JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

1

Socio-technical Smart Grid Optimization via
Decentralized Charge Control of Electric Vehicles

arXiv:1701.06811v1 [] 24 Jan 2017

Evangelos Pournaras, Seoho Jung, Huiting Zhang, Xingliang Fang and Lloyd Sanders

Abstract—Electrical vehicles (EVs) play a key role in the
sustainability of the environment as they contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions and the harness of natural resources.
However, when the Smart Grid powers the charging of EVs,
high energy costs and power peaks challenge system reliability
with risks of blackouts. This is especially the case when the
Smart Grid has to moderate additional uncertainties such as
the penetration of renewable energy resources or energy market
dynamics. In addition, social dynamics such as the participation
in demand-response programs, discomfort experienced from
alternative suggested usage of the EVs and even the fairness
in the demand-response among the participating citizens perplex
even further the operation and regulation of the Smart Grid. This
paper introduces a fully decentralized mechanism for charging
control of EVs that regulates three Smart Grid socio-technical
aspects: (i) robustness, (ii) discomfort and (iii) fairness. By
exclusively using local knowledge, a software agent generates
energy demand plans in each EV that encode different charging
patterns. Agents interact to make collective decisions of which
plan to execute so that power peaks and energy cost are reduced.
The impact of improving robustness on discomfort and fairness
is empirically shown using real-world data under a varied level
of EV participation. The findings are used to project the effect of
optimization in a future forecasting scenario with mass adoption
of EVs charged from the Smart Grid.
Index Terms—electrical vehicle, Smart Grid, decentralized
system, optimization, charging control, planning, scheduling,
robustness, discomfort, fairness, diffusion of innovation

I. I NTRODUCTION

W

ITH the unavoidable ramifications of climate change
bearing down upon us, the collective zeitgeist is moving towards using renewable resources, and eliminating usage
of ubiquitous fossil fuels. Although these notions are wide
and varied, one progressive step is the elimination of Internal
Combustion Engines (ICEs) for transport via Electric Vehicles
(EVs). These vehicles, instead of running off petroleum and
diesel, are plugged into the main power grid and charged.
Once charged, vehicles have a distance of a few hundred
kilometers before needing a recharge. Currently, private EVs
predominantly charge at home, but more charging stations are
being established.
It is predicted that by 2025, EVs could have approximately
22% of the current vehicle market [1], but without investigating the potential impact this could have on existing power
infrastructure, this relatively sudden influx could potentially
Manuscript received Month Date, Year; revised Month Date, 20XX.
Copyright c 20XX IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org
Professorship of Computational Social Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich,
Switzerland. E-mail: {epournaras,sejung,zhuiting,fangx,,lsanders}@ethz.ch

have disastrous consequences on the reliability of power. To
nullify such threats to power stability, many studies have
investigated different charging schemes from centralized optimized charging to so-called aggregators that pool together
a number of vehicles and optimize their charging regimes
under various constraints, e.g. operational levels of grids [2],
[3]. The organization of charging can have multiple objectives
aside from the stability of the power grid infrastructure. These
objectives can be considered as global or local objectives. The
foremost of which is spot price savings. This is to charge one’s
vehicle when the spot price on the grid is the least. This can
have the implicit implication of also reducing the load on the
grid, if managed appropriately. Studies have also looked into
EVs as a means of storing reserve power, for example, to
lower the volatility of renewable resource energy production,
and provide back-up supply to the grid [4].
Herein this paper proposes a new Vehicle to Grid (V2G)
charging paradigm for EVs as a Smart Grid enabler: sociotechnical decentralized optimization of EV charging. Although
the means of scheduling through decentralization has been
looked at before, e.g., [5], this work is based on the EPOS [6]
mechanism that finds solutions efficiently for a distributed 01 multiple-choice combinatorial optimization problem, which
is NP hard. EVs are equipped with software agents that
run EPOS, possibly via demand-response programs of utility
companies. Agents compute power consumption plans that
minimize discomfort originated from scheduling and maximize fairness by design, while collective decision-making
contributes to lowering power peaks and energy costs. The
socio-technical measurements introduced here are novel with
very few related studies [7], [8].
Following up the results of optimization, the future impact
of mass EV adoption on the Smart Grid is studied. Namely,
the adoption diffusion of EVs and their impact given the
current infrastructure is modeled over time. A measure of infrastructure lifetime is proposed given the hypothetical uptake
of EPOS app in fractions of the future EV mass.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
• A new methodology for a socio-technical Smart Grid optimization via decentralized charge control. The scalable
mechanism of EPOS is used for this purpose.
• Understanding how optimization of system-wide objectives, e.g. robustness, affect the user discomfort and the
social fairness.
• Understanding market penetration of EVs in the future
and how this will affect the existing power infrastructure
by using a simplified model of innovation diffusion.
This paper is outlined as follows: The following section

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

1

SoC

SoC

1
0.8

0.8
0.6

5
0
Tue 00:00

06:00

Time

12:00

Power [kW]

0.6

Power [kW]

introduces the decentralized operational planning for EVs.
Section III illustrates the decentralized decision-making and
optimization process employed. It also defines the measures
of robustness, discomfort and fairness. Section IV illustrates
the data used for the experimental evaluation and the findings
from the results. Finally, Section V concludes this paper and
outlines future work.

2

5
0
Tue 00:00

06:00

12:00

Time

II. L OCAL O PERATIONAL P LANNING
This section illustrates how EVs can locally and autonomously plan their power usage in order to achieve various
system-wide objectives such as the improvement of system
robustness or the reduction of power costs.

A. An overview
This paper introduces the concept of local operational
planning of EVs as the means to meet system-wide objectives
of power grids. The motivation here is that if adjustments in
power demand can be pre-computed and scheduled, operational uncertainties are minimized and more effective regulatory actions can be applied under several operational scenarios,
e.g., failures of power generators, price peaks, weather events
influencing the availability of renewable energy resources, etc.
Planning is well-established approach in literature [9], [10],
[11] and in several related real-world application domains [12],
[13], [14], [15].
The proposed technical concept concerns a multi-agent
system for decentralized operational planning of EVs. Each
EV runs software that can autonomously generates a number
of possible operational plans that schedule the power consumption of the vehicle when charging from the power grid.
Usually this happens when the EV is parked at home or at
work. Each plan may cause a varied level of driver discomfort
measured empirically by the likelihood of the plan to be
interrupted by, for example, an unintended traveling event.
Agents make coordinated selections of a plan to execute in
order to collectively improve the robustness of the Smart Grid,
while driver discomfort can be measured and self-regulated.
Figure 1 illustrates the concept of plan generation. Agents
compute flexibility windows within which their vehicle is
usually available to charge. In practice, windows usually
correspond to times in which the vehicle is parked at home.
During these times, it charges or it is fully charged and
does not consume battery. In each window, charging slots
are computed in which a full charging can be performed.
The agent ranks the slots from low to high according to the
likelihood of vehicle usage computed from historic data. Each
plan uses a varied number of slots within which the charging
is redistributed.
Each EV model has a certain level of power consumption
when it charges. The plans redistribute the power usage as
illustrated in Figure 2 for Window 3 that belongs to the states
of charge in Figure 1c and 1d. For the illustration, a Nissan
model equipped with a 6.6 kW onboard charger is used [16].

Fig. 2. Power consumption of the Nissan model for Window 3 belonging to
the plans of Figure 1c and 1d

B. Technical Concept
This section elaborates on the proposed the technical concept. Assume a number of n EVs powered by a common
power system. Each EV is characterized by a model m that
determines features such as the battery capacity and charging
rate. Production models of EVs are earlier reviewed [17]. Each
EV is assumed equipped with an agent i that is a software
application controlling the battery charging. Technology for
such control is available in the market [18]. The agent is
constrained by a minimum time interval of size m during
which the vehicle can continuously charge without pause.
Each agent i generates a sequence of v plans Di = (di,j )vj=1
that schedule for the future period T = |di,j | the power
consumption of the vehicle when charging from the power
grid. These plans may be equivalent for the driver of the
vehicle or they may cause different levels of discomfort, for
example, each plan may disrupt the regular use of an EV to
a different extent. Each agent i selects one and only one plan
di,j = (di,j,t )Tt=1 to execute according to a selection function
j = fs (Di ) ∈ {1, ..., v} designed to serve a system-wide objective such as the improvement of robustness or the reduction
of power cost in the Smart Grid. Robustness concerns how
homogeneous the collective power consumption is over time so
that power peaks that may cause cascading failures [14], [19]
are prevented or mitigated. Cost concerns the monetary value
of the collective power consumption governed by the spot price
signal P = (pt )Tt=1 (USD/kWh) of a power market [20].
Reasoning about plan generation is locally performed based
on accumulated historic data that represent a typical temporal
pattern usage of the EV and the driver profile, e.g. daily or
weekly usage. These data are referred to as Si = (si,t )Tt=0 ,
where si,t ∈ [0, 1] stands for the state of charge (SoC) of the
vehicle at time t. This signal is used as a seed for the plan
generation. The goal of plan generation is to compute several
ways of charging the EV during times in which the vehicle
is not used, e.g., when the vehicle is parked at home. These
times are referred to in this paper as the flexibility windows,
i
Wi = (Si,w )qw=1
⊆ Si , of an agent i. Algorithm 1 illustrates
how the windows are computed.
The algorithm identifies the times in which the SoC stops
decreasing and starts increasing (line 3 of Algorithm 1). These
times are the beginnings of the flexibility windows. The end of
the windows is detected by the times in which the SoC stops

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

Window 1

3

Window 2

Window 3

(d)

Util.

(c)

SoC

(b)

0.1
0.05
0
1
0.8
0.6
1
0.8
0.6

SoC

(a)

SoC

Slot 1 (Rank: 2)

1
0.8
0.6
Mon 12:00

18:00

Slot 2 (Rank: 1)

Tue 00:00

Slot 3 (Rank: 3)

Slot 4 (Rank: 4)

06:00

12:00

Time
Fig. 1. Plan generation defines flexibility windows within which the SoC increases or does not vary. In each window, severeal charging slots are defined
within which a full charging can be performed. Slots are ranked from low to high and according to the likelihood of usage computed from historic data. (a).
Likelihood of the vehicle usage derived from historic data. (b). Intended usage of the EV in which charging starts and completes at the very beginning of
each window. (c). States of charge in a generated plan that uses Slot 2 and Slot 1 in Window 3. The two slots have the lowest likelihood of usage (d). States
of charge in a generated plan that uses all slots in Window 3.

Require: Si
1: w=0;
2: for t = 1 to T do
3:
if si,t < si,t−1 and si,t < si,t+1 then
4:
w = w + 1;
5:
while si,t > si,t−1 and si,t ≤ si,t+1 and t < T do
6:
Si,w = Si,w ∪ si,t
7:
t = t + 1;
8:
end while
9:
if |Si,w | ≥ Tc (m, si,x,w ) then
10:
Wi = Wi ∪ Si,w
11:
else
12:
w = w − 1;
13:
end if
14:
end if
15: end for
Ensure: Wi , ∀i ∈ {1, ..., n}

t-1

bm
,
rm

t

Time
(a) Start of window

t+1

OR

t-1

t

t+1

Time
(b) End of window

Fig. 3. Detection of window limits. (a) SoC is lower at t − 1, and higher at
t + 1. (b) SoC is equal or higher at t − 1, and lower at t + 1.

where bm is the battery capacity of model m (kWh) and rm is
the charging rate of model m (kW).

increasing and starts decreasing (line 5 of Algorithm 1). This
indicates that the EV is again in use. Figure 3 illustrates how
the start and end of a window are detected. The algorithm
excludes windows that do not have the length for a full
charging1 (line 9-13 of Algorithm 1). The charging time
Tc (m, si,t ) of model m with SoC si,x,w at the beginning time
x of window w is given as follows:
li,w = Tc (m, si,x,w ) = (1 − si,x,w )

SoC

SoC

Algorithm 1 Computation of flexibility windows.

(1)

1 The algorithm assumes here that windows of length shorter than the full
charging time are more sensitive to user interruptions and therefore have a
higher uncertainty when used for scheduling the charging of the vehicle. The
evaluation of this assumption with several other algorithm variations is subject
of future work.

The usual operation of an EV suggests that within a window
corresponding to ‘parked at home’ or ‘parked at work’, the
user charges immediately the EV. This action has significant
implications. The power consumption mainly occurs at the
very beginning of the window instead of at the end. Given that
these windows among users have high temporal similarity as
they correspond to user behavior and activity, the aggregate
energy consumption at the beginning of the windows is
synchronized among the EVs and results in power peaks that
can potentially cause blackouts or increase the energy cost.
Moreover, as the battery technology [21] improves by allowing
higher charging rates, the power peaks are expected to become
even sharper and more dramatic. This section introduces a
model that tackles this limitation by establishing ki,w charging
ki,w
within each window w. The number
slots Qi,w = (Si,w,o )o=1
of slots ki,w > 0 is computed by Algorithm 2. Line 2-6
determine the number of slots as follows:

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

4

Algorithm 2 Computation of slots number for each window.
Require: Wi , Tc (m, si,x,w ), v
1: for all Si,w ∈ Wi do
2:
ki,w = |Si,w |/Tc (m, si,x,w )
3:
if ki,w ≥ v then
4:
ki,w =v
5:
li,w = |Si,w |/ki,w
6:
end if
7:
Ki = Ki ∪ ki,w
8: end for
Ensure: Ki , ∀i ∈ {1, ..., n}

(
ki,w =

|Si,w |/Tc (m, si,x,w ), if ki,w ≤ v
,
v,
if ki,w > v

Algorithm 4 Computation of agent plans.

(2)

where |Si,w | is the size of window w, Tc (m, si,x,w ) is the
charging time of model m at window w and v determines the
maximum number of plans with which an agent can operate.
When knowing the number of slots per window, the actual
slots can determined according to Algorithm 3.
Algorithm 3 Computation of slots.
Require: Wi , Ki , li,w
1: for w = 1 to w = |Wi | do
2:
for o = 1 to o = ki,w do
3:
for t = x + o ∗ li,w − li,w to x + o ∗ li,w − 1 do
4:
Si,w,o = Si,w,o ∪ si,t,w,o
5:
end for
6:
Qi,w = Qi,w ∪ Si,w,o
7:
end for
8: end for
Ensure: Qi,w , ∀i ∈ {1, ..., n} and ∀w ∈ {1, ..., qi }

T
1X
(1 − si,t )ui,t ,
T t=1

The plan generation algorithm iterates over the windows
(line 1 of Algorithm 4) and ranks the slots of each window
according to the likelihood Ui of vehicle usage (line 2 of
Algorithm 4). The window with the maximum number of
slots corresponds to the number of plans v = max(Ki ) (line
3 of Algorithm 4). Each plan j is generated by randomly
shuffling zi (m, si,x,w ) charging intervals over j slots (line 4
of Algorithm 4). The plan is computed as di,j = di,j ∪ di,j,t ,
where:
(
em > 0, if ŝi,t < ŝi,t+1
=
, ∀t ∈ {1, ..., T − 1} (5)
0,
if ŝi,t ≥ ŝi,t+1

Therefore, each value di,j,t ≥ 0 of a plan contain the power
consumption em of model m (kW) at time t for the respective
change ŝi,t to ŝi,t+1 in SoC.

(3)

where si,t is the SoC and ui,t is the likelihood of vehicle usage
at time t.
After determining the slots for each plan, charging in
each window w is performed in zi (m, si,x,w ) non-overlapping
intervals of m size as follows:
Tc (m, si,x,w )
zi (m, si,x,w ) =
,
m

Require: Si , Ki , Qi,w , Ui , li,w
1: for all Si,w ∈ Wi do
2:
Q̂i,w =rank(Qi,w ,Ui )
3:
for j = 1 to j = max(Ki ) do
4:
Ŝi =shuffle(Si ,j,Q̂i,w ,li,w ,m)
5:
di,j = di,j ∪ di,j,t
6:
end for
7: end for
Ensure: Di , ∀i ∈ {1, ..., n}

di,j,t

Plan generation is then performed by redistributing the
charging of EVs among the slots. A design choice here is
(i) how many slots to use and (ii) which slots to use.
The number of slots determines the extent to redistribution,
in other words, how uniform charging is distributed over time.
The plans are generated such that the first plan uses one slot,
whereas the last plan uses all v slots. Each plan in between
uses an additional slot incrementally.
The slots used in each plan are determined by the likelihood
of the vehicle usage Ui = (ui,t )Tt=1 extracted from historical
data. Based on these data, the slots in each window can be
ranked from low to high likelihood of usage. Each plan uses
the slots with the lowest usage likelihood so that the likelihood
of discomfort is minimized. Therefore, the discomfort gi of a
plan can be defined as follows:
gi =

where Tc (m, si,x,w ) is the charging duration and m is the
minimum time interval that a vehicle can be charged without
pause. The intervals are uniformly distributed across the slots
used by each plan. Algorithm 4 illustrates the plan generation
process.

III. D ECENTRALIZED D ECISION - MAKING
Agents employ the EPOS system [6] as a cooperative optimization mechanism for charging EVs in a fully decentralized
fashion. EPOS has been studied earlier in demand-response
of residential energy consumption [14], [15]. In that scenario,
the agents control individual electrical household devices or
the aggregate consumption of the household. In contrast, this
paper contributes a new application of EPOS to Smart Grids
and provides fundamental insights on how the charging of
EVs can be modeled as a 0-1 multiple-choice combinatorial
optimization problem.
In EPOS, agents are self-organized [22] in a tree topology as
a way to structure their interactions with which they perform
the cooperative optimization. A tree topology provides a computationally cost-effective aggregation of the power demand
level required for coordinating the decision-making. Decisionmaking is performed bottom-up and level-by-level: children
interact with their parent and collectively decide which plan to
execute based on (i) their own plans and (ii) the selected plans
of the agents connected to each of their branches underneath.
Selection is computationally performed by the parent of the
children that computes the combinational plans as follows:
k

(4)

Ci = (ci,j )vj=1 =

k
Y
u=1

Au

(6)

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

5

where
the parent agent i performs the Cartesian product
Qk
A
u=1 u to compute all combinations between the sequences
of aggregates plans A1 , ..., Ak received by its k children. The
child u = 1 of agent i is assumed to be the first one and the
child u = k the last one. An aggregate plan au,j ∈ Au is
computed by summing the plan du,j and all selected plans of
the agents received through the branch underneath child u.
Two selection functions are executed by each parent on
behalf of its children and are defined as measures of the Smart
Grid robustness: (i) MIN-DEV and MIN-COST. The former aims at
minimizing the standard deviation, σ, of the total demand as a
measure of load uniformity, load balancing and peak-shaving.
The MIN-DEV selection function is defined as follows:
vk

j = arg min σ(ci,j ).

(7)

j=1

The MIN-COST selection function aims at reducing the total
energy cost by taking into account the temporal energy prices
as follows:
vk

j = arg min
j=1

T
X

ci,j,t ∗ pt ,

(8)

t=1

where pt is the energy price at time t.
This paper studies how the technical aspect of robustness
may influence human and social aspects such as the discomfort
and fairness respectively. The system discomfort Gd in the
system is measured by the average discomfort as follows:
n

Gd =

1X
gi .
n i=1

(9)
Etrip =

A charging regime is defined as fair if all agents have the same
level of discomfort. Fairness increases with the variation of
discomfort. Mathematically, it is defined as follows:
Gf = 1 − σ(g1 , ..., gn ),

We use this GPS data, pre-processed by the survey into
trip profiles. Essentially, they describe each trip made by the
vehicle in question, as a destination (home, work, school, or
other), a start/finish trip time, and an average speed. From
this data, among other things, we can analyze how vehicles are
used on a weekly basis, given their type. From our data pool of
2910 GPS monitored vehicles, we select the EV data which we
pool together with the PHEV data to produce an aggregated
pseudo-EV data pool of 130 vehicles.2 Weekly usage of all
GPS vehicles in the data set are as shown in Figure 9a.
State of charge and driving profiles: Of interest to us
in this data set is how EVs discharge through usage. With
this knowledge we can measure the various performance
objectives of the model proposed in section II-A. To do this we
calculate the EV state of charge (SoC) (percentage of charge
remaining in EV batteries). As the SoC is can be used to
characterize the use of the vehicle, it is also known as the
driving profile. To calculate the SoC, it is deemed sufficient
to a first approximation, to assume that when an EV is in
transit, it travels at the average speed calculated in the report.
In this approximate framework, we assume the power required
is proportional to speed, and thus we are able to build a SoC
profile for each EV in the data set.3
EV efficiency is often given in ’miles per gallon’ driven
either within the city or on a highway.(For the EV models
used in this report, the details are given in Table II – see
below for further explanation.) To find the energy consumed
(in kWh) during some outing via the fuel efficiency rating,
average speed of the vehicle for the duration of the said trip,
we use the following formula:

(10)

where σ(g1 , ..., gn ) measures the standard deviation of the
discomfort values among the agents.
IV. E XPERIMENTAL E VALUATION
This section illustrates the dataset used, the results of the
decentralized optimization and the future impact of EV mass
adoption.
A. Dataset studied
Our experiments are based upon data from the California
Department of Transportation’s California Household Travel
Survey for 2010 – 2012 [23]. This survey carries out multiple
objectives in relation to transport with respect to household,
person, and vehicle. For our work we focus on the vehicular
data, 79011 vehicles. A proportion of the vehicles, 2910, are
fitted with GPS: This monitors vehicles continuously for 7
day period (although not the same seven day period for all
vehicles) with the resolution of one second (proportions shown
in Figure 8).

dη
,
fe

(11)

where η = 33.705 kWh/gallon (the conversion in energy
between gasoline and Joules [25]), d = s × ttrip is the distance
covered in the journey (s the average speed in mph, and ttrip
the duration of the journey, in hours), and fe (in miles/gallon)
is the fuel efficiency of the vehicle model for a given scenario,
either journeying through the city, or on a highway (see Table
II). As our vehicular trip data gives an average speed, we select
fe to be that of the city scenario when the average speed is
s ≤ 60 mph, or the highway fe if s > 60mph.
From Eq. (11) we can calculate the energy for every trip
taken by a vehicle given its make and model. We can then build
up the SoC of the battery as a function of time, knowing its
battery capacity, and battery charge rate (Table II).
As the proportionality of power usage is dependent upon
the make of the vehicle, we assume that the 130 EVs are split
in the same proportion as the current market share of the EVs
[26], [27], Table II.
Illustration of the functional form of 3 vehicle SoC profiles
from the data are given in Figure 9b.
Caveat: In section II-B, the model espoused relies on historical driver data to understand the probabilistic availability of
the vehicle throughout the week; a limitation of the Californian
2 This balances the trade off of reasonable statistics, with accurate driver
profile representation.
3 Although more advanced models do exist, e.g., [24].

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

6

Survey is that the data per vehicle is only a week in length.
Therefore, we assume that the data provided by the survey
is representative of that vehicle’s weekly usage. Although
individual vehicles were surveyed at different times, in our
calculations we assume that all data is representative and
therefore all driving profiles can be amalgamated, and said
to be from the same week.

90.00%

Daily | 100%
Daily | 50%
Weekly | 100%
Weekly | 50%

Daily | 75%
Daily | 25%
Weekly | 75%
Weekly | 25%

60.00%

30.00%

0.00%

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
Day of the week

(a) MIN-DEV
Fig. 4.

Sat

90.00%

Relative cost reduction

Relative deviation reduction

Decentralized Optimization
EPOS is implemented in Protopeer [28] and each experiment is repeated 50 times. Each repetition shuffles the agents
randomly in a binary tree topology. All agents generate 4
plans. Four participation scenarios are evaluated. Each scenario assumes that a subset of the EVs is equipped with the
capability to generate plans. The rest of the non-participating
EVs use the default charging pattern observed in the historic data. The four participation levels are 25%, 50%, 75%
and 100%. The planning horizon is set to T = 1440 and
T = 10080 that correspond to daily and weekly optimization
respectively.
An overview of the load curves is given in Figure 10.
Figure 4 illustrates the performance of EPOS under MIN-DEV
and MIN-COST. The performance is measured by the relative
to the control data, decrease in standard deviation and cost
respectively. The relative deviation reduction under daily optimization is on average 50.3%, 53.0%, 41.0% and 23.2% for
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation level. Respectively,
the relative reduction under weekly optimization is 49.8%,
51.9%, 39.81% and 22.5%. The relative cost reduction under
daily optimization is on average 48.9%, 34.7%, 23.1% and
13.2% for 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation level. For
weekly optimization, the respective cost reduction is 47.0%,
33.4%, 22.0% and 12.8%.
Daily | 100%
Daily | 50%
Weekly | 100%
Weekly | 50%

Daily | 75%
Daily | 25%
Weekly | 75%
Weekly | 25%

60.00%
30.00%
0.00%

-30.00%

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
Day of the week

In weekly optimization, the probability of plan selection in
under 100% participation is on 0.21, 0.17, 0.23 and
0.38 for plan 1 to 4 respectively. The respective probabilities
change dramatically in MIN-COST: 0.57, 0.30, 0.07 and 0.06. In
addition, under MIN-DEV the plan with the highest probability
is plan 1 (0.31), 1 (0.28), 4 (0.33), and 4 (0.39) for each of the
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation levels. The respective
plan with the lowest probability is 3 (0.22), 3 (0.22), 2 (0.20),
and 2 (0.17).
Figure 6a illustrates the mean discomfort for MIN-DEV, MINCOST and control data under varied participation level. A
discomfort envelope is defined by the upper and lower bounds
when all agents select plan 4 and plan 1 respectively. This
is because the slots used are ranked according to the likelihood of usage. Given the plan selections shown in Figure 5,
this also explains why MIN-DEV and MIN-COST are positioned
closer to the lower bound. MIN-COST has on average 19.6%
lower discomfort than MIN-DEV. Moreover, the striking lower
discomfort of EPOS compared to controlled data is a result of
the plan generation design and the ranking of the slots as well.
By taking a careful look in Figure 1, it can be observed that
Figure 1b in window 3 has higher discomfort than the plan
of Figure 1c with zero discomfort because of the likelihood
of utilization during charging. Moreover, the mean discomfort
for MIN-COST is on average 0.00187, 0.00147, 0.00161 and
0.00170 for 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation level. A
similar trend is confirmed for MIN-DEV. This means that a low
number of participating agents has to make more disruptive
decisions to anticipate for the missing contributions of the
non-participating agents. The shift of the selection from plan
4 under 100% participation level towards plan 1 and 2 further
justify this finding.
Figure 6b illustrates the fairness for MIN-DEV, MIN-COST
and control data under varied participation levels. A fairness
envelope is defined by the upper and lower bounds when all
agents select plan 1 and plan 4 respectively. Fairness shows
the reversed pattern of discomfort. MIN-COST has on average
0.038% higher fairness than MIN-DEV. The mean fairness for
MIN-COST is on average 0.9960, 0.9966, 0.9962 and 0.9960 for
25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation level. A similar trend
is confirmed for MIN-DEV.
MIN-DEV

Sat

(b) MIN-COST

Performance of EPOS under varied participation level.

Figure 5 illustrates the probability of plan selections in the
performed experiments. The probability of plan selection for
daily optimization in MIN-DEV under 100% participation is on
average 0.15, 0.12, 0.15 and 0.59 for plan 1 to 4 respectively.
In contrast, the respective probabilities for MIN-COST change
as follows: 0.20, 0.22, 0.14 and 0.46. The higher number of
selections for plan 4 is more significant in MIN-DEV. Moreover,
in daily optimization with MIN-DEV the plan with the highest
probability is plan 4 (0.55), 4 (0.57), 4 (0.60), and 4 (0.59)
for each of the 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% participation levels.
The respective plan with the lowest probability is 2 (0.14), 2
(0.13), 2 (0.12), and 2 (0.12).

B. Future forecasting
For this analysis, we model the possible future impact of
EVs on power infrastructure. As our data is from the state
of Californian, we use this state as a case study, where all
auxiliary data is respective to this state.
EV Adoption: From numerous statistics, the number of
sold EVs is growing yearly (see Figure 7 for Californian
sales) with a projected penetration in the automotive market
at 22% by 2025 according to various studies [1]. As these
vehicles will be sourcing their power from the current and
projected infrastructure, it is important to understand how the
adoption of EVs will affect the load on the infrastructure. We
model and investigate this scenario in this section. For any
technological advancement that brings a product to market,
there is a well studied notion of adoption by the public –

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

7

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

0.5

25%
50%
75%
100%

Plan 2

0
1

25%
50%
75%
100%

Plan 3

Sun 00:00
- Sun 11:59

Sun 12:00
- Mon 11:59

Mon 12:00
- Tue 11:59

Tue 12:00
- Wed 11:59

Wed 12:00
- Thu 11:59

Thu 12:00
- Fri 11:59

Fri 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Sat 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Weekly
Optimization

Plan 4

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

Time

0

25%
50%
75%
100%

(b)

Plan 1

0.5

25%
50%
75%
100%

(a)

Probability

1

Sun 00:00
- Sun 11:59

Sun 12:00
- Mon 11:59

Mon 12:00
- Tue 11:59

Tue 12:00
- Wed 11:59

Wed 12:00
- Thu 11:59

Thu 12:00
- Fri 11:59

Fri 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Sat 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Weekly
Optimization

Time
Fig. 5.

Plan selections under varied participation level. (a) MIN-DEV, (ii) MIN-COST.

0.008

Envelope

0.004

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

0.995

25%
50%
75%
100%

0
1

25%
50%
75%
100%

Control

Sun 00:00
- Sun 11:59

Sun 12:00
- Mon 11:59

Mon 12:00
- Tue 11:59

Tue 12:00
- Wed 11:59

Wed 12:00
- Thu 11:59

Thu 12:00
- Fri 11:59

Fri 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Sat 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Weekly
Optimization

Time

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

25%
50%
75%
100%

0.985

Min. Dev.
Min. Cost

25%
50%
75%
100%

0.99

25%
50%
75%
100%

(b)

Fairness

(a)

Mean discomfort

0.012

Sun 00:00
- Sun 11:59

Sun 12:00
- Mon 11:59

Mon 12:00
- Tue 11:59

Tue 12:00
- Wed 11:59

Wed 12:00
- Thu 11:59

Thu 12:00
- Fri 11:59

Fri 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Sat 12:00
- Sat 11:59

Weekly
Optimization

Time
Fig. 6. Discomfort and fairness of MIN-DEV, MIN-COST and control data under varied participation level. The discomfort envelope defines the upper (plan
4) and lower (plan 1) bounds. The fairness envelope defines the upper (plan 1) and lower (plan 4) bounds.

known as the adoption curve [29].4 The cumulative number
of adopters follows a logistic curve, namely
SEV (t) =

CEV
,
1 + exp(−rA [tEV − tmid ])

(12)

where the cumulative adoption (sales) of EVs as a function of
time, SEV (t), has a market cap, C, whose inflection point is
given by tmid , and rapidity of adoption rA . If we assume that
the adoption of EVs follows the same adoption curve, given
the current sales data [30], with the future adoption goals given
predictions given by the Californian government [31], [32], we
model the EV adoption as the dashed line in Figure 7.
From this model of adoption we can assess the impact of
future sales on infrastructure.
EV Impact: From our experiments on the pool of 130
EVs discussed above, we investigate a complimentary statistic:
4 This assumes that the innovation of EVs spreads amongst the populace
via an epidemic-like process.

the peak power for a given week under different charging
paradigms for different EPOS adoption rates. The results are
given in Table I.
From these data and the projected sales encompassed by
Eq. (12), we can approximate the peak power of the pool of
EVs as a function of time:
Ppeak (t) = %SEV (t),

(13)

where % is the average contribution of each EV to the peak
power for a given plan. For example, % for the control
experiment is given as: % = 223kW/130EV ≈ 1.72kW/EV .
Given Eq. (13) we can therefore forecast the approximate load
on the grid due to different charging paradigms and adoption
rates, a selection of which is shown in Figure 7b. We note
the peak power usage under the Control paradigm performs
poorly relative to the other two paradigms. If we are able to
incentivize 100% of the EV owners to use the EPOS software,
we see that the minimum deviation charging paradigm shows

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

8

TABLE I
AGGREGATE P OWER U SAGE STATISTICS FROM DAILY (D)/ WEEKLY (W) OPTIMIZATION EXPERIMENTS FOR 130 EV S . ’MC’ DENOTES M IN . C OST
EXPERIMENTS , WHEREAS ’MD’ DENOTES MINIMUM DEVIATION EXPERIMENTS . A LL POWER VALUES ARE GIVEN IN KILO -WATTS .
Measurement
Peak Power (D)
Peak Power (W)

MC 100%
217.43
200.84

1 ,6 0 0

MD 100%
119.43
121.04

MC 75%
170.83
164.50

MD 75%
113.06
118.81

MC 50%
145.74
141.25

MC 25%
182.56
175.74

MD 25%
181.64
184.51

C o n
M in
M in
M in
M in

8 0

1 ,2 0 0
4 0

]

2 0 0 0
8 0 0

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 4

P e a k p o w e r [M W

0
2 0 1 6

4 0 0

Control
223.00
223.00

3 .7 8 %

3 0 0 0
1 2 0

N u m b e r o f P E V s [k ]

MD 50%
149.75
148.34

tro
. D
. D
. C
. C

G a s o lin e
D ie s e l
H y b rid
C N G
E V
P H E V
O th e r

l
e v .
e v .
o st
o st

1 0 0 %
5 0 %
5 0 %
1 0 0 %

1 0 0 0

1 2 .5 1 %

0 .9
3 .7
0 .6
0 .6

7 7 .6 3 %

6 %
8 %
9 %
5 %

C u m u la tiv e P E V s a le s
C a li. G o v . G o a ls
P ro je c te d s a le s

0
0

(b) Driver Profile

Fig. 7. (a) Shown are the cumulative sales of EVs (in 1000s of units) within
the state of California from 2011 to 2015 [30], and the mandated sales by
2020, and 2025 for the state (triangular markers) [31][32]. Fitted to these
is a sigmodal curve, often assigned to the diffusion of new technologies in
a sector (dashed line). The fitted parameters for Eq. (12) are rA = 0.653
years−1 , C = 1.53 × 106 EVs, tmid = 2019 years. (b) We approximate the
peak power on the grid due to EV charging for various scenarios – see text.
We see that under both optimisation regimes: min. cost, and min. deviation,
the EPOS algorithm performs better than the Control regime in reducing the
peak power. As expected, the minimum deviation regime performs the best.

Fig. 8. Vehicles by type contained with the California Household Travel
Survey for 2010 - 2012 [23]. EV denotes electric vehicle, and PEH, denotes
Plug-in hybrid vehicle.

EV Weekday
EV Weekend
Non-EV Weekday
Non-EV Weekend

1.0
0.8

0.10

SoC

(a) Vehicle Usage

2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 6
T im e [y e a r ]

Normalized Usage

2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 8 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 6
T im e [y e a r ]

0.6
0.4

0.05

Vehicle 1
Vehicle 2
Vehicle 3

0.2

the substantial savings on peak power over time. In 2025, with
1.5 million EVs, the peak power usage could approach 2573
MW, whereas with full EPOS adoption, this will be cut by
over 46% to 1378 MW.
V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
This paper concludes that a socio-technical Smart Grid
optimization is feasible by decentralized charge control of
electrical vehicles. This paper introduces a novel operational
planning mechanism running locally by a software agent in
each EV. The plans generated minimize user discomfort and
social fairness by design as shown in the experimental evaluation. Collective decision-making of the executed plans via
the decentralized EPOS mechanism contributes to significantly
lower power peaks and energy costs. Moreover, as the participation level increases, discomfort decreases concluding that
future demand-response programs with enabling technology
characteristics such as the ones of EPOS can contribute to
public good and create further business opportunities for utility
companies and other stakeholders. Moreover, the findings of
this paper are used to project and approximate the effect
of optimization in a future forecasting scenario with mass
adoption of EVs charged from the Smart Grid.
A PPENDIX A: BACKGROUND ON THE DATA
Figure 8 and 9 illustrate some background information about
the dataset used.

0.00

4

8

12
16
Time [hour]

20

24

0.0

Sun Mon

(a) Vehicle Usage

Tue Wed Thu
Day of Week

Fri

Sat

(b) Driver Profile

Fig. 9. (a) How EVs are used throughout the week – for comparison nonEV usage is also shown. Data for all vehicles are binned within one minute
periods, and frequency of ’occupation’ of the minute is then divided by the
total number of vehicle used. One notes the characteristic peaks during rush
hours during the week, usage during the day and the intuitive daytime usage
during the weekend days. The qualitative shape of the curves remains the
same between the vehicle types (EV and non-EV). We pool both EVs and
PHEVs from the data into the category ’EV’ shown in this plot. (b) Three
SoC profiles for different vehicles (all the same vehicle model – Tesla S [33])
over a period of one week.

A PPENDIX B: P OWER C ONSUMPTION
Figure 10 illustrates the demand curves of the EVs under
daily and weekly optimization with MIN-DEV and MIN-COST.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
R EFERENCES
[1] The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., “The Low Carbon Economy:
GS SUSTAIN equity investors guide to a low carbon world,
2015-25,” access Date: 2016-07-28. [Online]. Available: http://www.
goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/new-energy-landscape-folder/
report-the-low-carbon-economy/report.pdf
[2] K. M. Tan, V. K. Ramachandaramurthy, and J. Y. Yong, “Integration of
electric vehicles in smart grid: A review on vehicle to grid technologies and optimization techniques,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 53, pp. 720–732, 2016.

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

9

TABLE II
D ESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF EV MODELS . MPG DENOTES M ILES PER
GALLON OF GASOLINE .
Charge Rate
(kW)
6.6
9.6

137/111
121/103
110/99

22
24
23

7.4
6.6
6.6

1 5 0
1 0 0
5 0

p a rtic ip a tio n
p a rtic ip a tio n

C o n tro l
P ric e

0 .4 5

1 5 0

0 .3 0
1 0 0
5 0

0 .1 5

0

0 .0 0

:0

Su
n
Su 00
M n 12
on
M
0
on 0
T u 12
e
T u 00
W e 12
e
W d 00
ed
T h 12
u
T h 00
u
Fr 12
i
Fr 00
i
Sa 12
t0
Sa 0
t1
2

Su
n
Su 00:
n 00
1
M
o n 2 :0 0
0
M
o n 0 :0 0
T u 12:
e 00
T u 00:
e 00
1
W
e d 2 :0 0
0
W
e d 0 :0 0
T h 12:
u 00
T h 00:
u 00
1
F r 2 :0
i0 0
F r 0 :0
i1 0
S a 2 :0
t0 0
S a 0 :0
t1 0
2:
00

[20]

1 0 0
5 0

0 .6 0
h ]

2 5 0
2 0 0

0 .4 5

1 5 0

0 .3 0
1 0 0
5 0

0 .1 5

0

0 .0 0

(c) MIN-DEV, weekly

:0

[22]

[23]

Su
n
Su 00
M n 12
on
M
0
on 0
T u 12
e
T u 00
W e 12
e
W d 00
ed
T h 12
u
T h 00
u
Fr 12
i
Fr 00
i
Sa 12
t0
Sa 0
t1
2

Su
n
Su 00:
n 00
1
M
o n 2 :0 0
0
M
o n 0 :0 0
T u 12:
e 00
T u 00:
e 00
1
W
e d 2 :0 0
0
W
e d 0 :0 0
T h 12:
u 00
T h 00:
u 00
1
F r 2 :0
i0 0
F r 0 :0
i1 0
S a 2 :0
t0 0
S a 0 :0
t1 0
2:
00

T im e [h o u r ]

[21]

0 .7 5

]

C o n tro l
P ric e

0

0

p a rtic ip a tio n
p a rtic ip a tio n

P r ic e [U S D /k W

1 5 0

1 0 0 %
5 0 %

3 0 0

:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0

2 0 0

(b) MIN-COST, daily

P o w e r c o n s u m p tio n [k W

1 0 0 % p a rtic ip a tio n
5 0 %
p a rtic ip a tio n
C o n tro l

]

[19]

T im e [h o u r ]

(a) MIN-DEV, daily

P o w e r c o n s u m p tio n [k W

[18]
h ]

2 0 0

T im e [h o u r ]

2 5 0

0 .7 5
0 .6 0

2 5 0

0

0

1 0 0 %
5 0 %

3 0 0

P r ic e [U S D /k W

2 0 0

3 0 0

[15]

[16]

:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0
:0
0

]
2 5 0

[14]

[17]
1 0 0 % p a rtic ip a tio n
5 0 %
p a rtic ip a tio n
C o n tro l

3 0 0

P o w e r c o n s u m p tio n [k W

Battery Cap.
(kWh)
24
85

]

Nissan Leaf [34]
Tesla Model S (85
kWh version) [35]
BMW i3 [36]
Fiat 500e[37]
Ford Focus Electric
[38]

MPG
City/Highway
126/101
88/90

P o w e r c o n s u m p tio n [k W

Model

T im e [h o u r ]

[24]

(d) MIN-COST, weekly

Fig. 10. Demand curves of the EVs under daily and weekly optimization
with MIN-DEV and MIN-COST.

[25]

[26]
[3] R. C. Green, L. Wang, and M. Alam, “The impact of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles on distribution networks: A review and outlook,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 544–
553, 2011.
[4] W. Kempton and J. Tomić, “Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From
stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy,” Journal
of power sources, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 280–294, 2005.
[5] S. Bahrami and M. Parniani, “Game theoretic based charging strategy
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 2368–2375, 2014.
[6] E. Pournaras, M. Warnier, and F. M. Brazier, “Local agent-based selfstabilisation in global resource utilisation,” International Journal of
Autonomic Computing, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 350–373, 2010.
[7] C.-K. Wen, J.-C. Chen, J.-H. Teng, and P. Ting, “Decentralized plug-in
electric vehicle charging selection algorithm in power systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1779–1789, 2012.
[8] H.-M. Chung, B. Alinia, N. Crespi, and C.-K. Wen, “An ev charging
scheduling mechanism to maximize user convenience and cost efficiency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.00998, 2016.
[9] M. Georgeff, “Communication and interaction in multi-agent planning,”
Readings in distributed artificial intelligence, vol. 313, pp. 125–129,
1988.
[10] M. De Weerdt, A. Ter Mors, and C. Witteveen, “Multi-agent planning:
An introduction to planning and coordination,” in In: Handouts of the
European Agent Summer. Citeseer, 2005.
[11] K. Konolige and N. J. Nilsson, “Multiple-agent planning systems,” in
AAAI, vol. 80, 1980, pp. 138–142.
[12] M. Barbati, G. Bruno, and A. Genovese, “Applications of agent-based
models for optimization problems: A literature review,” Expert Systems
with Applications, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 6020–6028, 2012.
[13] E. Pournaras, “Multi-level reconfigurable self-organization in overlay

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

services,” Ph.D. dissertation, TU Delft, Delft University of Technology,
2013.
E. Pournaras, M. Vasirani, R. E. Kooij, and K. Aberer, “Decentralized
planning of energy demand for the management of robustness and
discomfort,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, no. 4,
pp. 2280–2289, 2014.
——, “Measuring and controlling unfairness in decentralized planning
of energy demand,” in Energy Conference (ENERGYCON), 2014 IEEE
International. IEEE, 2014, pp. 1255–1262.
(2016) Power consumption of nissan model. Last accessed: July
2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/
versions-specs/version.s.html
W. Sierzchula, S. Bakker, K. Maat, and B. van Wee, “The competitive
environment of electric vehicles: An analysis of prototype and production models,” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, vol. 2,
pp. 49 – 65, 2012.
S. Lacroix, M. Hilairet, and E. Laboure, “Design of a battery-charger
controller for electric vehicle based on rst controller,” in 2011 IEEE
Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Sept 2011, pp. 1–6.
E. Pournaras, M. Yao, R. Ambrosio, and M. Warnier, “Organizational
control reconfigurations for a robust smart power grid,” in Internet of
Things and Inter-cooperative Computational Technologies for Collective
Intelligence. Springer, 2013, pp. 189–206.
P. Gas and E. Company, “Electric schedule ev, residential time-of-use
service for plug-in electric vehicle customers,” 2016, data was
accessed: 2016-07-26. [Online]. Available: http://www.pge.com/tariffs/
tm2/pdf/ELEC SCHEDS EV.pdf
J. Shen, S. Dusmez, and A. Khaligh, “Optimization of sizing and battery
cycle life in battery ultracapacitor hybrid energy storage systems for
electric vehicle applications,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2112–2121, 2014.
E. Pournaras, M. Warnier, and F. M. Brazier, “Adaptive self-organization
in distributed tree topologies,” International Journal of Distributed
Systems and Technologies (IJDST), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 24–57, 2014.
N. R. E. Laboratory, “Transportation secure data center,” 2015,
date TSDC data was accessed: 2016-07-18. [Online]. Available:
www.nrel.gov/tsdc
J. Liu, “Analysis of EV Charging Load Based on Household Driving
Data in California,” Master’s thesis, University of California Riverside,
12 2015.
O. o. E. E. U.S. Department of Energy and R. Energy, “The title
of the work,” 2000, access Date: 2016-07-27. [Online]. Available:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-06-12/pdf/00-14446.pdf
When conducting experiments with vehicle market share, we assign each
vehicle at random, a model, such that number of vehicles for each model,
matches that of the market share. If the vehicle is assigned a model, and
it’s weekly driving profile exceeds the battery capacity (see Table II for
such information), it is assigned a model that can accomplish this profile.
As some inconsistency across various sales data sources are found, the
most confident available source will be used. The confidence level from
highest to lowest are manufacturer sales reports, U.S. Clean Vehicle
Rebate Project (CVRP) and U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center
(AFDC) sourced from hybridcar.com. U.S. Sales of Nissan Leaf and
BMW i3 are available in manufacturer websites. For Tesla Model S
only data 2014-15 are available from manufacturer. Fiat 500e sales is
obtained from U.S. CVRP. All the rest of data are obtained from U.S.
DOE AFDC.
W. Galuba, K. Aberer, Z. Despotovic, and W. Kellerer, “Protopeer: Distributed systems prototyping toolkit,” in 2009 IEEE Ninth International
Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Sept 2009, pp. 97–98.
H. P. Young, “Innovation diffusion in heterogeneous populations: Contagion, social influence, and social learning,” The American economic
review, pp. 1899–1924, 2009.
C. N. C. D. Association, “California Auto Outlook 4th Quarter 2015,
2016 February. Volume 12, Number 1, Page 1,” 2016, Date accessed:
2016-07-21. [Online]. Available: http://www.cncda.org/Auto Outlook.
asp
C. E. Commission, “Tracking process: Plug-in electric vehicles,” 2015,
date accessed: 2016-07-18. [Online]. Available: http://www.energy.ca.
gov/renewables/tracking progress/documents/electric vehicle.pdf
Californian Governer’s office of Planning and Research, “Governors
Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles 2013 ZEV
Action Plan: An Roadmap toward 1.5 Million Zero-Emission Vehicles
on California Roadways by 2025,” 2013, data was accessed: 2016-0719. [Online]. Available: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/Governors Office
ZEV Action Plan (02-13).pdf

JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. X, NO. X, MONTH 20XX

[33] T. Motors, “Telsa model s information,” 2016, data was accessed:
2016-07-20. [Online]. Available: https://www.tesla.com/models
[34] N. M. Company, “Nissan leaf specification,” 2016, data was
accessed: 2016-07-26. [Online]. Available: http://www.nissanusa.com/
electric-cars/leaf/versions-specs/
[35] T. Motor, “Tesla model s and charging specification,” 2015, data
was accessed: 2015-10-01. [Online]. Available: https://www.tesla.com/
models
[36] B. M. W. AG, “Bmw i3 specification,” 2016, data was accessed: 201607-26. [Online]. Available: http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/
Vehicles/2016/i3/BMWi3/Features and Specs/
[37] F. Automobiles, “Fiat 500e features,” 2016, data was accessed:
2016-07-26. [Online]. Available: http://www.fiatusa.com/en/2016/500e/
[38] F. M. Company, “Ford electric focus features,” 2016, data was accessed:
2016-07-26. [Online]. Available: http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/trim/
electric/

10

