Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Assessing EV Charging Impacts on Power Distribution Systems: A Unified Co-Simulation Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A high-fidelity simulation framework identifies which distribution-grid components will overload as EV charging grows.

desk verdict Useful tool integration, but the load-assignment step is physically inconsistent and undermines the headline stress-map results. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21773 v1 pith:XKJ47NZQ submitted 2025-05-27 math.OC

Mohammadreza Iranpour , Mohammad Rasoul Narimani , Xudong Jia This is my paper
classification math.OC
keywords electricvehiclechargingpowerdistributionsystemsco-simulationframeworktime-seriesflowgeospatialvisualizationgridreinforcementplanningunmanagedsyntheticnetworkdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that a unified co-simulation pipeline, built from a high-resolution synthetic distribution network, realistic EV-charging load profiles, time-series power-flow simulation, and geospatial maps, can show which parts of a distribution grid will be stressed as electric-vehicle adoption grows. Applied to an urban California region, the pipeline finds that unmanaged charging from 350,000 EVs raises total demand by about 7.7 percent and losses by about 12.0 percent, while 700,000 EVs raise demand by about 19.7 percent and losses by 36.3 percent. The key claim is that the framework can flag critical lines and transformers in advance, so utilities can target reinforcements rather than upgrade entire feeders. That would matter because distribution systems are already near capacity, and evening EV charging coincides with peak residential demand.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-layer co-simulation workflow. In the data layer, a synthetic distribution network with feeder topology, geospatial coordinates, and hourly residential load profiles is combined with the geographic positions and rated capacities of public charging stations. In the computational layer, a nearest-bus assignment algorithm attaches each station's estimated peak load to the closest load bus in the network, writes those loads into the simulator's load files, and runs 8,760 hourly quasi-static power-flow solves. In the visualization layer, each line is colored by the percentage change in flow relative to the no-EV baseline, so stressed segments become visible on a map. The load profiles themselves are produced by a parameterized EV-infrastructure tool that takes fleet size, daily mileage, temperature, vehicle mix, and charging behavior as inputs.

What would settle it

Re-run the 350,000-EV scenario with loads capped at each station's rated capacity and assigned by electrical connectivity rather than geographic distance; if the set of lines flagged as overloaded moves or shrinks, the framework's critical-component identification depends on the uncapped nearest-bus assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a sufficiently detailed, geographically grounded simulation can identify specific distribution components that will overload under projected EV growth, and that the pattern of stress is uneven: most lines see small changes while a minority bear large increases. In the 350,000-vehicle scenario, total demand climbs from about 1,697 MW to 1,827 MW and active losses from about 95,213 kW to 106,650 kW; in the 700,000-vehicle scenario demand reaches about 2,032 MW and losses climb to about 129,736 kW. The histograms and color-coded maps show that roughly a thousand lines exceed an 80 percent change in flow in the first scenario, and that number more than triples in the second. The paper takes this as evidence that unmanaged charging concentrates stress on a vulnerable subset of feeders, and that the framework is useful for prioritizing reinforcement investment.

Load-bearing premise

The entire spatial impact analysis rests on assigning each charging station's peak demand to the geographically nearest bus, without checking which feeder, phase, or circuit that bus belongs to; if that mapping does not reflect electrical connectivity, the map of stressed lines may not match physical reality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under unmanaged charging, total network demand rises about 7.7 percent with 350,000 EVs and about 19.7 percent with 700,000 EVs, with losses rising 12.0 and 36.3 percent respectively.
  • The number of lines with flow changes above 80 percent more than triples when EV penetration doubles, indicating that grid stress grows faster than fleet size.
  • Color-coded line maps give planners a direct way to rank reinforcement priorities, from gray (negligible change) through red (greater than 80 percent change).
  • Because the workflow is modular, the same pipeline can be re-run for other feeder configurations, geographic regions, or adoption scenarios by swapping input data.
  • The framework is intended as a validation and planning tool, allowing simplified analytical models of EV impact to be checked against high-resolution time-series simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural stress test would re-run the scenarios with loads capped at each station's rated charger capacity, since the paper assigns per-station loads above some rated levels; the set of red-line segments could shrink substantially.
  • The nearest-bus assignment ignores feeder topology and phase; routing loads by electrical connectivity rather than geographic distance might relocate the predicted stress points.
  • The same pipeline could be extended to evaluate managed charging or time-of-use pricing by substituting the charging-strategy inputs and comparing the new stress maps.
  • The heavy-tail behavior suggests that distribution planners should monitor a small set of vulnerable lines rather than treating all feeders uniformly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a modular co-simulation framework for assessing distribution-system impacts of EV charging. It combines SMART-DS network/load data, DOE EVI-X EV load profiles, OpenDSS simulations driven through OpenDSSDirect.jl, and QGIS-based visualization. The framework is demonstrated on the PU15 region of the SMART-DS San Francisco model under two scenarios (350,000 and 700,000 EVs), reporting system demand increases of 7.7% and 19.7%, active-power loss increases of 12.0% and 36.3%, and histograms/maps of line-flow changes used to identify stress points.

Significance. If the load-allocation and scenario definitions were physically consistent, the framework would be a valuable open-data, reproducible screening tool for utilities and planners. Its strengths include the use of public high-resolution synthetic network data, automated GIS-based station-to-bus mapping, explicit algorithms, and modular design. However, the current scenarios contain load assignments that exceed station ratings and use a geography-only bus-allocation rule, so the reported spatial stress points and loss increases are not yet supported. The paper also overstates the temporal scope: the results reflect a peak-hour snapshot rather than the claimed full-year time-series simulation, and the conclusion claims a controlled-charging comparison that the two scenarios do not contain.

major comments (4)
  1. [§III-B and §IV-A] The method section states that a quasi-static time-series simulation is performed over a full annual cycle of 8,760 hourly steps, but Section IV-A describes allocating only 'the total EV charging demand during the peak hour' to the stations, and all reported results are peak-hour values. The paper should either report full-year results (e.g., number of hours with violations, maximum and percentile loading, annual energy losses) or explicitly revise the claim to a peak-hour snapshot study.
  2. [§IV-A and §IV-B] The per-station load assignments exceed the stated station power ratings. With 895 Level 1 stations rated below 50 kW, Scenario 1 assigns 115.36 kW per station and Scenario 2 assigns 297 kW per station; even using upper-bound ratings for all station classes, the aggregate station capacity is well below the 130 MW and 334.77 MW peak demands being allocated. These loads cannot be served by the modeled public charging infrastructure, so the resulting overloads, loss increases, and stress-point maps do not represent a physically realizable charging scenario.
  3. [§III-B, Algorithm 1 Step 3] The nearest-bus assignment uses only latitude/longitude distance and never checks electrical connectivity, phase, or feeder membership. In a distribution network the geographically closest bus can lie on a different phase, a different secondary circuit, or behind a different transformer, so the EV load may be injected at an electrically incorrect location. Since the central contribution is identifying which lines and transformers are stressed, this mapping must be replaced or augmented with connectivity-aware assignment before the spatial conclusions can be relied on.
  4. [§V] The conclusion claims the framework analyzed 'controlled and uncontrolled charging patterns,' but the two scenarios differ only in fleet size and both use the same 'Immediate' home and workplace charging strategies. No controlled-charging scenario (e.g., delayed, time-of-use, or optimized charging) is simulated or compared. The authors should add such a scenario or remove the claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-C and Algorithm 2] The color thresholds are inconsistent: Section III-C describes green for 0.05–50% and magenta for 50–80%, while Algorithm 2 assigns green for 0.05–10%, blue for 10–50%, and pink for 50–80%. The caption of Fig. 8 follows Algorithm 2, so the prose should be corrected to match.
  2. [Table I] The header 'Describtion' should be spelled 'Description'.
  3. [References] Reference [17] appears to have an incorrect author name; the cited 'Aggregate modeling of electric vehicle charging demand' paper should be verified and corrected.
  4. [§II-C and §IV] Section II-C says household loads are adjusted to represent Level 2 charging, whereas Section IV assigns the EVI-X load to public charging stations. The relationship between the household-level adjustment and the public-station allocation should be clarified.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says the study models 'three feeders from an urban substation,' but the case study describes the PU15 region with many feeders; the number of feeders actually simulated should be stated precisely.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulation is a forward model whose outputs are emergent from stated inputs, not fitted to or defined by the target results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward co-simulation: SMART-DS network data and AFDC station locations are inputs; EVI-X generated load profiles are scaled to station capacities; loads are assigned to nearest buses (Algorithm 1); OpenDSS power flow then produces line loadings, losses, and voltages. These outputs are not used to define or fit the inputs, and no parameter is estimated from the results. The 'identification of critical components' is a direct reading of the simulated line-loading changes, which is a legitimate emergent outcome of a forward simulation rather than a circular reduction. The cited prior work by the authors (references [9], [10], [12]) concerns demand response, energy storage, and economic dispatch; it is not load-bearing for the EV-impact claims and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or ansatz justification. The external data sources (SMART-DS, AFDC, EVI-X, OpenDSS) are independent of the paper's results. Concerns raised in the reader's take — such as Algorithm 1 ignoring phase, connectivity, and station rated capacity, and per-station loads exceeding station ratings — are correctness or realism limitations, not circularity. They would affect validity of the conclusions, but they do not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the fidelity of the SMART-DS network model, the DOE charging demand estimates, and the nearest-bus load assignment. The scenario parameters are user-chosen and directly drive the outputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (11)
  • EV fleet size (Scenario 1) = 350,000 vehicles
    Chosen by authors to represent near-term regional adoption; directly scales EV demand.
  • EV fleet size (Scenario 2) = 700,000 vehicles
    Chosen as a 2030 growth projection; directly scales EV demand.
  • Average daily miles per vehicle = 25 miles/day
    Assumed lower daily usage from DOE toolbox; affects charging energy and timing.
  • Average ambient temperature = 80 deg F
    Assumed warmer climate; affects battery consumption and charging load.
  • BEV/PHEV split = 50% BEV / 50% PHEV
    Assumed equal shares; affects charging power and session length.
  • Sedan fraction = 50%
    Assumed passenger car mix; affects energy consumption.
  • Home charging access = 100%
    All vehicles have home charging, with 50% L1/50% L2 mix.
  • Home charging preference = 80% primarily home
    Most charging occurs at home; shapes load distribution.
  • Home charging strategy = Immediate, as slow as possible
    Spreads home charging over parking period; affects peak timing.
  • Workplace charging mix = 50% L1 / 50% L2
    Assumed workplace infrastructure mix.
  • Workplace charging strategy = Immediate, as fast as possible
    Charging at full speed at work; boosts daytime peak.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SMART-DS synthetic network faithfully represents the real San Francisco distribution system.
    Used as the electrical network model; if inaccurate, all identified stress points are invalid.
  • domain assumption EVI-X toolbox produces realistic EV charging demand profiles.
    The EV load curves are taken from the DOE tool, not validated against local measurements.
  • standard math OpenDSS power flow solver correctly models distribution network physics.
    OpenDSS is an established tool, but its accuracy for this network is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Nearest-bus assignment of EV station load is a valid spatial approximation.
    Algorithm 1 maps each station to the nearest bus without considering feeder connectivity, phase, or capacity.
  • ad hoc to paper Peak-hour snapshot is representative of worst-case system impact.
    Results use a single peak hour despite claiming full annual time-series simulation; if other hours matter, conclusions may differ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Assessing EV Charging Impacts on Power Distribution Systems: A Unified Co-Simulation Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XKJ47NZQ

@misc{pith2026250521773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Assessing EV Charging Impacts on Power Distribution Systems: A Unified Co-Simulation Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XKJ47NZQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21773}
}
read the original abstract

The growing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) is expected to significantly increase demand on electric power distribution systems, many of which are already nearing capacity. To address this, the paper presents a comprehensive framework for analyzing the impact of large-scale EV integration on distribution networks. Using the open-source simulator OpenDSS, the framework builds detailed, scalable models of electric distribution systems, incorporating high-fidelity synthetic data from the SMART-DS project. The study models three feeders from an urban substation in San Francisco down to the household level. A key contribution is the framework's ability to identify critical system components likely to require upgrades due to increased EV loads. It also incorporates advanced geospatial visualization through QGIS, which aids in understanding how charging demands affect specific grid areas, helping stakeholders target infrastructure reinforcements. To ensure realistic load modeling, the framework uses EV load profiles based on U.S. Department of Energy projections, factoring in vehicle types, charging behaviors, usage patterns, and adoption rates. By leveraging large-scale synthetic data, the model remains relevant for real-world utility planning. It supports diverse simulation scenarios, from light to heavy EV charging loads and distributed vs. centralized charging patterns, offering a practical planning tool for utilities and policymakers. Additionally, its modular design enables easy adaptation to different geographic regions, feeder setups, and adoption scenarios, making it suitable for future studies on evolving grid conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the proposed framework for analyzing the impact of EV chargers on power distribution systems. The framework is organized into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modification of a JSON dictionary entry representing a power distribution line. The original entry (left) includes basic electrical properties, while the updated entry (right) incorporates additional visualization attributes such as “line_width”, “line_opacity”, and “line_color” to reflect changes in power flow for geospatial rendering. grid performance. This modularity also allows power system researchers to isolat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. One line diagram of PU15 sub-region in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino. EV charging stations are determined as: Red Points: below 50 kW (Level 1), Yellow points:between 50 kW and 150 kW (Level 2),Blue points: between 150 kW and 350 kW (Level 3), Green Points: more than 350 kw (Level 4). 50–150 kW range, 18 stations operate between 150–350 kW, and 14 stations exceed 350 kW. Based on these classifications and their… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of power loss changes across distribution lines with the integration of 350,000 EVs. Most lines experience a modest increase in power loss (0.05–10%), while fewer lines show moderate to significant increases, highlighting areas with higher stress due to EV…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: One-line diagram of the PU15 sub-region in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino after integration of the load from 350,000 EVs. Line colors represent the percentage change in loading: gray for less than 0.05%, green for 0.05-10%, blue for 10-50%, magenta for 50-80%, and …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Fig.12. In Fig.10, although most lines still fall in the 0.05–10% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Power flow change across distribution lines with 700,000 EVs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of power loss changes across distribution lines after integrating 700,000 EVs. The histogram categorizes the percentage increase in active power losses, showing that while most lines fall within the 0.05–10% range, a significant number experience moderate…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: One-line diagram of the PU15 sub-region in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Cupertino after integrating the load from 700,000 EVs. Line colors indicate the percentage change in loading: gray for <0.05%, green for 0.05–10%, blue for 10–50%, magenta for 50–80%, and red for ě80%…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Optimal location of electric vehicle charging station and its impact on distribution network: A review,

    F. Ahmad, A. Iqbal, I. Ashraf, M. Marzband et al., “Optimal location of electric vehicle charging station and its impact on distribution network: A review,” Energy Reports, vol. 8, pp. 2314–2333, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Impact of EV Charging Stations in Power Grids in Italy and its Mitigation Mechanisms

    A. S. Mogos and S. Grillo, “Impact of ev charging stations in power grids in italy and its mitigation mechanisms,” arXiv Preprint arXiv:2102.07632, 2021

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Modeling and analysis of electric vehi- cle charging station impacts on distribution systems,

    J. Hu, D. Hill, and M. Kazemi, “Modeling and analysis of electric vehi- cle charging station impacts on distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 252–259, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Comprehensive review & impact analysis of integrating projected electric vehicle charging load to the existing low voltage distribution system,

    S. Rahman, I. A. Khan, A. A. Khan, A. Mallik, and M. F. Nadeem, “Comprehensive review & impact analysis of integrating projected electric vehicle charging load to the existing low voltage distribution system,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , vol. 153, p. 111756, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Impact mitigation of ev fast-charging stations in distribution systems via medium-voltage line connection,

    Y . Li, B. Zhang, and Z. Xu, “Impact mitigation of ev fast-charging stations in distribution systems via medium-voltage line connection,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 3456–3465, Jul. 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    The opportunity for smart charging to mitigate the impact of electric vehicles on transmission and distribution systems,

    C. Crozier, T. Morstyn, and M. McCulloch, “The opportunity for smart charging to mitigate the impact of electric vehicles on transmission and distribution systems,” Applied Energy, vol. 268, p. 114973, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Comparing the emissions benefits of centralized vs. decentralized electric vehicle smart charging approaches: A case study of the year 2030 california electric grid,

    A. J. Cheng, B. Tarroja, B. Shaffer, and S. Samuelsen, “Comparing the emissions benefits of centralized vs. decentralized electric vehicle smart charging approaches: A case study of the year 2030 california electric grid,” Journal of Power Sources , vol. 401, pp. 175–185, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S03787...

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Smart charging and discharging of plug-in electric vehicles for peak shaving and valley filling of the grid power,

    H. Ramadan, A. Ali, M. Nour, and C. Farkas, “Smart charging and discharging of plug-in electric vehicles for peak shaving and valley filling of the grid power,” in 2018 Twentieth International Middle East Power Systems Conference (MEPCON) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 735–739

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Energy storage control methods for demand charge reduction and pv utilization improvement,

    M. R. Narimani, B. Asghari, and R. Sharma, “Energy storage control methods for demand charge reduction and pv utilization improvement,” in 2017 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Confer- ence (APPEEC). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–5

    2017

  2. [10]

    Multi-objective dynamic economic dispatch with demand side management of residential loads and electric vehicles,

    M. R. Narimani, Maigha, J.-Y . Joo, and M. Crow, “Multi-objective dynamic economic dispatch with demand side management of residential loads and electric vehicles,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 5, p. 624, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Two-stage optimization method for energy loss minimization in microgrid based on smart power management scheme of phevs,

    H. Nafisi, S. M. M. Agah, H. A. Abyaneh, and M. Abedi, “Two-stage optimization method for energy loss minimization in microgrid based on smart power management scheme of phevs,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1268–1276, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    The effect of demand response on distribution system operation,

    M. R. Narimani, J.-Y . Joo, and M. L. Crow, “The effect of demand response on distribution system operation,” in 2015 IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–6

    2015

  5. [13]

    Load balancing with ev chargers and pv inverters in unbalanced distribution grids,

    S. Weckx and J. Driesen, “Load balancing with ev chargers and pv inverters in unbalanced distribution grids,” IEEE transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 635–643, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    A tariff system for electric vehicle smart charging to increase renewable energy sources use,

    J.-M. Clairand, J. R. García, C. Á. Bel, and P. P. Sarmiento, “A tariff system for electric vehicle smart charging to increase renewable energy sources use,” in 2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference-Latin America (ISGT Latin America) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  7. [15]

    Smart charging of electric vehicles according to electricity price,

    M. Nour, S. M. Said, A. Ali, and C. Farkas, “Smart charging of electric vehicles according to electricity price,” in 2019 international conference on innovative trends in computer engineering (ITCE) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 432–437

    2019

  8. [16]

    Optimal charging of electric vehicles in low-voltage distribution systems,

    P. Richardson, D. Flynn, and A. Keane, “Optimal charging of electric vehicles in low-voltage distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 268–279, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    Aggregate modeling of electric vehicle charging demand in distribution networks,

    H. Paris and R. Sioshansi, “Aggregate modeling of electric vehicle charging demand in distribution networks,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1363–1375, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Stochastic aggregated model for electric vehicle charging loads in distribution systems,

    R. Yu, Z. Wu, and Z. Chen, “Stochastic aggregated model for electric vehicle charging loads in distribution systems,” Applied Energy , vol. 162, pp. 538–549, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    High-fidelity modeling and simulation of electric vehicle integration in distribution systems,

    L. Wang, M. Kumar, and S. Bhattacharya, “High-fidelity modeling and simulation of electric vehicle integration in distribution systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 842–851, Apr. 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Modeling smartphone-based electric vehicle charging with gridlab-d,

    S. Zhan, S. Goeke, and P. Meier, “Modeling smartphone-based electric vehicle charging with gridlab-d,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 3173–3181, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,

    L. Thurner, T. Weckesser, and U. Mai, “pandapower—an open-source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis, and optimization of electric power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 6510–6521, 2018

    2018

  14. [22]

    Pypsa: Python for power system analysis,

    T. Brown, J. Hörsch, and D. Schlachtberger, “Pypsa: Python for power system analysis,” Journal of Open Research Software, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 4, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    Impact assessment of electric vehicle charging on distribution networks using digsilent pow- erfactory,

    S. Khorasani, A. Azizi, and G. Kariniotakis, “Impact assessment of electric vehicle charging on distribution networks using digsilent pow- erfactory,” Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 181, p. 106198, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    An open source platform for collaborating on smart grid research,

    R. C. Dugan and T. E. McDermott, “An open source platform for collaborating on smart grid research,” in 2011 IEEE power and energy society general meeting . IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–7

    2011

  17. [25]

    Building highly detailed synthetic electric grid data sets for combined transmission and distribution systems,

    H. Li, J. L. Wert, A. B. Birchfield, T. J. Overbye, T. G. San Roman, C. M. Domingo, F. E. P. Marcos, P. D. Martinez, T. Elgindy, and B. Palmintier, “Building highly detailed synthetic electric grid data sets for combined transmission and distribution systems,” IEEE Open Access...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Smart-ds: Synthetic models for advanced, realistic testing: Distri- bution systems and scenarios,

    V . K. Krishnan, B. S. Palmintier, B. S. Hodge, E. T. Hale, T. Elgindy, B. Bugbee, M. N. Rossol, A. J. Lopez, D. Krishnamurthy, C. Vergara et al., “Smart-ds: Synthetic models for advanced, realistic testing: Distri- bution systems and scenarios,” National Renewable Energy Lab....

    2017

  19. [27]

    Alternative Fuels Data Center,

    U.S. Department of Energy, “Alternative Fuels Data Center,” https:// afdc.energy.gov/

  20. [28]

    EV Charging Station Data - U.S. Station Locator,

    Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC), “EV Charging Station Data - U.S. Station Locator,” https://afdc.energy.gov/stations#/analyze? country=US&region=US-CA&location=san+jose&tab=location&fuel= ELEC&location_mode=address&show_map=true, 2024, accessed: April 15, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    EV Infrastructure Toolbox - EV Load Analysis Tool,

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “EV Infrastructure Toolbox - EV Load Analysis Tool,” https://afdc.energy.gov/evi-x-toolbox# /evi-pro-loads?state=CA&urban_area=San+Jose&results=true, 2024, ac- cessed: April 15, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Getting started with opendssdirect.py,

    “Getting started with opendssdirect.py,” https://dss-extensions.org/ OpenDSSDirect.py/notebooks/GettingStarted.html, accessed: April 9, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    SMART-DS synthetic electrical network data OpenDSS models for SFO, GSO, and AUS,

    B. Palmintier, C. Mateo Domingo, F. E. Postigo Marcos, T. Gomez San Roman, F. de Cuadra, N. Gensollen, T. Elgindy, and P. Duenas, “SMART-DS synthetic electrical network data OpenDSS models for SFO, GSO, and AUS,” Web, 2020, accessed: April 15, 2024. [Online]. Available: https:...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.