Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Data-Driven Assessment of Vehicle-to-Grid Capabilities in Supporting Grid During Emergencies: Case Study of Travis County, TX

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using real-world data from Travis County, this paper argues that by 2040 a large enough EV fleet with bidirectional chargers could act as distributed backup generation and drive involuntary load shed to zero in winter-storm-like…

desk verdict A useful, data-grounded case study whose 2040 zero-load-shed headline is an upper-bound capability estimate, not a forecast. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07982 v2 pith:JOQJUCVZ submitted 2024-12-10 eess.SY cs.SY

Kelsey Nelson , Javad Mohammadi This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords vehicle-to-gridelectricvehiclesgridresiliencebidirectionalchargingloadsheddingemergencyresponseoptimalpowerflowTravisCounty
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 asks whether the growing fleet of electric vehicles in Travis County, Texas, could act as distributed backup batteries during grid emergencies, and answers yes. Using survey-based willingness, current EV registrations, demographics, and historical outage data from a 2021 winter storm, it builds a realistic synthetic transmission grid and simulates three major generator outages. The headline result is that with the projected 2040 EV fleet and universal access to bidirectional chargers, involuntary load shed drops to 0.00% in every tested scenario, compared with 40-54% without V2G. The reason this matters is that it identifies fleets of EVs, if equipped with bidirectional chargers, as a concrete resilience resource for cities planning for climate-driven emergencies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an integrated, data-driven simulation pipeline. A linear regression model trained on survey responses predicts an individual's willingness to participate in V2G from age, sex, income, and education; the model is applied to a synthetic population created from census microdata to estimate participation rates per zip code. A system dynamics model projects current EV registrations forward to 2030, 2035, and 2040 using market-share benchmarks, and each participating vehicle is modeled as a 7 kW generator (the typical Level 2 charger rate) placed at the corresponding substation of a 173-bus synthetic transmission grid. An AC optimal power flow (ACOPF) is then run for three outage scenarios that take offline the natural-gas generators that failed during a 2021 winter storm, with unmet demand reported as involuntary load shed when the power flow does not converge.

What would settle it

A field measurement of bidirectional-charger penetration among willing EV owners in Travis County would settle the assumption: if, for example, only half of willing owners have chargers in 2040, rerunning the three outage scenarios with that reduced V2G capacity should show involuntary load shed above zero if the paper's mechanism is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that V2G participation from a realistically projected EV fleet can fully eliminate involuntary load shed in winter-storm-like transmission outages. In the three outage scenarios, the no-V2G case sheds 40.7%, 34.7%, and 53.8% of system demand; with 2030 fleet participation these fall to 22.5%, 13.2%, and 35.4%; with 2035 participation two of three scenarios converge; and with 2040 participation all three converge to 0.00% load shed. The authors also show that battery capacity limits the duration of support, with over half of the current participating fleet able to sustain discharge for more than 12 hours. The claim is framed as an upper-bound estimate because it assumes every willing participant has a bidirectional charger.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every EV owner who says they would participate in V2G actually has a bidirectional charger installed and a battery charged enough to dispatch at the moment of the emergency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If EV adoption and bidirectional-charger access follow the projected trends, V2G can prevent involuntary load shed entirely in the modeled winter-storm outages by 2040.
  • The benefit grows steeply with fleet size: 2030 participation roughly halves load shed, and 2035 participation eliminates it in the single-generator scenario at bus 172.
  • Duration of V2G support is bounded by battery capacity, so the fleet is most effective for the first 12 hours of an emergency with the current mix of vehicles.
  • Even partial participation (2025 registration levels) reduces load shed, but only by a few percentage points, so early infrastructure investment matters for later payoffs.
  • The results suggest that policies subsidizing bidirectional charger installation should be paired with EV adoption incentives to realize the 2040 zero-load-shed outcome.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: if bidirectional-charger access settles at a realistic 30-50% of willing owners rather than 100%, the 2040 zero-load-shed result would likely degrade and some involuntary load shed would remain.
  • Because the willingness model uses only demographics, actual participation will also depend on real-time price signals, charger availability, and storm-specific behavior; the zero-load-shed figure is therefore best read as an upper bound, not a forecast.
  • The same framework could be applied to other counties or cities with comparable registration, survey, and grid data, and the battery-depletion curve suggests pairing V2G with rolling load shifts could extend its usefulness beyond the first half-day.
  • A testable extension is to disaggregate plug-in hybrids from full battery-electric vehicles in the 2040 fleet projection, since the 25% plug-in hybrid share materially shortens how long the fleet can sustain full 7 kW discharge.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a data-driven framework to estimate the amount of transmission-level support that vehicle-to-grid (V2G) participation could provide in Travis County, Texas during winter emergency outages. It combines current EV registration data, a survey-based model of V2G willingness, synthetic population generation, and a system-dynamics projection of EV adoption to place V2G participants as distributed generators on a 173-bus synthetic grid. AC optimal power flow is run for three outage scenarios derived from Winter Storm Uri and for participant levels corresponding to 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040 EV fleet projections. The central quantitative result is Table II, which reports that by 2040 involuntary load shed reaches 0.00% in all three outage scenarios, leading to the conclusion that V2G can play a substantial role in preventing load shed. The paper also presents a battery-depletion analysis in Figure 4, acknowledging the time-limited nature of V2G support.

Significance. If the framework's assumptions are appropriately qualified, the paper addresses a timely and policy-relevant question: whether aggregated V2G resources at the transmission level could meaningfully reduce involuntary load shed during extreme-weather emergencies. Its strengths include the use of geographically specific real-world data (EV registrations, outage records, synthetic population, and a county-scale test grid), the explicit modeling of three concrete outage scenarios, and the use of the open-source pandapower tool, which supports reproducibility of the grid calculations. The paper is also honest in stating its key assumption about bidirectional charger access and in presenting battery-depletion behavior. However, the headline zero-load-shed results rest on several strongly favorable assumptions—full participation among willing owners, universal bidirectional charger access, availability at the emergency hour, sufficient state of charge, and an instantaneous feasibility assessment—so the current quantitative claims are likely upper bounds rather than realistic expectations.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table II and Section IV] Table II reports 0.00% involuntary load shed for all three 2040 scenarios, but this is an instantaneous ACOPF result, not an end-to-end statement about preventing load shed throughout a winter emergency. The paper's own Figure 4 shows that a large share of vehicles deplete within hours when dispatched at time zero, and about 25% of the current fleet are plug-in hybrids with small batteries. The authors should either present time-integrated load shed over a realistic outage duration or explicitly state that the 0.00% values represent a maximum instantaneous capability. As written, the conclusion that V2G can 'prevent involuntary load shed' overstates what the analysis supports.
  2. [Section III, key assumption and Figure 4] The assumption that all willing V2G participants have bidirectional chargers, combined with the implicit treatment of every willing EV as plugged in and available at the emergency hour, converts a hypothetical maximum V2G contribution into the reported load-shed values. The manuscript does not quantify plug-in availability, charging-port compatibility, or the distribution of state of charge at dispatch time. The authors should add a sensitivity analysis or scenario set that de-rates participation by plausible availability and bidirectional-charger penetration factors; without this, the 0.00% values are not robust policy conclusions.
  3. [Table I and Section III] The mapping from survey responses to participation rates (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%) is stated without justification, and the underlying linear regression treats an ordinal Likert scale as a numeric target and rounds predictions to the nearest category. Because the participation rate directly scales the MW of V2G generation placed on the grid, the central quantitative results are sensitive to this mapping. The authors should justify the mapping using external evidence or present results over a range of plausible mappings to show that the qualitative conclusions—and especially the 0.00% figures—are robust.
  4. [Section III, EV fleet projection] The EV fleet projections for 2030, 2035, and 2040 are taken from the authors' own prior work (reference [19]) via a system dynamics model, but the model equations, parameter values, and calibration data are not included in this manuscript. Since fleet size is the primary driver of the load-shed reductions in Table II, the results cannot be independently checked or reproduced from the information provided. The paper should either include the system-dynamics model and its inputs, or replace it with a publicly documented adoption projection and provide a sensitivity range.
  5. [Section IV, feasibility gap] The text states that for cases where the ACOPF does not converge, 'the feasibility gap is evaluated by showing the unmet electricity demand as a percentage of total load,' but the precise algorithm is not described. It is unclear whether the reported load-shed percentages come from the ACOPF solver's final infeasible solution, from a load-shedding optimization, or from an ex post scaling of generation shortfall. The authors should document the computation of unmet demand, including how load is curtailed and how the percentage is normalized, and state whether 0.00% means the ACOPF produced an exact feasible solution or simply a value below the reporting precision.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title and text] Winter Storm Uri is consistently spelled 'Urie' throughout the manuscript; the correct storm name is 'Uri' (the name of the storm in February 2021), and the typo should be corrected.
  2. [Table I] In Table I, the cells for survey responses 'I probably would participate' and 'I definitely would participate' are formatted with a stray '%' inside the text column; the formatting should be cleaned.
  3. [Section IV, R2 statement] The statement that the linear regression 'demonstrated robust performance with an R2 value of .79' would benefit from reporting the number of survey responses, the train/test split size, and confidence intervals, since an R2 of 0.79 on a 5-point categorical outcome is not by itself evidence of robustness for the subsequent participation-rate projection.
  4. [Figure 4] Figure 4 lacks explicit axis labels and a legend describing whether the curves represent all EVs or only V2G participants; adding these would improve interpretability of the depletion timeline.
  5. [Section III, last paragraph] The sentence beginning 'Because the EV registrations are available by make and model...' introduces the range catalog, but it is not connected to a formula or algorithm for translating range into discharge duration; a short equation or definition would clarify the calculation behind Figure 4.
  6. [References] References [14] and [15] are given as 'chrome-extension://' URLs, which are not stable or universally accessible; the authors should replace these with permanent DOIs or publisher-hosted reports.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the V2G load-shed results are ACOPF outputs from independently assembled inputs; the self-cited fleet model is an exogenous adoption scenario, not the predicted outcome.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain runs from (i) EV registration and demographic data, (ii) a survey-based participation model, (iii) EV fleet projections from a system dynamics model, and (iv) an ACOPF on a synthetic Travis County grid under three outage scenarios. Each step's output feeds forward into the next; none is defined in terms of the load-shed outcome. The participation rates in Table I and the 7 kW/vehicle discharge assumption are explicit modeling choices made before the ACOPF is run, not parameters fitted to match the reported load-shed percentages. The Table II 0.00% values are feasibility results of the ACOPF at a single dispatch instant; Figure 4 and the text acknowledge that battery depletion limits the duration of support, which is a modeling limitation rather than a circular step. The only self-citation with substantive content is [19], which supplies the EV-adoption scenario; it is an exogenous input to this study, and the ACOPF result is not fed back into that adoption model, so there is no circular loop. No 'prediction' is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numbers depend on several hand-set participation rates, a fitted willingness model, and EV fleet projections from the authors' prior work, none of which carry uncertainty bounds.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-vehicle V2G power output = 7 kW/vehicle
    Set to typical Level 2 charger speed; no distribution or charger limit modeling.
  • Survey response to participation rate mapping = 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% for Likert 1-5
    Arbitrary linear mapping; actual emergency participation rates likely lower.
  • Linear regression coefficients for V2G willingness = Not reported
    Fit to survey data from [16]; applied to synthetic Travis County population.
  • EV adoption projection parameters = Not reported
    System dynamics model parameters (15-yr lifetime, market share growth, incentives multiplier) from [19] and cited sources; model not fully specified in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 173-bus synthetic Texas A&M grid is an adequate representation of Travis County transmission for emergency analysis
    Used as the test bed throughout; no validation against actual Travis County topology or impedances.
  • domain assumption Mapping actual Winter Storm Uri generator outages to the two synthetic buses preserves the emergency's essential generation deficit
    Only natural gas plants at buses 10 and 172 are taken offline; other outage causes in Uri are ignored.
  • domain assumption Infeasible ACOPF's feasibility gap equals involuntary load shed percentage
    Paper states this without showing how the gap is computed; non-convergence may have numerical causes.
  • domain assumption All willing V2G participants have bidirectional chargers and can discharge at 7 kW with full batteries at t=0
    Explicitly stated key assumption in Section III; also implies no battery depletion in the ACOPF results.
  • domain assumption National V2G willingness survey is representative of Travis County EV owners
    Survey [16] is U.S.-wide; applied without regional recalibration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-Driven Assessment of Vehicle-to-Grid Capabilities in Supporting Grid During Emergencies: Case Study of Travis County, TX." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JOQJUCVZ

@misc{pith2026241207982,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-Driven Assessment of Vehicle-to-Grid Capabilities in Supporting Grid During Emergencies: Case Study of Travis County, TX},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JOQJUCVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07982}
}
read the original abstract

As extreme weather events become more common and threaten power grids, the continuing adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) introduces a growing opportunity for their use as a distributed energy storage resource. This energy storage can be used as backup generation through the use of vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology, where electricity is sent back from EV batteries to the grid. With enough participation from EV owners, V2G can mitigate outages during grid emergencies. In order to investigate a practical application of V2G, this study leverages a vast array of real-world data, such as survey results on V2G participation willingness, historical outage data within ERCOT, current EV registrations, and demographic data. This data informs realistic emergency grid scenarios with V2G support using a synthetic transmission grid for Travis County. The results find that as EV ownership rises in the coming years, the simultaneous facilitation of bidirectional charging availability would allow for V2G to play a substantial role in preventing involuntary load shed as a result of emergencies like winter storms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07982 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of how the proposed framework infuses geog [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This map displays the actual location of buses where generators [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. This figure shows how over time, V2G participants batteries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Evs and ercot: Foundations for modeling future adoption scenarios and grid im- plications,

    K. Nelson, P. Moura, and J. Mohammadi, “Evs and ercot: Foundations for modeling future adoption scenarios and grid im- plications,” in 2023 11th Workshop on Modelling and Simulation of Cyber-Physical Energy Systems (MSCPES) , 2023, pp. 1–6

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Electric vehicle aggregation review: Benefits and vulnerabilities of managing a growing fleet,

    K. Nelson, J. Mohammadi, Y . Chen, E. Blasch, A. Aved, D. Fer- ris, E. A. Cruz, and P. Morrone, “Electric vehicle aggregation review: Benefits and vulnerabilities of managing a growing fleet,” in 2024 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC), 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Experts sound alarm as record heat strains texas power grid,

    R. Diamante, “Experts sound alarm as record heat strains texas power grid,” Spectrum News, Available at: https:// spectrumlocalnews.com/ tx/ austin/ politics/ 2022/ 09/ 06/ record-heat-in-texas-pushes-power-grid-to-limit- , 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Environ- mental Protection Agency

    (2016, August) What climate change means for texas. Environ- mental Protection Agency. [Online]. Available: https://www.epa. gov/sites/default/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-tx.pdf

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    J. Donald. (2021, October) Winter storm uri 2021. [Online]. Available: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/ fiscal-notes/archive/2021/oct/winter-storm-impact.php

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    A. Ruder. (2022, January) State ev registration data. Atlas EV Hub. [Online]. Available: https://www.atlasevhub.com/materials/ state-ev-registration-data/

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    2023 state transportation electrification scorecard,

    P. Huether, C. Cohn, B. Jennings, J. Mah, E. Taylor, C. Tolentino, and S. Vaidyanathan, “2023 state transportation electrification scorecard,” American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Tech. Rep., 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    D. Thai. (2023) Comprehensive guide on bidirectional charging. [Online]. Available: https://zecar.com/resources/ watt-is-bidirectional-charging-v2g-v2h-v2l

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Multi-objective-based charging and discharging coordination of plug-in electric vehicle integrating capacitor and oltc,

    J. B. F. Islam, M. T. Rahman, S. Ahmad, T. Ahmed, G. M. Shafiullah, H. Mokhlis, M. Othman, T. F. T. M. N. Izam, H. Mohamad, and M. T. Arif, “Multi-objective-based charging and discharging coordination of plug-in electric vehicle integrating capacitor and oltc,” Energies, vol. ...

  2. [9]

    Electric vehicle charging load prediction model considering traffic conditions and temperature,

    J. Feng, X. Chang, Y . Fan, and W. Luo, “Electric vehicle charging load prediction model considering traffic conditions and temperature,” Processes, vol. 11, no. 8, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/11/8/2256

    2023

  3. [10]

    Techno-economic configuration of a hybrid backup system within a microgrid considering vehicle-to-grid technology: A case study of a remote area,

    M. Elkholy, T. Said, M. Elymany, T. Senjyu, M. M. Gamil, D. Song, S. Ueda, and M. E. Lotfy, “Techno-economic configuration of a hybrid backup system within a microgrid considering vehicle-to-grid technology: A case study of a remote area,” Energy Conversion and Management , vo...

    2024

  4. [11]

    A rapid recovery strategy for post-earthquake power grids with the auxiliary support of v2g,

    Y . Wu, Q. Yang, J. Su, Y . Xiang, G. Zhang, Y . Li, and C. Ji, “A rapid recovery strategy for post-earthquake power grids with the auxiliary support of v2g,” in 2022 IEEE/IAS Industrial and Commercial Power System Asia (I&CPS Asia) , 2022, pp. 1680– 1685

    2022

  5. [12]

    Review of vehicle to grid integration to support power grid security,

    Y . Yang, W. Wang, J. Qin, M. Wang, Q. Ma, and Y . Zhong, “Review of vehicle to grid integration to support power grid security,” Energy Reports , vol. 12, pp. 2786– 2800, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2352484724005596

    2024

  6. [13]

    [Online]

    (2023) Texas A&M University. [Online]. Available: https: //electricgrids.engr.tamu.edu/syn-austin-tdgrid/

    2023

  7. [14]

    The timeline and events of the february 2021 texas electric grid blackouts,

    N. Lin, E. Kutanoglu, B. Leibowicz, D. Niyogi, V . Rai, S. Santoso, D. Spence, S. Tompaidis, and H. Zhu, “The timeline and events of the february 2021 texas electric grid blackouts,” Tech. Rep., 2021. [Online]. Available: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/htt...

    2021

  8. [15]

    Update to april 6, 2021 preliminary report on causes of generator outages and derates during the february 2021 extreme cold weather event,

    “Update to april 6, 2021 preliminary report on causes of generator outages and derates during the february 2021 extreme cold weather event,” Tech. Rep., 2021. [Online]. Available: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https: //www.ercot.com/files/docs/2021/04/28/...

    2021

  9. [16]

    Assessing public opinions of and interest in bidirectional electric vehicle charging technologies: A u.s. perspective,

    M. D. Dean and K. M. Kockelman, “Assessing public opinions of and interest in bidirectional electric vehicle charging technologies: A u.s. perspective,” Transportation Research Record , July 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1177/03611981241253608

    2024 doi

  10. [17]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-year Public Use Micro- data Samples [SAS Data file]. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t

    2012

  11. [18]

    Konduri, and K.P

    Pendyala, R.M., K.C. Konduri, and K.P. Christian (2011) PopGen 1.1 User’s Manual. Lulu.com Publishers, USA

    2011

  12. [20]

    Robinson

    R. Robinson. (2016) Austin area popula- tion histories and forecasts. [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/ Demographics/austin forecast 2017 annual pub.pdf

    2016

  13. [21]

    Vehicle fleet turnover and the future of fuel economy,

    D. R. Keith, S. Houston, and S. Naumov, “Vehicle fleet turnover and the future of fuel economy,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 14, no. 2, p. 021001, feb 2019. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf4d2

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Austin District Statistics: Vehicles Registered (FY 2022)

    Texas Department of Transportation. “Austin District Statistics: Vehicles Registered (FY 2022).” 2023, https://www.dot.state.tx.us/apps- cg/discos/default.htm?dist=AUS&stat=vr

    2022

  15. [23]

    Future paths of electric vehicle adoption in the united states: Predictable determinants, obstacles and opportunities,

    J. E. Archsmith, E. Muehlegger, and D. S. Rapson, “Future paths of electric vehicle adoption in the united states: Predictable determinants, obstacles and opportunities,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 28933, June 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    The role of demand-side incentives and charging infrastructure on plug-in electric vehicle adoption: analysis of us states,

    E. Narassimhan and C. Johnson, “The role of demand-side incentives and charging infrastructure on plug-in electric vehicle adoption: analysis of us states,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 074032, July 2018. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/17...

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    [Online]

    (2023) Charger types and speeds. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.transportation.gov/rural/ev/toolkit/ev-basics/ charging-speeds

    2023

  18. [26]

    February winter storms follow-up action comple- tion report,

    “February winter storms follow-up action comple- tion report,” Austin Energy, Tech. Rep., 2022. [Online]. Available: https://austinenergy.com/-/media/project/ websites/austinenergy/about/2021-winter-storm-final-arr.pdf

    2022

  19. [27]

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

    L. Thurner, A. Scheidler, F. Schafer, J. H. Menke, J. Dollichon, F. Meier, S. Meinecke, and M. Braun, “pandapower - an open source python tool for convenient modeling, analysis and optimization of electric power systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , 2018. [Online]. Av...

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Chapter 13 - data analysis for business and economics,

    G. Romeo, “Chapter 13 - data analysis for business and economics,” in Elements of Numerical Mathematical Economics with Excel , G. Romeo, Ed. Academic Press, 2020, pp. 695–

    2020

  21. [29]

    [Online]

    (2023) Affordability tops charging and range concerns in slowing ev demand. [Online]. Available: https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/ affordability-tops-charging-and-range-concerns-in-slowing-ev-d. html

    2023

  22. [30]

    McKerracher

    C. McKerracher. (2024) Tracking the revival of plug-in hybrids. [Online]. Available: https: //about.bnef.com/blog/tracking-the-revival-of-plug-in-hybrids/#: ∼:text=Plug%2Din%20hybrids%2C%20or%20PHEVs, traditional%20hybrids%20and%20combustion%20engines

    2024

  23. [761]

    Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B978012817648100013X

    [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/B978012817648100013X

  24. [2023]

    Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/ 5/2172

    [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/ 5/2172

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.