On the Evaluation of Plug-in Electric Vehicle Data
of a Campus Charging Network

arXiv:1602.02943v1 [math.OC] 9 Feb 2016

Islam Safak Bayram
Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute
and College of Science and Engineering
Hamad Bin Khalifa University
Doha, Qatar
ibayram@qf.org.qa

Abstract—The mass adoption of plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs) requires the deployment of public charging stations.
Such facilities are expected to employ distributed generation and
storage units to reduce the stress on the grid and boost sustainable
transportation. While prior work has made considerable progress
in deriving insights for understanding the adverse impacts of
PEV chargings and how to alleviate them, a critical issue that
affects the accuracy is the lack of real world PEV data. As
the dynamics and pertinent design of such charging stations
heavily depend on actual customer demand profile, in this paper
we present and evaluate the data obtained from a 17 node
charging network equipped with Level 2 chargers at a major
North American University campus. The data is recorded for
166 weeks starting from late 2011. The result indicates that
the majority of the customers use charging lots to extend their
driving ranges. Also, the demand profile shows that there is a
tremendous opportunity to employ solar generation to fuel the
vehicles as there is a correlation between the peak customer
demand and solar irradiation. Also, we provided a more detailed
data analysis and show how to use this information in designing
future sustainable charging facilities.

I. I NTRODUCTION
There has been a surge of interest in plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs), as electric miles are cheaper and environmentally
friendly when compared to their gas-powered counterparts.
This motivation is further boosted by government policies
and regulations to support energy security and independence.
For instance, the State of California has set a goal of putting
1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by year 2025.
Therefore, PEV sales have risen tremendously [1]. In the last
five years more than 300, 000 vehicles have been sold in the
U.S. and almost 40% of the PEVs reside in California [2],
[3]. Therefore, such adoption rates have spurred the need to
deploy a robust network of public charging facilities.
Typically, PEV owners use garage charging with Level
1, 120 AC chargers during nighttime when there is unused
generation capacity. On the other hand, PEV owners living in
metropolitan areas may not have access to this option. Also,
the need for longer driving ranges requires the deployment of
public charging facilities. During the weekdays, PEV owners
can spend several hours parked at the workplace, school, or
while shopping. Hence, charging service at parking lots is
gaining popularity. A charging lot can be equipped with either

Vahraz Zamani, Ryan Hanna, Jan Kleissl
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of California at San Diego,
La Jolla, USA
vazamani@ucsd.edu, rehanna@eng.ucsd.edu
jkleissl@eng.ucsd.edu

Level 2 single/three phase or fast DC charging technology [4].
On the other hand, incorporating these technologies translates
to major phase, additions to the existing power grid. For instance under Level 1 charging conditions each PEV represents
a load equivalent to 50% of a house while under Level 2
conditions PEV represents close to 2.5 fold the equivalent
load.
The concern about the rapid adoption of PEVs by the
utilities is that they could have disruptive impacts on the power
grid. Excessive instantaneous demand can overload circuits,
increase distribution transformer losses, lead to harmonics distortion, voltage deviations, and thermal loading on distribution
system [5], [6]. Obviously, the extent of PEV impact depends
on the degree and regional density of their penetration, service
requirements and the time of the day they are charged.
For PEV adoption to occur seamlessly, the design and
operation of charging facilities are of paramount importance.
Corollary, there has been a growing body of literature on the
design of charging facilities [4], [7], [8] and efficient load management at them [9]–[12]. The station designs often consider
renewable generation (mostly solar power), energy storage,
and efficient charge rate control. For instance, the works in
[11] and [12] consider a parking lot charging facility equipped
with energy storage systems to smoothen the stochastic customer demand. The studies in [4] and [8] provide a capacity
planning framework for large-scale charging facilities. Also,
utilities have started to deploy solar-powered charging stations
[13] and [14]. Moreover, the works in [9] and [10] propose
optimization frameworks for power flow.
However, the lack of real world data limits the applicability
of such studies in the US, while some work has been done
in Europe [15], [16]. Most of the studies have to rely on
simplifying assumptions, which may not be true. For instance,
the common assumption on PEV service/parking time is either
Gaussian or Exponential distribution, however, our results
indicate that real customer behavior is far from this two
assumptions. Also critical design problems such as resource
provisioning and sizing of storage and PV panels heavily
rely on the customer statistics, e.g., peak and spatiotemporal
demand, seasonal and diurnal variations, charging duration,
etc. Therefore, in this study we evaluate the data obtained from

One Year Average Solar Power at UC San Diego

250

Level 2 chargers at a major North American University campus
for a period of 166 weeks. To the best of our knowledge, this
paper presents one of the most comprehensive data in this field.
The main thrusts of this paper are to: (1) provide basic design
and capacity planning principles for charging stations equipped
with distributed generation and storage units; (2) analyze and
present real-world PEV charging data on PEV charging; (3)
provide guidelines for how to use the measured information
to build the future sustainable charging facilities.
II. PEV C HARGING S TATION D ESIGNS
The design and architecture of sustainable charging facilities
should carefully address the potential negative impacts of the
concurrent PEV charging. The primary goal is to manage the
customer demand both in time and space so that the power
grid is not strained beyond its limits, and additional peaks
are prevented. An overview of the systems components is
presented in Fig.1. Next, we enumerate the design parameters
that enable effective demand control at PEV parking lots.
A. Renewable Energy
The recent studies conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory
reveal that the price of solar photovoltaic (PV) was reduced by
12% to 19% in 2013 and the trend continues to fall 3%-12%
more by the end of 2014 in the United States [17]. Moreover,
Department of Energy SunShot Initiative aims to reduce PV
integration cost 75% by 2020 [18]. As the cost of photovoltaic
panels steadily drops and governments provide incentives,
solar generation can be used at parking lots to fuel PEVs. The
main advantage of using solar generation at Level 2 parking
lots is that customers are typically parked and stationary for
3-5 hours during their daily activities. Due to long parking
durations, this method of charging has enough flexibility to
exploit solar generation, e.g., the effect of intermittencies
introduced by clouds, dust, etc. could be alleviated. Also,
since the electricity is generated and consumed locally, with
proper control techniques it eliminates the need for transferring
electricity from the far-off generator. This way the stress
on the grid is also reduced. Furthermore, solar electricity is
typically cheaper and cleaner than utility electricity power. For
instance, according to [13], the average cost per mile for solar
powered vehicles is $0.04, whereas the average cost for utility

First Quartile
Third Quartile

200
150
100
50
0

Fig. 1: Illustration of PEV charging lot.

Mean

0:00
1:30
3:00
4:30
6:00
7:30
9:00
10:30
12:00
13:30
15:00
16:30
18:00
19:30
21:00
22:30

Solar PV Power Output (kW)

300

Fig. 2: Solar power generation at the University campus
parking deck (capacity of 300kW).
electricity powered and gas powered are $0.06 and $0.20,
respectively.
The correlation between the seasonal customer demand
and the renewable generation should be carefully addressed.
For instance, one average solar PV power output of one
generation facility at UC San Diego is shown in Fig. 2. This
PV generation has 300 kW-AC nominal capacity and is located
on one of the University parking deck. As it is clear, solar
generation has significant variation by presenting the first
and third quartiles, i.e., 25th percentile and 75th percentile.
This profile shows that stand-alone solar charging may not be
practical. To aid the uncertainty, storage units and grid power
are used.
B. Energy Storage Systems (ESS)
Energy storage units are critical components as they aid in
smoothing customer demand and the integration of renewables.
Moreover, due to stochasticities involved, the local generation
may not perfectly align with customer demand. Storage units
can act as energy buffers and decouple the time of production
and demand by storing cheaper and cleaner off-peak hour
electricity and delivering it during the peak load periods to
handle the residual demand.
Considering their high acquisition, operation, and maintenance costs, the optimal sizing of storage units is an important
design issue. Over-provisioning ESS size leads to underutilizing costly assets and under-provisioning it taxes operation
lifetime. Sizing storage units for DC fast charging stations is
addressed in [11] and [12], where authors model the charging
facility with a multi-dimensional Markov chain and solve
the storage size problem for the peak hour. Furthermore, in
[19] sizing problem is solved by Monte Carlo simulations.
Apparently, such studies could be improved by using data
of temporal customer load profile. For instance, the sizing
problem can be formulated in the following way. The station
can draw a constant power to serve some base load, and
the storage size could be determined to accommodate the
difference between the remaining customer demand and the
renewable generation. Another important aspect of storage
planning is to determine the required power rating parameter,
which depends on the statistics of customer charging rate,

energy demand, and the length of stay. For instance, a fastresponding storage unit (e.g., supercapacitors, flywheels, etc.)
may be desired to overcome the problems introduced by shortterm variations in the solar generation.
System designers should also consider the physical size of
storage units as it may grow tremendously depending on the
application. To illustrate this point, assume that a storage unit
of size 64kWh of Maxwell BMOD0083P048 modules (each
has 26.6Wh capacity) are chosen. Then the total volume of
the ESS would be 24m3 for over 2400 modules that would be
required for this application. This simple example depicts how
physical space can be problematic if the station is located in
regions with expensive real estate.
C. Capacity Planning
Capacity provisioning problem –determining how much
power to draw from the grid –is an important decision problem for sustainable charging facilities. The proper resource
provisioning depends on the customer demand profile and its
variability. For example, if the station resides over a relatively
well-confined region such as a university campus, then the
variability is probably lower than a larger region such as
stations located at shopping malls or interstate exchanges.
Hence, resource allocation problem of the first case is relatively simpler than the second one. For instance, the work
presented in [8] proposes a capacity planning framework
for a campus size network composed of different charger
technologies (Level 1, Level 2, DC fast etc.). They propose a
capacity planning framework to guarantee a certain quality
of service levels. However, since there is no measurement
study, this study assumes a sinusoidal demand function for
illustrative examples. Moreover, in most capacity planning
studies, resource provisioning is computed respect to peak
demand. On the other hand, the shape of the customer demand
and the peak-to-average demand ratio can affect important
design questions such as storage type, renewable portfolio,
etc. Hence, it is crucial to know the daily, weekly, and the
monthly demand profile.
Another key aspect of station planning is to determine
the number of physical chargers to be deployed at charging
facilities. The cost per Level 2 charger hovers between $600 to
$1000, hence over-provisioning may be a costly option. The
works presented in [4], [8], [12] and [20] employ queuing
theory to model the charging stations. In such studies, the
number of physical chargers represents “servers” and the
operation principle investigates the case when some customers
do not get the charging service immediately if all of the
chargers are occupied. Hence, one of the goals is to investigate
the relation between waiting time and the number of chargers.
Then the design question is to find the optimal number of
chargers such that customers are provided with statistical
guarantees (no customer waits more than a target waiting
time). Queuing-based studies heavily rely on the assumptions
made on customer arrivals, departures, energy demand and the
population of PEVs. In the next section, we provide detailed
results of our data set.

TABLE I: Summary of PEV station design
Parameter Challenges

Required Statistics

-Decide PV size
Solar
-Forecast generation
-Power and energy rating
ESS
-Decide physical space
-Decide # of Chargers
Capacity
-Capacity planning

-Temporal customer load
-Charging current ranges
-Customer demand profile
-PV Output
-Daily load profile
-Arrival/Service stats.

D. Overview PEV Demand Control Techniques
As the population of PEVs increase, station operators may
need to apply control techniques to manage PEV demand.
The customer demand can be shaped by optimally setting;
(1) charging start time; (2) charging service location; and
(3) charging current. An overview of techniques is presented
in [5]. The impact and applicability of the control technique
depend on customer types. For individual customers who are
interested in maximizing their benefits, incentive-based frameworks are applied to manage the spatiotemporal demand. On
the other hand, companies may have PEV fleets, who adhere to
the decisions of a central decision maker. Such entities can up
to a large extent decide charging current, service location and
start time. This type of load is also considered as managable
load. For instance, the work presented in [11] manages a
hybrid population of both customer types to balance the load
among neighboring stations. The work in [12] offers incentives
to individual customers to convince them to receive the service
in a less congested station An overview is provided in Table
I.
III. PEV C HARGING M EASUREMENT
A. Charging Station Information
The chargers are physically located in parking lots at a
major North American University campus. All of the parking
lots employ Level 2, 240 volt AC input chargers with SAE
J1772 connectors. Chargers can operate up to 30 amperes and
can deliver 6.5kW of electric power [21]. Energy and demand
metering employs ANSI 12.20 and IEC standards and the
communication network uses existing cellular networks.
In total, there are 17 Level 2 chargers deployed at 9 different
parking lots. The charging nodes are located within a few
miles away from each other, and exact driving distances are
calculated with Google Maps and presented in Table II. It is
noteworthy that in most cases the driving distance is further
than the actual physical distance. From the design point of
view, this information is valuable because neighboring charging stations may be fed by the same distributed generation
units (e.g., solar arrays, wind), share the same storage device,
or connected to the same distribution transformer. Then the
chargers of charging stations reside in small well-confined
regions can be abstracted collectively as a super-station. For
instance, this may apply to Stations 4 − 6, as the physical
distance is relatively short.
Among these 9 places, 2 of them, Stations 2 and 8 are
dedicated to University vehicles. Hence, they continue to park

TABLE II: Driving distance (in miles) between the chargers.

TABLE III: Detailed station information.

From/To St. 1 St. 2 St. 3 St. 4 St. 5 St. 6 St. 7 St. 8 St. 9
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

0.4
0.6
1
1.5
1
1.6
0.9
1.3

0.4
0.3
1.4
1.3
0.7
1.3
0.2
0.2

0.6
0.3
1.3
1.5
1
1
0.5
0.7

1
1.4
1.3
0.3
0.3
2.3
1
1.4

1.5
1.3
1.5
0.3
0.5
2.5
1.1
1.6

1
0.7
1
0.3
0.5
2
0.6
1

1.6
1.3
1
2.3
2.5
2
1.4
1.5

0.9
0.2
0.5
1
1.1
0.6
1.4
0.5

1.3
0.2
0.7
1.4
1.6
1
1.5
0.5
-

even after completion of the charge service. We refer to these
vehicles as PEV fleet. The remaining 7 locations serve the
public, and we refer them as individual customers. Detailed
charging station information is presented in Table III.
B. Data Set
Our data set contains more than 6800 charge events collected for 166 weeks, starting from 14 Nov. 2011 to 8 Jan.
2015. The collected data contains the following information
[22].
• Location name and the address (street name, city, state,
zip code) of the charger. The chargers are at 9 different
locations.
• Serial number of the charger. This allows us to know the
exactly which charger is in use. As a future work, this
information can be used to conduct a study at a finer
granularity.
• Member guest is the unique identification number assigned to each customer. We identify 1144 unique visits,
however, if the customer is not a member of the charger
network, a new ID number will be assigned for each visit.
• Connection and disconnection time shows the arrival
and departure of each customer. The format is in
dd/mm/yyyy hh : mm : ss.
• Cumulative energy shows the amount of energy (in kWh)
stored at each charge service. This information is important to learn the demand statistics of vehicles and it can be
used in simulation-based studies for larger scale charging
networks.
• Fee refers the cost for the charge service in $/kWh. The
fee depends on the location and the tariffs of the utility.
For instance, the rate of Level 2 charging is $0.49 per
kWh in Southern California. However, the charging rate
in Seattle is 10 cents cheaper. Furthermore, there can be
an additional cost in downtown areas related to parking
fees.
IV. A NALYSIS & R ESULTS
We start our analysis by differentiating two different PEV
types individuals and PEV fleet. General public such as
students, faculty, employees, and visitors constitute the first
group, whereas the second group is composed of company
vehicles (shuttles, postal cars etc.). The rationale behind this

St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

# of
Chargers

# of Service
Completion

Dates

Type

3
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
4

1093
196
1182
838
147
121
1294
838
1111

12/19/12-1/8/15
5/18/13-1/7/15
9/14/12-1/8/15
12/2/11-1/8/15
7/4/13-1/8/15
5/21/13-1/6/15
1/3/13-1/8/15
12/2/11-1/8/15
11/15/11-1/8/15

Public
Public
Public
Fleet
Public
Public
Public
Fleet
Public

categorization is that since PEV fleets usually have certain
tasks, the demand for such vehicles can assumed to be manageable [11]. This can be done by optimally adjusting the charging
current and service duration, with respect to varying network
conditions. Thus, in most of our results are categorized as
individuals, fleets, and aggregated results.
Next, we present the distribution of energy demand of single
charging session for each customer case. The results depicted
in Fig. 3 shows that more than half of the customer demand
is within 0 − 8kWh and 90.1% of the total service request
is between 0 − 16kWh. Considering the fact that mainstream
PEV packs range between 16 − 85kWh, we conclude that the
vast majority of the customers use parking lots to extend their
driving ranges. Furthermore, almost 70% of the total energy
is transferred to individual PEVs. The findings reveal that
the system operator can manage the remaining 30% of the
demand.
Obviously, these results may not be meaningful without
knowing the temporal customer behavior. Thus, in Fig. 4 we
evaluate the 24 hours customer behavior. The results in Fig.
4(a) shows that the individual demand peak occurs between
10am to 12pm, whereas the demand peak for company fleets
is around 1pm. It is also noteworthy that the peak PEV fleets
demand may coincide with the peak demand of other electrical
loads. If this trend continues, fleet operators may need to shift
their usage to night time. From station design standpoint, this
information can be used to decide on how many physical
chargers to deploy in order to provide good Level of QoS,
as the number of vehicles increases the charging stations may
act as waiting systems, and station operators could guarantee
to finish service within a target deadline. Moreover, charging
facilities are expected to employ solar panels and energy
storage units to aid the power grid operations. As given in
Section II-A, solar generation depends on daily and seasonal
variations. It can be seen that there is a correlation between
PEV demand and solar generation (depicted in Fig.2). This
means that solar energy has a great potential to provide
electricity during such hours. Another important parameter
is the seasonal customer demand; hence, we show the PEV
demand for each month of the year in Fig.5.
Next, we evaluate the daily customer demand. The results
depicted in Fig.6 shows that the service requests during the
weekdays constitute almost a flat profile. From the capacity

Individual Customers

Managable Load: PEV Fleet
1200

35.41%
# of PEV Service

1500
1000

800

10.2%
600
400

4

12

20

2.19%

200

1.95%
0

Percentage respect to total demand

6.2%

500

0

28 36 44 52
Energy Demand (kWh)

(a) Energy demand of individual customers.

53.54%

3000

1000
# of PEV Service

Percentage respect to total demand
26.36%

2000

All Customers: Individual and PEV Fleet
3500

18.13%

# of PEV Service

2500

4

12

2500

36.56%

2000
1500
1000

8.39%

500

20
28
36
44
Energy Demand (kWh)

1.05%

0

52

4

(b) Energy demand of PEV fleet.

12

20

0.46%

28 36 44 52
Energy Demand (kWh)

(c) Aggregated energy demand.

Fig. 3: Energy demand distribution of single charging session. The average energy transfer is 8.53kWh and the standard
deviation is 6.49 kWh

# of Customer Arrivals

600

300

200

400

200

200

100
0

0am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm

100

All Customers: Individual and PEV Fleet

800

# of Customer Arrivals

300

0

Managable Load: PEV Fleet

400

# of Customer Arrivals

400

500

0

0am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm

Individual Customers

0am
1am
2am
3am
4am
5am
6am
7am
8am
9am
10am
11am
12pm
1pm
2pm
3pm
4pm
5pm
6pm
7pm
8pm
9pm
10pm
11pm

500

Hour of Day

Hour of Day

(a) Hourly individual customer demand.

Hour of Day

(b) Hourly company PEV fleet demand.

(c) Hourly aggregated demand.

Fig. 4: PEV hourly demand
600

Individual Customers

200

Managable Load: PEV Fleet

800

All Customers: Individual and PEV Fleet

400
300
200

150

# of PEV Charging

# of PEV Charging

# of PEV Charging

500

100

50

600

400

200

100
0

0

0
t t
l
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju Aug Sep Oc Nov Dec

(a) Monthly individual customer demand.

t t
l
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju Aug Sep Oc Nov Dec

(b) Monthly company PEV fleet demand.

t t
l
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju Aug Sep Oc Nov Dec

(c) Monthly aggregated demand.

Fig. 5: PEV Monthly demand
planning standpoint, this is a desired behavior because less uncertainty in customer demand will translate to higher resource
utilization, i.e., storage and solar usage. It is also noteworthy
that the customer demand during weekends is considerable
less than the weekdays. Station operator can store and sell the
energy back to the power grid. Also, some portion of the PEV
fleet load on Mondays could be served on Sundays to allow
more individual customers.

2013 and the results depicted in Fig. 7 shows that as the
PEV adoption increases the need for charging service surges
accordingly. In fact, 4 out of 9 charging locations are opened
after year 2013. This data is extremely important to forecast
the customer demand and determine the required number of
charging nodes.

Our final evaluation is on customer demand over time. We
compute the number of PEV services from Nov. 2011 to Nov.

In this paper, we have analyzed and presented the data
obtained from a Level 2 charging network located in major

V. C ONCLUSIONS & F UTURE W ORK

600
400
200

400
300
200
100

1000

500

Su
nd
ay
M
on
da
y
Tu
es
da
W
y
ed
ne
sd
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Sa
tu
rd
ay

0

Su
nd
ay
M
on
da
y
Tu
es
da
W
y
ed
ne
sd
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Sa
tu
rd
ay

0

All Customers: Individual and PEV Fleet

Su
nd
ay
M
on
da
y
Tu
es
da
W
y
ed
ne
sd
ay
Th
ur
sd
ay
Fr
id
ay
Sa
tu
rd
ay

0

1500
# of Customer Arrivals

500
# of Customer Arrivals

# of Customer Arrivals

Managable Load: PEV Fleet

Individual Customers

800

(a) Daily individual customer demand.

(b) Daily company PEV fleet demand.

(c) Daily aggregated demand.

Day of Week

Day of Week

Day of Week

Fig. 6: PEV daily demand
140

[8] I. Bayram, A. Tajer, M. Abdallah, and K. Qaraqe, “Capacity planning
frameworks for electric vehicle charging stations with multiclass customers,” IEEE Trans on Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[9] C. Hutson, G. K. Venayagamoorthy, and K. A. Corzine, “Intelligent
100
y = 6e−05*x3 − 0.0053*x2 + 0.33*x + 8.4
scheduling of hybrid and electric vehicle storage capacity in a parking
80
lot for profit maximization in grid power transactions,” in Proc. IEEE
Holiday: last
week of the year
Energy 2030 Conference, 2008, pp. 1–8.
60
[10] W. Su and M.-Y. Chow, “Performance evaluation of an eda-based largescale plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging algorithm,” IEEE Trans.
40
on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 308–315, March 2012.
20
[11] I. Bayram, G. Michailidis, M. Devetsikiotis, and F. Granelli, “Electric
power allocation in a network of fast charging stations,” IEEE Journal
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 1235–1246,
Week # from Nov., 2011 to Nov., 2014
July 2013.
Fig. 7: Weekly charging data. The number of service request [12] I. Bayram, G. Michailidis, and M. Devetsikiotis, “Unsplittable load
balancing in a network of charging stations under qos guarantees,” IEEE
increases as the rise in PEV sale.
Trans. on Smart Grid, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1292–1302, May 2015.
[13] Sullivan Solar Power Inc. [Accessed: April, 2015]. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sullivansolarpower.com/solar-power/electric-vehicles
North American University campus. As the future sustainable
charging facilities are expected to employ renewable genera- [14] Revision Energy. [Accessed: April, 2015]. [Online]. Available:
http://www.revisionenergy.com/solar-electric-vehicle-charging-maine.php
tion and storage units, along with smart energy management [15] J. Quiros-Tortos, L. Ochoa, and B. Lees, “A statistical analysis of ev
charging behavior in the uk,” in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
systems, we have provided detailed guidelines for charging
Latin America (ISGT LATAM), 2015 IEEE PES, Oct 2015, pp. 445–
station design. As a future work, we are aiming to investigate
449.
the potential usage of solar powered stations using the obtained [16] P. Richardson, M. Moran, J. Taylor, A. Maitra, and A. Keane, “Impact
of electric vehicle charging on residential distribution networks: An irish
data.
R EFERENCES
demonstration initiative,” in Electricity Distribution (CIRED 2013), 22nd
International Conference and Exhibition on, June 2013, pp. 1–4.
[1] Light duty electric drive vehicles monthly sales updates. Argonne
[17] P. Denholm, R. Margolis, B. Palmintier, C. Barrows, E. Ibanez, L. Bird,
National Laboratory. [Accessed: April, 2015]. [Online]. Available:
and J. Zuboy, Methods for Analyzing the Benefits and Costs of Dishttp://www.anl.gov/energy-systems/project/light-duty-electric-drive-vehicles-monthly-sales-updates
trubuted Photovoltaic Generation to the US Electric Utility System.
[2] Improving
electric
vehicle
sales
may
require
solving
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014.
unique
chicken
and
egg
problem.
National
Science
[18] D. Feldman, G. Barbose, R. Margolis, N. Darghouth, T. James,
Foundation.
[Accessed:
April, 2015]. [Online].
Available:
S. Weaver, A. Goodrich, and R. Wiser, “Photovoltaic system prichttp://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc summ.jsp?cntn id=133947
ing trends: Historical, recent, and near-term projections–2013 edition,”
[3] Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative. [Accessed: April, 2015].
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, PR-6A20-60207.
[Online]. Available: http://www.pevcollaborative.org/
Accessed December, vol. 9, p. 2013, 2013.
[4] I. Bayram, G. Michailidis, and M. Devetsikiotis, “Electric power re[19] S. Bai, D. Yu, and S. Lukic, “Optimum design of an ev/phev charging
source provisioning for large scale public EV charging facilities,” in
station with DC bus and storage system,” in Proc. IEEE Energy
Proc. IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications,
Conversion Congress and Exposition, 2010, pp. 1178–1184.
Vancouver, CA, Oct. 2013, pp. 133–138.
[20] P. Fan, B. Sainbayar, and S. Ren, “Operation analysis of fast charging
[5] I. S. Bayram and I. Papapanagiotou, “A survey on
stations with energy demand control of electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
communication technologies and requirements for internet of
on Smart Grid, vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
electric vehicles,” EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications
[21] M. Falvo, D. Sbordone, I. Bayram, and M. Devetsikiotis, “Ev charging
and Networking, vol. 2014, no. 1, 2014. [Online]. Available:
stations and modes: International standards,” in Power Electronics, Elechttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1687-1499-2014-223
trical Drives, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), 2014 International
[6] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “The impact of charging
Symposium on, June 2014, pp. 1134–1139.
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid,” IEEE [22] ETEC, “Electric vehicle charging infrastructure deployment guidelines
Trans. on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 371–380, 2010.
for the greater san diego area,” Electric Transportation Engineering
[7] B. Sanzhong, D. Yu, and S. Lukic, “Optimum design of an ev/phev
Corporation, Tech. Rep., May 201o.
charging station with dc bus and storage system,” in Proc. IEEE Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 2010, pp.
1178–1184.
PEV Charging per Week

120

Weekly EV Service
cubic fitting

