4.6 Article

Coordinated Management and Ratio Assessment of Electric Vehicle Charging Facilities

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 5955-5962

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TIA.2020.2987773

Keywords

Batteries; Charging stations; Electric vehicle charging; Stakeholders; Complexity theory; Charging facilities; electric vehicles (EVs); ratio assessment

Funding

  1. University of Sydney FEIT Mid-Career Research Development Scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With the rapid increase in electric vehicle adoption rate, both domains of power grid and transport system are facing operational challenges in the coordination and assessment of electric vehicle charging facilities. These facilities include not just public charging stations but also swapping stations and home charging stations that perform roles catering to different driver behaviors. If provided with sustainable strategies, these facilities can act as aggregators to help manage sudden peak loads. These different facilities will someday co-exist in the future, and it is crucial to plan and assess their interactions. Currently, there is limited research in exploring the coordination and ratio assessment of multiple charging facilities. Moreover, a model that addresses the complexity of charging facility decisions and the communication between multiple stakeholders still needs further investigated. The main stakeholders should not be limited to the station owners but should also include electric vehicle drivers and distributing company operators. This article proposes a layered decomposition model that considers decisions made by the main stakeholders in coordinating power transfers and assessing charging facility ratios. The Australian case studies for charging facility ratios in different renewable energy mix environments demonstrate the suitability of the proposed strategy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available