This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID 1

Stochastic Energy Scheduling in Microgrids With

Intermittent Renewable Energy Resources
Wencong Su, Member, IEEE, Jianhui Wang, Senior Member, IEEE, and Jaehyung Roh, Member, IEEE

Abstract—Renewable energy resources such as wind and solar Cost function ($/h) of buying/selling
are an important component of a microgrid. However, the inherent kWh from/to the utility grid.
intermittency and variability of such resources complicates micro- Power output (kW) of the th unit under
grid operations. Meanwhile, more controllable loads (e.g., plug-in scenario at the th hour.
electric vehicles), distributed generators (e.g., micro gas turbines
Power from/to the utility grid (kW) at the
and diesel generators), and distributed energy storage devices (e.g.,
battery banks) are being integrated into the microgrid operation. th hour.
To address the operational challenges associated with these tech- Start-up/shut-down cost ($) of the th
nologies and energy resources, this paper formulates a stochastic unit at the th hour.
problem for microgrid energy scheduling. The proposed problem Overall electrical conversion efficiency
formulation minimizes the expected operational cost of the micro- (%) of battery charger.
grid and power losses while accommodating the intermittent na- Rated energy capacity of the th battery
ture of renewable energy resources. Case studies are performed on
bank (kWh).
a modified IEEE 37-bus test feeder. The simulation results demon-
strate the effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed stochastic mi- Total energy delivered or absorbed by the
crogrid energy scheduling model. th battery bank (kWh) under scenario .
Actual battery life cycle of the th battery
Index Terms—Microgrid, plug-in electric vehicle (PEV), renew-
able energy, smart grid, stochastic programming. bank under scenario .
Actual battery life (kWh) of the th
battery bank under scenario .
NOMENCLATURE Capital cost ($) of the th battery bank.
Battery degradation cost ($/kWh) of the
th battery bank under scenario .
Indices: Production cost function coefficients of
Distributed generator. the th unit.
Degradation cost function coefficients of
Battery bank.
the th battery bank.
Wind scenarios. Grid electricity price ($/kWh) at the th
Solar scenarios. hour.
Power flow equations under scenario at
Hour.
the th hour.
Wind generator. Power losses (kW) under scenario at the
Solar generator. th hour.
Base load (kW) at the th hour.
PEV.
Aggregate PEV charging load (kW) at the
Bus.
th hour.
Variables and Charging load (kW) of the th PEV at the
Functions: th hour.
Probability of scenario . State-of-Charge (%) of the th battery
Cost function ($/h) of generating kWh bank under scenario at the th hour.
from the th unit. Voltage (per unit) of the th bus under
scenario at the th hour.
Constants:
Manuscript received June 08, 2013; revised nulldate; accepted August 18, Minimum power generation (kW)
2013. Paper no. TSG-00438-2013. requirement if the th unit is on.
W. Su is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Uni- Maximum power generation (kW)
versity of Michigan-Dearborn, MI 48128 USA (e-mail: wencong@umich.edu).
J. Wang is with Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 USA
requirement if the th unit is on.
(e-mail: jianhui.wang@anl.gov). Minimum State-of-Charge requirement
J. Roh is with Department of Electrical Engineering, Konkuk University, (%) for the th battery bank.
Seoul, Korea (e-mail: jhroh@konkuk.ac.kr). Maximum State-of-Charge requirement
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. (%) the th battery bank.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSG.2013.2280645

1949-3053 © 2013 IEEE

 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
Final State-of-Charge requirement (%).
Minimum voltage (per unit) requirement
at the th bus.
Maximum voltage (per unit) requirement
at the th bus.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE increasing penetration of intermittent and variable re-
newable energy resources (e.g., wind and solar) has sig-
nificantly complicated energy system management for micro-
grids [1]. Unlike conventional generation sources, wind and
solar power output is highly uncertain and unpredictable. Even
a small error in wind and solar power forecasting may result
in great uncertainties for real-time operations of a microgrid
given its limited scale and size. Moreover, in microgrids, the
customers play a more important role by managing the control-
lable loads compared with conventional power distribution sys-
tems, in which consumers have little flexibility to fully partici-
pate in electricity markets. The term “controllable load” refers to
a type of non-critical load that can adjust its own electric energy
usage on the basis of a real-time set point. One special class of
controllable loads is a Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) fleet. Un-
like other controllable loads, these vehicles can be connected to
power grids any place and any time, allowing more spatial and
temporal diversity but also more uncertainty. A sophisticated
microgrid energy scheduling model that takes these unique fac-
tors into consideration is urgently needed.
Most published works focus on deterministic microgrid op-
erations [2]–[6]. However, the stochastic energy management
methods that have been widely researched in transmission-level
energy management [7]–[11] demonstrate promising results in
capturing the uncertainty associated with renewable energy re-
sources and considering worst-case scenarios. The focus of this
paper is to apply stochastic methods to microgrid energy sched-
uling problems. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, micro-
grid energy scheduling using stochastic methods has not been
well documented in the literature. Details about the classical
two-stage or multi-stage stochastic programming can be found
in [12]. In [13], the authors applied online stochastic optimiza-
tion to residential appliance energy management with privacy
protection. In [14], a stochastic method for the hourly sched-
uling of optimal reserves is presented to consider the hourly
forecast errors of wind energy and load. In [15], a stochastic en-
ergy scheduling model is developed for a local-area smart-grid
system with a single energy source and multiple energy con-
sumers. In [16], a stochastic model predictive control method
is proposed for microgrid operations. However, the paper does
not consider the network constraints, which may not be real-
istic. In [17], a chance-constrained programming framework is
proposed to model stochasticity rather than the scenario-based
approach proposed in this paper. However, the power flow con-
straints are not considered in [17].
The major contributions of this paper include the following:
1) Propose a two-stage stochastic microgrid operation model
for the optimal decisions on the day-ahead energy transac-
tions in the first stage while mimicking the real-time wind
and solar power variability in the second stage.
2) Develop a decomposition scheme to solve the proposed
model. As the proposed model is a mixed integer non-
linear programming problem, which is difficult to solve,
the problem is decomposed into one master problem for en-
ergy scheduling and one subproblem for power flow com-
putation. The two problems are solved iteratively as dis-
cussed in detail in Section III.
3) Determine optimal energy scheduling for distributed
generators (DGs) and distributed energy storage devices
(DESDs) considering battery degradation costs.
4) Investigate the impact of PEVs on microgrid energy sched-
uling under various charging schemes.
Section II proposes the formulation of the two-stage sto-
chastic microgrid energy scheduling model. Section III intro-
duces the test platform and presents the details of the proposed
decomposition scheme to minimize the expected operational
cost while reducing power losses in the interconnected mi-
crogrid mode. Section IV provides a detailed case study and
compares the simulation results with those obtained using a
traditional deterministic approach under various operational
conditions. Section V concludes the paper.
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
A two-stage stochastic microgrid energy scheduling model
is proposed in this paper to make an optimal decision on the
day-ahead energy transactions in the first stage while mim-
icking the real-time operations with the wind/solar power
variability in the second stage. The idea of establishing such a
modeling framework is motivated by the increasing challenge
of addressing the variability and uncertainty from renewable
energy resources on a microgrid. Since the generation resources
are usually limited on a microgrid, renewable generation units
such as wind and solar may account for a large portion of the
total generation portfolio. In the meantime, as a microgrid is
self-confined and self-balanced, one of the primary goals of
operating a microgrid is to minimize the operating costs with
high reliability, by reducing the uncertainty and variability of
on-site renewable generation and the risk of energy transactions
with the utility grid. By the proposed two-stage framework,
we can determine the day-ahead energy scheduling in the first
stage with the objective to identify the optimal amount of
electricity to be purchased from/sold to the utility grid and
the commitment of distributed generation units over the next
24 hours. These first-stage decisions do not vary across the
scenarios in the second stage.
A. Objective Function
The objective function minimizes the expected operational
cost in the interconnected microgrid mode over the next 24
hours. In this study, the authors use scenarios to model the uncer-
tain power output of wind and solar resources. In other words,
the power output of wind and solar generating units in one sce-
nario is different from another. The production cost of the re-
newable energy resource (i.e., wind and solar energy) is as-
sumed to be negligible
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

SU et al.: STOCHASTIC ENERGY SCHEDULING IN MICROGRIDS 3

1) Power balance
(1)

Frequent charging and discharging may significantly affect

the operational life of DESDs (e.g., battery banks). Therefore,
it is important to consider and formulate the additional battery
degradation cost for microgrid energy scheduling. The battery (10)
degradation cost can be expressed as a function of the actual
battery cycle life [18]. In this paper, all the DESDs are assumed For any scenario at any time step, the left-hand term is the
to be identical with the same charging/discharging efficiency power output from wind, solar, DG, utility grid, and DESD,
. The depth of discharging of the th battery bank respectively. The right-hand term includes the power loss,
is defined as base load, and PEV charging load, respectively.
2) Technical limits of DG

(2) (11)

The battery cycle life can be formulated as a function of For any scenario at any time step, the power output of DG
depending on the type of battery. lies in a certain operating range.
3) Technical limits of DESD
(3)
(12)
For example, the relationship between Lead-Acid battery (13)
cycle life and can be expressed as a linear function [19] (14)

(4) For any scenario at any time step, the power output of
DESD lies in a certain operating range. To avoid any over-
Then the actual battery life (kWh) is expressed as charging or overdischarging, once reaches the upper/
lower bounds, the DESD (e.g., battery bank) switches to a
(5) stand-by mode.
4) Technical limits of the PEV charging load
The th battery degradation cost ($/kWh) under each indi-
vidual scenario is determined by the battery capital cost and the (15)
actual battery life.
(16)
(6)
Similarly, the PEV battery chargers have limitation on the
amount of charging power at any given time step.
Therefore, the battery degradation cost ($) for the th battery Power flow constraints are taken into consideration as well,
bank under each individual scenario is formulated as as shown in (17), (18). In this paper, AC power flow is
calculated by the embedded solver in EPRI’s Open-source
(7) Distribution System Simulator (OpenDSS) V7.6.1 [20],
[21]. Therefore, (17) is a general mathematical formulation
to implicitly represent a variety of power flow constraints.
For distributed generators, the cost function can be formu- 5) Power flow constraints
lated as
(17)
(8)
6) Limits of bus voltage
Because small DG units have negligible start-up/down times,
the start-up cost can be simplified as a constant for each unit. (18)
For the main utility grid, the energy transaction payment can
be formulated as
III. SOLUTION ALGORITHM
(9)
Because the formulated problem is a mixed-integer nonlinear
programming problem and AC power flow is performed in each
scenario, we decompose the original problem into a master
B. Constraints
energy scheduling problem and a power flow subproblem.
The system constraints considered in this paper include the The master problem is to solve the energy scheduling problem
following. (1)–(16), without considering the power flow constraints (17),
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the proposed decomposition scheme.
Fig. 2. Framework of co-simulation platform.
(18). Then the dispatch solutions from the master problem
are tested in the power flow subproblems to see whether the
power flow constraints (17), (18) are satisfied in each scenario.
The two problems are solved iteratively until the difference of
the overall expected loss calculated across all the scenarios is
small enough between two adjacent iterations. The output of
the model is to decide how much energy can be purchased or
sold in the day-ahead market and the commitment of on-site
distributed generators at the day-ahead stage. Fig. 1 shows a
flowchart of the proposed decomposition solution algorithm.
Fig. 2 illustrates the proposed software-based simulation
testbed architecture.
After initialization ( , are the iteration numbers for
the two iterative loops, respectively), the principal procedure is
described as follows.
1) The formulation of the master problem including the ob-
jective function and the system constraints (10)–(16)
is implemented in Matlab and solved by the IBM ILOG
CPLEX Optimizer 12.2 [22]. The optimal control variables
found by CPLEX are expressed as a vector of
, , and . facilities during early adoption of PEVs. The PEV charging load
Fig. 3. Hourly load profile and grid electricity prices.
2) Matlab passes the optimal control variables to
OpenDSS which is dedicated to the advanced analysis of
distribution systems. OpenDSS runs the sequential power
flow of the proposed distribution system over successive
time intervals and check the power flow constraints shown
in (17), (18).
3) We calculate the power losses of the feasible solu-
tions obtained from the Step (2). The most updated power
loss is fed back to the master problem and used to
update the total power loss in (10) as long as the change of
power loss is noticeable (i.e., ). Here,
is a small pre-defined value. If the results from
Step (1) do not lead to the convergence of power flow, we
add a small random vector to the last feasible solution
to recalculate the loss and rerun the master
problem with updated power balance constraints (10) in
the master problem. This kind of local search method can
help the algorithm converge to at least a local optimal so-
lution. The master problem and subproblem are solved it-
eratively. The power flow solutions vary in each scenario.
Each solution corresponds to a probability that quantifies
the likelihood of the scenario. Accordingly, is the
expectation of power losses over all the scenarios.
4) After a few iterations, the system converges to a new
steady-state condition in which the best available optimal
energy scheduling solutions are found. The simulation
results in Section IV will also show the convergence of the
proposed decomposition scheme, which has been applied
to many other power system applications [23].
IV. CASE STUDIES
In this section, we examine three cases to test the proposed al-
gorithm and discuss the simulation results. All simulations were
run on an Intel(R) Core i5 CPU M450@2.40 GHz computer
with a 6.00 GB memory.
A. Case Configuration
1) Base Load and Electricity Price Data: For the sake of
simplicity, the base load profiles of all the uncontrollable micro-
grid loads are assumed to be the same, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3
also shows the hourly electricity prices of the utility power grid.
The data is derived from [24].
2) PEV Charging Load: This case study mainly focuses on
level 2 charging which is typically described as the “primary”
and “standard” method [25] for both private and public charging
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

SU et al.: STOCHASTIC ENERGY SCHEDULING IN MICROGRIDS 5

Fig. 4. Scenarios of wind power output over 24 hours. Fig. 5. Scenarios of solar power output over 24 hours.

can be derived from the PEV data estimation. In order to sim-

ulate PEV data that incorporate some uncertainty, a number of
factors including plug-in time, expected plug-out time, initial
battery state-of-charge , and battery capacity need to be
considered. Ideally, the proposed energy scheduling model re-
quires the real-time estimation and prediction of PEV charging
load. The prediction problem is to forecast the PEV charging
load over the whole prediction horizon utilizing the historical
dynamic pattern. A detailed description of the PEV load data es-
timation can be found in [26], [27]. One of our future research
topics [28] is to investigate a robust real-time estimation and
prediction method of PEV load under real world traffic condi-
tions and traveler choice behaviors.
3) Wind and Solar Scenarios: In this paper, we use the time-
stamped wind power generation output data from several hypo-
thetical sites in Illinois based on the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Eastern Wind Integration and Transmis-
sion Study [29]. Those wind data were generated by a weather
simulation model and a composite power curve of wind farms.
Fig. 6. Microgrid test system based on a modified IEEE 37-node test feeder.
Multiple day-ahead wind power forecasts were aggregated into
one time series. The forecasting error varies with the geograph-
ical location, weather conditions, and time horizon. In order to uling model can be easily extended using real-world utility’s
capture the uncertainty of the wind power predictions, Monte distribution system data.
Carlo simulations [30] were performed to generate a pool of
wind power scenarios each day. Some scenario reduction tech- B. Simulation and Analysis
niques can be used to further reduce the computational cost [31]. In the case studies, the point forecasts of wind and solar power
Fig. 4 shows a set of 10 probabilistic wind power scenarios over output are also adopted as a deterministic alternative for com-
a period of 24 hours. parison purposes. Actually the deterministic approach can be
The solar data were extracted from the System Advisor considered as a special case of the stochastic one with only one
Model (SAM) developed by NREL [32]. Due to the lack of the scenario which is corresponding to the point forecast. The total
existing scenario-based solar forecasting model, we generate a power loss of the microgrid system over the 24-hour period is
set of solar scenarios by assuming the forecasting errors follow shown in Fig. 7, which illustrates how the entire problem is it-
a normal distribution. Fig. 5 shows a set of 10 probabilistic eratively solved to converge.
solar power scenarios over a period of 24 hours. Initially, the total power losses over the 24-hour period are
Each wind and solar power scenario corresponds to a proba- assumed to be zero for both deterministic and stochastic en-
bility that quantifies the likelihood of this scenario. In this case ergy scheduling models. Then the total power losses change to
study, the wind scenarios are assumed to be independent with 2,374.2 kW and 2,417.3 kW, respectively. The most updated
solar scenarios. Therefore, there are 100 independent scenarios , is fed back to the power balance constraint (10) as long as
in total. The probability of each independent scenario is 0.01. the change of losses between two iterations, , is notice-
A modified IEEE 37-bus distribution test feeder [33] shown able. The master problem is performed again to obtain the new
in Fig. 6 was used to verify the proposed stochastic microgrid energy scheduling solution. Gradually, the total power losses
energy management model. The microgrid DGs, wind gener- converge (i.e., 2,372.3 kW and 2,278 kW respectively for deter-
ators, solar generators, DESDs, and PEVs are connected with ministic and stochastic approaches) as becomes smaller
nodes 701, 722, 730, 720, and 737, respectively. It is worth men- and smaller. After four iterations, the system converges to a
tioning that the proposed stochastic microgrid energy sched- new steady-state condition in which the optimal solutions are
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
Fig. 7. Total power losses at each iteration over 24 hours.
Fig. 8. Hourly battery power output under deterministic microgrid energy
scheduling.
found. The optimal microgrid operational costs are $23,500 and
$22,276, using deterministic and stochastic approaches, respec-
tively.
To compare the energy scheduling results from the determin-
istic (point forecasts) and stochastic (scenarios) approaches, we
use the same set of actual wind and solar power output profiles
to simulate the real-time operation of the test system. In other
words, we first run the deterministic and stochastic methods to
obtain the day-ahead energy scheduling solutions, respectively.
We then fix the amount of energy transactions , replace the
point forecasts with the real wind and solar power output and run
the deterministic approach again. Fig. 8 shows the hourly bat-
tery power output under deterministic energy scheduling. These
values are subject to the battery charger limit (i.e., [ 250 kw,
250 kw]) and the battery requirement (i.e., [10%, 90%])
at any time step. The rated battery capacity is 4,000 kWh. The
positive/negative power output corresponds to the discharging/
charging processes, respectively. Because the grid electricity
price is cheaper in the early morning, the battery bank starts to
store as much energy as possible. A large number of PEVs start
to connect to the microgrid at approximately 7:00 a.m when the
grid electricity price increases as well. Accordingly, the battery
bank starts to return the stored energy to the grid at peak demand
time.
It is worth mentioning that, this case study does not con-
sider any additional reward for storing extra energy in battery
storage at the end of a day. Ideally, the most cost-effective final
should be close to initial . In other words, the most
cost-effective at the end of a day should be very close
to zero. Fig. 9 compares the trends of under determin-
istic and stochastic microgrid energy scheduling. In the deter-
ministic microgrid energy scheduling, the final reaches
Fig. 9. Trends of SOC under deterministic and stochastic microgrid energy
scheduling.
a relatively large non-zero value of 15.08%. That’s because the
energy scheduling solution from deterministic microgrid energy
scheduling is very sensitive to the point forecasts of wind/solar
power output over the look-ahead horizon. Since electrical gen-
eration and load must remain in balance in real time, the onsite
DESDs have to operate properly in order to compensate for the
wind/solar point forecasting errors. The large non-zero
at the end of a day indicates that the deterministic microgrid en-
ergy scheduling may have large extra operational cost caused by
the intermittency and the non-dispatchable nature of wind/solar
energy production. In comparison, the end-of-the-day
using stocashtic scheduling is approximately 6.14%, which is
much lower than 15.08% obtained from the deterministic one
and closer to the ideal final of zero. Therefore, there is
strong evidence that the stochastic microgrid model can achieve
better energy scheduling for DESDs.
Also note that is mainly determined by wind power
as the battery bank is closer to the wind units than the solar
units as shown in Fig. 6. The size of is also affected
by the renewable energy forecasting errors. In this paper, the
wind generation capacity is larger than the solar generation ca-
pacity. Because the wind forecasting error is typically within
10%–20% while the solar forecasting error is assumed to follow
a normal distribution with a 5% standard deviation, the wind
power has a larger impact on than solar. However, this ob-
servation may not be generalized to other cases with a different
power generation portfolio and forecasting accuracies although
the simulation method still applies. We have tried to run several
case studies under different operating conditions. The simula-
tion results exhibit the similar tendency of the final under
different scheduling approaches (deterministic vs. stochastic),
demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed stochastic en-
ergy scheduling. More specifically, under the same operating
conditions and forecast data, the stochastic approach always
achieves smaller non-zero values of at the end of a day.
Due to the limited space, we only presented one representative
simulation result here.
To further compare the performances of microgrid energy
scheduling, we perform both stochastic and deterministic ap-
proaches for a week. Figs. 10 and 11 show the daily operational
cost and power losses over the week under both the stochastic
and deterministic approaches. The stochastic approach outper-
forms the deterministic one in terms of the operational cost and
the total power losses.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
SU et al.: STOCHASTIC ENERGY SCHEDULING IN MICROGRIDS
Fig. 10. Daily operational costs over one week under stochastic and determin-
istic approaches.
Fig. 11. Daily power losses over one week under stochastic and deterministic
approaches.
Fig. 12. Hourly base load, PEV charging load, and power losses under deter-
ministic microgrid energy scheduling.
Fig. 12 shows the hourly base load, PEV charging load, and
power losses under deterministic microgrid energy scheduling.
In the early morning, the power loss is quite small because of
the low load level. From 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the larger power
loss occurs as the PEV charging load is heavily introduced into
the microgrid. After 5:00 p.m., the power loss is mainly caused
by the base load.
To investigate the impact of PEV charging, we evaluate two
types of charging schemes. In both charging schemes, all PEV
batteries are guaranteed to be fully recharged at plug-out.
• Uncontrolled charging: The charging process starts imme-
diately when a vehicle arrives at the public charging fa-
cility (e.g., parking deck).
• Constrained charging: Assuming the total charging time is
known, the required charging load is equally distributed
over the entire period of parking.
7
TABLE I
SIMULATION RESULTS UNDER VARIOUS PEV CHARGING SCHEMES
Table I compares the objective function values under the pro-
posed two charging schemes, as well as the deterministic/sto-
chastic microgrid energy scheduling approaches. As most ve-
hicles are expected to park for longer than the actual charging
time, the constrained charging scheme can reduce the opera-
tional cost of the microgrid by taking full advantage of timing
flexibility as shown in Table I.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper first describes the development of a two-stage
stochastic microgrid energy management model in the inter-
connected mode. A typical microgrid runs in two operational
modes: an interconnected mode linked to the main grid through
the distribution substation transformer vs. an islanded (au-
tonomous) mode when it is isolated from the main grid during a
blackout or brownout. The system operators may have different
considerations in interconnected and islanded modes. For ex-
ample, in the islanded mode, the microgrid remains operational
and functional as an autonomous entity. Therefore, the overall
system reliability and security should be the top priority. A
number of different objective functions could be formulated to
achieve that. While we focus on the interconnected mode in
this paper, stochastic energy scheduling for islanded microgrid
operations is one of our future research topics.
The proposed stochastic model accommodates the inherent
intermittency and variability of renewable energy resources
(i.e., wind and solar). In addition, the proposed problem formu-
lation minimizes the expected operational cost of the microgrid
while reducing power losses by optimally dispatching the
PEV charging load and scheduling DGs and DESDs. The
simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness and accuracy
of the proposed stochastic microgrid energy systems under
various operating conditions and real-world scenarios. More-
over, the proposed framework can be easily extended to other
microgrid operation applications to accelerate the development
of full-scale commercial microgrids in the near future. The
proposed model can also be tailored to take into consideration
other uncertainties such as load and customer behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The submitted manuscript has been created by UChicago
Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne National Laboratory
(“Argonne”). Argonne, a U.S. Department of Energy Of-
fice of Science laboratory, is operated under Contract No.
DE-AC02-06CH11357. The U.S. Government retains for it-
self, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up nonexclusive,
irrevocable worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative
works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and
display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID
Jaehyung Roh’s work is sponsored by
KETEP(2001T100100424).
REFERENCES
[1] W. Su and J. Wang, “Energy management systems in micrgrid opera-
tions,” Electricity J., vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 45–60, Oct. 2012.
[2] A. Chaouachi, R. M. Kamel, R. Andoulsi, and K. Nagasaka, “Multiob-
jective intelligent energy management for a microgrid,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 1688–1699, Apr. 2013.
[3] C. Chen, S. Duan, T. Cai, B. Liu, and G. Hu, “Smart energy manage-
ment system for optimal microgrid economic operation,” IET Renew-
able Power Generation, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 258–267, May 2011.
[4] S. X. Chen and H. B. Gooi, “Jump and shift method for multi-ob-
jective optimization,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 58, no. 10, pp.
4538–4548, Oct. 2011.
[5] W. Su, Z. Yuan, and M.-Y. Chow, “Microgrid planning and operation:
Solar energy and wind energy,” in Proc. 2010 IEEE Power Energy Soc.
General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, Jul. 25–29, 2010.
[6] J. Wang, C. Liu, D. Ton, Y. Zhou, J. Kim, and A. Vyas, “Impacts of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on power systems with demand re-
sponse and wind power,” Energy Policy, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 4016–4021,
Jul. 2011.
[7] C. Liu, J. Wang, A. Botterud, Y. Zhou, and A. Vyas, “Assessment of
impacts of PHEV charging patterns on wind-thermal scheduling by sto-
chastic unit commitment,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.
675–683, Jun. 2012.
[8] J. Wang, A. Botterud, R. Bessa, H. Keko, L. Carvalho, D. Issicaba,
J. Sumaili, and V. Miranda, “Wind power forecasting uncertainty and
unit commitment,” Appl. Energy, vol. 88, no. 11, pp. 4014–4023, Nov.
2011.
[9] R. Jiang, J. Wang, and Y. Guan, “Robust unit commitment with wind
power and pumped storage hydro,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27,
no. 2, pp. 800–810, May 2012.
[10] Q. Wang, Y. Guan, and J. Wang, “A chance-constrained two-stage
stochastic program for unit commitment with uncertain wind power
output,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 206–215, Feb.
2012.
[11] Q. Zheng, J. Wang, P. Pardalos, and Y. Guan, “A new decomposition
approach to stochastic security-constrained unit commitment in elec-
trical power generation,” Ann. Oper. Res., to be published.
[12] J. R. Birge and F. Louveaux, Introduction to Stochastic Program-
ming. : Springer, 2011.
[13] Z. Chen and L. Wu, “Residential appliance DR energy management
with electric privacy protection by online stochastic optimization,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2013, to be published.
[14] C. Sahin, M. Shahidehpour, and I. Erkmen, “Allocation of hourly re-
serve versus demand response for security-constrained scheduling of
stochastic wind energy,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable Energy, vol. 4, no.
1, pp. 219–228, Jan. 2013.
[15] C. Gong, X. Wang, W. Xu, and A. Tajer, “Distributed real-time en-
ergy scheduling in smart grid: Stochastic model and fast optimization,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1476–1489, Sep. 2013.
[16] A. Hooshmand, M. H. Poursaeidi, J. Mohammadpour, H. A. Malki,
and K. Grigoriads, “Stochastic model predictive control method for
microgrid management,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technol, Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 16–20, 2012, pp. 1–7.
[17] Z. Wu, W. Gu, R. Wang, X. Yuan, and W. Liu, “Economic optimal
schedule of CHP microgrid system using chance constrained program-
ming and particle swarm optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Power Energy
Society General Meeting, July 24–29, 2011, pp. 1–11.
[18] C. Zhou, K. Qian, M. Allan, and W. Zhou, “Modeling of the cost of EV
battery wear due to V2G application in power systems,” IEEE Trans.
Energy Conversion, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1041–1050, 2011.
[19] “Performance Characterization—GM EV1 Panasonic Lead Acid Bat-
tery,” Electric Transportation Division, Southern California Edison,
2000.
[20] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), “Open-Source Distri-
bution System Simulator (OpenDSS),” 2012 [Online]. Available:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/electricdss/
[21] J. Taylor, A. Maitra, M. Alexander, D. Brooks, and M. Duvall, “Evalu-
ations of plug-in electric vehicle distribution system impacts,” in Proc.
2010 IEEE Power Energy Society General Meeting, Minneapolis, ,
USA, Jul. 25–29, 2010.
[22] IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Solver 12.2 [Online]. Available:
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/optimization/cplex-op-
timizer/
[23] A. J. Wood and B. F. Wollenberg, Power Generation Operation and
Control, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 1996.
[24] Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO), Inc.
[Online]. Available: https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/Home.aspx
[25] W. Su, H. Rahimi-Eichi, W. Zeng, and M.-Y. Chow, “A survey on
the electrification of transportation in a smart grid environment,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Inf., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–10, Feb. 2012.
[26] W. Su and M.-Y. Chow, “Performance evaluation of an EDA-based
large-scale plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging algorithm,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 308–315, Mar. 2012.
[27] W. Su and M.-Y. Chow, “Computational intelligence-based energy
management for a large-scale PHEV/PEV enabled municipal parking
deck,” Appl. Energy, vol. 96, pp. 171–182, August 2012.
[28] W. Su, J. Wang, K. Zhang, and M.-Y. Chow, “Framework for investi-
gating the impact of PHEV charging on power distribution and trans-
portation networks,” in Proc. 38th Ann. Conf. IEEE Ind. Electron. Soc.,
Montreal, QC, Canada, Oct. 25–28, 2012.
[29] NREL, “Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study,” [Online].
Available: www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/ewits.html
[30] P. Pinson, G. Papaefthymiou, B. Klockl, H. A. Nielsen, and H. Madsen,
“From probabilistic forecasts to statistical scenarios of short-term wind
power production,” Wind Energy, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 51–62, 2009.
[31] “Use of Wind Power Forecasting in Operational Decisions,” Argonne
National Lab. Tech. Rep., Lemont, IL, USA, 2011.
[32] NREL, System Advisor Model (SAM) 2012 [Online]. Available:
https://sam.nrel.gov/
[33] “Distribution test feeders,” IEEE Power Energy Society [Online].
Available: http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/pes/dsacom/testfeeders/index.html
Wencong Su (S’06–M’13) received the B.S. degree (with distinction) from
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA, in May 2008, the M.S. degree from
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA, in December 2009, and the Ph.D. degree
from North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC , USA, in May 2013, respec-
tively.
He is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at University of Michigan-Dearborn, MI, USA. He
worked a Research Aide at Argonne National Laboratory from January to
August 2012. He also worked as a R&D engineer intern at ABB U.S. Corporate
Research Center in Raleigh, NC, from May to August 2009. His research
interests include Smart Grid, grid integration of plug-in electric vehicles
and renewable energy, microgrids, distribution system analysis, intelligent
energy management, computational intelligence, power system optimization,
modeling and simulation.
Jianhui Wang (M’07–SM’12) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
neering from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA, in 2007.
Presently, he is a Computational Engineer with the Decision and Information
Sciences Division at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA. He is
also an affiliate professor at Auburn University.
Dr. Wang is the chair of the IEEE Power & Energy Society (PES) power
system operation methods subcommittee. He is an Editor of the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART
GRID, an Associate Editor of Journal of Energy Engineering, an Editor of the
IEEE PES Letters, and an Associate Editor of Applied Energy.
Jaehyung Roh (M’05) received the B.S. degree in nuclear engineering from
Seoul National University Seoul, Korea, in 1993 and the M.S. degree in elec-
trical engineering from Hongik University, Korea, in 2002. He received Ph.D.
degree in electrical engineering from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago,
IL, USA.
During 1992–2001, he was with Korea Electric Power Corporation, and for
2001–2010, he was with Korea Power Exchange. Since 2010, he has been with
Electrical Engineering Department, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea, as an As-
sistant Professor. His research interests include power systems restructuring,
smart grid and resource planning.