Coordinated Charging and Discharging Strategies for Plug-in Electric Bus Fast
Charging Station with Energy Storage System
Huimiao Chen, Zechun Hu *, Hongcai Zhang, Haocheng Luo
Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
*
zechhu@tsinghua.edu.cn

Abstract: Plug-in electric bus (PEB) is an environmentally friendly mode of public transportation and plug-in electric bus fast
charging stations (PEBFCSs) play an essential role in the operation of PEBs. Under effective control, deploying an energy
storage system (ESS) within a PEBFCS can reduce the peak charging loads and the electricity purchase costs. To deal with the
(integrated) scheduling problem of (PEBs charging and) ESS charging and discharging, in this study, we propose an optimal
real-time coordinated charging and discharging strategy for a PEBFCS with ESS to achieve maximum economic benefits.
According to whether the PEB charging loads are controllable, the corresponding mathematical models are respectively
established under two scenarios, i.e., coordinated PEB charging scenario and uncoordinated PEB charging scenario. The price
and lifespan of ESS, the capacity charge of PEBFCS and the electricity price arbitrage are considered in the models. Further,
under the coordinated PEB charging scenario, a heuristics-based method is developed to get the approximately optimal
strategy with computation efficiency dramatically enhanced. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of the proposed strategies,
interpret the effect of ESS prices on the usage of ESS, and provide the sensitivity analysis of ESS capacity through the case
studies.
1. Nomenclature
Indices and Sets
n
Index of PEB.
m
Index of fast charging port.
Index of time interval in the following
k
optimising time horizon.
Index of parking of PEB n in the
in , jn
following optimising time horizon.
Subscript of charging/discharging.
c/d
N
Index set of PEBs.
Index set of fast charging ports.
M
Index set of time intervals in the following
K
optimising time horizon.
Index set of time intervals during parking
P(in )
in of PEB n .
Index set of parking of PEB n in the
I ( n)
following optimising time horizon.
Index set of time intervals in the following
P( I (n))
optimising time horizon when PEB n is
expected to be parking.
card( X ) The number of elements in set X .
Parameters and Variables
SnPEB
Battery capacity of PEB n (kWh).
ESS
Energy capacity of ESS (kWh).
S
PcPEB
Rated charging power of PEBs (kW).
Ppeak
Peak load of PEBFCS (kW).
ESS
Pc,max

Maximum charging power of ESS (kW).

ESS
Pd,max

Maximum discharging power of ESS (kW).

cPEB
cESS

Charging efficiency of PEBs.

dESS

Discharging efficiency of ESS.

Charging efficiency of ESS.

ESS
SOCmin

Minimum state of charger (SOC) for PEB
batteries.
Minimum SOC for ESS.

SOCnPEB
,in

SOC of in th arrival of PEB n .

PEB
SOCmin

ESS
k

SOC

SOCnPEB
,in
an ,in

SOC of ESS at the beginning of time
interval k .
SOC difference of PEB n between in th
departure and the next return.
Time interval of in th expected return of
PEB n ( an,i  K ).
n

ln ,in

Time interval of in th expected departure of
PEB n ( ln,i  K ).

Lk

Power of other loads excluding PEB
charging loads in time interval k (kW).
Duration of a time interval (min).
Electricity price in time interval k
(RMB/kWh).
Price of ESS (RMB/kWh).
Capacity charge of PEBFCS (RMB/kW).
The number of charge-discharge cycle of
ESS.
Discount rate of the capacity charge (%).
Life cycle of PEBFCS (year).
Charging state matrix of PEBs
(dimensions: card( N )  card( K ) ).
Charging state matrix of fast charging ports
(dimensions: card(M )  card( K ) ).
Vector of charging power of ESS
(dimensions: 1 card( K ) ).
Vector of discharging power of ESS
(dimensions: 1 card( K ) ).

n

t
 kTOU

 ESS
 Cap
n ESS



C PEB

C FCP
PcESS
PdESS
cnPEB
,k

Element of CPEB , binary variable, 1: on

1

cmFCP
,k
EES
Pc,k

charge; 0: off charge.
Element of C FCP , binary variable, 1: on
state; 0: off state.
Element of PcESS , the charging power of

P

ESS in time interval k (kW).
Element of PdESS , the discharging power of

un, k , vn , k

ESS in time interval k (kW).
Auxiliary variables.

EES
d,k

2. Introduction
The wide use of fossil energy has resulted in global
warming and severe environmental pollution [1]. Plug-in
electric vehicles (PEVs) have incomparable advantage over
fuel-powered vehicles in environmental protection and
sustainable development [2], [3]. With development and
popularization of PEVs, a large-scale of PEVs will be
connected to the public power grid in the future. The
incremental charging loads of PEVs will have a massive
impact on the existing power system [4], [5]. For example,
difference between load peak and off-peak may increase;
power quality could be deteriorated; distribution networks
will face new challenges, including increasing of network
losses [6], [7], overloading of transformers [8], [9],
excessively heavy line loads and larger voltage deviations
[10], [11], etc.
Present research has shown coordinated charging of
PEVs is able to effectively reduce the negative impact of
PEVs’ charging loads on the power system [12]-[17]. The
optimisation objectives and methods of PEV coordinated
charging are various in the literature. Under the time-of-use
(TOU) prices, reference [12] proposes a cost-optimal control
strategy for multiple PEV aggregators to guarantee that the
distribution system runs within the security limits. In
deregulated electricity market, authors of [13] present an
optimal charging control method for PEVs to provide
ancillary services based on the forecast of future electricity
prices. In [14], a two-stage optimisation method is developed:
Firstly, in order to achieve peak shaving and valley filling,
PEVs are allocated appropriate charging periods according to
the urgency degree; then the charging sites are optimised to
minimise transmission losses. In [15], a threshold admission
and greedy scheduling policy is proposed to maximise the
revenue of charging services for large-scale electric vehicles.
Taking vehicle to grid into account, reference [16] builds an
optimal scheduling model to minimise the energy
consumption and carbon emission, whereas reference [17]
formulates a dynamic charging control strategy for providing
frequency regulation services.
Though a lot of research on PEV coordinated
charging has been done, most of the relevant works
concentrate on studies of slow or normal charging mode of
private PEVs, which are not applicable for a plug-in electric
bus fast charging station (PEBFCS). As a special type of
PEVs, plug-in electric bus (PEB) is an electric bus which is
powered by electricity and can be recharged from an external
source of electricity. In [18], an effective charging strategy
for PEBFCSs is proposed to minimise the power purchase
costs by responding to the TOU prices, and as the result, the
peak loads are mitigated as well. But the work is not suitable
for a PEBFCS with ESS. Nowadays, with the rapid
development of energy storage technology, installing ESS in

the charging station can achieve better demand response [19].
However, only a few published literature focuses on charging
stations with ESS. Reference [20] proposes a control strategy
for PEV fast charging station equipped with a flywheel ESS,
which is able to work without any digital communication
between the grid-tied and flywheel ESS converters.
Reference [21] provides a method to schedule PEV charging
with energy storage and shows that aggregator’s revenue
varies as the number of PEVs and the number of energy
storage units change. Authors of [22] present a coordinated
control strategy for ESS to reduce the electricity purchase
costs and flatten the charging load profile. However, the
investment costs of energy storage are not taken into account
both in [21] and [22]. Besides, the original load curve is given
and fixed in [22] so that the elasticity of PEV charging loads
cannot play a role. In [19], the value of ESS in a PEBFCS is
discussed as the core problem and the control strategy of
PEBs is not concerned.
To the best of our knowledge, there is no existing
papers which study the optimal load scheduling method for a
PEBFCS with ESS. Thus, herein, we aim to develop an
integrated control strategy for both ESS and PEB loads in a
PEBFCS with ESS in order to achieve maximum economic
benefits. It is worthy to note that a PEBFCS with ESS is a
valuable research object for following reasons: 1) PEB is a
green public means of transportation, which is convenient for
centralized control and management. Moreover, a large
number of PEB lines have been in commercial operation or
demonstrational operation in some cities (e.g. Shenzhen and
Chongqing, China). 2) Fast charging stations are regarded as
the promising providers of public PEVs’ charging service in
the future because they can provide large charging power and
meet urgent charging demands. 3) As the technology of ESS
advances, the efficiency and lifespan of ESS are expected to
be improved and its price declines. Thus ESS is an effective
supplement for a PEBFCS to reduce the high capacity charge
for the grid integration as well as to reduce the charging costs
through arbitraging the price differences under TOU price
scheme.
Based on the above considerations and motivations,
the main procedures and contributions of the paper are
summarized below.:
1) A coordinated charging strategy for PEBs without
considering ESS is formulated as the baseline strategy.
Additionally, under the coordinated PEB charging scenario
(PEB charging loads are controllable), an optimal
coordinated charging and discharging strategy involving
PEBs and ESS is proposed. The control of ESS and PEBs is
optimised in an integrated way and the combined control
strategy achieves the best optimality.
2) Under the uncoordinated PEB charging scenario
(PEB charging loads are uncontrollable), an optimal
coordinated charging and discharging strategy of ESS is
presented.
3) To enhance the computation efficiency, under the
coordinated PEB charging scenario, a heuristics-based
method is further developed to get the approximately optimal
control strategy of ESS and PEBs.
4) Operation costs, load profiles and some other
important indices of a given PEBFCS with ESS are simulated
and compared with the ones without ESS under both two
scenarios, i.e., coordinated PEB charging scenario and
uncoordinated PEB charging scenario, to verify the
2

effectiveness of the proposed control strategies. The impacts
of ESS capacity on economic benefits are also analyzed.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.
Section 3 describes the scenario for the proposed strategies.
The details and the mathematical formulations of the
strategies are presented in Section 4. Section 5 shows case
studies and complements our analysis. Finally, Section 6
concludes.
3. Scenario Descriptions
In order to ensure the security of power grid, the power
capacity for a PEBFCS is usually adequate for simultaneous
charging of all the fast charging piles, otherwise the total
power of chargers might exceed the capacity of distribution
transformer and the line overload might occur. However, in
the actual operation, the total charging power of the PEBFCS
seldom hits the upper limit [19]. For this reason, installing
ESS rather than a distribution transformer with overlarge
capacity could be a more economical way by reducing the
grid connection fee, i.e., the capacity charge for a PEBFCS.
The configuration of a PEBFCS with ESS is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The network supplies power to the station through
the local distribution transformer. And ESS, PEB charging
piles and the appliances of nearby residential or commercial
areas (other loads) are connected to the secondary side of the
distribution transformer. If the station has exclusive
distribution transformer, the ratio of the power of other loads
will be approximately zero. In this text, it is assumed that
PEBFCS purchases electricity from the utility at TOU
electricity prices and provides fast charging service to PEBs.
Note that in deregulated electricity markets, the forecasting
electricity prices can take place of the TOU electricity prices
and the control strategy proposed in the following still works.
For a PEBFCS, we suppose that the number of PEBs,
i.e., card( M ) , the number of fast charging piles, i.e.,

card( N ) , and the PEB departure time-table are given. The
control system of PEBFCS is able to acquire SOCs of PEBs
when they arrive at the station through built-in battery
management systems on PEBs. And SOCnPEB
,in can be used to
forecast the following arrival SOCs. In actual operation,
SOCnPEB
,in can be obtained based on historical data. Note that
the proposed control strategy in this paper is to some degree
resistant to the influence of the SOC forecasting errors
because the real-time control is updated periodically and the
negative effect caused by the forecasting errors will be
gradually mitigated (see Section 4 for the details of the
proposed control strategy). In order to reduce the negative
effect on battery lifespan caused by excessive discharging,
the minimum SOCs for PEB batteries and ESS are set, i.e.,
PEB
ESS
SOCmin
and SOCmin . Also, due to the harmful effect of fast
charging start-stop on chargers and batteries, continuous
(uninterruptible) charging is adopted.
For the control strategies, the optimising time horizon
is discretely divided into card( K ) time intervals equally and
the duration of each time interval is t . Charging power of
PEB, and charging and discharging powers of ESS are
regarded as constants in each time interval. Intuitively, larger

card( K ) (smaller t ) makes the results more accurate, but
the computation burden will be heavier. In practice, the value
of card( K ) and t can be adjusted according to the
accuracy requirements and the computational performances.
Based on the above scenario descriptions, the
coordinated charging and discharging strategies for PEBFCS
with ESS is computed through optimisation models to meet
multiple constraints, such as charging demands of PEBs and
continuous fast charging of PEB batteries, and to improve the
economic benefit of PEBFCS, detailed in the next section.

Substation

Distribution
Transformer

ESS

Power

Time
Plug-in Electric Bus
Fast Charging Station

Other Loads

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of a PEBFCS with ESS
4. Strategies and Mathematical Formulations
4.1. Control Strategy Overview
In this subsection, we outline the proposed control
strategies. A rolling horizon optimisation method is applied
to implementation of the proposed control strategy. Every
time, a real-time control strategy is formulated according to
information of the following optimising time horizon (from
the next time interval to the card( K ) th time interval), and to
ensure the real-time control performance, each control
strategy will be only executed for one time interval and then
a recalculated strategy will substitute for it for the next time
interval.
For the control strategy under coordinated PEB
charging scenario, it is operated through a three-step serial
processing procedure at each time interval. When a new time
interval begins, the control system will orderly 1) implement
the strategy generated in the last time interval by controlling
the on-off states of fast charging piles and the charging or
discharging power of ESS; 2) make sure all the necessary
data ready and then calculate the new charging and
d i s c h ar g i n g s tr a te g y o f P E B s a n d E S S (d e ta i le d
subsequently), which will be implemented in the next time
interval; 3) prepare data for the next cycle. Here, data
preparation in a time interval include that: 1) if a PEB arrives,
the control system will acquire the number of the PEB and
read its current SOC, i.e., its SOCnPEB
,1 ; 2) the next arrival
SOCs of the rest PEBs, i.e., the other SOCnPEB
,1 , are estimated
through the last departure SOCs (if there is communication

3

New time interval?

No

Yes

Implement
the strategy
generated in
the last time
interval.

Calculate the
next strategy.

Get C PEB , P cE S S and P dE S S.

PEB
Convert C
to C FC P.

Remain the
system
unchanged
and enter a
delay of 10s.

No

New time interval?
Yes

Calculate the next strategy.

Read or estimate
all the SOCnPEB
,1 .

Implement
the strategy
generated in
the last time
interval.

Update the PEB
departure time-table.

Get P cE S S and P dE S S .

Forecast the future PEB
charging load profile.

Read or forecast the
other related parameters.

Read or forecast the other
related parameters.

a
Fig. 2. Flow charts of the control strategies
(a) Under coordinated PEB charging scenario, (b) Under uncoordinated PEB charging scenario
between PEBFCS and PEBs on road, the current SOCs of all
the PEBs will be available) and SOCnPEB
,in ; 3) the PEB

b

min EPC  ECC

(1)

where

departure time-table is updated according to the current
information of PEBs; 4) the control system gets the other
necessary information, which can be extracted from the
database (e.g. the battery capacity SnPEB , the electricity price


PEB 
TOU
EPC     cnPEB
, k Pc
 t k
k K  nN

Cap
ECC   Ppeak ,

 kTOU ) or be predicted based on historical data (e.g. the power



of other loads rk ). The corresponding flow chart is shown in
Fig. 2 (a).
As for the control strategy under uncoordinated PEB
charging scenario, the processing procedure is similar but
becomes less complicated without regard to the control of
PEB charging loads. At the beginning of a new time interval,
the control system will orderly 1) implement the strategy
generated in the last time interval by controlling the charging
or discharging power of ESS; 2) calculate the new charging
and discharging strategy of ESS (detailed subsequently); 3)
as the basis for the strategy formulation in the next cycle,
TOU
prepare the necessary data (e.g. the electricity price  k , the
power of other loads rk ) and forecast the PEB charging load
profile in the following optimising time horizon. The
corresponding flow chart is shown in Fig. 2 (b).
4.2. Formulations of Optimisation Models
Mathematical models in this section aim at optimising
the economic benefits of PEBFCS, i.e., minimising the
equivalent operation costs of the following optimising time
horizon.
4.2.1 Optimisation Model for Coordinated PEB
Charging Scenario without ESS: Here, the optimisation
model (Model A) is utilized to compute the coordinated PEB
charging strategy, which is used as the reference. The
objective function is to minimise the electricity purchase
costs ( EPC ) and the equivalent capacity charge ( ECC ) in
the following optimising time horizon. The whole model is
formulated as (1)-(10).

Remain the
system
unchanged
and enter a
delay of 10s.

card  K  t

(2)

 1   



365  24  60

, 

1   



1

subject to:
PEB
Ppeak   cnPEB
 Lk , k  K
, k Pc

c

nN

 card( M ), k  K

cnPEB
, k  0, k  K \ P  I (n)  , n  N
PEB
n, k

un, k  c

c

, n  N , k  K \ 1

PEB
n, k

vn, k  c

c

, n  N,

PEB
n , k -1

PEB
n , k 1

k  K \ card  K 

un,k , vn,k  0,1



(4)

nN

PEB
n, k

kP  in 

(3)

un, k 



kP  in 

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

vn, k  1, in  I  n  , n  N

(10)


 PEB
PEB
PEB
PEB
  SOCn,in  SOCn,1  SOCmin  Sn
 in  jn

PEB PEB PEB
   cn, k Pc c t 
in  jn k P  in 


 PEB
PEB
PEB
  SOCn ,in  1  SOCn ,in  Sn ,
 in  jn 1

(11)
jn  I  n  , n  N .
In the above model, equations (2) calculates the
electricity purchase costs by summing the costs in all the time
intervals. In (2), cnPEB
, k denotes the charging state of PEB n at
time interval k ; PcPEB denotes the rated charging power of
PEBs; t denotes the duration of a time interval;  kTOU is
4

the electricity price at time interval k . Equation (3) calculates
the equivalent capacity fees of PEBFCS. In (3),  is capital
recovery factor (  is the discount rate of the capacity charge
and  is the life cycle of PEBFCS), which converts the initial
investment costs into a stream of equal annual payments over
 years, and the equivalent annual capacity charge is
multiplied by a ratio  , which is the proportion of the
duration of optimisation time horizon to a year (see the
second equation in (3)), to proportionally count the capacity
charge for the following optimising time horizon.  Cap is the
capacity charge of PEBFCS and the peak load Ppeak can
calculated by (12), where Lk is the total power of other loads
excluding PEV charging loads in time interval k . In the
model, constraints (4) are linearized expressions to describe
Ppeak instead of (12) without any sacrifice of optimality,
because the optimal solution must meet equation (12) to
achieve the lowest costs.


PEB
Ppeak  max   cnPEB
 Lk 
(12)
, k Pc
kK
 nN

For constraints (5)-(11), (5) are the upper charging pile
number constraints; constraints (6) describe that only parking
PEBs can be on charge, where P( I (n)) is the index set of
time intervals in the following optimising time horizon when
PEB n is expected to be parking and P( I (n))





in I ( n )



P(in )  an,1 , , ln,1∪∪ an,card( I  n) , , ln,card( I  n )



,

n  N ; constraints (7)-(10) ensure the continues charging of
PEBs by introducing two auxiliary variables, i.e., un , k and

vn , k . Note that un , k and vn , k guarantee the continuity of PEB

charging by restricting the change of PEB charging state,
which can be easily proved, and the introduce of un , k and vn , k
makes the constraints linear; constraints (10) describe the
charging demand constraints of PEBs. The recharged energy
of PEBs during each charging between the minimum
charging demands and the available battery capacity, as
shown in (13).

 SOC

PEB
n , in



k P  in 

 SOC



t  1  SOC

PEB PEB PEB
n,k
c
c

c

S

 SOC

PEB
min

P

PEB
n , in



PEB
n

PEB
n , in



S

PEB
n

,
(13)

Based on (13), we utilize all the SOCnPEB
and
,1

SOC

PEB
n ,in

to estimate the other SOC

4.2.2 Optimisation Model for Coordinated PEB
Charging Scenario with ESS: Here, the optimisation
model (Model B) is utilized when ESS is installed and
charging loads of PEBs are controllable. To ensure the global
optimality of the control strategy, PEB charging strategy and
ESS charging and discharging strategy are optimised
integratedly in the model. The objective function is to
minimise the electricity purchase costs ( EPC ), the life
expenditure costs of ESS ( ESSC ) and the equivalent capacity
charge ( ECC ) in the following optimising time horizon. The
whole model is formulated as (14)-(24).
min EPC + ESSC + ECC
(14)
where ECC is calculated by (3) and


PEB 
TOU
EPC     cnPEB
, k Pc
 t k
k K  nN


ESS 
TOU
   Pc,ESS
k   Pd, k  t k
k K
 kK

ESS
π
ESS
ESSC= ESS  Pc,ESS
t
k c
n kK
subject to:
(5)-(11)
PEB
ESS
Ppeak   cnPEB
 Pc,ESS
, k Pc
k  Pd, k  Lk ,

. Then, (13) can be

rewritten in form of accumulation, i.e., (11). In (11), in  jn
means parking in occurs no later than parking jn . And the
middle part of each inequality in (11) represents the total
recharged energy of PEB n during jn times parking. The
first and last parts of each inequality in (11) respectively
represent the lower and upper limits of total recharged energy
of PEB n after jn times charging processes. Note that (13)
PEB
PEB
+SOCn,i
 1, n  N .
and (11) both require SOCmix
n

The optimal charging state matrix of PEBs CPEB can
be obtained by solving Model A. And CPEB should be

(15)

(16)

(17)

nN

kK
ESS
0  Pc,ESS
k  Pc,max , k  K
0 P

ESS
d, k

ESS
k

SOC

 SOC

P

ESS
d,max

(18)
(19)

,k K

P 

ESS ESS
c, k
c

ESS
k 1

(20)

t  P

ESS
d, k

t / 

ESS
c, k

P

ESS
d, k

+P

P

ESS
d

, k  K \ card  K 

ESS
SOCmin
 SOCkESS  1, k  K

kK

in  I  n  , n  N
PEB
n ,in

converted into the corresponding charging state matrix of
charging piles CFCP before implementing the control strategy.
This step can be achieved by checking the numbers of each
PEB and the charging pile the PEB connected to.



 max  P

ESS ESS
c, k
c

ESS
c, k

ESS
d, k

+P

/

ESS
d, k

,P

ESS
d

(21)
(22)

, k  K

=0

(23)
(24)

In the above model, equation (15) calculates the
electricity purchase costs for PEBFCS with ESS. In (15),
EES
EES
and Pd,k
denote the charging power and discharging
Pc,k
power of ESS at time interval k , respectively. Equation (16)
approximately calculates the ESS life expenditure costs
during the optimising time horizon through the recharged
energy, where,  ESS , n ESS and cESS are the unit price of
ESS, the number of charge-discharge life cycle of ESS and
the charging efficiency of ESS, respectively. The peak load
Ppeak here is constrained by (18) and the optimal solution
must make (25) hold (similar to constraint (4) in Model A).


PEB
ESS
Ppeak  max   cnPEB
 Pc,ESS
(25)
, k Pc
k  Pd, k  Lk 
k K
 nN

For constraints (19)-(24), (19) and (20) restrict the
charging power and discharging power of ESS within the
maximum powers, respectively; (21) describe the energy
state transition of ESS; (22) are the SOC range constraints for
5

ESS; (23) describe the mutual exclusion of charging and
discharging states of ESS, i.e., avoid simultaneous charging
and discharging of ESS; (24) is the energy balance constraint
of ESS, since it is usually expected that the initial and final
SOCs are same.
In above constraints, nonlinear constraints (23) can be
deleted from Model B without any sacrifice of optimality due
to the charging and discharging efficiency. The detailed proof
is omitted here and interested reader may need to refer to the
appendix in [19], which is similar.
Solving Model B, the optimal charging state matrix of
PEBs CPEB , the optimal vector of charging power of ESS
PcESS and the optimal vector of discharging power of ESS
PdESS are accordingly obtained.

4.2.3 Optimisation Model for Uncoordinated PEB
Charging Scenario with ESS: In this subsection’s
optimisation model (Model C), ESS is taken into account and
charging loads of PEBs cannot be scheduled. The expression
of the objective function is same as (14), but the charging
PEB
profile of PEBs, i.e.,  cnPEB
, is input parameters here.
, k Pc
nN

The problem is modeled as (26) and (27).
min EPC + ESSC + ECC
(26)
where EPC , ESSC and ECC are calculated by (15), (16)
and (3), respectively.
subject to:
(18)-(22), (24).
(27)
The optimal vectors of charging and discharging
powers of ESS, i.e., PcESS and PdESS , can be obtained by
solving Model C.

vn , k . To fix this, herein, we further propose a heuristics-based

method.
Firstly, we solve Model A without regard to constraints
(7) and (8) and obtain a charging state matrix of PEBs CPEB
PEB
(elements: cnPEB
and the PEB departure
, k ). According to C

time table, we can extract approximate charging time of all
the PEBs during their each parking, denoted by CTn,in , in the
following optimising time horizon (see (28)). Also, we treat
ˆ PEB  sum(CPEB ) (elements: cˆ PEB ; sum(X) is a row vector
C
k
whose elements are the sum of every column of X ) as the
guideline of the number of PEB on charge at each time
interval.
ln ,in 1
k  ai ,in 1

cnPEB
,k

determined.

LX n, k  ln,in  CTn,in  k , an,in  k  ln,in
Based on Tn ,in , cˆ

PEB
k

(28)

Secondly, inspired by [23] and [24], we define the
laxity LX n, k (see (29)), which is used to describe the

(29)

and LX n, k , a heuristic algorithm

is then developed to dispatch the PEB charging with the
continuous charging constraints involved and generate the
final charging state matrix of PEBs CPEB , given in Algorithm
1.
Algorithm 1. PEB Charging Dispatching
1: Initialization: Set CPEB  0 .
2: for k  1 to K do
3:
Find all the parked PEBs that are waiting for
charging and compute their LX n, k .
4:
5:
6:
7:

if LX k , n  0 then
PEB
PEB
Set cnPEB
, k  cn , k 1    cn , k  CT

n ,in

1

1 .

end if
Sort PEBs according to the increasing LX n, k  0
and for PEBs with same LX n, k , sort them
according to the decreasing CTn,in .

8:
9:

ˆ PEB then
if sum(CPEB )  C
ˆ PEB  sum(CPEB ) PEBs according to the
Select C
PEB
order in line 7 and set cnPEB
, k  cn , k 1   
n

In the previous text, all the formulated models, i.e.,
Model A, Model B, and Model C, are mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) models. However, different from
Model C, Model A and Model B bear the extra computation
burdens caused by the introduced auxiliary variables un , k and



n parks at the PEBFCS, and an ,in and ln ,in are therefore

cnPEB
, k  CTn ,i

4.3. Heuristics-based Method for Coordinated
PEB Charging Scenario with ESS

CTn,in 

defined for parked PEBs that wait for charging, otherwise (if
the PEB is on charge or has been charged), the laxity is
invalid; 2) for a new time interval, laxity values should be
updated; 3) for a given k , a specific in can be found if PEB

1

1 .

10:
end if
11: end for
Armed with CPEB got by Algorithm 1, we are then
able to skip auxiliary variables un , k and vn , k and seek for the
ESS charging and discharging strategy through Model C.
Note that, in the heuristics-based method, the control
strategies of PEBs and ESS are generated separately and the
PEB coordinated charging is dispatched heuristically so that
the final strategy is not necessarily the optimal strategy.
5. Case Studies
5.1. Parameter Settings
The proposed strategies are tested on a PEBFCS with
10 fast charging piles, which provides charging service to a
loop PEB line with 24 PEBs. The settings of the PEBFCS are
on the basis of a practical PEBFCS in Chongqing, China. ESS
in the PEBFCS is composed of lithium titanate batteries, and
the discount rate, the life cycle, and the capacity charge for
the station are respectively set as   5% ,   50 year and

 Cap  14847 RMB/kW [25]. The circle length of the PEB
route is 50 km. According to the central limit theorem, we
assume the average speeds of PEBs (km/h) follow Gaussian
distribution N  50,52  , and all SOCnPEB
,in (kWh) follow

flexibility of the PEB charging. Note that 1) the laxity is
6

Table 1 Parameters settings of PEBs and ESS
SnPEB
(kWh)

cPEB

PcPEB
(kW)

PEB
SOCmin

S ESS
(kWh)

ESS
Pc,max

ESS
Pd,max

(kW)

(kW)

324

0.92

117

0.2

800

1000

1000

cESS

dESS

n ESS

ESS
SOCmin

0.92

0.92

15000 [26]

0.2

Table 2 PEB departure time-table
Time

Number*

Interval (min)

12
5
06:00-07:00
12
5
07:00-08:00
12
5
08:00-09:00
12
5
09:00-10:00
12
5
10:00-11:00
12
5
11:00-12:00
12
5
12:00-13:00
12
5
13:00-14:00
6
10
14:00-15:00
* The number of PEBs depart the PEBFCS at each time interval.
Table 3 TOU electricity prices
Time
Valley
Shoulder
High
Peak

Price (RMB/kWh)
23:00-7:00
7:00-10:00,
15:00-18:00,
21:00-23:00
10:00-15:00,
18:00-21:00
11:00-13:00,
20:00-21:00

0.3818
0.8395
1.3222
1.4409

Gaussian distribution N  70, 72  . Specific parameters of
PEBs and ESS are listed in Table 1, where the PEB
parameters partially refer to those of BYD K9 pure electric
bus [27]. The PEB departure time-table is listed in Table 2
and the TOU electricity tariffs are given in Table 3 [28]. The
typically load profile in [29] is selected as the other load curve
in the case. The optimising time horizon is set as 24h and
card  K  is 288, i.e., t=5min .
Based on the parameters settings above, we carry out
the simulations when the unit price of ESS, i.e.,  ESS , is
respectively 8000 RMB/kWh, 6000 RMB/kWh, 4000
RMB/kWh, and 2000 RMB/kWh.
5.2. Results and Analysis
Numerical simulation results under uncoordinated and
coordinated PEB charging scenarios are respectively
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 (including the optimal and
heuristics-based strategies), where AOC is the abbreviation
of annual operation costs (including the ESS expenditure
costs, equivalent capacity charge and electricity bills per
year). Typical daily load profile, SOC curve of ESS and
charging/discharging power curves of ESS under
uncoordinated PEB charging scenario are given in Figs. 3 and
4, and the corresponding profiles under coordinated PEB
charging scenario are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. All the

Time

Number*

Interval (min)

15:00-16:00
16:00-17:00
17:00-18:00
18:00-19:00
19:00-20:00
20:00-21:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
Other

6
12
12
4
4
4
2
1
0

10
5
5
15
15
15
30
60
-

problems were solved by the CPLEX package [30] on a
laptop with an Intel Core i5 processor and 4 GB randomaccess memory.
From Tables 4 and 5, by comparing with the results
without ESS, it can be seen that the proposed control
strategies effectively improve AOC of PEBFCS and peak
loads both under coordinated and uncoordinated PEB
charging scenarios. And as the price of ESS falls, AOC
decreases. According to whether charging loads of PEBs are
controllable and whether ESS is considered, there are four
different AOCs under each price of ESS. These four AOCs
demonstrate that the combination of coordination of PEB and
ESS achieves the best optimality. Besides, when loads of PEB
and ESS are both coordinated, it is observed that the
controlled peak load first decreases and then rebounds as the
price of ESS declines from 8000 RMB/kWh to 2000
RMB/kWh (both using optimal and heuristics-based
strategies). The reason is that electricity price arbitrage makes
more profits than to decrease the capacity charge when the
price of ESS is sufficiently low. While under the
uncoordinated PEB charging scenario, the controlled peak
load remains constant with the change of the ESS price
because all the capacity of ESS is used to shave the peak PEB
charging loads during the high and peak TOU price periods,
which brings larger benefits than ESS costs. Regarding the
different results of optimal and heuristics-based strategies in
Table 5, it can be observed that the heuristics-based strategy
gives rise to a slight increasing of AOC and peak loads, but
has a distinct advantage in computation speed. In practice, if
t=5min , both optimal and heuristics-based strategies are
applicable for a PEBFCS of such size, because all the
computation time is much shorter than t . If the PEBFCS
size increases or t decreases, the computation time could
matter and the heuristics-based strategy is probably a more
appropriate choice. For example, we double the PEBFCS size,
i.e., the PEB number increases to 48 and the departure
numbers in Table 2 are all doubled, and let t=3min , i.e.,
card  K  is 480, then the computation time of optimal
strategy exceeds
7

.

Table 4 Numerical simulation results under the uncoordinated PEB charging scenario
AOC
Peak Load
Reduction of The Average
Price of ESS
AOC (with Reduction of
Peak Load (with
(without
(without ESS)
Peak Load Computation
(RMB/kWh)
ESS) (RMB) AOC (%)
ESS) (kW)
ESS) (RMB)
(kW)
(%)
Time (s)
8000
3474289
8.58
1045.1
23.51
5.18
6000
3436731
9.57
1045.1
23.51
9.12
3800453
1366.4
4000
3374498
11.21
1045.1
23.51
9.34
2000
3312229
12.85
1045.1
23.51
9.23
Table 5 Numerical simulation results under the coordinated PEB charging scenario (optimal/heuristics-based)
AOC
Peak Load
Reduction of The Average
Price of ESS
AOC (with Reduction of
Peak Load (with
(without
(without ESS)
Peak Load Computation
(RMB/kWh)
ESS) (RMB) AOC (%)
ESS) (kW)
ESS) (RMB)
(kW)
(%)
Time (s)
1314657
8000
6.12/5.48
1057.1/1057.1
19.01/19.01
19.02/0.19
/1324911
1284581
6000
8.33/7.75
1009.2/1023.0
22.68/21.63
20.31/0.19
/1293059
1401710
1305.3
1236876
4000
11.76/11.24
1009.2/1023.2
22.68/21.61
22.24/0.21
/1243737
1181943
2000
15.68/15.31
1015.6/1024.7
22.19/21.50
24.51/0.21
/1187108
1400

1400

Without ESS
With ESS

1000
800
600

1000
800
600

400

400

200

200

0

0

4

8

Without ESS
With ESS

1200

Power(kW)

Power(kW)

1200

12

16

20

0

0

0

4

8

12

16

20

0

Time(h)

Time(h)

a
b
Fig. 3. Typical daily load profiles of the local distribution transformer under uncoordinated PEB charging scenario
(a) Price of ESS: 8000 RMB/kWh, (b) Price of ESS: 6000 RMB/kWh, 4000 RMB/kWh, and 2000 RMB/kWh
1000

1000

1

1

800

800

400

0.4

Charging Power of ESS
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC

200
0

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

0.2

20

0
0

Power(kW)

0.6

SOC

Power(kW)

600

600

0.6

400

0.4

Charging Power of ESS
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC

200
0

SOC

0.8

0.8

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

0.2

20

0
0

a
b
Fig. 4. Typical daily SOC curves and charging/discharging power curves of ESS under uncoordinated PEB charging scenario
(a) Price of ESS: 8000 RMB/kWh, (b) Price of ESS: 6000 RMB/kWh, 4000 RMB/kWh, and 2000 RMB/kWh

8

1400

1400

Without ESS
With ESS (Optimal)
With ESS (Heuristic)

1000
800
600

1000
800
600

400

400

200

200

0

0

4

8

12

16

20

Without ESS
With ESS (Optimal)
With ESS (Heuristic)

1200

Power(kW)

Power(kW)

1200

0

0

0

4

8

a

20

0

1400

Without ESS
With ESS (Optimal)
With ESS (Heuristic)

1000
800
600

1000
800
600

400

400

200

200
0

4

8

12

16

20

Without ESS
With ESS (Optimal)
With ESS (Heuristic)

1200

Power(kW)

1200

Power(kW)

16

b

1400

0

12

Time(h)

Time(h)

0

0

0

4

8

12

16

20

0

Time(h)

Time(h)

c
d
Fig. 5. Typical daily load profiles of the local distribution transformer under coordinated PEB charging scenario
(a) Price of ESS: 8000 RMB/kWh, (b) Price of ESS: 6000 RMB/kWh, (c) Price of ESS: 4000 RMB/kWh, (d) Price of ESS:
2000 RMB/kWh
1000

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8
0.6

400

0.4

200

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0.6

400

0.4

200

0.2

0

600

0

0
0

0.2

0

4

8

a

20

0
0

1000

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8
0.6

400

0.4

200

0.2

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0
0

Power(kW)

600

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
0.8
SOC

800

SOC

800

Power(kW)

Time(h)

16

b

1000

0

12

600

0.6

400

0.4

200
0

SOC

0

Power(kW)

600

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8

800

SOC

Power(kW)

800

SOC

1000

0.2

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0

c
d
Fig. 6. Typical daily SOC curves of ESS and charging/discharging power curves of ESS under coordinated PEB charging
scenario (optimal)
9

(a) Price of ESS: 8000 RMB/kWh, (b) Price of ESS: 6000 RMB/kWh, (c) Price of ESS: 4000 RMB/kWh, (d) Price of ESS:
2000 RMB/kWh
1000

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8
0.6

400

0.4

200

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0.6

400

0.4

200

0.2

0

600

0

0
0

0.2

0

4

8

a

20

0
0

1000

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8
0.6

400

0.4

200

0.2

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0
0

Power(kW)

600

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8

800

SOC

800

Power(kW)

16

b

1000

0

12

Time(h)

600

0.6

400

0.4

200
0

SOC

0

Power(kW)

600

Charging Power of ESS
1
Discharging Power of ESS
SOC
0.8

800

SOC

Power(kW)

800

SOC

1000

0.2

0

4

8

12

Time(h)

16

20

0
0

c
d
Fig. 7. Typical daily SOC curves of ESS and charging/discharging power curves of ESS under coordinated PEB charging
scenario (heuristics-based)
(a) Price of ESS: 8000 RMB/kWh, (b) Price of ESS: 6000 RMB/kWh, (c) Price of ESS: 4000 RMB/kWh, (d) Price of ESS:
2000 RMB/kWh

t=3min but the time of heuristics-based strategy is within
5s. Thus, under this scenario with larger station size and more
frequent strategy update rate, heuristics-based strategy still
works while the optimal strategy becomes unpractical due to
over-long calculation time.
Comparing the load profiles in Figs. 3 and 5, we can
see that 1) when there is no ESS, the coordinated PEB
charging shifts the peak loads from day (high electricity
prices) to night (low electricity prices); 2) when ESS is taken
into account, the control strategies, including the optimal and
heuristics-based (only for coordinated PEB charging scenario)
strategies, smooth the load profiles under both two scenarios.
Recall that under uncoordinated PEB charging
scenario, ESS is made full use of and the main restriction of
further costs decreasing is the capacity. Due to this, daily load
profile, SOC curve of ESS and charging/discharging power
curves of ESS are identical when the price of ESS is
respectively 6000 RMB/kWh, 4000 RMB/kWh and 2000
RMB/kWh (see Figs. 3 and 4). The reason, why the profiles
under the ESS price 8000 RMB/kWh differ, is that charging
ESS in the shoulder TOU price period and discharging ESS
in the peak TOU price period are not profitable at such an
ESS price (can be observed by comparing subfigures in Figs.
3 and 4). In other words, there is a threshold value of ESS
price, which is between 6000 RMB/kWh and 8000
RMB/kWh, and PEBFCS can make profits through electricity
price arbitrage between shoulder and peak TOU prices if the

ESS price is lower than the value, otherwise larger electricity
price difference, e.g., the price difference between peak and
valley TOU prices, is needed.
Under coordinated PEB charging scenario, the
subfigures in Fig. 5 illustrate that the total load profile of
PEBFCS with ESS becomes more and more flatter as the
price of ESS falls, and the subfigures in Figs. 6 and 7 show
that the usage frequency of ESS trends to increase as the price
of ESS falls. Besides, it is observed that charging and
discharging of ESS both occur in the valley period of
electricity price (see Figs. 6 and 7). And as a result, the night
peak loads are further flattened, which implies that economic
losses caused by energy consumption during the charging and
discharging process are less than the reduction of capacity
charge. Also, Figs. 5-7 illustrate that the load profiles, SOC
curves of ESS, and charging/discharging power curves of
ESS are similar when using optimal and heuristics-based
strategies.
5.3. Sensitivity Analysis of ESS Capacity
We study the impact of the ESS capacity on AOC
when using the optimal control strategy under PEB
coordinated charging scenario (the impacts are similar for
different strategies and scenarios). The ESS prices 6000
RMB/kWh and 4000 RMB/kWh are selected for the
sensitivity analysis, and the results are given in Fig. 8. It can
10

be seen that AOC decreases and converges to a constant as
the ESS capacity increases. However, when the AOC stops
declining, the extra capacity of idle ESS will lead to
unnecessary investment, which is not included in EOA. So,
in practice, the ESS capacity at the stop point of AOC
decreasing is most appropriate for installation. In Fig. 8, the
best ESS capacity at ESS prices 6000 RMB/kWh and 4000
RMB/kWh are both between 1000 kWh and 1200 kWh.
x 10

[8]

[9]

6

1.4

AOC (RMB)

[7]

ESS Price: 6000 RMB/kWh
ESS Price: 4000 RMB/kWh

[10]

1.35

[11]

1.3

[12]
[13]

1.25
1.22

[14]
0

400

800

1200

1600

ESS Capacity (kWh)

Fig. 8. Curves of sensitivity analysis of ESS capacity
[15]

6. Conclusion
This paper proposes coordinated charging and
discharging strategies for a PEBFCS with ESS to optimise the
economic benefits. The mathematical models are respectively
formulated when the PEB charging loads are controllable or
not. And when PEB charging loads are controllable, i.e.,
under coordinated PEB charging scenario, a heuristics-based
strategy is further proposed to enhance the computation
efficiency with a little sacrifice of optimality. We validate the
effectiveness of the proposed strategies under multiple ESS
prices through case studies, and analyze the impacts of ESS
capacity on the PEBFCS operation costs. Further research
includes the cooperation strategy for several PEBFCSs with
ESS.
7. Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (51477082) and the
National Key Research and Development Program
(2016YFB0900103).

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

8. References
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Boulanger, A. G., Chu, A. C., Maxx, S., et al.: ‘Vehicle electrification:
status and issues’, Proceedings of the IEEE, 2011, 99, (6), pp. 1116–
1138.
Deng, J., Shi, J., Liu, Y. et al.: ‘Application of a hybrid energy storage
system in the fast charging station of electric vehicles.’ IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, 2016, 10, (4), pp. 1092-1097.
Tang, Y., Zhong J., Bollen, M.: ‘Aggregated optimal charging and
vehicle-to-grid control for electric vehicles under large electric vehicle
population’, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2016, 10,
(8), pp. 2012-2018.
Lopes, J. A. P., Soares, F. J., Almeida, P. M. R.: ‘Integration of electric
vehicles in the electric power system’, Proceedings of the IEEE, 2010,
99, (1), pp. 168-183.
Vicini, R., Micheloud, O., Kumar H., et al.: ‘Transformer and home
energy management systems to lessen electrical vehicle impact on the
grid’, IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 2012, 6, (12) pp.
1202-1208.
Fernandez, L. P., Román, T. G. S., Cossent, R., et al.: ‘Assessment of
the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on distribution networks’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 2011, 26, (1), pp. 206–213.

[24]

[25]

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]

Amini, M. H., Boroojeni, K. G., Wang, C. J., et al.: ‘Effect of electric
vehicle parking lots’ charging demand as dispatchable loads on power
systems loss’, IEEE International Conference on Electro Information
Technology, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA, May, 2016.
Dow, L., Marshall, M., Xu, L., et al.: ‘A novel approach for evaluating
the impact of electric vehicles on the power distribution system’, IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
USA, July, 2010.
Staats, P. T., Grady, W. M., Arapostathis, A., et al.: ‘A procedure for
derating a substation transformer in the presence of widespread electric
vehicle battery charging’, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 1997,
12, (4), pp. 1562–1568.
Singh, M., Kar, I., Kumar, P.: ‘Influence of EV on grid power quality
and optimizing the charging schedule to mitigate voltage imbalance
and reduce power loss’, Power Electronics and Motion Control
Conference, Ohrid, Macedonia, Sep., 2010.
Putrus, G. A., Suwanapingkarl, P., Johnston, D., et al.: ‘Impact of
electric vehicles on power distribution networks’, IEEE Vehicle Power
and Propulsion Conference, Dearborn, Michigan, USA, Sep., 2009.
Xu, Z., Hu, Z., Song, Y., et al.: ‘Coordination of PEVs charging across
multiple aggregators’, Applied Energy, 2014, 136, pp. 582–589.
Rotering, N., Ilic, M.: ‘Optimal charge control of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles in deregulated electricity markets’, IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, 2011, 26, (3), pp. 1021–1029.
Masoum, A. S., Deilami S., Moses, P. S., et al.: ‘Smart load
management of plug-in electric vehicles in distribution and residential
networks with charging stations for peak shaving and loss minimisation
considering voltage regulation’, IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, 2011, 5, (8), pp. 877–888.
Yu, Z., Chen, S., Tong, L.: ‘An intelligent energy management system
for large-scale charging of electric vehicles’, CSEE Journal of Power
and Energy Systems, 2016, 2, (1), pp. 47-53.
Yao, W., Zhao, J., Wen, F., et al.: ‘A hierarchical decomposition
approach for coordinated dispatch of plug-in electric vehicles’, IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 2013, 28, (3), pp. 2768–2778.
Han, S., Han, S., Sezaki, K.: ‘Development of an optimal vehicle-togrid aggregator for frequency regulation’, IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 2010, 1, (1), pp. 65–72.
Chen, H., Hu, Z., Xu, Z., et al.: ‘Coordinated charging strategies for
electric bus fast charging stations’, IEEE Power Energy Society AsiaPacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Xi’an, Shaanxi
China, Oct., 2016.
Ding, H., Hu, Z., Song, Y.: ‘Value of the energy storage system in an
electric bus fast charging station’, Applied Energy, 2015, 157, pp. 630–
639.
Sun, B., Dragičević, T., Freijedo, F. D., et al.: ‘A control algorithm for
electric vehicle fast charging stations equipped with flywheel energy
storage systems’, IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, 2016, 31,
(9), pp. 6685–6674.
Ding, H., Hu, Z., Song, Y., et al.: ‘Coordinated control strategy of
energy storage system with electric vehicle charging station’, IEEE
Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo, Asia-Pacific,
Beijing, China, Aug., 2014.
Jin, C., Tang J., Ghosh, P.: ‘Optimizing electric vehicle charging with
energy storage in the electricity market’, IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 2013, 4, (1), pp. 311–320.
Petersen, M. K., Edlund, K., Hansen, L. H., et al.: ‘A taxonomy for
modeling flexibility and a computationally efficient algorithm for
dispatch in smart grids’, American Control Conference, Washington,
D.C., USA, June, 2013, pp. 1150-1156.
Xu, Y., Pan, F., Tong, L.: ‘Dynamic scheduling for charging electric
vehicles: A priority rule’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
2016, 61, (12), pp. 4094-4099.
Luo, Z., Hu, Z., Song, Y., et al.: ‘Optimal coordination of plug-in
electric vehicles in power grids with cost-benefit analysis—Part I:
Enabling techniques’, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 2013, 28,
(4), pp. 3546-3555.
‘AceOn Group’ http://www.aceongroup.com/divisions, accessed 27
Oct. 2017.
‘BYD K9-CPTDB Wiki’, https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/BYD_Auto
_K9, accessed 17 Feb. 2017.
‘The Industrial Time-of-use Electricity Prices in Beijing’,
http://www.docin.com/p-1140670657.html, accessed 17 Feb. 2017.
Xu, Z., Hu, Z., Song, Y., et al.: ‘Coordinated charging strategy for
PEVs charging stations’, IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, San Diego, California, USA, July, 2012.
‘ILOG CPLEX Homepage’, http://www.ilog.com, accessed 17 Feb.
2017.

11

12

