Battery Capacity of Deferrable Energy Demand

arXiv:1610.01973v1 [] 27 Sep 2016

Daria Madjidian, Mardavij Roozbehani, and Munther A. Dahleh
Abstract— We investigate the ability of a homogeneous collection of deferrable energy loads to behave
as a battery; that is, to absorb and release energy in
a controllable fashion up to fixed and predetermined
limits on volume, charge rate and discharge rate. We
derive bounds on the battery capacity that can be
realized and show that there are fundamental tradeoffs between battery parameters. By characterizing
the state trajectories under scheduling policies that
emulate two illustrative batteries, we show that the
trade-offs occur because the states that allow the
loads to absorb and release energy at high aggregate
rates are conflicting.

I. INTRODUCTION
The power systems is unique in that generation
must meet demand at all times and in the face of
uncertainty. To meet this requirement, the system
operator relies on balancing reserves, which are often
provided by gas power plants or fossil fuel based
spinning generators. However, following the recent and
rapid developments in communication and metering
technology, flexible electricity loads have become viable candidates for providing low-cost and fast-acting
balancing services to the power system [1], [2].
Many methods have been suggested for providing
demand-based balancing support. An early example
can be found in [3], where dispersed loads are equipped
with governor-like controllers that respond to changes
in system frequency. More recent approaches focus on
controlling the aggregate consumption of a collection
of loads. This includes work on thermostatically controlled loads [4]–[6], HVAC systems [7], electrical vehicle charging [8], [9], and residential pool pumps [10].
For a comprehensive survey of demand-side balancing
support we refer to [1].
Despite the large interest in demand-side balancing
services, few attempts have been made to quantify
their capacity, that is, the set of power adjustments
that can be tolerated without causing unacceptable
disruption to any of the end-users. The focus of most
methods in the literature is not on designing power
scheduling policies that are robust to a specific set of
power adjustments, but rather, on tracking an arbitrary trajectory. A drawback is that additional effort
This work was supported by the NSF CPS Collaborative Project
Award 1135843, the MIT–Masdar Institute Flagship Project, and the
Tata Center for Technology and Design. The authors are with the
Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Emails: {dariam, mardavij,
dahleh}@mit.edu

is required to determine the resulting capacity; for instance, by using the method in [11]. A second and more
severe limitation is that the associated capacity under
such tracking policies is fixed and cannot be adapted
to changes in power system operating conditions.
In this paper, we investigate the ability of a collection of deferrable energy loads (i.e., energy demand
that can be postponed up to a deadline) to directly
emulate a battery, that is, to track any fluctuations in
aggregate power supply that are compatible with the
charge/discharge behavior of the battery. We define
the capacity of a battery in terms of three parameters:
the volume of energy that it can store, its maximum
charge rate, and its maximum discharge rate. Our goal
is to quantify the battery capacity that can be offered.
To provide an insightful answer, we study this question
for a collection of homogeneous loads with periodic
arrivals.
Our contributions are as follows. We provide upper
bounds on the capacity of the batteries that can be
emulated and show that there are substantial tradeoffs between battery parameters. We then show that
these trade-offs occur because the initial energy allocation required to track large positive deviations in
aggregate power supply is different than the energy
allocation required to follow large negative deviations.
Since the dynamics of the loads prevent instantaneous
transitions between different energy allocations, and
since the aggregate power adjustment is not known
beforehand, there is a fundamental trade-off between
the abilities of the collective load to absorb and release
energy at high aggregate rates. This trade-off is not
an artifact of our homogeneous load model, and is
expected to occur in far more general settings.
Related work
Battery models have previously been used in the
literature, for example, in [6], [11], [12], to quantify
the capacity of a collection of flexible loads. Our work
is conceptually closely related to [6], where the authors
derive both upper and lower bounds on the battery capacity that can be offered by a collection of thermostatically controlled loads. An important difference is that
while a deferrable load is only able to provide temporary energy storage, each thermostatically controlled
load can act as a battery on its own. The problem in [6]
is to aggregate a collection of heterogeneous batteries
into a larger battery, and in our work it is to aggregate
temporary and overlapping storage capacities into a

permanent battery service. Another difference is that
the bounds in [6] are derived under a fixed initial
energy allocation. Our results show that, at least for
deferrable loads, this is restrictive. A battery model
was also used in [12] to quantify the aggregate flexibility of a group of thermostatically controlled loads, and
upper bounds on battery parameters were identified
from data. In [11], an empirical method was developed
to identify a lower bound on the battery capacity of a
collection of flexible loads. The method is not restricted
to a specific policy nor a particular load model.
Our work is also related to [13], where the authors
characterize the instantaneous energy storage capacity
of a collection of heterogeneous deferrable loads. This
is different from our work, where we are interested in
realizing long-term battery capacity. However, there is
some overlap, which is explained in Remark 2.
Notation
For two vectors x, y ∈ R3 , we say that x ≤ y if xi ≤ yi
for all i = 1, 2, 3, and that x < y if, in addition, xi < yi
for some i. We define the saturation operator as [ x]ba =
max(a, min( x, b)).
II. DEFERRABLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
A single deferrable energy load is characterized by
an arrival time τ ∈ R, an energy demand, E, a time
period, T, in which the demand must be filled, and
a limit, P, on its maximum power consumption. The
energy consumed at time t, by a load with arrival time
τ is denoted
Z
eτ (t) =

t

pτ (θ )dθ ,

(1)

−∞

where pτ is the corresponding power consumption. The
load admits any power consumption trajectory that
satisfies its requirements, that is:
eτ (t) = 0, if t ∈ (−∞, τ ]

(2a)

eτ (t) = E if t ∈ [τ + T, ∞)

(2b)

0 ≤ pτ (t) ≤ P for all t, τ ∈ R

(2c)

We define the nominal power consumption of the load
as

P0 t ∈ [τ , τ + T ]
nom
pτ (t) =
,
0
otherwise

where P0 = E/T. The flexibility of the load is due
to its ability to deviate from nominal consumption.
Figure 1 illustrates four possible energy trajectories
for a flexible load.
Now consider a collection of deferrable loads that are
indexed by their arrival times. We adopt the following
assumptions.
• Arrival times are periodic with rate λ > 0, i.e.,
τ ∈ Aλ = {. . . , −1/λ , 0, 1/λ , . . . , }.
• All loads are identical, meaning that they have the
same E, T, and P.

We wish to use the aggregate flexibility of the loads to
absorb exogenous power fluctuations, w, that are not
known in advance. That is, we wish to select power
trajectories, pτ , that satisfy (2) and
X
X
pτ (t) =
pτnom (t) + w(t).
(3)
τ ∈Aλ

τ ∈Aλ

A scheduling policy, µ : w → p, decides how w should
be allocated over the loads. We let pτ = µτ (w) denote
the power allocated to load τ . Since w is uncertain, we
restrict our attention to causal policies, that is, µ has
no a priori knowledge of w. The set of uncertain power
trajectories that can be absorbed by the loads under a
given µ is denoted

Wλ (µ) = {w : pτ = µτ (w) saisfies (2) and (3)}
To simplify the analysis, we will assume that the
arrival rate λ = ∞. While a generalization of the
results in Section IV to finite arrival rates can be
obtained by using essentially the same techniques, it
makes the analysis more cumbersome and does not
add any significant understanding.
To account for infinite arrival rates, we introduce a
modified notion of aggregate flexibility as follows. By
w ∈ α Wλ , where α is a scalar, we mean that w = α wz
for some wz ∈ Wλ . We define
1
Wλ (µ)
W(µ) = lim
λ→∞ T λ
Z
Z
n
1
1
= w:
µτ (w)dτ =
pnom dτ + w,
T R
T R τ
o
µτ (w) satisfies (2)
(4)

For large λ , T λ is an accurate estimate of the number
of loads that have entered their active consumption
phase. In this case, the set W(µ) can be interpreted
as the capacity of the average active load.
Let xσ (t) = et−σ (t) denote the energy of the load
that arrived σ seconds ago. We refer to xσ , σ ∈ [0, T ]
as the energy allocation. It is straightforward to show
that
Z t+h
xσ +h (t + h) = xσ (t) +
pt−σ (θ )dθ
(5)
t

for h ≥ 0. From (2) it follows that

xσ ≤ xσ (t) ≤ xσ ,
(6)
h
iE
E
where xσ = Pσ 0 and xσ = P(σ − (1 − PP0 )T ) .
0
These bounds are illustrated by the gray lines in
Figure 3 and are attained when all loads fill their
demands as fast as possible, or defer their consumption
for as long as possible.
The aggregate energy that is stored by the loads (in
addition to their nominal energy) is denoted by
!
Z T
Z T
1
nom
xσ (t)dσ −
xσ dσ , (7)
xavg (t) =
T
0
0



where xσnom = [ P0σ ]0E .

nominal energy

τ
load arrives

time

τ +T
deadline

Fig. 1: Four energy trajectories for a deferrable load.
All feasible trajectories must lie between the upper and
lower gray curves, which illustrate the trajectories that
fill the energy demand in the shortest time possible
and postpone the consumption for as long as possible,
respectively. The dashed line shows the nominal energy trajectory.
III. BATTERY EMULATION
An ideal battery is characterized by a volume, C,
charge rate W, and discharge rate W. The exogenous
power trajectories that can be absorbed by a battery
with parameters φ = ( C W W ) are given by

C
C
B(φ ) = w : − W ≤ w(t) ≤ W, − ≤ χ (t) ≤ ,
2
2

Z t
χ (t) =
w(θ )dθ , w(t) = 0 for t < 0
(8)
−∞

We say that a policy µ realizes the battery B(φ ) if
B(φ ) ⊂ W(µ). The battery B(φ ) is called realizable,
written B(φ ) ⊂ W, if there is some causal policy that
realizes it.
Given load parameters E, T, P, our goal is to
characterize the set of batteries that can be realized.
Remark 1 (Initialization phase): As we show in Section IV, different initial energy allocations may be
required for emulating different batteries. This means
that, before starting the battery service, an initialization phase is required during which µ attains the
required x(0). For notational convenience, the initialization period is set to (−∞, 0).
IV. BATTERY PARAMETER TRADE-OFFS
In this section, we show that there are fundamental
trade-offs between the parameters of the batteries that
can be emulated, and explain why this is the case.
Proofs are presented in the appendix.
Proposition 1: Let φ max = ( Cmax W max W max ), where
Cmax = E(1 −

P0
)
P

W max = P − P0

W max = P0 .

Then B(φ max ) is the smallest set that contains all
B(φ ) ⊂ W.
O
A consequence of Proposition 1 is that if there is
no trade-off between battery parameters, that is, if
there is a single largest realizable battery, it must be

Norm. discharge rate (w)

energy

E

1
c=

1
2

c=1

Norm. charge rate (w)

1

Fig. 2: Upper bounds on the normalized battery charge
and and discharge rates that can be attained. The
different curves correspond to normalized volume c =
{0, 0.1, 0.5, 0.9, 1}.

B(φ max ). The next result shows that, in practice, this
is not the case.
Proposition 2: B(φ max ) ⊂ W if and only if P = ∞.
O
Remark 2 (Overlap with previous work): The
bounds presented in [13, Section IV-B] imply that
B(φ max ) contains all realizable batteries, but do not
establish tightness of this bound. Also, it follows
from the results in [13, Section III] that if P = ∞,
then B(φ max ) is realizable. This covers sufficiency in
Proposition 2 but not necessity.
If we disregard the trivial case B(φ ) = {0} (for
instance, this includes φ = (∞ 0 0)) then φ ≤ φ max
is a necessary condition for B(φ ) ⊂ W. Henceforth, we
will assume:
A 1 : P < ∞.
A 2 : φ ≤ φ max
Theorem 1: Suppose A 1-2 hold and set
c = C/ Cmax

w = W / W max

w = W / W max .

Then B(φ ) ⊂ W only if

(w + w − c)2 ≤ 4ww(1 − c),

(9)

O
whenever w, w ≥ 1 − c and w + w ≥ c.
Theorem 1 provides upper bounds on the capacity
of realizable batteries. These bounds are depicted in
Figure 2 for different energy volumes and show that
any realizable B(φ ) must be substantially smaller that
B(φ max ). In particular, if we try to realize a battery
where any two of the battery parameters are set to
their individual bounds, the third must be zero. For
instance, if we insist on a battery that is able to both
charge at rate W max and discharge at rate W max , then
it will have zero volume.
Remark 3 (Non-uniform rates): A reason behind the
substantial trade-offs in Theorem 1 is the requirement
to guarantee uniform charge/discharge rates over all
energy levels in [− C/2, C/2]. To better utilize the
flexibility of the loads, one could replace B(φ ) with

a different type of storage device where W and W
depend on χ . How to choose this dependence in order
to best utilize the available flexibility is an interesting
research direction.
The charge slack, sσ , and the discharge slack, sσ , are
defined as
sσ = ( E − xσ )/ P

(10)

sσ = T − σ − sσ

(11)

respectively. For a load with energy level xσ , the
charge slack is the longest period it can maintain
the maximum consumption rate, P. It is a measure
of the load’s ability to absorb energy. Similarly, the
discharge slack is the longest duration the load can
maintain minimum, i.e., zero, consumption rate, and
quantifies its ability to release energy. See Figure 3.
Since sσ + sσ = T − σ , there is a conflict between
maintaining a high sσ and a high sσ .
The next results characterize the energy allocations
under policies that emulate two illustrative batteries
that satisfy (9).
Proposition 3: Let φ = ( Cmax , W max , 0) and suppose
that B(φ ) ⊂ W(µ). Let w ∈ B(φ ) and set p = µ(w).
Then the following implication holds
sσ (t) > sσ z (t)

=[

xσ (t) = xσ or xσ z (t) = xσ z (12)

for any σ , σ z ∈ [0, T ] and t ∈ R.
O
By Theorem 1, the battery B(φ ) is able to absorb
the largest amount of energy faster than any other
realizable battery. Proposition 3 states that the energy
allocation under any policy that realizes B(φ ) must be
as even as possible in terms of charge slacks. Similarly,
the next result shows that any policy that realizes the
battery that is best suited for releasing energy at a
high rate must strive to equalize the discharge slacks.
Proposition 4: Let φ = ( Cmax , 0, W max ) and suppose
that B(φ ) ⊂ W(µ). Let w ∈ B(φ ) and set p = µ(w).
Then the following implication holds
sσ (t) > sσ z (t)

=[

xσ (t) = xσ or xσ z (t) = xσ z (13)

for any σ , σ z ∈ [0, T ] and t ∈ R..
O
The energy allocations that satisfy (12) and (13)
are shown in Figure 3. To understand why there is a
trade-off between the batteries that can be emulated,
suppose that B(φ max ) ⊂ W(µ) for some causal policy
µ , which, by Proposition 1, would be the case if there
was no trade-off. Since w is not known in advance, at
time t, µ must be able to manage both of the following
two outcomes: absorb energy at an aggregate rate
W max until xavg (tz ) = Cmax /2, and release energy at an
aggregate rate W max until xavg (tzz ) = − Cmax /2, for some
tz , tzz ≥ t. The first scenario requires all loads in their
active consumption phase to consume at the maximum
rate, P, until all loads have reached their highest
attainable energy level. This is only possible if x(t)
satisfies (12). The second scenario requires all loads

E
Ps

s
time since arrival (σ )

T

Fig. 3: Depiction of energy allocations, xσ (t), that
satisfy (12) (solid) and (13) (dashed) for a fixed t.
In both cases xavg (t) = 0. The energy allocation (12)
is better suited for tracking positive adjustments in
the aggregate consumption rate, while (13) is better in
terms of negative adjustments The gray curves show
the maximum and minimum attainable energy levels
x and x.
in their active consumption phase to stop consumption
until all loads have reached their lowest attainable
energy level. This is only possible if x(t) satisfies (13).
Since it is not possible to instantaneously transition
between energy allocations that satisfy (12) and (13),
some battery capacity must be sacrificed. If we reduce
W ( W ) we relax the requirement that all of the active
loads must be able to maintain their maximum (minimum) consumption rate for the duration it takes the
battery to fully charge (discharge). If we reduce C, we
relax the requirement that all loads must have reached
their highest/lowest attainable energy levels for the
battery to be considered fully charged/discharged.
The discussion above shows that there is a fundamental trade-off between the abilities of a collection
of deferrable loads to absorb and release energy at
high rates. This trade-off is not an artifact of our
homogeneous and deterministic load model. It is a
consequence of 1) the energy allocations required for
absorbing and releasing energy at high rates have
different slack profiles, 2) the dynamics of the loads
prevent instantaneous transitions between these allocations, and 3) due to the uncertainty in the reference
trajectory, w, it is not possible to infer the required
energy allocation ahead of time. Since the definitions
of charge and discharge slack naturally extend to
non-identical loads, the identified trade-off occurs for
collections of heterogeneous and uncertain deferrable
loads as well.
V. SUMMARY
We investigated the possibility of using the flexibility of a collection of deferrable loads to emulate a
battery. A battery captures the three most important
properties of energy storage: the volume of energy that
can be stored, the rate at which it can be absorbed, and
the rate at which it can be released.
Our main contribution was to derive upper bounds

on the battery capacity that can be realized, and show
that there is a fundamental trade-off between the
abilities of the load collective to absorb and release
energy at high aggregate rates. While these results
were derived for a collection of homogeneous loads
with periodic arrivals, our analysis shows that the
identified trade-off occurs for collections of heterogeneous and uncertain loads as well.
REFERENCES
[1] D. S. Callaway and I. A. Hiskens, “Achieving controllability of
electric loads,” Proceedings of IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 184–199,
2011.
[2] B. J. Kirby, “Spinning reserve from responsive loads,” Oak
Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak Ridge, TN, Tech. Rep. ORNL/TM2003/19, 2003.
[3] F. C. Schweppe, R. D. Tabors, J. L. Kirtley, H. R. Outhred,
F. H. Pickel, and A. J. Cox, “Homeostatic utility control,” IEEE
Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, vol. PAS-99,
no. 3, pp. 1151–1163, 1980.
[4] B. Biegel, L. Hansen, P. Andersen, and J. Stoustrup, “Primary
control by on/off demand-side devices,” IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 2061–2071, 2013.
[5] J. L. Mathieu, S. Koch, and D. S. Callaway, “State estimation
and control of electric loads to manage real-time energy imbalance,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.
430–440, 2013.
[6] H. Hao, B. Sanandaji, K. Poolla, and T. L. Vincent, “Aggregate
flexibility of thermostatically controlled loads,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 189–198, 2015.
[7] H. Hao, Y. Lin, A. Kowli, P. Barooah, and S. Meyn, “Ancillary
service to the grid through control of fans in commercial
building hvac systems,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 2066–2074, 2014.
[8] Z. Ma, D. Callaway, and I. Hiskens, “Decentralized charging
control for large populations of plug-in electric vehicles: Application of the nash certainty equivalence principle,” in Proc. of
IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, 2010,
pp. 191–195.
[9] F. Parise, M. Colombino, S. Grammatico, and J. Lygeros, “Mean
field constrained charging policy for large populations of plugin electric vehicles,” in Proc. of the 53rd IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, 2014, pp. 5101–5106.
[10] S. P. Meyn, P. Barooah, A. Busic, Y. Chen, and J. Ehren,
“Ancillary service to the grid using intelligent deferrable loads,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 11, pp.
2847–2862, 2015.
[11] J. T. Hughes, A. D. Domínguez-García, and K. Poolla, “Virtual
battery models for load flexibility from commercial buildings,”
in Proc. of 48th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS), 2015, pp. 2627–2635.
[12] J. L. Mathieu, M. Kamgarpour, J. Lygeros, and D. S. Callaway,
“Energy arbitrage with thermostatically controlled loads,” in
Proc. of the 2013 European Control Conference, 2013, pp. 2519–
2526.
[13] A. A. Nayyar, J. Taylor, A. Subramanian, K. K. Poolla, and
P. Varaiya, “Aggregate flexibility of a collection of loads,” in
Proc. of the 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
2013, pp. 5600–5607.

APPENDIX
We start by introducing some lemmas.
Lemma 1:
Z
Z
1 T nom
Cmax
1 T
nom
( xσ − xσ ) dσ =
( xσ − xσ ) dσ =
T 0
T 0
2
Proof: This follows immediately from the definitions of x and x (see Figure 3) and xσnom = P0σ .

If w ∈ B(φ ), the maximum duration the battery can
maintain its maximum and minimum rates are
tc (χ ) =

C /2 − χ
W

and

td (χ ) =

C/2 + χ
,
W

where the energy level, χ , is defined in (8).
Lemma 2: Suppose that B(φ ) ⊂ W(µ) and let p =
µ(w). Then, for each w ∈ B(φ ), there are functions
δ σ , δ σ : R → [0, E], such that
Z T
T ( Cmax − C)
δ σ (t)dσ ≤
(14)
2
0
Z T
T ( Cmax − C)
δ σ (t)dσ ≤
(15)
2
0
zσ − δ σ ≤ xσ ≤ zσ + δ σ
(16)
where
zσ (χ ) = xσ +tc (χ ) − Ptc (χ )

and

z(χ ) = xσ +td (χ ) . (17)

Proof: Under the assumptions of the lemma, we
have xavg (t) = χ (t). Since w is not known to µ a priori,
at time t, µ must be able to handle both of the following
outcomes
1) w(θ ) = W for θ ∈ [t, t + tc ]
2) w(θ ) = − W for θ ∈ [t, t + td ]
These outcomes correspond to charging/discharging
the battery at maximum rate until it is full/empty. If
the outcome is 1), then xavg (t + tc ) = χ (t + tc ) = C/2.
We can express x(t + tc ) = x − δ , for some 0 ≤ δ σ ≤
xσ − xσ ≤ E. Using this in (7), yields

Z
1 T
C
=
( xσ (t + tc ) − xσnom ) dσ
2
T 0
Z
Z
1 T
1 T
Cmax
=
−
δ σ dσ
( xσ − δ σ − xσnom ) dσ =
T 0
2
T 0
Z
1 T
( Cmax − C)
=[
δ σ dσ =
T 0
2

where the third equality follows from Lemma 1.
From (5) and (2c) we get xσ +tc − δ σ +tc = xσ +tc (t +
tc ) ≤ xσ (t) + Ptc . Setting δ σ (t) = δ σ +tc , gives the first
inequality in (16). Also, δ σ ∈ [0, E] and
Z T
Z T + tc
Z T
( Cmax − C)T
δ σ dσ =
δ σ dσ =
δ σ dσ ≤
2
0
tc
tc
which establishes (15). The steps to verify (14) and
the second inequality in (16) are analogous.
A. Proof of Proposition 1
Let w ∈ W(µ) for some µ and set pτ = µτ (w). Then
Z t
Tw(t) =
pτ (t) − P0 dτ ≤ ( P − P0 )T
t−T

and similarly we can show that w(t) ≥R − P0 . The
t
energy stored by the collection at time t is 0 w(θ )dθ =

condition (9) is also satisfied when w = 0. Hence we
may restrict our attention to w, w > 0.
It follows from Lemma 2 that for each χ ∈
[− C/2, C/2], there are non-negative scalars δ σ and δ σ
that satisfy (15) and (14), such that

E
Ptc (χ )

A(χ )

td (χ )

time since arrival (σ )

(1 −

zσ (χ ) − zσ (χ ) ≤ δ σ + δ σ .
P0
P

)T

T

Fig. 4: The solid line shows zσ for σ ∈ [0, T − tc ] and
the dashed line shows zσ for σ ∈ [0, T − td ].
xavg (t), where xavg is defined by (7). Using that x(t) ≤ x
we have
Z
Z t
Cmax
1 T
( xσ − xσnom )dσ =
,
w(θ )dθ ≤
T 0
2
0

where the last equalityR follows from Lemma 1. Simit
larly, we can show that −∞ w(θ )dθ ≥ − Cmax /2. Hence,
W(µ) ⊂ B(φ max ) and it follows that B(φ max ) contains
all realizable batteries.
To show that B(φ max ) is the smallest set that contains all B(φ ) ⊂ W it suffices to prove the implication

B(φ ) ⊂ B(φ z ) for all B(φ ) ⊂ W

=[

φ z ≥ φ max

It can be shown that the batteries in Proposition 3
and Proposition 4 are realizable (by policies that allocate as much power as possible to loads with the
largest charge slack and smallest discharge slack,
respectively). Hence, by assumption, B(φ ) ⊂ B(φ z ) and
B(φ ) ⊂ B(φ z ). It follows that φ z ≥ φ and φ z ≥ φ .
B. Proof of Proposition 2
Necessity follows from Theorem 1, which is established independently of Proposition 2. For the converse
direction, we will show that if P = ∞, then B(φ max ) ⊂
W(µ), where µ allocates power according to

xσ if σ ∈ [0, T − ς (t)]
xσ (t) =
(18)
xσ if σ ∈ (T − ς (t), T ]
Cmax /2+χ (t)
.
W max

and where ς (t) =
It is straightforward to
verify that under (18) we have xavg (t) = χ (t) for all t,
so pτ = µτ (w) satisfies
Z
Z
1
1
µτ (w)dτ =
pnom dτ + w
(19)
T R
T R τ
Also, as long as χ (t) ∈ [− Cmax
, Cmax
] we have ς (t) ∈
2
2
[0, T ]. Hence, µτ (w) satisfies (2) for w ∈ B(φ max ).
C. Proof of Theorem 1
By A 2 it is sufficient to show that if B(φ ) ⊂ W∞
then (9) is satisfied on

S = {c, w, w ∈ [0, 1] : w, w ≥ 1 − c, w + w ≥ c}.
The only point in S that corresponds to w = 0 has
w = 1 and c = 1. This point satisfies (9). Similarly,

(20)

Integrating both sides of this relation over σ ∈ [0, T −
tc (χ ) − td (χ )] yields
Z T −tc (χ )−td (χ )
zσ (χ ) − zσ (χ )dσ ≤ ( Cmax − C)T
A(χ ) =
0

(21)
Since C ≤ Cmax , the condition in (21) is satisfied for
χ ∈ [− C/2, C/2] if and only if it is also satisfied on
{χ : A(χ ) ≥ 0}. On this set, A(χ ) equals the area of
the parallelogram in Figure 4 with base and height
P0
)T − td (χ )
B (χ ) = (1 −
P  


P0
C/2 + χ
= 1−
T 1−
wCmax
P


C/2 − χ
H (χ ) = E − Ptc (χ ) = E 1 −
.
wCmax

Hence, (21) holds on {χ ∈ [− C/2, C/2] : A(χ ) > 0} if
and only if
a(χ z ) = b(χ z )h(χ z ) ≤ 1 − c, for all χ z ∈ I,
where b(χ ) = (1 −

c/2+χ z
),
w

h(χ ) = (1 −
z

c/2−χ z
)
w

(22)
and

I = [−c/2, c/2] ∩ {χ z : b(χ ), h(χ z ) ≥ 0}
= [−c/2, c/2] ∩ [c/2 − w, −c/2 + w].
The extremum
max
a(χ z ) =
z
χ ∈R

(w + w − c)2
4ww

is attained at χ ∗ = (w − w)/2. The set I is non-empty if
and only if w + w ≥ c. In this case, it is straightforward
to verify that χ ∗ ∈ I if and only if pw − wp ≤ c. We
conclude that if B(φ ) ⊂ W then (9) holds on

{c, w, w ∈ [0, 1] : w + w ≥ c, pw − wp ≤ c} .
This set contains S.
D. Proof of Proposition 3 (and Proposition 4)
It follows from Lemma 2 that xσ ≥ zσ (χ ). Combining this with (6) yields xσ ≥ max( zσ (χ ), xσ ). Since, by
assumption, χ = xavg , we have
Z
Z
1 T − tc
1 T nom
− xσ dσ
χ≥
zσ − xσ dσ = −
x
T 0
T 0 σ
P0
Cmax
= ( E − Ptc )(1 −
)−
= χ (23)
2
P
so xσ = max( zσ , xσ ), which satisfies the assertion In
the second to last
R equality in (23) we have used both
Lemma 1 and ( zσ − xσ ) = ( E − Ptc )(1 − PP0 )T, which
is straightforward to derive using Figure 4. The proof
of Proposition 4 is analogous.

