See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276426008

Optimal Coordination of G2V and V2G to Support Power Grids With High
Penetration of Renewable Energy

Article in IEEE Transactions on Transportation Electrification · August 2015

DOI: 10.1109/TTE.2015.2430288

CITATIONS READS
133 1,060

3 authors:

Hoang N.T Nguyen Cishen Zhang

Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
5 PUBLICATIONS 235 CITATIONS 229 PUBLICATIONS 4,221 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md. Apel Mahmud

Northumbria University
299 PUBLICATIONS 5,414 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hoang N.T Nguyen on 18 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

188 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 1, NO. 2, AUGUST 2015
Optimal Coordination of G2V and V2G to Support
Power Grids With High Penetration
of Renewable Energy
Hoang N. T. Nguyen, Cishen Zhang, and Md. Apel Mahmud
Abstract—Electric vehicles (EVs) have recently gained much
popularity as a green alternative to fossil-fuel cars and a feasible
solution to reduce air pollution in big cities. The use of EVs can
also be extended as a demand response tool to support high pen-
etration of renewable energy (RE) sources in future smart grid.
Based on the certainty equivalent adaptive control (CECA) prin-
ciple and a customer participation program, this paper presents
a novel control strategy using optimization technique to coordi-
nate not only the charging but also the discharging of EV batteries
to deal with the intermittency in RE production. In addition,
customer charging requirements and schedules are incorporated
into the optimization algorithm to ensure customer satisfaction,
and further improve the control performance. The merits of this
scheme are its simplicity, efficiency, robustness and readiness for
practical applications. The effectiveness of the proposed control
algorithm is demonstrated by computer simulations of a power
system with high level of wind energy integration.
Index Terms—Centralized control, electric vehicles (EVs),
optimization, renewable energy (RE).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE integration of renewable energy (RE) has been
increasingly promoted throughout the world over the past
few decades. However, there is only a limited amount of RE
sources (around 25–30%) that existing power grids could accept
without risks of network failures [1]. There are several solu-
tions which have been put forward to enhance the integration
of RE penetration to the power grid [2]. One potential approach
is employing energy storage systems of electric vehicles (EVs)
as demand response tools to mitigate the variation in RE gen-
eration [2]. In this paper, EVs are a general term to describe
all categories of automobiles that have a battery pack and an
electric motor. The electric motor can be the sole source of driv-
ing force or incorporated with an internal combustion engine in
parallel (hybrid EV) or series design (plug-in hybrid EV) [3],
[4]. Notably, EVs present a lot of potentials in supporting RE
integration, as they can act as generator sources in vehicle-to-
grid (V2G) (or discharging) mode to inject power back to the
grid when necessary [5]. Furthermore, the proliferation of EVs
Manuscript received January 09, 2015; revised March 21, 2015; accepted
April 19, 2015. Date of publication May 06, 2015; date of current version
August 14, 2015.
The authors are with the School of Software and Electrical Engineering,
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Vic. 3122, Australia (e-mail:
nnguyentho@swin.edu.au; czhang@swin.edu.au; mmahmud@swin.edu.au).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TTE.2015.2430288
2332-7782 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
can become a reality in near future since EVs have recently
gained much popularity as a green alternative for fossil-fuel
cars. Based on a report from U.S. Department of Energy, there
will be over 1.2 millions EVs just by the end of 2015 [6].
The coordination of the charging [grid-to-vehicle (G2V)]
and discharging (V2G) of EVs to support RE integration can
be determined by a centralized authority using optimization
techniques. Such framework requires a bidirectional communi-
cation between all participating vehicles and the control center.
Since the rate and amount of data transferred between the two
parties are low, existing Internet networks can be utilized for
this purpose with relatively low cost of investment.
In [7]–[9], an optimization problem is formulated with the
objective of reducing cost and emissions in a grid with plug-in
EVs and RE sources. EVs are regarded as either load demand
and generator sources. However, the decision variable for them
is only the number of vehicles allowed to charge or discharge
at a fixed value, which limits the flexibility of the algorithm.
In [10] and [11], stochastic optimization problems are con-
sidered with the objective of minimizing the expected cost of
the grid over a control period to determine the V2G power
of EVs along with other decision variables. In these cases,
the problems are formulated as stochastic dynamic mix-integer
optimization programming, which is complicated and usually
requires overwhelming computation work. Although advanced
solving methods such as particle swarm optimization have been
employed, it still requires an excessively long time to com-
pute the final results, which may not be suitable for practical
applications.
In our work, a deterministic optimization problem is devel-
oped to coordinate the charging and discharging of all EVs
using forecast data of load demand and RE production over a
period of time. This optimization will be computed repeatedly
during the control period to revise the G2V and V2G output of
vehicles to deal with errors in prediction data as well as other
changes in the problem conditions. Being a deterministic prob-
lem, it can be solved effectively using a normal optimization
software on standard workstation; hence, it may be suitable for
practical applications.
Another contribution of this paper is that our optimization
problem includes with the constraints for customers’ require-
ments while, to the best of our knowledge, existing work
have not addressed thoroughly. Customers’ requirements are
defined as the need to charge their batteries up to a desired
state of charge (SOC) before their time of departure. From our
NGUYEN et al.: OPTIMAL COORDINATION OF G2V AND V2G TO SUPPORT POWER GRIDS
Fig. 1. Microgrid system with five main components.
point of view, this is one of the most important objectives in
EVs optimization problem, since customers are usually more
willing to participate the charge-management program only if
their vehicles are fully charged when needed [12].1 To further
improve the performance of the scheme, a customer participa-
tion program is proposed in our work in which EV owners need
to provide information about all their future charging requests
for a day ahead.
This paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the
problem formulation, the customer participation scheme, and
the proposed optimization strategy. Section III presents the sim-
ulation data and results. Conclusion is presented at the end in
Section IV.
II. O PTIMAL C ONTROL S CHEME FOR EV S
A. Formulation of the EV Charging and Discharging Problem
In this study, we consider a microgrid as shown in Fig. 1
which consists of five main components: 1) a conventional
power plant; 2) an RE source; 3) a non-EV load demand; 4) a
group of N EVs; and 5) a standby generator to provide ancillary
service. The power imbalance in the grid at time t is described
as follows:
ΔP (t) = PG (t) + PRE (t) − PD (t) − PEV (t) (1)
where
PG (t) power output of the conventional power plant at
time t;
PRE (t) power output of the RE source at time t;
PD (t) load demand at time t;
PEV (t) the total charging or discharging powers of all
participating EVs

N
PEV (t) = PEVi (t) (2)
i=1
1 According to a survey conducted in Victoria State, Australia on load
control response project, up to 80% of the participants would accept charge-
management of their EVs only if their vehicles are fully charged when needed.
Interestingly and surprisingly, nearly 40% are willing to do so if this could pro-
vide a better environment outcome even though there is no financial benefit for
them.
189
PEVi (t) power consumption of vehicle i at time t. In this
study, EV is considered as a load source; hence, its
value is positive during charging time and negative
when discharging.
If there is no regulation over the power consumed by EVs
(free-charging policy), there is in general a mismatch between
the supply and the demand due to the fluctuation of renewable
power generation, load consumption, and excessive charg-
ing demand of EVs during peak time. Power mismatches are
the root cause of the grid instability issues, and uneconom-
ical operation of power networks [13], [14]. In conventional
power operations, grid operators have to operate power plants
under optimal capacity or call expensive ancillary services from
standby generators to maintain the system balance [15]. Such
consequences are partly the reasons why high level of RE
and EV penetration is generally not preferable in term of grid
operations.
Therefore, in this study, the control objective is to coordinate
the EV charging and discharging such that the power imbalance
ΔP in the grid is minimized over a control period subjected
to the physical constraints, and most importantly the customer
requirements.
B. Customer participation
To further improve the performance of the optimization prob-
lem, information provided by vehicle owners is incorporated
into the control algorithm. This information includes the charg-
ing plans at the beginning of the control period (e.g., a day),
such as number of charging requests per day, arrival and depar-
ture time for each charging period, and the SOC or energy level
at the beginning and desired final SOC.2 At this stage, this infor-
mation does not need to be absolutely precise. However, when
cars are already plugged into charging points physically and
send out charging requests to the control center, it is necessary
for owners to provide accurate data about their departure time
and the desired SOC [15], [16]. This information will act as a
commitment or contract between the car owners and the grid
operator.
The set of information that a vehicle owner number i, 1 ≤
i ≤ N needs to provide is as follows:
1) number of charging jobs required for this day: Ji ;
2) starting SOC of each charging no. j: Es (i, j), 1 ≤ j ≤ Ji ;
3) desired SOC of each charging job: Ed (i, j), 1 ≤ j ≤ Ji ;
4) commence time of each charging job: Ts (i, j),
1 ≤ j ≤ Ji ;
5) departure time of each charging job: Td (i, j) 1 ≤ j ≤ Ji .
In return for customers’ contribution, all charging requests
from vehicle owners will be satisfied if 1) they are not physi-
cally infeasible3 and 2) their cars remained plugged-in during
their committed periods continuously without interruptions
2 For the SOC at the beginning of the planned charging period, customers
may alternatively provide information about their traveling distance or even
their next charging location, which can enable the proposed algorithm to esti-
mate the SOC based on the average energy consumption per miles of their
cars.
3 An example of a physically infeasible requirement is fully charging an
empty car battery within a minute.
190 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 1, NO. 2, AUGUST 2015
[15]. Furthermore, there might be some forms of incentives
such as lower electricity price or feed-in tariff to encourage the
participation from EV owners and compensate for their battery
wears, which overall makes V2G a cost-effective scheme [17].
C. Optimization Control Scheme
Assuming that we need to coordinate the charging and dis-
charging of all vehicles for a window of time Tw (e.g., a day),
this window Tw is then uniformly divided into M small time
intervals {t1 . . .tm . . .tM }. At each time step tm (1 ≤ m ≤ M ),
a deterministic optimization problem is solved with the objec-
tive of minimizing the total power imbalance ΔP (t) in (1) over
the period [tm . . .tM ]
min ΔP (tk )
PEV (tk ),PG (tk ) m≤k≤M
  12
M
where ΔP (tk ) = k=m ΔP (tk )
2
. is employed. Basically, for planned charging jobs, it
The decision variables are the power dispatch of the power
plant PG (tk ) and the charging or discharging schedules of all
participating EVs PEVi (tk ) over the period [tm . . .tN ]. In this
study, the curtailment of RE source is not considered, as it is
our belief that RE is valuable and should not be curtailed. The
above optimization subjects to the following constraints.
1) Physical constraints of the power plant
PGmin ≤ PG (tk ) ≤ PGmax
|ΔPG (tk )| = |PG (tk+1 ) − PG (tk )| ≤ ΔPGmax .
Constraints (4) and (5) make sure that the operation of the
power plant is within the optimum range [PGmin , PGmax ]
and avoid sudden change in power output, respectively.
2) Physical constraints of the EVs

N normally publishes predicted information about one-day-ahead
PEV (tk ) = PEVi (tk )
i=1
−Pmax (i, j) ≤ PEVi (tk ) ≤ Pmax (i, j)
i ∈ N, t ∈ [Ts (i, j), Td (i, j)], n = [1, . . ., Ji ]
Eimin ≤ Ei (tk ) ≤ Eimax ; i ∈ N.
Constraint (7) limits the magnitude of the charging or dis-
charging power of the EV no. i in charging job no. j to
the maximum power Pmax (i, j) of the charging facility.
Constraint (8) makes sure that the energy level of vehicle
i Ei (tk ) never breaches the maximum (Eimax ) and min-
imum (Eimin ) capacity to preserve the batteries’ lifespan
[18]. In addition, the minimum threshold Eimin makes
sure that there is always a sufficient amount of energy in
the car battery in case of emergency.
3) Constraints to guarantee the customers’ requirements
PEVi (tk ) = 0, i ∈ N, tk ∈
/ [Ts (i, j),
Td (i, j)], n = [1, . . ., Ji ]
 Td (i,j)
ηi,j PEVi (tk )dt ≥ Ed (i, j) − Es (i, j) − a,
Ts (i,j)
i ∈ N, n = [1, . . ., Ji ] (10)
 Td (i,j)
ηi,j PEVi (tk )dt ≤ Ed (i, j) − Es (i, j) + a,
Ts (i,j)
i ∈ N, n = [1, . . ., Ji ] (11)
where ηi,j denotes the charging efficient factor of EV no. i
in its charging job no. j.
Constraint (9) means that the charging power of the ith
EV is PEV i = 0 when the vehicle is not plugged-in.
Constraints (10) and (11) make sure that all EVs
are charged up to their desired SOC at the end of all
their charging periods. When providing the charging
(3) plans, customers can arrive late or early at the charging
point and with their SOC different from the estimated
value. To deal with this uncertainty, a fuzzy approach
is acceptable as long as the results satisfy the upper
and lower bound [−a; a] constraints. For committed
jobs in which an EV has actually arrived and sent out
the accurate data, the constraints (10) and (11) become
 T (i,j)
a single equality constraint Tsd(i,j) ηi,j × PEV i(t)dt =
Ed (i, j) − Es (i, j) (with a = 0), and this job is guaran-
teed to be completed. It should be noted that during the
actual charging period, the starting energy level is similar
(4) to that of the previous step Es (i, j) = Ei (tm−1 ) and the
(5) starting time is the current time step Ts (i, j) = tm .
In this optimization, we use the real measurements of RE
generation PRE (tm ) and load demand PD (tm ) for the current
time t = tm and the forecast data for all future periods tp (m +
1 ≤ p ≤ M ). In practice, forecast data are normally available
and provided by network operators for a period of time ahead.
For example, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)
(6) load demand for different states. It should be noted that forecast
data are subjected to errors.
Although, for all vehicle i (1 ≤ i ≤ N ) at each time step
tm , the outcomes of this optimization are control sequences
(7) {PEVi (tk ), m ≤ k ≤ M }, only the results at the current time
step tm are applied by ordering all vehicles to charge or dis-
(8) charge with their specified values PEVi (tm ). In this study, it is
assumed that when a vehicle receives a charging or discharging
command from the optimization, it will regulate its power con-
sumption or output according to this reference value without
significant time delay and tracking error [19]. Moving for-
ward to the next time step tm+1 , the optimization is performed
again resulting in rescheduled EV charging and discharging
plans to deal with the errors in the forecast data and new
events in the system. New events can include new measure-
ments of renewable and load demand, availability of more
accurate forecast data, new vehicles begin to plug-in, revision
of charging requests, and so on. This process is repeated until
the completion of the control window.
Another point that is worth mentioning here is that in
(9) discrete time, the optimization is a typically standard linear
NGUYEN et al.: OPTIMAL COORDINATION OF G2V AND V2G TO SUPPORT POWER GRIDS 191

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the control process.

programming with root-mean-square (rms) objective function

and linear constraints, which can be solved effectively using
iteration methods [20].
The block diagram of the control process is illustrated in
Fig. 2. In addition, it should be noted that the control time
step should be reasonably small to cope with the fast changes
in the system while taking into account the delays in the
communication network.

III. S IMULATION AND R ESULT

A. Description of Simulation Model
A test system is modeled in MATLAB environment to eval-
uate the performance of the proposed control scheme for 24 h
(1440 min). In this simulation, the capacity of the power plant Fig. 3. Forecast and actual wind generation data [22].
is PG = 5000 kW with additional 500 kW of spinning reserve.
The renewable source is a wind farm representing all wind gen-
erators in Victoria State, Australia, down-scaled by a factor of
100. The average power of the wind farm is PRE = 2000 kW,
so the wind penetration level is PPRE
G
= 2000
5000 = 40%, which rep-
resents a scenario with high RE integration. The load source is
also modeled based on the electricity demand in the Victoria
region and scaled down from GW to kW unit. A set of wind
and load demand data on a random day is selected from the
historical database as the forecast value. In order to model the
uncertainty in the prediction data, 5% and 10% errors are intro-
duced into the load and wind values, respectively, as shown
in Figs. 3 and 4. These modeled errors are within reasonable
ranges according to the average errors in short-term prediction
of wind power and load demand in the existing literature [13],
[21]. In this simulation, the wind power output or load demand
[denoted as U (t)] at time t are stochastically computed using Fig. 4. Forecast and actual load demand data [23].
Gaussian distribution as follows:

U(t) = (1 + R{−1; 1} × ef )Ũ(t) + t (0, ef × Ũ(t)) (12) with mean value μ = 0 and standard deviation σ = ef × Ũ (t)
(error in forecast data).
where Ũ (t) is the forecast value, R{−1; 1} is random selection In this experiment, there are 600 participating cars in total,
between −1 or 1, and t is the a Gaussian distribution noise among which 280 are Mitsubish i-MiEV and the rest are Nissan
192
TABLE I
EV U SAGE DATA IN V ICTORIA , AUSTRALIA [12]
AV, average; SD, standard deviation.
TABLE II
E XAMPLE OF E NERGY L EVEL AT THE B EGINNING AND E ND OF E ACH
C HARGING J OBS F ROM V EHICLE N OS . 1 AND 2
Leaf.4 Each vehicle is assigned with a charging plan including
number of charging requests per day and requirement informa-
tion for each request. According to the EV driving historical
data in Victoria State, i.e., the mean and standard deviation
of EV traveling distance per day as shown in Table I, the
energy level Es at the beginning of each charging requirement
is stochastically assigned as in (13) using Gaussian distribution
random number. For the energy level Ed at departure time, it is
assumed that when charging at their working places, customers
prefer to remain their batteries unchanged. On the other hand,
with the charging request made at home, their preference is to
get the vehicles fully charged. Table II shows an example of the
starting and departure energy level of two vehicles in all their
charging requests during the day
Es = SOCav × Q + t (0, SOCsd × Q)
in which SOCav and SOCsd are the average SOC at plug-in
and the standard deviation, respectively (Table I). Q is denoted
as the capacity of vehicle battery.
For the timing of each charging events, it is assumed that
vehicle owners leave home for work in the morning and start
to charge their EVs at their work places at the mean time of
8:30 A . M. These cars remain connected until around 5:30 P. M .
and are replugged at their homes at about 7:00 P. M. For about
10% of the EV population, owners disconnect their cars to go
for lunch at 12:00 noon and return at around 1:00 P. M. An exam-
ple of the scheduled starting and departure times of two vehicles
is given in Table III. These timings are computed in the same
manner as in (13) with a standard deviation of 30 min. Similar
to the prediction data for wind and load value, errors are intro-
duced to model the inaccuracy in the information provided by
customers as in (14) with a standard deviation of 15 min. In
other words, customers can possibly arrive at their charging
points later or earlier than their proposed plans. In Table IV,
4 The proportion of Mitsubishi and Nissan cars resembles the actual propor-
tion of these two types in Victoria [12].
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 1, NO. 2, AUGUST 2015
TABLE III
E XAMPLE OF S CHEDULED S TARTING T IME AND D EPARTURE OF E ACH
C HARGING J OB F ROM V EHICLE N OS . 1 AND 2
TABLE IV
E XAMPLE OF ACTUAL S TARTING T IME AND D EPARTURE OF E ACH
C HARGING J OB F ROM V EHICLE N OS . 1 AND 2
an example of the actual starting and departure times of two
vehicles is given
p + R[−1; 1] × 15 + t (0, 15)
Ta = T (14)
in which Ta is the actual arrival or departure time and Tp is the
planned schedule.
In this case study, if an EV happens to arrive earlier than
its planned time, the control center, upon receiving the early
charging request, will run two offline optimization problems
simultaneously to determine whether to let this vehicle start
charging at the next time step or delay the charging until the
originally proposed time. In the event of late arrival, the control
center will create a new arrival time with a 15-min delay for it.
Although some penalty measures may be introduced to discour-
age late arrivals, this issue is currently beyond the scope of this
paper.
The last assumption in this simulation is that during the
day, EVs have access to fast charging facilities with Pmax 1 =
7.68 kW at the owners’ workplace car park (equivalent to level
(13) II charging standard). Meanwhile, the maximum power is only
Pmax 2 = 2.88 kW (equivalent to level I charging standard)
[24] during the charging period at home.
The model is simulated in 5-min resolution step for three
different scenarios: 1) free-charging policy without the pro-
posed EV control framework; 2) with the proposed EV control
framework and the customer participation program; and 3) the
proposed EV control framework without the customer par-
ticipation program. All simulations have been conducted in
MATLAB environment with the aid of Convex Optimization
software package and Gurobi solver on a normal office work-
station. The fact that each optimization has been successfully
computed almost instantaneously showcases the practical merit
of the proposed control scheme.
B. Scenario 1—Without EV Control (Free-Charging Policy)
In this scenario, there was no control over the charging of
EVs and it was assumed that vehicle owners would imme-
diately charge their cars upon arriving home with maximum
power Pmax 2 = 2.88 kW until their battery tanks were full.
The results of this simulation are shown in Fig. 5.
NGUYEN et al.: OPTIMAL COORDINATION OF G2V AND V2G TO SUPPORT POWER GRIDS
Fig. 5. Power imbalance in the system without EV control (free-charging
policy).
Fig. 6. Total power output of all participating EVs.
During the day time (from 6 A . M . to 6 P. M .), there were three
occasions when the main power plant failed to accommodate
the fluctuation of the wind energy and load demand. Notably,
during early night time (from minute 690 till 950 in simula-
tion time—roughly 5:30 P. M . to 9:50 P. M . in real time), there
was a peak load demand exerted on the grid when all vehi-
cles were charging at the same time. From minute 1220 (around
2:30 A . M . next day) to minute 1440 (6 A . M . next day), the net-
work was out of balance again due to sudden increase in wind
generation and drops in load demand. Unfortunately, now that
all vehicles had been fully charged earlier, none was available
to absorb this excessive electricity production.
C. Scenario 2—With EV Control Framework and Customer
Participation Program
In this scenario, the charging and discharging power of 600
participating EVs was coordinated by the proposed control
strategy. It is clearly observed that during the simulation time,
plugged-in EVs temporarily discharged their batteries when
wind power was low and increased charging when there was
a surge in wind production (Fig. 6). As a result, the total power
193
Fig. 7. Power imbalance in the system without and with EV control scheme.
Fig. 8. Charging or discharging power of Vehicle no.1 during the day.
imbalance in the system was suppressed significantly to zero
most of the time as in Fig. 7.
It is noted that there were short periods at the beginning, the
middle, and the end of the simulation when there were slight
power mismatches in the grid (Fig. 7). This is due to the fact that
part of the EV pool was still on the road and not yet plugged-in
during these times. Consequently, there was not enough storage
capacity from EVs to minimize the power imbalance.
As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, all charging
requests from all participating vehicles were fulfilled success-
fully. In other words, all EV batteries were charged up to their
desired energy level before their departure time. For illustra-
tion, in the case of vehicle 1, its charging request information
is shown in Tables II and IV. Although the control center
ordered vehicle 1 to charge or discharge with different power
rate (within the maximum power constraint) to support the grid
(Fig. 8), its battery was charged up to the desired energy level
Ed at the end of each charging period Td (Fig. 9).
In view of Table V and Fig. 10, the rms of the power imbal-
M
ΔP (t )2
ance in this scenario is ΔPrms = k=1
M
k
= 144.86 kW,
which is a significant improvement compared to the previous
scenario (without EV control) with ΔPrms = 641.86 kW. The
simulation was implemented again without introducing errors
to the forecast data to obtain the best possible rms outcome. It
194
Fig. 9. Battery energy level of Vehicle no. 1 during the simulation5 .
TABLE V
RMS OF THE P OWER I MBALANCE IN S CENARIOS 1 AND 2 AND THE
P ERFECT C ASE
TABLE VI
RMS OF THE P OWER I MBALANCE IN S CENARIOS 2 AND 3
Fig. 10. RMS of the power imbalance in Scenarios 1 and 2 and the perfect case.
can be seen that there is approximately no difference between
the two rms results from Table V and Fig. 10, which demon-
strates the ability of the control scheme in adapting with the
uncertainties in the system.
Another point worth mentioning is that during the day time,
EVs had access to fast-charging facilities, which allowed them
to provide much more support to the grid than during the night
time (Figs. 6 and 8).
5 The gray area means that battery level of Vehicle no. 1 is undefined as it is
not plugged-in.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION, VOL. 1, NO. 2, AUGUST 2015
Fig. 11. Power imbalance in the system with and without customer participa-
tion program.
D. Scenario 3—EV Control Framework Without Customer
Participation Program
In the previous scenario, customers needed to provide their
charging plans for a day ahead under the proposed customer
participation program. In this scenario, it was set up that such
information was not available to the control center in advance
or in other words, there was no customer participating pro-
gram. Information about the charging requests was only known
when EVs had been physically connected to charging points
and sent out their requirements. The simulation result under this
condition is presented in Fig. 11 and Table VI.
As can be seen in Fig. 11, the power mismatch was slightly
higher during the period from minute 650 to 750 (simulation
time) in the case without customer participation program. As
far as the rms values are concerned, there is an increase of
6.49% in this scenario compared to the previous case with cus-
tomer participation program as shown in Table VI. This result
has showcased the importance of the customers’ contribution in
improving the performance of the control scheme.
IV. C ONCLUSION
In conclusion, our proposed centralized control strategy has
efficiently exploited the EV batteries in supporting a power grid
with high penetration level of RE while still maintains cus-
tomer satisfaction. The optimization algorithm is formulated as
a deterministic problem and solved repeatedly along the control
period to update the optimal G2V and V2G schedules for all
vehicles. This optimization problem can be computed quickly
and efficiently by a normal optimization software in a standard
work station; hence, it is promising for practical applications. In
addition, the customer participating program plays an important
role in improving the performance of the control algorithm.
As far as future work is concerned, although power loss
is not yet considered in this stage, it will be considered with
the view to further enhance the system’s efficiency. Moreover,
future work will explore the possibilities of using a hierarchial
framework to coordinate the centralized control center with a
decentralized controller in each individual vehicle.
NGUYEN et al.: OPTIMAL COORDINATION OF G2V AND V2G TO SUPPORT POWER GRIDS
R EFERENCES
[1] The European Wind Energy Association. (2005). Large Scale Integration
of Wind Energy in the European Power Supply: Analysis, Issues,
and Recommendations [Online]. Available: http://www.ewea.org/
fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publi-cations/grid/051215_Grid_
report.pdf, accessed on Nov. 1, 2014.
[2] N. Wade, P. Taylor, P. Lang, and P. Jones, “Evaluating the benefits of an
electrical energy storage system in a future smart grid,” Energy Policy,
vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 7180–7188, 2010.
[3] R. Curtin, Y. Shrago, and J. Mikkelsen, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Reuters/University of Michigan, Surveys of Consumers, 2009 [Online].
Available: http://ns.umich.edu/Releases/2009/Oct09/PHEV_Curtin.pdf,
accessed on Mar. 15, 2015.
[4] C. Mi, M. A. Masrur, and D. W. Gao, “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,”
Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Principles and Applications With Practical
Perspectives, Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2011, pp. 107–138.
[5] B. K. Sovacool and R. F. Hirsh, “Beyond batteries: An examination of
the benefits and barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) transition,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 1095–
1103, 2009.
[6] U.S. Dept. of Energy. (2011). One Million Electric Vehicles by 2015,
U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC, USA. [Online]. Available:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/1_million_electric_
vehicles_rpt.pdf, accessed on Nov. 1, 2014.
[7] A. Saber and G. Venayagamoorthy, “Resource scheduling under uncer-
tainty in a smart grid with renewables and plug-in vehicles,” IEEE Syst.
J., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 103–109, Mar. 2012.
[8] A. Saber and G. Venayagamoorthy, “Plug-in vehicles and renewable
energy sources for cost and emission reductions,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1229–1238, Apr. 2011.
[9] A. Saber and G. Venayagamoorthy, “Efficient utilization of renewable
energy sources by gridable vehicles in cyber-physical energy systems,”
IEEE Syst. J., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 285–294, Sep. 2010.
[10] M. Khodayar, L. Wu, and M. Shahidehpour, “Hourly coordination of
electric vehicle operation and volatile wind power generation in SCUC,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1271–1279, Sep. 2012.
[11] W. Su, J. Wang, and J. Roh, “Stochastic energy scheduling in microgrids
with intermittent renewable energy resources,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1876–1883, Jun. 2014.
[12] Department of Planning, Transportation and Local Infrastructure.
(2013). Creating a Market: Victorian Electric Vehicle Trial Mid-term
Report [Online]. Available: http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/projects/ev-
trial, accessed on Mar. 15, 2015.
[13] S. Soman, H. Zareipour, O. Malik, and P. Mandal, “A review of wind
power and wind speed forecasting methods with different time horizons,”
in Proc. North Amer. Power Symp. (NAPS), Sep. 2010, pp. 1–8.
[14] L. Xie et al., “Wind integration in power systems: Operational challenges
and possible solutions,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 214–232, Jan.
2011.
[15] H. Nguyen, C. Zhang, and M. A. Mahmud, “Smart charging and discharg-
ing of electric vehicles to support grid with high penetration of renewable
energy,” in World Congr., vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, pp. 8604–8609.
[16] C. Jin, J. Tang, and P. Ghosh, “Optimizing electric vehicle charging:
A customer’s perspective,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7,
pp. 2919–2927, Sep. 2013.
[17] C. Zhou, K. Qian, M. Allan, and W. Zhou, “Modeling of the cost of EV
battery wear due to V2G application in power systems,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Convers., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1041–1050, Dec. 2011.
[18] K. W. E. Cheng, B. Divakar, H. Wu, K. Ding, and H. F. Ho, “Battery-
management system (BMS) and SOC development for electrical vehi-
cles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 76–88, Jan. 2011.
[19] M. C. Kisacikoglu, M. Kesler, and L. M. Tolbert, “Single-phase on-board
bidirectional PEV charger for V2G reactive power operation,” IEEE
Trans. Samrt Grid, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 767–775, Mar. 2015.
[20] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
View publication stats
195
[21] S.-J. Huang and K.-R. Shih, “Short-term load forecasting via ARMA
model identification including non-Gaussian process considerations,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 673–679, May 2003.
[22] A. Miskelly. (2013). Wind Farm Performance [Online]. Available: http://
windfarmperformance.info
[23] Australian Energy Market Operator. (2013). Price and Demand
Graph [Online]. Available: http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Data/
Price-and-Demand, accessed on Nov. 1, 2014.
[24] Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). (2013). SAE Electric Vehicle
and Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler
[Online]. Available: http://standards.sae.org/j1772_201001, accessed on
Nov. 1, 2014.
Hoang N. T. Nguyen received the B.Eng. degree
in electrical and electronics engineering from Hanoi
University of Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2007,
and the Master’s degree in sustainable energy
and electrical engineering from RMIT University,
Melbourne, Vic., Australia, in 2012. He is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree at Swinburne University of
Technology, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
He was involved in many Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy projects in 2007–2009. His
research interests include power system operation,
renewable energy, and electric vehicle integration in smart grid.
Cishen Zhang received the B.Eng. degree in com-
puter engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, in 1982, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical
engineering from Newcastle University, Callaghan,
N.S.W., Australia, in 1990.
He was with the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Vic., Australia, as a Lecturer, Senior
Lecturer, Associate Professor, and Reader from 1989
to 2002, and with the School of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering and School of Chemical and
Biomedical Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, from
2002 to 2010. Since November 2010, he has been the Professor with the
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Swinburne University of
Technology, Melbourne, Vic., Australia. His research interests include control,
signal processing, and medical imaging.
Md. Apel Mahmud received the B.E. degree
in electrical engineering from Rajshahi University
of Engineering Technology (RUET), Rajshahi,
Bangladesh, in 2008, and the Ph.D. degree in elec-
trical engineering from the University of New South
Wales, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia, in 2012.
Currently he is working as a Lecturer with the
Department of Electrical and Renewable Energy
Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic.,
Australia. He also worked as a Lecturer with the
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering,
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Vic., Australia; a Research
Fellow with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia; and
a Research Publication Fellow with the University of New South Wales.
His research interests include different aspects of microgrids, power system
stability and control, and nonlinear control theories.