268 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 39, NO.

4, FALL 2016

Impact of EV Charger Load on Distribution

Network Capacity: A Case Study in Toronto
Impact de la charge du chargeur de VE sur
la capacité du réseau de distribution:
Une étude de cas à Toronto
Mohamed A. Awadallah, Birendra N. Singh, and Bala Venkatesh, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract— This paper presents a study of the impact of the electric vehicle (EV) charger load on the capacity
of distribution feeders and transformers of an urban utility. A residential neighborhood of the city of Toronto,
Canada, is selected to perform the study based on survey results that showed a high tendency for EV adoption.
The two most loaded distribution transformers of such a neighborhood are studied along with their cable
feeders via steady-state simulations in CYME software. A worst case scenario of full EV penetration is studied,
where all chargers are connected to the system simultaneously at the peak summer or winter load. The effect of
increasing the rate of EV adoption on the performance of distribution networks is examined with correlation to
the ambient temperature. Finally, the impact of increasing the charger size on system performance is explored.
The results send a few warning signals of potential equipment overload to utility companies under certain system
loading and EV charging levels as EV use grows, impacting utility future planning and operation. This will
assist utilities in taking appropriate measures with respect to operating the existing system and also planning
for the future.
Résumé— Cet article présente une étude de l’impact de la charge du chargeur de véhicule électrique (VE) sur
la capacité des lignes de distribution et des transformateurs d’une entreprise urbain fournisseur d’électricité. Un
quartier résidentiel de la ville de Toronto, Canada, est sélectionné pour effectuer l’étude basée sur les résultats
de l’enquête qui a montré une forte tendance à l’adoption de VE. Les deux transformateurs de distribution les
plus chargés d’un tel voisinage sont étudiés ainsi que leurs câbles d’alimentation via des simulations en régime
permanent utilisant le logiciel CYME. Un cas pire de pleine pénétration de VE est étudié, où tous les chargeurs
sont connectés au système simultanément pendant le pic de l’été ou la charge d’hiver. L’effet d’augmenter le
taux d’adoption de VE sur la performance des réseaux de distribution est examiné avec une corrélation à la
température ambiante. Enfin, l’impact de l’augmentation de la taille du chargeur sur la performance du système
est exploré. Les résultats envoient aux entreprises fournisseurs d’électricité quelques signaux d’avertissement
de potentiel surcharge de l’équipement à certain chargement du système et niveau de chargement de VE, étant
donné que l’utilisation de VE augmente, impactant la planification et l’exploitation future de la production
d’électricité. Cela aidera les entreprises fournisseurs d’électricité à prendre des mesures appropriées en matière
de fonctionnement du système existant ainsi que la planification pour l’avenir.
Index Terms— Distribution feeder, distribution network, distribution transformer, electric vehicle (EV), system
capacity.

I. I NTRODUCTION pressure and tight governmental regulations to advocate clean

T HE usage of electric vehicles (EVs) is rapidly growing
such that their increasing penetration into the automotive
arena is anticipated in the years to come. The inspiration for
EV technology evolution comes mainly from environmental
pollution, fossil fuel exhaustion, and rising petrol price aspects.
Auto manufacturers are also subject to increasing community
Manuscript received April 27, 2015; revised October 15, 2015; accepted
March 21, 2016. Date of current version December 6, 2016. This work was
supported by Tornoto Hydro-Electric System Ltd., and Hydro One Networks
Inc.
The authors are with the Centre for Urban Energy, Ryerson
University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada (e-mail: awadalla@ryerson.ca;
bnsingh@ryerson.ca; bala@ryerson.ca).
Associate Editor managing this paper’s review: Davood Yazdani.
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/CJECE.2016.2545925
technology into the market [1]. However, the development of
many peripheral and supporting technologies to EV is also
urgent. Since the main EV power source is a rechargeable
battery, charging source and scheme come on top of the issues
worthy of research efforts [2].
The infrastructure of power distribution networks may be
required to be upgraded in order to accommodate the large
proliferation of EVs. The first step, however, is a thorough
comprehension of the impact of EV charging load on the
distribution network operation. A paradigm shift of the load
profile on distribution networks is expected to take place upon
full EV penetration. Unbalanced three-phase load flow simu-
lation of microgrids is employed to study system performance
with EV charging loads [3]. The condition of power system
is used to compute the plausible EV charging capacity, while

0840-8688 © 2016 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.
AWADALLAH et al.: IMPACT OF EV CHARGER LOAD ON DISTRIBUTION NETWORK CAPACITY: A CASE STUDY IN TORONTO
TABLE I
S YSTEM P ERFORMANCE D URING P EAK W INTER AND S UMMER L OADS W ITH N O EV P ENETRATION
the traffic data assign the available charging terminals on an
intelligent transport system [4]. Masoum et al. [5] propose a
smart load management algorithm for EV charging coordina-
tion considering peak load shaving, system loss minimization,
and voltage profile improvement. A demand response strategy
is developed for EV charging, taking into account customer
preference and system capacity on different time zones [6].
In [7], a model considering vehicle type, battery capacity,
and driving style is developed to investigate the EV impact
on distribution systems. Meanwhile, EV charger effects on
power quality and harmonic contamination are considered
in [8] and [9]. Statistical analysis is applied on nonlinear
charging currents to generate probability distribution of some
voltage harmonics associated with EV charging [10].
For better utilization of existing distribution networks,
feeder reconfiguration is suggested under the distribution
automation framework [11]. The cost of distribution trans-
former replacement, as a result of overloading due to
EV charging, is minimized via a binomial probability
model [12]. In [13], dump and smart charging modes of EVs
are compared with respect to the possible penetration rate
before overloading an existing Danish system. The impact
of EV charging on distribution networks depends on many
factors, including the number of charging EVs at a time as well
as charging pattern, coordination, unbalance, location, rate,
time, and duration [14]–[19]. Nevertheless, some publications
consider the effects of EV charging on existing distribution
networks at different places such as Denver, CO, USA [12],
Melbourne, Australia [16], Gothenburg, Sweden [20],
Winnipeg, MB, Canada [21], Olympic Village, Atlanta, GA,
USA [22], and some residential networks in Malaysia [23] and
Italy [24], [25].
Some studies conclude that 20% is a reasonable level of
EV penetration that results in no overloading of existing
distribution networks [10], [14]. However, other systems can
tolerate only 10% of uncoordinated charging load that could
be raised to 40% in the case of charging coordination [13].
In reality, it appears that every distribution network is a special
case, requiring an independent study to explore the issues and
limits of EV charging load.
This paper presents the results and recommendations of a
case study, in the Canadian city of Toronto, on the impact
of EV charger loads on the distribution network capacity.
A survey is first conducted to measure the tendency of Toronto
residents for EV adoption. Accordingly, the city pocket of
highest inclination toward EV is selected to conduct the
study. The two most loaded distribution transformers in such
residential areas are determined for modeling along with their
269
Fig. 1. System configuration.
associated cable feeders and household loads. The single-phase
subsystem is simulated using the CYME software to examine
the different factors affecting the impact of EV charger on
system capacity and the ability to host the EV load. It is
assumed that the standard constant-current constant-voltage
control scheme of the EV charger is adopted. The charger
injects constant rated current of the battery till its voltage
exceeds a threshold, then it switches to constant rated voltage
operation. Findings of the case study, as reported in this
paper, can be used as signals to forewarn utilities on asset
management, system planning, and boundaries of acceptable
operation.
II. S YSTEM C ONFIGURATION AND DATA
This paper starts with a survey that measures the tendency
for EV adoption among Toronto residents. The neighborhood
identified as the most probable early adopter is supplied by
a 16-kV single-phase feeder. The two most heavily loaded
overhead transformers on the feeder are OT1 and OT2; both
are pole-mount single-phase transformers rated at 100 kVA,
16 kV on the HV side, and 120/240 V on the LV side.
The transformers feed 35 houses, where 19 houses are con-
nected to transformer OT1 and 16 houses are connected to
transformer OT2. The transformers are located at the approx-
imate load center of the household load. The system of study
is shown in Fig. 1.
The rated current of secondary drop lead is 650 and 535 A
during winter and summer assuming ambient temperatures
of 0 °C and 30 °C, respectively. The rated current of the
secondary feeder is 410 and 290 A during winter and sum-
mer, respectively. Moreover, the emergency capacity of each
transformer is 150 and 125 kVA during winter and summer,
270 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 39, NO. 4, FALL 2016
TABLE II
S YSTEM P ERFORMANCE D URING P EAK W INTER AND S UMMER L OADS W ITH 100% EV P ENETRATION
respectively. The system is simulated in the CYME software
for winter and summer peak loads without any EV penetration,
and the results are shown in Table I. Apparently, the system is
well designed and shows no violation of standard limits under
peak loads.
This paper aims at exploring the impact of EV charger load
on the distribution network capacity under steady-state oper-
ation. Different factors are taken into consideration including
EV penetration, charging during peak loads, and charger size.
Results are obtained through CYME simulation of the single-
phase system shown in Fig. 1.
III. C ASE S TUDIES AND R ESULTS
A. Worst Case Loading Scenario
To generate a worst case loading scenario of the sys-
tem under study, peak winter and summer load times are
considered. It is assumed that all EVs are simultaneously
charging during peak winter and summer loads with full
penetration. In other words, every house in the neighbor-
hood has an EV and all 35 EVs charge together during
the peak load. However, since the most common ratings of
EV chargers are 3.3 and 6.6 kW, four different scenarios
are considered representing the cases of 3.3- or 6.6-kW
EV chargers when operating during winter or summer peak
loads. Simulations are carried out for the four extreme cases
using CYME models; results are given in Table II.
Primary and secondary currents of both transformers, cur-
rents through all sections of secondary feeders, and voltages
at all system nodes are calculated. Comparing the simulation
results with the ratings of transformers, secondary drop leads,
and secondary feeders, the cases of overload are highlighted.
It should be noted that a boldface entry in Table II indicates
a quantity that exceeds the rated value, whereas a shaded cell
with boldface entry indicates a transformer load that exceeds
the emergency capacity, as well.
Results show that if all houses use 3.3-kW EV chargers
with a 100% penetration, transformer OT1 is slightly over-
loaded during winter and summer peak loads. However, with
6.6-kW chargers and winter peak time, transformer OT1 is
severely overloaded as well as its corresponding drop lead
and secondary feeder, while transformer OT2 is slightly over-
loaded. Under the same condition during summer time, both
transformers are above the emergency capacity and all feeders
are overloaded. Despite being within limits, the lowest system
voltage decreases with EV charging such that the higher the
charger rating, the lower the minimum voltage.
B. Typical Day Operation
In this case study, a typical spring weekday is randomly
selected to be Tuesday, March 6, 2012. The daily load curve of
the neighborhood is examined and 3 h are selected: minimum
load hour (4:00–5:00), medium load hour (12:00–13:00), and
maximum load hour (20:00–21:00). The load during these
hours is 31.833, 44.566, and 60.904 kVA, respectively. Simula-
tion studies are conducted during such 3 h with EV penetration
of 33%, 66%, and 100% using 3.3- and 6.6-kW chargers.
Therefore, a total of 18 cases of simulation are carried out.
No overload of any system component is found when
3.3-kW chargers are used at any of the three hours with
any EV penetration ratio. However, with 6.6-kW chargers, the
following findings are observed.
1) For minimum load hour (4:00–5:00), the following
condition holds.
a) With 100% EV penetration, transformer OT1 is
44.2% overloaded and transformer OT2 is 22%
overloaded.
2) For medium load hour (12:00–13:00), the following
conditions hold.
a) With 66% EV penetration, transformer OT1 is 5%
overloaded.
b) With 100% EV penetration, transformer OT1
is 53.6% overloaded, exceeding the emergency
capacity limit, and transformer OT2 is 27.5% over-
loaded.
3) For maximum load hour (20:00–21:00), the following
conditions hold.
a) With 66% EV penetration, transformer OT1
is 11.9% overloaded and transformer OT2 is 2.6%
overloaded.
b) With 100% EV penetration, transformer OT1
is 64.3% overloaded and its secondary drop lead
is 2.18% overloaded (14.2 A above rating). On the
other hand, transformer OT2 is 42.8% overloaded
and its secondary feeder is only 0.32% overloaded
(1.3 A above rating).
In conclusion, the usage of 3.3-kW chargers creates no
overloading problems during a typical day operation at any
AWADALLAH et al.: IMPACT OF EV CHARGER LOAD ON DISTRIBUTION NETWORK CAPACITY: A CASE STUDY IN TORONTO 271

Fig. 2. Operation loci of transformer OT1 (100 kVA) at peak winter load. Fig. 3. Operation loci of transformer OT1 (100 kVA) at peak summer load.

level of EV penetration. However, 6.6-kW chargers and above

can create potential system overloading during typical days
even at low levels of EV penetration.

C. Implication of EV Penetration and Charger Size

The effects of EV penetration level and charger size on the
safe operation limits of the system are next explored. Although
the 3.3- and 6.6-kW chargers are currently dominating the
EV industry, manufacturers tend to increase the charger rating.
A higher charger rating simply implies a faster charging
process for the same battery capacity. Simulations are carried
out on the system of study for different charger sizes and
different numbers of EVs being charged at the same time. The
charger sizes considered in this case study are 1.4, 1.9, 3.3, 6.6,
10, 16, and 20 kW, whereas the number of charging EVs is var-
ied from 1 to 19. This arrangement leads to 133 cases of simu- Fig. 4. Operation loci of transformer OT1 (100 kVA) during minimum load
lations at any given loading condition of the system. The simu- hour (4:00–5:00) of typical spring day.
lations are repeated at five different loads representing winter
peak, summer peak, and minimum, medium, and maximum
loads on a typical spring day (March 6, 2012). The objective of
this paper is to draw borders for safe operation of the system,
without exceeding the rating of any component, in terms of
the EV charger size and the number of EVs that can be con-
currently accommodated under different loading conditions.
The safe operation loci of transformer OT1 and the drop
lead during winter peak load are shown in Fig. 2. It should be
noted that transformer OT1 is more probable to be overloaded
than transformer OT2 as it supplies more houses. At any
load point plotted in Fig. 2 or at lesser load—meaning lesser
charger rating, fewer charging EVs, or both—the concerned
system component is not overloaded. Overload occurs above
the plotted loci. The same characteristics are shown in Fig. 3
for peak summer load. It is observed that emergency rating
of the transformer and capacity of its secondary drop lead are Fig. 5. Operation loci of transformer OT1 (100 kVA) during medium load
exceeded almost at the same operating conditions during the hour (12:00–13:00) of typical spring day.
peak loads of winter or summer as their two loci lie on top
of each other except at one point in Fig. 2. minimum, medium, and maximum loads, respectively. The
The same simulations are repeated for three more cases, limits of safe operation at any load of this typical day
namely, minimum, medium, and maximum loads of the ran- (Figs. 4–6) allow for greater charging capability than those
domly selected typical spring day of Tuesday, March 6, 2012. of winter and summer peak loads (Figs. 2 and 3). The load
Safe operating loci are shown in Figs. 4, 5, and 6 for the profile on the typical spring day is shown in Fig. 7.
272 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, VOL. 39, NO. 4, FALL 2016
Fig. 6. Operation loci of transformer OT1 (100 kVA) during maximum load
hour (20:00–21:00) of typical spring day.
Fig. 7. Load profile on March 6, 2012.
Results show that 19 houses can simultaneously charge their
EVs at any time without system overload if the charger rating
is 1.4 or 1.9 kW. With the 3.3-kW charger, slight overload of
transformer OT1 starts taking place if more than 15 EVs are
charging during summer or winter peak loads. For charger rat-
ings of more than 6.6 kW, only few EVs are generally allowed
to be charged at the same time, where the number of permitted
EVs depends on system load and ambient temperature. It can
also be generally stated that the number of simultaneously
charging EVs is dependent on charger size, system load, time
of the day, and ambient temperature. It should be noted that the
emergency capacity of the transformer and the current rating
of the secondary drop lead are likely to be exceeded at the
same loading conditions.
IV. R ECOMMENDATIONS TO U TILITIES
This paper sends warnings to utility companies with regard
to asset management and system planning while EVs penetrate
through distribution networks. A significant upgrade of the
system components is seriously required to accommodate high
levels of EV uptake. A paradigm change in load profiles and
patterns is also anticipated as a result of the EV proliferation
and charger technology development. Guided by the findings
in this paper, utilities should be aware of the following.
1) Small chargers, such as 1.4- and 1.9-kW ratings, are not
likely to affect system loading. However, charging with
small chargers lasts for a long time (maybe 12 h) and
is likely to affect the cooling cycles of transformers.
2) Medium sized chargers of a 3.3-kW rating are not
likely to overload the system components. Nevertheless,
they tend to diminish the available spare capacity of
transformers and reduce maneuvering and load transfer
abilities between transformers in the case of an outage.
3) Large chargers of 6.6-kW rating and above have
significant impact on system equipment capacity and
margins of safe operation. System upgrades are defi-
nitely required to accommodate even a moderate level
of EV uptake.
4) Summer time appears to be the most critical, since
residential loads include air conditions and overloading
capacity of system components is limited by ambient
temperature.
5) Similar studies are required for commercial and indus-
trial load centers because of the different nature of load
profiles and times of charging.
6) Various networks and system configurations require sep-
arate studies before reaching solid conclusions on the
ability to host EV loads within safe equipment operating
limits. Knowledge of the allowable charger size, time
of charging, penetration level, and available capacity
always requires simulation studies.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents a case study of the impact of EV charger
load on the capacity of two transformers and their associated
secondary leads in the Toronto distribution network. A city
pocket showing the highest tendency for EV adoption is iden-
tified. The two most heavily loaded transformers along with
their associated feeders and loads are selected for simulation.
A worst case scenario is assumed when all houses of the
neighborhood simultaneously charge their EVs during the
summer and winter peak load hour. Component overloads are
characterized under this worst case load. Then, a typical spring
day is studied for different penetration levels and charger
sizes. Overloads are determined during minimum, medium,
and maximum load hours. Finally, safe operation boundaries
are drawn during different times when the charger capacity and
the number of charging EVs change together. Loci of operating
conditions assuring no overloads of distribution transformer
and secondary drop lead are plotted.
In the distribution system under study, the capacity of one
transformer and its secondary drop lead is more limiting.
Overload on the transformer and on its secondary conductor is
expected due to EV charging, particularly at high penetration
levels or large charger sizes. However, voltage at all nodes
of the low-voltage feeders is always within the standard
limit of ±5% in this paper. Overload can happen on the
secondary drop lead, secondary feeder, or both. The likelihood
of overload would reduce if the secondary drop lead is located
exactly at the center of household load.
The ambient temperature is an important factor deter-
mining the system ability to supply EV charger load. The
system is more sensitive to being overloaded during sum-
mer due to the air conditioning load and the reduction of
AWADALLAH et al.: IMPACT OF EV CHARGER LOAD ON DISTRIBUTION NETWORK CAPACITY: A CASE STUDY IN TORONTO
system-current-carrying capacity at high ambient tempera-
tures. Chargers of a rating of 3.3 kW and less are not likely to
create overloading concerns, whereas 6.6-kW chargers cause
moderate overload for system components. Nevertheless, large
chargers of 10-kW rating and more require a system upgrade
before they could be accommodated. Even few charging EVs,
at this range of charger capacity, can cause overload to various
system components.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. M. Al-Alawi and T. H. Bradley, “Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid,
and electric vehicle market modeling studies,” Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev., vol. 21, pp. 190–203, May 2013.
[2] S. F. Tie and C. W. Tan, “A review of energy sources and energy
management system in electric vehicles,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.,
vol. 20, pp. 82–102, Apr. 2013.
[3] N. C. Yang, “Three-phase power flow calculations by direct ZLOOP
method for microgrids with electric vehicle charging demands,” IET
Generat., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1002–1010, 2013.
[4] Q. Guo, S. Xin, H. Sun, Z. Li, and B. Zhang, “Rapid-charging navigation
of electric vehicles based on real-time power systems and traffic data,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1969–1979, Jul. 2014.
[5] A. S. Masoum, S. Deilami, P. S. Moses, M. A. S. Masoum, and
A. Abu-Siada, “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,” IET
Generat., Transmiss. Distrib., vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 877–888, 2011.
[6] S. Shao, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Grid integration of
electric vehicles and demand response with customer choice,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 543–550, Mar. 2012.
[7] S. Shafiee, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Rastegar, “Investigating the
impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on power distribution sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1351–1360, Sep. 2013.
[8] J. C. Gomez and M. M. Morcos, “Impact of EV battery chargers on the
power quality of distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 18,
no. 3, pp. 975–981, Jul. 2003.
[9] P. S. Moses, S. Deilami, A. S. Masoum, and M. A. S. Masoum, “Power
quality of smart grids with plug-in electric vehicles considering battery
charging profile,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf.
Eur., Gothenburg, Sweden, Oct. 2010, pp. 1–7.
[10] P. T. Staats, W. M. Grady, A. Arapostathis, and R. S. Thallam,
“A statistical analysis of the effect of electric vehicle battery charging on
distribution system harmonic voltages,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 640–646, Apr. 1998.
[11] C. M. Chan, H. R. Liou, and C. N. Lu, “Operation of distribution feeders
with electric vehicle charging loads,” in Proc. IEEE 15th Int. Conf.
Harmon. Quality Power, Hong Kong, Jun. 2012, pp. 695–700.
[12] J. M. Sexauer, K. D. McBee, and K. A. Bloch, “Applications of
probability model to analyze the effects of electric vehicle chargers on
distribution transformers,” in Proc. IEEE Elect. Power Energy Conf.,
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, Oct. 2011, pp. 290–295.
[13] J. R. Pillai and B. Bak-Jensen, “Impacts of electric vehicle loads on
power distribution systems,” in Proc. IEEE Vehicle Power Propuls.
Conf., Paris, France, Sep. 2010, pp. 1–6.
[14] S. Rahman and G. B. Shrestha, “An investigation into the impact of
electric vehicle load on the electric utility distribution system,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 591–597, Apr. 1993.
[15] M. Moghbel, M. A. S. Masoum, F. Shahnia, and P. Moses, “Distribution
transformer loading in unbalanced three-phase residential networks with
random charging of plug-in electric vehicles,” in Proc. 22nd Austral.
Univ. Power Eng. Conf., Bali, Indonesia, Sep. 2012, pp. 1–6.
[16] J. de Hoog et al., “Electric vehicle charging and grid constraints:
Comparing distributed and centralized approaches,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Energy Soc. General Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Jul. 2013,
pp. 1–5.
[17] M. A. S. Masoum, P. S. Moses, and S. Hajforoosh, “Distribution
transformer stress in smart grid with coordinated charging of plug-in
electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol.,
Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–8.
[18] M. A. S. Masoum, P. S. Moses, and K. M. Smedley, “Distribution trans-
former losses and performance in smart grids with residential plug-in
electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol.,
Anaheim, CA, USA, Jan. 2011, pp. 1–7.
273
[19] P. S. Moses, M. A. S. Masoum, and S. Hajforoosh, “Overloading of
distribution transformers in smart grid due to uncoordinated charging of
plug-in electric vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol.,
Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–6.
[20] S. Babaei, D. Steen, L. A. Tuan, O. Carlson, and L. Bertling, “Effects
of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution systems: A real case of
Gothenburg,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf. Eur.,
Gothenburg, Sweden, Oct. 2010, pp. 1–8.
[21] J. Waddell, M. Rylander, A. Maitra, and J. A. Taylor, “Impact of plug
in electric vehicles on Manitoba Hydro’s distribution system,” in Proc.
IEEE Elect. Power Energy Conf., Winnipeg, MB, Canada, Oct. 2011,
pp. 409–414.
[22] D. Handran, R. Bass, F. Lambert, and J. Kennedy, “Simulation of
distribution feeders and charger installation for the Olympic electric tram
system,” in Proc. IEEE Workshop Comput. Power Electron., Portland,
OR, USA, Aug. 1996, pp. 168–175.
[23] C. H. Tie, C. K. Gan, and K. A. Ibrahim, “The impact of electric vehicle
charging on a residential low voltage distribution network in Malaysia,”
in Proc. IEEE Innov. Smart Grid Technol., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
May 2014, pp. 272–277.
[24] G. Mauri, P. Gramatica, E. Fasciolo, and S. Fratti, “Recharging of EV in
a typical Italian urban area: Evaluation of the hosting capacity,” in Proc.
IEEE Trondheim PowerTech, Trondheim, Norway, Jun. 2011, pp. 1–5.
[25] M. Cresta et al., “Prospective installation of EV charging points in a
real LV network: Two case studies,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Energy Conf.
Exhibit., Florence, Italy, Sep. 2012, pp. 725–730.
Mohamed A. Awadallah was born in Zagazig,
Egypt, in 1971. He received the B.Sc. (Hons.)
and M.Sc. degrees from the University of Zagazig,
Zagazig, in 1993 and 1997, respectively, and
the Ph.D. degree from Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS, USA, in 2004, all in electrical
engineering.
He is currently a Research Fellow with the Centre
for Urban Energy, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON,
Canada. His current research interests include motor
drives, smart grids, and renewable energy.
Dr. Awadallah is a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, and
Phi Kappa Phi. He is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province
of Ontario, Canada.
Birendra N. Singh received the M.Eng. degree
from the Memorial University of Newfoundland,
St. John’s, NL, Canada.
He taught electrical engineering courses with
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. He was
the Manager of Technology Development with
Hydro One Networks Inc., Toronto, at the time work
was carried out on the paper. He has over 30 years of
diversified experience in the electric utility industry
with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, St. John’s,
NL, Canada, Toronto Hydro, Toronto, ON, Canada,
and Hydro One, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mr. Singh is a Registered Professional Engineer in the Province of Ontario,
Canada.
Bala Venkatesh (SM’08) received the Ph.D. degree
from Anna University, Chennai, India, in 2000.
He is currently a Professor and the Academic
Director of the Centre for Urban Energy with
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. His cur-
rent research interests include power system analysis
and optimization.
Prof. Venkatesh is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the Provinces of Ontario and New
Brunswick, Canada.