A Multi-Layer Market for Vehicle-to-Grid Energy Trading in the Smart Grid
Albert Y.S. Lam

∗1

, Longbo Huang
1

†1

arXiv:1609.01437v1 [cs.GT] 6 Sep 2016

‡1

, and Walid Saad

§2

University of California, Berkeley
2
University of Miami

Abstract

cies [2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and is expected to lie at the heart of the
emerging smart grid system.
Enabling V2G interactions has several advantages such as
serving as backup power sources during outages or supplying ancillary services back to the grid for regulation services.
However, in order to fully reap the benefits of V2G systems,
several key challenges must be addressed at different level
such as control, communications, charging behavior, implementation, and market mechanisms. In [7], the authors propose a scheme that uses PHEV batteries to absorb the randomness in intermittent wind power generation. The authors
in [8] study the use of game theory for providing frequency
regulation through V2G operation. Using the PHEVs as
storage units is studied and analyzed in [9] while communication architectures suitable for V2G systems are discussed
in [10]. Further, the authors in [11] considers the problem
of optimally providing energy and ancillary services using
electric vehicles.
Clearly, most existing work are focused on implementation, communication, and energy transfer in V2G systems.
However, the need for energy transfer and exchange from
PHEVs to the grid has also an economical aspect that must
be addressed. In this respect, the work in [12] sheds a light
on this aspect by investigating the price and quantities exchanged if the PHEVs and the grid elements form an energy
trade market. Beyond [12], little work seems to have been
focused on the economics of V2G exchanges which are essential for a better understanding on the potential of using V2G
in future power grid systems.
The main contribution of this paper is to propose a general framework and algorithm for studying the economics of
the market emerging between PHEVs, aggregators, and the
smart grid elements. To address this problem, we propose
a multi-layered market mechanisms in which the agreggators, the PHEVs, and the grid elements can decide on the
quantity and prices at which they wish to trade energy while
optimizing the tradeoff between the benefits (e.g., revenues)
and costs from this energy exchange. In this proposed market, first, the aggregators and the smart grid elements (e.g.,
substations) submit their reservation prices and bids so as to
agree on a price and energy trading mechanism. These interactions are modeled using a double auction whose result
is then fed back into the second layer, which deals with the
management of PHEV resources at each aggregator. In this

In this work, we propose a multi-layer market for vehicleto-grid energy trading. In the macro layer, we consider a
double auction mechanism, under which the utility company
act as an auctioneer and energy buyers and sellers interact.
This double auction mechanism is strategy-proof and converges asymptotically. In the micro layer, the aggregators,
which are the sellers in the macro layer, are paid with commissions to sell the energy of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) and to maximize their utilities. We analyze the
interaction between the macro and micro layers and study
some simplified cases. Depending on the elasticity of supply
and demand, the utility is analyzed under different scenarios.
Simulation results show that our approach can significantly
increase the utility of PHEVs.

1

, Alonso Silva

Introduction

The rising oil prices combined with the ongoing trend for developing environmental-friendly technological solutions, implies that electrically-operated vehicles will lie at the heart of
future transportation systems. In particular, it is envisioned
that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which are essentially electric vehicles equipped with storage devices, will
constitute one key component towards realizing the vision
of green, environment-friendly transportation networks. For
instance, it is forecast that up to 2.7 million electric vehicles
will be put on the road in the United States, by 2020 [1].
The presence of energy storage devices implies that PHEVs
can not only serve as a green means of transportation, but
also, if properly configured, they can function as a “moving”
energy reservoir that can store and, possibly, supply power
back to the power grid. While current PHEV deployment
are mostly concerned with grid-to-vehicle interactions, enabling two-way vehicle-to-grid (V2G) interactions between
the grid and PHEVs, has recently started to receive considerable attention both in research and standardization agen-

∗ Email: ayslam@eecs.berkeley.edu To whom correspondence should
be addressed.
† Email: huang@eecs.berkeley.edu
‡ Email: asilva@eecs.berkeley.edu To whom correspondence should
be addressed.
§ Email: walid@miami.edu

1

PHEVs denoted by In = {1, . . . , In }. In this model, we are
particularly interested in smart grid elements that are unable
to meet their demand and, hence, need to buy energy from
(Xk , Bk ) 1
alternative sources such as the PHEV aggregators. Hence,
hereinafter, all grid elements are referred to as buyers while
Macro layer
Auctioneer
the aggregators are referred to as sellers.
The energy exchange process between the aggregators and
(An , Sn ) 4 5 (P, Qn )
the grid elements is modeled using a two-layered market
8
model as shown in Fig. 1 with the utility company’s control
Aggregator n
center acting as a middleman that handles the prospective
energy trading mechanisms. On the one hand, at the first
pn 6 7 a i
layer, referred to as the macro layer, the aggregators and the
Micro layer
grid elements interact so as to trade energy. At this layer,
PHEV i
the buyers wish to optimize their performance and meet their
demand by buying energy from the PHEVs through the aggregators while the aggregators wish to strategically choose
Figure 1: The two-layer market model. The numbers in the
their price and quantity to trade so as to optimize their revfigure correspond to the step numbers in Algorithm 1.
enues. On the other hand, at the second layer, referred to
as the micro layer, the aggregators must interact with the
layer, within each PHEV group, the aggregator negotiates PHEVs so as to optimize the energy resources and provide
with the PHEVs to settle for an agreement on the resource incentives for the PHEVs to actually participate in the trade.
usage. In particular, the aggregator will announce its energy Clearly, the outcomes of these two layers are coupled and,
buying price to the PHEVs, and each PHEV determines how thus, any market solution must take into account this intermuch energy it is willing to supply to the aggregator. The layer dependence. Below, we discuss and analyze, in details,
outcome of this layer is directly linked to the previous market the market operation at each layer.
due to the fact that the aggregator has to carefully balance
its earnings from the energy market and its payments to the 2.1 Macro Layer
PHEVs within its group. Hence, unlike existing work such
as in [12], the proposed scheme depends, not only on pricing An auction is a mechanism for buying or selling goods or
issues, but also on modeling the PHEVs-to-aggregator inter- services by taking bids and then selling them to the highactions (from an economical perspective) as well as on pro- est bidders. The main approach to study this mechanism
viding incentives for the PHEVs to participate in the foreseen is game theory by considering the bidders as the players of
market and, hence, it can leverage V2G, for improving the this game, and their bids as their strategies. For more deoverall smart grid performance. We characterize the equilib- tails on auction theory see [13]. For the completeness of
ria resulting from the proposed multi-layered market and we this work, here we give an overview of the double auction
show their existence. Further, using linear approximation mechanism [14, 15, 12]. In this layer, each potential seller
techniques we provide a large-system analysis on the eco- or aggregator n ∈ N sends the quantity of energy An that
nomics of V2G energy trading. Using simulations, we assess it intends to supply and its reservation price Sn to the aucthe properties and performance of the energy trading mecha- tioneer. The reservation price sent by the potential sellers
nisms resulting from proposed scheme and we show that our corresponds to the minimum price at which the seller is willing to sell its offered amount of energy. Each buyer k ∈ K
approach can significantly increase the utility of PHEVs.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present proposes a bid Bk and the quantity it requests, denoted by
the proposed system model. In Section 3, we analyze the Xk , to the auctioneer. Here, we are mainly focused on the
system for different PHEV energy supply costs. Simulation interactions between buyers and sellers in a certain window
results are discussed and analyzed in Section 4 while conclu- of time during which the bids and reservation prices do not
vary. This can correspond to an energy trading market in
sions are drawn in Section 5.
which decisions are based on medium or long-term energy
needs such as in a day-ahead market. In each round, each
2 The Model and the Market Mech- aggregator n decides its own An with the fixed Sn . After
receiving all An ’s, the auctioneer determines the price P (A)
anism
of the energy, where A = (An , 1 ≤ n ≤ N ), and Qn (A),
which corresponds to the total quantity sold by aggregator
Consider a smart grid system consisting of K grid elements n, ∀n ∈ N , by a double auction.
(e.g., substations) with K = {1, . . . , K} denoting the set of
In this work, we adopt a double auction mechanism based
all such elements. In this grid, N electric vehicles aggregators on [14, 12, 16, 15]. In this auction:
are deployed. We let N = {1, . . . , N } denote the set of all
aggregators. Each aggregator n ∈ N manages a group of
• we order the sellers in an increasing order of their reserBuyer k

2

2.2

vation price. W.l.o.g. we consider
S1 < S2 < . . . < SN .

Micro Layer

In this layer, each aggregator announces a price pn to its
PHEVs by

(1)

pn = γn P (A), ∀n ∈ N ,

• we order the buyers in a decreasing order of their reservation bids. W.l.o.g. we consider

•

•
•
•

(5)

where 0 < γn < 1 is the commission rate. The price differB1 > B2 > . . . > BK .
(2) ence, P (A)−pn , is the commission (i.e., cost of management)
earned by aggregator n from its managed PHEVs. Each
aggregator can make a profit in this way and thus it has
if two sellers (respectively, buyers) have equal reservaan incentive to help its PHEVS participate in the market.
tion prices (bids), they are aggregated into one single
This provides an incentive for an aggregator to maximize
“virtual” seller (or buyer).
its PHEVs’ profits. By utility maximization, each PHEV
max
we generate the supply curve (selling reservation price i ∈ In determines its available supply ai ∈ [0, ai ] according
max
to its utility where ai
characterizes the amount of energy
Sn versus the amount of energy put out for sale An )
the owner of PHEV i can afford to sell, i.e., after reserving
we generate the demand curve (offered bids Bk versus enough for its own use. For the same type of vehicle, a PHEV
which needs more reservation for its proper operation has a
quantity needed Xk ).
lower amax
. We have
i
we find an intersection point.

This intersection is at the level of a certain seller L and
buyer M , such that BM ≥ SL and BM +1 < SL+1 . We
find seller L and buyer M and the double auction dictates
that the first L − 1 and M − 1 buyers will participate in the
energy trading. We don’t consider seller L and buyer M in
this trade since it’s a necessary condition for matching the
total supply and demand while maintaining a strategy-proof
mechanism [15].
Thus all sellers with index n < L and all buyers with
index k < M become the participants in the double auction
so as to clear the market. In consequence, the trading prices
for the sellers and the buyers can be chosen within any point
in the range [SL , BM ] [16]. In this work, for any strategy
choice A (or An , ∀n ∈ N ) by the sellers (i.e. aggregators),
given seller L and buyer M at the intersection, we consider
all sellers i < L and buyers k < M trade at a price P (A),
given by
SL (A) + BM (A)
P (A) =
,
(3)
2
where the dependence on A is due to the fact that each A
can give different interaction points with the demand and
supply curves, and thus we can have different L and M .
At the end of the auction, numerous criteria can be used
for determining the amount of traded energy between each
one of the L − 1 sellers and M − 1 buyers. We adopt the
approach of [15] in which the volume is divided in such a
way as to ensure a strategy-proof auction. Using the method
in [15] the total quantity Qn (A) sold by any PHEV group n,
for a given choice A is:

PM −1
Pn
if
 An
k=1 Xk ≥
j=1 Aj ,
Qn (A) =
(4)
(An − Ψ)+ if n = L − 1,

0
if n > L − 1,

An =

In
X
i=1

ai , ∀n ∈ N .

(6)

Let an = (ai , 1 ≤ i ≤ In ) be the strategy of the PHEVs
in group i. Aggregator n determines the actual quantity
qi (an , Qn (A)) allocated to PHEV i in group n proportional
to ai by
ai

× Qn (A),

(7)

qi (an , Qn (A)), ∀n ∈ N .

(8)

qi (an , Qn (A)) = P

i∈In

ai

and thus
Qn (A) =

In
X
i=1

Consider that each PHEV i ∈ In imposes a cost of discharging its battery to supply energy to its aggregator. We
denote this cost by ci (a), where a is the amount of energy
sold by PHEV i. We assume that during each transaction,
each PHEV will try to maximize its profit by choosing the
amount of energy ai to be
ai = arg max{pn (an ) − ci (ai )}.
ai

2.3

Market Mechanism

The interaction between the macro and micro layers can be
seen as a market mechanism or an algorithm, shown in Algorithm 1, which is used to find the market equilibrium P ∗ , A∗n .
It terminates when a pre-determined number of iterations
tmax has been reached or the percentage change of the market price is less than a certain threshold ξ.
As we can see in simulation later, Algorithm 1 performs
very efficiently and converges within a few steps.

where (x)+ = max{0, x} and Ψ is the oversupply, i.e., Ψ =
PL−1
PM −1
j=1 Aj −
k=1 Xk .
3

price(p)

price(p)

Algorithm 1 Market Mechanism
1: For all k, buyer k submits its bid Bk and its requested
qd = q0 − βp
demand
amount Xk to the auctioneer
supply
qs = αp
2: t ← 1
3: repeat
4:
For all n, aggregator n submits its reservation price Sn
and its proposed supply An to the auctioneer
5:
The auctioneer implements a double auction and determines the market price P (t) and the allocated quantity
quantity(q)
quantity(q)
Qn for aggregator n for all n
6:
For each aggregator n, the selling price pn is announced
(a) Real situation
(b) Linear approximation
to its PHEVs
7:
For each PHEV i, it determines its proposed selling
Figure 2: Supply and demand curves
amount ai by maximizing its utility according to pn
and returns ai back to its aggregator
We note that, a PHEV can always decide not to participate in
8:
Each aggregator n sums up all ai ’s from its PHEVs
the market in which case it maximum utility will be u∗i = 0.
9:
t←t+1
P (t) −P (t−1)
max
As a result, the maximum utility in (9) is always nonnegative.
|<ξ
10: until t > t
or |
P (t)
In this case, the solution a∗i of (9) is
 max
ai
if ηi ≥ pn ,
∗
ai =
(10)
3 Linear Approximation for Large
0
else.

systems

We can then subdivide the set of PHEVs In in two dis(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
joint sets In and In , such that In ∪ In = In , where
(2)
(1)
, ∀i ∈ In . Thus, we obtain
a∗i = 0, ∀i ∈ In , and a∗i = amax
i
X
X
X
An =
ai =
ai +
ai .
(11)

In a practical smart grid, both the number of PHEVs and
smart grid element are expected to be large. In this respect,
it is of interest to analyze the impact of the presence of large
numbers of buyers and aggregators on the overall proposed
market mechanism. Therefore, here, we consider the situations when N and M are sufficiently large such that the
corresponding supply and demand curves can be approximated by a linear function, depending on the distribution
of aggregators’ reservation price (buyers’ bids). We assume
that the reservation prices Sn from each one can be ordered
nicely into a line with each point being one unit apart. Fig. 2
shows one example of the supply and demand curves, each
of which is approximated by one single linear function. In
the following, since the focus of this paper is on the supply
side, we study different types of supply curves while always
keeping the demand curve of the same type.

i∈In

(1)

i∈In

P
(1)
Since for all i ∈ In , a∗i = 0, then i∈I (1) ai = 0, and in
n
consequence
X
X
An =
ai =
amax
.
(12)
i
(2)

i∈In

3.1.1

(2)

i∈In

Linear Approximation

Consider the linear case as in Fig. 2(b). The PHEVs are
price takers and the supply and demand curves are given by
Supply(P, Q)

3.1

(2)

i∈In

= αP,

(13)

Demand(P, Q) = Q0 − βP.
(14)
Linear Cost Function with Homogeneous PHEVs
Here Q0 is the total demand from all the buyers and P is
the price determined from the double auction in the macro
(2)
layer. Also, α will depend on In for all aggregator n. In
that case, the equilibrium price P ∗ and the quantity sold Q∗
can be determined when the supply meets the demand, i.e.,

In this subsection, we consider that the cost function of
PHEV i is a linear function with respect to the amount of
energy it provides, i.e., ci (a) = ηi a, within a certain interval [0, amax
]. If the amount of energy to be sold exceeds amax
,
i
i
the cost will become infinite. Note that this case also takes
into account the inconvenience cost (e.g., when the PHEV
does not have enough energy to operate normally). Then its
utility function is given by ui (a) = (γn P −ηi )a. The problem
PHEV i needs to address is the following:
u∗i = maximize
ui (ai ).
max
ai ∈[0,ai

]

Supply(P ∗ , Q∗ ) = Demand(P ∗ , Q∗ ) ⇒ αP ∗ = Q0 − βP ∗ ,
or equivalently, when
P∗ =

(9)

Q0
.
α+β

(15)

The utility for each PHEV i in group n will be thus given by
4

1. If ηi ≥

γn Q 0
(α+β)

then a∗i = 0 and u∗i = 0.

2. If ηi <

γn Q 0
(α+β)

and
then a∗i = amax
i

u∗i = (γn P ∗ − ηi ) a∗i =




γn Q0
− ηi amax
.
i
(α + β)

The total utility Un of aggregator n is given by

X  γn Q0
Un =
− ηi amax
.
i
(α
+
β)
(2)

Based on the above observation, we have the following simple
lemma characterizing the necessary conditions under which
there exists market equilibriums, i.e., (19) and (21) both
hold.
(16) Lemma 1. The following conditions are necessary for the
above iteration process converges to an market equilibrium
(P ∗ , A∗n ):
(β + dn )2 − 4(dn β − Cn Q0 ) ≥

(17)

2

(β − dn ) + 4Cn Q0

i∈In

≥

0, ∀n ∈ N

0, ∀n ∈ N . 3

(22)
(23)

Proof. In equilibrium, this price must result in a supply that
From this simple example, we can deduce the following is exactly equal to the resulting An , i.e.,
properties:
Cn Q0 γn
− dn .
(24)
An =
An + β
1. If the supply slope of a market 1 is higher than that
of a market 2, i.e., α1 > α2 , then the utility gained in
This gives rise to the following condition on An :
market 1 is smaller than that in market 2.
A2n + (β + dn )An + βdn − Cn γn Q0 = 0.
(25)
2. If the demand slope of a market 1 is higher than that
of a market 2, i.e., β1 > β2 , then the utility gained in Note that the above argument also shows an interesting fact
market 1 is smaller than that in market 2.
that there is an implicit iteration for the market price P as
follows:
3. If the total possible demand of a market 1 is higher than
1
2
Q0
that of a market 2, i.e., Q0 > Q0 , then the utility gained
P∗ =
.
(26)
in market 1 is greater than that in market 2.
C n γn P ∗ − dn + β

3.2

This similarly implies that the fixed point should be:

Quadratic Cost Function

Cn γn P ∗2 + (β − dn )P ∗ − Q0 = 0.

We first recall that under the quadratic cost model, each
PHEV i will supply the following amount of energy:
a∗i =



pn (an ) − ηi
2υi

Since both (25) and (27) are quadratic functions, we see that
the only way there exists a market equilibrium is when (22)
and (23) hold.

amax
i
.

(18)

0

In the next section, we will show how the algorithm evolves
through simulation and demonstrate the intuition behind the
iteration process.

In order to make the analysis easier, below we assume that
a∗i ≤ amax
for all i. Then, we have:
i
a∗i =
where

pn (an ) − ηi
,
2υi

and A∗n = Cn pn (an ) − dn ,

X 1
Cn =
2υi
i

X ηi
and dn =
.
2υi
i

4

(19)

Q0
.
A∗n + β

Simulation Results

For simulations, we consider a smart grid network in which
a number of aggregators sell their energy surplus to smart
grid elements (buyers) through a utility company. The simulation setting is as follows. Each aggregator manages a
certain number of PHEVs, randomly generated in the range
of [500, 1000]. Each PHEV has a maximum battery capacity
of 250 miles with power consumption 22kWh per 100 miles
[17, 18] out of which an arbitrary amount of energy, between
30 and 100 miles, is reserved for the PHEV’s private use. The
reservation prices of the aggregators are uniformly selected
in [10, 50] dollars/MWh while the buyers’ bids are randomly
chosen from [15, 60] dollars/MWh. Each buyer requests energy demand with the amount chosen in [20, 60] MWh. The
commission rate is set to γn = 0.91, ∀n ∈ N . Each PHEV
i has random cost function parameters ηi ∈ [10, 50] and
υi ∈ [1000, 2000] for quadratic cost function and βi = 0 for
the linear cost function. The algorithm always starts by setting ai = amax
, ∀i ∈ In , ∀n ∈ N .
i

(20)

In this case, A∗n is the supply from one aggregator and A∗n is
the slope of the supply curve, i.e., α = A∗n . Thus, we have
by (15) that:
P∗ =

(27)

(21)

Hence, we see that there is an iteration process of the market
price, which approximates the actual price iteration:
• In iteration t, with An (t) computed, we obtain the op0
timal price P ∗ (t) = AnQ
(t)+β .
• In iteration t + 1, we compute the new supply quantity
by (19), i.e., An (t + 1) = Cn γn P ∗ (t) − dn .
5

Greedy	
  approach	
  

Price	
  
50	
  
5

40	
  
50	
  

30	
  
20	
  

0	
  
4	
  

6	
  

-­‐50	
  

8	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

4

Price	
  (P)	
  

Average	
  u.lity	
  per	
  aggregator	
  

Proposed	
  2-­‐layer	
  approach	
  
100	
  

2

3
Demand
1

10	
  
0	
  

Number	
  of	
  aggregators	
  (N)	
  

(a) Total utility in each iteration

(b) Supply and demand curves

(a) Total utility and price for linear cost
Greedy	
  approach/100	
  

4	
  

48.5	
  

2	
  

48	
  
47.5	
  

0	
  
-­‐2	
  

4	
  

6	
  

8	
  

10	
  

15	
  

20	
  

47	
  
46.5	
  

-­‐4	
  

Figure 4: Linear cost function with 1000 buyers (K) and 1000
aggregators (N)

Price	
  

when N ≥ 6, an increase in the number of aggregators N will
yield a decrease in the settled price which leads to a decrease
in the utility. In the cases with quadratic cost, the average
utility increases with N on the grounds that more aggregators participate in the market resulting in a larger amount
of total energy sold. Hence, in general, the equilibrium trading price decreases with N as more aggregators lead to an
increased competition, which subsequently imposes a lower
market price.
Fig. 3(c) shows the average number of iterations required
to reach an equilibrium. Clearly, as more aggregators participate in the market, the number of iterations till convergence
increases. Moreover, Fig. 3(c) shows that the convergence
time is faster in the case with quadratic cost. With a linear
cost function, each PHEV i takes either 0 or amax
in each
i
iteration, and thus, the algorithm is more like to oscillate
more around the equilibrium point before convergence. With
a quadratic cost function, due to the concavity of the utility,
the algorithm moves toward the equilibrium in a smoother
manner which is further corroborated in the subsequent simulations.

Price	
  (P)	
  

Average	
  u.lity	
  per	
  aggregator	
  

Proposed	
  2-­‐layer	
  approach	
  

46	
  

-­‐6	
  

Number	
  of	
  aggregators	
  (N)	
  

45.5	
  

(b) Total utility and price for quadratic cost

Number	
  of	
  itera-ons	
  

Linear	
  cost	
  

Quadra6c	
  cost	
  

15	
  
10	
  
5	
  
0	
  
4	
  

6	
  

8	
  
10	
  
15	
  
Number	
  of	
  aggregators	
  (N)	
  

20	
  

(c) Iterations required for convergence

Figure 3: Basic simulations for small numbers of buyers and
aggregators.

4.1

4.2

Large Numbers of Buyers and Aggregators

Small Numbers of Buyers and AggregaHere, we simulate cases in which a large number of buyers
tors

(K = 1000) and aggregators (N = 1000) are deployed so
as to verify the analytical results induced from the linear
approximation studied in Section 3.1. As previously mentioned, when N (K) increases, the supply (demand) curve
approaches a linear function as all random numbers are generated uniformly. We first study the results with a fixed
demand curve (i.e. with β and Q0 fixed) and they correspond to the situations when the value evolves in a particular simulation. Fig. 41 shows the results for linear PHEV
cost functions when the algorithm iterates. Fig. 4(a) gives
the total utility computed from double auction for each iteration while we have the corresponding supply and demand
curves in Fig. 4(b) ( the part shows intersection points only).
We can see that the total utility decreases with the supply

We simulate the cases with small numbers of buyers and aggregators. We consider 5 buyers (K = 5) in each case and we
compare our two-layer approach with a greedy approach, in
which each PHEV always proposes to sell amax
. Fig. 3 shows
i
the average results of 1000 independent simulation runs for
each case. Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) present the average utility per
aggregator corresponding to the linear and quadratic cost
functions, respectively. We can see that our approach always gives higher average utility than the greedy one, as
shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). In the cases of linear cost, we
can see that the average utility start by increasing with N
but then, it starts to decrease when the number of aggregators reaches that of buyers (N = 6). This result is due to the
fact that, for small N , an increase in the number of partic1 The numbers in Subfigure (b) correspond to iteration/case numbers
ipating aggregators leads to a larger amount of energy sold in Subfigure (a). For clearer demonstration, In Subfigure (b), only the
which, subsequently, improves the average utility. However, curves corresponding to the first few iterations/cases are given.
6

References
2

(a) Total utility in each iteration

4 3

[1] T. A. Becker and I. Sidhu, “Electric vehicles in the
united states: A new model with forecasts to 2030,”
Tech. Rep. 2009.1.v.2.0, Center for Entrepreneurship
& Technology, University of California, Berkeley, Aug.
2009.

Demand
1

[2] A. N. Brooks and S. H. Thesen, “PG&E and Tesla
motors: Vehicle to grid demonstration and evaluation
program,” in Proc. 23rd International Electric Vehicles
Symposium and Exposition, (Anaheim, CA, USA), Dec.
2007.

(b) Supply and demand curves

Figure 5: Quadratic cost function with 1000 buyers (K) and
1000 aggregators (N)

[3] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), “PAP11electric vehicle roaming scenarios,” EPRI Research Program, Use Case.

5
4

Supply

3
2

[4] National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST), “SGIP CoS: SAE J2836 use cases for communication between plug-in vehicles and the utility grid,”
NIST Standards.

1

(a) Total Utility in each case

(b) Supply and demand curves

[5] C. Guille and G. Gross, “A conceptual framework for the
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) implementation,” Energy Policy,
vol. 37, pp. 4379–4390, Nov. 2009.

Figure 6: Fixed Q0 with 1000 buyers (K) and 1000 aggregators (N)

[6] B. K. Sovacool and R. F. Hirsh, “Beyond batteries:
An examination of the benefits and barriers to plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) transition,” Energy Policy, vol. 37, pp. 1095–
1103, Mar. 2009.

slope (α). For example, we consider iterations 1 and 2. α1 is
larger than α2 and we have the utility gained in iteration 1 is
smaller than that in iteration 2. We also study the quadratic
PHEV cost functions and the similar results are shown in
Fig. 5.1 However, with the quadratic cost function, the algorithm converges faster and smoother. Next we study the
results for six different demand curves with a fixed supply
curve (i.e. α fixed). Fig. 61 shows the six cases with a fixed
Q0 . The simulation also aligns the results deduced in Section
3.1: the larger β, the smaller the utility.

5

[7] J. Pillai and B. Bak-Jensen, “Vehicle-to-grid for islanded
power system operation in bornholm,” in Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, 2010 IEEE, pp. 1 –8,
july 2010.
[8] C. Wu, H. Mohsenian-rad, and J. Huang, “Vehicle-toaggregator interaction game,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
to appear 2011.

Conclusion

[9] M. Erol-Kantarci and H. Mouftah, “Management of
We have studied the V2G energy trading market, in which
phev batteries in the smart grid: Towards a cyberPHEVs sell their excessive energy to some loads in the disphysical power infrastructure,” in Wireless Communitribution network. We have proposed a multi-layer system
cations and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC),
to coordinate the trading where those PHEVs in a close ge2011 7th International, pp. 795 –800, july 2011.
ographical area are represented by an aggregator. In the
macro layer, the energy buyers and the aggregators engage [10] N. Matta, R. Rahim-Amoud, L. Merghem-Boulahia,
in a double auction to determine the trading price and the
and A. Jrad, “A cooperative aggregation-based architecactual energy quantity sold for each aggregator. In the micro
ture for vehicle-to-grid communications,” in Global Inlayer, each aggregator helps its managed PHEVs maximize
formation Infrastructure Symposium (GIIS), 2011, pp. 1
their utilities. A mechanism is proposed to coordinate the
–6, aug. 2011.
interaction between the macro and micro layers. We have
analyzed the system performance when the numbers of buy- [11] E. Sortomme and M. A. El-Sharkawi, “Optimal schedulers and aggregators are large. Simulation results show that
ing of vehicle-to-grid energy and ancillary services,”
our mechanism is always better than the greedy approach
Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on, vol. PP, no. 99, p. 1,
and verify some of our analytical results.
2011.
7

[12] W. Saad, Z. Han, H. V. Poor, and T. Basar, “A noncooperative game for double auction-based energy trading between phevs and distribution grids,” in Proc.
IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications (SmartGridComm), (Brussels, Belgium), Oct.
2011.
[13] V. Krishna, Auction Theory. 2002.
[14] P. Huang, A. Scheller-Wolf, and K. Sycara, “A strategyproof multiunit double auction mechanism,” in Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, AAMAS ’02, 2002.
[15] P. Huang, A. Scheller-Wolf, and K. Sycara, “Design of
a multi-unit double auction e-market,” Computational
Intelligence, vol. 18, pp. 596–617, Feb. 2002.
[16] D. Friedman and J. Rust, The Double Auction Market: Institutions, Theories, and Evidence. Boulder, CO,
USA: Westview Press, 1993.
[17] C. Silva, M. Ross, and T. Farias, “Evaluation of energy
consumption, emissions and cost of plug-in hybrid vehicles,” Elsevier Energy Conversion and Management,
vol. 50, pp. 1635–1643, Jul. 2009.
[18] T. Motors, “Roadster innovations: Motor,” Feb. 2011.

8

