Smart Charging Impact Analysis using Clustering Methods and Real-world Distribution Feeders

Karthikeyan Balasubramaniam; Limon Barua; Lusha Wang; Nazib Siddique; Ravi Raj Shrestha; Yan Zhou; Zhi Zhou

arxiv: 2508.15092 · v1 · submitted 2025-08-20 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Smart Charging Impact Analysis using Clustering Methods and Real-world Distribution Feeders

Ravi Raj Shrestha , Zhi Zhou , Limon Barua , Nazib Siddique , Karthikeyan Balasubramaniam , Yan Zhou , Lusha Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords smart chargingelectric vehiclesdistribution feedersk-means clusteringtime of use pricingload balancinggrid upgrades

0 comments

The pith

Smart charging with time-of-use pricing and load balancing reduces grid upgrade costs for electric vehicle integration on real distribution feeders.

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

This paper evaluates two smart charging approaches—time-of-use pricing and load balancing—on seven representative real-world distribution feeders selected through k-means clustering. It simulates EV charging impacts using time-series load flow analysis across different enrollment levels and days to assess effects on infrastructure. The analysis shows that these strategies lower the requirements for grid upgrades and associated costs compared to unmanaged charging, with load balancing performing better at higher customer enrollment rates. A reader would care because widespread EV adoption threatens to overload existing power networks, and finding low-cost ways to integrate them without massive investments supports broader electrification goals.

Core claim

The paper finds that both time-of-use pricing and load balancing strategies can effectively manage additional EV loads on representative feeders, leading to reduced upgrade needs and costs, with load balancing outperforming time-of-use pricing particularly when EV customer enrollment is high.

What carries the argument

k-means clustering to select seven representative feeders combined with time-series steady-state load flow analysis to model EV impacts under TOU and LB strategies.

If this is right

Grid operators can deploy load balancing preferentially in high-EV-adoption areas to minimize infrastructure spending.
Time-of-use pricing still delivers meaningful savings over no smart charging even if it trails load balancing.
Clustering methods allow targeting of representative feeders for efficient network planning.
Seasonal load variations must factor into smart charging program design to maintain reliability.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending the clustering approach to additional regions could identify whether the upgrade savings hold under different climate or load profiles.
Integrating these strategies with vehicle-to-grid capabilities might produce further deferral of upgrades.
Utilities could test enrollment incentives to push more customers toward load balancing for maximum cost reduction.

Load-bearing premise

The seven feeders identified via k-means clustering sufficiently represent real-world distribution networks for general conclusions on EV charging impacts.

What would settle it

Observing that load balancing fails to reduce upgrade costs more than time-of-use pricing when tested on a broader sample of feeders beyond the clustered set would undermine the performance ranking.

read the original abstract

The anticipated widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) necessitates a critical evaluation of existing power distribution infrastructures, as EV integration imposes additional stress on distribution networks that can lead to component overloading and power quality degradation. Implementing smart charging mechanisms can mitigate these adverse effects and defer or even avoid upgrades. This study assesses the performance of two smart charging strategies - Time of Use (TOU) pricing and Load Balancing (LB) on seven representative real-world feeders identified using k-means clustering. A time series-based steady-state load flow analysis was conducted on these feeders to simulate the impact of EV charging under both strategies across four different EV enrollment scenarios and three representative days to capture seasonal load characteristics. A grid upgrade strategy has been proposed to strengthen the power grid to support EV integration with minimal cost. Results demonstrate that both TOU and LB strategies effectively manage the additional EV load with reduced upgrade requirement and cost to existing infrastructure compared to the case without smart charging strategies and LB outperforms TOU when the customer enrollment levels are high. These findings support the viability of smart charging in facilitating EV integration while maintaining distribution network reliability and reducing investment cost.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Smart charging via TOU and load balancing reduces upgrade costs on seven k-means-selected real feeders, with LB ahead at high enrollment, but the clustering validation is too thin to support broad claims.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper runs steady-state load flow on seven real feeders picked by k-means and reports that both time-of-use pricing and load balancing lower the upgrade costs needed to handle added EV load, with load balancing pulling ahead once enrollment rises. They also sketch a low-cost upgrade approach across four enrollment levels and three seasonal days. That practical comparison on actual network data is the useful part. It moves beyond purely synthetic cases and gives utilities some concrete cost numbers they can reference. The soft spot is the feeder selection itself. The work identifies the seven feeders through clustering but gives no details on the starting pool size, the input features, or any validation like cluster quality metrics. Without that, it is hard to judge whether the observed load-balancing advantage is robust or tied to the particular subset chosen. Load-flow assumptions and data provenance are also light, which makes the quantitative results harder to check or extend. This is the sort of applied study that distribution engineers and regulators working on EV integration would find worth a look for the real-feeder numbers. It is not a new method or first-principles result, but it adds case evidence. I would send it to peer review to get the methods section expanded so the representativeness and reproducibility can be assessed properly.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses k-means clustering to select seven representative real-world distribution feeders from an unspecified larger set. It then runs time-series steady-state load-flow simulations on these feeders for four EV enrollment levels and three representative days, comparing uncontrolled charging against Time-of-Use (TOU) pricing and Load Balancing (LB) smart-charging strategies. Results show that both smart strategies reduce required grid upgrades and costs relative to the uncontrolled case, with LB outperforming TOU at high enrollment; a minimal-cost upgrade strategy is also proposed.

Significance. If the seven clustered feeders adequately capture the diversity of real distribution networks, the work supplies concrete, simulation-based evidence that smart charging can defer or avoid infrastructure upgrades, which is directly useful for utility planning and EV integration policy. The reliance on actual feeder data rather than synthetic models is a strength.

major comments (1)

[Clustering and feeder selection section] Clustering and feeder selection section: the manuscript states that seven feeders were identified via k-means but reports neither the total number of feeders in the source dataset, the exact features supplied to the clustering algorithm (topology metrics, load profiles, voltage class, customer density, etc.), nor any quality or validation metrics (silhouette score, elbow plot, or stability checks). Because the central claim—that TOU and LB reduce upgrade needs and that LB is superior at high enrollment—rests on these seven feeders being representative, the absence of this information prevents assessment of whether the observed performance differences generalize or are artifacts of the selected subset.

minor comments (2)

The abstract and results sections should explicitly state the load-flow solver, convergence criteria, and any modeling assumptions for EV charger power factors or coincidence factors.
Figure captions and table headings would benefit from clearer indication of which enrollment level and day type each panel or row corresponds to.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which helps clarify the representativeness of our feeder selection. We address the major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to strengthen this aspect of the work.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Clustering and feeder selection section: the manuscript states that seven feeders were identified via k-means but reports neither the total number of feeders in the source dataset, the exact features supplied to the clustering algorithm (topology metrics, load profiles, voltage class, customer density, etc.), nor any quality or validation metrics (silhouette score, elbow plot, or stability checks). Because the central claim—that TOU and LB reduce upgrade needs and that LB is superior at high enrollment—rests on these seven feeders being representative, the absence of this information prevents assessment of whether the observed performance differences generalize or are artifacts of the selected subset.

Authors: We agree that additional details on the k-means clustering are necessary to allow readers to evaluate the representativeness of the seven feeders. The original manuscript omitted the total number of feeders in the source dataset, the precise input features, and validation metrics. In the revised manuscript we have expanded the Clustering and Feeder Selection section to include these elements: the source dataset size, the full list of features (topology metrics, load profiles, voltage class, and customer density), and quality metrics including the silhouette score and elbow plot used to select seven clusters. These additions provide direct evidence that the selected feeders capture the diversity of the original set and support the generalizability of the reported performance differences between TOU and LB strategies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard clustering and simulation on external feeder data

full rationale

The paper's chain applies k-means clustering to select seven representative real-world feeders, then runs time-series steady-state load-flow simulations under TOU, LB, and baseline cases across enrollment levels and days to compare upgrade costs. These steps use external data inputs and standard methods with no equations defined in terms of their outputs, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no load-bearing claims resting on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The results on reduced upgrades for smart charging are direct simulation outputs rather than constructions equivalent to the inputs, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard power-system modeling assumptions and scenario definitions rather than new postulates; limited free parameters tied to enrollment levels and day selection.

free parameters (1)

EV enrollment levels
Four discrete enrollment scenarios chosen to represent varying adoption rates; these function as input parameters for the simulations.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Steady-state load flow assumptions are valid for time-series EV charging simulations on distribution feeders.
Invoked when conducting the load flow analysis described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5751 in / 1227 out tokens · 45714 ms · 2026-05-18T21:36:14.468959+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost Jcost_pos_of_ne_one unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

LB outperforms TOU when the customer enrollment levels are high

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Policies to promote electric vehicle deployment – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis,

“Policies to promote electric vehicle deployment – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis,” IEA. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook- 2021/policies-to-promote-electric-vehicle-deployment

work page 2021
[2]

Electric Vehicles & Rural Transportation | US Department of Transportation

“Electric Vehicles & Rural Transportation | US Department of Transportation.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev

work page 2024
[3]

2024 Data: EV Adoption is Still on Pace in the US

“2024 Data: EV Adoption is Still on Pace in the US.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/ev-adoption-us

work page 2024
[4]

K means Clustering - Introduction,

“K means Clustering - Introduction,” GeeksforGeeks. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/k-means-clustering- introduction/

work page 2024
[5]

Clustering methodology for classifying distribution feeders,

R. J. Broderick and J. R. Williams, “Clustering methodology for classifying distribution feeders,” in 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Jun. 2013, pp. 1706 –1710. doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2013.6744473

work page doi:10.1109/pvsc.2013.6744473 2013
[6]

Clustering distribution feeders in the Arizona Public Service territory,

J. Cale, B. Palmintier, D. Narang, and K. Carroll, “Clustering distribution feeders in the Arizona Public Service territory,” in 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC) , Jun. 2014, pp. 2076 –

work page 2014
[7]

doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925335

work page doi:10.1109/pvsc.2014.6925335 2014
[8]

Clustering Methods and Validation of Representative Distribution Feeders,

A. K. Jain and B. Mather, “Clustering Methods and Validation of Representative Distribution Feeders,” in 2018 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) , Apr. 2018, pp. 1 –9. doi: 10.1109/TDC.2018.8440137

work page doi:10.1109/tdc.2018.8440137 2018
[9]

On the Classification of Low Voltage Feeders for Network Planning and Hosting Capacity Studies,

B. Bletterie, S. Kadam, and H. Renner, “On the Classification of Low Voltage Feeders for Network Planning and Hosting Capacity Studies,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.3390/en11030651

work page doi:10.3390/en11030651 2018
[10]

Uncontrolled Electric Vehicle Charging Impacts on Distribution Electric Power Systems with Primarily Residential, Commercial or Industrial Loads,

C. B. Jones, M. Lave, W. Vining, and B. M. Garcia, “Uncontrolled Electric Vehicle Charging Impacts on Distribution Electric Power Systems with Primarily Residential, Commercial or Industrial Loads,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14061688

work page doi:10.3390/en14061688 2021
[11]

Feeder selection method for full cable networks earth faults based on improved K- means,

Q. Wan, S. Zheng, and C. Shi, “Feeder selection method for full cable networks earth faults based on improved K- means,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 16, no. 19, pp. 3837–3848, 2022, doi: 10.1049/gtd2.12564

work page doi:10.1049/gtd2.12564 2022
[12]

Reliability incentive regulation based on reward-penalty mechanism using distribution feeders clustering,

I. Khonakdar-Tarsi, M. Fotuhi -Firuzabad, M. Ehsan, H. Mohammadnezhad-Shourkaei, and M. Jooshaki, “Reliability incentive regulation based on reward-penalty mechanism using distribution feeders clustering,” Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. , vol. 31, no. 8, p. e12958, 2021, doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.12958

work page doi:10.1002/2050-7038.12958 2021
[13]

Impact of plug in electric vehicles on Manitoba Hydro’s distribution system,

J. Waddell, M. Rylander, A. Maitra, and J. A. Taylor, “Impact of plug in electric vehicles on Manitoba Hydro’s distribution system,” in 2011 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference , Oct. 2011, pp. 409 –414. doi: 10.1109/EPEC.2011.6070235

work page doi:10.1109/epec.2011.6070235 2011
[14]

Impact assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on pacific northwest distribution systems | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore

“Impact assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on pacific northwest distribution systems | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online].Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4596392

work page arXiv 2024
[15]

Impact of electric vehicle charging on residential distribution networks: An irish demonstration initiative,

P. Richardson, M. Moran, J. Taylor, A. Maitra, and A. Keane, “Impact of electric vehicle charging on residential distribution networks: An irish demonstration initiative,” in 22nd International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2013), Jun. 2013, pp. 1–

work page 2013
[16]

doi: 10.1049/cp.2013.0873

work page doi:10.1049/cp.2013.0873 2013
[17]

Impact Assessment of Electric Vehicle Integration: A case study of Kathmandu Valley,

R. R. Shrestha, B. Paudyal, P. Basnet, D. Niraula, B. Mali, and H. D. Shakya, “Impact Assessment of Electric Vehicle Integration: A case study of Kathmandu Valley,” in 2022 IEEE Kansas Power and Energy Conference (KPEC), Apr. 2022, pp. 1 –6. doi: 10.1109/KPEC54747.2022.9814737

work page doi:10.1109/kpec54747.2022.9814737 2022
[18]

Impact of electric vehicle charging demand on powerdistribution grid congestion | PNAS

“Impact of electric vehicle charging demand on powerdistribution grid congestion | PNAS.” Accessed: Nov. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2317599121

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2317599121 2024
[19]

Start with smart: Promising practices for integrating electric vehicles into the grid,

“Start with smart: Promising practices for integrating electric vehicles into the grid,” Regulatory Assistance Project. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.raponline.org/knowledge-center/start-with- smart-promising-practices-integrating-electric-vehicles- grid/

work page 2024
[20]

Improving Electric Vehicle Charging Coordination Through Area Pricing | Transportation Science

“Improving Electric Vehicle Charging Coordination Through Area Pricing | Transportation Science.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/trsc.201 3.0467

work page doi:10.1287/trsc.201 2024
[21]

Sustainable Electric Vehicle Charging using Adaptive Pricing,

K. Valogianni, W. Ketter, J. Collins, and D. Zhdanov, “Sustainable Electric Vehicle Charging using Adaptive Pricing,” Prod. Oper. Manag., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1550 – 1572, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1111/poms.13179

work page doi:10.1111/poms.13179 2020
[22]

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,” Appl. Energy, vol. 268, p. 114973, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114973

work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114973 2020
[23]

Mitigation of the Impact of High Plug -in Electric Vehicle Penetration on Residential Distribution Grid Using Smart Charging Strategies

“Mitigation of the Impact of High Plug -in Electric Vehicle Penetration on Residential Distribution Grid Using Smart Charging Strategies.” Accessed: Oct. 14,

work page
[24]

Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996- 1073/9/12/1024

[Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996- 1073/9/12/1024

work page 1996
[25]

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), Feb. 2019, pp. 432–437. doi: 10.1109/ITCE.2019.8646425

work page doi:10.1109/itce.2019.8646425 2019
[26]

Distribution Grid Impacts of Smart Electric Vehicle Charging From Different Perspectives,

E. Veldman and R. A. Verzijlbergh, “Distribution Grid Impacts of Smart Electric Vehicle Charging From Different Perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 333 –342, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TSG.2014.2355494

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2014.2355494 2015
[27]

The potential and economics of EV smart charging: A case study in Shanghai,

L. Jian, Z. Yongqiang, and K. Hyoungmi, “The potential and economics of EV smart charging: A case study in Shanghai,” Energy Policy, vol. 119, pp. 206 –214, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.037

work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.037 2018
[28]

Transportation Electrification Distribution System Impact Study,

“Transportation Electrification Distribution System Impact Study,” New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2022

work page 2022
[29]

J., 2019

Mintz, M., Macal, C., Guo, Z., Kaligotla, C., Wang, Y., and Zhou, Y. J., 2019. Agent -Based Transportation Energy Analysis Model: Methodology and Initial Results Argonne National Lab.(ANL), ANL/ESD -19/7. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1618117

work page doi:10.2172/1618117 2019
[30]

Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Systems Modeling in Washington DC and Baltimore (No

Zhou, Y., Siddique, N., Mintz, M., Aeschliman, S., and Macal, C., 2022. Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Systems Modeling in Washington DC and Baltimore (No. ANL -22/28). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States); Exelon, Chicago, IL (United States

work page 2022
[31]

https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/101

work page

[1] [1]

Policies to promote electric vehicle deployment – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis,

“Policies to promote electric vehicle deployment – Global EV Outlook 2021 – Analysis,” IEA. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook- 2021/policies-to-promote-electric-vehicle-deployment

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Electric Vehicles & Rural Transportation | US Department of Transportation

“Electric Vehicles & Rural Transportation | US Department of Transportation.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev

work page 2024

[3] [3]

2024 Data: EV Adoption is Still on Pace in the US

“2024 Data: EV Adoption is Still on Pace in the US.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.recurrentauto.com/research/ev-adoption-us

work page 2024

[4] [4]

K means Clustering - Introduction,

“K means Clustering - Introduction,” GeeksforGeeks. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/k-means-clustering- introduction/

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Clustering methodology for classifying distribution feeders,

R. J. Broderick and J. R. Williams, “Clustering methodology for classifying distribution feeders,” in 2013 IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), Jun. 2013, pp. 1706 –1710. doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2013.6744473

work page doi:10.1109/pvsc.2013.6744473 2013

[6] [6]

Clustering distribution feeders in the Arizona Public Service territory,

J. Cale, B. Palmintier, D. Narang, and K. Carroll, “Clustering distribution feeders in the Arizona Public Service territory,” in 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC) , Jun. 2014, pp. 2076 –

work page 2014

[7] [7]

doi: 10.1109/PVSC.2014.6925335

work page doi:10.1109/pvsc.2014.6925335 2014

[8] [8]

Clustering Methods and Validation of Representative Distribution Feeders,

A. K. Jain and B. Mather, “Clustering Methods and Validation of Representative Distribution Feeders,” in 2018 IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) , Apr. 2018, pp. 1 –9. doi: 10.1109/TDC.2018.8440137

work page doi:10.1109/tdc.2018.8440137 2018

[9] [9]

On the Classification of Low Voltage Feeders for Network Planning and Hosting Capacity Studies,

B. Bletterie, S. Kadam, and H. Renner, “On the Classification of Low Voltage Feeders for Network Planning and Hosting Capacity Studies,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.3390/en11030651

work page doi:10.3390/en11030651 2018

[10] [10]

Uncontrolled Electric Vehicle Charging Impacts on Distribution Electric Power Systems with Primarily Residential, Commercial or Industrial Loads,

C. B. Jones, M. Lave, W. Vining, and B. M. Garcia, “Uncontrolled Electric Vehicle Charging Impacts on Distribution Electric Power Systems with Primarily Residential, Commercial or Industrial Loads,” Energies, vol. 14, no. 6, Art. no. 6, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.3390/en14061688

work page doi:10.3390/en14061688 2021

[11] [11]

Feeder selection method for full cable networks earth faults based on improved K- means,

Q. Wan, S. Zheng, and C. Shi, “Feeder selection method for full cable networks earth faults based on improved K- means,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 16, no. 19, pp. 3837–3848, 2022, doi: 10.1049/gtd2.12564

work page doi:10.1049/gtd2.12564 2022

[12] [12]

Reliability incentive regulation based on reward-penalty mechanism using distribution feeders clustering,

I. Khonakdar-Tarsi, M. Fotuhi -Firuzabad, M. Ehsan, H. Mohammadnezhad-Shourkaei, and M. Jooshaki, “Reliability incentive regulation based on reward-penalty mechanism using distribution feeders clustering,” Int. Trans. Electr. Energy Syst. , vol. 31, no. 8, p. e12958, 2021, doi: 10.1002/2050-7038.12958

work page doi:10.1002/2050-7038.12958 2021

[13] [13]

Impact of plug in electric vehicles on Manitoba Hydro’s distribution system,

J. Waddell, M. Rylander, A. Maitra, and J. A. Taylor, “Impact of plug in electric vehicles on Manitoba Hydro’s distribution system,” in 2011 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference , Oct. 2011, pp. 409 –414. doi: 10.1109/EPEC.2011.6070235

work page doi:10.1109/epec.2011.6070235 2011

[14] [14]

Impact assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on pacific northwest distribution systems | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore

“Impact assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on pacific northwest distribution systems | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online].Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4596392

work page arXiv 2024

[15] [15]

Impact of electric vehicle charging on residential distribution networks: An irish demonstration initiative,

P. Richardson, M. Moran, J. Taylor, A. Maitra, and A. Keane, “Impact of electric vehicle charging on residential distribution networks: An irish demonstration initiative,” in 22nd International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2013), Jun. 2013, pp. 1–

work page 2013

[16] [16]

doi: 10.1049/cp.2013.0873

work page doi:10.1049/cp.2013.0873 2013

[17] [17]

Impact Assessment of Electric Vehicle Integration: A case study of Kathmandu Valley,

R. R. Shrestha, B. Paudyal, P. Basnet, D. Niraula, B. Mali, and H. D. Shakya, “Impact Assessment of Electric Vehicle Integration: A case study of Kathmandu Valley,” in 2022 IEEE Kansas Power and Energy Conference (KPEC), Apr. 2022, pp. 1 –6. doi: 10.1109/KPEC54747.2022.9814737

work page doi:10.1109/kpec54747.2022.9814737 2022

[18] [18]

Impact of electric vehicle charging demand on powerdistribution grid congestion | PNAS

“Impact of electric vehicle charging demand on powerdistribution grid congestion | PNAS.” Accessed: Nov. 03, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2317599121

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2317599121 2024

[19] [19]

Start with smart: Promising practices for integrating electric vehicles into the grid,

“Start with smart: Promising practices for integrating electric vehicles into the grid,” Regulatory Assistance Project. Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.raponline.org/knowledge-center/start-with- smart-promising-practices-integrating-electric-vehicles- grid/

work page 2024

[20] [20]

Improving Electric Vehicle Charging Coordination Through Area Pricing | Transportation Science

“Improving Electric Vehicle Charging Coordination Through Area Pricing | Transportation Science.” Accessed: Oct. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/trsc.201 3.0467

work page doi:10.1287/trsc.201 2024

[21] [21]

Sustainable Electric Vehicle Charging using Adaptive Pricing,

K. Valogianni, W. Ketter, J. Collins, and D. Zhdanov, “Sustainable Electric Vehicle Charging using Adaptive Pricing,” Prod. Oper. Manag., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1550 – 1572, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1111/poms.13179

work page doi:10.1111/poms.13179 2020

[22] [22]

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,” Appl. Energy, vol. 268, p. 114973, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114973

work page doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114973 2020

[23] [23]

Mitigation of the Impact of High Plug -in Electric Vehicle Penetration on Residential Distribution Grid Using Smart Charging Strategies

“Mitigation of the Impact of High Plug -in Electric Vehicle Penetration on Residential Distribution Grid Using Smart Charging Strategies.” Accessed: Oct. 14,

work page

[24] [24]

Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996- 1073/9/12/1024

[Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996- 1073/9/12/1024

work page 1996

[25] [25]

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), Feb. 2019, pp. 432–437. doi: 10.1109/ITCE.2019.8646425

work page doi:10.1109/itce.2019.8646425 2019

[26] [26]

Distribution Grid Impacts of Smart Electric Vehicle Charging From Different Perspectives,

E. Veldman and R. A. Verzijlbergh, “Distribution Grid Impacts of Smart Electric Vehicle Charging From Different Perspectives,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 333 –342, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TSG.2014.2355494

work page doi:10.1109/tsg.2014.2355494 2015

[27] [27]

The potential and economics of EV smart charging: A case study in Shanghai,

L. Jian, Z. Yongqiang, and K. Hyoungmi, “The potential and economics of EV smart charging: A case study in Shanghai,” Energy Policy, vol. 119, pp. 206 –214, Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.037

work page doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.037 2018

[28] [28]

Transportation Electrification Distribution System Impact Study,

“Transportation Electrification Distribution System Impact Study,” New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, 2022

work page 2022

[29] [29]

J., 2019

Mintz, M., Macal, C., Guo, Z., Kaligotla, C., Wang, Y., and Zhou, Y. J., 2019. Agent -Based Transportation Energy Analysis Model: Methodology and Initial Results Argonne National Lab.(ANL), ANL/ESD -19/7. Available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1618117

work page doi:10.2172/1618117 2019

[30] [30]

Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Systems Modeling in Washington DC and Baltimore (No

Zhou, Y., Siddique, N., Mintz, M., Aeschliman, S., and Macal, C., 2022. Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Systems Modeling in Washington DC and Baltimore (No. ANL -22/28). Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States); Exelon, Chicago, IL (United States

work page 2022

[31] [31]

https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/101

work page