2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

The Effect of PEV Uncontrolled and Smart Charging

on Distribution System Planning
Badr Lami,
Abdullah S. Bin Humayd, Student Member, IEEE
Kankar Bhattacharya,
Student Member, IEEE Department of Electrical and Senior Member, IEEE
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering University of Waterloo Computer Engineering
University of Waterloo Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada University of Waterloo
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada blami@uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
abinhuma@uwaterloo.ca kankar@uwaterloo.ca

Abstract This paper presents a planning model for distribution
systems considering various energy supply options such as
distributed generation (DG), substations, and feeders. In
addition, the impact of Plug-in-Electric Vehicle (PEV)
uncontrolled and smart charging loads on the plan outcome is
evaluated. A new optimal power flow (OPF) based optimization
model is proposed to schedule PEV uncontrolled and smart
charging loads. Test results are presented to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the proposed model. The results show that PEV
charging loads significantly affects the plan outcomes.
Index Terms-- Plug-in electric vehicles, distributed generation,
distribution system planning.
I. INTRODUCTION
Major changes in planning paradigms have taken place in
power systems in recent years because of deregulation of the
power industry, environmental policy changes, advancements
in technology, and the transformation of the grid to intelligent
systems, referred to as the smart grid. These changes will
continue to drive the distribution systems planning function
to evolve in the coming years.
In addition, with the increase in gas prices driven by a
foreseeable fossil fuel depletion in the future, development in
the automotive sector, and environmental concerns,
penetration of Plug-in-Electric Vehicles (PEVs) has been
increasing in recent times. The charging load of PEVs will
definitely impact the distribution grid. Therefore, the impact
of PEV charging loads on distribution system planning need
be investigated and included in the planning process.
Distributed generation (DG) is expected to be a part of the
solution of distribution system planning challenges. From an
environmental prospective, use of renewable energy based
DG will reduce emissions as well as help avoid or defer the
construction of new transmission lines and large power
plants. DG units can have a beneficial impact on power
quality and reliability such as improve bus voltage profile,
reduce line losses and network congestion.
There is a large body of literature that focus on traditional
distribution system planning which involves optimal feeder
design, configuration, substation design, etc. [1], while many
recent works consider the problem of optimal DG sizing and
siting in distribution systems [2]. In addition, a large and
growing body of literature have been devoted to integrate
PEVs into power system problems. For example, in [3] [4]
models are proposed for siting and sizing DG units to
mitigate the effect of PEV charging loads. While in [5], an
integrated planning model is proposed considering PEV
charging loads to optimally allocate substation and feeders.
So far, planning of distribution systems considering
various energy resources, namely, DGs, feeders and
substation, and including PEV charging loads (both
uncontrolled and smart), has not been reported in the
literature. It is therefore important to investigate the effect of
PEV uncontrolled and smart charging loads on the plan
outcomes considering all these energy resources. In this
work, a planning model for distribution systems is proposed
considering distributed generation (DG), substations, and
feeders as plan options while investigating the effect of PEV
uncontrolled and smart charging loads.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section-II, the
mathematical model of PEV allocation is presented, which is
followed by formulation of the distribution system planning
model in Section-III. In Section-IV, the proposed framework
is applied to a 33-bus radial distribution system and the
results are presented. Conclusions are drawn in Section-V.
II. PEV LOAD MODEL
The proposed model for PEV charging load allocation is
presented in this section. A detailed drivers and transportation

The first author wishes to acknowledge the financial support received

from Umm Al-Qura University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through the Saudi
Cultural Bureau, Ottawa, Canada, to carry out this research work.
The second author wishes to acknowledge the financial support received
from Taibah University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, through the Saudi Cultural
Bureau, Ottawa, Canada, to carry out this research work.

978-1-5090-1919-9/16/$31.00 2016 IEEE

 2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

data are required to develop PEV charging load profiles. The Ni,g ,ch = NoHi PEV housePEVg%arr PEVch
%e
PEV %Pen i, g, ch (3)
National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) in 2009 is used in house
where NoHi is the number of houses at bus i, while PEV
this work. The data reflects daily trips over a 24-hour period,
is the average number of vehicles assumed per a house.
and were reportedly collected for different type of vehicles,
trips, purposes, seasons, weekdays, trip lengths. PEVg%arr is the percentage of vehicles arriving at hour g,
As shown in Fig.1, the proposed framework starts with the %e
PEVch is the percentage of vehicles that need ech, and
estimation of seasonal weekdays and weekend parameters PEV%pen is the percentage of PEV penetration.
such as daily mileage driven, charging availability times, and It is to be noted that all these parameters are calculated for
last arrival time to home probabilities, which will be then fed
weekday and weekend for each season (summer, fall, winter,
into PEV demand allocation optimization model with a spring).
predetermined percentage of PEV penetration and PEV
controlled (smart) charging to develop PEV charging load.
After that, PEV charging profiles will be used as an input to
the distribution system planning model to arrive to the
optimal upgrade plan.

A. Seasonal Weekdays & Weekends Parameter Estimation

In order to develop PEV charging load profile, three
essential parameters are first defined, namely, energy
required by the fleet, start charging, and percentage of
vehicles used in a trip, for each season weekday and
weekend.
Start charging and charging availability times: a fleet of
PEVs daily trips are distributed over 24-hours based on
their final arrival time to home which is assumed to be the
start charging time for uncontrolled PEVs. For controlled or
smart charging PEVs, it is assumed that the charging
availability time for each arriving group at each hour g is
bounded by its arrival time to home and 8 a.m. which is the
time that the majority of drivers are leaving home since
PEV owners cannot plug their vehicles outside these Fig. 1. Proposed framework for distribution planning
boundaries as they are not at home.
Percentage of vehicles used in a trip: In order to determine B. PEV Demand Allocation Optimization Model
the number of vehicles that need to be charged, it is In this section, a novel optimization model is proposed to
important to determine the percentage of PEVs that are used optimally allocate the PEV charging loads.
on a trip (PEV%Vused) because not all vehicles are driven
every day. Objective Function
Energy required by the fleet: the energy required by the The proposed objective function (J1) aims to minimize the
fleet at each bus (Ei,g,ch) is calculated based on the number total energy losses.

G {V }
of PEVs (Ni,g,ch) arriving at hour g at bus i and requiring ech 1 2
J1 = + V j2, h 2Vi , h V j , h cos( j , h i , h ) (4)
energy. It is to be noted that the mileage driven has been 2
i, j i, h
i j h
divided into a number of discrete intervals, ch, and Ei,g,ch
denotes the energy required by a PEV, in range ch, given as where Gi,j is the conductance of line i-j, Vi,h is the voltage
follows: magnitude at bus i and hour h, and i,h is the voltage angle at
E i , g ,ch = N i , g ,ch * ech / i, g , ch (1) bus i and hour h.
The associated operational and PEV charging constraints
where is the charging efficiency while ech is the energy are discussed next.
required by the fleet in range ch and calculated as follows.
BC Power Flow Equations
ech = aem
M ch ch (2) The injected power at a bus is the power from the
M
substation, net of the load, and uncontrolled and smart PEV
where BC is the battery capacity, Maem is the total mileage of charging loads; and is governed by the traditional power flow
the vehicle in all electric mode and Mch is the mileage driven equations:
in range ch. The number of PEVs for each arriving group on a
bus is calculated as follows:
 2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

PiSS
,h P
g ch
PEV
i ,h , g ,ch P
g ch
PEV _ SCh
i ,h , g ,ch Pd i ,h = line in (12) is the capital and operating cost of the candidate
DG units. The second line in (12) includes the engineering,
(5) procurement, and construction (EPC) cost and the variable

jN
Vi ,hV j ,h Yi , j cos( i , j + j ,h i ,h ) i N , h
component of the capital cost to upgrade the substation,
payment toward purchased power by the LDC. The third line
in (12) is the EPC cost and the variable component of the
QiSS
, h Qdi , h = capital cost to upgrade the feeders.
(6)
Vi,hV j ,hYi,h sin(i, j + j ,h i,h ) i N , h
C C
DG . F DG Cap DG .O
jN J2 = Pi + Pi ,DG
b Hrb
where PiSS SS
,h and Qi ,h are active and reactive power imported
i N b B

and Pi,PEV

_ SCh
by LDC via substation, Pi ,PEV are + C SS . F z SS + C SS .V S NSS + b Pi SS (12)
h , g ,ch h, g ,ch
i i , b Hrb
uncontrolled and smart PEV charging loads, Pd i,h and Qd i,h i SS b B
are active, reactive power demand, Yi,j is the magnitude of bus
admittance matrix element i-j, and i,j is the angle of the bus
+ (C Fdr . F

i , j N : ( i , j )
Ge i , j Le i , j z iFdr
,j +C
Fdr .V NFdr
S i, j )
admittance element i- j.
PEV Charging Constraints where b is the index for load block (bB), C DG . F and
Constraint (7) ensures that the total energy required by C DG .O are capital and operating cost of DG unit, $/MW and
uncontrolled charging PEVs be equal to the daily energy $/MWh, C SS .F , C SS .V are capital and operating cost of DG
needed to charge the battery. In addition, this constraint unit, $/MW and $/MWh, C Fdr .F , C Fdr .V are Fixed and
ensures that each PEV group ch arriving at hour g will start variable component of capital cost of feeder, $ and $/MVA,
DG
charging immediately, at hour h=g and the charging duration Pi Cap is the capacity of DG unit, Pi ,DG
b is power generated
is ChDch, to fulfill the daily required energy. Constraint (9)
from DG unit, Hrb is hours per year in load block b, ziSS and
ensures that the total energy required by smart charging PEVs
is equal to the daily energy needed to charge the battery. In ziFdr
, j is binary decision on substation and feeder
addition, this constraint ensures that the charging window of upgrade, S iNSS and S iNFdr are capacity added to substation and
,j
arriving groups at hour g is constrained by its arrival time to SS
home and 8 a.m. Constraints (8) and (10) ensure that the feeder, b is electricity market price, $/MWh, Pi ,b is active
power drawn by PEVs during any hour must be within the power imported by LDC via substation Gei , j is geographic
charging level for uncontrolled and smart charging PEVs cost factor of feeder between i and j, Lei , j is length of feeder
respectively. between i and j, km.
The associated operational and planning constraints are
P PEV
i , h , g , ch (
= 1 PEV % SCh
)N i , g , ch E i , g ,ch i N , g , ch (7)
discussed next.
h:( g + ChD ch h g )
Power Flow Equations
Pi,PEV
h, g ,ch The injected power at a bus is the power from the
(8)
(1 PEV )N %SCh
i , g ,ch P ChL i N , h, g : ( g + ChDch h g ) substation and DG units, net of the load (typical, PEV
uncontrolled and smart); and is governed by the traditional

P PEV _ SCh
i ,h, g ,ch = PEV % SCh N i , g ,ch Ei , g ,ch i N , g , ch (9)
power flow equations:
h:( h > g ) PiSS DG
,b + Pi ,b Pd i ,b =

Pi,PEV _ SCh
h, g ,ch PEV % SCh N i, g ,ch P ChL i N , h, g : ( h > g ), ch V
jN
i,bV j ,bYi , j cos( i , j + j ,b i ,b ) i N , b B
(13)

(10)

Voltage Limits QiSS

,b Qd i ,b =
This constraint ensures that the voltage magnitude at a bus
is within the allowable limits.
V
jN
i ,bV j ,bYi , j sin( i , j + j ,b i ,b ) i N , b B
(14)

Min Max
V Vi,b V i N , b B (11)
Feeder Capacity Limits
Power flow through any distribution feeder must comply
III. DISTRIBUTION PLANNING MODEL with thermal capacity limit of the feeder. This limit also takes
The generic mathematical model for distribution system into consideration the new investments in feeder upgrades.
planning is presented below.
Pi,Fdr 2
j ,b = Vi,bYi , j cos i , j +
Objective Function (15)
Vi,bV j ,bYi, j cos( i, j + j ,b i,b ) (i, j ) N : (i, j ), b B
The proposed objective function (J2) aims to minimize the
annualized capital and operation cost of the LDC. The first
 2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

QiFdr 2
P Pd
SS Cap DGCap
, j ,b = Vi ,bYi , j sin i , j Pi + Pi NSS + i (1 + ) i , peak (26)
(16)
Vi ,bV j ,bYi, j sin( i, j + j ,b i,b ) (i, j ) N : (i, j ), b B iN iN

Voltage Limits
Pi Fdr S i , j Cap + S iNFdr
Fdr cos Fdr (i , j ) N : (i , j ), b B
(17) This constraint ensures that the voltage magnitude at a bus
, j ,b ,j i , j ,b
is within the allowable limits.
QiFdr FdrCap + S NFdr sin Fdr (18) V Min Vi,b V Max i N , b B
, j ,b S i , j i, j i , j ,b (i, j ) N : (i, j ), b B (27)

SiNFdr
,j M ziFdr
,j (i, j ) N : (i, j ), b B
IV. CASE STUDIES AND RESULTS
(19)
A. Test System
where Pi ,Fdr and QiFdr
j ,b , j ,b are active and reactive power flow The system under study, as shown in Fig.2, comprises 33
from i to j,
FdrCap
and S i , j is existing feeder capacity. buses in radial configuration [6]. The main substation is at
bus-0 with a capacity of 4.6 MVA and the total system peak
In (19), M is a sufficiently large number often called the demand is 4.34 MVA at year-0 and assumed to grow at 3%
big M, which renders the constraint (19) nonbinding. When annually over the ten-year planning horizon. Details of the
ziFdr NFdr
, j = 0, S i , j is zero while when ziFdr
, j 0, the large value system, including various other parameter values used for the
of M allows sufficient room for selection of new feeder studies are taken from [7] and [8]. For the present study, only
capacity, and the value of M ensures that (19) is satisfied. gas-turbine DG units are considered. Assuming a fuel
consumption of 300 m3/h and a gas price of 0.14 $/liter, the
Substation Capacity Limits operating cost of the DG units is calculated to be 42 $/MWh.
These constraints ensure that the total power delivered by Electricity price or the price at which the LDC imports power
the substation transformer is within substation capacity limit. through substation are specified in terms of seventeen load
These limits take into consideration new investments in blocks using load scaling factors (LSF). The average Hourly
substation upgrades. Ontario Electricity Price (HOEP) for the year of 2013, is
assumed in this study as the price for the plan period.
(P ) + (Q )
2
SS 2 SS 2
S i + S iNSS
SSCap
i ,b i ,b i SS , b B (20) For PEVs, it is assumed that all PEVs are of type PHEV60
with an electric range of 60 km and 15.9 kWh battery
S iNSS ziSS M i SS (21) capacity. The charging level is assumed to be 3.8 kW (Level-
2) with 90% charging efficiency. The percentage of PEV
DG Capacity Limits used in a trip is assumed to be 60%. The number of houses at
The power generated by a DG unit is limited by the DG a bus is calculated assuming that the entire load is residential
capacity (22). The DG installed capacity is limited by the and the peak load of a typical house is 2.08 kW. Also, it is
maximum allowable DG size (23). Constraint (24) limits the assumed that there are two vehicles per house, and PEV
number of allowable DG units. Maximum DG penetration is charging occurs only at home.
limited by the minimum load plus 60% of maximum
substation rating in order to limit the maximum reverse power
flow over the transformer (25).
DGCap
PiDG
, b Pi i N , b B (22)

DGCap
Pi DG CapMax z iDG i N (23)

z
iN
DG
i DG NMax (24)

Pi ,DG
b (Pd i ,b + Pi ,PEV
b ) + 0 .6 Pi SS
,b b B (25)
iN iN

where DG CapMax is maximum allowable DG capacity, ziDG is

a binary decision on DG installation and DG NMax is
Maximum number of installed DG units.
Capacity Adequacy Limits
This constraint ensures the installation of enough capacity
in the system so that supply can be maintained during peak
Fig. 2. Test system configuration [6].
hours in case of equipment failure.
 2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

B. Case Studies
The main focus of this paper is to investigate the effect of
uncontrolled and smart PEV charging load on the plan. To
achieve this target, four case studies have been carried out. In
the first case (Base Case), no PEV charging loads have
considered while, in the remaining three cases, 50% of the
fleet is assumed to be PEVs with 100% smart charging in
Case-2, 50% smart charging and 50% uncontrolled charging
in Case-3, and 100% uncontrolled charging in Case-4.

C. Results and Discussion

Fig. 5. Typical summer weekday load with different charging scenarios
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 represent the last arrival time to home
probability for four typical seasonal weekdays and one
typical weekend. TABLE I
LOAD DURATION CURVE FOR SCENARIOS UNDER STUDY

Number of hours for each scenario (Hour/year)

LSF Base Case 100% smart 50% smart Uncontrolled
(No PEV) Charging Charging Charging
0.3 0 0 0 429
0.35 663 0 0 1131
0.4 1105 0 0 364
0.45 455 0 520 598
0.5 533 0 715 728
0.55 1313 1300 2340 1144
0.6 1586 1859 1183 754
0.65 1586 3627 1274 962
0.7 455 390 1469 1391
Fig. 3. Typical seasonal weekdays last arrival time probability 0.75 65 0 260 325
0.8 0 0 0 0
0.85 130 715 65 130
0.9 130 130 130 195
0.95 390 390 260 325
1 325 325 520 260
Total Hours 8736 8736 8736 8736
Peak load with
base case 1 1 1.05110829 1.148057409
reference

Fig. 4. Typical weekend last arrival time probability

1) PEV Charging Load Allocation

The outcomes of PEV demand allocation optimization model,
presented in Section-II-B, for the proposed case studies are
presented here. Fig.5 represents a typical summer day system
demand for the proposed case studies. It can be seen that for
100% smart charging PEVs, the system load is slightly
increased during the on-peak hours. Consequently, charging
will appear mostly at the off-peak period. The on-peak daily
load patterns start to change when the uncontrolled charging Fig. 6. Load Duration Curve for scenarios under study
PEVs start to come in the picture along with smart charging
PEVs, resulting in increased on-peak period load. In the case 2) Distribution System Plan
of full uncontrolled charging PEVs, a dramatic change in the Base Case (No PEV): In this case, the PEV charging
on-peak period load is observed as a result of high arrival load is not considered. The proposed distribution planning
rates during peak hours. model presented in Section-III is applied to the test system
After developing the demand profile for the proposed case and Table II shows the optimal investment plan for the
studies, the annual chronological load profile is approximated distribution system. It can be seen that the plan comprises
by a number of steps, as shown in Table I and Fig. , which is four DG units, 8 feeder upgrades, and one substation upgrade.
used in the planning model. The total added generation cum substation capacity is 2.4
MVA and the total spending is 1.822 M$.
 2016 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC)

TABLE II optimal plan comprises five DG units, 8 feeder upgrades.

OPTIMAL PLAN FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS
The added DG capacity is 4 MVA and the total spending is
DG Units Feeder Upgrade Substation 4.237 M$. It is to be noted that the optimal plan comprises
Total Spending
Case Size Size Size only DG units and feeder upgrades. The reason behind that is
(M$)
Bus (MVA) Snd. Rec. (MVA) (MVA)
13 0.5 1 2 0.4 1 1.822
the significat increase in peak demand which make the use of
18 0.1 3 4 0.2 DG units is more economic compared to importing high
24 0.5 4 5 0.1 market price power via substation.
Base Case (No 31 0.3 5 25 0.1
PEV) 25 26 0.1
26 27 0.3 V. CONCLUSIONS
27 28 0.2
28 29 0.2
The paper presented a distribution system planning model
14 0.3 1 2 0.3 1 2.021 in the presence of PEV uncontrolled and smart charging
100% Smart 23 0.2 26 27 0.1 loads. An OPF based model has been proposed to allocate
Charging 29 0.9 27 28 0
28 29 0.1
PEV charging loads considering available travel data,
8 0.2 1 2 0.2 0.95 2.420 seasonal variation. Four case studies have been performed to
9 0.4 1 18 0.1 investigate the impact of PEV uncontrolled and smart
14 0.3 2 22 0.1
50% Smart
24 0.2 26 27 0.2
charging loads on the plan outcomes. The outcome from this
Charging model provides the optimal size and location of distribution
28 0.7 27 28 0.1
28 29 0.5 system component upgrades along with DG units. The results
29 30 0.1
show that uncontrolled charging will increase the peak load
5 1.4 1 18 0.1 0 4.237
23 0.6 5 6 0.3 significantly. In addition, smart charging strategy could
Uncontrolled
24 0.5 7 8 0.1 mitigate the need of electrical infrastructures and hence
25 1.1 18 19 0.1 reduce the total spending.
Charging
31 0.4 25 26 0.3
26 27 0.5
27 28 0.4 VI. REFERENCES
28 29 0.4
[1] P. S. Georgilakis and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "A review of power
distribution planning in the modern power systems era: Models,
100% Smart Charging: In this case, it is assumed that methods and future research," Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 121,
50% of the fleet in the system is PHEV60 and the LDC pp. 89-100, 2015.
controls their charging schedule. Table II shows the optimal [2] P. S. Georgilakis and N. D. Hatziargyriou, "Optimal distributed
investment plan for the distribution system. It can be seen that generation placement in power distribution networks: Models,
methods, and future research," IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28,
the plan comprises three DG units, 4 feeder upgrades, and pp. 3420-3428, 2013.
one substation upgrade. The total added DG generation cum [3] J. G. Vlachogiannis, "Probabilistic constrained load flow
substation capacity is 2.4 MVA and the total spending is considering integration of wind power generation and electric
2.021 M$. It is to be noted that the added DG capacity in this vehicles," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 24, pp.
case is similar to the base case. This is because that the total 1808-1817, 2009.
PEV fleet is controlled by the LDC and their loads are shifted [4] M. F. Shaaban, Y. M. Atwa and E. F. El-Saadany, "PEVs
modeling and impacts mitigation in distribution networks,"
to off-peak hours. In addition, the increase in the total IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, pp. 1122-1131,
spending compared to the base case is due to the increase in 2013.
the operating cost from the increased served energy. [5] W. Yao, J. Zhao, F. Wen, Z. Dong, Y. Xue, Y. Xu and K. Meng,
"A multi-objective collaborative planning strategy for integrated
50% Smart Charging and 50% Uncontrolled: It is power distribution and electric vehicle charging systems," IEEE
assumed, in this case, that 50% of the fleet in the system is Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, pp. 1811-1821, 2014.
PHEV60. Also, it is assumed that the LDC controls 50% of [6] M. E. Baran and F. F. Wu, "Network reconfiguration in
the PEV fleet and 50% is uncontrolled. It can be seen from distribution systems for loss reduction and load balancing,"
Table II that the optimal plan comprises five DG units, 7 IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 4, pp. 1401-1407,
feeder upgrades, and one substation upgrade. The total added 1989.
[7] S. Wong, K. Bhattacharya and J. Fuller, "Electric power
generation cum substation capacity is 2.75 MVA and the total distribution system design and planning in a deregulated
spending is 2.42 M$. It is to be noted that the added capacity environment," IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution,
and the total spending in this case is higher compared to the vol. 3, pp. 1061-1078, 2009.
previous two cases. This is due to the incresed generation [8] A. S. Bin Humayd and K. Bhattacharya, "Comprehensive multi-
investments incurred from the incresed peak demand caused year distribution system planning using back-propagation
by uncontrolled charging loads. approach," IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, vol. 7,
pp. 1415-1425, 2013.
100% Uncontrolled Charging: In this case the total
PEV fleet is assumed to adopt uncontrolled charging. In
addition, it is assumed that the entire PEV fleet is charging in
uncontrolled mode. It can be seen from Table II that the