IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO.

2, APRIL 2021 1439

Network-Constrained Transactive Coordination for

Plug-In Electric Vehicles Participation in Real-Time
Retail Electricity Markets
Hossein Saber , Mehdi Ehsan , Moein Moeini-Aghtaie , Senior Member, IEEE,
Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad , Fellow, IEEE, and Matti Lehtonen

Abstract—Uncoordinated adoption of plug-in electric vehicles φ DLMP of corresponding time step

(PEVs) imposes further load on the distribution network, and φ̂ Standard deviation of electricity pric
therefore may result in disruptive impacts on the grid. Transactive
coordination of PEVs has been introduced as an effective approach φmin Minimum value of DLMP in available time
to mitigate these negative consequences. This paper furthers ef- φmax Maximum value of DLMP in available time
forts enabling PEVs to participate in a real-time retail electricity tcur. , td Current time and PEV’s departure time
market under a transactive energy (TE) paradigm. In this regard, tr Required time to reaching the desired SOC
PEV owners will estimate their willingness to pay/accept using ta Available time until departure
a user-friendly strategy and submit the estimated values to the
retail market operator. Then using a network-constrained market λ, ρ Electricity price (LMP) and Feed-in-tariff (FIT)
clearing mechanism, the clearing prices, i.e., dual variables of rate
buy
active power balance constraints, will be calculated. Finally, these πb,i Bid price of PEV i located in bus b
calculated clearing prices will be sent to whole PEVs and their sell
πb,i Offer price of PEV i located in bus b
actions have been determined. The proposed model is applied to rated
the modified IEEE 33-bus test system combined with several low Pb,i Power rating of PEV i located in bus b
voltage feeders, and the results illustrate the effectiveness of the Emax Energy capacity of PEV
proposed model from viewpoints of PEV owners and utility. Emin Min. allowable SOC level of PEV
Index Terms—Bidding/offering strategy, PEV charging control, Res.Cap. Residual capacity of PEV battery
real-time retail electricity market, transactive energy. ΔT Market clearing time step
P U,max Maximum limit of exchanged active power with
NOMENCLATURE the upstream grid
A. Sets and indices QU,max Maximum limit of exchanged reactive power
with the upstream grid
B Set of buses, indexed by b P Db Unresponsive active power load at bus b
L Set of lines, indexed by l P Vb Output power of PV panels located in bus b
o(l), r(l) Indices of sending/receiving buses of line l QDb Reactive power load at bus b
Ib Subset of PEVs connected to bus b Gl , Bl Conductance and susceptance of line l
B. Parameters and constants Plmax Maximum allowable active power flow in line l
SOCdes. Desired level of state-of-charge (SOC) Qmax
l Maximum allowable reactive power flow
SOCcur. Current level of state-of-charge (SOC) Vmax , Vmin Maximum and Minimum limits of voltage mag-
nitude
Manuscript received May 6, 2020; revised September 24, 2020 and December η ch , η dis Charging and discharging efficiency of PEV
5, 2020; accepted December 26, 2020. Date of publication December 31, 2020;
date of current version March 22, 2021. This work was supported by Iran C. Variables
National Science Foundation. Paper no. TSTE-00 478-2020. (Corresponding ch dis
author: Moein Moeini-Aghtaie.) Pb,i , Pb,i Charging and Discharging power of PEV i lo-
Hossein Saber, Mehdi Ehsan, and Mahmud Fotuhi-Firuzabad are with the cated in bus b
Center of Excellence in Power System Control and Management, Electrical PgU , PdU Imported and exported active power from/to the
Engineering Department, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11 365-
11 155, Iran (e-mail: hossein.saber@ee.sharif.edu; ehsan@sharif.edu; fo- upstream grid
tuhi@sharif.edu). QU Exchanged reactive power with the upstream
Moein Moeini-Aghtaie is with the Department of Energy Engineer- grid
ing, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran 11155-4363, Iran (e-mail:
moeini@sharif.edu). Γ, Γ∗ Binary variables corresponding direction of
Matti Lehtonen is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Aalto power flow with the upstream grid
University, Espoo 11 000, Finland (e-mail: matti.lehtonen@aalto.fi). +/− +/−
Color versions of one or more figures in this article are available at https:
Pl , Ql Active and reactive power flow in line l
//doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2020.3048390. |vb | Voltage magnitude of bus b
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSTE.2020.3048390 θb Voltage phase of bus b

1949-3029 © 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See https://www.ieee.org/publications/rights/index.html for more information.

Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1440
I. INTRODUCTION
LECTRIFYING transportation sector, as a major con-
E sumer of fossil fuels, has been introduced as a key driver
for addressing the concerns about future of energy security. With
emergence of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), especially PEVs
with bidirectional power transfer capability, i.e., V2G, new chal-
lenges and opportunities have been introduced into operation of
power systems [1]. Main potential advantages of V2G capable
PEV technology include reducing carbon emissions, balancing
the power fluctuation of intermittent renewable energy sources
(RESs), peak load shaving, providing demand response (DR)
services [2], and enhancing the reliability of system. These ad-
vantages have pushed the government to implement promoting
policies to adopt more PEVs in the conventional transportation
sector [3]. This means that PEVs have been considered as a
promising alternative to conventional internal combustion en-
gine vehicles around the world [4]. The global sales of PEVs,
until the first half of 2019, reached around 1.14 million units
which can be translated to 46% increase compared to the amount
in 2018 [5].
However, increasing the penetration of PEVs with arbitrary
and uncontrolled adoption (so-called dumb charging) may im-
pose significant challenges to operation of power systems. These
challenges include peak load escalation, higher distribution sys-
tem losses, voltage excursions, distribution feeder and power
transformer overloads, and the need for distribution network
reinforcement [6]. Therefore, the coordinated charging of PEVs
is necessary to mitigate the aforementioned undesirable impacts
of high penetration of PEVs into distribution networks.
In the literature, various models have been presented to prop-
erly manage the PEVs charging demand. These models are
designed in such a way to reach higher flexibility in providing
grid services including integration of higher share of RESs [7],
peak load shaving, valley filling [8], improving the reliability
of distribution network [9], and minimizing total system cost.
In general, the presented models can be classified into two
main groups including centralized [10], [11] and decentral-
ized [12]–[14] strategies. In the case of centralized strategies,
a central operator, with the objective of achieving an optimal
social criterion, would decide about time and rate of PEVs
charging. In [10], Yang et al. developed a centralized optimal
PEV charging control considering PEV route and time-of-use
(TOU) rate scheme with the main goal of minimizing the total
distribution costs of the PEV route. Zheng et al. [11] proposed
a network-constrained centralized online charging control for
multiple PEV stations in the distribution network with the main
goal of minimizing total system cost. The reviewed centralized
models, although effectively consider the utility preferences, are
usually unable to be efficient for customers’ preferences.
On the other hand, the PEV owners themselves can determine
charge scheduling of their PEVs by running decentralized strate-
gies. Xi et al. [12] studied a decentralized PEV charging control,
wherein the system operator sends price-based signals to load
aggregators that iteratively optimizes charging of a PEV fleet.
Latifi et al. [13] developed a game-theoretic decentralized PEV
charging control with the goal of minimizing the PEV owners’
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO. 2, APRIL 2021
payments and providing the maximum potential capacity for
ancillary services. Decentralized charging policies, therefore,
can efficiently represent the main concerns of PEV owners [15].
The main disadvantage of decentralized strategies is that they
are unable to efficiently handle technical constraints of system
for large PEVs fleet.
Smart charging control of PEVs using market platform is a
novel charging strategy which has several advantages for both
PEV owners and utility. Nowadays, because of the ongoing
reduction in feed-in-tariff around the world, the implementation
of retail electricity market has been proposed as an effective
solution for smart scheduling of PEVs [16]. Moreover, recent
advances in information technology enables distribution systems
to include small-scale flexible loads (such as PEVs) in the retail
markets so that they can together mitigate the energy cost. On
the PEV owner side, financial incentive is a key parameter for
adopting smart charge scheduling; therefore, in order to further
enhance the efficiency of the operation and fully explore the
flexibility of PEVs, a market-based charging control model
based on the concept of transactive energy (TE) technique, has
been proposed in the literature.
The TE coordination approach provides a new jointly eco-
nomic and control mechanism that allows energy trading
among independent agents via a market-based coordination
approach [17]. In other words, implementing the TE concept,
on-site energy markets are organized in the smart distribution
networks to enable prosumers (so-called agents) to compete in
a market platform and trade the energy or ancillary services
without negative impacts on the grid functionality. Besides,
because TE can operate close to real-time, this technique is
capable to handle the associated uncertainty of charging problem
more effectively. An attempt to introduce some of the potential
TE market design is proposed in [18]. In this research, authors
identified and discussed three different market organizations
including organized prosumer groups, peer-to-peer (P2P) mod-
els, and prosumer-to-grid models. Among all these prosumer
markets, prosumer-to-grid model is more structured model
which involves brokerage systems for prosumers connected to
a MG [18]. A common example of the prosumer-to-grid model
is implemented based on the concept of micro-grid (MG).
An application of this concept with the main goal of balancing
demand-supply has been presented as a tool called Power-
Matcher in [19]. In the PowerMatcher setup, the local device
agents send their bids and offers to the auctioneer agent who
clears the market and computes the clearing price based on the re-
ceived bids/offers and communicates it to the local device agents.
Moreover, Hu et al. [20] developed a network-constrained trans-
active control model to integrate DERs into a distribution net-
work with the objective of minimizing operational cost of DERs
and power losses. In this study, a price coordinator is proposed
as intermediary agent between system operator and aggregators.
Authors in [21] proposed a TE concept-based control model
to coordinate the aggregated PEVs considering the operation
constraints of distribution network. Based on the proposed
framework, the bidding strategy of aggregators is determined by
minimizing the total cost of distribution system operator (DSO).
SABER et al.: NETWORK-CONSTRAINED TRANSACTIVE COORDINATION FOR PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES PARTICIPATION
Similarly, authors in [22], [23] proposed TE based models to
coordinate the operation of PEV aggregators and DSO.
Although, the reviewed studies have provided valuable in-
sights on the coordination of PEV battery scheduling, the exist-
ing researches in the realm of TE based PEV charging control
mostly aggregate PEVs and then the aggregator participates in
the retail electricity market by ignoring the actual preferences
and concerns of PEV owners as independent agents. Therefore,
it is essential to develop a market-based PEV charging control
model to appropriately consider the objective of small-scale cus-
tomer. Moreover, a transactive real-time PEV charging control
model in a commercial building is put forward in which the
PEV owners only set their charging requirements and prefer-
ences [24]. In this study, the preferences and concerns of cus-
tomers in the discharging mode of PEV has not been modelled.
With regard to the above discussions, the main shortcoming
of the existing studies can be summarized to the lack of an
intelligent and secure coordination scheme for home PEVs in
the residential MG that enables PEV owners to easily estimate
the bid and offer of PEV in the charging and discharging modes
according to the customer’s comfort and economic purposes.
Moreover, in several studies in the scope of TE based end-users’
coordination, the impacts of distribution network constraints and
grid topology are ignored. In this regard, this paper proposes
a network-constrained transactive coordination model that in-
cludes PEV charging control in real-time retail electricity mar-
kets, using an agent-based modeling (ABM) approach without
requiring the PEV owners’ private information (such as driving
plan). In this regard, a bidding/offering strategy for PEV is
developed which does not need an iterative procedure between
upper-level coordinator and PEVs, and therefore it can operate
close to real-time. The main contributions of this paper can be
summarized as follows.
r This paper develops a new real-time market based (indirect
and centralized) PEV charging control framework that
enables customers to adjust their willingness to pay/accept
according to their comfort and savings needs in a user-
friendly manner.
r The proposed model is suited for V2G-capable PEVs, by
developing PEV’s bidding/offering strategy according to
the customers’ preferences and concerns.
r The proposed methodology appropriately can consider the
distribution network topology and its constraints in the
proposed PEVs charging model.
r Eventually, a simulation study is provided to assess the
performance of the proposed model in comparison to the
traditional, one-way DR-based PEV charging control ap-
proach from viewpoints of customers and utility.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. The
general structure of the proposed transactive based PEV chrging
control model is introduced in Section II. Mathematical formula-
tions of the proposed TE model including PEV bidding/offering
strategy and the market clearing procedure are presented in Sec-
tion III-A. Section IV illustrates the case study and simulation
assumptions, as well as the effectiveness and applicability of
the proposed model are verified in this Section. Finally, the
conclusion is drawn in Section V.
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1441
Fig. 1. Developed MAS model.
II. PROPOSED TRANSACTIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT MODEL
ABM approaches such as the one implemented in Java Agent
Development Environment (JADE) platform have been applied
to the power engineering [25]. An ABM comprises a set of
agents and a framework for simulating their interactions and
decisions. Reference [26] explores the potential benefits of
multi-agent systems (MAS) technology to the power industry.
In this paper, a MAS architecture is proposed for market-based
PEV charging control. The proposed MAS for optimal operation
of an electricity market is depicted in Fig. 1.
As can be traced in Fig. 1, the proposed MAS framework is
involved in two different markets, i.e. wholesale market and
retail market. In this paper, we focus on the retail market
side of the framework. In the wholesale market, independent
system operator clears the market and determines the clearing
price of day-ahead market, i.e. LMP. The calculated LMPs will
be sent to all agents including generation companies (GEN-
COs), large loads, and distribution companies (DISCOs). Then,
each DISCO, which comprises several local distribution areas
(LDAs), calculates the distribution locational marginal prices
(DLMPs) for the next day by solving a constrained social cost
minimization problem based on the received LMP from whole-
sale market and the forecasted net demand of LDAs. Due to the
uncertainty in the net demand of LDAs, the calculated DLMP
will be an uncertain parameter. In this study, it is assumed that
the uncertainty of DLMP can be defined or at least approxi-
mated using the normal probability distribution function (pdf).
Therefore, the DSO estimates the mean and standard deviation
of DLMP by fitting normal pdf, and send these price signals to
all homes as the transactive incentive signal (TIS).
Therefore, the DSO acts as the leader of the system operation
and determines the price signals (TISs), and home energy man-
agement systems (HEMSs) are followers in the system operation
and react to the received TISs. In order to coordinate the PEV
scheduling in the real-time operation, the DSO organizes a
transactive coordination model for the PEVs parked in parking
lots. The mechanism of the transactive coordination model is as
follows. In every market time step, the individual PEVs parked in
parking lots estimate their bids/offers by means of a user-friendly
algorithm considering the received price signals, real-time status
of PEV battery, customer-specified parameters, and wear price
1442
of PEV battery. Then, these estimated bids/offers are sent to the
retail market operator (DSO) as the transactive feedback signal
(TFS).
Accordingly, the retail market operator clears the market by
maximizing the social welfare considering the network con-
straints, and the real-time action of PEVs are determined. In
this regard, the market clearing prices will be broadcasted to all
HEMSs, and the charge/discharge scheduling of each PEV will
be determined by comparing the estimated bid/offer prices and
market clearing price. That way, if the retail market clearing price
is lower than the bid price, the PEV will be charged; and if is
above the offer price, the PEV will be discharged; otherwise the
PEV will be in the idle mode until next time step. The proposed
mechanism of transactive coordination model is illustrated in
Fig. 2.
III. METHODOLOGY
In this section, we present mathematical formulation of the
proposed model. In this regard, first, the PEVs’ bidding/offering
strategy in charging and discharging modes are presented, then,
the market clearing problem with the aim of maximizing social
welfare considering the distribution network topology and its
associated constraints is presented.
A. Bidding/Offering Strategy
The Olympic Peninsula (OlyPen) project, an early Pacific
Northwest GridWise Demonstration, developed the first steps
of TE by allowing a number of customers to participate in a
double-auction residential electricity market [27]. In order to
develop the PEVs charging bidding strategy, we borrowed the
concept of thermostat load bidding strategy of OlyPen project
with modifications based on PEV owners’ preferences. Gen-
erally, the PEV owner’s preferences in charging mode can be
divided into two categories: i) Reaching to the desired level of
state-of-charge (SOC) at departure time (comfort purpose), and
ii) decreasing the charging cost of PEV (economic purpose).
These two goals must be considered in the bidding strategy of
PEVs. In this regard, the PEV bid price can be formulated as
follows.
 
tr
π buy = φ + k + (1 − k)(1 − 2Fprice ) × 3φ̂ (1)
ta
In the above equation, φ and φ̂ are respectively the mean
and standard deviation of DLMP in the corresponding time step
which have been received from the retail market operator. Fprice
is the electricity price factor which is a dimensionless parameter
that varies over the range of [0,1]. Using this parameter, the bid
price of PEV can be related to the DLMP of other time steps in
available time. Moreover, k is the comfort control setting which
its value is within the range of [0,1] and can be interpreted as:
“A customer with higher value of k is more likely to depart with
the specified desired level of SOC, and a customer with lower
value of k has more tendency to have lower electricity bill” The
values of tr , ta , and Fprice can be calculated as follows.
(SOCdes. − SOCCur. ) × Emax
tr =
P rated
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO. 2, APRIL 2021
Fig. 2. Flowchart of proposed TE based PEV charging control model.
ta = td − tcur. (3)
φ − φmin
Fprice = (4)
φmax − φmin
The described bid price demonstrates that when the current
level of SOC (SOCcur. ) approaches to its desired level (it
means tr → 0), it makes that the willingness to pay for charging
decreases. On the other hand, when the current level of SOC
is very lower than its desired level, the proposed model tries
to submit a higher bid price to increase the possibility of PEV
charging. Moreover, the developed bidding strategy (1) shows
that when the DLMP in the corresponding time step is closer to
its maximum value rather than the minimum value in the avail-
able time (according to (4): 12 < Fprice < 1), the bidding model
tries to generate a higher value of bid to decrease the possibility
of PEV charging. On the other hand, when the DLMP in the
corresponding time step is closer to the minimum value rather
than the maximum value in the available time (according to (4):
0 < Fprice < 12 ), the bidding model tries to submit a lower value
of bid to increase the possibility of PEV charging. Therefore,
the described behavior of the proposed bidding strategy based
on the current level of SOC and received price signal is aligned
with the preferences of PEV owners. Moreover, the proposed
model enables customers to adjust their flexibility by setting
their preferences, i.e., desired level of SOC and comfort factor.
Besides the bid price, HEMSs must estimate the PEVs’ bid
quantity (P buy ) that is computed in (5) and (6). These equations
present that the bid quantity is the minimum value of PEV battery
power rating and the allowable charging power of PEV battery
based on its residual capacity.
 
rated Res.Cap.
P buy
= min P , ch (5)
η ΔT
Res.Cap. = (1 − SOCcur. ) × Emax (6)
In the proposed model, PEVs can discharge their stored energy
by submitting their estimated offer prices. Generally, supply
units estimate their offer considering the operating cost, which
in the case of rooftop solar PV panels may be zero. In order
to estimate the offer price of PEV, it is required to calculate
(2) the cost imposed to PEV owner due to discharging. The total
SABER et al.: NETWORK-CONSTRAINED TRANSACTIVE COORDINATION FOR PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES PARTICIPATION 1443

discharging cost of PEV can be divided into two terms: the first 0 ≤ Pb,i
dis
≤ Pb,i
sell
; ∀i ∈ Ib , b ∈ B/{1} (17)
one is the average cost of recharging during next time steps
(Costrech ), and the second one is the PEV battery wear cost 0 ≤ PgU ≤ P U,max .Γ (18)
caused by battery discharge (Costw ). Discharging cost of PEV
0 ≤ PdU ≤ P U,max .Γ∗ (19)
can be calculated as (7) and (11).
−QU,max ≤ QU ≤ QU,max (20)
Costdis = Costrech. + Costw (7)
∗
Eout Γ+Γ ≤1 (21)
Costrech. = φavg × (8)   
η ch η dis (Pb,i
dis
− Pb,i
ch
)− Pl+ − Pl−
Costw = Costw,dis + Costw,ch (9) i∈Ib l|o(l)=b l|r(l)=b

Eout = P Db − P Vb ; ∀b ∈ B/{1} (22)

Costw,dis = wp × (10)  
η dis
− Q+
l − Q−l = QDb ; ∀b ∈ B/{1} (23)
Eout
Costw,ch = wp × η ch × Ein = wp × η ch × ch dis l|o(l)=b l|r(l)=b
η η  
PgU − PdU = Pl+ + Pl− ; ∀b ∈ {1} (24)
= Costw,dis (11) l|o(l)=b l|r(l)=b

where φavg is the average DLMP over available time. Also,  

QU = Q+
l + Q−
l ; ∀b ∈ {1} (25)
Costw,ch and Costw,dis represent the charging and discharging
l|o(l)=b l|r(l)=b
wear costs of PEV battery, respectively, which it is illustrated 

that these two parameters are equal. Equation (8) presents the av- 
Pl+ 2
= Gl |vo(l) | − |vo(l) ||vr(l) | cos θo(l) − θr(l)
erage cost of recharging considering roundtrip efficiency losses.
According to (10) and (11), the discharging and charging wear 
−Bl |vo(l) ||Vr(l) | sin θo(l) − θr(l) ; ∀l ∈ L (26)
costs are respectively formulated as the product of battery wear


price (wp) and energy removed and added through discharging 

and charging. Moreover, Eout and Ein are the output and input Q+
l = −B l |v o(l) | 2
− |v o(l) ||v r(l) | cos θ o(l) − θ r(l)

energy of PEV battery to/from the grid. Based on the aforemen- 

tioned explanations, the offer price of PEV can be formulated −Gl |vo(l) ||Vr(l) | sin θo(l) − θr(l) ; ∀l ∈ L (27)
as follows. +/−
−Plmax ≤ Pl ≤ Plmax ; ∀l ∈ L (28)
φavg wp
π sell
= ch dis + 2 dis (12) −Qmax ≤ Ql
+/−
≤ Qmax ; ∀l ∈ L (29)
η η η l l

Besides the offer price, HEMSs must compute the PEVs’ Vmin ≤ |vb | ≤ Vmax ; ∀b ∈ B (30)
offer quantity (P sell ) that is calculated as following equation.
In (14), SW is social welfare and the objective of optimization
The following equation represents that the offer quantity is the
is maximizing the social welfare. Equation (14) states that a
minimum value of PEV battery power rating and the allowable
scheduling of PEV battery is optimal if the total surplus derived
discharging power of PEV battery.
  from this schedule for all agents together is maximized. This
rated η
dis
(SOCcur. × Emax − Emin ) surplus is measured as the difference between total gross benefit
P sell
= min P ,
ΔT for buyers and total cost for sellers. The first term in (15)
(13) represents the summation of the product of PEV bid price and
associated quantity. Similarly, the second term in (15) represents
B. Network-Constrained Market Clearing the summation of the product of PEV offer price and quantity.
The network-constrained market clearing problem, given un- The third and fourth terms in (15) represent the cost and revenue
responsive loads, power exchange with the upstream grid, and of energy exchange with the upstream grid. Constraints (16) and
PEVs’ bid/offer prices-quantities considering the technical con- (17) impose power limits on charging and discharging of PEVs,
straints of network is presented as follows. It is worth men- respectively. Constraints (18) and (19) enforce the maximum
tioning that the developed market model is applicable for both allowable active power exchange with the upstream grid, and
three-phase balanced and single-phase systems. equation (20) represents the maximum allowable reactive power
exchange with the upstream network. Constraint (21) imple-
Maximize Obj = SW (14) ments the binary logic for direction of active power with the
  buy buy upstream grid.
SW = (πb,i .Pb,i − πb,i
sell sell
.Pb,i ) Active and reactive power balances in all buses excluding bus
b∈B/{1} i∈Ib
1 (point of common coupling (PCC)) are formulated as equations
−λ.PgU + ρ.PdU (15) (22) and (23). Also, the active and reactive power balances for
PCC bus are formulated as equations (24) and (25). Equations
buy
0 ≤ Pb,i
ch
≤ Pb,i ; ∀i ∈ Ib , b ∈ B/{1} (16) (26) and (27) respectively compute the active and reactive power

Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1444 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO. 2, APRIL 2021

flow considering current direction. The same constraints can be

written for Pl− and Q− l by substitution of receiving and sending
buses. Constraints (28) and (29) impose the limitation of active
and reactive power passing through line l, respectively. Finally,
constraint (30) represents the predetermined allowable range of
voltage magnitude.
The described optimization problem excluding constraints
(26) and (27) forms a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP)
problem. In order to improve the precision of solution and
mitigate the computational burden of optimization problem, the
nonlinear equations, i.e., (26) and (27), are linearized. In this
regard, these equations are approximated using piecewise linear
approximation technique as [28], [29]: Fig. 3. LMP and feed-in-tariff rate used in the case study.

Pl+ = Gl |vo(l) | − |vr(l) | − ωor(l) + 1
 TABLE I
− Bl θo(l) − θr(l) ; ∀l ∈ L (31) MODEL PARAMETER

Q+l = − Bl |vo(l) | − |vr(l) | − ωor(l) + 1

− Gl θo(l) − θr(l) ; ∀l ∈ L (32)
Given the typical range of voltage angles, e.g., |θo(l) −
θr(l) | ≤ 40◦ , ωor(l) is the piecewise linear approximation of
cos(θo(l) − θr(l) ), which is represented as follows.

ωor(l) = dor(l),k θo(l) − θr(l) + hor(l),k (33)
The values of dor(l),k and hor(l),k are chosen so that the linear
approximation coincides with cos(θo(l) − θr(l) ) at breakpoints. In the following, after explaining the simulation setup in Sec-
The efficiency and approximation error of this linearization tion IV-A, the numerical results and discussions are presented
technique can be found in [30]. in Section IV-B. Moreover, two different approaches, i.e., PEV
Finally, after solving the network-constrained market clearing charging control with and without considering the retail mar-
problem, the clearing prices, which are dual variables associated ket platform, are described to investigate main features of the
with the active power balance equations, have been calculated. proposed TE based model.
In other words, the clearing price at node i represents the
incremental social welfare if the unresponsive load at this node A. Simulation Setup
decreases by one unit. In the presented formulation, the costs The test system under study is a modified version of the IEEE
related to the reactive power generation and system loss are 33-bus distribution test system combined with several 415 V
not explicitly considered in the objective function. However, residential feeders (LDA). Each low voltage (LV) residential
by incorporating the operational constraints, such as the volt- feeder has 19 three-phase nodes representing customer house-
age magnitude constraint and the constraints of power passing holds which its detail can be found in [31]. These residential
through distribution feeders, the impacts of reactive power and feeders are implemented on all buses of IEEE 33-bus test system
network loss on the clearing price have already been considered except for PCC (bus 1). Thus, total number of nodes in test
implicitly. system is 641 (33 MV and 608 LV). For the sake of simplicity
After calculating the market clearing prices for all nodes, the and without loss of generality, it is assumed that loads and
action of whole PEVs are determined, and with that, the SOC PEVs are distributed symmetrical in the LV feeders. Also, it
level of PEVs is updated as following equation. This equation is assumed that each phase of residential LV node has just one
defines the SOC level of each PEV in each time step in terms transactive home and each transactive home has one PEV (totally
of its previous SOC level and energy added or removed through 608 PEVs in each phase). The hourly electricity price (LMP)
charging or discharging in the current time step. and feed-in-tariff (FIT) rate, which is considered as a tri-level
(ηb,i Pb,i − 1 TOU scheme, are shown in Fig. 3. Moreover, other parameters
dis Pb,i ) × ΔT
ch ch dis
ηb,i
new
SOCb,i = old
SOCb,i + (34) of simulation, i.e., PEV owners’ arrival and departure time,
Emax initial and desired level of SOC, PEV owners’ comfort factor,
unresponsive active power and reactive power and rooftop solar
IV. CASE STUDY AND SIMULATION RESULTS
PV panel capacity for each residential LV node are randomly
In this section, performance of the proposed PEV charging and uniformly distributed between minimum and the maximum
strategy has been examined. In this regard, the bidding/offering values given in Table I. These parameters and deviation of solar
strategy of PEVs is simulated in MATLAB and the market PV output can be found in [32]. Moreover, the DSO calculates
clearing problem is solved by means of CPLEX solver in GAMS. the mean value of DLMP based on the LMP and forecasted net

Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SABER et al.: NETWORK-CONSTRAINED TRANSACTIVE COORDINATION FOR PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES PARTICIPATION
TABLE II
PEV BATTERY DATA
Fig. 4. PEV scheduling for different values of comfort factor.
load of LDAs, also it is assumed that the estimated standard
deviation of DLMP is 10%.
In addition, in the case study, it is assumed that the company
of all PEVs is the same, i.e., Nissan Altra with lithium-ion
battery. The summary of this PEV battery data is tabulated in
Table II [33]. Moreover, according to [33], the wear price of
lithium-ion battery, considering a 60% of salvage value and 5%
of discount rate, is around 0.08 $/kWh. This value of wear price
does not encourage PEV owners to participate in V2G programs.
Although, the proposed model is applicable in the case of high
value of wear price, in order to better demonstrate the V2G
capability of PEVs in the proposed market-based coordination
model, the wear price has been decreased in the simulation.
This assumption is acceptable, because with rapid development
of PEV battery technology, the capital cost of PEV battery and
as a result the battery wear price will decrease. In this regard, the
value of PEV battery wear price is considered 0.03 $/kWh, and
with the goal of analyzing the influence of battery wear price on
the charge/discharge scheduling of PEVs, a sensitivity analysis
has been conducted in the Section IV-B1.
B. Numerical Results and Analysis
In this subsection, a simulation study is carried out to evaluate
the proposed TE concept-based PEV charging control approach.
In this regard and as a first step, the impact of PEV owner’s com-
fort factor (k) on the charge/discharge scheduling is investigated.
For this purpose, the scheduling of a sample PEV located at LV
residential node (10 − a) with different values of k is examined.
The PEV battery scheduling and charging cost (CC) for different
values of k are depicted in Fig. 4. As can be traced in this figure,
when the value of k decreases, the CC decreases, too. On the
other hand, when the value of k increases, besides increasing
the CC, the PEV owner is more confident about reaching to its
specified desired level of SOC. This observation is aligned with
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1445
Fig. 5. SOC level of candidate PEVs in departure time.
Fig. 6. Economic characteristics of simulation study.
the definition of PEV owner’s comfort factor which has been
mentioned earlier.
Furthermore, to better examine performance of the proposed
model, Fig. 5 is depicted. In this regard, we selected one can-
didate PEV in each LV residential feeder (totally 32 PEVs) and
the final attained SOC level in the departure time and the PEV
owner’s specified desired level of SOC have been shown in this
figure. As can be inferred from Fig. 5, the final attained SOC level
for all candidate PEVs is very close to the PEV owner’s specified
values. It is worth mentioning that, due to low value of comfort
factor (k) for candidate PEVs located in bus 15, 17, and 26
there is around 2% difference between the aforementioned SOC
levels which can be negligible. This observation demonstrates
the effectiveness of the proposed model in achieving the PEV
owners’ desired level of SOC.
As stated earlier, the market operator clears the retail market
based on the received PEVs’ offers and bids. After the market
is cleared, the clearing prices for all nodes of system are deter-
mined using (14)–(33) and are broadcasted to all HEMSs. The
average of market clearing prices, the average of bid and offer
prices of all PEVs, as well as the hourly DLMP are depicted in
Fig. 6. As can be inferred from this figure, when the value of
electricity price increases, PEVs’ offer price decreases and their
bid price increases. Moreover, by comparing the retail market
clearing price with the received LMP from wholesale market,
it is illustrated that the average of retail market clearing price
during peak demand hours, when the electricity price is very
1446
high, is lower than DLMP and its value is related to PEVs’
offer prices, as well as the average of retail market clearing
price during off-peak hours is approximately equal to DLMP.
This demonstration shows that the retail electricity market will
shrink all customers’ energy payments, particularly in the higher
electricity price hours.
In the second step of simulation and in order to verify the
performance of the proposed PEV coordination framework,
two different cases have been implemented on described test
system i.e., Case I: with retail electricity market (based on TE
concept) and Case II: without retail electricity market (based
on traditional, one-way DR concept). It is noted that to better
investigate the performance of these cases from viewpoints of
utility and customers, the preconditions including price signals,
PEV owners’ input data, and PEV battery initial status are
considered the same. In Case I, it is assumed that all HEMSs
estimate their PEVs price-quantity bids and offers and sub-
mit their estimated bids/offers to the retail market operator,
which can be calculated as (1)–(13), and the market operator
solves the network-constrained market clearing problem to de-
termine the action of all PEVs. Running the market clearing
problem, the clearing prices and the real-time action of whole
PEVs are determined. On the contrary, in the Case II (tradi-
tional, one-way DR based coordination), there is a one-way
communication channel from DSO to responsive homes, and
it is assumed that all PEVs just response to the hourly received
price signals (DLMP), and they do not participate in the retail
electricity market. In this case, PEVs are modeled as a distributed
energy storage systems with the objective of minimizing the
charging cost. The optimization model of this case is similar to
determining the optimal scheduling of distributed energy storage
which has been formulated in [34] with modification of reaching
the desired level of SOC at the departure time. In Case II, because
there is not any retail market platform, PEVs cannot influence
on the electricity price. Therefore, PEVs in Case I and II are
respectively price maker and price taker market participants.
Based on the above explanations, our proposed model (Case
I) is examined and compared with traditional DR (Case II) based
on several aspects which are explained as follows.
1) Charge/Discharge Scheduling of PEV Battery: In order to
compare the PEVs charge/discharge scheduling in both cases,
the SOC level of a sample PEV that is located at LV node
(10 − a) is determined. The arrival and departure times are
respectively 18:00 and 07:00, as well as the initial and desired
levels of SOC are assumed 40% and 90%, respectively. More-
over, the comfort factor of PEV owner for participation in retail
market is considered equal to 0.5. The PEV battery scheduling
and its charging cost with and without considering wear price
are shown in Fig. 7.
As can be inferred from this figure, in Case I, the PEV is
discharged for a two-hour period (10 and 11 P.M.). Also, the
PEV is discharged for a three-hour period (9-11 P.M.) in Case II.
In both cases, the PEV is discharged when the electricity price
is high and is charged when the electricity price is low. Using
Figs. 6 and 7, the charging cost of PEV with and without consid-
ering the PEV battery wear price can be calculated which their
values are shown in Fig. 7. As can be inferred from the values
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO. 2, APRIL 2021
Fig. 7. PEV scheduling for described cases.
of charging cost, although the total charging cost imposed to the
PEV owner in the proposed model is approximately equal to the
charging cost of traditional, one-way DR-based coordination in
case of without considering wp, by considering wp, the PEV
charging cost in our proposed model is lower than charging
cost in the traditional, one-way DR-based approach. In other
words, the proposed model decreases the PEV charging cost by
20% in comparison to traditional, one-way DR concept-based
PEV coordination approach. There are two reasons for the
lower charging cost in the proposed strategy; the first one is
related to the retail market platform, which allows PEVs to
be discharged in the retail market clearing price (greater than
or equal to FIT) and be charged in the retail market clearing
price (lower than or equal to upstream grid electricity price).
The second reason is related to the considering the PEV battery
wear cost in the offer price (PEV discharging). Therefore, this
demonstration approves that the proposed PEV charging strategy
is more attractive for PEV owners according to PEV battery life
concerns in comparison to the traditional DR program.
2) Voltage Regulation: In order to better demonstrate the
effectiveness of proposed model from the viewpoint of utility
(voltage magnitude and distribution system losses), the unre-
sponsive load of test system is doubled. The aim of this part is to
investigate voltage regulations of test system by implementing
our proposed model. In this regard, the voltage magnitudes of
furthest node from the main grid, i.e., LV node (18 − h), for both
aforementioned cases are compared and are depicted in Fig. 8.
Based on this figure, the developed PEV coordination approach
is more effective than traditional, one-way DR-based PEV coor-
dination approach from the viewpoint of voltage regulation. The
reason is that in the Case II because the PEV charge/discharge
scheduling is determined based on received price-based signal,
the PEVs responses are generally similar. Hence, PEVs are
charged simultaneously (when the electricity price has the least
value), and this simultaneous charging causes the voltage drop
in the distribution system. On the other hand, in the Case I, all
PEVs calculate their bids/offers according to their current status,
preferences, and DLMP. Then, the calculated bids/offers are sent
to the retail market operator, and the network-constrained market
clearing procedure determines the final action of each PEV.
Therefore, since the PEV charging pattern is mainly dependent
SABER et al.: NETWORK-CONSTRAINED TRANSACTIVE COORDINATION FOR PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES PARTICIPATION
Fig. 8. Voltage magnitude of a sample LV node.
on the bid/offer of other PEVs as well as the network condition,
the actions of all PEVs could be different with each other.
3) Power Loss of Distribution System: In addition, the active
loss of test system has been compared in these two cases. The
total loss of test system in the corresponding day is 842 kWh
and 960 kWh for Case I and Case II, respectively. This result
shows that the proposed PEV charging control strategy has a
12.3% mitigation effect on the total loss of test system. This
positive effect could be increases when the number of PEVs
increases in the retail electricity market. In order to demonstrate
this claim, the number of PEVs in the test system is tripled. In
this condition, the values of total loss of test system for Cases
I and II are respectively 362 kWh and 600 kWh (around 40%
decrease in the system loss).
Therefore and as a conclusion, the positive effects of the
proposed model on voltage regulation and system losses ap-
prove the effectiveness of the proposed PEV charging model in
comparison to the traditional, one-way communicated DR-based
charging program.
C. Sensitivity Analysis
In this subsection, the effect of PEV battery wear price on
the charge/discharge scheduling of PEV is investigated. As
mentioned earlier, one of the most effective parameter in the
PEV offering strategy is the PEV battery wear price. Hence,
a sensitivity analysis is carried out to measure the influence
of this factor on the PEV charging/discharging pattern. For
this purpose, four different values of battery wear price are
considered. The values of PEV battery wear price are wp =
0.015, 0.02, 0.04, and 0.06 $/kWh. Fig. 9 shows the SOC level
of a sample PEV that is located at residential LV node (10 − a)
for different values of wear price.
As can be traced in this figure, when the value of battery
wear price decreases (wp = 0.015 $/kWh), the PEV battery
is discharged for a longer period (9-11 P.M). The reason of
longer period discharging is related to the influence of battery
wear price on willingness to accept of PEV owner. When the
battery wear price decreases, the PEV offer price decreases,
too, and this makes the PEV to be discharged for a longer
period. Moreover, when the battery wear price increases (wp
= 0.04 and 0.06 $/kWh), the PEV will never be discharged.
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1447
Fig. 9. PEV scheduling for different values of wear price.
TABLE III
RUNNING TIME OF OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
This observation has a similar reason. By increasing the battery
wear price, the PEV offer price increases, and because the PEV
owner’s willingness to accept decreases, the PEV will not be
discharged in the market-based PEV coordination approach.
D. Computational Performance
Finally, the computational performance of the proposed mar-
ket based PEV charging control approach is investigated. Gen-
erally, in the implementation of any market design with a large
number of players, the computational complexity for solving
the optimization problem would be a concern. In this regard,
the market clearing optimization problem considering different
number of market participants (PEVs) was solved on a PC with
Intel Xeon Processor (3.4 GHz) and 16 GB RAM. The running
time of the constrained optimization problem with different
number of PEVs in the test system is tabulated in Table III. As
can be traced in this table, the running time of the optimization
for each real-time charging operation is lower than 15 minutes
(market clearing time step). Thus, the running time of the pro-
posed PEV charging model can meet the time requirement of
the scheduling problem.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a novel PEV charging control model is presented
based on the TE concept. In the proposed model, the PEVs
actively participate in the real-time retail electricity market. In
this regard, an algorithm is presented for PEVs to intelligently
estimate the price-quantity bids and offers according to the PEV
owners’ preferences and concerns. The calculated bids/offers
will be sent to the retail market operator, and the market oper-
ator clears the market and determines the clearing prices and
accordingly the final real-time operation of all PEVs.
The proposed PEV charging control strategy is applied to
the modified IEEE 33-bus test system combined with several
LV residential feeders, and results have demonstrated that the
1448
presented model is beneficial to both PEV owners and the utility.
Results demonstrate that the proposed model decreases the PEV
battery charging cost, system losses, and voltage regulation in
comparison to the traditional, one-way DR-based PEV charging
control. In other words, these observations illustrate the effec-
tiveness and applicability of the proposed model in real-time
PEV coordination.
REFERENCES
[1] M. L. Crow et al., “Electric vehicle scheduling considering co-
optimized customer and system objectives,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. En-
ergy, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 410–419, Jan. 2017.
[2] R. Rana and S. Mishra, “Day-ahead scheduling of electric vehicles for
overloading management in active distribution system via web-based
application,” IEEE Syst. J., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 3422–3432, Sep. 2018.
[3] J.-M. Clairand, J. Rodríguez-García, and C. Álvarez-Bel, “Smart charging
for electric vehicle aggregators considering users’ preferences,” IEEE
Access, vol. 6, pp. 54 624–54 635, Oct. 2018.
[4] Z. Liu, Q. Wu, K. Ma, M. Shahidehpour, Y. Xue, and S. Huang, “Two-
stage optimal scheduling of electric vehicle charging based on transactive
control,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 2948–2958, May 2019.
[5] “Global Electric Vehicle Sales for the First Half of 2019,” Accessed: Dec.
5, 2020. [Online]. Available: http://www.ev-volumes.com/
[6] M. C. Kisacikoglu, F. Erden, and N. Erdogan, “Distributed control of
pev charging based on energy demand forecast,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Infor-
mat., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 332–341, Jan. 2018.
[7] S. Xia, S. Bu, X. Luo, K. W. Chan, and X. Lu, “An autonomous real-time
charging strategy for plug-in electric vehicles to regulate frequency of dis-
tribution system with fluctuating wind generation,” IEEE Trans. Sustain.
Energy, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 511–524, Apr. 2017.
[8] G. Binetti, A. Davoudi, D. Naso, B. Turchiano, and F. L. Lewis, “Scalable
real-time electric vehicles charging with discrete charging rates,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 2211–2220, Sep. 2015.
[9] J. Tan and L. Wang, “Enabling reliability-differentiated service in resi-
dential distribution networks with phevs: A hierarchical game approach,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 684–694, Mar. 2016.
[10] H. Yang, S. Yang, Y. Xu, E. Cao, M. Lai, and Z. Dong, “Elec-
tric vehicle route optimization considering time-of-use electricity
price by learnable partheno-genetic algorithm,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 657–666, Mar. 2015.
[11] Y. Zheng, Y. Song, D. J. Hill, and K. Meng, “Online distributed mpc-based
optimal scheduling for ev charging stations in distribution systems,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 638–649, Feb. 2019.
[12] X. Xi and R. Sioshansi, “Using price-based signals to control plug-in
electric vehicle fleet charging,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 3,
pp. 1451–1464, May 2014.
[13] M. Latifi, A. Rastegarnia, A. Khalili, and S. Sanei, “Agent-based decentral-
ized optimal charging strategy for plug-in electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 3668–3680, May 2018.
[14] P. Wang, S. Zou, and Z. Ma, “A partial augmented lagrangian method for
decentralized electric vehicle charging in capacity-constrained distribution
networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 118 229–118238, Aug. 2019.
[15] J. Li, C. Li, Y. Xu, Z. Y. Dong, K. P. Wong, and T. Huang, “Noncooperative
game-based distributed charging control for plug-in electric vehicles in
distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 301–310,
Jan. 2016.
Authorized licensed use limited to: East Carolina University. Downloaded on June 16,2021 at 21:41:09 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, VOL. 12, NO. 2, APRIL 2021
[16] M. N. Akter, M. A. Mahmud, and A. M. Oo, “An optimal distributed
transactive energy sharing approach for residential microgrids,” in Proc.
IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting., 2017, pp. 1–5.
[17] Y. K. Renani, M. Ehsan, and M. Shahidehpour, “Optimal transactive
market operations with distribution system operators,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 6692–6701, Nov. 2018.
[18] Y. Parag and B. K. Sovacool, “Electricity market design for the prosumer
era,” Nat. Energy, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1–6, 2016.
[19] K. Kok, “Powermatcher: Smart coordination for the smart electricity grid,”
TNO, The Netherlands, pp. 241–250, 2013.
[20] J. Hu, G. Yang, H. W. Bindner, and Y. Xue, “Application of network-
constrained transactive control to electric vehicle charging for secure
grid operation,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 505–515,
Apr. 2017.
[21] A. Masood, J. Hu, A. Xin, A. R. Sayed, and G. Yang, “Transactive energy
for aggregated electric vehicles to reduce system peak load considering
network constraints,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 31 519–31 529, Feb. 2020.
[22] Z. Pan et al., “Stochastic transactive control for electric vehicle aggre-
gators coordination: A decentralized approximate dynamic programming
approach,” IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 4261–4277,
Sep. 2020.
[23] P. Hou, G. Yang, J. Hu, and P. J. Douglass, “A network-constrained rolling
transactive energy model for ev aggregators participating in balancing
market,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 47 720–47729, Mar. 2020.
[24] Q. Wu, M. Shahidehpour, C. Li, S. Huang, W. Wei et al., “Transactive real-
time electric vehicle charging management for commercial buildings with
pv on-site generation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 4939–
4950, Sep. 2018.
[25] “Jade Agent Development Toolkit,” Accessed: Dec. 5, 2020. [Online].
Available: https://jade.tilab.com/
[26] S. D. McArthur et al., “Multi-agent systems for power engineering
applications–part i: Concepts, approaches, and technical challenges,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1743–1752, Nov. 2007.
[27] D. J. Hammerstrom et al., “Pacific northwest gridwise testbed demonstra-
tion projects; part i. olympic peninsula project. Part i. Olympic Peninsula
Project,” Pacific Northwest Nat. Lab., Richland, WA, USA, Tech. Rep.
PNNL-17167, 2008.
[28] C. Coffrin, and P. Van Hentenryck, “A linear-programming approximation
of ac power flows,” INFORMS J. Comput., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 718–734,
2014.
[29] A. Gholami, T. Shekari, F. Aminifar, and M. Shahidehpour, “Microgrid
scheduling with uncertainty: The quest for resilience,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2849–2858, Nov. 2016.
[30] P. A. Trodden, W. A. Bukhsh, A. Grothey, and K. I. McKinnon,
“Optimization-based islanding of power networks using piecewise linear
ac power flow,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1212–1220,
May 2014.
[31] S. Deilami, A. S. Masoum, P. S. Moses, and M. A. Masoum, “Real-
time coordination of plug-in electric vehicle charging in smart grids to
minimize power losses and improve voltage profile,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 456–467, Sep. 2011.
[32] “Effective Input Data,” Accessed: Dec. 5, 2020. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HamV_i4AEW32gN-F-
szVjNJeS6q4014f
[33] H. Farzin, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Moeini-Aghtaie, “A practical
scheme to involve degradation cost of lithium-ion batteries in vehicle-
to-grid applications,”IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1730–
1738, Oct. 2016.
[34] H. Saber, M. Moeini-Aghtaie, and M. Ehsan, “Developing a multi-
objective framework for expansion planning studies of distributed energy
storage systems (DESSS),” Energy, vol. 157, pp. 1079–1089, 2018.