 scenarios were created by different values of tar-
get load (Pt) and average initial SOC (SOCi) of the EVs. Target
loads were set at 8, 8.4, 8.8, and 9.2 MW, while average initial
5. Results and discussion
SOCs were set at 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% for each target
In this section, the compatibility and effectiveness of the pro- load. The comparison between the actual load curve and opti-
posed V2G algorithm are investigated. The investigation is done mized load curves achieved using the proposed V2G algorithm
by conducting different case studies by simulating different sce- for different scenarios is shown in Figures 6–9.
narios. Analysis of the different results is done to validate the Figure 6. (a) shows the optimized load curve for a target
feasibility of the algorithm. load of 8 MW and an average SOCi of 40%. If we observe the

Figure 7. Optimized Load Curve with 8.4 MW Target Load and Average SOCi of (a) 40%, (b) 50%, (c) 60%, (d) 70%, and (e) 80%
curve, we notice that the target load is not reached through-
out the day. While valley filling is done effectively by charging
the vehicle, peak shaving operation is failed. This is because
the average SOCi is not high enough and it is lower than the
lower SOC limit (i.e. SOCmin = 50%). Hence, while vehicle dis-
charging is allowed, peak shaving is prohibited. However, if we
increase the average SOCi, keeping the target load the same, we
can observe that the performance of the algorithm is improved,
shown in Figure 6. (b), (c), (d), and (e). Hence, from these five
scenarios, we can say that, as we increase the average SOCi,
the performance of the algorithm gets better. But this statement
contradicts the results of the other fifteen scenarios shown in
Figures 7–9. Consider the two cases with a target load of 8.4
MW and average SOCi of 70% and 80%, shown in Figure 7. (d)
and (e) respectively. The former shows almost 100% achieve-
ment of the target load curve, but when we increase the average
SOCi, the achievement of the target load drops by a significant
amount. This is because the initial valley filling (charging) oper-
ation pushes the already high value of SOC beyond the upper
limit of SOC (i.e. SOCmax = 90%). Therefore, EVs that exceed
this limit are prohibited from further power exchange. The same
argument applies to the similar anomalies seen in Figures 8 and
9. Now, if we compare the results obtained with the same average
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 9
SOCi and different target load, we observe that even the selec-
tion of target load has a significant impact on the best achievable
result.
We will now introduce a performance index to statistically
analyze and compare the results of all scenarios [21]. The
performance index is defined as the percentage of success-
ful operations achieved using the proposed V2G algorithm.
The performance index varies from 0 to 100%, with a higher
percentage indicating a higher success rate. The performance
index of all twenty scenarios for individual operation (valley
filling and peak shaving) and overall performance is shown
in Table 2.
The performance index shown in the above table further
helps us understand the performance of the algorithm with
different target loads and average SOCi. If we observe the perfor-
mance index of valley filing operation, we see that performance
degrades as the average SOCi increases for each target load.
Meanwhile, the degradation in performance only gets worse
with increasing target load. However, exactly the opposite hap-
pens with a performance index of peak shaving operation. In
the case of peak shaving, the performance index gets better
as we increase the target load and average SOCi. The effect
of the performance of these two operations is reflected in the
10 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV

Figure 8. Optimized Load Curve with 8.8 MW Target Load and Average SOCi of (a) 40%, (b) 50%, (c) 60%, (d) 70%, and (e) 80%.

Table 2. Performance Index. representation of the performance index shown in Figure 10.
Average Initial SOC (SOCi) These arguments further support the reasons and statements
presented earlier.
Operation Target Load 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
From all the discussions presented till now, we can say that
Valley Filing 8 100 100 100 100 100
8.4 100 100 100 100 75.51
the performance of the proposed V2G algorithm depends on
8.8 100 100 100 87.50 66.07 both, target load and average SOCi. Hence, care should be taken
9.2 100 100 95 75.40 47.54 while selecting target load based on EVs available and their aver-
Peak Shaving 8 4.91 18.03 68.85 81.96 83.60 age SOCi to get the best performance out of the V2G operation.
8.4 17.02 63.82 78.72 87.23 87.23 It should be noted that the algorithm itself gives the best perfor-
8.8 62.5 80 90 90 90 mance in each scenario; it is the external factors that limit the
9.2 84.37 100 100 100 100
achievable results. Meanwhile, for all the scenarios presented,
Combined 8 39.5 47.91 80.20 88.54 89.58 the best optimization is achieved for the case with a target load
8.4 58.33 82.29 89.58 93.75 81.25
8.8 84.37 91.66 95.83 88.54 76.04 of 9.2 MW and an average SOCi of 50%. This is demonstrated in
9.2 94.79 100 96.87 84.37 63.54 the load curve in Figure 9. (b) and with the performance index
of 100%.
A detailed analysis of the best-case scenario is represented in
Figure 11. With a target load of 9.2 MW and an average SOCi
performance index of the combined operation. We see that of 50%, the optimized load curve has achieved the target load
better performances are achieved somewhere in the middle throughout the day. Figure 12 (a) and (b) help present a clearer
ground. This can be effectively illustrated using a graphical picture of the power exchange happing between EVs and the

Figure 9. Optimized Load Curve with 9.2 MW Target Load and Average SOCi of (a) 40%, (b) 50%, (c) 60%, (d) 70%, and (e) 80%.
grid. Figure 12. (a) shows the power available from EVs (for
charging and discharging) and the actual power that is shared
with the grid throughout the day. Meanwhile, Figure 12. (b)
depicts the relation between power injected/extracted by EVs
and the actual load curve. These two figures help us under-
stand that the proposed algorithm can successfully track the
load curve and exchange the required power to meet the target.
5.2. Performance of different EV models
Figure 13. shows the SOC status of randomly selected EVs
from each of the five models used, for the best-optimized sce-
nario. The figure also includes the average SOC of all 2000 EVs
throughout the day. It is clear that all EVs have higher SOC
than their initial SOC at the end of the optimization. The aver-
age SOC curve also supports this claim. Meanwhile, the SOC of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 11
some EVs (i.e. Model 1 and Model 2) has increased far drasti-
cally compared to the other three vehicles (i.e. Model 3, 4, and
5). This is because of the battery energy capacity of these vehi-
cles. The SOC of the EVs with smaller battery energy capacity
will increase at higher rates than the SOC of those EVs that have
batteries with large energy capacity with the same rate of power
exchange.
5.3. Effect on price fluctuation
The effect of a load-leveling scheduling scheme such as the one
proposed in the paper is important to consider in smart grids
where the price of electricity is fluctuating depending on the
time of the day and load the grid. Since the proposed algorithm
changes the load profile of a locality, it will also change the price
fluctuations of the grid. Figure 14. shows the hourly price of
12 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV
Figure 10. Overall Performance Index.
Figure 11. Optimized Load Curve of Best Optimized Scenario.
electricity for a given load profile (Figure 4.) of a smart grid. To
evaluate the modified hourly prices after the execution of the
proposed scheduling scheme, we must first establish a relation-
ship between load and electricity price [38]. This is done by the
polynomial regression method, utilizing the data from the load
curve(Figure 4.) and price fluctuation curve (Figure 14.).
ρi = a1 .Pli + a2 Pli2 + a3 .Pli3 + . . . . . . . . . + am .Plim + am+1 (9)
Equation (9) represents price as a function of load. Here, ρi is the
price at the ith hour of the day, Pli is the load at the ith hour of the
day, a1,2, ... .m are the regression coefficients, and m is the degree
of the polynomial. The hourly load from the original load curve
(Pli ) is used to estimate the regression coefficients, and then
new prices are evaluated by substituting Levelized load (Plli ) in
equation (9). The degree of the polynomial (m) is selected based
on the adjusted R2 index. This index depicts the quality of the
model, when the model fits the data the index approaches 1.
So, the degree of polynomial should be selected such that the
adjusted R2 index is maximum or when the change in its value
becomes small (Figure 15).
The degree of the polynomial is selected as 3 by observing the
adjusted R2 index curve for different degrees of the polynomial.
And the respective curve fitted for the polynomial is shown in
Figure 16. This gives us a polynomial equation for the price as
a function of load that we now can use to evaluate new hourly
prices for the Levelized load curve.
New hourly prices for Levelized load for different target loads
are illustrated in Figure 17. The average price of electricity
before load leveling is about 0.0379 USD/kWh. By observation
we can see that the average price of electricity is higher, i.e.
0.0384, 0.0387, 0.0392, and 0.0398 USD/kWh for target load of
8, 8.4, 8.8, 9.2 MW respectively. So we can say that although
the price fluctuation was minimized, the economic benefits
were constrained by the selection of the target load. So, as an
extension of the present work, a multi-objective optimization
algorithm can be developed to solve this issue.
5.4. Time complexity analysis
Time complexity is defined as the execution time of an
algorithm as a function of input size. As the size of input
data directly affects the number of steps or instructions in an
algorithm, this further affects the execution time. This gives
information about variations in execution time as the size of

Figure 12. (a) Available EV Power (b) EV Power Exchanged with Grid.
Figure 13. SOC Status.
input data increases. It helps us to compare different algorithms
developed to execute the same objective. Since these algorithms
are not performed with the same input data or on the same work
station, they cannot be compared by execution time only. In
computer science, the time complexity is generally represented
by Big O notation. It is written in the form O(n), where O order
of growth and n stands for input data. There are different types
of time complexities, such as Figure 18.
The time complexity of the proposed algorithm is analyzed
by changing the input size by means of the number of EVs
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 13
involved. So, the execution time for different number of EVs
(from 100 to 2000 EVs) is evaluated which gives us a relationship
between execution time and input size which can be demon-
strated graphically as shown in Figure 19. We can observe that
the graph is almost linear, which means time would vary lin-
early with variation in the input size. So the Big O notation for
the proposed algorithm is O(n).
As discussed previously, time complexity analysis helps us
compare the performance of different algorithms developed to
perform a similar function. So now we will utilize this tool to
14 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV

Figure 14. Price of Electricity.

Figure 15. Adjusted R2 index.

Figure 16. Curve Fitted for Price Function.

compare the performance of the proposed algorithm with the
ones proposed in the literature by other authors. As mentioned
before, no other author has performed time complexity analysis
on their algorithm to the best of the authors’ knowledge. But,
the authors of [24] have done a similar analysis where they have
shown maximum and minimum time taken per time step (i.e.
each 15 min time step) by the algorithm to execute for five differ-
ent input sizes. The simulation was performed for 1000 iterative
experiments. Similarly, the proposed algorithm was simulated
with identical conditions, and a comparison of maximum time
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 15

Figure 17. New Hourly Price for Levelised Load at 50% SOCi and Target Load of (a) 8 MW, (b) 8.4 MW, (c) 8.8 MW, (d) 9.2 MW.

Figure 18. Big O Notation.

Figure 19. Execution Time V Number of EVs.

16 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV

Figure 20. Execution Time Comparison.

Table 3. Performance Evaluation of the Algorithm. scenarios is mainly due to the variation in the number of equa-
Scenario tions that are to be solved by the algorithm. More equations
Execution
Average Initial Target Load Time would have to be solved for the case where there are more eli-
Sr. No. SOC (%) (MW) (second) gible vehicles for the V2G power exchange, relative to the case
1 40 8 28.6938 with fewer eligible vehicles. This can be easily understood by
2 50 8 37.8337 comparing the execution time the performance index shown
3 60 8 64.4005 in Figure 10. We can observe that the performance for a par-
4 70 8 82.1742
5 80 8 80.2059 ticular target load improves, the execution time for the same
6 40 8.4 48.6484 also increases (as the number of the eligible vehicles taking part
7 50 8.4 63.4225 in the V2G power exchange increases) The algorithm consists
8 60 8.4 83.2209
9 70 8.4 85.2231 of 100 PSO iterations, and 100 PSO particle sample size for
10 80 8.4 76.8313 each one of 2000 vehicles sample size for each one of 96-time
11 40 8.8 61.1645 steps. From these numbers, the reader can imagine the enor-
12 50 8.8 74.6292
13 60 8.8 82.8197 mous number of equations this algorithm solves. It should also
14 70 8.8 79.4325 be noted that the execution time (mentioned in Table 3) is taken
15 80 8.8 64.7634 by all the time steps and not by the individual time step, which
16 40 9.2 72.5441
17 50 9.2 79.3448
means that the execution time per time step is far shorter. These
18 60 9.2 75.9330 arguments help to validate the practicability of the proposed
19 70 9.2 65.2840 algorithm for the real-time scheduling of V2G power exchange.
20 80 9.2 49.4116
The performance of the best-case scenario of the proposed
algorithm was compared with the best performance of algo-
rithms proposed in the previous literature on a similar subject.
taken per time step was compared as shown in Figure 20. The For this purpose, a comparative parameter (Pi) was introduced
execution time of the proposed algorithm is greater than that [21]. This parameter can be defined as the percentage improve-
of the reference initially. But, the rate at which the execution ment of peak and valley load differences. The comparative
time increases as input size is increased is far less than that of parameter is formulated in equation (9).
the reference algorithm. We can observe in Figure 20. that the  
 Pd, after − Pd, before 
execution time taken by the proposed algorithm for 300 EVs is Pi =   ∗ 100% (9)
Pd, before 
almost half of the time taken by the reference algorithm.
Speaking of execution time taken by the algorithm for each Here, Pd,before, and Pd,after are the difference between the peak
scenario explained previously in section 5.1. which can fur- load point and the valley load before and after the optimiza-
ther be used to validate the functioning of the algorithm for tion, respectively. The comparison done using this parameter
real-time scheduling purposes. The algorithm was simulated on is shown in Table 4. The reader should note that the reason
MATLAB/Simulink (R2019a) on a workstation (CPU 2.11 GHz, behind this comparative study is not to draw any conclusion that
RAM 8GB, 64bit Operating System) in a lab. Table 3 shows the proposed algorithm has superiority in performance over
the execution time taken by the algorithm for each of the 20 other algorithms represented. Since all these algorithms, includ-
scenarios. Among these 20 scenarios, the minimum execution ing the one proposed in this paper, have been simulated with
time taken is 28.6938 s by the 1st scenario and the maximum input data that is completely random in nature, direct statistical
execution time taken is 85.2231 s by the 9th scenario. This vari- comparison cannot be carried out unless all these algorithms
ation in the execution time of the algorithm across different are simulated using the same input data. The intent behind this

Table 4. Comparative Analysis of Proposed V2G Algorithm.
Proposed
Parameter Ref. [19] Ref. [21] Ref. [24] Algorithm
Pd,before (MW) 0.18 3.3 0.035 4.3
Pd,after (MW) 0.11 0.4 0.0019 0 Bhokare Group of Institutes, Miraj in 2019. He is currently pursuing a Mas-
Pi % 38.88 87.88 99.98 100
comparison is to relate the results and validate the proposed
algorithm.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, an optimal scheduling scheme for V2G operation
is proposed with the objective of minimizing the load variations
in the power grid around a specified target load. There are var-
ious challenges related to the effective implementation of V2G
power exchange, such as the availability of EVs for V2G oper-
ation, ever-changing SOC of EV batteries, etc. The proposed
optimization algorithm responds to these challenges by taking
into account the stochastic nature of EV-grid connectivity and
constantly updating the parameters at regular intervals. A thor-
ough explanation of the algorithm is done using a flowchart and
pseudocode. The algorithm is validated by conducting various
case studies for various scenarios of target load, and average
initial SOC. The results of all scenarios are analysed and it is
observed that the proposed algorithm can effectively and sig-
nificantly flatten the load curve while complying with all the
constraints. This can considerably improve the efficiency and
performance of the power grid. It is also concluded that the
achievement of the desired outcome is considerably affected by
the selection of the target load and initial SOC of EVs partic-
ipating in the V2G power exchange. Hence, these parameters
have to be considered to achieve the best performance from
the algorithm. The effect of the proposed load-leveling method
on the price fluctuation of electricity is elaborated. The advan-
tages of the proposed algorithm in terms of the execution time
were further validated by means of time complexity analysis and
comparing it with algorithms from previous literature on the
same subject. For future development in this field, the compat-
ibility of the V2G operation with the integration of renewable
energy sources can be investigated considering the stochastic
nature of these sources.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Dr. H. T. Jadhav holds a bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from Govt
College of Engineering, Karad in 1995, Master’s in Power System from
Walchand College of Engg, Sangli in 2003, and Ph.D. from S.V. National
Institute of Technology, Surat in March 2016. He is also certified as an
Energy Auditor by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (Govt. of India) in
2006. He has teaching experience of over 25 years and is currently work-
ing as a professor and head of the program at the Electrical Engineer-
ing Department, RIT, Sakhrale. His primary research interests are Wind
Energy, Economic Dispatch, Optimal Power Flow Studies, and Optimiza-
tion Techniques. He has many research articles to his name published in
international journals and major IEEE Conference Proceedings. He has
also served as a reviewer for IEEE CSEE Journal of Power and Energy
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS AND APPLICATIONS 17
Systems, International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems
(Elsevier), IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, Taylor & Francis
Journals, and International Journal of Green Energy.
Arkan Mulla holds a bachelor’s in Electrical Engineering from ATS’s Sanjay
ter’s in Power System and Power Electronics at Rajarambapu Institute of
Technology, Sakhrale. His current research interests include Electric vehi-
cle Scheduling, V2G Technology, Optimization Techniques, Renewable
Energy Sources, Solar Micro-Inverter.
ORCID
H. T. Jadhav http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4470-8978
References
[1] “Climate Change: Global Temperature NOAA Climate.gov”. https://
www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-cha
nge-global-temperature (accessed Jul. 17, 2020).
[2] Höök M, Tang X. Depletion of fossil fuels and anthropogenic cli-
mate change-A review. Energy Policy. 2013;52:797–809. doi:10.1016/
j.enpol.2012.10.046.
[3] Eia. Transportation sector energy consumption Figure 8-1. Delivered
transportation energy consumption by country grouping, 2012-40
(quadrillion Btu), 2018. Accessed: Jul. 07, 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/transportation.pdf.
[4] WHO. Transport, Environment and Health. World Health Organiza-
tion. Regional Office for Europe. 2008;2008(2):1–87. Accessed: Aug.
05, 2020. [Online]. Available: www.euro.who.int.
[5] Leach F, Kalghatgi G, Stone R, et al. The scope for improving the
efficiency and environmental impact of internal combustion engines.
Transp. Eng. 2020;1:100005. doi:10.1016/j.treng.2020.100005.
[6] Nazaripouya H, Wang B, Black D. Electric vehicles and climate
change: additional contribution and improved Economic justifica-
tion. IEEE Electrif. Mag. 2019;7(2):33–39. doi:10.1109/MELE.2019.
2908792.
[7] Yilmaz M, Krein PT. Review of the impact of vehicle-to-grid technolo-
gies on distribution systems and utility interfaces. IEEE Trans. Power
Electron. 2013;28(12):5673–5689. doi:10.1109/TPEL.2012.2227500.
[8] Richardson DB. Electric vehicles and the electric grid: A review of
modeling approaches, impacts, and renewable energy integration.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013;19:247–254. doi:10.1016/j.rser.
2012.11.042.
[9] Liu H, Qi J, Wang J, et al. EV Dispatch Control for supplemen-
tary frequency regulation considering the expectation of EV owners.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid. 2018;9(4):3763–3772. doi:10.1109/TSG.2016.
2641481.
[10] Saiteja K, Krishnarayalu MS. Load frequency Control of Two-area
smart grid. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 2015;117(14):1–9. doi:10.5120/
20619-3323.
[11] Lin J, Leung KC, Li VOK. Optimal scheduling with vehicle-to-
grid regulation service. IEEE Internet Things J. 2014;1(6):556–569.
doi:10.1109/JIOT.2014.2361911.
[12] Wang X, He ZY, Yang JW. Unified strategy for electric vehicles
participate in voltage and frequency regulation with active power
in city grid. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2019;13(15):3281–3291.
doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.7016.
[13] Huang Q, Wang X, Fan J, et al. V2g optimal scheduling of
multiple EV aggregator based on TOU electricity price. Proc.
- 2019 IEEE Int. Conf. Environ. Electr. Eng. 2019 IEEE Ind.
Commer. Power Syst. Eur. EEEIC/I CPS Eur. 2019;2019(1):1–6.
doi:10.1109/EEEIC.2019.8783654.
[14] Zhang W, Spence K, Shao R, et al. Optimal scheduling of spin-
ning reserve and user cost in vehicle-to-grid (V2G) systems. 2018
IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo. ECCE. 2018;2018:1058–1064.
doi:10.1109/ECCE.2018.8558391.
[15] He Y, Venkatesh B, Guan L. Optimal scheduling for charg-
ing and discharging of electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Smart Grid.
2012;3(3):1095–1105. doi:10.1109/TSG.2011.2173507.
18 A. MULLA AND H. T. JADHAV
[16] Wang B, Hu Y, Xiao Y, et al. An EV charging scheduling mech-
anism based on price negotiation. Futur. Internet. 2018;10(5).
doi:10.3390/fi10050040.
[17] Jian L, Zheng Y, Shao Z. High efficient valley-filling strategy for cen-
tralized coordinated charging of large-scale electric vehicles. Appl
Energy. 2017;186:46–55. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.10.117.
[18] Liang H, Liu Y, Li F, et al. Dynamic economic/emission Dispatch
including PEVs for peak shaving and valley filling. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron. 2019;66(4):2880–2890. doi:10.1109/TIE.2018.2850030.
[19] Alam MJE, Muttaqi KM, Sutanto D. A controllable local peak-shaving
strategy for effective utilization of PEV battery capacity for distribu-
tion network support. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 2015;51(3):2030–2037.
doi:10.1109/TIA.2014.2369823.
[20] Erden F, Kisacikoglu MC, Erdogan N. Adaptive V2G peak shaving and
smart charging Control for grid integration of PEVs. Electr. Power
Components Syst. 2018;46(13):1494–1508. doi:10.1080/15325008.
2018.1489435.
[21] Tan KM, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Yong JY, et al. Minimization
of load variance in power grids-investigation on optimal vehicle-
to-grid scheduling. Energies. 2017;10(11):1–21. doi:10.3390/en1011
1880.
[22] Ioakimidis CS, Thomas D, Rycerski P, et al. Peak shaving and val-
ley filling of power consumption profile in non-residential build-
ings using an electric vehicle parking lot. Energy. 2018;148:148–158.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.128.
[23] Jian L, Xue H, Xu G, et al. Regulated charging of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles for minimizing load variance in household
smart microgrid. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013;60(8):3218–3226.
doi:10.1109/TIE.2012.2198037.
[24] Jian L, Zheng Y, Xiao X, et al. Optimal scheduling for vehicle-to-grid
operation with stochastic connection of plug-in electric vehicles to
smart grid. Appl Energy. 2015;146:150–161. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.
2015.02.030.
[25] Liu BC, Ieee M, Chau KT, et al. Opportunities and challenges of
vehicle-to-home, vehicle-to-grid technologies. Proceedings of the
IEEE. 2013;101:2409–2427. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2013.2271951.
[26] Gough R, Dickerson C, Rowley P, et al. Vehicle-to-grid feasibility: A
techno-economic analysis of EV-based energy storage. Appl Energy.
2017;192:12–23. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.01.102.
[27] Sovacool B, Axsen J, Kempton W. Tempering the promise of electric
mobility? A sociotechnical review and research agenda for vehicle-
grid-integration (VGI) and vehicle-to-grid (V2G). Annu. Rev. Env-
iron. Resour. 2017;42(August):16.1–16.30. doi:10.1146/annurev-envi
ron- 030117-020220.
[28] Sarabi S, Davigny A, Courtecuisse V, et al. Potential of vehicle-to-
grid ancillary services considering the uncertainties in plug-in electric
vehicle availability and service/localization limitations in distribution
grids. Appl Energy. 2016;171:523–540. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.
03.064.
[29] Tan KM, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Yong JY. Integration of elec-
tric vehicles in smart grid: A review on vehicle to grid tech-
nologies and optimization techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016;53:720–732. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.012.
[30] Senjyu T, Mandal P, Uezato K, et al. Using hybrid correction method.
Power. 2005;20(1):102–109.
[31] Cho H, Goude Y, Brossat X, et al. Modeling and forecasting daily
electricity load curves: A hybrid approach. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
2013;108(501):7–21. doi:10.1080/01621459.2012.722900.
[32] Higgs B, Abbas M. Segmentation and clustering of car-following
behavior: recognition of driving patterns. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2015;16(1):81–90. doi:10.1109/TITS.2014.232
6082.
[33] The International Council on Clean Transportation. Global and U.S.
electric vehicle trends. Int. Counc. Clean Transp. 2019: 1–22.
[34] “Tesla Model 3 - Wikipedia.”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_
Model_3 (accessed Aug. 01, 2020).
[35] “Chevrolet Bolt - Wikipedia.”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chev
rolet_Bolt#Specifications (accessed Aug. 01, 2020).
[36] “Nissan Leaf - Wikipedia.”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_
Leaf (accessed Aug. 01, 2020).
[37] “Volkswagen e-Golf price and specifications - EV Database.”.
https://ev-database.org/car/1087/Volkswagen-e-Golf (accessed Aug.
01, 2020).
[38] Kim HT, Jin YG, Yoon YT. An Economic Analysis of Load Leveling
with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) in an Electricity Market
Environment: The Korean Case. 2019.