Impacts of G2V and V2G Power on Electricity

Demand Profile

Prateek Jain, Student Member, IEEE and Trapti Jain, Member, IEEE
Discipline of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Indore
Indore, India
Email: {phd12120202, traptij}@[Link]

Abstract—Successful integration of growing number of banking on the electrification of vehicles. Based on the propul-
energy-efficient electric vehicles (EV) into existing power grid sion mechanism, the battery electric vehicles (BEV)−powered
necessitates the study of impacts posed by their adoption in larger solely by batteries and the plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
numbers. However, their gradual adoption will give sufficient (PHEV)−compounded with ICE, are the two basic varieties
time to the utilities for planning the infrastructure upgrades to of EV at this point of time in the market [2] - [5]. These EVs
prevent destabilization of power network. The work presented
can be characterized by their all-electric range (AER) − the
in this paper investigates the proportion of energy that can be
injected back into the grid by EVs through vehicle-to-grid (V2G) range for which they can be driven entirely by electricity.
mechanism. The V2G energy profiles are obtained using constant The increasing number of plug-in EVs will put an addi-
power discharging approach for various power levels (as per tional stress on existing distribution system, like transformers
charging standards) during the time vehicles are parked. For and cables and may perturb its operation mainly during times
charging, constant power followed by constant time charging of peak energy consumption. However, with commitment of
approach is used in succession complying with Li-ion battery utilities and customers toward better management of power
charging characteristics together with a constraint of retaining and with strategic charging of EVs to reduce load during peak
reasonable battery lifetime. The simultaneous effect of V2G power times, the existing grid can still take this additional EV load,
and resulting G2V load on typical daily load curve is figured without the need of any network reinforcement.
taking modified IEEE 30-bus as a test system.
Optimal charging scheme based on hourly spot market
Index Terms— Electric vehicle, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, price to curtail peak consumption while raising off-peak
all-electric range (AER), state of charge (SOC), grid-to-vehicle consumption for obtaining minimum energy cost has been
(G2V), vehicle-to-grid (V2G), utility factor (UF), charging power. proposed in [6]. However, rigid driving behavior and electrical
characteristics of only one type of EV were considered in the
work. In [7], voltage constraint based optimization problem is
I. I NTRODUCTION formulated for the charging of EVs to maximize profits to dis-
tribution companies while maintaining system voltage profile.
The bulk of automobiles in this world uses fossil fuels −
In this study, characteristics of EVs and driving behavior of
the gasoline, oil or diesel for generating the power required for
customers have not been elaborated in detail and fixed charging
movement. The conversion efficiency of internal combustion
start time of EVs was considered. National Household Travel
engine (ICE) driven vehicles in converting energy in fossil
Survey (NHTS) [8] data has been analyzed in [9] to obtain
fuels into motion is about 20% on an average [1]. The travel
PHEVs charging profiles for different charging powers. It has
demand for vehicles is forecasted to grow two fold in next 15-
been shown that the use of different charging power at different
20 years up to 2 billion vehicles globally yielding tremendous
times and price incentive based charging mechanism can alter
growth in transportation energy consumption. The discharge
to some extent the load profile of EVs, to limit peak EV load
of toxic chemicals, primarily CO2 and other greenhouse gases
at conventional peak load time. Charge scheduling strategies to
(GHG), in the process of burning fuel by these conventional
inhibit abrupt change in day ahead market price with increasing
ICE vehicles originates severe threats to human and envi-
penetration levels of EVs has been developed in [10] while
ronment about climate change, air pollution, oil scarcity and
considering EVs as price-makers in the electricity market.
rising gas prices. All these effects are global in nature and
EVs grid integration has been maximized in [11] and
there looms the big challenge in maximizing the return of
uncontrolled and smart charging approaches were compared
transportation energy consumption while minimizing these
while keeping voltage, congestion, phase imbalances and
destructive repercussions.
grid losses in check. Authors in [12] also considered these
New electricity powered vehicles are encouraging towards
charging approaches at various penetration level of EVs to
transportation electrification, which is critical for the sustain-
test overloading of transformers and cables in LV distribution
able growth of this sector. These vehicles possess conversion
network which will lead to network reinforcement. Time-of-
efficiency of about 80 to 90% in converting electrical energy
use tariffs and smart metering techniques to implement smart
into forward motion, thereby reducing fossil fuel consumption
charging will result in lesser investment in distribution network
and toxic gas emissions in the course. This new era of electric
upgrade and reduced incremental power losses [13]. However,
vehicles (EV) is also vital for the future of auto industry as
the demand response, which enable consumers to manage
they share the common perspective of its importance and are

978-1-4799-6075-0/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

household loads, will be a part of smart distribution network being the dominating one in the market (having 37% con-
through which sizable share of EVs can be accommodated tribution) can be compared with present-day passenger and
without increasing the peak load [14]. A recent research family cars, having higher ranges than City-BEV, which looks
in [15] has found that the additional EV load caused on like modern subcompacts designed for civic transport in size,
power system by delayed charging (to fill night valley) of energy consumption and weight. PHEV 30 and PHEV 90,
EVs will result in reshuffling of unit commitment and power having an AER of 30 km and 90 km, covers a range of 30
dispatch, causing changes in generator emissions which are km and 90 km without fuel oil, therewith one third and two
less when compared with peak charging scenario. Stochastic third of their ranges, respectively, in electrical mode. All these
treatment of transportation statistics based on aggregated fleet features are retrieved from the trends exhibited in [19]. Table
of vehicles and energy price prediction approach for optimizing II shows the averaged characteristics of EVs thus obtained
charging as well as discharging times and power flows has been based on their composition percentages. The driving pattern
employed in [16] and [17]. of commuters has been characterized by the trips they make
In contrast to recent research studies done to assess the for business purpose [19] and the driven mileages for different
impacts of increasing number of green-technology based EVs group of vehicles are obtained accordingly. The vehicles set
in the system, this work primarily focuses on analysis of real out for trips are split into 120 different mileage groups. It has
transportation statistics in realizing the EVs daily demand pro- been assumed that each mileage group of vehicles complete
file to meet the driving needs and V2G services over a day. For 40% of their itinerary on road, 30% on urban, 20% on highway
this, four different kinds of EVs representing small, midsize and remaining 10% while moving through traffic jam.
and large vehicles in the market are considered. Battery’s A fully depleted battery carries lesser life then a moderate
state of charge (SOC) is evaluated for varied driven mileages one. The term Depth of Discharge (DoD) is typically used as
considering speed dependent energy consumption under the measure of battery’s depletion and it has been assumed that
different courses of driving. The charge and discharge sched- the EV owners limit the battery’s DoD to 80% with a view to
ules for G2V and V2G power, respectively, are determined increase its lifetime.
based on arrival time, travel time and parking durations for
different power levels of EV charging standards given by III. M ODELING OF G2V AND V2G E NERGY P ROFILES
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) [18] and Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) [4]. The transportation data is Assessment of G2V energy required to complete all the
extracted from published research project reports of Grid for trips of the day will depend upon the number of EVs, driven
Vehicles (G4V) under European Union Seventh Framework mileage and energy consumption per km of the vehicles.
Program [19] and Joint Research Centre Scientific and Policy Whereas, the G2V and V2G energy profiles will be determined
Reports of European Commission [20]. by the charging and discharging process, respectively. These
The remainder of the paper is structured as following. Sec- two aspects are explored in the following subsections.
tion II outlines the transportation attributes and characteristics
of EVs considered in this work. In Section III, the process A. Hourly G2V Energy to Meet the Driving Needs
of modelling of G2V and V2G energy profiles is presented.
Section IV then combines the result and discussion on EVs The G2V energy required during different hours over a day
electric capacity usage and the impacts of obtained G2V and (T = 24) is obtained as:
V2G energy profiles on daily load curve taking modified IEEE 120
X
30-Bus as a test system, for various charging and discharging Et = (α + β + γ + δ) ∀t ∈ (1, 2, ..., T ) (1)
power levels. Finally, Section V concludes with prospective m=1
directions of work. where,
R
( t
II. C HARACTERISTICS OF E LECTRIC V EHICLES nm (dtR R
m · Eavg ) ∀ dtR
m ≤ AERavg
α = (1.1)
The total number of vehicles are assumed to be 0.17 million ntm (AERR R tR R
avg · Eavg ) ∀ dm > AERavg
[10]. Four different varieties of vehicle having characteristics ( U
shown in Table I are considered in this study. It has been ntm (dtU U
m · Eavg ) ∀ dtU
m ≤ AERavg
pointed out in [19], [20] that, the actual consumption by EVs β = (1.2)
ntm (AERU U tU U
avg · Eavg ) ∀ dm > AERavg
is speed dependent and comes out to be a different count under
different driving periods, viz. road, urban, highway and traffic (
ntm (dtH H
∀ dtH H
m · Eavg ) m ≤ AERavg
jam, as shown in Table I. Also the real consumption can vary γ = (1.3)
even within the different driving cycles. Nonetheless, in this ntm (AERH H tH H
avg · Eavg ) ∀ dm > AERavg
study, the general trend has been assumed, which results in
J
( t
relative increase of 40%, 60% and 63% in energy consumption nm (dtJ J
m · Eavg ) ∀ dtJ
m ≤ AERavg
from driving period road to urban, highway and traffic jam, δ = (1.4)
respectively. ntm (AERJavg · Eavg
J
) ∀ dtJ J
m > AERavg
The division of different kind of EVs contributing towards
its market penetration will change with increase in EVs Here, E t is the G2V energy required during hour t and
concentration in the market. In this work, EVs penetration ntm is the number of mth mileage group of vehicles during
percentage is assumed to be 100% and the corresponding hour t. Further, dtR tU tH tJ
m , dm , dm and dm are the kms travelled
th
composition percentages of different kind of EVs are shown by m mileage group of vehicles, respectively, while mov-
in Table I. It can be seen that, battery electric vehicle (BEV), ing through road, urban, highway and traffic jam; AERRavg ,
 TABLE I. C HARACTERISTICS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Vehicle Battery Energy consumption (kWh/km) AER (km) Composition

type capacity (kWh) Road Urban Highway Traffic Jam Road Urban Highway Traffic Jam percentage
BEV 35 0.130 0.181 0.209 0.212 215 154 134 132 37
City-BEV 16 0.120 0.167 0.193 0.195 107 76 66 65 10
PHEV 90 18 0.150 0.209 0.241 0.244 96 69 60 59 26.5
PHEV 30 12 0.150 0.209 0.241 0.244 64 46 40 39 26.5

TABLE II. AVERAGED CHARACTERISTICS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Average energy consumption (kWh/km) Average AER (km)

Average battery capacity (kWh)
Road Urban Highway Traffic Jam Road Urban Highway Traffic Jam
18.54 0.1396 0.1944 0.2244 0.2273 133 95 83 81

TABLE III. E LECTRIC V EHICLE C HARGING S TANDARDS

AERU H J
avg , AERavg and AERavg are the average values of AER
R U H J
given by vehicles; and Eavg , Eavg , Eavg and Eavg are the SAEJ1772 Standard
average values of energy consumed per km by the vehicles, Charging type Voltage level Power level Phase
respectively, when they moves through road, urban, highway Level 1 120 V AC 1.2-2.0 kW Single-phase
and traffic jam.
Level 2 (low) 208-240 V AC 2.8-3.8 kW Single-phase
Level 2 (high) 208-240 V AC 6.0-19.2 kW Single-phase
B. State of Charge (SOC) and Proportion of Energy Required Level 3 208-240 V AC 15-96 kW 3-phase
Vehicle’s SOC is the quantity of energy remaining when DC charging
200-600 V DC >15-240 kW DC
it finally arrives at home after finishing the last trip. The (DC Level 1, 2 and 3)
vehicles with daily mileage of D kilometers would retain the EPRI Charging Characteristics
the following SOC:
Charging type Electrical ratings
 
AER − D AC Level 1 120 V AC, 12-16 A, 1.44-1.92 kW, Single-phase
Percentage SOC = · 100 , ∀D ≤ AER (2)
AER AC Level 2 208-240 V AC, 12-80 A, 2.5-19.2 kW, Single-phase
DC Level 1, 2 and 3 200-600 V DC, ≤80 - 400 A, ≤19.2 - ≤240 kW
Consequently, the proportion of energy required to get the
batteries back to full is the complement of their respective
SOCs. The vehicles whose daily mileage takes over their AER
(could be possible only with PHEVs) results in zero SOC, i.e. obtained for the charging powers of 1.92 kW, 2.5 kW, 3.3
their batteries are depleted all the way, needing 100% charge. kW and 6.6 kW. These charging power covers AC Level 1
The SOC considered in the time of developing the G2V load and AC Level 2 charging of both the standards and adds an
profiles (as discussed in next section) is the eventual SOC electric range of about 11 km, 14 km, 18 km and 36 km,
of the battery, i.e. the charge remaining in the battery after respectively for every hour of charging. Installation of DC
completing both the functions during the day - the driving charging stations, regarded as fast charging is still debatable
needs as well as the V2G power services. as its infrastructure would be very expensive [21]. Moreover,
installation of Level 3 AC charging have to wait till mainstream
EVs are capable of faster charging. Thus, in this work, EVs
C. Power Levels for G2V and V2G Energy load profile have been retrieved till charging power of 6.6 kW
Presently, automakers and charging equipment manufactur- covering Level 1 and Level 2 of both the charging standards.
ers are following two standards namely, SAEJ1772 [18] and Also, substantial amount of energy remains in a fully charged
EPRI-NEC [4], for charging of EVs and are summarized in EV battery even after completing all the trips of the day. A
Table III. Both of these standards are comparable when it part of this energy can be fed back into the grid (V2G) when
comes to specifications of electrical ratings, particularly the vehicles are parked to provide power to the grid during the
charging level, supply voltage, amperes and power. About 90% time of peak demand. Based on this, the V2G energy profiles
commuters keep a daily mileage below 85 km with most of have been developed taking 1.44 kW, 1.64 kW, 1.92 kW, 2.5
the vehicles commuting daily for a distance of about 30 km kW, 3.3 kW and 6.6 kW as discharge power levels.
[19].
The present-day charging infrastructures in the U.S. and D. Charging and Discharging Approach
in many European countries are still having a limited power
capacity. Most of these infrastructures are limited up to 6.6 kW The non-linear charging characteristics of Li-ion battery
public charging stations. The starting models of most of the [22] presently used in EVs is a compelling aspect and plays
automakers, Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt being the leading central role in deciding the charging approach for an aggre-
ones, are limited to maximum charging power of 3.3 kW. gated group of vehicles. Charging current, which correlates
However, the upcoming mainstream models are the upgraded to charging power, remains constant till battery reaches about
one and supports charging at 6.6 kW [21]. In this work, 70% of its SOC [19]. From there on, constant voltage charging
the G2V charging load distribution over a winter weekday is takes over and current steadily reduces to zero. Therefore, in
 TABLE IV. EV S C HARGING T IME FOR VARIED C HARGING P OWER

Charging Time (hrs.) Electric range added

Charging Power (kW)
CP CT Total per hour of charging (km)

1.92 5 10 15 11
2.5 4 8 12 14
3.3 3 6 9 18
6.6 2 3 5 36

this work, constant power [9] charging approach is used to

charge EVs till their battery’s SOC reaches 70% of its capacity.
The remaining 30% of energy is supplied with constant time
[9] charging scheme. In constant power charging approach,
charging power is held constant at the levels specified, which Fig. 1. Distribution of final arrival time of vehicles
results in variable charging time for vehicles depending upon
the SOC they carry after finishing the last trip of the day.
Constant time charging approach causes charging power to be driving performed on electricity by EVs to the total distance
varied in accordance with the energy need of the vehicles in that could be driven on electricity with its AER. Lower the
order to keep the total charging time a fixed duration. Based AER of the vehicles, higher would be their UF.
on the above charging approach, the charging time of EVs for  x−1 120 
different power levels are shown in Table IV. Constant time P
(dm · nm ) +
P
(AER · nm )
charging is a better approach when it comes to managing the  m=1 m=x 
peak load of EVs, because it results in lesser peak and also UF =   (3)
 AER · N 
being shifted towards late (valley) hours [9]. However, constant
power approach has been tested in discharging of the vehicles
to provide V2G energy. It has been assumed that once the where, dm is the distance travelled by mth mileage group of
vehicles are plugged after arriving, they undergo full charging. vehicles, nm is the number of mth mileage group of vehicles,
AER is all electric range of vehicles and N is the total number
E. Charging and Discharging Moment of EVs in the system. The EVs of mileage group ranging from
m = 1 to x − 1 drive a distance less than or equal to their
It has been assumed that, for charging (G2V), commuters AER, whereas the remaining mileage group EVs ranging from
plug their vehicles only at home soon after finishing the last m = x to 120 drive daily for a distance more than their
trip, whereas, for providing V2G energy, vehicles are plugged AER. It should be noted that, in the expression of UF, dm
into the grid as soon as they arrive at workplace from home. and AER takes the respective value among various EVs based
Figure 1 shows the final arrival time of the vehicles [9], [8], on their driven status, viz. road, urban, highway or traffic jam.
which has been treated as the start of charging time in this Besides this, AER takes the respective average value under
work. The arrival of bulk of the vehicles (over 60%) in the different driven conditions while calculating UF for those
evening hours spanning from 15:00 to 21:00 characterizes driving periods. The UFs calulated for different vehicle types
the routine driving practice of commuters, returning to home and under various driving periods are compiled in Table V.
after work. In the view of this, 96 different arrival times in The average UF is the eventual UF attained after considering
the intervals of 15 minute has been considered during the the percentage travel under various driving conditions and
entire day, thereby producing 4 different arrival times per hour. percentage distribution of all four kinds of vehicles at the
Thereupon, entire mileage group of vehicles were subdivided corresponding penetration level.
into these different arrival times at which they arrive all It can be observed that, the UF is minimum with BEV
through the day. which gives the highest AER under all the four driving periods,
The vehicles are supposed to provide V2G energy in the and is maximum with PHEV 30 which results in the lowest
course of active parking duration [20] only, which is the AER in all the four driving conditions. As the traffic jam period
time during which the vehicles are parked at workplace. This results in the lowest possible AER given by vehicles due to
duration is considered as 7 hours from the instant of arrival of highest energy consumption while road driving resulting in
vehicles from home to workplace. Further, the average driving vice-versa, the UF attained is maximum under the traffic jam
duration of the vehicles is assumed to be 1.3 hours, resulting period while it is lowest with the road driving condition. The
in 15.7 hours of inactive parking time [20], which is treated as final average utility factor obtained is 0.544 revealing that only
the duration from the instant of final arrival of the vehicles at 54.4% of electrical energy stored in the battery of the vehicles
home after finishing last trip of the day. This is the slot which is consumed in the trips.
is available for the vehicles to refill their batteries (G2V) in
order to execute the routine over next day.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
F. Utility Factors
This section examines the G2V load profile as well as
Utility factor (UF) [5] is a measure of exploitation of EVs the distribution of vehicles discharging load in providing V2G
battery capacity and is defined as the actual proportion of energy under different charging and discharging power levels.
 TABLE V. U TILITY FACTORS

UFs based on vehicle type UFs based on driven type

Average UF
Vehicle type / Driven type Road Urban Highway Traffic Jam Driven type UF
BEV 0.283 0.389 0.437 0.442 Road 0.439
City-BEV 0.517 0.634 0.680 0.684 Urban 0.559
0.544
PHEV 90 0.555 0.666 0.708 0.713 Highway 0.605
PHEV 30 0.689 0.780 0.813 0.819 Traffic Jam 0.614

Fig. 2. V2G energy curve for Level 1 discharging powers Fig. 3. V2G energy curve for Level 2 discharging powers

TABLE VI. C HARACTERISTICS OF V2G E NERGY

A. V2G Energy Profiles
Discharging power Duration of V2G V2G peak V2G peak
The V2G energy is provided in accordance with constant level (kW) supply (in hours) power (MW) time
power approach with an inverter efficiency of 0.93 [23] as soon
1.44 3.4 89.88 11:00
as the vehicles arrive at workplace from home. The average
UF of 0.544 indicates that, energy corresponding to 45.6 % of 1.64 3.0 94.55 11:00
battery capacity is available and could be injected into the grid. 1.92 2.5 94.80 11:00
However, it is assumed that, the commuters keep an energy 2.5 1.9 95.59 10:00
buffer corresponding to a range of 20 km, proportionally under 3.3 1.5 98.99 10:00
different driving periods for an unanticipated trip, if needed, 6.6 0.7 99.55 10:00
leaving about 28.15% of battery capacity for V2G supply. This
is the average car trip distance of vehicles during weekdays
[20] and can vary with commuters driving requirement. The
profiles of V2G power over the entire discharging duration for result of following two parts - (i) the load resulting from the
different discharging powers of Level 1 and Level 2 charging energy consumption due to driving needs and, (ii) the load
standards are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, and their due to vehicle’s battery depletion in providing V2G energy.
relevant characteristics are summarized in Table VI. It is The actual MW values for these are detailed in Table VII.
observed that, the increase in discharging power levels from The total available inactive parking duration of 15.7 hours,
Level 1 to Level 2 does not affect the V2G profiles much limits the minimum charging power to 1.92 kW of Level 1
and results only in the shifting of V2G peak time from hour charging standard because, it necessitates 15 hours of charging
11:00 to hour 10:00. This is due to the fact that the actual to bring the battery back to full from its initial SOC. It can be
energy supplied during V2G operation is less accounting only seen that, the peak G2V load increases steadily (from 192.93
26.18% (with an inverter efficiency of 0.93) of battery capacity MW to 251.10 MW) as well as shifts toward left (20:00 to
and bulk of the vehicles arrive at workplace in morning hours 18:00) with increase in charging power from 1.92 kW till 6.6
(in between 08:00 to 11:00 hours), injecting power into grid kW. However, the trend is reversed for minimum G2V load,
thereon. As the discharging power increases from 1.44 kW till which decreases (from 43.28 MW to 7.80 MW) and also shifts
6.6 kW, the V2G peak power increases from 89.88 MW till toward left (10:00 to 06:00) as the charging power increases
99.55 MW, whereas the duration of V2G supply comes down from 1.92 kW to 6.6 kW. The lowest charging power of 1.92
from 3.4 hrs at 1.44 kW to 0.7 hrs at 6.6 kW. Nevertheless, kW results in flattest charging profile. The crest resulting
the V2G profiles follow relatively similar pattern throughout during evening hours with these power levels is due to the
the day irrespective of the variation in discharging powers. simultaneous charging of sizeable number of EVs as bulk of
the vehicles arrive in these hours. Furthermore, the shifting
of the crest toward left with the increase in charging power
B. G2V Energy Profiles
is due to the rapid charging of EVs, advancing the peak EV
The G2V load curves over a regular winter weekday for load nearby peak arrival time of the vehicles. However, the
distinct charging powers of Level 1 and Level 2 charging charging profiles follow similar pattern from hour 09:00 to
standards are shown in Fig. 4. The total G2V load is the hour 17:00. The relevant attributes of obtained G2V energy
Fig. 4. G2V energy curve for different charging power levels Fig. 5. Net load on modified IEEE 30-Bus system with different charging
and discharging powers
TABLE VII. S UMMARY OF G2V AND V2G POWER
TABLE VIII. C HARACTERISTICS OF G2V L OAD
Percent of total
Particulars MWs
battery capacity Charging Maximum Time of Minimum Time of
power (kW) G2V load (MW) occurrence G2V load (MW) occurrence
Aggregated load due to V2G supply 886.77 28.15
Aggregated driving load 1645.89 52.24 1.92 192.93 20:00 43.28 10:00
Total aggregated G2V load 2532.68 80.39 2.5 206.87 20:00 25.45 09:00
Aggregated energy already available 618.02 19.61 3.3 224.12 19:00 18.39 07:00
Aggregated battery capacity 3150.68 - 6.6 251.10 18:00 07.80 06:00

profiles with different charging powers are outlined in Table is used as the basis for demonstrating the impacts of resulting
VIII. The need of constant power charging to furnish 70% of G2V and V2G load/power on electricity demand. It can be seen
battery capacity for all mileage group of vehicles results in that, the peak G2V load coincides with the peak arrival time of
lesser charging time for the vehicles carrying higher leftover the vehicles (Fig. 1) and escalates the total load during evening
SOC. Whereas, the remaining 30% energy is provided by the hours much above the conventional peak. Moreover, the peak
constant time charging approach in which the charging power rises and shifts toward left with the increase in charging power.
is varied in accordance with the energy need of the vehicles, However, the provision of V2G, in which energy is fed into
resulting in fixed charging time, the time far larger than the the grid with arrival of vehicles at workplace; would lessen
constant power charging, as shown in Table IV. the actual demand on the system below the conventional load
From the G2V load curves, it is confirmed that, the lower in morning hours lasting till 14:00 hours. Hourly conventional
charging power results in the lesser peak G2V load together load for the test system is computed for winter weekdays as
with the shifting of large part of it towards the late night per IEEE reliability test system [24] with available daily peak
hours, offering privilege of night time valley filling. Although, load from [25].
to achieve this, EV owners have to payback in terms of The resulting load profiles shown in Fig. 5 are under the
longer charging time. The owners arriving early in the evening scenario when G2V charging load as well as V2G supply are
and getting sufficient time before the next trip can opt for together met with the same power levels of 1.92 kW, 2.5 kW,
this power thereby facilitating off-peak charging. Also, the 3.3 kW and 6.6 kW. Though, these load profiles could be
consumers who retain the higher leftover SOC after finishing obtained by separately combining these four different G2V
the last trip can either go for low charging power or can charging powers along six distinct V2G discharge powers of
delay their charging to later hours or both, restricting the 1.44 kW, 1.64 kW, 1.92 kW, 2.5 kW, 3.3 kW and 6.6 kW. Table
increase of G2V load during peak arrival times. Impetus on IX summarizes the resulting impacts on daily load profile when
higher concentration of PHEVs in the vehicles’ market will the four different G2V power levels are combined individually
also facilitate this because it can run some miles on ICE after with these six distinct V2G discharge power levels. It is
battery’s depletion thereby averting the need of fast charging observed that, for a particular G2V power level, with increase
during the day at home or at other intermediate locations. Thus, in V2G discharge power from 1.44 kW till 6.6 kW, the net load
the low charging power along the constant time approach is on the system reduces during the time intervals 00:00 - 11:00
indeed a smart charging strategy in itself. and 23:00 - 24:00, while it increases during the interval 11:00 -
23:00. The reduction in net load during the time intervals 00:00
C. Impact on Daily Demand Profile - 11:00 and 23:00 - 24:00, with increase in discharge power
is first gradual starting from hour 23:00, then slowly picks up
Figure 5 shows the possible effects on the daily electricity as the time approaches the hour 10:00 of the next day, and
demand profile of modified IEEE 30-bus system, which will then again lessens during interval 10:00 - 11:00. For a given
occur with the introduction of these EVs in the system, under G2V charging power level, the maximum reduction in the load
the examined scenario. A typical daily load profile for winter occurs during the time interval 09:00 - 10:00. Similarly, the
weekdays representing hourly conventional load on the system increase in net load during the time interval 11:00 - 23:00,
 TABLE IX. I MPACT OF V2G P OWER L EVEL ON E LECTRICITY D EMAND P ROFILE WITH D IFFERENT G2V C HARGING P OWERS

G2V power V2G power Load in the morning Time interval Load in the afternoon Time interval Time intervals of Time interval of
level (kW) level (kW) with highest variation of the variation with highest variation of the variation reduction in net load increase in net load
(MW) (MW)

1.44 251.24 295.40

1.92 09:00-10:00 15:00-16:00
6.6 219.57 319.42 00:00 - 11:00
1.44 232.65 306.38
2.5 09:00-10:00 15:00-16:00
6.6 200.98 330.40
and 11:00 - 23:00
1.44 227.89 321.20
3.3 09:00-10:00 15:00-16:00
6.6 196.22 345.22
1.44 228.33 349.17 23:00 - 24:00
6.6 09:00-10:00 15:00-16:00
6.6 196.67 373.19

with increase in discharge power is first gradual starting from the wind energy, could be scheduled to meet the increased
hour 11:00, then slowly picks up till it maximizes during the EV load during the late evening and night valley hours, which
interval 15:00 - 16:00, and then again lessens till hour 23:00. otherwise, mostly is surplus and would have been lapsed.
For a given G2V charging power, the maximum increase in
the load occurs during the time interval 15:00 - 16:00. The
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
actual MW values of net load (with highest variation) during
reduction in the time intervals of 00:00 - 11:00 and 23:00 - The authors would like to thank the three anonymous
24:0, as well as during increase in the time interval of 11:00 - reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to
23:00 are listed in Table IX for two extreme V2G power levels improve the quality of the paper.
of 1.44 and 6.6 kW.
Also, for all V2G power levels, the net load on the system
in the morning hours (between 00:00 - 11:00) reduces as the R EFERENCES
G2V charging power increases from 1.92 kW till 6.6 kW. [1] R. Reisinger and A. Emadi, “Sensible Transportation Electrification -
Whereas, this trend is reversed after hour 11:00 in the morning, Get rid of inefficient powertrain designs”, IEEE Electrification Maga-
i.e. the net load on the system increases during interval 11:00 zine, IEEE PES, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 6-12, Dec. 2013.
- 22:00 with increase in G2V power level from 1.92 kW to [2] A. G. Boulanger, A. C. Chu, S. Maxx, and D. L. Waltz, “Vehicle
Electrification: Status and Issues,” IEEE Proc., vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1116-
6.6 kW. Between intervals 22:00 - 24:00 the net load increases 1138, June 2011.
with increase in G2V power from 1.92 kW to 2.5 kW, but then
[3] “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines for
reduces as the charging power is increased further till 6.6 kW. the Oregon I-5 Metro Areas of Portland, Salem, Corvallis and Eugene,”
ETEC, Tech. Rep., Vesion 3.1, April, 2010. [Online]. Available:
V. C ONCLUSION [Link]
[Link]
The large proportion of energy remaining in the battery [4] M. Duvall, “Transportation Electrification - A Technology Overview,”
of EVs after accounting for the consumption throughout the Power Delivery & Utilization, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, Tech. Rep. CA:
driving needs can be injected back into the grid in V2G 2011. 1021334, pp. 3.1-3.2, 5.10, July 2011.
mode. The V2G mode results in reduction of overall hourly [5] “Transportation Statistics Analysis for Electric Transportation,” EPRI,
demand on the system in the morning hours while the resulting Palo Alto, CA 94034, Tech. Update CA: 2011.1021848, pp. 1.1-1.2,
Dec. 2011.
charging load escalates the demand further in the evening.
[6] W. Hu, Z. Chen, and B. Bak-Jensen, “Optimal Operation of Electric
Also, speed dependent utilization of EVs battery capacity, Vehicles in Competitive Electricity Markets and its Impact on Distribu-
affecting the resulting AER, is modelled in this work taking tion Power Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Trondheim PowerTech, Trondheim,
into account the four driving courses of road, urban, highway June 19-23, 2011.
and traffic jam periods. Four different EVs and the driven [7] K. Zhan, Z. Hu, Y. Song, Z. luo, Z. Xu, and L. Jia, “Coordinated Electric
mileages as per real transportation statistics were considered Vehicle Charging Strategy for Optimal Operation of Distribution Net-
in calculating the actual charging energy required by the EVs work,” in Proc. 3rd IEEE PES Int. Conf. and Exhibition on Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies, Berlin, Europe, Oct. 14-17, 2012.
for driving in a day. Based on the arrival times, G2V load
[8] National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), [Online]. Available:
profile over a day has been assessed for different charging [Link]
powers of prevailing standards using the approach suitable with
[9] Z. Darabi and M. Ferdowsi, “Aggregated Impact of Plug-in Hybrid
battery’s charging characteristics. The G2V charge and V2G Electric Vehicles on Electricity Demand Profile,” IEEE Trans. on
discharge power levels will play a significant role in shaping Sustainable Energy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 501-508, Oct. 2011.
the daily load profile with the addition of grid-connected [10] P. Balram, L. A. Tuan, and L. B. Tjernberg, “Effects of Plug-in Electric
EVs in the system. It has been observed that the low power Vehicle Charge Scheduling on the Day-ahead Electricity Market Price,”
charging results in the shifting of considerable G2V load in Proc. 3rd IEEE PES Int. Conf. and Exhibition on Innovative Smart
towards night valley hours. The diminished demand due to Grid Technologies, Berlin, Europe, Oct. 14-17, 2012.
V2G in morning hours and at midday could reduce the hourly [11] J. A. P. Lopes, F. J. Soares, P. M. Almeida, and M. M. da Silva, “Smart
Charging Strategies for Electric Vehicles: Enhancing Grid Performance
MCP in the course because some costly generators (peaking and Maximizing the Use of Variable Renewable Energy Resource,”
units) could be kept at bay without the need of scheduling in Proc. EVS24 International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric
them all the while. Further, renewable generation, primarily Vehicle Symposium, Stavanger, Norway, May 13-16, 2009.
[12] R. A. Verzijlbergh, Z. Lukszo, J. G. Slootweg, and M. D. Ilic, “The [19] “WP:1.3 Parameter Manual,” Grid for Vehicles (G4V),
Impact of Controlled Electric Vehicle Charging on Residential Low RWTH Achaen, December 2010. [Online]. Available:
Voltage Networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Networking, Sensing [Link] (Accessed: May 2014)
and Control, pp. 14-19, Delft, Netherland, Apr. 11-13, 2011. [20] G. Pasaoglu, D. Fiorello, A. Martino, G. Scarcella, A. Ale-
[13] L. P. Fernandez, T. G. S. Roman, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo, and manno, A. Zubaryeva and C. Thiel, ”Driving and parking pat-
P. Frias, “Assessment of the Impact of Plug-in Electric Vehicles on terns of European car drivers-a mobility survey,” JRC Scien-
Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. tific and Policy Reports, European Commission, Petten, The
206-213, Feb. 2011. Netherlands, Rep. EUR 25627 EN, 2012. [Online]. Available:
[14] S. Shao, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rehman, “Grid Integration of [Link]
Electric Vehicles and Demand Response with Customer Choice,” IEEE [21] “Understanding Electric Vehicle Charging”, Plug In America, [On-
Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 543-550, March 2012. line]. Available: [Link]
[15] A. Foley, B. Tyther, P Calnan, and B. O. Gallachoir, “Impacts of Electric drivers-choose-charge-their-cars
Vehicle Charging under electricity market operations,” J. of Applied [22] Lithium Ion Rechargeable Batteries - Technical Handbook,
Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101, pp. 93-102, Jan. 2013. Sony Corp., Tokyo, Osaki Shinagawa-ku, [Online]. Available:
[16] N. Rotering and M. Ilic, “Optimal Charge Control of Plug-In Hybrid [Link]
Electric Vehicles in Deregulated Electricity Markets,” IEEE Trans. on [23] W. Kempton and J. Tomic, “Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: Cal-
Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1021-1029, Aug. 2011. culating capacity and net revenue,” J. of Power Sources, Elsevier, vol.
[17] M. Pantos, “Exploitation of Electric-Drive Vehicles in Electricity Mar- 144, no. 1, pp. 268-279, June 2005.
kets,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 682-694, May [24] “The IEEE Reliability Test System 1996,” IEEE Trans. on Power Syst.,
2012. vol. 14, no. 3, Aug. 1999.
[18] F. R. Kalhamme, H. Kamath, M. Duvall, M. Alexander, and B. [25] M. Shahidehpour, H. Yamin, and Z. Li, “Example Systems Data,” in
Jungers, “Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Promises, Issues and Market Operations in Electric Power Systems: Forecasting, Scheduling,
Prospects,” in Proc. EVS24 Int. Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell and Risk Management,” New York, IEEE, John Wiley & Sons, 2002,
Electric Vehicle Symp., EVS24, Stavanger, Norway, May 13-16, appx. D, sec. D.4, pp. 477.
2009.