Proceedings

of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from

Electric Vehicles

POWER SYSTEM RESERVE FROM ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Mr. Eamon Keane
PhD Candidate
University College Dublin

Dr. Damian Flynn

Lecturer
University College Dublin
Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are a promising source of flexibility for the power grid. This paper
looks at the ability of EVs to provide power system reserve by studying the potential driving
and charging profiles of EVs in an Irish context. The results show that the potential for EVs to
provide contingency reserve is strongly dependent on the time of day, day of week and the
seasonal effect of climate control on EV energy consumption. The driving and charging
patterns are more variable on the weekends than weekdays, which adds uncertainty to the
availability of contingency reserve. There is significant daily variation in EV charging however
there may be potential to fill these troughs in reserve availability through aggregation with
other household loads through demand side management.
I.
Introduction
Electric vehicles (EVs), coupled with low carbon electricity, are essential to meeting longterm climate goals. Several studies have shown the benefit of EVs on greenhouse gas
emissions in various countries [1-3]. A US study showed that the power grid is underutilised
most of the time [4]. It was shown that a large majority of the US fleet of cars, pick-up trucks
and sports utility vehicles could be supported by the current grid, with the important caveat
that EVs are charged at off- peak times. This could reduce US oil imports by over half and
result in a much improved balance of payments. The International Energy Agencys World
Energy Outlook 2010 states that conventional oil production may have peaked in 2006, and
EVs are key to its low oil 450 Scenario [5].
In addition to these benefits, there are substantial opportunities for EVs to provide power
system services [6-8], including demand shaping to fill the night-time trough. Depending on
jurisdiction, there are several different types of power system service to ensure balance is
achieved by altering generator output over various timescales. A type of reserve relevant to
EVs is contingency reserve which is required at short notice and is used to respond to
generator forced outages and other unforseen events. This could be achieved by a reduction
in EV charging load or by an increase in vehicle to grid (V2G) generation, with the former
being more likely to occur.
System operators are responsible for managing power system services to maintain reliable
electricity supply. The increasing penetration of variable, weather dependent renewables into
power systems adds to the challenges for system operators and adds to the reserve
requirement of power systems [9]. The output of variable renewables changes both intra-day
and between days. Power systems with large proportions of these technologies require extra
flexibility. In the intra-hour timescale, the traditional view is that system operators must
largely rely on conventional (fossil-fired) generators changing their output to balance
demand. System operators are now exploring the use of other sources of reserve such as
demand side management and EVs, given that conventional generation is increasingly being
displaced by renewables [10].
EV driving and charging behaviour determine the load profile of EVs and hence how much
interruptible load may be available for power system flexibility and contingency reserve. In

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from Electric

Vehicles

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

this paper these characteristics of EVs are examined in an Irish context through the
development of a simulation of vehicle driving to determine what influences when EVs can
provide contingency reserve, and how predictable/variable the available EV charging load
may be from one day to the next.
Several recent studies have examined the effect of EVs on power system demand and their
ability to provide power system services [11-18]. In general, however, these have relied on
fixed travel survey data or broad assumptions about arrival times, charging behaviour, fuel
efficiency, battery state of charge, access to charging facilities and the impact of time of day
tariffs, which do not take into full account the likely real-world behaviour of drivers.
Additionally, the capability of EVs to provide contingency reserve is generally not considered,
with either the general load shape under specific charging regimes considered or the
potential for frequency regulation the main subject addressed.
The effect of EVs on power system demand was investigated in Western Australia [11].
Assuming vehicles only charge at home, a particular home arrival pattern, and that all EVs
arrive home with the same battery state of charge, three scenarios were evaluated. Evening
only recharging assumed vehicles recharge as soon as they arrive home, night-time only
charging delayed home recharging until later in the evening, while managed night-time
charging assumed that at most 90% of EVs would be charging at any one time. A recent
study used information from a 2003 survey of American drivers to create scenarios which
included charging at home, work, commercial places, home charging only and charging
at home and work only [12]. The study used annual average driving data extracted from the
survey and assumed shares of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) with all-electric ranges
(AER) of 10, 20 and 40 miles, and assumed that vehicles were fully charged at the start of
the day. It was found that each PHEV would add 560-910 W at peak times to the system
load depending on the size of the charger and the charging scheme. Wu et al. [13] used a
2009 transport survey of American drivers to create virtual PHEVs by assigning each a
random battery size. Subsequently, annual average charging profiles for weekdays and
weekends were created under uncontrolled home charging and uncontrolled anywhere
charging scenarios which showed a peak of approximately 200-600 W per PHEV,
depending on the scenario.
Andersson et al. investigated the provision of frequency regulation from 500 PHEVs with the
vehicles only taking one return trip to and from work each day [14]. Kiviluoma and Meibom
used data from a 2005 Finnish travel survey to estimate the number of vehicles arriving and
departing in a given hour and assumed 500,000 x 20 kWh PHEVs and 500,000 x 40 kWh
(usable capacity) EVs [15]. It was assumed that drivers only charge at work or at home and
that 98% of drivers plug in as soon as they arrive home, with 20% charging at work. These
inputs fed a unit commitment model to evaluate the benefits to the grid of either smart or
dumb charging. A further study constructed driving patterns from a Danish travel survey and
assumed that weekly travel patterns remained constant across the year [16]. The selected
EVs and PHEVs, which were assumed to have all-electric ranges of 150 km and 65 km
respectively, were then combined by an aggregator which participated in the electricity spot
market. Sioshansi and Denholm [17] used vehicle travel data from 227 vehicles from
Missouri to investigate the provision by PHEVs of V2G services assuming that the vehicles
always had access to charging facilities whenever parked. Dallinger et al. [18] investigated
the provision of V2G by EVs and highlighted that 10,000 vehicle travel patterns drawn at
random from a 2002 German transport survey were required to ensure consistent charging
patterns.
This paper differs from previous work by creating a driving environment through a bottom-up
approach of modeling individual driver behaviour and aggregating the net response
uncertainty and variability, and its effects on the availability of contingency reserve. Section
II discusses an Irish case study and section III presents the results. Conclusions are
presented in section IV.

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from

Electric Vehicles

II.
Irish Case Study
Ireland is an interesting test case for EV penetration because it is a small synchronously
isolated power system, dominated by medium-to-large conventional generators and one
pumped storage facility. The generator unit size is relatively large compared to the system
demand which makes Ireland particularly sensitive to frequency excursions, implying short
timeframes within which system flexibility to redress supply-demand imbalance is required.
Ireland already sees a high level of wind generation: instantaneous penetrations of 52%
have recently been recorded [19]. The continued expansion of variable renewables in Ireland
(with a world-leading target of 40% on average by 2020) will add to the displacement of
conventional generation. EVs, however, have the potential to make the Irish power system
more flexible, and so facilitate the renewable targets. The Irish government is committed to
the expansion of EVs and has set a target of 10% fleet penetration, or approximately
200,000 vehicles, by 2020. On-street charging stations are being installed, incentives for
purchase of EVs are in place, and there are plans for a network of motorway chargers. The
distribution system operator, ESB Networks, is also conducting EV trials to better understand
likely EV charging behaviour. For this study a vehicle population of 10,000 EVs was
simulated, each representing 20 drivers, which contains sufficient diversity for the underlying
vehicle population [18]. The important input parameters to the vehicle population of battery
size, driving patterns, charging behaviour and factors affecting fuel consumption are
described below.
Battery Size
The distribution and fuel efficiency of vehicles is shown in Table I. A usable capacity of
80% of the rated battery size was assumed, except for the Chevy Volt, where a usable
capacity of 65% (10.4 kWh [20]) was used. While some other studies have assumed that all
EVs will have very large batteries, with usable capacities of 40 kWh, this is viewed as
unlikely [21].
Table 1: EV Attributes
Car Type
% of vehicles
Battery Size (kWh)
Fuel Efficiency (Wh/km)
Nissan Leaf
50
24
173
Mitsubishi i-Miev
25
16
135
Chevy Volt
20
16
224
Tesla Roadster
5
53
110
Driving Patterns
The number of vehicle kilometres travelled is a strong determinant of the electrical energy
demand of EVs and the load shape. The average annual distance travelled by Irish cars in
2008 was 16,708 km, which is a significant decrease from 2001 when the annual average
was 18,114 km [22]. Per capita annual travel demand has halted relative to GDP in many
western countries [23] and the 2009 US transport survey revealed an 11% decline in vehicle
miles travelled per driver since the earlier 2001 survey [24]. A recent survey of UK drivers
revealed that many drivers are thinking twice before travelling, with over 70% of rural drivers
combining journeys over the past year due to the high cost of petrol [25]. Hence, reliance on
historical driving statistics, as other studies have assumed, is unlikely to provide an accurate
portrayal of future transportation demand. Here, the decline in annual average Irish vehicle
kilometres was extrapolated from available data to give an average of 14,000 km per year in
2020. The distribution of annual kilometres travelled by Irish cars, taken from Irish odometer
readings, was scaled down to reflect reduced travel demand in 2020. Each car was assigned
an annual distance, with i-Mievs assigned the lowest quartile of values with other cars
randomnly assigned, and from this a daily average travel distance was computed. Driving
trips, apart from commuter trips, were assigned randomnly at the start of each day to reflect
the stochastic nature of driving.
A source of variation in aggregate charging behaviour will be the daily/seasonal variability in
travel patterns of EVs. The variation in road usage on Mondays and Sundays is shown in
Figures 1 and 2 for two roads in Ireland in 2010, one a national primary road and the other a
regional road [26]. The greatest variation in road usage on a Monday, or other weekdays, is
seen in the afternoon, with the morning rise closely clustered but with some variation in the

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from Electric

Vehicles

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

peak because not all drivers depart at the same time each day. The driving profile on a
Sunday tends to be flatter, the morning peak absent, a lower average travel demand, and
the evening peak less pronounced in part because there are fewer people with fixed routines
such as driving to work. It was assumed that 30% of the vehicle population were commuter
cars and 70% non-commuter cars, in accordance with the 2006 Irish census [27] and the
Irish Bulletin of Vehicle Driver Statistics [28]. Commuter cars were assigned a distance to
travel to work which was linked to their annual distance travelled.
Day to day variability is included in the vehicle simulation by including an uncertainty in the
input parameters for driving (e.g. time leaving for work, driving speed, timing of other trips
etc.) to better approximate real-world behaviour. Incorporating this information, the
aggregated driving profile of EVs in the model for several Mondays is shown in Figure 3.
This shows a variation in the afternoon and in the magnitude of the morning peak, like Figure
1, although the model uses national data inputs and assumes different travel distances in
2020. There is a difference in height between the morning and evening peak due to the
higher proportion of non commuter cars in the model than travel on the road in Figure 1.
Charging Behaviour
More realistic charging patterns than universal uncontrolled charging or home-only charging,
as in other studies, were chosen, which was possible due to the simulation of individual
driving behaviour. In the charging behaviour it was assumed that vehicles plugged in after
their last trip of the day at home. It is assumed that 20% of commuter cars have access to
workplace charging and that they charge on arrival at work [15]. Deviations from this
behaviour are shown in Eqns. 1 and 2. Assuming perfect foresight of a vehicles driving
requirements for that day, which may be entered into the vehicle management system
(possibly via a smart phone app) in the future, the projected SOC of each EV was computed
for the end of each days driving. Eqn. 1 assumes that EVs do not plug in if their battery is
nearly fully charged after their last trip for the day (a 0.9 SOC cut-off was selected). Eqn. 2
assumes that if a car is parked and its projected state of charge at the end of the day is near
the point at which drivers may encounter range anxiety, or that the PHEV Chevrolet Volts in
Table 1 use petrol, then the drivers seek on street charging to avoid being out of range (a 0.3
SOC cut-off was chosen).

A 95% inverter/transformer efficiency and a 97% battery input efficiency was assumed [3] to
give a charging efficiency of 92% ( . The battery SOC was incremented by the rated power
less this charging loss per Eqn. 3. The rated power of home and work chargers was
assumed to be 3.7 kW (230 V, 16 A) while on-street 3-phase chargers were rated at 11 kW
[29]. During each trip the battery is discharged according to Eqn. 4.

Thermal Preconditioning and Winter Fuel Efficiency

An additional charging requirement is the thermal preconditioning of EVs, by which EVs can
be programmed to a thermal comfort level prior to departure. The lack of engine exhaust
heat in EVs may mean that on cold days many drivers will request their vehicles to be preheated, while the requirement for vehicle cooling is less likely during the summer in Ireland.
Thermal preconditioning was modeled as a 15 minute charge at rated power prior to leaving
home in the morning, similar to the results from more detailed modeling [30]. The
requirement for a significant heating load, even with thermal preconditioning, dramatically
decreases the driving range. A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory modeled
a -6.7 C ambient temperature as reducing the range of a Nissan Leaf from 164 km, when
no climate control is assumed (20 C ambient), to 107 km [30]. This 35%

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from

Electric Vehicles

Figure 1: Driving in winter and summer

Figure 2: Driving in winter and summer

Figure 3: Driving on summer Monday (model)

Figure 4: Charging demand on summer Sundays

(red) and cold winter Sundays (blue)

Figure 5: Charging demand on summer Mondays

(red) and cold winter Mondays (blue)

Figure 6: Wind output and reserve variation on a

summer and winter day in 2020

Figure 7: EV load as a proportion of system

reserve on a winter Sunday

Figure 8: EV load as a proportion of system

reserve on a summer Monday

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from Electric

Vehicles

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

decrease in range is only likely on an extreme day in Ireland, and so a 20% decrease was
assumed here for the effect of a cold day on charging requirements.
III.
Results
The charging profile for output from the model is shown in Figures 5 and 6. A significant
variation in aggregated charging is visible week to week and between summer and winter,
and 6 weeks of results for each season are shown to illustrate variability. A broader and
lower peak in EV load is visible on the weekends, with a higher and narrower peak on
weekdays. Vehicles travel less on weekends and arrive home at different times, which
results in a lower charging peak. The daily peak centred around 10 am on weekdays is
attributable to the 20% of commuters (6% of the EV vehicle population) who routinely charge
at work, and is most noticeable in summer when no climate control is assumed. The effect of
thermal preconditioning in winter is a morning ramp in charging demand as people depart on
their first trip of the day, which is most noticeable on weekdays.
The period when there is most charging uncertainty due to variable driving patterns tends to
occur in the afternoon and on the weekends. In addition to the uncertainty in charging
patterns due to changeable driving patterns, there is a considerable difference in the EV load
profile if climate control is used. The proportion and extent to which drivers use climate
control, principally for heating in Ireland, but cooling will predominate in other climates, will
have a marked effect on their state of charge depending on the ambient temperature. This
will affect when EVs can provide power system services such as contingency reserve.
Contingency Reserve
The daily charging patterns were scaled up to the Irish governments target of 10% EVs by
2020, which would result in approximately 200,000 EVs on Irish roads, and also to 30% EVs
for comparison, which is the Irish governments EV penetration target in 2030. The Wind
Power Integration in Liberalised Electricity Markets [31] (WILMAR) stochastic production tool
was used to simulate the unit commitment for the Ireland 2020 system to show when EVs
may be available to provide contingency reserve. The model incorporates the Irish
governments 40% renewable electricity target and has 6 GW of installed wind.
The contingency reserve is sufficient to provide for the loss of the largest infeed, or an n-1
contingency. Currently, this reserve is provided by fossil-fired generation and pumped
storage and can vary across the day, for example during periods of low demand at night
fossil-fired generators may operate at part-load in order to relax the n-1 constraint. This
reserve must be able cover an outage of the largest online unit occurring concurrently with a
fast decrease in wind power production. Figure 6 shows the contingency reserve carried and
wind production on the system for a day in summer and in winter. A summer Monday with a
high proportion of wind power on the system was chosen, recognising that even though
Ireland has a winter demand peak, and typically higher wind capacity factors during this time,
a system with a high wind penetration will still face challenges during periods of relatively low
load. To illustrate the variability in EV provision of contingency reserve a Sunday in winter
was also chosen.
The EV load as a proportion of reserve for the two days in Figure 6 is shown in Figures 7
and 8. Depending on the particular day, and the hour, if all EV charging was interruptible, a
10% EV penetration in 2020 could provide up to 40% of the requirement for contingency
reserve. This drops to only 2% between 9 am and 11 am on a Sunday. For a 30% EV
penetration there are likely to be LV/MV network constraints active when EVs charge, given
that at this level some neighbourhoods will have considerably higher EV penetrations than
30%. It is assumed here that time of day pricing is in place such that from 11 pm 2 am
there is an increase in the underlying load due to a lower tariff. As a result the optimal
charging of distribution networks with high levels of EVs is likely to require a controlled
charging scheme [32]. In recognition of this, in Figures 7 and 8 a case is presented where a
portion, chosen as 25%, of the EV load is reduced by imposing a maximum EV load
constraint from 11 pm 2 am. This means that more EVs charge after 2am when distribution
networks are likely to be less stressed [32]. The EV load is sometimes more than sufficient to
cover contingency reserve in the 30% case, however system operators will likely require that
some, if not the majority, of their contingency reserve comes from spinning plant due to

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from

Electric Vehicles

reliability and cost minimisation concerns. This will lead to a limit on the amount of
contingency reserve which EVs can provide.
The interruptible load from EVs could potentially be made less variable by aggregation with
other household loads, such as water heating or fridges. Aggregators who can provide a
reliable forecast of the discretionary load they have available at particular times of the day
could encourage system operators to rely more on these non-spinning sources of
contingency reserve. If the EV owners contract with an aggregator to offer an interruptible
service (who will probably offer EV owners a reduced electricity tariff in return) then EVs
could potentially provide meaningful amounts of reserve. Figures 7 and 8 suggest EVs are
best able to provide reserve between 6 pm and 4 am. Additional contingency reserve could
be provided by EVs during the day if it is assumed that vehicles are equipped for V2G and
have access to charging facilities whenever parked. However, this benefit must be balanced
with the significant costs and cycling issues associated with V2G [18], and was not
considered in this study.
IV.
Conclusions
In this paper a driving model which incorporated the stochastic driving habits of EV owners
was used to investigate the potential for EVs to provide power system reserve. If 10% of
vehicles are EVs, they could provide up to 40% of reserve depending on the day and the
week, but also as low as 2% at certain times on the weekend. This potential is higher at a
30% EV penetration, although there may well be a limit to how much system operators rely
on non-spinning reserve, and there will likely be additional LV/MV network constraints at this
level of charging. The potential for EVs to provide reserve differs from weekdays to
weekends, and is generally higher on weekdays when vehicle travel distances and charging
requirements are higher. There is variation and uncertainty from week to week in aggregated
charging patterns due to the stochastic nature of driving. Additional variability is introduced
by the potential seasonal requirements for thermal preconditioning and the increased fuel
consumption due to climate control. Future development of this model will involve changing
the drivers into intelligent agents, who decide when to charge or provide V2G based on the
time of day tariff, their range anxiety, their sensitivity to cost, and their anticipated driving
plans. There are other sources of contingency reserve such as demand side management of
household loads which may complement EVs, balance the daily profile of reserve available
from interruptible load and fill in some of the EV troughs particularly during daylight hours.
Future aggregators may offer system operators a combination of loads which has a reduced
daily variation to help manage the increased flexibility required in systems with high
renewable penetrations.
References
[1]
J. Axsen, et al., "Plug-in hybrid vehicle GHG impacts in California: Integrating
consumer-informed recharge profiles with an electricity-dispatch model," Energy
Policy, in press.
[2]
A. Hajimiragha, et al., "Optimal Transition to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in
Ontario, Canada, Considering the Electricity-Grid Limitations," IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, pp. 690-701, 2010.
[3]
W. J. Smith, "Can EV (electric vehicles) address Ireland's CO2 emissions from
transport?," Energy, vol. 35, pp. 4514-4521, 2010.
[4]
M. Kintner-Meyer, et al., "Impacts assessment of plug-in hybrid vehicles on electric
utilities and regional U.S. power grids part 1: technical analysis," PNNL2007.
[5]
International Energy Agency, "World Energy Outlook 2010," 2010.
[6]
W. Kempton and J. Tomic, "Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From stabilizing
the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy," Journal of Power Sources, vol.
144, pp. 280-294, 2005.
[7]
H. Lund and W. Kempton, "Integration of renewable energy into the transport and
electricity sectors through V2G," Energy Policy, vol. 36, pp. 3578-3587, 2008.
[8]
J. Tomic and W. Kempton, "Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support,"
Journal of Power Sources, vol. 168, pp. 459-468, 2007.
[9]
H. Holtinnen et al., "Using Standard Deviation as a Measure of Increased
Operational Reserve Requirement for Wind Power," Wind Engineering, vol. 32, pp.
355-378, 2008.

Keane, Flynn: Power System Reserve from Electric

Vehicles

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

[31]
[32]

31st August 1st

September,
University College Cork

Proceedings
of the
ITRN2011

G. Strbac, "Demand side management: Benefits and challenges," Energy Policy, vol.
36, pp. 4419-4426, 2008.
J. Mullan, et al., "Modelling the impacts of electric vehicle recharging on the Western
Australian electricity supply system," Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 4349-4359, 2011.
C. Weiller, "Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle impacts on hourly electricity demand in the
United States," Energy Policy, vol. 39, pp. 3766-3778, 2011.
W. Di, et al., "Electric Energy and Power Consumption by Light-Duty Plug-In Electric
Vehicles," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 26, pp. 738-746, 2011.
S. L. Andersson, et al., "Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as regulating power
providers: Case studies of Sweden and Germany," Energy Policy, vol. 38, pp. 27512762, 2010.
J. Kiviluoma and P. Meibom, "Methodology for modelling plug-in electric vehicles in
the power system and cost estimates for a system with either smart or dumb electric
vehicles," Energy, in press.
T. K. Kristoffersen, et al., "Optimal charging of electric drive vehicles in a market
environment," Applied Energy, vol. 88, pp. 1940-1948, 2011.
P. D. Ramteen Sioshansi, "The Value of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles as Grid
Resources," The Energy Journal, vol. 31, 2010.
D. Dallinger, et al., "Vehicle-to-Grid Regulation Reserves Based on a Dynamic
Simulation of Mobility Behavior," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, , vol. 2, pp. 302313, 2011.
Eirgrid.
(2010).
EirGrid
plc
Annual
Report
2010.
Available:
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Annual%20Report%202010.pdf
GM-Volt.com. (2010). Chevrolet Volt will utilize 10.4 kWh of battery to achieve EV
range. Available: http://gm-volt.com/
B. C. Group. (2011). The comeback of the electric car? Available:
http://www.bcg.com/
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, "Energy in Transport," 2009.
A. MillardBall and L. Schipper, "Are We Reaching Peak Travel? Trends in
Passenger Transport in Eight Industrialized Countries," Transport Reviews, vol. 31,
pp. 357-378, 2011/05/01 2010.
United States Department of Transportation. (2011). Summary of travel trends 2009
national household travel survey. Available: http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
Royal Automotive Club. (2011). RAC Report on Motoring 2011. Available:
http://media.rac.co.uk/RACROM2011_88109_BRO.pdf
National Roads Authority. (2010). Automatic traffic counter statistics. Available:
http://nraextra.nra.ie/
Central Statistics Office. (2006). Census 2006 - Volume 12 - Travel to Work, School
and College. Available: http://www.cso.ie/census/census2006_volume_12.htm
Department for Transport. (2010). Irish Bulleting of Vehicle Driver Statistics 2009.
Available: http://www.transport.ie/
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. (2010). Charge infrastructure, charge time
and electricity supplier. Available: http://www.seai.ie/
e. a. Robb A. Barnitt. (2010). Analysis of off-board powered thermal preconditioning
in
electric
drive
vehicles.
Available:
http://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/vsa/pdfs/49252.pdf
WILMAR. (2006). Wind power integration in liberalised electricity markets. Available:
http://www.wilmar.risoe.dk/index.htm
P. Richardson, et al., "Optimal Charging of Electric Vehicles in Low-Voltage
Distribution Systems," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, in press.

This work was conducted in the Electricity Research Centre, University College Dublin,
which is supported by Airtricity, Bord Gis, Bord na Mna, Commission for Energy
Regulation, Cylon, EirGrid, EPRI, Electricity Supply Board (ESB) Networks, ESB Energy
Solutions, ESB Energy International, Siemens, Gaelectric, SSE Renewables, SWS and
Viridian. This publication has emanated from research conducted with the financial support
of Science Foundation Ireland under grant number 09/IN.1/I2608.