IEEE Access

Management of Renewable Energy for A Shared
Facility Controller in Smart Grid

arXiv:1607.04366v1 [] 15 Jul 2016

Wayes Tushar, Member, IEEE, Jian Andrew Zhang, Senior Member, IEEE, Chau Yuen, Senior
Member, IEEE, David Smith, Member, IEEE and Naveed Ul Hassan, Member, IEEE

!"# $%%&'(%) *%+,$ ),-#+* ,$# %.-#/ 01 ("# 234 &%$
)$%56/6-7 *#$568#* ("# $#*6/#-(* ("$%97" +6&(*: 8,$ ),$;:
.,(#$ )9<)* ,-/ 8%$$6/%$ +67"(* (",( ,$# *",$#/ 01 ("#
$#*6/#-(* %& ("# 8%<<9-6(1=

Abstract—This paper proposes an energy management scheme
to maximize the use of solar energy in the smart grid. In
this context, a shared facility controller (SFC) with a number
of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels in a smart community is
considered that has the capability to schedule the generated
energy for consumption and trade to other entities. Particularly,
a mechanism is designed for the SFC to decide on the energy
surplus, if there is any, that it can use to charge its battery and
sell to the households and the grid based on the offered prices.
In this regard, a hierarchical energy management scheme is
proposed with a view to reduce the total operational cost to
the SFC. The concept of a virtual cost (VC) is introduced that
aids the SFC to estimate its future operational cost based on
some available current information. The energy management is
conducted for three different cases and the optimal cost to the
SFC is determined for each case via the theory of maxima and
minima. A real-time algorithm is proposed to reach the optimal
cost for all cases and some numerical examples are provided to
demonstrate the beneficial properties of the proposed scheme.

Fig. 1: Demonstration of the roof-top solar PV panels in a smart community
that are owned by the SFC for maintaining facilities that are shared by the
residents of the community [19].

Index Terms—Energy management, operational cost, Smart
grid, solar PV, shared facility.

optimization of integrated PV solar houses [9], and efficient
building management via distributed predictive control [10].
The second category of studies, on the other hand, focuses on energy management techniques for residential smart
grid. For instance, in [11], a dynamic energy management
framework is used to simulate automated residential demand
response based on energy consumption models. The models
estimate the residential demand that quantifies consumer
energy usage behavior and provide an accurate estimation of
the controllable resources. A system-wide demand response
management model to coordinate demand response provided
by residential customers is presented in [12] to flatten the
total load profile for minimizing the individual cost to the
customers,. The authors in [13] propose an opportunistic
scheduling scheme based on the optimal stopping rule as a
real-time distributed scheduling algorithm for smart appliances’ automation control. The aim is to balance electricity
bill reduction and inconvenience resulting from the operation
delay. A two level differential game approach is used to
implement a demand response scheme for residential users in
[14]. Other energy management schemes for residential smart
grid can also be found in [15]–[17] and [18].

I. I NTRODUCTION

T

HE smart grid provides a suitable platform to accommodate renewable energy sources (RESs) that can provide
users with clean energy and thus alleviate users’ dependence
on conventional power plants [1]. Therefore, the consumers
can enjoy green energy for their day to day usage as well
as considerably curtailing their energy costs by reducing their
reliance on expensive electricity from the main grid [2], [3].
As a consequence, a large number of studies have been
conducted on how to accommodate RESs in smart grid
through different energy management scheme. These studes
can be divided into two general categories. The first category
discusses the management aspect via predicting the generation
from RESs [4]; and controlling the electricity generation and
consumption by demand response management in microgrids
through decentralized, distributed and hierarchical control
mechanisms [5], [6]. Further, a number of study has explored
various energy scheduling schemes for RESs by studying operational management and planning of smart buildings [7], [8],
W. Tushar and C. Yuen are with the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), 8 Somapah Road, Singapore 487372 (Email:
{wayes tushar, yuenchau}@sutd.edu.sg).
J. A. Zhang is with the University of Technology Sydney, Global Big Data
Technologies Centre, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia (Email: andrew.zhang1@uts.edu.au).
D. Smith is with Data61 (NICTA), CSIRO, and an Adjunct Fellow with Australian National University (ANU), Australia (Email:
david.smith@data61.csiro.au).
N. U. Hassan is with the Lahore University of Management Sciences,
Lahore, Pakistan (Email: naveed.hassan@lums.edu.pk).
This work is supported in part by the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) under grant NRF2015ENC-GBICRD001-028 and
NRF2012EWT-EIRP002-045, in part by the Australian Government through
the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council, and
in part by the SUTD-MIT International Design Center (IDC) under grant
IDG31500106. Any findings, conclusions, recommendations, or opinions
expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessary
reflect the views of the IDC.

A. Motivation
As can be seen from the above discussion, there has
been moderate focus on how to increase the use of RESs
for residential smart grid to exclusively use the energy for
meeting the entire demand of an entity. Further, most existing
techniques on residential energy management have assumed
scenarios that involve only two parties: the grid and users with
RESs, in which the users decide on either how to schedule
their household activities or how to charge and/or discharge
their batteries with a view to reduce the respective cost of
(or, maximise the benefit of) using electricity from RESs and
the grid. Nevertheless, it may also be possible that an entity
1

IEEE Access
amount of energy to charge or discharge the ESD of the SFC,
so as to attain the optimal operational cost under given system
constraints of each case.

with RESs may want to exclusively rely on its generated
energy for meeting its demand [20] and participate in energy
trading with multiple heterogeneous energy entities if there
is any surplus. This is particularly true for big cities (e.g.,
Singapore, New York, Shanghai), in which the land is very
limited and the population density is very high. Hence, most of
the residential accommodations are high rise buildings where
it is hard for each unit to install RESs. So the RESs such as
solar PVs can only be shared and installed on the building
rooftop or car park, and generally these areas are not owned
by individuals but rather are controlled by the shared facility
controller (SFC) as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, unlike the
traditional users and grid scenario, such system now involves
three parties including the SFC, users and the grid, which has
not yet received considerable attention in the literature.

C. Difference with the existing studies
To this end, the main differences between the existing
schemes and the proposed work can be summarized as follows:
• In most energy management studies, the exchange or
trading of electricity is designed between two entities,
In contrast, we have designed the energy management
scheme for the SFC in such a way that it can trade its
excess energy, if there is any, with multiple other energy
entities within the system. In particular, the proposed
scheme involves three parties including the SFC, users
and the grid, which has not yet received considerable
attention in managing renewable energy. Furthermore, we
consider an additional storage device that also forms part
of the SFC’s decision making variable.
• In [2], a three-party energy model was proposed using
a system model that contains the similar components
to the proposed study. However, the contents of this
paper are substantially different from [2] as shown in
Table I. Furthermore, this study mainly focus on the
interest of the SFC in the smart community whereas
in [2] the authors studied the usefulness of distributed
energy resources, which belong to the households, in
smart grid.
• In terms of reducing the cost of energy trading, most
of the existing studies focus on the price per unit of
energy at different times of the day. That is, the owner
of renewable energy sources sells its energy (either from
the sources or from the battery) to others when the price
is high and buys energy (or stores it) when the price is
lower. On the contrary, we focus on promoting the use of
renewable energy as much as possible for the SFC and
then plan the trading of energy in such a way that the
operational cost to the SFC is minimized. To do so, we
propose a novel idea of VC, which is a combination of
predicted price and predicted demand, to perform energy
management.

B. Contribution
In this context, this paper proposes a hierarchical renewable
energy management scheme that aids the decision making
process of an SFC on its energy trading process with multiple
energy entities in smart grid. In particular, we study how an
SFC can rely exclusively on its generated energy for meeting
its own demand (if possible) and then participate in trading
with other entities if there is any surplus. Now, due to random
changes in energy demand by the users and because the SFC
may also want to store some of its generated energy in its
energy storage devices (ESDs) for future use, the SFC needs
to decide on 1) how much surplus energy needs to charge
the ESD; 2) how much surplus energy needs to sell to the
households and 3) how much surplus energy needs to sell to
the grid such that its can reduce its operational cost of running
the shared facilities at any given time.
In this regard, we prioritize the demand of the SFC and
allow the SFC to fulfil its demand through its own generation.
This is mainly because the SFC owns the solar PVs, as we will
see later, and also has its own energy demand for maintaining
the shared facilities. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the
SFC will first fulfil its own demand and then use its surplus
energy, if there is any, for trading with other energy entities
within the system. To leverage the energy management, we
introduce the idea of a virtual cost (VC), which is essentially
the estimate of a future cost to the SFC based on some
information available at current and previous time slots. We
use the VC to determine the amount of energy that the SFC
can charge to or discharge from its ESD and then use this
information to determine how much amount of energy the
SFC can trade with the households and the grid in each
considered time slot.
Please note that the VC, as we will see in detail in
Section II-B, is important in determining the cost to the SFC.
This is due to the fact that a very high VC can let the SFC
to store a very large amount of energy in its storage for using
in the future, which could be inefficient if the demand is
not very high in the future time slot. On the other hand, a
very low VC can make the SFC to decide on an amount
of energy that could be insignificant compared to the actual
requirement in the future. Therefore, the decision on VC needs
to be adaptive over time and should possess a realistic value
that is comparable to the actual cost incurred to the SFC. We
categorise the management problem into three cases based on
intermittent solar generation, unpredictable SFC’s demand and
household demand, and obtain the optimal solution for each
of the three cases using the theory of maxima and minima.
Furthermore, to coordinate the energy management in realtime, we propose an algorithm that can determine the optimal

D. Organization of the paper
The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. We
discuss the considered system model and problem formulation
in Section II. The proposed energy management scheme
and the algorithm to reach the optimal solution are studied
in Section III. We analyse the properties of the scheme
through numerical case studies in Section IV, and finally some
concluding remarks are drawn in Section V.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
As in Fig. 2, let us consider a smart community consisting
of an SFC, a large number of households and the grid. The
SFC is equipped with Ns solar PV panels and an ESD with
capacity Bc . The area and efficiency of each solar PV panel
are assumed to be As square meter (m2 ) and η respectively.
Now, if the solar irradiance is Ipv (t) W/m2 at any particular
time t ∈ T , where T is the total considered time duration, the
generated power Es,s (t) from the SFC’s solar PV is1 [21],
1 Please note that in (1) we use a simple relationship to capture the
electricity generation from solar radiation. However, although (1) is simple,
we will see in Section III that the proposed management technique is capable
to capture any further variation in the solar power generation due to change
in other parameters such as temperature as well.

2

IEEE Access
TABLE I: Demonstration of the differences between [2] and the proposed work.

Different aspect

Work in [2]

Proposed work

Adopted methodology

An energy management scheme was proposed based
on a non-cooperative Stackelberg game.

The theory of maxima and minima has been used to
solve the optimization problem for the SFC.

Objective of the study

To device an energy trading scheme that maximizes
the benefit of both the SFC and residential users
through trading their energy with one another and with
the grid.

To promote the use of renewable energy for the SFC
such that the SFC can exclusively manage all the
facilities from its own generation only so as to minimize
its operational cost.

Interactions

During energy trading, the SFC and residential users
always interact with one another and/or with the grid
for energy management.

The SFC only interact with the residential users if it has
any surplus to sell to them. Further, the SFC only
contact the grid if it has any surplus after meeting the
demand of itself and the residential users.

Decision making capability

Both the SFC and residential users can decide on the
energy trading parameters.

The SFC decides on whether or not to sell its energy to
other entities.

System model

•
•
•

Cost of renewable

The renewable belong to the households.
The SFC neither has any renewable nor any
storage device.
The SFC relies on the electricity from the
residential or the grid for meeting its demand.

The SFC need to pay the residential to buy the
renewable energy.

The renewable belongs to the SFC.
The SFC also has storage device to store renewable
energy.
The SFC mainly meet its demand from its own
generation. If any deficiency, it buys from the grid
only.

•
•
•

Renewable energy is free for the SFC as the SFC owns
the renewable energy sources.

cost2 is always incurred by the SFC whenever the SFC
trades energy with the grid and households, and charges or
discharges its ESD. Please note that here we use two different
variables eb,s (t) and es,b (t) to refer to the discharging energy
from and charging energy to the ESD respectively. These two
variables are mainly used to facilitate the decision making
process of the SFC on its energy management based on
different proposed cases as we will see shortly in Section III.

A. Real Cost to the SFC
At any time t, the total cost J(t) to the SFC is assumed to
consist of the following four elements:
1) Cost Jbuy (t) of buying energy: It is assumed that the SFC
buys its deficient energy, if there is any, only from the
grid. Hence, the cost Jbuy (t) to the SFC can be expressed
as
Jbuy (t) = pg,s (t)eg,s (t),
Fig. 2: The system model for renewable energy management of an SFC,
which is is connected to a number of other entities in the smart community.

where eg,s (t) is the amount of energy that the SFC buys
from the grid and pg,s (t) is the price per unit of eg,s (t).
It is assumed that the SFC can also discharge eb,s (t)
amount of energy from its ESD, if it requires, which
may affect the amount of energy it buys from the grid,
and the associated costs. Hence, (2) can be defined as

[22]
Es,s (t) = η × As × Ns × Ipv (t).

(2)

(1)

Jbuy (t) = pg,s (t)([Esreq (t)
− (Es,s (t) + eb,s (t))]+ ),

At time slot t, let us assume that the energy required by
req
the SFC is Es (t) for the maintenance of different shared
facilities of the community and the SFC uses Es,s (t) to
meet this requirement. However if Es,s (t) > Esreq(t), the
req
SFC may sell the excess energy Es,s (t) − Es (t) either
to the households of the community or to the grid so as
to make some extra revenue. Alternatively, the SFC may
choose to store this surplus in its ESD for use at a later
time. Nonetheless if Es,s (t) < Esreq (t), the SFC either
buys

the deficient amount of energy Esreq (t) − Es,s (t) from the
grid or either partially, or completely, discharges its ESD to
compensate for this deficiency. We assume that an associated

(3)

+

where [∗] = max (0, ∗).
2) Revenue Jsell (t) from selling energy: The revenue of the
SFC from selling its surplus energy, if there is any, stems
from the revenue Juser (t) from selling energy es,u (t) to
the household users, and the revenue Jgrid (t) from selling
es,g (t) to the grid. Therefore, the revenue of the SFC
from selling its excess generated energy can be expressed
2 Please note that revenue can equivalently be considered to be a negative
cost.

3

IEEE Access
total cost to the SFC for three techniques: 1) an FIT scheme
[26] where the SFC does not have any capacity to estimate
the future cost and sells its excess energy only to the grid;
2) a modified scheme in which the SFC does not have any
capacity to estimate the future cost and sells its excess energy
to both the grid and the households (such as in [2]); and 3)
a scheme such as the scheme proposed in this paper where
the SFC can estimate a relative cost of the next time slot,
storing/dispatching energy from its storage accordingly, and
can sell the excess energy to both the households and the grid.
For all schemes, it is considered that the SFC can buy energy
only from the grid. Now, the associated total costs to the SFC
for all three schemes are shown in Table II. Please note that
the VC is only considered for time slot 1 as the example
assumes only two time slots of energy management. As can
be seen for Table II, the proposed scheme has the capability
to reduce the total cost to the SFC by 76.7% and 63.7%
compared to the FIT and the modified scheme respectively,
and thus demonstrates the potential of the proposed scheme
in managing renewable energy for the SFC.

as
Jsell (t) = Juser (t) + Jgrid (t) = −ps (t) (es,u (t)) −
pg,buy (t) (es,g (t)) .

(4)

Here, ps (t) and pg,buy (t) are the selling price per unit
energy to the users and the grid respectively, and the
negative sign implies revenue (instead of cost) for the
SFC. Now, to design the revenue Jsell (t), two factors are
considered:
• The price per unit of energy sold to the users is
considerably higher than the selling price to the
grid [2]. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the
SFC would want to sell the surplus to the households
first, and then, if there is any left over, sell to the
grid.
• The SFC charges its ESD with es,b (t) from the
excess solar energy, if there is any.
Incorporating these two factors, Jusers (t) and Jgrid (t) in
(4) are further defined as
Juser (t) = −ps (t) min([Es,s (t) −
(Esreq (t) + es,b (t))]+ , Eureq (t)),

We stress that the estimation of future information based on
historic values has been widely discussed in the literature. For
example, Markov models [27] and Kalman filtering [28] have
been used extensively for estimating future states based on the
historical data of electrical system. The weighted least square
estimator is commonly used in today’s power systems, which
are sensed primarily via SCADA measurements [29]. In [30],
the authors exploits the principles of one-dimensional and
two-dimensional compressive sensing to develop approaches
for voltage estimation in distribution grids with renewable
energy based generators. Other techniques related to estimation of states in dynamical systems can also be found
in [31]. However, in contrast to these techniques, we adopt
a simple technique to determine the virtual cost, which is
suitable for the considered system model. In particular, the
proposed virtual cost model depends only on the information
available at the current and previous time slots and therefore
does not require memory to store a large amount of historical
data. Thus, the virtual cost is computationally less expensive
than existing techniques, and simulation results validate its
effectiveness, as will be shown in Section IV.

(5)

Eureq (t)

where
is the energy required by the household
users at t, and
Jgrid (t) = −pg,buy (t)[Es,s (t) − Esreq (t) −
(Eureq (t) + es,b (t))]+

(6)

respectively. From (6), we note that the SFC only sells
energy back to the grid when it has enough surplus after
meeting its own requirement and the requirements of the
household users.
3) Cost JSD (t) of charging and discharging of ESD: To
limit the number of charging and discharging cycles
of the ESD, we consider a cost associated with every
charging and discharging of the SFC’s ESD [23], which
is assumed to be
JSD (t) = αb max(eb,s (t), es,b (t)),

(7)

where αb > 0 is the characteristic constant of the ESD,
which, for example, can be a function of new ESD cost,
depth of discharge, and total number of charging and
discharging cycles [23].

To this end, the proposed Jv (t) accounts for the impact
of the state-of-charge (SoC) of the SFC’s ESD on its future
cost. For instance, if the SoC of the ESD is small at the
end of optimization at time slot t, the cost to the SFC could
be estimated to be larger at t + 1 as the amount of energy
eb,s (t + 1) that could be discharged from the ESD would be
small. Hence, the SFC may be required to buy more energy
from the grid if the generation of solar energy Es,s (t + 1)
is not enough to meet its requirement Esreq (t + 1). In this
context, we assume that Jv (t) is a decreasing function of the
SoC sb (t) at the end of time slot t. Mathematically,

B. Virtual Cost
To account for the impact of SFC’s current energy decision
on the future cost, we introduce a VC Jv (t), which is an
estimate of the cost to the SFC at t + 1 in the current
time slot t. Essentially, dsthe idea of VC is beneficial in
assisting the SFC to take the decision on both charging energy
to/discharging energy from the storage and on trading with
other entities in each time slot of the operation. This can
easily be shown by a toy example as follows.
Let us consider a smart community in which an SFC is
equipped with solar PV that generates 100 and 90 kWh of
electricity in time slot 1 and 2 respectively, whereby the
requirements of the SFC are respectively 80 and 100 kWh for
the considered two time slots. The selling price per unit of
energy to the grid and households are assumed to be 8.54 and
24 cents/kWh respectively3 whereas the buying price from the
grid is 60 cents/kWh [2]. For this example, we consider the

Jv (t)

=

a(t)
sb (t)

=

a(t)
.
sb (t − 1) + ν(es,b (t) − eb,s (t))

(8)

Here, ν is the efficiency of the SFC’s ESD and a(t) > 0 is a
coefficient, which is adaptive across time slots. The motivation
for using an adaptive a(t) is to better capture the non-linear
effect of current energy flow on the virtual cost. For example,
if the SFC is buying more energy from the grid in the current
time slot, it may need to buy more energy in the next time
slot too, due to the time coherence in energy consumption.

3 Example of such difference between buying and selling price can be found
in Australian Electricity Market, e.g., in the state of Queensland [24], [25].

4

IEEE Access
TABLE II: A toy example to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed multi-entity energy trading scheme in reducing the total cost to the SFC through
the exploitation of the introduced VC.
Selling of energy
Scheme

Time
Slot

Generation
(kWh)

Requirement
(kWh)

Deficiency
(kWh)

1

100

80

2

90

1

Buying of energy
Cost
(Cents)

Storage
(VC, kWh)

Househol
d (kWh)

Grid
(kWh)

Storage
(VC, kWh)

Grid
(kWh)

- 20

N. A.

0

- 20

N. A.

0

-170.8

100

10

N. A.

0

0

N. A.

10

600

100

80

- 20

N. A.

- 10

- 10

N. A.

0

-325.4

2

90

100

10

N. A.

0

0

N. A.

10

600

1

100

80

- 20

-4

-8

-8

0

0

-260.32

2

90

100

10

0

0

0

4

6

360

FIT

Total
Cost
(Cents)

%
Reduction
with
proposed
scheme

429.2

Modified
Scheme
Proposed
Scheme

274.6

99.68

for t = 1, 2, . . . , T . Now, to solve the problem (11) in real
time, we propose an energy management scheme in the next
section.

Hence the updating function of a(t) is proposed to follow the
relation
a(t) = a(t − 1) + µ (eg,s (t − 1) − eg,s (t − 2)) ,

(9)

III. E NERGY M ANAGEMENT S CHEME
The energy management process of the SFC at any time
slot t always falls within one of the following three categories
based on intermittent solar generation and random demand of
the SFC and the household users:
1) Case 1: Esreq (t) ≥ Es,s (t). The SFC does not sell any
energy. The SFC may buy electricity from the grid and/or
discharge its ESD.

2) Case 2: Esreq (t) < Es,s (t) ≤ Esreq (t) + Eureq (t) . The
SFC does not buy any electricity from the grid and may
charge its ESD. The SFC may sell electricity to the
household users but not to the grid. 
3) Case 3: Es,s (t) > Esreq (t) + Eureq (t) . The SFC does
not buy any electricity and may charge its ESD. The
SFC may sell electricity to the household users and the
grid.
Now, what follows is a detailed analysis of the optimal cost
to the SFC, in each of the three cases, through the derivation
of the energy amount that the SFC needs to either charge or
discharge to reach the optimal cost.

where µ > 0 is a scalar step parameter. It is important to
note that the value a(t) is updated based on the amount of
eg,s that the SFC buys from the grid. The initial value aini of
a(t) is considered to be a design parameter, which depends
on various system parameters such as community size. Hence,
if the size of the community is larger and/or number of solar
PVs installed in the SFC is smaller, the SFC will need to buy
more energy from the grid, which will consequently increase
the value of aini and the VC. Therefore, the choice of aini is
significantly affected by the type and size of the community
and the capacity of the installed solar PVs. Furthermore,
if the value of µ becomes higher, the value of a(t) and,
consequently, the value of Jv (t) increases for purchasing a
similar amount of energy from the grid. To this end, µ can
be referred to as the sensitivity of SFC’s cost to the energy
that it purchases from the grid. As we will see shortly, the
considered energy management scheme considerably depends
on the proposed VC model.

C. Total Cost and Objective Function

A. Case 1
In this case, the SFC neither sells any electricity nor charges
its ESD. Therefore, es,u (t), es,g (t), es,b (t) = 0. So, the cost
function Jcase-1 (t) for case 1 reduces to the form4

Combining all the relevant costs from (2), (4), (7) and (8),
the cost function of the SFC can be defined as
J(t) = Jbuy (t) + Jsell (t) + JSD (t) + Jv (t),

(10)

Jcase-1 (t) = pg,s (t) (Esreq (t) − (Es,s (t) + eb,s (t))) +
a(t)
αb eb,s (t) +
,
sb (t − 1) − νeb,s (t)

for each t = 1, 2, . . . , T . It is important to note that one
of the objectives of this work is to maximize the use of
generated solar energy in order to minimize the cost to the
SFC. Therefore, the problem is formulated such that the SFC
only buys energy from the grid when the generated solar
Es,s (t) is not large enough to meet its requirement Esreq (t).
Also, the SFC only sells its energy when Es,s (t) > Esreq (t).
Furthermore, it can be seen from (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) that
all the related costs to the SFC can be expressed in terms of
its charging and discharging amount of energy eb,s (t) and
es,b (t) respectively. To that end, the objective of the SFC
can be expressed in terms of minimizing J(t) by choosing
a suitable either eb,s (t) or es,b (t) in each time slot t, which
can be defined mathematically as
min

76.78%
(FIT) and
63.7%
(modified
scheme)

eb,s (t) or es,b (t)

[Jbuy (t) + Jsell (t) + JSD (t) + Jv (t)] ,

(12)

where the objective of the SFC is
min Jcase-1 (t).

(13)

eb,s (t)

Now, Jcase-1 (t) attains its minimum value5 for the choice of
case-1 (t)
eb,s (t) when δJ
δeb,s (t) = 0, and thus
s
"
#
1
νa(t)
sb (t − 1) −
eb,s (t) =
.
(14)
ν
pg,s (t) − αb
4 Hereinafter, the cost function of the SFC for each case i, where i =
1, 2, 3, will be indicated as Jcase-i .

(11)

2
5 Since, δ Jcase-1 (t)
δeb,s (t)2

5

=

2ν 2 a(t)
[sb (t−1)−νeb,s (t)]3

> 0.

IEEE Access
energy amount, i.e., es,b (t) and eb,s (t) respectively, at t
and the SoC sb (t − 1) from the previous time slot. This
relationship can be expressed as

Thus, the optimal cost to the SFC for case 1 is obtained by
(12) when eb,s (t) is as given in (14).
B. Case 2
In case 2, the SFC neither buys any electricity from nor
sells any electricity to the grid. Therefore, eg,s (t) = 0 and
es,g (t) = 0. Also, the ESD does not discharge, i.e., eb,s (t) =
0. Hence, the cost function and the objective of the SFC can
be expressed as
Jcase-2 (t) = −ps (t)(Es,s (t) − (Esreq (t)) + es,b (t)) +
a(t)
αb es,b (t) +
,
sb (t − 1) + νes,b (t)

sb (t) = sb (t − 1) + ν (es,b (t) − eb,s (t)) ,

where ν is the ESD efficiency. Also, the SoC of the
EDS at any time slot t cannot be larger than its capacity
Bcap (i.e., 100% SoC) or lower than a certain minimum
amount Bmin in order to prolong the life-time of the ESD.
Therefore,
Bmin ≤ sb (t) ≤ Bcap .

(15)

min Jcase-2 (t)

(16)

respectively. Now, the choice of es,b (t) for which Jcase-2 (t)
case-2 (t)
attains the minimum value6 satisfies δJ
δes,b (t) = 0. Hence, the
optimal choice of es,b (t) for case 2 is
"s
#
νa(t)
1
es,b (t) =
− sb (t − 1) .
(17)
ν
αb + ps (t)

and
eb,s (t) is

Jcase-3 (t) = −ps (t)Eureq (t) − pg,buy (t)(Es,s (t) − Esreq (t) −
a(t)
. (18)
(Eureq (t) + es,b (t))) + αb es,b (t) +
sb (t − 1) + νes,b (t)
The first term of (18) refers to the total revenue that the SFC
attains from selling the required energy to the households.
Now, similar to the previous two cases in Section III-A
and Section III-B, the optimal choice of es,b (t) in order to
minimize the SFC’s cost Jcase-3 (t) can be obtained as
"s
#
1
νa(t)
es,b (t) =
− sb (t − 1) .
(19)
ν
αb + pg,buy (t)

≥ 0, if es,b (t) = 0
.
= 0, if es,b (t) > 0

(24)

es,b (t) ≤ min(emax
b , (Bcap − sb (t − 1))),

(25)

eb,s (t) ≤ min(emax
b , (sb (t − 1) − Bmin )).

(26)

and

4) Constraint on grid energy: The SFC does not buy energy
from and sell energy to the grid at the same time slot.
That is
(
≥ 0, if es,g (t) = 0
,
(27)
eg,s (t) is
= 0, if es,g (t) > 0
and
es,g (t) is

D. Constraints
Now, while the SFC minimizes its cost by suitably choosing
eb,s (t) or es,b (t) according to (14), (17) or (19), the SFC
needs to maintain a number of constraints for suitable implementation of the approach in a practical environment. Some
of these constraints are based on the cases proposed in this
paper. In the following, we briefly explain the constraints that
are assumed to be satisfied by the SFC during management
of its energy.
1) Equality constraint on energy trading: At time slot t, the
total supply of energy to the SFC should be equal to the
total energy spent by the SFC in the considered time slot.
That is

(

≥ 0, if eg,s (t) = 0
.
= 0, if eg,s (t) > 0

(28)

5) Constraint on αb : The choice of αb may affect the
optimal choice of eb,s (t) and es,b (t) of the SFC through
(14), (17) and (19). Now to decide how to choose a
suitable value of αb , we first note from (14) that the
SFC will discharge its ESD in case 1 if
αb < pg,s (t) −

νa(t)
.
(sb (t − 1))2

(29)

And, the charging of the ESD in case 2 and case 3 takes
place if
νa(t)
− ps (t)
(sb (t − 1))2

(30)

νa(t)
− pg,buy (t)
(sb (t − 1))2

(31)

αb <
and
αb <

(20)

respectively. Since ps (t) > pg,buy (t), it is clear that if
(30) is true the condition in (31) is also true. Now, the
conditions on αb in (29) and (30) are satisfied if αb is

2) Constraint on the SOC: The SoC sb (t) of the SFC’s ESD
at time slot t is a function of the charging and discharging
6 For

(

The charging and discharging rate of the ESD cannot
be greater than the ESD’s rated charging/discharging
capacity emax
b . Also, an SFC cannot charge its battery
more than the available space in its ESD. Similarly, the
SFC cannot discharge its ESD more than the available
SoC. Therefore,

C. Case 3
In this case, the SFC sells electricity to the grid after meeting its own demand and those of the households. However, it
does not buy any electricity from the grid, i.e., eg,s (t) = 0.
To this end, the cost to the SFC for case 3 can be expressed
as

Es,s (t) + eb,s (t) + eg,s (t) = Esreq (t) +
Eureq (t) + es,b (t) + es,g (t).

(22)

3) Constraint on ESD’s charging and discharging: The SFC
cannot charge and discharge its ESD simultaneously in
any time slot t. That is
(
≥ 0, if eb,s (t) = 0
,
(23)
es,b (t) is
= 0, if eb,s (t) > 0

and
es,b (t)

(21)

same reason in Case-1.

6

IEEE Access
costs for all three cases are determined. The detail of the
proposed algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1 in a step-by-step
fashion.
It is important to note that in each iteration only one of the
three cases is executed in the algorithm. Further, the decision
making on the cost of the SFC in each case is based on the
expressions that have been derived in (12), (14) (case-1), (15),
(17) (case-2), and (18), (19) (case-3) respectively for the three
cases. Hence, the implementation of the algorithm is simple
and can be executed with minimal computational complexity.

Algorithm 1: Algorithm for the SFC to reach the optimal
solution.
1: Initialization: eg,s (t) and a(t) for t ∈ {1, 2}.
2: for Time slot t = 3 to T do
3:
The Grid announces pg,s (t), pg,buy (t).
4:
The SFC:
5:
Sets i = 0.
6:
Sets ps (t).
7:
Determines the SOC sb (t).
8:
Calculates the PV generation Es,s (t).
9:
Calculates its requirement Esreq (t).
req
10:
Receives users total energy requirement Eu
(t).
11:
Calculates a(t) = a(t − 1) + µ (eg,s (t − 1) − eg,s (t − 2)).
req
12:
if Es (t) > Es,s (t) then
13:
Set i = 1.
14:
Calculates eb,s (t) following (14).
15:
if eb,s (t) > min(emax
b , (sb (t − 1) − Bmin )) then
16:
Sets eb,s (t) = min(emax
b , (sb (t − 1) − Bmin )).
17:
end if
18:
if eb,s (t) < 0 then
19:
Sets eb,s (t) = 0.
20:
end if
21:
Calculates Jcase-1 (t) using (12).
22:
end if
req
23:
if Es,s (t) ≥ Esreq (t) and Es,s (t) < Esreq (t) + Eu
(t) then
24:
Sets i = 2.
25:
Calculates es,b (t) from (17).
26:
if es,b (t) > min(emax
b , (Bcap − sb (t − 1))) then
27:
Sets es,b (t) = min(emax
b , (Bcap − sb (t − 1))).
28:
end if
29:
if es,b (t) < 0 then
30:
Sets es,b (t) = 0.
31:
end if
32:
Calculates Jcase-2 (t) using (15).
33:
end if
req
34:
if Es,s (t) > Esreq (t) + Eu
(t) then
35:
Sets i = 3.
36:
Calculates es,b (t) from (19).
37:
if es,b (t) > min(emax
b , (Bcap − sb (t − 1))) then
38:
Sets es,b (t) = min(emax
b , (Bcap − sb (t − 1))).
39:
end if
40:
if es,b (t) < 0 then
41:
Sets es,b (t) = 0.
42:
end if
43:
Calculates Jcase-3 (t) using (18).
44:
end if
45:
Sets J(t) = Jcase-i (t).
46:
Determines sb (t) using (21).
47:
Determines eg,s (t) through (20).
48: end for

Remark 1. Note that all possible scenarios of the considered
energy management scheme are captured through the three
cases proposed in Section III-A, III-B and III-C, and the
optimal cost to the SFC in each of the considered cases is
determined through Algorithm 1. To determine the feasible
optimal solution, Algorithm 1 is leveraged via the proposed
concept of VC, and is executed according to the derived
expressions in Section III-A, III-B and III-C where the constraints of Section III-D are also maintained. Hence, Algorithm 1 always reaches the optimal solution of the proposed
energy management scheme.
It is important to note that the proposed optimization
problem can be solved by following Algorithm 1 due to the
obtained expressions in (12), (14) (case-1), (15), (17) (case2), and (18), (19) (case-3). Nonetheless, other optimization
techniques such as particle swarm optimization and simulated
annealing may also be suitable to solve the proposed problem.
IV. C ASE S TUDY
In this section, we provide some numerical simulation
results to show the beneficial properties of the proposed
scheme. We demonstrate how the proposed scheme can help
the SFC to reduce its average cost over a considered period
of time, e.g., a day.
We consider that the SFC owns a solar array, e.g., on the
rooftop of the community buildings, consisting of 65 solar
panels and has an ESD of capacity 15 kWh. Each solar panel
has a dimension of 1.926×1.014 m2 [32] and an efficiency of
0.30 [33]. Total time duration is considered to be from 6.00
am to 8.00 pm, which consists of 28 time slots and each time
slot is assumed to have a duration of 30 minutes [34]. The
value of solar irradiance at each time slot is taken from the set
of solar data (measured at the campus of Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia), which is averaged over a
month of data for the considered time slots. The grid’s real
time sell price pg,s (t) ∀t per unit of electricity is considered
from [35], and the sell price ps (t) of the SFC and the buy
price pg,buy (t) of the grid are assumed to be 0.6 and 0.3 times
pg,s (t) respectively7. The requirement of the SFC is calculated
based on the demand of community lifts at different time of
the day. In particular, we choose the number of trips of the
community lifts randomly between [100, 200] times during the
peak hours, i,e., 6 am to 9 am and 4.30 pm to 8.00 pm, and
between [70, 100] times for the rest of the time. The energy
consumption of the lifts for each trip is assumed to be 0.1
kilo-watt hour (kWh) [36]. Total demand of the households
at different time of the day is considered randomly from the
range [10, 25] kWh [37]. Unless stated otherwise, the values

p (t)−p (t)
of αb and aini are assumed to be min g,s 2 s , ∀t − 1
and 250 respectively. It is important to note that all parameter

set such that
pg,s (t) − ps (t)
, ∀t.
(32)
2
In this context, to satisfy the condition in (32) at each
t = 1, 2, . . . , T , the value of αb needs to be chosen such
that


pg,s (t) − ps (t)
, ∀t .
(33)
αb < min
2
αb <

E. Algorithm
After determining the optimal cost to the SFC for the
proposed three cases, and defining the related constraints, we
now introduce an algorithm, which can be adapted by the
SFC to reach the optimal solution in real time. The algorithm
is initiated in each time slot t through the announcement
of pg,s (t) and pg,buy (t) ∀t by the grid, and the setting up
of ps (t) ∀t by the SFC such that (33) is satisfied. In each
time slot t, the SFC gets information on its generated energy
req
Es,s (t), determines its requirement Es (t), and receives the
req
energy request Eu (t) from the household users. Based on
the available information, the SFC determines the category
of the energy management scheme. Then, according to the
type of category, i.e., case 1, 2 or 3, and the associated
constraints in Section III-D, the SFC obtains the optimal
charging and discharging amount according to the discussion
in Section III-A, III-B and III-C. Subsequently, the optimal

7 p (t) and p
s
g,buy (t) are chosen such that the condition pg,buy (t) <
ps (t) < pg,s (t) is always maintained throughout the energy management
scheme [2].

7

IEEE Access

800

140

600

aini = 250

Virtual cost

Cost to the SFC

0

−200

Virtual cost changes relatively slowly

5

10

15
Time slot

20

25

0

30

Fig. 3: Demonstration of cost (in cents) to the SFC at different time slots
of the considered time duration. The positive costs are incurred to the SFC
during case-1 whereby the negative costs, i.e., the revenue, are attained by
the SFC during case-2 and case-3.

Es,s(t)
req

Es (t)
Case−2 (kWh)

10

20

15
Time slot

20

25

Requirement of SFC

10
5

10

5

10

15
Time slot

20

25

20
10

Energy sold to the households (case−2)

40

15
Time slot

20

25

Energy sold to the households (case−2)
Energy sold to the grid (case−2)

20
5

10

15
Time slot

20

10

15
Time slot

20

25

case-2 in Fig. 3, the SFC sells its surplus energy only to the
households8, e.g., in time slots 4, 5, 6, 13 to 19, and 21 in
Fig. 4. Nevertheless, according to Fig. 4, at the latter part of
the considered range of time slots, the SFC’s requirement is
significantly higher than the generation. Hence, the SFC needs
to buy energy from the grid during these time slots and thus
the energy management scheme falls within case-1, as shown
in Fig. 3. In Fig. 4, due to space limitation we do not show the
amount of energy that the SFC buys from grid during these
time slots, which can easily be calculated from the difference
between the solar generation and SFC’s requirements. Note
that, unlike case-2 and case-3, the energy trading in case-1
incurs cost to the SFC.

Solar Energy (kWh)
5

5

Fig. 5: Demonstration of the change of VC at different times over the considered duration. As the value of aini increases, the VC increases considerably
for all time instants.

50

Case−3 (kWh)

60

20

−600
0

0

80

40

−400

0

aini = 350

100

200

0

aini = 150

120

400

0

Virtual cost increases
significantly

aini = 50

Case−1
Case−2
Case−3 (households)
Case−3 (households and grid)

25

B. Change of VC with aini

Fig. 4: Demonstration of the decision making process of the SFC on how
much energy it needs to sell to different entities.

We show in Fig. 5 how the VC to the SFC changes
over time for different values of aini . From this figure, we
first note that the VC to the SFC increases during the late
evening when there is a lack of solar energy due to lower
intensity of solar irradiance. And, when the generation of solar
energy is significantly high, i.e., around noon, the VC cost
reaches a lower value and does not change significantly over
time. This is due to the fact that a higher amount of solar
generation eventually lets the SFC meet its demand from its
own generation (case-2 and case-3) without any dependence
on the grid. As a consequence, the VC reduces according
to the proposed design. Whereas, the SFC needs to buy a
significant amount of energy from the grid when there is not
enough generation to meet the SFC’s requirement (case-1).
This consequently increases the SFC’s estimate of cost in
the next time slot, and hence the VC to the SFC increases
considerably after time slot 20 as shown in Fig. 5. We further
note from Fig. 5 that as the value of aini increases the VC
increases over all the time slots. Essentially, as explained
in Section II-A, a higher aini refers to a larger community
size that requires more energy. Hence, the estimate of the
cost across various time slots becomes larger compared to
scenarios when aini is small. As a consequence, VC attains a
higher value for higher aini .

values are particular to this study and may vary for different
cases based on circumstances such as weather conditions,
number of households in a community, electricity price, time
of day and the nation (or state) where it is located.
A. Behavior of the scheme at different time slots
To this end, we first show how the proposed scheme can
react to environmental change in the system and execute the
energy management scheme for different cases. In particular,
we show how the optimization problem of the SFC falls into
different cases, i.e., case-1, case-2 and case-3, at different time
slots in Fig. 3 according to the solar generation and SFC’s
requirements as demonstrated in Fig. 4. According to Fig. 4,
the SFC’s solar generation is higher than its required energy at
time slots 1 to 19 and again at 21. Therefore, during these time
slots, the SFC sells its excess energy to both the households
and the grid during time slots 7 to 12, and to the households
only for the rest of the time. This is due to the fact that
when the surplus from the generation is significantly higher,
i.e., from time slots 7 to 12, the SFC sells to the grid after
meeting its own electricity demand and the requirements of
the households according to the designed scheme. Thus, these
time durations fall within case-3 as shown in Fig. 3, bringing
revenue for the SFC. For relatively smaller surpluses, i.e.,

8 Similar

8

to case-3, the SFC also receives revenue in case-2.

IEEE Access
C. Choice of ESD capacity
In Fig. 6, we demonstrate the charging and discharging
behavior of the SFC’s ESD for different values of aini ,
which would further provide some insights into the choice
of the ESD’s capacity. In the considered energy management
scheme, we propose to use a cost factor in each charging and
discharging cycle of the SFC to prevent excess charging and
discharging of the SFC’s ESD during the energy management
period. This enables the SFC to use a relatively lower amount
of its capacity as demonstrated in this example. For instance,
the SFC only uses up to 3.5 kWh of ESD space for charging
and discharging when aini = 150, which increases to 4.6 and
5.5 kWh for a aini of 250 and 350 respectively. Interestingly,
due to the possibility of increased average cost over the whole
time duration, the SFC does not use its battery for aini = 50.
Thus, for a fixed parameter aini , the proposed scheme enables
the SFC to choose a suitable ESD capacity for the considered
system, which can reduce the capital cost for the SFC by
suggesting the set-up of a smaller-sized ESD.
Further from Fig. 6, the charging of the ESD mainly takes
place in the morning when the PV generation is moderately
high and the SFC discharges its ESD during the afternoon.
Interestingly, no charging of the ESD is observed at noon
even though the solar generation is significantly higher. This
is due to the way the scheme is designed such that the cost
factor αb incurs a cost to the SFC whenever there is a charging
or discharging of the ESD. Therefore, selling the surplus solar
energy to households and the grid at noon enables the SFC
to make more revenue instead of incurring a cost to it by
charging the ESD. This strategy leads to a lower average cost
to the SFC when considering the total time duration.
Furthermore, unlike most management schemes with energy storage devices where future information on price is
available (e.g., see the management schemes surveyed in [1])
no charging of the ESD is observed in the late evening for
the proposed technique. This is mainly due to two reasons:
1) to increase the usage of renewable energy as explained in
Section I, we consider that the SFC only charges its ESD
when the there is excess solar energy available and does not
charge it with energy from the grid, and 2) it is assumed
that no future information is considered available to the SFC.
Therefore, the SFC decides on its energy management based
on the scenarios available at each time slot, which prevents
the SFC only from charging its ESD at night for future use.
However, it would be an interesting extension of the proposed
work to include future information and observe the charging
and discharging behavior of the ESD at different times.

6

5.5

SoC of the ESD

5

aini = 50

Frequency of significant
changes is very low

aini = 150
a

4.5

ini

= 250

aini = 350

4

3.5

3

5

10

15
Time slot

20

25

Fig. 6: Demonstration of the variation of SoC of SFC’s ESD at different
times of the day for different values of aini .

Average cost savings comparedd to grid-tie system (%)

350
Scenario-1
Scenario-2
300

Demand from households in
scenario 2 is two times that of
scenario 1.

250

200

150

100

50

0
65

Savings in average cost
increases as more energy can
be sold to the households at
a higher rate.
70

75

80

85

For significantly large generation
the SFC sells the surplus to the grid
after meeting household demands.
Consequently, the savings in cost compared
to grid-tie system reduces.
90

95

100

105

110

115

Number of solar panel

Fig. 7: Demonstration of the effect of change of solar panels on the percentage
average cost savings to the SFC for the proposed scheme compared to grid-tie
solar system [38].

proposed scheme in comparison with the grid-tie system in
Fig. 7. We consider two scenarios based on the household
demands and consider that the household demand per time
slot in scenario 2 is twice that of scenario 1.
In Fig. 7, first we note that the percentage cost savings
for the SFC, in both scenarios, increases as the number of
solar panels in the system increases from 65 to 85. Indeed,
as the number of solar panels increases, the larger surplus
enables the SFC to sell more to the households at a higher
price compared to selling to the grid, which consequently
increases the revenue for the SFC in the proposed scheme.
Therefore, the percentage average cost savings with respect
to the grid-tie system increases.
However, interestingly, as the number of solar panels
increases from 90 to 115, the percentage of cost savings
eventually decreases. This is because, as the scheme is designed, once the SFC fulfils both its own requirement and
the requirements of the households, it sells the excess energy
to the grid with a price similar to that of a grid-tie system.
Hence, once the generation is significantly high (due to a
large number of solar panels), most of the generated energy
is sold back to the grid by the SFC. Therefore, the percentage
improvement in terms of cost savings eventually decreases as
the revenue from selling the energy to the grid is similar for
both the proposed and grid-tie system.

D. Impact of number of solar panels
To compare the relative performance of the proposed
scheme, we choose the grid-tie solar system [38] as a benchmark, and show how the proposed scheme performs in terms
of average cost savings to the SFC compared to a grid-tie
solar system as the number of solar panels in the system
changes. Essentially in a grid-tie system, an energy entity
with renewables, such as the SFC in this paper, sells back its
surplus energy, if there is any after meeting its own demand,
to the grid. And if the generated energy is not enough to meet
its requirements, the SFC may buy the deficient amount from
the grid.
Now, to observe the performance improvement, we increase
the number of solar panels of the SFC from 65 to 115 and
demonstrate the percentage cost savings9 to the SFC for the
9 Calculated

Discharging
of ESD

Charging
of ESD

system−cost for proposed scheme
× 100.
using: cost for grid-tie
cost for grid-tie system

9

IEEE Access
TABLE III: Demonstration of average cost savings to the SFC for the proposed scheme compared to a grid-tie system. The percentage improvements in
terms of cost savings are shown in brackets.

aini
50
150
250
350

Average cost savings (in cents) to the SFC compared to a grid-tie system. The percentage improvements
in terms of cost savings are shown within brackets.
Total solar panel 60
Total solar panel 100
Total solar panel 140
Total solar panel 180
40.10 (58.66%)
76.54 (167%)
100.85 (70.58%)
117.4 (49.49%)
9.76 (14.28%)
49.23 (108%)
74.20 (51.93%)
90.76 (38.26%)
-12.39 (-18.12%)
33.65 (73%)
60.06 (42.03%)
76.62 (32.30%)
(cost increases)
-28.67 (-41.93%)
20.45 (44.87%)
47.93 (33.54%)
64.98 (27.39%)
(cost increases)

sponsible for maintaining the shared facilities in a smart
community and is also connected to the grid and households.
A suitable system model has been proposed to enable multidirection flow of electricity from the SFC’s solar panels so
as to minimize the operational cost to the SFC in each time
slot of a considered duration. Considering the fact that the
generation of energy from the SFC’s solar panels and the requirement of energy for shared facilities are both intermittent,
we have divided the energy management problem into three
categories. In each category, the requirement of the SFC has
been given a priority and the management scheme has been
designed such that the SFC may also sell its excess electricity,
if there is any, to other energy entities such as households and
the grid. We have proposed the concept of a virtual cost (VC)
and analyzed how the VC affects the decision making process
of the SFC for three different cases. An algorithm has been
proposed for the SFC to decide on the optimal charging and
discharging amount of its ESD and on the trading of energy
with different entities in real time in order to reach the optimal
solution. Numerical studies have been provided to show the
beneficial properties of the proposed scheme.

Furthermore, as the households’ demand in each time slots
increases by a factor of two, the percentage cost savings
increases (i.e., shifts upwards for scenario 2 as can be seen
from Fig. 7). Essentially, more household demand enables
the SFC to sell more to the households, which increases its
revenue and subsequently increases the average cost savings.
Nonetheless, when the generation becomes significantly high
in scenario 2, the cost savings reduce in a similar manner to
scenario 1 for the same reason as for scenario 1.
E. Impact of aini on average cost savings
Finally in Table III, we show how the average cost savings
(in cents) to the SFC for the proposed scheme compared to a
grid-tie system are affected for different choices of aini . The
negative sign in the table implies that the cost for the proposed
scheme is more than the grid-tie system. Now from Table III,
as the value of aini increases in a system, average cost savings
to the SFC compared to the grid-tie system decreases for a
particular number of solar panels. The main reason for this
decrement can be explained from Fig. 5. According to Fig. 5,
the VC to the SFC increases noticeably as aini increases. That
is, the SFC overestimates the cost in each time slot, which
also contributes to the total cost to the SFC according to the
design of the scheme. As a result, the cost to the SFC for
the proposed scheme increases, which subsequently reduces
the cost savings compared to a grid-tie system. For instance,
for 60 solar panels, the average cost savings to the SFC from
using the proposed scheme over a grid-tie system is 40.10 and
9.76 cents for aini = 50 and 150 respectively, and the reduction
of 30.34 cents is due to the increment of VC to the SFC for
a change of aini by 100. And, as the value of aini increases
to 250 and 350, the proposed scheme shows a performance
degradation compared to a grid-tie system.
However, if aini is always set to a large value by the SFC,
it can be interpreted that the community size is large and
requires more energy. This subsequently means more solar
panels need to be installed, if possible, in the system. Thus, the
performance of the proposed scheme improves significantly
for the system with higher demand and shows considerable
cost savings when compared to a grid-tie system. For instance,
the proposed scheme outperforms the grid-tie system at large
values of aini of 250 and 350 when the number of solar panels
in the system is large, i.e., 140 and 180 respectively. Therefore, critical for the adaptation of the proposed scheme is the
choice of aini in accordance with the community size in order
to capture a better cost-benefit tradeoff for the considered
system. Further in terms of percentage improvement of the
cost savings with respect to the number of solar panels, we
note that the performance is similar to that in Fig. 7.

R EFERENCES
[1] X. Fang, S. Misra, G. Xue, and D. Yang, “Smart grid - The new and
improved power grid: A survey,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 14,
no. 4, pp. 944–980, Oct. 2012.
[2] W. Tushar, B. Chai, C. Yuen, D. B. Smith, K. L. Wood, Z. Yang, and
H. V. Poor, “Three-party energy management with distributed energy
resources in smart grid,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 4, Apr.
2015.
[3] W. Tushar, B. Chai, C. Yuen, S. Huang, D. B. Smith, H. V. Poor, and
Z. Yang, “Energy storage sharing in smart grid: A modified auctionbased approach,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp.
1462–1475, May 2016.
[4] S. A. Kalogirou, E. Mathioulakis, and V. Belessiotis, “Artificial neural networks for the performance prediction of large solar systems,”
Elsevier Renewable Energy, vol. 63, pp. 90–97, Mar 2014.
[5] J. Guerrero, J. Vasquez, J. Matas, L. de Vicuña, and M. Castilla,
“Hierarchical control of droop-controlled ac and dc microgrids – A
general approach toward standardization,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 158–172, Jan 2011.
[6] C. Hill, M. Such, D. Chen, J. Gonzalez, and W. Grady, “Battery energy
storage for enabling integration of distributed solar power generation,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 850–857, June 2012.
[7] D. Zhang, N. Shah, and L. G. Papageorgiou, “Efficient energy consumption and operation management in a smart building with microgrid,”
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 74, pp. 209–222, Oct 2013.
[8] H. Kanchev, D. Lu, F. Colas, V. Lazarov, and B. Francois, “Energy
management and operational planning of a microgrid with a PV-based
active generator for smart grid applications,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.,
vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4583–4592, Oct 2011.
[9] K. K. Matrawy, A. F. Mahrous, and M. S. Youssef, “Energy management and parametric optimization of an integrated pv solar house,”
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 96, pp. 377–383, May 2015.
[10] H. Scherer, M. Pasamontes, J. Guzmán, J. Álvarez, E. Camponogara,
and J. Normey-Rico, “Efficient building energy management using distributed model predictive control,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 24,
no. 6, pp. 740–749, June 2014.
[11] M. Muratori and G. Rizzoni, “Residential demand response: Dynamic
energy management and time-varying electricity pricing,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 1108–1117, March 2016.

V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have proposed an energy management
scheme for a shared facility controller (SFC), which is re10

IEEE Access

[12] A. Safdarian, M. Fotuhi-Firuzabad, and M. Lehtonen, “A distributed
[25] SolarMatters,
“Feed-in
tariff
for
grid
connected
soalgorithm for managing residential demand response in smart grids,”
lar
power
system,”
2015,
Solar
Matters,
Australia,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 2385–
Available:http://www.energymatters.com.au/rebates-incentives/feedintariff/\queenslan
2393, Nov 2014.
[26] E. McKenna and M.Thomson, “Photovoltaic metering configurations,
feed-in tariffs and the variable effective electricity prices that result,”
[13] P. Yi, X. Dong, A. Iwayemi, C. Zhou, and S. Li, “Real-time opportunisIET Renewable Power Generation, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235–245, May
tic scheduling for residential demand response,” IEEE Transactions on
2013.
Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 227–234, March 2013.
[27] J. Mathieu, S. Koch, and D. Callaway, “State estimation and control
[14] N. Forouzandehmehr, M. Esmalifalak, H. Mohsenian-Rad, and Z. Han,
of electric loads to manage real-time energy imbalance,” IEEE Trans.
“Autonomous demand response using stochastic differential games,”
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 430–440, Feb 2013.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 291–300, Jan 2015.
[28] G. Rigatos, “A derivative-free kalman filtering approach to state
[15] F. Rassaei, W. S. Soh, and K. C. Chua, “Demand response for residential
estimation-based control of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elecelectric vehicles with random usage patterns in smart grids,” IEEE
tron., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3987–3997, Oct 2012.
Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 1367–1376, Oct
[29] M. Göl and A. Abur, “LAV based robust state estimation for systems
2015.
measured by PMUs,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1808–
[16] J. H. Yoon, R. Baldick, and A. Novoselac, “Dynamic demand response
1814, July 2014.
controller based on real-time retail price for residential buildings,” IEEE
[30] S. Alam, B. Natarajan, and A. Pahwa, “Distribution grid state estimation
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 121–129, Jan 2014.
from compressed measurements,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 4,
[17] W. Tushar, C. Yuen, D. B. Smith, and H. V. Poor, “Price discrimination
pp. 1631–1642, July 2014.
for energy trading in smart grid: A game theoretic approach,” IEEE
[31] B. W. Powell, Approximate dynamic programming:Solving the curses
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. Preprint, no. 99, pp. 1–12, 2016.
of dimentionality. NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, vol. 703.
[18] C. Vivekananthan, Y. Mishra, G. Ledwich, and F. Li, “Demand response
[32] I. Solaria Corporation, “Solaria module - Frambles crystalline solar
for residential appliances via customer reward scheme,” IEEE Transacpanel,” 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.solaria.com
tions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 809–820, March 2014.
[33] S. Dechert, “Solar cell efficiency rises by 30% through
[19] A.
Boxall,
“In
singapore,
rooftop
solar
panels
will
singlet fission,” 2014, published in July. [Online]. Available:
provide 100-percent of apple’s power needs,” Nov. 2015,
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/11/solar-cell-efficiency-rises-30-singlet-fission/
available:http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/apple-solar-power-\singapore-news/.
[34] R. Anderson and S. Fuloria, “On the security economics of electricity
[20] A. Barr, “Canberra to be 100% renewable by 2025,”
metering,” in The Ninth Workshop on the Economics of Information
2015, published in September 22. [Online]. Available:
Security, Harvard University, USA, Jun. 2010, pp. 1 –18.
releases/barr/2015/canberra-to-be-100-renewable-by-2025
http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/open government/inform/act gover-\nment\ media
[35] PJM,
“Real-time energy market,” http://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations/energy
[21] U.S. Department of Energy, “Photovoltaic cells conversion efficiency,”
posted on: 2013.
http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/energy-basics, (Retrieved May 19,
[36] E.
Ritch,
“Energy
efficiency
and
elevator
etiquette,”
2012).
2010,
published
in
August.
[Online].
Available:
[22] W. Tushar, C. Yuen, S. Huang, D. Smith, and H. V. Poor, “Cost
http://blog.cleantech.com/sector-insights/energy-efficiency/energy-\efficiency-and-el
minimization of charging stations with photovoltaic: An approach with
[37] M.
T.
Westra
and
S.
Kuyvenhoven,
“Energy,
EV classification,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation
powering
your
world,”
2002.
[Online].
Available:
Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 156–169, Jan. 2016.
http://fire.pppl.gov/energy overview EFDA.pdf
[23] W. Deng, F. Liu, H. Jin, C. Wu, and X. Liu, “MultiGreen: Cost[38] N. Deng, C. Stewart, and J. Li, “Concentrating renewable energy
minimizing multi-source datacenter power supply with online control,”
in grid-tied datacenters,” in Proc. IEEE International Symposium on
in Proc. ACM e-Energy, Berkeley, CA, May 2013, pp. 1–12.
Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), Chicago, IL, May 2011,
[24] DEWS, “Current electricity prices,” June 2015, Queensland
pp. 1–6.
Government: Department of Energy and Water Supply,
Available:https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/energy-water-home/electricity/\prices/current-prices.

11

