A Statistical Modelling and Analysis of PHEVs’
Power Demand in Smart Grids
Farshad Rassaei, Wee-Seng Soh and Kee-Chaing Chua

Abstract—Electric vehicles (EVs) and particularly plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are foreseen to become popular
in the near future. Not only are they much more environmentally
friendly than conventional internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles, their fuel can also be catered from diverse energy
sources and resources. However, they add significant load on the
power grid as they become widespread. The characteristics of this
extra load follow the patterns of people’s driving behaviours.
In particular, random parameters such as arrival time and
driven distance of the vehicles determine their expected demand
profile from the power grid. In this paper, we first present a
model for uncoordinated charging power demand of PHEVs
based on a stochastic process and accordingly we characterize
the EV’s expected daily power demand profile. Next, we adopt
different distributions for the EV’s charging time following some
available empirical research data in the literature. Simulation
results show that the EV’s expected daily power demand profiles
obtained under the uniform, Gaussian with positive support and
Rician distributions for charging time are identical when the
first and second order statistics of these distributions are the
same. This gives us useful insights into the long-term planning
for upgrading power systems’ infrastructure to accommodate
PHEVs. In addition, the results from this modelling can be
incorporated into designing demand response (DR) algorithms
and evaluating the available DR techniques more accurately.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The current state-of-the-art in information technology (IT)
and data processing are going to be employed extensively in
smart grids [1]. Widespread deployment of advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) enables real-time and two-way information exchange between demand side users and the electric
utility. This evolution affects all different segments of the grid
including generation side, transmission, distribution, as well
as the demand side.
Traditionally, the utility designs and installs the power grid’s
infrastructure such that it can provide power to users’ adverse
daily power demand profiles similar to that shown in Fig. 1.
This power demand profile has a significant peak-to-average
ratio (PAR) that can potentially reduce the power grids’
efficiency and incur exorbitant costs for developing the power
grid’s infrastructure, i.e., increasing the power generation,
transmission, and distribution capacity of the power grid. This
extra capacity is just to serve the power demand of users during
peak-time periods. Therefore, this drawback has motivated
intensive research on strategies that can utilize the existing
power grid more efficiently so that more consumers can be
accommodated and served without developing new costly

0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
Demand (kW)

arXiv:1407.1576v1 [cs.CE] 7 Jul 2014

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
National University of Singapore, Singapore
Email: {f.rassaei, weeseng, eleckc}@nus.edu.sg

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0

2

4

6

8

10
12
14
Time of day

16

18

20

22

24

Fig. 1. Annual mean daily power demand profile for domestic electricity
use in UK [5].

infrastructure. The main objective of these strategies is to make
the demand responsive [2]. Similar power efficiency concerns
have become crucially important for supporting larger number
of tenants in green cloud data centres [3].
Demand response (DR) is predicted to become even more
important as the use of new electricity-hungry appliances such
as plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) or plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) is becoming more widespread. Typically, on
charging mode, they can double the average dwelling’s energy
consumption, with current PHEVs consuming 0.25-0.35 kWh
of energy for one mile of driving [4].
On the other hand, PEVs have several important advantages
compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Not
only do they have lower maintenance and operation costs, they
also produce little or even no air pollution and greenhouse
gases in locales where they are being used [6]. Above that,
they offer valuable flexibility as their fuel can be catered from
diverse sources and resources, e.g., nuclear energy and wind
power [7].
However, in spite of their vast advantages, the market size
of PEVs has been slower than expected as their adoption faces
several barriers. One key reason is the extra cost of their
batteries. In addition, the shortage of recharging infrastructure
causes range anxiety for pure electric vehicles’ drivers. But,
plug-in hybrids resolve the latter problem for pure electric
vehicles, by having a combustion engine which works as a
backup when the batteries are depleted, yielding to comparable

driving ranges for PHEVs to conventional ICE cars [8].
Although it makes sense to envisage the number of electric
cars increasing, it is hard to see that the electricity infrastructure capacity growing with the same rate concurrently. Thus,
the ramification of introducing a large number of PHEVs into
the grid has become an important avenue for research in recent
years [9]. First, we need to ask how uncoordinated charging,
i.e., the battery of the vehicle either starts charging as soon as
plugged in or after a user-defined delay, can affect the existing
power grid. Next, we need to ask, considering this demand as
a worst-case scenario, how we can satisfy it efficiently when
we have information exchange capability and intelligence in a
smart grid.
There are several prior literature on modelling the impact
of uncoordinated charging of PHEVs. However, most of them
require much detailed information about passenger car travel
behaviour, e.g., [10] and [11]. Not only are the models mostly
complicated and very test-oriented, but the sensitivity of the
PHEVs’ charging load to different parameters is not also clear.
Moreover, most of them do not provide expected daily power
demand due to EVs, particularly when EVs are charged in
households rather than in charging stations. For instance, [12]
provides a spatial and temporal model of electric vehicles
charging demand for fast charging stations situated around
highway exits based on known traffic data. In [10], a utilization
model is proposed based on type-of-trip. The authors in [6]
have used random simulation and statistical analysis to fit a
distribution for the overall charging demand of PHEVs mainly
for probabilistic power flow (PPF) calculations. In [13], the
daily load profile is modelled by using queuing theory and
the approach is suitable mainly for accurate short-time load
forecasting.
Furthermore, since PHEVs are considered as the main component of the residential flexible electricity demand, numerous
researches have been carried out for PHEVs’ DR, e.g., [14]
and [15]. Additionally, their storage capacity can be used
for improving the power grid’s reliability, e.g., in terms of
frequency control [16]. But, the main drawback in most of
these demand response works is that they do not consider the
inherent randomness of this demand in the first place.
Therefore, in this paper, we present a stochastic model for
uncoordinated charging power demand of a typical PHEV by
formulating it as a stochastic process based on the arrival
time and driven distance of the vehicles. Moreover, we derive
PHEV’s expected daily power demand according to this model
for arbitrary random distributions of arrival time and charging
time. This gives us useful insights into the long-term planning
for upgrading the power systems’ infrastructure to accommodate PHEVs. In addition, the results from this modelling can
be incorporated into designing DR algorithms and evaluating
the available DR techniques more accurately.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
provides the system model. Statistical analysis is addressed in
section III. Numerical results and simulations are represented
in section IV. Finally, section V concludes this paper.

Energy Market

Energy
Source
Retailer

Customer 1

Customer N

Customer 2

Fig. 2. Basic model of a smart energy system comprised of multiple load
customers which share one energy source retailer or an aggregator.

To the retailer
Processing
agent

Inflexible load

Flexible load

such as
refrigerator,
lighting, air
conditioning, …

such as PHEV,
washing
machine,
dishwasher, …

User i
Fig. 3.

Load segregation of a user according to power demand flexibility.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
In this section, we describe the energy system model and
introduce the layout of this study. Fig. 2 represents a basic
power system model where multiple energy customers share
one energy source retailer or an aggregator [2] and [17].
Consumers’ total load consists of two different types of load;
flexible load and inflexible load (see Fig. 3). Loads which need
on-demand power supply (e.g., refrigerators) are considered
as inflexible, whereas loads that can tolerate some delays in
power supply (e.g., PHEVs) are assumed as flexible loads [17].
Fig. 4 displays the demand flexibility of a flexible appliance
for different users. A certain job, ordered by user j, may take
time Tj to be completed. Moreover, the users set not only the
desired job but also the deadline by which the job should be
accomplished. In this case, we may recognize the following
three random variables for a generic flexible appliance:
• Start Time shows the time when the user lets the power
grid connect to the appliance, and can potentially start
delivering energy.
• Operating Time indicates the time interval required for
accomplishing a certain job, e.g., the ordered charging

start time

T1

end time

user 1
00:00

a

24:00
start time

T2

x(t)

T

end time

t0

user 2
00:00

24:00

start time

TN

Time

Fig. 5.

Demonstration of a typical form of x(t).

end time

user N
00:00

24:00

Time of day

•

levels and modes (fast charging or slow charging) for
PHEVs, which differs from one user to another.
End Time represents the deadline specified by the user
for accomplishing the task of the appliance.

Hence, in general, we need to take into account this randomness when we investigate the overall behaviour of the
system. Moreover, to design and analyse DR techniques more
accurately, we should consider this stochasticity which comes
from the patterns of people’s living behaviours and appliance
specifications.
Therefore, in general, we can formulate the uncoordinated
power consumption for an appliance operating a particular job
as follows:
(
x(t) ,

a
0

t0 ≤ t < t0 + T
otherwise

(1)

where we consider instantaneous power consumption as a
random variable a and assume that power consumption in
standby mode is negligible. Additionally, T and t0 are the
operation time and the job’s start time, respectively. These
parameters are random in general (see Fig. 5).
In addition, here, we are mainly interested in knowing the
daily power consumption profiles, i.e., the power consumption
behaviour throughout a typical 24-hour day. Therefore, we
calculate (1) in modulo 24-hours and then project the results
onto a 24-hour day. In this case, some realizations of the
stochastic process defined in (1) can be displayed as shown in
Fig. 6. This figure shows (1) for ten different users in a bar
graph with one hour time granularity.
Furthermore, a DR technique affects x(t) and changes
its statistics. This process can be modelled as if x(t) is
passed through a system as shown in Fig. 7. Therefore,
the information about the statistics of the input helps to
design the system such that the resulting random process y(t)
fulfills the desired objectives of the DR techniques. The power
consumption profile y(t) results from both the DR algorithm

2

Demand (kWh)

Fig. 4. Time setting for accomplishing a certain job on an appliance for
different users during a day.

1.5
1
0.5
0
1

2

3

4

5

Users

6

7

8

9
10

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time

Fig. 6. Some realizations of the stochastic process defined in (1) in modulo
24-hours.

and the particular statistics of the original power consumption
profile.
We can assume probability distribution functions (PDFs)
for these two random variables, for instance, according to
synthesized models obtained from experimental data, e.g., in
[18] for PHEVs. Here, focusing on PHEVs, we assume t0 and
T have independent PDFs that can be found from empirical
data. For example, for t0 , as the arrival time, a Gaussian
distribution is suggested in [18]:
t0

∼ N (µ, σ 2 )

(2)

where µ and σ 2 denote the mean and variance of the Gaussian
distribution, respectively. For PHEVs, there also exist different
charging modes as described in Table I. The charging mode
may be considered related to the other random variable in
(1) which is a. But, we note that there is a tight correlation
between a and T . This is obvious due to the fact that on fast
charging modes the charging time T is much shorter.

statistics of original
power profile
x(t)

Fig. 7.

DR system

statistics of final
power profile
y(t)

Demand response technique modelled as a system.

TABLE I
D IFFERENT T YPES OF C HARGING O UTLETS
( HTTP :// WWW. TESLAMOTORS . COM /)

0.2
Uniform
Exponential
Gaussian with positive support
Rician

0.18

OUTLET

V/A

kW

Standard

110 / 12

1.4 kW

3

Newer Standard

110 / 15

1.8 kW

4

Single Fast

240 / 40

10 kW

29

Twin Fast

240 / 80

20 kW

58

Probability

0.16

MILES/1-HOUR
OF CHARGING

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02

III. S TATISTICAL A NALYSIS

0
0

In this section, using the aforementioned definition of x(t),
we calculate E[x(t)] which represents the expected value of
power consumption for a certain appliance. This expectation
can be expressed by the following proposition for PHEVs
(refer to the appendix for the proof).

(3)

•

T: Uniform In this case, we consider T to have uniform
distribution over the interval [c, d). Then, E[x(t)] can be
analytically derived as stated in the following proposition
(see the appendix for the proof).

Proposition III.2. Assuming t0 has a normal distribution with
mean µ and variance σ 2 and T has a uniform distribution over
the interval [c, d), 0 ≤ c < d, the expected uncoordinated
charging power demand becomes:

t−µ
σ
E[x(t)] = a × 1 − Q(
)+
(c0 Q(c0 )
σ
d−c

0
0
0
0
0
0
−d Q(d ) + f (d ) − f (c ) + d − c )
(4)
where c0 = t−c−µ
, d0 =
σ
defined as follows:

t−d−µ
.
σ

Also, Q(x) and f (x) are

6

8

1
Q(x) = √
2π

10
T

12

14

16

18

20

Z∞
exp(−

u2
)du,
2

x
2

f (x) =
•

in which, ∗ shows the convolution operation and δ(t) is the
unit impulse function. Also, F (·) represents the cumulative
distribution function (CDF).
We can calculate (3) for any given distribution analytically
or numerically. Hereafter, we adopt different distributions for
the PHEV’s charging time T following some available empirical research data in the literature, as shown in Fig. 8, to study
the corresponding results of (3). We investigate four cases
for the distribution of T , namely, the uniform, exponential,
Gaussian with positive support, and Rician distributions. These
distributions have different degrees of freedom (DoF) and all
of them support T over [0, +∞):

4

Fig. 8. Uniform, exponential, Gaussian with positive support and Rician
distributions for T .

Proposition III.1. Given ft0 (·) and fT (·) as the PDFs of the
independent random variables arrival time t0 and charging
time T for a PHEV, the expected uncoordinated charging
power demand can be expressed as:

E[x(t)] = a × Ft0 (t) ∗ [δ(t) − fT (t)]

2

exp(− x2 )
√
.
2π

T: Exponential The driven distance and hence the charging time of an EV can be modelled by an exponential
distribution [19]. For an exponentially distributed T with
mean λ−1 , we have the following PDF:
fT (T ) = λ exp(−λT ).

•

(5)

T: Gaussian When T has a Gaussian PDF with positive
support as shown in Fig. 8, T has the following distribution function:
fT (T ) = N (T ; µ, σ 2 |0 ≤ T < ∞),
(6)
2
1
(T − µ)
√
=
exp(−
), 0 ≤ T < ∞. (7)
−µ
2
2σ 2
Q( σ ) 2πσ

•

T: Rician Finally, we consider a Rician PDF for T having
the following form:
(T 2 + σ 2 )
Tν
T
exp(−
)I0 ( 2 )
(8)
σ2
2σ 2
σ
where ν ≥ 0 and σ ≥ 0 present the noncentrality
parameter and scale parameter, respectively. I0 (·) is the
modified Bessel function of the first kind with order zero.
f (T |ν, σ) =

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, we consider Gaussian distribution for the
random variable t0 as the arrival time with µ = 19 and
σ 2 = 10 inspired from [18]. Furthermore, we consider
four cases for the distribution of the random variable T as
described in section III. First, we consider T to have a uniform

1.4

1.4
Uniform
Exponential
Gaussian with Positive Support
Rician

1.2

1
Demand (kW)

Demand (kW)

1
0.8

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
0

2

4

6

8

10

12
Time

Analytical
Simulation

1.2

14

16

18

20

22

0
0

24

2

4

6

8

10

12
Time

14

16

18

20

22

24

Fig. 9.
A PHEV’s expected daily power demand profile for different
distributions of charging time T .

Fig. 10. A PHEV’s expected daily power demand profile for a uniform
distribution of charging time T .

distribution over the interval [1, 11]. Thus, it will have µ = 6
and σ 2 = 8.33. Second, we assume T to be exponentially
distributed with mean µ = 6. Third, we assume T to be
Gaussian distributed with positive support as presented in (7).
In this case, we use the well-known accept-reject approach
to generate the random values. Finally, we consider a Rician
distribution for T . In all cases (except for the exponential
distribution), we set the parameters of the distributions such
that they all have the same mean and variance. However, for
the exponential distribution case, we can only set either its
mean or variance to be the same as that of the others since
this distribution has just one DoF. Based on an average 0.25
kWh energy consumption for each mile of driving, we set
all the parameters in (1). In addition, we assume a system
comprising of N = 100, 000 PHEV users in our simulations
in order to obtain smooth curves representing the probabilistic
expectation.
The results for the expected daily power demand of a typical
PHEV under the aforementioned settings are illustrated in Fig.
9. As can be observed, the expected daily power demand
resulting from the charging time distributions which possess
the same mean and variance tends to the same power profile.
However, for the exponential distribution, since it has only
one DoF, we see that its expected power demand differs
significantly from that of the others.
Based on our proposed model and the obtained results,
we observe that the expected uncoordinated charging power
demand for a typical PHEV is much larger during 6 p.m. to
1 a.m. compared to that during 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. in a one-day
frame.
Next, in Fig. 10, we compare our obtained analytical result
for the expected power demand according to a uniform distribution of T in proposition (III.2) with the simulation results in
a one-day frame. As can be seen in this figure, the simulation
results follow proposition (III.2) closely, affirming the acquired
formulation.

V. C ONCLUSION AND F UTURE W ORK
In this paper, we discussed the inherent randomness in the
demand for flexible appliances in general and for PHEVs in
particular. We considered random distributions for the arrival
time and the charging time of PHEVs inspired by available
empirical data in the literature. Accordingly, we presented the
uncoordinated charging power demand impact of a PHEV as
a stochastic process based on these random variables. Next,
we derived the expected daily power consumption profile
according to this random process. Our simulation results show
that the EV’s expected daily power demand profiles obtained
under the uniform, Gaussian with positive support and Rician
distributions for charging time are identical when the first and
second order statistics of these distributions are the same. Our
obtained results introduce a simple description for the expected
power demand of a typical PHEV and hence give us insights
into the effect of adding each PHEV into the power system.
The study presented in this paper can be extended and developed in various ways. For example, the convergence of the
daily power demand for the aforementioned distributions needs
to be proven. In addition, the results from this modelling can
be incorporated into designing DR algorithms and evaluating
the available DR techniques more accurately.
A PPENDIX
A.

Proof of proposition III.1: Since x(t) = 0 for t0 ≤
t − T and t ≤ t0 . Then, E[x(t)] becomes:

E[x(t)] = a × P (t0 ≤ t ≤ t0 + T )
= a × P (t − T ≤ t0 ≤ t).

(9)

Further, we can use the total probability theorem [20] to
get

R EFERENCES
Z∞
E[x(t)] = a ×

P (t − T ≤ t0 ≤ t|T = T 0 )fT (T 0 )dT 0

0

Z∞
= a × (Ft0 (t) − Ft0 (t − T 0 ))fT (T 0 )dT 0

(10)

0

Z∞


= a × Ft0 (t) −


Ft0 (t − T 0 )fT (T 0 )dT 0 

(11)

0

for
which we have taken into account the facts that
R∞
fT (T 0 )dT 0 = 1, and t0 and T are independent. Fur0

thermore, we can express (11) in a more concise form by
using the definition of the convolution integral and the
identity f (t) ∗ δ(t) = f (t) as follows:
E[x(t)] = a × (Ft0 (t) ∗ [δ(t) − fT (t)]) .
B.

(12)

Proof of proposition III.2: Since T is uniformly
distributed over the interval [c, d), 0 ≤ c < d, we can
write (11) as follows:

1
E[x(t)] = a×Ft0 (t) −
d−c


Zd
Ft0 (t − T 0 )dT 0 . (13)
c

Then, by changing the integration variable from T 0 to
α = t − T 0 , it can be rewritten as follows:

1
E[x(t)] = a × Ft0 (t) +
d−c


t−d
Z
Ft0 (α)dα . (14)
t−c

Further, we need to replace α with β =
t−d−µ
σ



E[x(t)] = a × Ft0 (t) +

α−µ
σ

σ
d−c

to have


Z


Ft0 (β)dβ  (15)
t−c−µ
σ

in order to be able to use the following formula for a
standard normal random variable with CDF F (·) and PDF
f (·) to calculate the last term in (15):
Z
F (x)dx = xF (x) + f (x) + c.

(16)

and d0 = t−d−µ
for
Also, we now set c0 = t−c−µ
σ
σ
simplicity to express (15) in the following form:

t−µ
σ
E[x(t)] = a × 1 − Q(
)+
(c0 Q(c0 )
σ
d−c

−d0 Q(d0 ) + f (d0 ) − f (c0 ) + d0 − c0 )
in which we used the equation F (x) = 1 − Q(x).

(17)

[1] A. Ipakchi and F. Albuyeh, “Grid of the future,” Power and Energy
Magazine, IEEE, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 52 –62, Apr. 2009.
[2] A. Mohsenian-Rad, V. Wong, J. Jatskevich, R. Schober, and A. LeonGarcia, “Autonomous demand-side management based on gametheoretic energy consumption scheduling for the future smart grid,” IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 320 –331, Dec. 2010.
[3] A. Dalvandi, M. Gurusamy, and K. C. Chua, “Time-aware vm-placement
and routing with bandwidth guarantees in green cloud data centers,” in
Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom), 2013 IEEE 5th
International Conference on, vol. 1, Dec 2013, pp. 212–217.
[4] J. Van Roy, N. Leemput, F. Geth, R. Salenbien, J. Buscher, and
J. Driesen, “Apartment building electricity system impact of operational
electric vehicle charging strategies,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable
Energy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 264–272, Jan. 2014.
[5] I. Richardson, M. Thomson, D. Infield, and C. Clifford, “Domestic
electricity use: A high-resolution energy demand model,” Energy and
Buildings, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1878–1887, 2010.
[6] G. Li and X.-P. Zhang, “Modeling of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
charging demand in probabilistic power flow calculations,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 492–499, Mar. 2012.
[7] W. Shireen and S. Patel, “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the smart
grid environment,” in Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition, 2010 IEEE PES, Apr. 2010, pp. 1–4.
[8] D. Callaway and I. Hiskens, “Achieving controllability of electric loads,”
Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 184–199, 2011.
[9] S. Shao, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Challenges of PHEV
penetration to the residential distribution network,” in IEEE Power
Energy Society General Meeting, 2009. PES ’09, Jul. 2009, pp. 1–8.
[10] P. Grahn, K. Alvehag, and L. Soder, “PHEV utilization model considering type-of-trip and recharging flexibility,” IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 139–148, Jan. 2014.
[11] T. K. Lee, B. Adornato, and Z. Filipi, “Synthesis of real-world driving
cycles and their use for estimating PHEV energy consumption and charging opportunities: Case study for Midwest/U.S.” IEEE Transactions on
Vehicular Technology, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4153–4163, Nov. 2011.
[12] S. Bae and A. Kwasinski, “Spatial and temporal model of electric vehicle
charging demand,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.
394–403, Mar. 2012.
[13] M. Alizadeh, A. Scaglione, J. Davies, and K. Kurani, “A scalable
stochastic model for the electricity demand of electric and plug-in hybrid
vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 848–860,
Mar. 2014.
[14] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “Coordinated charging
of multiple plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in residential distribution
grids,” in Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2009. PSCE ’09.
IEEE/PES, Mar. 2009, pp. 1–7.
[15] ——, “The impact of charging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a
residential distribution grid,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 371–380, Feb 2010.
[16] M. R. V. Moghadam, R. Zhang, and R. T. Ma, “Randomized response
electric vehicles for distributed frequency control in smart grid,” in
2013 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications
(SmartGridComm), Oct. 2013, pp. 139–144.
[17] A. Mohsenian-Rad and A. Leon-Garcia, “Optimal residential load control with price prediction in real-time electricity pricing environments,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 120 –133, Sep.
2010.
[18] T. K. Lee, Z. Bareket, T. Gordon, and Z. Filipi, “Stochastic modeling for
studies of real-world PHEV usage: Driving schedule and daily temporal
distributions,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 61,
no. 4, pp. 1493–1502, May 2012.
[19] H. Liang, A. Tamang, W. Zhuang, and X. Shen, “Stochastic information
management in smart grid,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials,
vol. Early Access Online, 2014.
[20] H. Kobayashi, B. L. Mark, and W. Turin, Probability, Random Processes, and Statistical Analysis: Applications to Communications, Signal
Processing, Queueing Theory and Mathematical Finance. Cambridge
University Press, 2012.

