www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 5th September 2010
Revised on 27th February 2011
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

ISSN 1751-8687

Smart load management of plug-in electric vehicles in

distribution and residential networks with charging
stations for peak shaving and loss minimisation
considering voltage regulation
A.S. Masoum1 S. Deilami2 P.S. Moses2 M.A.S. Masoum2 A. Abu-Siada2
1
Operational Asset Management, Western Power, Kewdale, WA 6105, Australia
2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
E-mail: paul.s.moses@gmail.com

Abstract: New smart load management (SLM) approach for the coordination of multiple plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) chargers
in distribution feeders is proposed. PEVs are growing in popularity as a low emission and efficient mode of transport against
petroleum-based vehicles. PEV chargers represent sizeable and unpredictable loads, which can detrimentally impact the
performance of distribution grids. Utilities are concerned about the potential overloads, stresses, voltage deviations and power
losses that may occur in distribution systems from domestic PEV charging activity as well as from newly emerging charging
stations. Therefore this study proposes a new SLM control strategy for coordinating PEV charging based on peak demand
shaving, improving voltage profile and minimising power losses. Furthermore, the developed SLM approach takes into
consideration the PEV owner preferred charging time zones based on a priority selection scheme. The impact of PEV
charging stations and typical daily residential loading patterns are also considered. Simulation results are presented to
demonstrate the significant performance improvement offered by SLM for a 1200 node test system topology consisting of
several low-voltage residential networks populated with PEVs.

1 Introduction home from work within a narrow time period and

Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are growing in popularity in
developing nations in an effort to overcome the problems of
pollution, depleting natural oil and fossil fuel reserves and
rising petrol costs. Furthermore, automotive industries are
facing increasing community pressure and governmental
regulations to reduce emissions and adopt cleaner, more
sustainable technologies such as PEVs. Therefore several
car manufacturers have already begun to expand into the
PEV market [1 – 4].
In order to prepare for the large proliferation of PEVs into
modern power systems, distribution grids must evolve with
new infrastructure to support an electric vehicle network.
This is one of the initiatives brought about by newly
developing smart grids. Through a sophisticated two-way
communications infrastructure with smart meters and
sensors, smart grids will enable real-time monitoring and
control of transmission, distribution and end-user consumer
assets (e.g. smart appliances) for effective coordination and
usage of available energy resources.
The operation of PEVs in a distribution system will be a
challenging demand side management (DSM [5]) problem
from the utilities perspectives since PEV battery chargers
represent sizeable and difficult to predict loads. A quite
plausible scenario is that numerous PEV owners will arrive
immediately plug-in their vehicles to charge during a time
of already high-peak demand. PEV charging is also
expected to take place in public or corporate car parks, and
electric vehicle charging stations, which employ high-power
rapid charging facilities [6, 7]. These high consumption
uncoordinated and random charging activities could
significantly stress the distribution system causing severe
voltage fluctuations, suboptimal generation dispatch,
degraded system efficiency and economy as well as
increasing the likelihood of blackouts because of network
overloads. Therefore there is a recognised need for
monitoring and control of the network under such
circumstances with modern Distribution Management
Systems (DMS) at the primary substation levels [8 – 11].
Fortunately, the development of smart grids will provide
an excellent opportunity to enhance DMS operations with
intelligent or smart coordinated charging of PEVs. The
smart grid communication network will enable the DMS to
directly interact with many of these consumer loads (e.g.
PEV chargers and smart appliances). In support of the
DMS, a novel smart load management (SLM) approach
is proposed for the control and coordination of multiple
PEV charging activity while reducing system stresses that
can detrimentally impact grid reliability, security and
performance [12].

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 877
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
SLM is proposed to coordinate PEV charger scheduling to
perform peak demand shaving, improve voltage profile and
minimise power losses. The SLM also takes into
consideration the PEV owner’s preferred charging time zones
based on a priority selection scheme. To demonstrate the
improvement in distribution system performance with SLM,
a detailed test system topology (with 1200 nodes) is
simulated, which consists of a high-voltage 23 kV feeder (the
IEEE 31 bus test system) with several integrated low-voltage
53 node 415 V residential networks populated with PEVs.
Simulation results including total power consumption, system
losses and voltage profiles over a 24 h period are presented
for (un)coordinated charging with PEV penetrations of 17,
31, 46 and 62% considering three tiered charging time
zones: red, 1800–2200 h; blue, 1800–0100 h and green,
1800–0800 h.
2 Problem formulation: coordination of PEV
charging
The coordination problem of PEVs is to define the scheduling
of individual PEV chargers in a distribution system such that
total system power losses are minimised, peak demand
shaving is achieved and voltages at all nodes are regulated
within allowable tolerances. Existing residential load
variations over a 24 h period, grid topology, the effects of
charging stations and PEV owner selected charging priorities
will also be considered in the PEV coordination approach.
This section describes how the charging coordination
problem can be formulated into two objective functions
taking into account the necessary constraints to improve the
distribution system performance.
2.1 Distribution system constraints
The voltage constraints of the distribution system will be
considered by setting the upper and lower limits to
correspond with voltage regulation limits typically set by
utilities. In this paper, the voltage limits are set to +10%
(V min ¼ 0.9 pu and V max ¼ 1.1 pu), which is typical of
many distribution systems
V min ≤ Vk ≤ V max , for k = 1, . . . , n (1)
where k is the node number and n is the total number of nodes.
The second constraint is for limiting the total maximum system
demand of the distribution system to prevent the occurrence of
an overload condition from PEV  charging. Therefore the total
power consumption at each hour ( Demandh) is limited to the
peak demand level (Dmax) that would normally occur without
any PEVs connected in the residential networks
 
n constraints defined in Section 2.
Demandh = h
Pk,load ≤ Dmax , for h = 1, . . . , 24
k=1
(2)
2.2 Objective function for peak shaving and loss
minimisation
The selected objective functions for the PEV-charging
coordination problem is based on the minimisation of system
demand and total system power losses over the charging
hours. The justification for using losses as part of the
objective function is that a distribution systems economy will
largely depend on the cost of energy that would be expended
878
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
on cable and transformer losses. Peak shaving is achieved by
minimising system demand using the following objective
function

hend 
hend 
n
min Demandh = min h
Pk,load (3a)
h=hstart h=hstart k=1
where hstart and hend correspond to the starting and ending
charging hours within the selected charging time zone,
h
respectively. Pk,load is the load demand of node k at hour h.
The loss minimisation objective is defined as the
minimisation of incremental system losses within the 24 h

24
min Wloss = h
Ploss (3b)
h=1
The power losses of the distribution system are computed
from the Newton-based power flow outputs. The power loss
in each line section between nodes k and k + 1 is
Ploss(k,k+1) = Rk,k+1 (|Vk,k+1 − Vk ||yk,k+1 |)2 (4)
and the total power loss is

n−1
Ploss = Ploss(k,k+1) (5)
k=0
2.3 Objective power flow method and load model
A modified Newton-based load flow routine is implemented
to assess the state of the distribution system subject to PEV
charging considering voltage profile and power losses,
which is necessary for the computation of the objective
function and checking of constraints. All loads are modeled
as constant power loads with their real and reactive powers
updated through a load curve for each hourly time interval
the load flow is computed.
3 SLM for the PEV coordination problem
A new SLM approach for the coordination of PEV charging is
proposed. SLM is designed to operate as part of the DMS for
a distribution feeder to perform intelligent scheduling of PEV
battery chargers considering distribution system performance.
This approach also considers human inputs by allowing the
priority of PEV charging to be selected by the PEV owner.
This section describes the development of the overall SLM
methodology based on the objective function and system
As an alternative to PEV chargers randomly and
immediately operating when first plugged in, or after some
fixed time delay, the proposed SLM will decide which
PEVs will commence charging and at what time. PEV
charger control can be achieved through the forthcoming
smart grid communications infrastructure by sending and
receiving signals to individual PEV chargers. This means
that PEV charging control would be taken out of the hands
of the owner and scheduled automatically. The proposed
SLM will perform peak shaving (3a), loss minimisation
(3b) and voltage regulation based on the system constraints
([see (1) and (2)]. Furthermore, SLM also takes into
consideration existing load variations over a 24 h cycle,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

Fig. 1 Subscription options of charging time zones for PEV
owners
while factoring PEV owner preferences for charging time
zone and priority.
3.1 Charging time zone and priority scheme
The developed SLM allows PEV owners to indicate their
preferred charging time zone. The SLM will try to
accommodate these preferences in the charger scheduling,
while considering the peak shaving and loss minimisation
objective functions as well as system constraints (1 – 5).
Three charging zones (Fig. 1) have been defined for this
study:
1. Red charging zone (1800– 2200 h) is for (high priority)
PEV owners wanting to charge their PEVs as soon as
possible upon return from work to have their vehicles ready
for use later in the evening. Red charging zone coincides
with most of the on-peak period. Therefore PEV owners
desiring to charge during this period of high demand will
be charged a higher tariff rate.
2. Blue charging zone (1800 – 0100 h) is for (medium
priority) consumers that prefer to charge their vehicles at
partially off-peak periods and pay a lower tariff rate.
3. Green charging zone (1800– 0800 h) is the period that
most PEV charging is expected to take place because most
(low priority) consumers will require their vehicles fully
charged for use throughout the next day. Charging off-peak
will be highly encouraged by setting the cheapest tariff rates.
www.ietdl.org
The search process is started by running the load flow loop
systematically for individual PEV chargers temporarily
activated one at a time to find the PEV within that priority
group that will result in minimum system losses. For each
temporarily activated PEV charger in the search phase, the
sum of the losses throughout the entire charge duration is
considered and compared for all temporary PEV node
placements. If at any time the load flow indicates a
constraint violation (e.g. voltage out of limits) at any node
[see (1) and (2)], the algorithm will attempt to reschedule
the PEV and perform another scanning of the system load
curve until the constraints are satisfied. Therefore it may not
be possible for all PEV owners to be accommodated in
their preferred charging zones and must be deferred to the
next possible hour.
Once it has been determined which PEV node in that
priority can begin charging at the selected time with
minimum system losses, the selected PEVs scheduling is
permanently assigned and the system load curve updated
ready for the next iteration. This process is repeated for all
nodes in that priority group before advancing to the next
time zone (e.g. blue zone). At the end of this process, the
SLM algorithm arrives at individual schedules assigned to
all PEV chargers. The programme then exits the main loop
and computes the 24 h load flow to print new system
performances (e.g. all node voltage profiles and power
losses).

Note that all charging zone periods begin at 1800 h and are
allowed to overlap for some duration. This makes it possible
for SLM to accommodate fortunate medium and low priority
subscribers the opportunity to charge their vehicles earlier
if possible. That is, after scheduling higher priority
subscribers, lower priority customers can be served if there
is enough capacity without violating system constraints.

3.2 Proposed SLM algorithm

A MATLAB-based algorithm has been developed to perform

PEV scheduling based on SLM (Fig. 2). After reading the
input parameters (e.g. node and branch impedance data,
specified nodes with PEVs, designated priority time zones,
load profiles for PEV chargers and residential loads as well
as system constraints) and initialisation (e.g. selecting the
highest priority group, time zone and PEV), the main
programmme loop begins with the highest priority group of
PEVs (e.g. red zone) and determines a suitable PEV
charger start time within that time zone. This is done by
scanning a predetermined system load curve (which is
updated at each iteration) to find the ideal time within the
priority group time zone corresponding to the least demand
[see (3a)]. Once an ideal start time has been selected, there
is still the question of which PEV node should begin
charging. This is an important consideration because the
node at which a PEV is charging will impact the load flow,
power losses and system voltage profile. Therefore the SLM Fig. 2 Proposed SLM algorithm for coordinated PEV scheduling
will search for the PEV node that will result in the least considering peak load shaving, loss minimisation, voltage
system losses [see (3b)]. regulation and peak demand limits

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 879
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
4 Distribution system with PEVs and
charging stations
A detailed smart grid system test topology is developed and
studied to compare the impacts and benefits of the proposed
PEV charging approach (SLM) against random uncoordinated
charging. This section describes the system configuration and
load assumptions necessary for the analysis.
4.1 System topology
The selected system is a hybrid of the IEEE 31 bus 23 kV
distribution test system [13] and several densely populated
residential LV 53 node 415 V feeders based on real system
data of a neighbourhood (in Western Australia). The HV
feeder has six branches extending into different districts with
PEV charging stations also placed at selected HV nodes. LV
sections each consist of 53 nodes representing customer
households with selected nodes assigned PEVs, priority and
charging zone (Fig. 3). A total of 22 LV 53 node residential
feeders are implemented and are supplied from the HV main
buses via 23 kV/415 V 300 kVA distribution transformers.
The total number of nodes of this system is 1200. The
system impedances are listed in the Appendix.
4.2 PEV energy requirements
For realistic modeling of PEV charging loads, the battery
capacities must be considered in order to determine
Fig. 3 Designated PEV penetration levels and assigned priorities for charging time zones (red ¼ high priority, blue ¼ medium priority,
green ¼ low priority)
Boxes with no colour indicates nodes with no PEVs present
880
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
reasonable charging profiles necessary for the study. PEV
battery capacities typically range from a few kWhs to over
50 kWh [1 – 4, 14]. For this study, most of the simulations
assume a 10 kWh battery capacity per PEV. Selected
simulation cases are also performed with battery sizes
ranging from 5 kWh to 15 kWh. It is expected that the
lower end of battery sizes are more affordable and more
likely to initially dominate the market.
In order to maximise PEV battery life and performance to
achieve maximum number of charging cycles, deep cycle
batteries have a rated depth of discharge (DOD) which
should not be exceeded. In lithium-ion batteries currently
used in some PEVs, optimum DOD typically ranges from
50 to 80%, which is a tradeoff between battery life and
driving range. Therefore this study assumes a typical DOD
of 70% of the rated battery size resulting in an available
capacity of 7 kWh that the charger must deliver in order to
charge a 10 kWh PEV battery. Battery chargers have some
losses and therefore the energy requirement from the grid is
actually greater than the stated battery capacity. A typical
battery charger efficiency of 88% is assumed [15] thereby
requiring a total of 8 kWh of energy from the grid in order
to charge a single PEV with a 10 kWh battery.
4.3 Residential PEV battery chargers
In practice, PEV battery chargers will have large power ratings in
comparison to normal residential loads in order to charge the
large PEV battery banks within reasonable time periods.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

Fig. 4 Daily load curves for residential loads and charging stations
However, limitations of household wiring must also be
considered. A standard single-phase 240 V outlet (Australia)
can typically supply a maximum of 2.4 kW. There are also 15
and 20 A outlets (single-phase and three-phase) that can supply
approximately 4 and 14.4 kW, respectively. For this analysis, a
maximum charging power level of 4 kW at unity power factor
is selected because this is commonly available in most single-
phase residential households without having to reinforce wiring.
4.4 PEV charging stations
In order for PEVs to be a viable option and achieve long
distance traveling similar to conventional fuel-based cars,
rapid charge electric vehicle service stations, or charging
Fig. 5 1200 node smart grid distribution system topology consisting of the IEEE 31 bus 23 kV system with several 415 V residential feeders
Each low-voltage residential network has 53 nodes representing customer households with varying penetrations of PEVs (Fig. 3)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
stations, will need to be deployed in various locations
around the network. PEV requirements from charging
stations are such that it would be necessary to draw
sufficient amount of power to charge PEV batteries in a
similar time duration to that of filling the tank of a
conventional fuel based vehicle. That is, PEVs pulling into
a charging station would need a large amount of energy
delivered in a short period of time for rapid recharging of
batteries which serve as their ‘fuel tank’ [7]. Therefore
large power rectification conversion equipment capable of
transforming high-power ac to high-power dc will be
necessary to deliver this amount of power.
In this analysis, the impact of rapid PEV charging stations
is considered at four specific sites near residential areas
populated with PEVs. The charging stations are connected
to HV main buses 2, 4, 7 and 9. These charging stations
follow a load curve as shown in Fig. 4. There are two
charging station load peaks; morning and evening which
correspond to PEV owners charging their vehicles before
they go to work in the morning, and, after returning from
work in the evening. The maximum peak demand of PEV
charging stations corresponds to the maximum number of
PEVs that can pull into a charging station during its busiest
time, which is assumed to be on average six PEVs. The
PEV charging station power requirement for the rapid
charging of one PEV is assumed to be approximately
14.4 kW at unity power factor. Therefore the peak demand
of one charging station is approximately 86.4 kW.
4.5 Residential load profiles
Based on actual recordings from a distribution transformer
(in Western Australia), a typical residential load curve is
881
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
constructed to model the domestic load variations (without
PEV charging) at each house over a 24 h period (Fig. 4).
The peak power consumption of a house is assumed to be
on average 1.5 kW with a power factor of 0.95 and occurs
in the evening at around 1800 h.

4.6 PEV penetration levels

In order to cover the widest range of plausible PEV charging

scenarios in the near and long term future, PEV penetration
levels of 17, 31, 46 and 62% are simulated for each
charging approach. The penetration levels are defined to be
the proportion of nodes with PEVs to the total number of
LV residential nodes (excluding transformer LV nodes). A
maximum of one PEV per household is assumed.

4.7 Designated PEV priorities

Within the different PEV penetrations assumed, PEVs are

grouped into three different priority time zones (e.g. red,
blue and green zones). A realistic breakdown of priorities is
assumed by having the majority of the PEV owners
subscribing to green and blue zone priorities. This is
because the lower pricing of blue and green zones will be
more attractive to PEV owners compared with higher tariffs
in red zone charging. The priority groups are randomly
allocated to PEV nodes in each LV residential network as
shown in Fig. 3.

5 Results and discussion

Simulation results based on the SLM approach described in
Section 3 (Fig. 2) and the 1200 node distribution system
topology of Section 4 (Fig. 5) are presented and discussed
in this section. Different charging scenarios for residential
networks populated with PEVs as well as the effects of four
charging stations located along the distribution feeder are
compared in Figs. 6 – 13 and Tables 1 and 2. Furthermore,
the impacts of random uncoordinated PEV charging against
coordinated charging based on the proposed SLM are also
studied.

5.1 Impact of random uncoordinated PEV charging

Figs. 6 – 8 show the results of three different random

uncoordinated PEV charging scenarios and the resulting
performance on the distribution system. PEVs are scheduled
randomly following a normal distribution over three different
charging time zones. As illustrated in Fig. 6, an optimistic
but unlikely scenario of PEV charging is shown where the
scheduling is spread over the widest time duration (1800–
0800 h). Despite keeping the system peak from increasing
drastically, voltage deviations beyond the regulation limits
occur at peak time with significant increases in system losses Fig. 6 Random uncoordinated PEV charging within the green
(Figs. 6b and c). This PEV charging scenario is unlikely to charging zone (1800–0800 h)
happen because most PEV owners will start plugging in their
a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration
vehicles soon after returning home from work until later in b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV
the night, with very few PEV charging occurring in the penetrations. Note that the high penetrations (e.g. .31%) cause moderate
morning hours. voltages deviations
The situation becomes worse when a more realistic c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations
scenario is considered by performing uncoordinated PEV
charging over narrower time zones with PEVs charging
immediately on arrival from work, or, after some fixed over 1800 – 0100 h and 1800 – 2200 h, respectively. The
delay into the evening or later at night. The impact on system peak rises sharply and broadens because of much
distribution system performance is shown in Figs. 7 and 8 of the PEV charging load coinciding with normal
that depict random uncoordinated charging distributed residential load peaks. This can have a detrimental

882 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

Fig. 7 Random uncoordinated PEV charging within the blue
charging zone (1800–0100 h)
a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration
b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV
penetrations. Note that the high penetrations (e.g. .31%) cause moderate
voltages deviations
c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations
impact on generation dispatching with limited spinning
reserve to service this new load peak because of PEVs.
Severe voltage deviations up to 20% are observed with
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 8 Random uncoordinated PEV charging within the red
charging zone (1800–2200 h)
a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration
b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV
penetrations. Note that the high penetrations (e.g. .31%) cause moderate
voltages deviations
c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations
excessive power losses as well as significant increase
in transformer loading (Table 1, Figs. 7b and c and 8b
and c).
883
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org

Fig. 10 Impact on system power demand with 62% penetration of

PEVs using SLM-coordinated PEV charging for a PEV battery size
of 10 kWh (Table 2)

5.2 Impact of SLM-coordinated PEV charging

The proposed SLM algorithm is applied in an attempt to

overcome the significant performance degradations observed
with uncoordinated random PEV charging. The results for
SLM coordinated PEV charging are demonstrated in
Figs. 9–13, and Tables 1 and 2. Coordinated PEV charging
without (Table 1) and with (Table 2) PEV owner preferred
time zone priorities is also considered. SLM results indicate
a significant improvement in distribution system performance.
Most notably, the system peak demand has been
significantly curtailed which is more favourable from a
standpoint of generation dispatch and preventing overloads
(e.g. Fig. 9a for 46% PEV penetration). This also has a
significant impact on the system efficiency by reducing I 2R
losses in cables and transformer impedances. The energy
losses to energy consumption ratio reduced to 2.6% (62%
PEV penetration) against the worst uncoordinated case with
3.37% losses. Furthermore, peak power losses are limited to
less than a third of the worst case random uncoordinated
charging as shown in Fig. 9c.

Fig. 9 Proposed SLM coordinated PEV charging considering

PEV owner priority charging zones for a PEV battery size of
10 kWh (Table 2)
Note that SLM schedules PEVs in the owner designated time zones, performs
peak load shaving and minimises system losses for different PEV penetrations
a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration
b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV
penetrations. Note that SLM maintains the voltages at all nodes within
regulation
c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations. Note the
Fig. 11 Impact on system power demand with 31% penetration of
significant reduction in losses compared with the uncoordinated random PEVs using SLM- coordinated PEV charging for a PEV battery size
charging of 10 kWh (Table 2)

884 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

Fig. 12 System power demand with 17% penetration of PEVs
using SLM- coordinated PEV charging for a PEV battery size of
10 kWh (Table 2)
Fig. 13 Special case with 38% penetration of PEVs where some
blue PEV owners can begin charging in the red zone because of
available capacity
SLM coordinated PEV charging is demonstrated to be
effectively regulating voltages at all nodes to comply with
set regulation limits. The worst case unacceptable voltage
deviations of 19.38% at the worst node (Table 1) for
uncoordinated PEV charging are compensated to less than
10%. However, there is a tradeoff in that some PEV owners
who subscribed to a preferred priority charging time zone
were not accommodated in their requested charging time
zone because the system reached a point where PEV
loading caused voltage constraints to be violated. This may
be the case if high priority PEV owners are charging in
distant locations which are more sensitive to voltage drops
and line losses. SLM handled these cases by attempting to
reschedule the PEV owners causing the violations to the next
available hour where the system was under less strain, thereby
satisfying constraints. This is evident for higher penetration
cases as shown in Figs. 9a and 10. On the other hand, if there
is available system capacity with minimal or no constraint
violations, SLM will allow simultaneous charging of lower
priority PEVs in a higher priority zone. A special case of this
is shown in Fig. 13 where some blue zone subscribers are
allowed to charge their vehicles in the red zone at 2100 h.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
The SLM coordinated PEV charging also has positive
impacts on peak transformer load currents. This is an
important consideration as distribution transformers will be
the weakest link in residential networks and newly developing
smart grids populated with PEVs. For many of the
uncoordinated random charging scenarios (Table 1),
distribution transformers are experiencing significant increases
(e.g. over 200%) in peak loading which can affect reliability
and expected service life. With SLM coordination,
transformer currents are significantly reduced by at least 40%
when compared with the worst case uncoordinated charging.
5.3 Impact of PEV battery sizes on SLM
coordinated PEV charging
In the previous simulations, a fixed PEV battery size of
10 kWh was assumed. In this section, the proposed SLM
coordination has also been performed for cases with
different PEV battery size assumptions ranging from 5 to
15 kWh capacities using the same charging efficiencies and
depth of discharge. Therefore SLM must contend with the
various PEV battery sizes dictating different charger power
levels (e.g. 2.5– 4 kW) and charging durations (e.g., 2 – 3 h).
As shown in Table 2, similar performance improvements
can be achieved even with 50% additional PEV charging
loads (e.g. charging 15 kWh batteries) in residential
networks. The tradeoff in this case is that more PEVs in
their preferred priority charging zones may need to delay
their charging because the system is under more strain
leading to demand limitations and voltage constraints.
5.4 Further issues
The presented case studies simulate a wide range of scenarios;
however, there are still large uncertainties as to how PEV
charging will unfold in future smart grid distribution systems.
Specifically, future PEV loading patterns may not conform to
standard statistical distribution load models (e.g. Poisson or
Gaussian). For instance, the random nature of arrivals and
departures of PEVs in residential networks and their charging
activities will vary considerably along different buses in a
distribution system. Some PEV owners may require fast
charging during the peak rush hours in spite of higher-energy
prices, whereas others might prefer to wait and charge their
vehicles at early morning and off-peak hours. To that end,
there is currently significant research being performed on
developing accurate load distribution models using a variety
of techniques such as the Gaussian mixture model (GMM)
proposed in [9–11]. The proposed SLM algorithms are not
restricted to any particular load distribution and will be
capable of coordinating PEV charging for a wide range of
loading scenarios with little or no modifications necessary.
Furthermore, SLM algorithms can be applied to the
coordination of other deferrable loads and smart appliances
(e.g. smart appliances such as dishwashers, clothes dryers and
washing machines).
Another challenge in the implementation of SLM in the
DMS is obtaining the necessary inputs (e.g. system losses,
power flows and voltage profiles) to perform the PEV
coordination. In the proposed SLM, this information is
obtained from load flow computations and simulated load
profiles. Unlike transmission systems, the amount of real-
time network measurements in distribution networks,
especially down to the low- voltage customer level, is
currently very limited. Smart grids propose to improve this
situation by deploying smart meters and sensors in
885
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Table 1 Impact of uncoordinated and coordinated PEV charging on the power quality of the 1200 node distribution system (Fig. 5)

PEV penetration, % Uncoordinated charging (random charging) Coordinated charging based on peak shaving
without priority [see (1) –(3)]

D lossa, % D V b, % I MAX
c
, pu D lossa, % D V b, % I MAX c, pu

Case 1: No priority, charging period: 6 pm–8 am (Fig. 6)

17 2.2878 11.2646 0.32271 2.2214 7.9479 0.29488
31 2.4447 14.6738 0.35889 2.3286 9.6372 0.29488
46 2.538 14.213 0.36463 2.4113 9.8457 0.29488
62 2.6705 14.8894 0.41401 2.4952 9.9988 0.29488
Case 2: No priority, charging period: 6 pm–1 am (Fig. 7)
17 2.3711 11.6479 0.36167 2.3248 9.9956 0.30479
31 2.6135 13.9612 0.41267 2.53 9.9938 0.33868
46 2.8015 15.4523 0.46203 2.6275 9.9855 0.37814
62 3.0179 15.7275 0.52543 2.7203 9.9892 0.39967
Case 3: No priority, charging period: 6 pm–10 pm (Fig. 8)
17 2.4267 12.439 0.39635 2.3661 9.7661 0.37082
31 2.7469 15.6393 0.4869 2.5392 9.9915 0.38401
46 3.0359 17.6879 0.56379 2.6321 9.9917 0.40024
62 3.3714 19.384 0.66702 2.7249 9.9895 0.40851

a
Ratio of system losses over 24 h compared with total power consumption over 24 h
b
Voltage deviation at the worst node
c
Maximum of all distribution transformer load currents

Table 2 Impact of coordinated PEV charging based on SLM on residential networks that can telemeter data to the utility via a
the power quality of the 1200 node distribution system (Fig. 5) bidirectional communications network. This will significantly
enhance the ability of the DMS to monitor and control
PEV penetration, % Coordinated charging based on distribution system assets and consumer loads. Integral to
peak shaving with priority ((1)–(3), the processing of metered real-time network data will be the
Figs. 9–13) use of state estimation (SE) techniques.
Transmission systems already employ some level of SE
D lossa, % D V b, % I cMAX, pu with SCADA systems to gather information. However, the
5 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) operational philosophies and network topologies of
17 2.2151 8.7799 0.29488 distribution feeders vary considerably compared to
31 2.2506 8.2493 0.29488 transmission system operations. This is even more of an
46 2.2689 7.9479 0.30216 issue with the rollout of smart grids which represent a
62 2.3174 8.0024 0.30933 fundamental change to distribution system design. For
7.5 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) example, smart grids DMS must also contend with
17 2.2564 9.9369 0.29946 dynamic operation from increased renewable energy
31 2.3351 9.8199 0.29823 penetration, distributed generation activity as well as PEV
46 2.3680 9.2452 0.33045 charging at residential premises and large-scale charging
62 2.4493 9.9954 0.32905 stations. Therefore new distribution system state estimation
10 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) (Figs. 9–13) (DSSE) methods, which will be the heart of the DMS, are
17 2.3005 9.9943 0.30725 currently being explored [8, 10] as well as smart meters
31 2.4216 9.7064 0.30883 and sensors to enhance the observability and monitoring
46 2.4725 9.8929 0.33404 of the distribution system. For the SLM coordination
62 2.5967 9.9926 0.40727 problem, this means that the DSSE would serve in
12.5 kWh PEV battery size (3 h chargingd) place of the load flow step in the algorithm of Fig. 2 in
17 2.3132 9.9848 0.30200 order to supply the necessary data and feedbacks to
31 2.4295 9.9673 0.30155 coordinate PEVs and maximise feeder performance.
46 2.4947 9.5322 0.33606 Specifically, DSSE will be required to provide up-to-
62 2.6388 9.8761 0.33859 date voltage magnitudes at all nodes (e.g. for checking
15 kWh PEV battery size (3 h chargingd) voltage regulation), estimate total load consumption (e.g.
17 2.3560 9.9943 0.30725 to check demand limitations), sense and process individual
31 2.5205 9.9655 0.30883 PEV charger power profiles, and project system losses
46 2.6046 9.9972 0.33404 necessary for the SLM loss minimisation objective
62 2.7904 9.9546 0.36402 function. The above-mentioned complicated issues related
to PEV load modelling and DSSE are beyond the scope of
a
Ratio of system losses over 24 h compared with total power this paper and should be tackled in future publications.
consumption over 24 h
b

c
Voltage deviation at the worst node 6 Conclusions
Maximum of all distribution transformer load currents
d
Charging duration is increased in order to charge the larger This paper studies the impacts of various random
batteries uncoordinated charging scenarios as well as coordinated

886 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574

PEV charging for a distribution system with charging stations
and residential PEV charging activity. A novel SLM algorithm
is developed in Matlab environment for coordinating the
scheduling of multiple PEVs while considering distribution
and residential grid performances (e.g. voltage profile,
system losses and peak demand shaving). Three charging
time zones (red, 1800– 2200 h; blue, 1800–0100 h and
green, 1800–0800 h), four PEV penetration levels (17, 31,
46 and 62%), five PEV battery sizes and three PEV owner’s
priorities (high, medium and low) are considered. SLM also
takes into consideration the existing load variations over a
24 h cycle while factoring PEV owner preferences for
charging time zone and priority. Based on this and the load
flow computed outputs (e.g. voltage profiles and losses),
SLM schedules when individual PEV chargers should begin
charging such that grid performance is maximised. The
improvements and benefits of SLM are compared and
demonstrated by performing extensive simulations for a
highly detailed 1200 node distribution system topology with
several low-voltage residential networks populated with
PEVs. The main conclusions are as follows:
† The proposed method offers a new and viable integrated
means of exercising (semi)automated customer DSM in
smart grids by enhancing DMS capability with SLM,
jointly achieving reduced peak demand, improved
distribution system efficiency and voltage regulation.
† SLM is shown to successfully maintain voltages within
tolerances and significantly reduce system losses even under
high penetration of PEV charging activity.
† A feasible pricing and time zone priority scheme is shown
to work effectively with SLM PEV charging coordination.
PEV owners can designate preferred charging zones, while
SLM performs performance improvement functions such as
loss minimisation and peak demand shaving.
† SLM will endeavour to respect PEV owner designated
charging time zones as long as system constraints (e.g.
voltage regulation and limiting system peak) are not violated.
† SLM is shown to be beneficial in reducing excessive
system loading by controlling peak shaving while also
reducing the risk of overloads in local circuits including
distribution transformers and cables.
† The impact of PEV was the focus of this study; however, the
proposed SLM approach is applicable to coordinating a wider
range of loads (e.g. PEV charging stations and smart appliances).
† In our future work, the proposed SLM could be extended with
the integration of new SE algorithms currently being developed
to process real-time network data in distribution systems.
7 References
1 Tesla Motors: ‘Tesla motors – high performance electric vehicles’.
2010. Available at: http://www.teslamotors.com/
2 Nissan: ‘Nissan LEAF electric car’. 2010. Available at: http://www.
nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
3 Chevrolet: ‘2011 volt electric car’. 2010. Available at: http://www.
chevrolet.com/electriccar/
4 Mitsubishi: ‘i MiEV Mitsubishi innovative electric vehicle’. 2010.
Available at: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/special/ev/
5 Gönen, T.: ‘Electric power distribution system engineering’ (Taylor &
Francis, Boca Raton, 2007)
6 Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., Driesen, J.: ‘The impact of charging
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 371– 380
7 Etezadi-Amoli, M., Choma, K., Stefani, J.: ‘Rapid-charge electric-
vehicle stations’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2010, 25, (3),
pp. 1883– 1887
8 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Distribution system state
estimation through Gaussian mixture model of the load as pseudo-
measurement’, IET Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, 4, (1),
pp. 50–59
9 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Statistical representation of distribution
system loads using Gaussian mixture model’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
2010, 25, (1), pp. 29–37
10 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Choice of estimator for distribution
system state estimation’, IET Proc., Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2009, 3,
(7), pp. 666– 678
11 Singh, R., Manitsas, E., Pal, B.C.E., Strbac, G.: ‘A recursive Bayesian
approach for identification of network configuration changes in
distribution system state estimation’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010,
25, (3), pp. 1329–1336
12 Moslehi, K., Kumar, R.: ‘A reliability perspective of the smart grid’,
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2010, 1, (1), pp. 57–64
13 Civanlar, S., Grainger, J.J.: ‘Volt/var control on distribution systems
with lateral branches using shunt capacitors and voltage regulators.
Part III: the numerical results’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1985,
PAS-104, (11), pp. 3291– 3297
14 Denholm, P., Short, W.: ‘An evaluation of utility system
impacts and benefits of optimally dispatched plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles’. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-
620– 40293, 2006
15 Duvall, M., Knipping, E., Alexander, M.: ‘Environmental assessment of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles’, in ‘Nationwide Greenhouse Gas
Emissions’ (Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA,
2007, vol. 1)
8 Appendix
The load and line parameters of the low-voltage 53 node
415 V residential systems (Fig. 5) are listed in Tables 3 and
4, respectively. The parameters of the IEEE 31 bus
distribution system are adapted from [13].
Table 3 Linear and non-linear (PEV) loads of the typical
low-voltage residential system (Fig. 5)
Linear and PEV loads Power
Node (Fig. 5) Name kW kVAR
R2 –R53 linear loads 1.5 0.49
selected residential PEV charger 4.0 0
nodes
2, 4, 7, 9 PEV charging stations 86.4 0
887
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Table 4 Line parameters of the typical low-voltage residential system (Fig. 5)

Line Line Line Line Line Line

resistance R, V reactance X, V resistance R, V reactance X, V
From node To node From node To node

1 2 0.0415 0.0145 23 24 0.7763 0.0774

2 4 0.0424 0.0189 21 22 0.5977 0.0596
4 6 0.0444 0.0198 16 17 0.1423 0.0496
6 8 0.0369 0.0165 17 18 0.0837 0.0292
8 9 0.0520 0.0232 18 19 0.3124 0.0312
9 12 0.0524 0.0234 16 20 0.0163 0.0062
12 13 0.0005 0.0002 1 35 0.0163 0.0062
12 15 0.2002 0.0200 35 40 0.0415 0.0145
12 14 1.7340 0.1729 40 42 0.0424 0.0189
9 11 0.2607 0.0260 42 44 0.0444 0.0198
9 10 1.3605 0.1357 44 46 0.0369 0.0165
6 7 0.1402 0.0140 46 47 0.0520 0.0232
4 5 0.7763 0.0774 47 50 0.0524 0.0234
2 3 0.5977 0.0596 50 51 0.0005 0.0002
1 16 0.0163 0.0062 50 53 0.2002 0.0200
16 21 0.0415 0.0145 50 52 1.7340 0.1729
21 23 0.0424 0.0189 47 49 0.2607 0.0260
23 25 0.0444 0.0198 47 48 1.3605 0.1357
25 27 0.0369 0.0165 44 45 0.1402 0.0140
27 28 0.0520 0.0232 42 43 0.7763 0.0774
28 31 0.0524 0.0234 40 41 0.5977 0.0596
31 32 0.0005 0.0002 35 36 0.1423 0.0496
31 34 0.2002 0.0200 36 37 0.0837 0.0292
31 33 1.7340 0.1729 37 38 0.3124 0.0312
28 30 0.2607 0.0260 35 39 0.0163 0.0062
28 29 1.3605 0.1357 Distribution transformer reactance 0.0654
25 26 0.1402 0.0140

888 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574