Day-ahead Operation of an Aggregator of Electric Vehicles via Optimization under Uncertainty

\'Alvaro Porras; Juan Miguel Morales; Ricardo Fern\'andez-Blanco; Salvador Pineda

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Day-ahead Operation of an Aggregator of Electric Vehicles via Optimization under Uncertainty

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A bilevel EV fleet schedule cuts real-time energy deviations by half while staying solvable as one mixed-integer program.

desk verdict A competent robust-MILP for EV aggregators, but the 'robustness' only covers total daily energy, not per-period SOC feasibility; the central claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00787 v2 pith:6SXU36NU submitted 2019-08-02 eess.SY cs.SY

Álvaro Porras , Ricardo Fernández-Blanco , Juan Miguel Morales , Salvador Pineda This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords electricvehicleaggregatorday-aheadelectricitymarketbilevelprogrammingrobustoptimizationtotallyunimodularmatrixmixed-integerlinearuncertainavailabilityreal-timeenergydeviations

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

The paper is trying to establish that a day-ahead charging plan for a fleet of electric vehicles can be made robust to each vehicle's uncertain availability without losing tractability. It models the aggregator's problem as a bilevel program: the upper level buys energy at minimum cost subject to battery limits, and each lower level, for a given charging plan, selects the availability pattern that minimizes the total energy the vehicle can receive. Because each lower-level constraint matrix is totally unimodular, the binary availability variables can be relaxed and the whole problem recast as a single mixed-integer linear program. On a month of synthetic travel-survey data for 100 vehicles, the robust schedule reduces real-time energy-balance deviations to roughly half of the deterministic benchmark (up to 83% on some days) at a day-ahead cost increase of about 10%.

What carries the argument

The central object is total unimodularity of the lower-level constraint matrix, a matrix property under which every square submatrix has determinant $0$, $+1$, or $-1$, so that linear-programming relaxations of the integer program have integral extreme points. This property lets the paper relax the binary availability variables $\alpha_{v,t}$ to the interval $[0,1]$, replace each lower-level problem by its primal and dual feasibility constraints plus the strong-duality equality, and then restore integrality. The uncertainty set itself is a budget-type set: for each vehicle, at least $K_v$ periods must be available and each period's availability is box-constrained, and the lower-level objective is the total energy received. The proof machinery is the duality-based reformulation, which turns the bilevel robust problem into a single mixed-integer linear program.

What would settle it

Run the RO-EV schedule against the realized availability patterns from the travel-survey data and check, period by period, whether any battery's state of charge falls below its minimum or exceeds its maximum while the total-energy constraint (7) is satisfied; a single violation would show that the robustness claim, as stated, does not hold for all realizations in the uncertainty set. Because the case study reports only aggregate energy deviations, this per-period check is a concrete test the paper does not carry out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For each vehicle, uncertainty is represented by a set of possible availability patterns: the vehicle must be available in at least $K_v$ time periods, and availability in each period lies between given bounds. The lower-level problem minimizes the total energy the vehicle can receive over the horizon under those constraints, and constraint (7) requires that this worst-case energy at least covers the vehicle's total expected transportation energy. The paper shows that, thanks to the total unimodularity of the lower-level constraint matrix, the bilevel model can be replaced by an equivalent single-level mixed-integer linear program using dual feasibility and strong duality, with the bilinear terms $c_{v,t}\alpha_{v,t}$ linearized through auxiliary variables. In the case study, the robust model's monthly day-ahead cost is about 9.6% higher than the deterministic model's, while total real-time energy deviations fall from 4548.9 kWh to 2404.3 kWh, with the maximum daily deviation dropping from 305.7 kWh to 190.5 kWh.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that guaranteeing the worst-case total charging energy over the horizon covers total transportation energy (constraint (7)) is enough to make the schedule robust, even though this condition does not by itself keep each battery's state of charge within its bounds in every time period for every availability realization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An aggregator can solve a robust day-ahead schedule for a fleet of several hundred vehicles in routine optimization time (under a minute per day in the case study).
The robust schedule hedges by moving charging into periods where availability is certain and prices are low, while vehicles with unpredictable routines receive a nearly flat charging profile.
The documented trade-off is concrete: roughly a 10% increase in day-ahead energy cost buys a roughly 50% reduction in real-time energy-balance deviations, with the largest daily reduction reaching 83%.
Because each vehicle's battery state-of-charge bounds are enforced individually in the formulation, the method does not rely on aggregating the fleet into a single virtual battery.
The formulation provides a benchmark against which deterministic and scenario-based charging strategies can be compared on both cost and real-time deviation metrics.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: Constraint (7) is a total-energy guarantee; it does not by itself certify that battery state of charge stays within bounds at every period for every availability pattern in the uncertainty set, so a sharper per-period robust guarantee would require additional constraints or a richer uncertainty set.
Inference: The same totally-unimodular duality reformulation should transfer to other flexible resources with binary availability patterns, such as battery storage or interruptible demand, whenever their lower-level availability sets share the same structure.
Inference: The flat-charging behavior observed for unpredictable vehicles suggests a general design rule: when no time slot is certain, spreading charge uniformly over the horizon is near-optimal; this could be tested as a heuristic without solving the mixed-integer program.
Inference: The robust plan is only as good as the uncertainty-set parameters ($K_v$ and the per-period bounds); tuning them to measured availability records offers a direct, testable path to controlling the cost-versus-deviation trade-off.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. The paper's new bit is genuine: it puts per-vehicle battery dynamics inside a robust bilevel program and exploits total unimodularity of the lower-level matrix to get a MILP. The reformulation in Section IV hand-checks — the dual is right, the big-M linearization is standard, and the TU claim is correct. The case study is an honest, if modest, empirical demo: NHTS-derived availability, 29-day out-of-sample backtest, and the headline result (real-time deviations roughly halved, at ~10% higher day-ahead cost) is believable.

The soft spot is what 'robust' means here. Constraint (7), together with the lower-level problem (8)-(10), only sizes the worst-case total energy available over the horizon. It says nothing about whether a particular charging schedule respects SOC bounds in every period. The two-period counterexample from the stress-test is correct: with E_max=10, C=10, and 5 kWh of driving each period, the total-energy constraint forces full-rate charging in both periods, but the realization with no availability in period 1 sends SOC negative. The slack variables allow that, so the schedule is not feasible for all realizations — it just buys enough energy and then pays a penalty in real time. The authors' conclusion does say 'total energy required for transportation,' so the limitation is half-acknowledged, but the abstract and intro over-deliver.

The uncertainty-set inputs (K_v and the alpha bounds) are estimated from four historical days, with no sensitivity analysis; there's no code; the backtest is one 29-day realization. None of that kills the paper, but it caps the strength of the claims. The math itself is sound, and the citation pattern is transparent — the debt to the robust unit-commitment literature is clear.

Who gets value: anyone building an EV aggregator model who wants a vehicle-level robust formulation and is willing to think of it as a risk-aversion heuristic rather than a certificate. It deserves a serious referee; my recommendation is to send it out, and in revision require the authors to clearly state the total-energy nature of the guarantee and consider adding a per-period robustness check or a two-stage extension.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a day-ahead operation model for an aggregator of electric vehicles (EVs) formulated as a bilevel program. The upper level minimizes day-ahead energy purchase and battery-balance penalty costs, while each lower-level problem minimizes the total energy available to a single EV over the horizon, subject to an availability uncertainty set described by bounds and a cardinality constraint. The authors exploit total unimodularity of the lower-level constraint matrices, apply LP duality and linearize the resulting bilinear products to obtain a single-level MILP, called RO-EV. They compare RO-EV against a deterministic counterpart DO-EV on a synthetic case study built from NHTS 2017 data and Spanish electricity prices, reporting about a 10% increase in day-ahead costs and a reduction of real-time energy deviations to roughly half.

Significance. If fully valid, the paper would make a useful methodological contribution: the TU-based duality reformulation is elegant, avoids scenario enumeration, and the resulting MILP is solved quickly on a 100-EV case. The authors also make a clear effort to use publicly available data and to compare robust and deterministic approaches on an out-of-sample rolling basis. However, the central robustness claim is weaker than the abstract suggests. The robust condition (7) only enforces a horizon-total energy sufficiency guarantee, not per-period state-of-charge feasibility for every availability realization. The reported deviation reductions are measured on a single historical realization and therefore do not constitute a robustness certificate. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claim, though the underlying mathematical reformulation itself appears sound.

major comments (3)

[Section III, constraints (7)-(10)] The robust guarantee implemented by the lower-level problem is only a total-energy condition over the horizon, not a per-period feasibility condition on the state of charge. Constraint (7) requires that the worst-case total available charging energy be at least the total transportation energy, but it does not ensure that the battery energy limits (4) are satisfied for every availability realization in the uncertainty set (9)-(10). For example, consider one EV with E_min=0, E_max=10 kWh, C=10 kW, Delta t=1 h, eta=1, xi=(5,5) kWh, K_v=1, and alpha bounds [0,1]. Constraint (7) forces c1=c2=10 kW, so the schedule meets the total-energy condition, but the realization alpha=(0,1) lies in the uncertainty set and gives SOC_1 = -5 kWh, violating (4). Thus the schedule is not robust in the per-period sense. The paper should either strengthen the formulation to enforce per-period robust feasibility of SOC bounds or clearly qualify the statement that the schedule is 'robust against the uncertain availability of the EVs.'
[Section VI-C, Tables I-II] The empirical comparison evaluates the two methods on a single historical availability realization per day. The reported 50-83% reduction in energy deviations is therefore an out-of-sample performance measure, not a verification that the RO-EV schedule avoids violations for all realizations in the uncertainty set. To support the robustness claim, the authors should test the schedule against adversarial or multiple realizations inside the uncertainty set, or explicitly frame the reduction as a statistical performance gain rather than a robustness certificate. This distinction matters because the deterministic schedule might also satisfy the total-energy condition by purchasing more energy, without any guarantee of per-period feasibility.
[Section V, comparison methodology] The deterministic comparator DO-EV uses the same expected values of availability and consumption as the robust model, but it does not include any mechanism for accounting for uncertainty, such as reserve margins or scenario-based constraints. The comparison is therefore not surprising: the robust model buys more energy and reduces deviations on a typical day. The paper would benefit from a clearer statement of what 'fair comparison' means here, e.g., by reporting the full distribution of deviations, not only averages and maxima, and by discussing whether the cost increase buys a meaningful reduction in the tail risk of violations.

minor comments (5)

[Nomenclature and equations] The lower and upper bound dual variables are both denoted beta_{v,t}, with only an overbar/underbar distinction that is lost in several places in the text. This makes equations (12)-(14) and the strong-duality expression (20) confusing. Please use distinct symbols such as beta_{v,t}^{lo} and beta_{v,t}^{up}.
[Section VII] The conclusion states that the daily purchase cost increases by 'around 15%', whereas Table II reports a 9.6% monthly cost increase and Table I reports a 5.8% increase for day 21. Please reconcile these numbers.
[Figures] Several figure captions and axis labels contain garbled font encoding (e.g., in Figures 3-5), making the plots difficult to read. The source PDF or fonts should be fixed before publication.
[Section VI] The paper does not provide code or data for the case study. Given that the authors already rely on public data, releasing the Pyomo/CPLEX implementation would improve reproducibility and help readers verify the computational claims.
[Section VI] The text says the simulations use 'one CPU clocking at 2.8 GHz, 6 cores and 8 GB of RAM'. This is ambiguous (one CPU with six cores, or a six-core machine?) and should be stated as a single machine specification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the robust MILP is a standard duality reformulation and the reported deviation reductions are out-of-sample measurements.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The robust model RO-EV is explicitly constructed by imposing the min-max condition (7)-(10), and the lower-level minimization is then converted to a single-level MILP via total unimodularity and LP duality in Section IV. That reformulation is mathematical: the TU argument, dual feasibility constraints (12)-(14), strong-duality equality (20), and the linearization (22)-(25) do not assume the conclusion they are used to prove. The uncertainty-set parameters Kv, alpha_vt, and alpha_vt are estimated from NHTS 2017 historical data, and the 29-day comparison with DO-EV is evaluated on the same historical availability and consumption realizations in a rolling out-of-sample fashion (Section VI). The reported 50-83% deviation reductions are measured simulation outcomes, not parameters fitted to match those reductions. The paper's own limitation is a modeling-adequacy concern, not circularity: constraint (7) certifies only worst-case total charging energy over the horizon, not per-period state-of-charge feasibility for every alpha in (9)-(10), so the abstract's phrase "robust against the uncertain availability of the EVs" overstates what the constraint actually guarantees. This is acknowledged indirectly in the conclusion, which says the model ensures "the total energy required for transportation throughout the optimization horizon must be satisfied," and in the future-work remark about "refining the uncertainty set of the driving patterns." That gap is a correctness/validation issue, not an equation reducing to its own input. The only self-citation, reference [7] in the introduction, is a background pointer to prior work by one of the authors on Markov-decision-process charging of a single EV; it is not load-bearing for the bilevel derivation, the TU argument, or the case-study claims. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard results in integer programming and duality. The modeling side depends on a specific uncertainty-set structure (K_v plus bounds) and a total-energy guarantee. The uncertainty-set parameters are free in the sense that the paper does not give an unambiguous rule for setting them, and the case-study results are conditional on those choices. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

K_v (minimum number of available periods for each EV) = 57 for EV-A, 52 for EV-B; not specified for others
Defines the size of the availability uncertainty set. Estimated from historical records without a stated rule; the results and the level of conservatism depend on this value.
Availability bounds αv,t and αv,t = 0 or 1 per period for fixed/unavailable periods
The set of periods with fixed availability is chosen from historical data, but the exact criterion (e.g., all past days identical or a frequency threshold) is not described.
Penalty cost P = 1000 EUR/kWh
Chosen for the case study; it is a parameter that influences the trade-off between day-ahead cost and real-time deviations, though it is explicitly stated.

assumptions (5)

standard math The constraint matrix of the lower-level problem (8)-(10) is totally unimodular, so the LP relaxation has integral optimal solutions when the RHS parameters are integer.
Invoked in Section IV to justify relaxing the binary availability variables; relies on Schrijver's Theorem 19.3, a known result.
standard math Strong duality holds for the relaxed lower-level linear program, so primal and dual objective values coincide at optimality.
Used in Section IV to replace the lower-level objective with the dual objective and to add the strong duality equality (20).
domain assumption The uncertainty in EV availability is fully captured by the set {Σα ≥ K_v, α_v,t ≤ α_v,t ≤ α̅_v,t} for each EV.
This is the paper's model of robustness. A single cardinality constraint plus per-period box bounds may not capture temporal correlations or the precise timing of availability.
ad hoc to paper Satisfying the total energy requirement (7) over the horizon is sufficient for meeting transportation needs; per-trip energy timing is not explicitly enforced.
The model checks total worst-case available energy against total expected consumption, not the schedule of trips, which may matter for per-period SOC feasibility.
domain assumption NHTS 2017 and ENTSO-e data are suitable proxies for real EV behavior and market prices.
Used for the case study; the data are treated as ground truth for backtesting the two operation methods.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Day-ahead Operation of an Aggregator of Electric Vehicles via Optimization under Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SXU36NU

@misc{pith2026190800787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Day-ahead Operation of an Aggregator of Electric Vehicles via Optimization under Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SXU36NU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00787}
}

read the original abstract

We pose the aggregator's problem as a bilevel model, where the upper level minimizes the total operation costs of the fleet of EVs, while each lower level minimizes the energy available to each vehicle for transportation given a certain charging plan. Thanks to the totally unimodular character of the constraint matrix in the lower-level problems, the model can be mathematically recast as a computationally efficient mixed-integer program that delivers charging schedules that are robust against the uncertain availability of the EVs. Finally, we use synthetic data from the National Household Travel Survey 2017 to analyze the behavior of the EV aggregator from both economic and technical viewpoints and compare it with the results from a deterministic approach.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00787 by the authors.

**Figure 5.** Energy state-of-charge evolution for the DO-EV and RO-EV and for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Charging schedule for the DO-EV and RO-EV (left y-axis) and day [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Monthly results: (a) Day-ahead power purchased per day and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018

“Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018.” [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L0844&from=ES

work page 2018
[2]

Global ev outlook 2018: Towards cross-modal electriﬁcation,

T. Bunsen, P. Cazzola, M. Gorner, L. Paoli, S. Scheffer, R. Schuitmaker, J. Tattini, and J. Teter, “Global ev outlook 2018: Towards cross-modal electriﬁcation,” 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Impact of electric vehicles on the expansion planning of distribution systems considering renewable energy, storage and charging stations,

P. M. de Quevedo, G. Mu ˜noz-Delgado, and J. Contreras, “Impact of electric vehicles on the expansion planning of distribution systems considering renewable energy, storage and charging stations,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 794–804, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution networks,

L. P. Fernandez, T. G. San Rom ´an, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo, and P. Frias, “Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 206–213, 2011

work page 2011
[5]

The impact of electric vehicle deployment on load management straregies,

G. T. Heydt, “The impact of electric vehicle deployment on load management straregies,” IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems, no. 5, pp. 1253–1259, 1983

work page 1983
[6]

Electric vehicle charge planning using economic model predictive control,

R. Halvgaard, N. K. Poulsen, H. Madsen, J. B. Jørgensen, F. Marra, and D. E. M. Bondy, “Electric vehicle charge planning using economic model predictive control,” in 2012 IEEE International Electric V ehicle Conference, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2012

work page 2012
[7]

Optimal charging of an electric vehicle using a markov decision process,

E. B. Iversen, J. M. Morales, and H. Madsen, “Optimal charging of an electric vehicle using a markov decision process,” Applied Energy , vol. 123, pp. 1–12, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Optimal operation of aggregated electric vehicle charging stations coupled with energy storage,

M. R. Sarker, H. Pand ˇzi´c, K. Sun, and M. A. Ortega-Vazquez, “Optimal operation of aggregated electric vehicle charging stations coupled with energy storage,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1127–1136, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 20 references

[9]

Optimal scheduling of electric vehicle charg- ing and vehicle-to-grid services at household level including battery degradation and price uncertainty,

M. A. Ortega-Vazquez, “Optimal scheduling of electric vehicle charg- ing and vehicle-to-grid services at household level including battery degradation and price uncertainty,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1007–1016, 2014

2014
[10]

A stochastic robust optimization approach for the bidding strategy of an electric vehicle aggregator,

L. Baringo and R. S. Amaro, “A stochastic robust optimization approach for the bidding strategy of an electric vehicle aggregator,”Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 146, pp. 362–370, 2017

2017
[11]

Integration of pevs into power markets: a bidding strategy for a ﬂeet aggregator,

M. Gonz ´alez Vay´a, L. Baringo, and G. Andersson, “Integration of pevs into power markets: a bidding strategy for a ﬂeet aggregator,” in Plug In Electric V ehicles in Smart Grids , pp. 233–260, Springer, 2015

2015
[12]

Contingency-constrained unit commitment with n − k security criterion: A robust optimization ap- proach,

A. Street, F. Oliveira, and J. M. Arroyo, “Contingency-constrained unit commitment with n − k security criterion: A robust optimization ap- proach,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1581– 1590, 2011

2011
[13]

Schrijver, Theory of linear and integer programming

A. Schrijver, Theory of linear and integer programming . John Wiley & Sons, 1998

1998
[14]

D. G. Luenberger, Linear and nonlinear programming . USA, MA, Reading:Addison-Wesley, 1989

1989
[15]

C. A. Floudas, Nonlinear and mixed-integer optimization: fundamentals and applications . Oxford University Press, 1995

1995
[16]

Data Sheet Renault ZE ZOE

“Data Sheet Renault ZE ZOE.” [Online]. Available: http://electromovilidad.net/renault/ﬁcha-tecnica-renault-zoe/, 2019

2019
[17]

National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data

“National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data.” [Online]. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/, 2019

2019
[18]

European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-e)

“European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO-e).” [Online]. Available: https://www.entsoe.eu/, 2019

2019
[19]

IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimisation Studio

“IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimisation Studio.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ibm.com/analytics/cplex-optimizer, 2019

2019
[20]

Pyomo: Modeling and solving mathematical programs in Python,

W. E. Hart, J. P. Watson, and D. L. Woodruff, “Pyomo: Modeling and solving mathematical programs in Python,” Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 219–260, 2011

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018

“Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018.” [Online]. Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L0844&from=ES

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Global ev outlook 2018: Towards cross-modal electriﬁcation,

T. Bunsen, P. Cazzola, M. Gorner, L. Paoli, S. Scheffer, R. Schuitmaker, J. Tattini, and J. Teter, “Global ev outlook 2018: Towards cross-modal electriﬁcation,” 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Impact of electric vehicles on the expansion planning of distribution systems considering renewable energy, storage and charging stations,

P. M. de Quevedo, G. Mu ˜noz-Delgado, and J. Contreras, “Impact of electric vehicles on the expansion planning of distribution systems considering renewable energy, storage and charging stations,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 794–804, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution networks,

L. P. Fernandez, T. G. San Rom ´an, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo, and P. Frias, “Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution networks,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 206–213, 2011

work page 2011

[5] [5]

The impact of electric vehicle deployment on load management straregies,

G. T. Heydt, “The impact of electric vehicle deployment on load management straregies,” IEEE transactions on power apparatus and systems, no. 5, pp. 1253–1259, 1983

work page 1983

[6] [6]

Electric vehicle charge planning using economic model predictive control,

R. Halvgaard, N. K. Poulsen, H. Madsen, J. B. Jørgensen, F. Marra, and D. E. M. Bondy, “Electric vehicle charge planning using economic model predictive control,” in 2012 IEEE International Electric V ehicle Conference, pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2012

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Optimal charging of an electric vehicle using a markov decision process,

E. B. Iversen, J. M. Morales, and H. Madsen, “Optimal charging of an electric vehicle using a markov decision process,” Applied Energy , vol. 123, pp. 1–12, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Optimal operation of aggregated electric vehicle charging stations coupled with energy storage,

M. R. Sarker, H. Pand ˇzi´c, K. Sun, and M. A. Ortega-Vazquez, “Optimal operation of aggregated electric vehicle charging stations coupled with energy storage,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1127–1136, 2017

work page 2017