Scheduling Algorithms for PHEV Charging in Shared Parking Lots
Jing Huang, Vijay Gupta and Yih-Fang Huang
Abstract— As the penetration level of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) increases, the stress on the distribution sys-
tem will become more pronounced. We concentrate on PHEV
charging in public infrastructure, such as shared parking lots in
commercial office campuses and shopping malls. In such clustered
scenarios, PHEV charging demand can vary significantly and
stochastically with time, and the overall system performance is
a trade-off between the peak load on the distribution system
and the consumer specified deadlines that are met successfully.
However, unlike distributed residential charging, this situation
permits a centralized scheduler based control of the vehicles
that are charged at any time. This paper considers the design of
scheduling algorithms to optimize the system performance. We
show that through proper design of the scheduling algorithms,
the parking lot owner can balance distribution system load and
quality of charging service.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Electrification of the vehicle fleet offers a great potential
to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions [1] and the daily
transportation cost [2]. Moreover, the prospect also means
increased revenue for both auto manufacturers and utility
companies. Accordingly, there is a great interest among both
policy makers and industrial players to promote a higher level
of penetration of plug in hybrid electric vehicles and plug-in
electric vehicles (denoted by PHEVs from hereon).
However, significant technical hurdles towards reaching that
goal still remain. One of the most important challenge is that
the distribution system of the electric grid may be severely
stressed as the PHEV penetration level increases. High pene-
tration of PHEVs (as new loads) will add significant electricity
demand. More importantly, the introduction of these loads is
highly correlated in both time (for instance, most PHEVs will
be plugged in for charging after the commute from office in
the evening) and space (for instance, in large office parking
lots, many PHEVs will be clustered together for charging).
Thus, even though the generation system may be able to supply
enough energy to charge the PHEVs, the distribution system
may still be stressed temporally and spatially [2]–[4] if the
PHEVs are introduced as conventional loads and serviced in
an uncoordinated manner (see also [5]–[7]).
Coordinated charging through scheduling the time at which
different PHEVs are charged has been proposed to miti-
gate these issues [8], [13]. Many works have studied co-
ordinated charging of PHEVs at consumer residences with
various control strategies, such as time of usage (TOU) based
charging [12], convex linear and quadratic programming [8],
sequential quadratic optimization [3], [9], particle swarm op-
timization [10], non-cooperative games [11], and so on.
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre
Dame, IN 46556. jhuang6,vgupta2,huang@nd.edu
As opposed to these works, this paper concentrates on
PHEV charging in public infrastructure such as shared parking
lots in large office and university campuses, or in shopping
malls. Sole reliance on residential charging imposes severe
constraints on driving patterns and increases required vehicle
depletion range, thus hindering the popularity of PHEVs.
For example, assuming no charging infrastructures other than
that at the owner’s residence, the required minimum vehicle
depletion range is estimated to be 40 miles. Using alternative
infrastructure, this can be lowered to 27 miles. This will lead
to a reduction of over $8,000 in the cost of each PHEV [14].
Establishing public infrastructure for PHEV charging will be
an effective way to persuade people to adopt PHEVs.
Coordination of charging in public infrastructure presents
both unique opportunities and challenges. The charging de-
mand in such locations is highly variable depending on the
stochastic customer arrival process. An uncoordinated charg-
ing strategy may lead to a load profile with a high peak to
average power level. On the other hand, imposing a strict
peak power constraint may lead to many vehicle charging
deadlines not being met. On the other hand, the coordination
of the vehicle charging need not be done in a decentralized
fashion, as in residential environments. Rather, a centralized
controller which schedules the charging time of PHEVs can be
designed to optimize the system performance, by considering
both the load profile and the consumer demands. We design
and analyze the performance of such scheduling algorithms.
Note that, we do not consider the possibility of either smart
charging through two-way communication or the usage of
PHEVs as distributed storage devices and generation resources
(also known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G)) in this paper, since both
are considered to be unlikely in the near term.
Contributions: This paper develops and analyzes central-
ized scheduling strategies for PHEV charging at public infras-
tructure. Specifically, we consider coordinated PHEV charging
for two models, namely large corporate parking plazas (that
may provide PHEV charging to their employees as a benefit)
and shopping mall parking plazas (that may provide PHEV
charging as a promotion or attraction to potential customers).
We introduce a stochastic model for the charging demand
at these locations and formulate the problem of balancing
charging demand with system load. We design and analyze
the performance of many scheduling algorithms for PHEV
charging at large parking plazas. In particular, for some cases,
we are able to identify the optimal scheduling algorithm.
Numerical examples illustrate the effectiveness of proper
scheduling strategy on balancing the utilization level of power
resources and customer perceived quality of service.
 Central
Controller
Power line Control link Charging meter
Fig. 1. The system architecture considered in the paper.
II. P ROBLEM S ETTING
Consider the system architecture shown in Figure 1. The
parking lot consists of multiple parking spaces, each equipped
with a charging meter that the customers can plug their PHEVs
in to. Additionally, the consumers can enter information such
as the departure deadline, desired amount of charging and the
preferred charging rate. The parking lot owner, or the service
provider, can design a centralized controller to schedule the
charging of each PHEV. The controller has two performance
metrics:
• Due to economical and hardware concerns, the number
of PHEVs that can be charged simultaneously (i.e. the
peak load) should be minimized.
• To satisfy the customer demand, the number of PHEVs
that miss their charging deadline (i.e., are not fully
charged to the level requested by the customer till the
respective departure deadline) needs to be minimized.
Since the PHEV arrivals are stochastic, there is clearly a
trade-off between the two performance metrics. A relevant
optimization problem to design the controller can thus be to
minimize the probability of a vehicle missing its charging
deadline subject to a constraint on the peak load. In the
sequel, we pose this problem mathematically and then provide
and analyze controllers to solve this problem. For simplicity,
we will assume that unless a PHEV is fully charged till its
deadline, it is counted as a missed deadline.
A. Vehicle Arrival Model
For the charging system, the vehicle arrival time refers to
the time of plug-in to charge the PHEV. In real life, the
arrival time is determined by the time when the PHEVs arrive
at the charging station and hence is stochastic. Denote the
total number of arrived PHEVs up to time t by N (t). We
model the PHEV arrival process as a time-inhomogeneous
Poisson process with a rate parameter (or intensity) λ(t) [15].
The rate parameter can usually be determined from historical
data or estimated from real time traffic data. In this paper,
for simplicity, we assume that PHEVs arrive in time interval
[0, T1 ] so that λ(t) is defined as
(
λ t ∈ [0, T1 ]
λ(t) = (1)
0 otherwise.
The Poisson model is widely used in many practical appli-
cations to model, e.g., bus passenger arrivals, supermarket
consumer arrivals, etc.
B. Charging Pattern and Departure Model
This paper assumes that each PHEV charges at a constant
rate ψ kW until it is charged to the level desired by the
customer. The aggregated load profile is thus the number
of vehicles being charged at a particular time multiplied by
the rate ψ. While multiple PHEV charging rates can be
considered, this assumption simplifies the analysis and can
serve as a benchmark. We assume that the required charging
level for a PHEV at arrival is a sequence of independent and
identically distribution (i.i.d.) random variables. The arrival
times and required charging levels are assumed to be mutually
independent.
The final component is the deadline by which the consumer
needs the PHEV to be fully charged. In particular, we consider
two scenarios:
• In the office campus scenario, all PHEVs have the same
deadline T2 (T2 > T1 ) corresponding to the evening
departure time for all employees.
• In the shopping mall scenario, we assume that the dead-
line for any particular PHEV is given relative to its
arrival time. Specifically, the deadline is ∆T time after
the PHEV arrival, where ∆T is uniformly distributed in
the interval (0, Γ). The deadlines for different PHEVs
are mutually independent and they are also independent
of the arrival time and the charging levels.
III. M AIN R ESULTS
This section investigates the performance of various
scheduling algorithms with a prescribed power profile in
the system. We first consider a benchmark scenario where
charging starts as soon as a PHEV is plugged in and con-
tinues till it is fully charged. Charging in this scenario is
uncoordinated and the distribution system components do not
impose any constraint on the number of PHEVs that can be
charged simultaneously. Thus, this scenario does not miss any
charging deadline; however, the peak load can be very large.
Subsequently we evaluate various scheduling algorithms when
there is a constraint on the number of PHEVs that can be
simultaneously charged.
A. No Limit on PHEVs Charged Simultaneously
In this scenario, we assume charging starts upon plugging
in the PHEVs and finishes when the vehicles are fully charged
with the predefined demand.
 1) PHEV Load Profile: Recall that the charging rate is
constant at the level ψ. If each PHEV needs the same amount
of power Φ kWh at arrival, then the total power demand for
the arrived PHEVs can be calculated as
Θ(t) = ψ · Nc (t), (2)
where Nc (t) denotes the number of PHEVs that are charging
at time t, and is given by
Φ charging meters and the PHEVs are assigned to the charging
Nc (t) = N (min(t, T1 )) − N (max(0, t − )). (3)
ψ meters randomly and uniformly. Once assigned to a particular
The random process Θ(t) can be characterized as follows.
Consider a particular time instant t. Since N (t) is a Poisson
process, Nc (t) should have the same statistical information as
N (min(t, Φ Φ case when the centralized controller can schedule the charging
ψ , T1 −(t− ψ ))). In other words, Nc (t) is a Poisson
random variable with the mean given by
Φ Φ
E[Nc (t)] = min(t, , T1 − (t − ))λ. (4)
ψ ψ
If the individual power demand for all the PHEVs is
uniformly distributed in the range of [ Φ2 Φ], then the mean
of the Poisson random variable Nc (t) can be calculated as
 Φ
tλ
 if t ≤ 2ψ
ψ 2
Φ
E[Nc (t)] = (2t − 4ψ − Φ t )λ if 2ψ < t ≤ Φ
Φ
ψ
(5)

 3Φ Φ
4ψ λ if ψ < t ≤ T1
If on the other hand the individual power demand for all
PHEVs is exponentially distributed with mean µ, then this
becomes the standard M/M/∞ model in queueing theory
[16]. The distribution of Nc (t) is also Poisson and the mean
of the Poisson random variable is given by λ/µ.
B. Limit on PHEVs Charged Simultaneously
If the service provider can only charge a limited number of
PHEVs at any given time (possibly to avoid overload on the
distribution system), a queue is formed whenever the power
demand for charging exceeds a certain limit. In other words,
newly arrived PHEVs will join a queue if charging is not
immediately available.
The power constraint necessitates a balance between the
utilization level of the power resources and the customer
perceived quality of service. As such we define a utilization
factor ρ as
λ′ · E[γi ]
ρ= , (6)
Np
where Np is the number of PHEVs that can be charged
simultaneously, γi is the time required to fully charge the i-th
PHEV, and λ′ is the normalized rate defined by λ′ = λT1 /T2
for the office scenario, and λ′ = λ for the mall scenario. The
metric used in this paper for the customer perceived quality of
service is the average number of PHEVs missing deadlines. On
one hand, service providers would prefer ρ to be large such that
the required power resource limit is small. On the other hand,
a larger ρ will lead to larger number (in average) of PHEVs
missing deadlines. Therefore, service providers should choose
a proper scheduling strategy according to the PHEV arrival
model and operate in a regime where quality and efficiency
are balanced.
C. Scheduling Strategies
We now proceed to evaluate various scheduling strategies
and seek the optimal scheduling strategies for both the office
and mall scenarios. For both scenarios, we first consider
a special case where there is no cooperation among the
charging meter, the PHEV will stay there till it is fully charged.
In this case, the arrival for each charging meter is also a
Poisson process with the rate λ/Np . We then consider the
among all meters in a cooperative way. Charging strategies can
also be classified as preemptive, in which a charging job can
be split in any number of nonconsecutive time slots, and non-
preemptive, in which the charging of any PHEV must happen
in a continuous time window. We consider both classes of
strategies.
1) Office Scenario: When there is no cooperation among
the charging meters, the entire system is simply an extension
of the case when only one charging meter is present (and the
arrival rate is suitably reduced). The performance for a single
charging meter where only one PHEV is allowed to be charged
at any time can be evaluated as follows.
Theorem 3.1: Assume that each PHEV has a power demand
that is randomly distributed in [0, Ω] (Ω > 0). For the single
charging meter case in the office scenario, the (preemptive)
Shortest Charging-time First Serve (SCFS) scheduling strategy
minimizes the number of missed charging deadlines.
Proof: At any time instant t (t < T2 ), the charging
strategies need to decide which job gets served first. The SCFS
strategy chooses the one that requires the shortest service
time. The job schedule with any strategy can be treated as
a permutation of the order in which the jobs get served.
We show that exchanging the order of any two jobs in the
SCFS scheduling strategy cannot reduce the number of PHEVs
missing deadlines.
Consider any two charging jobs τi and τj in the SCFS
scheduling strategy. The job τi is performed before τj . Let
the required charging time for them be γi and γj respectively.
By definition of SCFS algorithm, γi < γj .
If both jobs succeed or both fail, then the number of PHEVs
missing charging deadlines remains the same after exchanging
the order of two jobs. If only τj fails in the SCFS schedul-
ing strategy, then the number of PHEVs missing charging
deadlines increases or remains the same after exchanging the
order of two jobs. Therefore, when the schedule (order) for
all other jobs is fixed, the number of PHEVs missing charging
deadlines can only increase or remain the same if we change
the scheduling strategy by exchanging the order of the two
jobs.
Remark: This result holds irrespective of the arrival rate of
the Poisson process and the distribution of the charging time
required to fully charge one PHEV.
Theorem 3.2: For the single charging meter case in the
office scenario, there exists an optimal scheduling strategy in
which no charging job is split for all the jobs finished before
the deadline.
Proof: Consider a particular scheduling strategy, a suc-
cessful charging job is split into two parts between two time
intervals [t1 , t2 ] and [t3 , t4 ] (t1 < t2 < t3 < t4 ≤ T2 ).
Reschedule so that the part between time t3 and t4 is moved
to time t2 and t2 + t4 − t3 , and anything that was between t2
and t3 is moved later by t4 − t3 . All other parts outside the
time range t1 and t4 remain the same. The number of PHEVs
missing deadline T2 remains the same after such reschedule.
The results are easily extended to any successful charging job
that is split into any number of parts.
Corollarly 3.3: For the single charging meter case in the
office scenario, the (non-preemptive) Shortest Charging-time
First Serve (SCFS) scheduling strategy is optimal if preemp-
tion is not allowed.
The proof of Corollary 3.3 follows directly from the proof
of Theorem 3.1, thus is omitted here. Note that all the above
results for the single charging meter case in the office scenario
do not depend on the distribution of the service time.
The results for a single charging meter case are not easily
extendible to the scheduling with multiple cooperative charg-
ing meters. The scheduling problem of charging PHEVs with
multiple cooperating charging meters presents strong analo-
gies to multi-processor scheduling in the computer science
literature, which is well known to be NP-complete. Instead
of directly finding an optimal solution, in the next section we
will numerically evaluate some typical scheduling strategies
and provide some insights into identifying a proper strategy
to provide a good balance between the quality of service and
the utilization level of the electricity resources.
2) Mall Scenario: In the mall scenario, each PHEV charg-
ing job enters into the system with a relative deadline. Our
analysis here uses the results from [18]. While the deadline
is a random variable, its value is known to the scheduler
after the PHEV enters into the system. As in the analysis for
the office scenario, we start again by presenting the optimal
charging strategy for the single charging meter case, in which
a charging job is considered a failure if it is not completed by
the deadline. We assume that a failed charging job is discarded
and removed from the system. This may be the case if, e.g.,
the PHEV physically leaves the parking lot even if it is not
fully charged.
Theorem 3.4: Assume that the charging levels required by
the PHEVs are exponentially distributed. For the single charg-
ing meter case in the mall scenario, the preemptive earliest
deadline first (EDF) scheduling strategy minimizes the number
of missed charging deadlines.
Corollarly 3.5: For the single charging meter case in the
mall scenario, the (non-preemptive) earliest deadline first
(EDF) scheduling strategy is optimal if preemption is not
allowed.
The proofs of Theorem 3.4 and Corollary 3.5 are omitted
in this paper because of lack of space. Note that both The-
orem 3.4 and Corollary 3.5 hold with the assumption of the
exponential service time.
Now we extend the above results to the case of multiple
charging meters with cooperation. Under the assumption that
a job must be completed whether its deadline expires or
not, and with a different optimality metric, [18] shows that
the non-preemptive EDF strategy is optimal among the non-
preemptive strategies. However, we have not been able to
obtain analytical results of optimality without that assumption
or if the optimality metric is to minimize the probability of
missing deadlines as in this paper. Numerical evaluation of
several typical scheduling strategies is carried out in the next
section.
IV. N UMERICAL E VALUATION
This section considers specific cases to evaluate the perfor-
mance of various scheduling strategies for PHEV charging for
the case of multiple charging meters. Monte Carlo simulations
are carried out in Matlab for both the office scenario and the
mall scenario. The time scale is discretized with a step of 5
minutes and decisions for the scheduling strategies are taken
at the beginning of every step.
A. Office Scenario
In the office scenario, employees arrive at their corporate
parking plaza daily between 7am and 10am according to a
Poisson process with mean number of arrivals per day as
1000. The charging level required by each PHEV is uniformly
distributed between 0 and 8kWh, and charging is at a constant
rate of ψ = 4kW. The fixed deadline for all the PHEVs is set
at 5pm.
Four scheduling strategies are considered for the office
scenario.
• First Come First Serve (FCFS): Newly entering PHEVs
join the tail of a queue. The scheduler selects the PHEV
at the head of the queue for charging whenever a charging
station becomes available. This can also be considered to
be the unscheduled strategy.
• Shortest Charging-time First Serve (SCFS): Newly enter-
ing PHEVs join the tail of a queue. The scheduler chooses
the PHEV in the queue with the shortest required service
time.
• Longest Charging-time First Serve (LCFS): Similar to
SCFS, but the scheduler chooses the PHEV with the
longest required service time.
• McNaughtan (McN): The details of this strategy can be
found in [17].
Figure 2 illustrates a particular realization of the charging for
the unlimited resource scenario, and the coordinated charging
scenarios with FCFS and LCFS strategies. The peak load of
the uncoordinated charging (the unlimited resource) scenario
is close to 1500kW, which is far above the peak level (500kW)
of the coordinated charging scenarios. Figure 3 compares the
performance of the four scheduling strategies for the case
 0
1500 10
Uncoordinated
FCFS −1
10

Probability of missing deadlines

LCFS
−2
10
1000 −3
10
Load (kW)

−4
10
−5
10 SCFS
500 FCFS
−6
10 (np)EDF
(p)EDF
−7
10
0 −8
0 2 4 6 8 10 10
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Time (h) Utilization factor ρ

Fig. 2. A particular realization of coordinated charging and noncoordinated Fig. 4. Performance comparison among the four scheduling strategies for
charging (ρ = 0.8 for both FCFS and LCFS) the mall scenario (p): preemptive, (np): non-preemptive
0
10

−1 first (EDF) strategies to arrange PHEVs on the basis of

Probability of missing deadlines

10
their deadlines. The EDF strategies give preference to the
10
−2 jobs which have the earliest deadline. Figure 4 shows the
performance of the four scheduling strategies. The preemptive
10
−3 EDF strategy outperforms the others when the utilization factor
is smaller than 1.15. To maintain good quality of service, the
−4 SCFS system needs to operate with low probability of missing dead-
10 FCFS
McN
lines. If the service provider sets the probability of missing
10
−5
LCFS deadlines to be 10−6 , the preemptive and non-preemptive EDF
strategies can handle utilization factors around 1 and 0.97,
10
−6 while the FCFS and SCFS strategies only support utilization
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 factors around 0.82 and 0.73. Therefore, the preemptive EDF
Utilization factor ρ strategy has the best capability of balancing quality of service
Fig. 3. Performance comparison among four scheduling strategies for the
and utilization level among the four strategies.
office scenario
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND F UTURE W ORK

when 4 charging meters are present. The results indicate that
for the case when multiple cooperating charging meters are
present, no scheduling strategy is optimal under all the load
conditions. The SCFS strategy outperforms others at a high
load level while the LCFS strategy performs the best at a low
load level. However, a suitably selected scheduling strategy
can always outperform the unscheduled FCFS strategy.
B. Mall Scenario
In the mall scenario, customers arrive at the mall parking
plaza during 8am and 8pm as a Poisson process with mean as
one thousand per day. PHEVs are plugged into the charging
meters during this time range. The demand for each PHEV
and the charging rate follow the same setting as in the
office scenario. Each PHEV has a unique deadline uniformly
distributed in the range of 0 and 2 hours after the arrival of
the PHEV. Note that whether a PHEV is charged or not, it is
assumed to leave the system at the completion of its deadline.
We also compare four scheduling strategies for the mall
scenario. Other than the FCFS and LCFS strategies, we also
consider both non-preemptive and preemptive earliest deadline
This paper considered the problem of scheduling PHEV
charging in shared commercial parking lots when the arrival
of the PHEVs is stochastic and consumers have individual
deadlines. When there is no cooperation among different
charging meters, this paper provides and analyzes optimal
scheduling strategies which minimize the number of missed
deadlines. For multiple charging meters with cooperation, this
paper numerically evaluates the performance of several typical
strategies and provides suggestions for service providers on
what regime the system should be operated in to balance
system impacts, profit and quality of service.
This paper has only considered scheduling of the time
for charging different PHEVs with a constant charging rate.
Future work will consider scheduling both the time and the
charging rate (different levels of charging rates) which intro-
duces another degree of freedom and potential performance
improvement. Future work can also incorporate the fact that
the realistic physical charging rate is usually not constant and
varies with time and consider scheduling with a discretized
model with several levels of rates which approximates the
realistic charging rate model.
 R EFERENCES
[1] Electric Power Research Institute, “Environment Assessment of Plug-
in Hybrid Electric Vehicles - Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” EPRI Report, Palo Alto, 2007.
[2] A. Ipakchi, and F. Albuyeh, “Grid of the Future,”
IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, vol. 7, pp. 52 - 62, March-April,
2009.
[3] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen, and J. Driesen, “The impact of charging
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid,” IEEE
Trans. Power Systems, vol. 25, pp. 371 - 380, 2010.
[4] L. Pieltain Fernandez, T. Gomez San Roman, R. Cossent, C. M. Domingo,
and P. Frias, “Assessment of the impact of plug-in electric vehicles on
distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, pp. 206 - 213,
2011.
[5] J. Dowds, C. Farmer, P. Hines, R. Watts, and S. Blumsack, “A review
of results from plug-in hybrid electric vehicle impact studies,” working
paper, University of Vermont, December 2009.
[6] C. Farmer, P. Hines, J. Dowds, and S. Blumsack, “Modeling the Impact of
Increasing PHEV Loads on the Distribution Infrastructure,” 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1-10, Jan.
2010.
[7] J. Taylor, A. Maitra, M. Alexander, D. Brooks, and M. Duvall, “Eval-
uation of the impact of plug-in electric vehicle loading on distribution
system operations,” Power & Energy Society General Meeting, pp. 1-6,
July 2009.
[8] E. Sortomme, M. M. Hindi, S. D. J. MacPherson, and S. S. Venkata,
“Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles to Minimize
Distribution System Losses,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2,
pp. 198 - 205, 2011.
[9] A. Hajimiragha, C. A. Caizares, M. W. Fowler, and A. Elkamel “Opti-
mal Transition to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Ontario, Canada,
Considering the Electricity-Grid Limitations,” IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, vol. 57, pp. 690 - 701, Feb 2010.
[10] A. Saber, and G. Venayagamoorthy, “Plug-in Vehicles and Renewable
Energy Sources for Cost and Emission Reductions,” IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, pp. 1229 - 1238, April 2010.
[11] Z. Ma, D. S. Callaway, and I. A. Hiskens, “Decentralized Charging
Control for Large Populations of Plug-in Electric Vehicles”, Proceedings
of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta Georgia, 2010.
[12] S. Shao, T. Zhang, M. Pipattanasomporn, and S. Rahman, “Impact
of TOU Rates on Distribution Load Shapes in a Smart Grid with
PHEV Penetration,” IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition, pp. 1 - 6, 2010.
[13] K. Mets, T. Verschueren, W. Haerick, C. Develder, and F. De Turck,
“Optimizing smart energy control strategies for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle charging,” Network Operations and Management Symposium
Workshops, pp. 293-299, April 2010.
[14] K. Morrow, D. Karner, and J. Francfort, “U.S. Department of Energy
Vehicle Technologies Program Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Review,” Final Report,
Battelle Energy Alliance, Contract No 58517, November 2008.
[15] H. Stark and J. W. Woods, Probability and Random Processes with
Applications to Signal Processing, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 2001.
[16] J. Medhi, Stochastic Models in Queuding Theory, 2nd edition, Academic
Press, 2003.
[17] F. Cottet, J. Delacroix, C. Kaiser, and Z. Mammeri, Scheduling in Real-
Time Systems, Wiley, 2002.
[18] P. P. Bhattacharya, and A. Ephremides, “Optimal scheduling with strict
deadlines,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 721 -
728, 1989.