International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

Is single-phase residential EV fast-charging a good idea? Evidence from optimal

charging plans based on realistic data
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: IJEPES-D-22-04124

Article Type: Research paper

Keywords: Electric Vehicles; Charging Coordination; Distribution Network; Load Management

Corresponding Author: Catalina Dominguez

University of Chile
Santiago, Metropolitana CHILE

First Author: Catalina Dominguez

Order of Authors: Catalina Dominguez

Alejandro Navarro-Espinosa, PhD

Agustín Doña

Abstract: One way to encourage the use of electric vehicles (EVs) is to reduce the connection
times by using higher power charging points at homes. Nonetheless, a massive
adoption of this charging technology can potentially stress the grid above the limits due
to the additional power requirement. So, it is important to assess how much the
aggregate power will increase in comparison with the slow-charging process and how
this increase could be minimized. Hence, in this work, an EV charging coordination
model is developed to compare the impact on system demand of residential slow and
fast charging plans by minimizing the maximum aggregate demand of the system,
where “slow and fast” correspond to the minimum and maximum charging speed for
AC 1-phase in mode 3 of the IEC 61851-1 standard. To create an accurate model, we
used realistic UK data to mimic load profiles behaviour and EV profiles requirements,
also including constraints to model the time intervals at which EVs are not at home.
Additionally, given the stochasticity of customers' behaviour, we solved the
optimization problem for thousands of different groups of households and EVs in order
to get valid conclusions. The results show that due to the greater flexibility provided by
fast-charging events (i.e., shorter connection times), if no coordination is considered,
the aggregate effects only increase by 15% in comparison with the slow-charging case.
On the other hand, if the process is coordinated, then almost the same maximum
aggregate demand is found regardless of whether the charging process is fast or slow.

Suggested Reviewers: Pierluigi Mancarella

The University of Melbourne
pierluigi.mancarella@unimelb.edu.au

Eduardo Martinez
The University of Manchester
alex.martinezcesena@manchester.ac.uk

Opposed Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter

October 28th, 2022

Editorial Elsevier of ScienceDirect
University of Chile, Department of Electrical Engineering
Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile

Dear Editor of the International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems,

We are submitting a manuscript for consideration of publication in the International Journal of Electrical
Power and Energy Systems. The manuscript is entitled “Is single-phase residential EV fast-charging a good
idea? Evidence from optimal charging plans based on realistic data”. It is important to remark that this
work has not been published nor submitted simultaneously elsewhere.

Given the climate crisis that we live in, and the need to reduce global CO2 emissions, it is imperative to
electrify the transport sector. A way to encourage the adoption of electric vehicles is by using higher power
charging points at homes. In this work, we developed an EV charging coordination model to compare the
impact on system demand of residential slow and fast charging plans for thousands of different groups.
We considered “slow” and “fast” residential charging as the minimum and maximum charging speed for
AC 1-phase allowed in the UK in mode 3 of the IEC 61851-1 standard. Furthermore, to create an accurate
model we included realistic load profiles, EV charging profiles and statistics of mobility patterns.

The results show that incorporating residential fast-charging is effectively a good idea. In fact, when
coordination is not considered, the aggregate effects only increase by 15% in comparison with the slow-
charging case (less vehicles are likely to be charged at the same time due to the shorter connection time).
Furthermore, if residential fast-charging is coordinated, the maximum aggregate demand would reach
levels similar to those of coordinated slow-charging. This finding could allow policymakers to encourage
the adoption of higher power charging points at homes, which in turn encourages users to adopt electric
vehicles thanks to the shorter connection times.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Kind regards,

Catalina Domínguez Momberg

University of Chile, Department of Electrical Engineering
Tupper 2007, Santiago, Chile
E-mail: catalina.dominguez@ug.uchile.cl
Highlights

Highlights

• Higher power residential EV charging brings more flexibility to users and the grid

• An EV charging coordination model is developed to compare slow and fast charging

• UK data is used to model load profiles, EV requirements and vehicle user behaviour

• When coordination is included, fast and slow charging reach similar peak demand

• When coordination is not included, fast-charging is 15% higher than slow-charging

Manuscript File Click here to view linked References

Is single-phase residential EV fast-charging a good idea?

Evidence from optimal charging plans based on realistic
data
Catalina Domı́ngueza , Agustı́n Doñaa , Alejandro Navarro-Espinosaa
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

Abstract
One way to encourage the use of electric vehicles (EVs) is to reduce the con-
nection times by using higher power charging points at homes. Nonetheless,
a massive adoption of this charging technology can potentially stress the grid
above the limits due to the additional power requirement. So, it is impor-
tant to assess how much the aggregate power will increase in comparison with
the slow-charging process and how this increase could be minimized. Hence,
in this work, an EV charging coordination model is developed to compare
the impact on system demand of residential slow and fast charging plans by
minimizing the maximum aggregate demand of the system, where “slow and
fast” correspond to the minimum and maximum charging speed for AC 1-
phase in mode 3 of the IEC 61851-1 standard. To create an accurate model,
we used realistic UK data to mimic load profiles behaviour and EV profiles
requirements, also including constraints to model the time intervals at which
EVs are not at home. Additionally, given the stochasticity of customers’
behaviour, we solved the optimization problem for thousands of different
groups of households and EVs in order to get valid conclusions. The results
show that due to the greater flexibility provided by fast-charging events (i.e.,
shorter connection times), if no coordination is considered, the aggregate ef-
fects only increase by 15% in comparison with the slow-charging case. On
the other hand, if the process is coordinated, then almost the same maximum
aggregate demand is found regardless of whether the charging process is fast
or slow.
Keywords: Electric Vehicles, Charging Coordination, Distribution
Network, Load Management
PACS: 0000, 1111

Preprint submitted to IJEPES October 27, 2022

2000 MSC: 0000, 1111

1. Introduction
According to the main findings reported by Working Group I (WGI) to
the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), it is irrefutable to conclude that
human activity has warmed our planet [1]. The magnitude of this impact is
such that atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached in 2019 are the highest in
at least 2 million years. For these reasons, it is imperative to take immediate
action to reduce CO2 emissions.

Many countries have joined international agreements and have adopted

public policies to fight climate change. As of November 2021, 59 countries
have mentioned net zero emissions goals in policy documents and 21 countries
have made declarations to reach net zero emissions [2]. These commitments
are relate to increase the share of renewables energy and improving the en-
ergy efficiency of economic sectors through their electrification. Regarding
this last idea, a relevant sector to electrify is transport. In 2020, light-duty
vehicles alone were responsible for 3.16GtCO2 [3] of the 31.5GtCO2 global
energy-related CO2 emissions [4].

According to Global EV Outlook [5], despite the pandemic and the global
economic slowdown, the EV market continues to grow. Thanks to the devel-
opment of regulatory framework in recent years, the drop in battery costs,
and the addition of incentives to protect EV sales from economic recession,
in 2021 EV sales nearly doubled to 6.6 million compared to 2020[5].

A scenario with more EVs involves a higher percentage of the population

deciding when, where, and how to charge their EV. In the United States,
88% of EV owners report always or frequently charging their vehicle at home
[6], making residential charging an essential aspect of the user experience.
One of the attributes that can influence the charging experience is the time
that it takes to complete each charging cycle, which can vary depending on
the type of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) used. For example,
completing a full charge using a 7.2[kW ] home charger takes about 50% of
the time of a regular one [7], providing more hours of vehicle availability.

2
 At the distribution network level, the integration of EV increases system
demand, which can cause feeder overload, increases in power losses, decreases
in voltage profiles, and potentially increases in expansion requirements on the
network infrastructure [8]. These problems could eventually increase when
more home chargers of higher power capacity are integrated, leading to even
higher requirements on grid infrastructure. In consequence, the adoption of
more EVs will bring new challenges for the distribution network operators
since the incorporation of these new demands will imply more efforts in net-
work planning.

This last problem takes special relevance considering that EVs load tends
to coincide at the points of maximum demand of the system [9], which may
also increase the problems of overloading in conductors and transformers as
increase voltage drops. The management of EV charging gives a potential
alternative to the increase in network capacity due to EV integration. Shift-
ing the EV charging load to the non-peak load periods will avoid overloading
problems [10], and therefore smart EV charging will reduce investments in
network capacity by decreasing the overall demand on the system [11].

To solve the problem of smart EV charging management, the stochas-

ticity associated with residential consumption and vehicle charging demand
must be considered. Firstly, household electricity varies among users, leading
to different residential load profiles. Secondly, not all users will charge their
vehicles at the same time, nor will they consume the same energy during the
day, as their transport requirements are probably different. Given this ran-
domness in the residential consumption and EV charging profiles, it becomes
essential to solve the load management problem multiple times to include
the stochastic demand behavior.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned context, the objective of

this article is to demonstrate that smart EV charging allows residential
fast-charging to generate no greater infrastructure requirements than those
needed by coordinated residential slow-charging, where “fast and slow” refer
to the UK allowable charging speed limits for mode 3 of the IEC 61851-1
standard for AC 1-phase voltage (32A-7.2kW and 16A-3.6kW, respectively)
[12] [13]. This is demonstrated by an optimization algorithm that coordinates
EV charging to minimize the maximum aggregate demand of thousands of
different groups of households with EVs residential charging. The optimiza-

3
tion model is based on real UK population data using EV charging profiles
[28], along with vehicle user behavior statistics [15] and representative pro-
files of UK residential consumption [16].

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 is a review of the existing

literature on the coordination of EV. Then, Section 3 presents an overview
of this work, including a general description of the methodology. Section
4 explains the procedure for the construction of EV fast-charging profiles.
Section 5 shows the relationship between charging profiles and the hours that
users are not at home (this determines unfeasible charging hours). Next, the
EV load coordination problem is solved in Section 6. Finally, results and
conclusions are shown in Section 7 and Section 8, respectively.

2. State of Art
During the last years, numerous investigations have demonstrated the im-
pact of uncoordinated EV charging on distribution networks, covering vari-
ous scenarios of EV penetration, charging paradigms, rate plans, and others.
[17] studies control architecture and market framework designed to handle
the challenges involved with EV charging in distribution networks. The re-
sults showed that if a centralized, advanced EV charging control strategy is
implemented, the system can adopt a larger number of EVs without any grid
reinforcements. By analyzing low voltage networks, [18] and [19] confirmed
that a high number of EVs without coordination implies increases in loading
levels at feeders and transformers, increases in voltage deviations of residen-
tial feeders, and increases in the infrastructure expansion requirements.

To properly manage network load, EV coordination can be optimized. In

the literature, we can find different approaches to solve it. One approach
is to minimize voltage deviations in the network during specific moments of
the day, enabling the improvement of customer voltage profile [20]. Another
approach, as the one in [21], is to improve network voltage profiles through
charging coordination, using the minimization of voltage deviations during
each simulated time interval as the objective function. Another perspective
is the minimization of power losses [22], which are obtained as a reformu-
lation of the non-linear equations of power flow. The problem can also be
approached as a minimization of the maximum demand of the system (in-
cluding the EVs demand). For example, [23] approaches the optimization of

4
the EV load by dividing the problem into two stages, where the first of these
solves the minimization of the maximum demand of the system, while in the
second the demand fluctuation is minimized by using the maximum demand
value found in the first stage. More complex systems, such as the one solved
in [24] encompass optimization in a hierarchical way through three levels
of optimization: provincial, municipal, and charging station level, combining
minimizations between the maximum peak demands and cost minimizations.

When studying the effect of users charging their EVs with higher-power
household chargers in an uncoordinated scenario versus a coordinated one, we
found that little research delves into these issues. [25] shows that higher levels
of EV adoption, including residential fast-charging at higher power, stress the
network even more than the same level of slow-charging adoption. [26] stud-
ies the coordination of large-scale PEVs, considering different types of PEVs
charging within the network (1.96 to 7.2[kW ]). This study proposes coordi-
nating the high penetration load of EVs by using non-cooperative game the-
ory. The load management of EVs is modeled considering a pricing system,
designed to minimize the cost of each EV customer while satisfying network
load constraints. [27] shows that in scenarios with 3.3[kW ] EV slow-charging
and 7.2[kW ] EV fast-charging, if the EVs’ charging is not coordinated, the
transformers and the network may experience technical problems.

The limitations of the previous studies [25]-[27], are that they created
the smart EV charging plans without including drivers behavior and without
using actual EV charging data, which affects the feasibility of being able to
shift the EV charging outside peak hours. This is because EV owners may
not be available to charge when the coordination model requires, or they
may have energy requirements that lead them to charge during peak hours.
Not including these constraints makes it uncertain if the problems can be
eliminated considering high levels of fast-charging adoption.

The contribution of this research is to deepen the study of EV charging at

the residential level by developing an optimization problem that minimizes
the system load and compares the performance of fast and slow home charg-
ing. This comparison will demonstrate that residential fast-charging does
not produce greater impact than slow-charging when both are coordinated.
This occurs because AC 1-phase fast chargers require shorter charging times,
which translates into greater temporary flexibility to manage the charging

5
Figure 1: Representative diagram of the coordination problem to solve, where (a) is a
sample of 10 EV slow-charging profiles, and b) is the optimally ordered charging blocks.

process. This greater versatility also benefits users since the residential fast-
charging would allow them more usage time with their vehicles. Furthermore,
this research will contribute to the realistic analysis of EV charging coordi-
nation by using real EV load profiles and unavailable time windows.

3. Methodology
EV charging coordination seeks to decrease the maximum coincident de-
mand of EV load and thus avoid potential network reinforcements. With
this idea, we solved the management problem by minimizing the maximum
aggregate demand of the system. Figure 1 represents the task done by the
optimization problem (solved for slow and fast household charging), and
consists of arranging energy rectangles of EV charging profiles (blue ones)
to decrease the system demand. As is shown in (a), the peak demand is
at night, then to smooth the curve, the model in (b) moves the EV energy
rectangles to low demand hours and skips the hours where the EVs are not
at home to be charged (orange rectangles). As a result, in the coordinated
case (b), most of the energy rectangles are moved to the early morning hours.

To understand how we approached to EV charging coordination, the di-

agram in Figure 2 summarizes the stages in which this work was developed.
These stages are:

6
 Figure 2: Global outline of the proposed methodology.

Energy
4.1 Analysis
Requirements
without
coordination
1. Uncoordinated 3. EVs Charging
fast charging Coordination 4. EVs Charging
profiles construction Model Coordination
Low EV Results
Unc. charging (slowor fast)
4.2 Statistical
2. EVs
Analysis of
unfeasible time
optimal
intervals
charging plans
Residential Methodology steps
Demand Profiles Input variables and data

Step 1 - Uncoordinated fast-charging profiles construction: We

started by using the uncoordinated slow-charging profiles of EVs to build
uncoordinated fast-charging profiles. The uncoordinated slow-charging pro-
files were built on the data provided by [28], based on real data from the
“My Electric Avenue” project [14] that was able to measure 18 months of
residential load data for people who drove a Nissan LEAF in the UK. This
project used 221 Nissan LEAFs with a battery size of 24[kW h] and a full
charge time of approximately 8 hours [28], each one of them charged by a
IEC 61851-1 mode 3 charging unit.

The slow-charging profiles consume 3.6[kW ] ( 16[A] and 1-phase voltage,

mode 3), and to build the fast-charging profiles (explained in Section 4), it
was assumed that they consume 7.2[kW ] ( 32[A] and 1-phase voltage, fast
charging in mode 3). This last criterion also enables studying the maximum
EV charging allowed at the residential level without upgrades in the electric-
ity supply in UK [29][30].

Step 2 - EVs unfeasible time intervals: This stage consisted of ob-

taining realistic unavailable time intervals for each EV, that is, times when
each EV could not be charged. The objective of this part is to realistically
represent the times when each EV could not be plugged into the network
because the vehicle was not at home. For such purposes, we included the be-
havior of people living in the UK through the study National-Travel-Survey,
2002-2019 [15].

7
 Figure 3: General diagram for the analysis of charging plans.

Uncoordinated charging

Evaluation of objective
Random PEV charging
values and ADMD
1° Selection 2° coordination 3°
n=1 reduction percentages
First launching n = n+1
Until reaching the number of launches 4°

Step 3 - EVs Charging Coordination Model: for the purpose of

solving the EV charging management at the domestic level, we developed a
mathematical model that minimizes the maximum coincident demand. The
problem seeks to optimally arrange the uncoordinated fast and slow charging
profiles, using as constraints the unfeasible time intervals, as well as energy
balances and conditions of the charging times involved.

Step 4 - EVs Charging Coordination Results: to get a better in-

sight into the effects of the coordination model on the system demand, we
analyzed the data before and after the optimization process.

Step 4.1 - Analysis without coordination: before studying the optimiza-

tion results, we characterized the data through the analysis of the ADMD
(after diversity maximum demand) for fast and slow-charging profiles, along
with residential demand profiles. The residential profiles were built from the
CREST tool [31] [16], which allows the generation of representative residen-
tial load profiles in the United Kingdom.

Step 4.2 - Statistical Analysis of optimal charging plans: To study the

results, we designed a statistical analysis that solves thousands of times the
optimization model for slow and fast home charging under different groups
of EVs and simulated residential loads. We decided to solve the optimization
problem thousands of times to properly consider the stochastic behaviour
of loads and EVs. Specifically, as can be observed in Figure 3, the analy-
sis started by randomly selecting profiles according to the group size (i.e.,
100, 300, and 500 in this work). Following the random selection of profiles,
the optimal slow and fast-charging processes were performed. Finally, these
results were analyzed by studying the maximum aggregate demand for the
uncoordinated and coordinated profiles.

8
4. Fast-charging profiles construction
The proposed EV charging coordination was analyzed through two types
of residential EV charging: fast and slow household charging. Slow-charging
corresponds to the data of 2000 residential daily charging profiles at 3.6[kW ].
These profiles were built using the functions and data presented in [28], based
on My Electric Avenue [14]. On the other hand, fast-charging corresponds to
the use of fast chargers at the residential level and is carried out at 7.2[kW ].
For fast-charging, 2000 profiles were also created, which were built from the
previous slow-charging EV profiles using the following considerations:
• The energy requirements of the EVs built from the measurement cam-
paign remains unchanged; since the fast-charging is completed at higher
power, these requirements can be satisfied in a shorter period, assum-
ing that the use pattern (i.e., daily kilometers traveled per driver) does
not change between slow and fast charging cases.
• In each time interval in which a vehicle is charged at 3.6[kW ], the
transfer to fast charge of 7.2[kW ] takes half the charging time.
• The period in which fast-charging occurs is within the same time win-
dow as slow-charging and lasts half the time.
The period in which fast-charging occurs during the slow-charging time
window is a decision that depends on people’s behavior. Since this cannot be
determined with certainty, we performed three slow-to-fast charging transfer
sensitivities: one in the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end
of the slow-charging time window by analyzing the aggregate system. Here
the aggregate demand was divided by the number of charges (in this case,
2000) to study the average effect on the individual load that each customer
has when moving from slow-to-fast charging. Aggregate demand divided by
the number of loads will be called ADD (After Diversity Demand).

After building the fast-charging profiles for the three sensitivities pre-
viously defined, we calculated the aggregate demand for each case. The
resulting ADD considering only EVs is shown in Figure 4a, and the ADD
taking into account both EVs and dwellings is shown in Figure 4b. As can
be seen, during peak hours, the aggregated profiles for each sensitivity are
very similar when EVs and dwellings are considered.

9
Figure 4: After Diversity Demand (ADD) comparison. Figures 4a and 4b have the dif-
ference between the fast-charge ADD curve of each parameterization and the slow-charge
ADD curve colored.

(a) Fast-charging profile ADD by parameteriza- (b) Fast-charging profile ADD by parameteriza-
tion considering only EVs tion considering EVs and Dwellings
2.5 2.5
Slow charging Slow charging
Fast charging, beginning Fast charging beginning
2.0 Fast charging, middle 2.0 Fast charging middle
Fast charging, end Fast charging end
1.5 1.5
[kW]

[kW]
1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00:1
01:5
03:3
05:1
06:5
08:3
10:1
11:5
13:3
15:1
16:5
18:3
20:1
21:5
23:3

00:1
01:5
03:3
05:1
06:5
08:3
10:1
11:5
13:3
15:1
16:5
18:3
20:1
21:5
23:3
Time interval Time interval

By identifying the point of maximum demand in each curve of the graphs,

the index ADMD or After Diversity Maximum Demand was obtained, includ-
ing both the parameterization of EVs alone, as well as EVs plus dwellings.
The percentage of increase in ADMD when moving from slow-to-fast charging
for each parameterization and demand case is presented in Table 1. Taking
into account the EVs demand without dwellings, in the slow-charging pro-
files the ADMD is 1.21[kW ], while in the fast-charging profiles, it reaches
1.70[kW ] as a maximum (which is an increase of 39.76% from the slow case)
and a minimum 1.49[kW ]. On the other hand, the global demand, EVs plus
dwellings, results in 1.99[kW ] of ADMD at the slow-charging rate, while with
fast-charging, it reaches 2.30[kW ] as maximum (which represents an increase
of 15.42% ) and a minimum of 1.99[kW ]

Table 1: Percentage change of ADMD when moving from slow-to-fast charging by fast-
charging parameterization and type of demand studied (EVs or EVs+Dwellings)

Only EVs EVs + Dwellings

ADMD [kW] % Increase ADMD [kW] % Increase
Slow case 1.21 - 1.99 -
Beginning 1.66 36.80 2.27 14.00
Medium 1.49 23.15 2.30 15.42
End 1.70 39.76 2.25 13.23

Since the aggregate consumption of both, residential and EV loads, is the

situation that the distribution system must effectively face, it was chosen as

10
the case to analyze throughout this work. For this case, the differences are not
significant among slow-to-fast parametrization; therefore, the optimization
problem and the analyses were made using just the sensitivity in which the
middle of the slow-charging time window coincides with the middle of fast-
charging.

5. EVs unfeasible time intervals

To evaluate the effects of coordinating residential fast-charging, it is es-
sential to consider the behavior patterns of users. By studying such behavior
patterns, the time intervals where the EVs are not at home to be charged
can be integrated into the optimization model, giving more realism to the
EV charging plans. To address this challenge data from the National-Travel-
Survey 2002-2019 of UK is used [15]. The National Travel Survey (NTS) is
a series of UK household surveys designed to provide regular and up-to-date
personal travel data to monitor changes in travel behavior over time [15].
In other words, it delivers data on trips made by people in a typical week,
classifying trips according to different types.

The generation of unavailable time interval profiles per vehicle started by

cleaning and filtering the NTS database. This allows adequate representation
of the journeys made by residential vehicles in the UK. These ideas seek to
reduce the amount of data and more accurately approach the profiles sought,
without losing the distribution of daily trips of UK drivers. The filters ap-
plied on NTS trips were: i) only trips made on a normal weekday by people
in 2015 were used to coincide with the year in which My Electric Avenue [14]
was done, ii) trips were made only by car, and iii) regarding trip distance,
each trip was greater than 2 miles and less than 200 miles, to exclude trips
that are very short or very long.

The resulting NTS database after applying the filters and selecting a
random group of 2000 profiles is represented in Figure 5, which shows the
number of trips in progress throughout the selected typical weekday with
a resolution of 10 minutes. The 2000 profiles extracted kept the same pat-
tern compared with the original data (most of the trips happen between the
period 40 and 120 of the time interval, with peaks around the periods 50
and 110). Therefore, the simplified database adequately characterizes the
daily commute distribution of vehicles in the UK. After filtering, to provide

11
 6000 Original distribution
Distribution after filters
Distribution after selection of 2000 profiles
5000

4000
N° of trips

3000

2000

1000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
24 hours - 10 minutes resolution
Figure 6: Number of EV charging and
Figure 5: Distribution of trips in travelling
progress of the NTS database.

an even more realistic EV charging coordination, we made a match between

people’s daily trip profiles and the EV charging profiles. The purpose of this
match is to associate EVs profiles from the measurement campaign with the
travel pattern of a real user, therefore facilitating the realistic approximation
of true available charging times.

A simplified exercise to achieve the association between EVs profiles and

driver behavior would assume that all EV users follow the expected UK mo-
bility pattern. The problem with this idea is that we lose sight of the energy
requirements of people driving vehicles in the UK, since different journeys
and different people mean different energy requirements for their vehicles.
To make a more realistic match between EV profiles and feasible charging
times at homes, we created an approximation through the allocation of EV
profiles and daily commute patterns from the energy point of view. Hence,
we minimized the absolute error between the daily energy requirements of
each travel pattern and the daily energy use of the assigned car charging
profile. Thus, the following optimization problem was solved:
XX
min A[p, c] × |Eday-travel-pattern (p) − Eday-car (c)| (1a)
C p

X
A[p, c] = 1, (∀c) (1b)
ρ
X
A[p, c] = 1, (∀p) (1c)
c

12
 hoursX
outside
A[p, c] × c(i) ≤ 0, (∀p, ∀c) (1d)
i

c ∈ {0, 1}, A ∈ {0, 1}p·c (1e)

The decision variable of the problem is A[p, c], which becomes 1 when a
travel pattern p is associated with car c, and 0 otherwise. The objective func-
tion (equation 1a) minimizes the difference between the daily energy required
by each travel pattern and the daily energy of the assigned car charging pro-
file. The first two constraints (equations 1b and 1c) define that each car has
only one travel pattern associated with it and that each travel pattern has
only one car associated with it, respectively. The last constraint (equation
1d), establishes that the time window in which the associated car is not at
home is satisfied so that unfeasible charging hours are not presented for the
assigned travel pattern. With this constraint, it is guaranteed that the car
assigned to a travel pattern is never being charged during the hours that the
car is not at home, which allows keeping the behavior of the daily trips of
drivers in the UK.

As an example, Figure 6 shows fast-charging profiles generated for a sam-

ple of 25 EVs with their associated unavailability time window profile. Blue
intervals correspond to charging periods, in white are the periods in which
the vehicle is at home (and therefore available for charging but without con-
suming power), and finally in orange are the unfeasible or unavailable time
intervals per vehicle (where EV is outside the home). It is possible to appre-
ciate that the unavailable time intervals associated with each vehicle do not
overlap with EV charging periods.

This allocation procedure ensures that the EV charging process considers

the time when the vehicles are not at home, respecting the expected travel
and parking periods of the population, giving realism to the analysis.

6. EVs charging coordination

Following the overview presented in Section 3, charging coordination can
be achieved by minimizing the maximum coincident demand of the system,
which allows the demand curve to be smoothed, thus reducing power peaks

13
and increasing the potential number of EVs that could be incorporated into
the system. Coordination will make possible to observe the positive effects
of reduced connection times for fast-charging, facilitating the coordination
process (i.e., more flexibility due to the shorter connection periods). The
mathematical formulation used for the home charging coordination of EVs
is presented below:
( n−1 )
X
(P ) min max q · pi [t] + Dres [t] (2a)
t
i=0

T
X
ηi · q · pi [t] = Eidem ∀i ∈ I (2b)
t=1

pi [t] = 0 ∀i ∈ I, ∀t ∈ Θif f (2c)

pi [j] ≥ pi [0] ∀j ∈ [0, Tmin ] , ∀i ∈ I (2d)

E dem
 
Tmin = min Tmin set , i ∀i ∈ I (2e)
q

pi [t + j] ≥ pi [t] − pi [t − 1] ∀j ∈ [0, Tmin ] , ∀i ∈ I

(2f)
∀t ∈ [1, T − Tmin ]

pi [t + 1] ≤ pi [t] ∀i ∈ I, ∀t ∈ {τ : τ ≥ (T − Tmin )} (2g)

pi [t] ≥ pi [t − 1] + ϵ − M (1 − bi [t]) ∀i ∈ I, ∀t ∈ [1, T ] (2h)

pi [t] ≤ pi [t − 1] + M · bi [t], ∀i ∈ I, ∀t ∈ [1, T ] (2i)


1 if pi [0] = 1
bi [0] = (2j)
0 otherwise
T
X
bi [t] ≤ Nch , ∀i ∈ I (2k)
t

14
 Equations 2a-2k represent the optimization problem. The decision vari-
able is pi [t], a binary variable that indicates if a vehicle i is charging at the
instant t. The equation 2a corresponds to the minimization of the objec-
tive function given by the maximum consumption of dwellings plus EV loads
throughout the day. Constraint 2b states that the energy demands of users
must be satisfied, considering a feasible charging power of q ∈ {3.6, 7.2}[kW ]
for fast and slow home charging, respectively. Additionally, 2c corresponds to
the constraint of unfeasible time intervals, where it is not possible to charge
the EVs (since they are not at home). It is because of this constraint (2c)
that the use of realistic mobility patterns becomes relevant. The set Θif f
precisely define the unfeasible time intervals for each vehicle i. Charging ef-
ficiency per vehicle (ηi ) can be considered as 1 in the model, since the actual
charging profiles measured in My Electric Avenue project [14] correspond to
the power directly withdrawn from the distribution network.

Equations 2d - 2g are related to set minimum charging times, so the

model does not deliver charging intervals that are so small that in practice
are unfeasible for users. In this case, equation 2d corresponds to the initial
condition for equation 2f, which establishes that if charging starts at time t,
the vehicle must remain connected for the following Tmin intervals. Finally,
constraint 2g states a condition for the boundary case where there is not
enough minimal charging time left to start a new connection for vehicle i;
therefore, if p[i, t] = 0, then p[i, t + 1] = 0. The feasible minimum charging
time is the minimum between the modeled minimum charging time (Tmin set,
considered in this work as 20 minutes), and the charging time needed for the
energy required by the vehicle i (equation 2e).

Finally, constraints 2h - 2k restrict the number of times that each vehicle

starts a new charging cycle along the day; therefore, in overall, equations 2d -
2k take care of the EVs battery life by limiting the number of switchings that
the model suggests for each vehicle through the smart charging plans. The
binary decision variable bi [t] represents the start of a new charging process,
and it equals 1 when pi [t] > pi [t − 1]. This idea is integrated into the model
following a Big-M approach (equations 2h and 2i). The total of charging
processes for each vehicle is limited by Nch (equation 2k) and in this case,
we modeled a limit of Nch = 3.

The nomenclature of the constraints 2a - 2k is presented in Table 2.

15
Specifically, n corresponds to the total number of EVs, and T is the number
of intervals where the problem is solved; for 24 hours and a resolution of 10
minutes, T is 144. We modeled a resolution of 10 and 5 minutes for the slow
and fast case, respectively. Doubling the time samples for the fast case solves
a numerical problem of the constraint 2b to satisfy the EV energy for cases
where the charging time windows are half the time of odd time windows of
its slow-charging version.

Table 2: Nomenclature for the formulation of the optimization problem

Type Nomenclature Description

Variables pi [t] Binary that indicates if vehicle i is charging at instant t
bi [t] Binary that indicates the beginning of a charging process for vehicle i
Sets I Set of vehicles with I = {0, . . . , n − 1}
T Set of modeled time interval T = {1, . . . , 144}
Θif f Set of unfeasible charging time for vehicle i
Parameters Eidem Total energy demanded for vehicle i
Dres [t] Aggregate residential demand for instant t
q ∈ {3.6, 7.2} Permitted charging power for every EV
Tmin set Minimum charging time chosen for vehicle i
Tmin Factible minimum charging time for vehicle i
ηi Efficiency of the EV charging process
Nch Number of charging processes allowed per vehicle
M Auxiliar constant used to determine the number of charging processes
ϵ Auxiliar constant used to determine the number of charging processes

7. Results and Discussion

7.1. Base case
To better characterize the data used in this optimization, this subsection
provides curves and an analysis of the base case (without coordination). For
these purposes, ADMD (After Diversity Maximum Demand) is used, which
corresponds to the peak coincident load presented by a group of consumers
divided by the total number of consumers. This indicator has been widely
used in the design of distribution networks as an estimator of capacity given
a required number of customers [32].

This base case studies the ADMD index for different numbers of EVs
and dwellings (group size), and for each of these groups, we performed 1000

16
Figure 7: ADMD boxplot for uncoordinated fast and slow-charging based on EV group
size between 1 and 1000

(a) ADMD by group of EVs, fast charge (b) ADMD by group of EVs, slow charge

 

 

 
$'0'>N:@

$'0'>N:@
 

 

 

 

 
                     
1XPEHURI3(9V 1XPEHURI3(9V

launches. Each launch is a repetition of the process of randomly selecting

a set of residential consumption and the previously matched EV charging
profiles. This entire exercise was done for fast-charging and slow-charging.

The results for the base case are presented in Figure 7, which contains
a boxplot of the ADMD versus the group size for fast-charging and slow-
charging cases (considering the sum of residential load and EV profiles),
showing that a higher value is reached in the case of fast-charging; but,
although the fast-charging connection doubles the power of slow-charging,
the ADMD for the fast-charging case is not twice the slow-charging ADMD.
This is due to the larger diversity of consumption periods because of the
shorter connection times.

7.2. EV coordination
Following Figure 3, groups of 100, 300, and 500 dwellings were made, each
one with its own EV, and for each group size, the optimization problem was
solved 1000 times. Members of each group were chosen randomly from all
profiles. By choosing these groups, we represented some load aggregations
that can be typically found in distribution networks. For instance, a building
or condominium with 100 residential loads, and an MV feeder portion with
300 or 500 loads.

After solving the optimization process presented in Section 6 for each

random group, the maximum aggregate demand was determined. As an ex-

17
 Figure 8: Maximum aggregate demand for 100 EVs with 1000 launches.

(a) Uncoordinated case (b) Coordinated case

0.10
Slow charging Slow charging
Fast charging Fast charging
0.025
0.08
0.020
0.06

Frequency
Frequency

0.015
0.04
0.010

0.02
0.005

0.000 0.00
160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 110 115 120 125 130 135
Maximum aggregate demand [kW] Maximum aggregate demand [kW]

ample, Figure 8 shows the probability distributions resulting from solving

the optimization problem 1000 times with the group size of 100 EVs for
both fast and slow residential charging. For the uncoordinated case (Fig-
ure 8a), the probability distributions are clearly displaced, reaching averages
close to 216.8[kW ] in the case of slow-charging and 253.7[kW ] for the fast-
charging case, which shows that fast-charging has a higher maximum aggre-
gate demand compared to slow-charging when no coordination is considered.
However, by coordinating the charging process (Figure 8b), the probability
distributions get significantly closer.

Table 3 compares the results of the coordinated and uncoordinated prob-

ability distributions presented in Figure 8. Once EV charging is coordi-
nated, fast and slow charging achieve very similar values, with an average
maximum aggregate demand of 124[kW ] for fast-charging and 123.3[kW ] for
slow-charging. Additionally, the average reduction percentage of the max-
imum aggregate demand when moving from uncoordinated to coordinated
fast-charging is 50.8%, whilst in slow-charging is 42.9% (i.e., an improve-
ment of 18.4%). This shows that even though fast-charging requires greater
power from the network, by optimizing EV charging, the requirements for
fast-charging can be reduced to similar levels to those obtained by coordi-
nating residential slow-charging; and therefore, the presence of coordination
could encourage the incorporation of residential fast-charging devices.

Analyzing the results for the EV groups between 100, 300, and 500, we

18
Table 3: Comparative statistics of load coordination of Maximum Aggregate Demand (in
kW)

MDA Uncoord. Case MDA Coord. Case Reduction %

Slow Fast Slow Fast Slow Fast
mean 216.8 253.7 123.3 124.0 42.9 50.8
PCTL 95th 237.0 287.4 129.7 130.0 48.9 56.7
PCTL 98th 248.1 292.1 131.6 131.1 50.2 57.7

determined the distance between the mean of the probability distributions

obtained in each case. As can be observed in Table 4, as the number of EVs
in the system increases, the maximum aggregate demand distance increases
in the uncoordinated case, and it remains approximately constant in the co-
ordinated case, meaning that the coordinated probability distributions are
quite close for slow and fast-charging cases.

Table 4: Distance between the mean of the probability distributions of fast and slow
charging, according to the coordinated and uncoordinated charging schemes

Group of EVs Uncoordinated distance [kW] Coordinated distance [kW]

100 37.4 0.1
300 88.6 0.1
500 132.2 0.2

Figure 9 summarizes the results of the expected maximum aggregate de-

mand of the system for uncoordinated and coordinated cases, that is, the
average value of the objective function for the 1000 optimization problems
solved for each group size. This figure also compares the results of the EV
fast-charging (orange) with slow-charging (blue) for both the uncoordinated
(Figure left-side) and coordinated case (Figure right-side). As can be seen,
for the 3 groups of electric vehicles and simulated residential loads (i.e., 100,
300 and 500), the expected maximum aggregate demand from the thou-
sands of simulations is reduced by almost half at the fast coordinated plans.
Furthermore, similar maximum levels of coordinated aggregate demand are
reached regardless of whether charging is slow or fast, even though when the
charging process is not coordinated, the fast-charging has a higher average
maximum aggregate demand.

The previous results imply, for the coordinated case, that EV fast-charging
achieves a higher reduction of the maximum aggregate demand compared to

19
Figure 9: Average maximum aggregate demand by group size. On the left are the values
of the uncoordinated case, while on the right are the values of the coordinated case.

Slow charging
Fast charging
500 500

400 400
EV adoption level

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Average Maximum Aggregate Demand [kW] Average Maximum Aggregate Demand [kW]

slow-charging. This phenomenon can be observed in the boxplots in Figure

10, which shows the percentage of reduction in the maximum aggregate de-
mand for groups of EVs and residential loads of 100, 300, and 500, taking
into account the 1000 optimization problems solved for each group. Through
the detailed analysis of these boxplots, the median of the slow-charging case
is always less than the fast-charging case, and 75% of the optimization ex-
ercises result always in smaller reductions for slow-charging compared to
fast-charging. Therefore, it is highly likely that a greater reduction percent-
age will be obtained in the fast-charging case than in the slow-charging case.
This happens because the optimization process for the fast-charging case has
more flexibility due to longer available periods to achieve coordination given
the smaller charging time required. The average reduction for each group of
EVs and residential loads are specified in Table 5.

Therefore, we have seen that if people adopt fast chargers for their homes,
then the maximum aggregate demand of the system increases because these
chargers operate at higher power. For example, the use of 100 EVs with
fast-charging increased the ADMD average by almost 15%. However, if the
charging process is coordinated, then we found almost the same maximum
aggregate demand regardless of whether the charge is fast or slow. This can
encourage Distribution System Operators and policymakers to incentivize
the adoption of residential fast-charging (mode 3 for IEC 61851-1).

20
  &KDUJLQJW\SH
6ORZ

?5HGXFWLRQRIWKHPD[LPXPDJJUHJDWHGHPDQG
Table 5: Average percentage reduction of the  )DVW
maximum aggregate demand by residential 
load grouping with EVs (100, 300 and 500

EVs)


Charging Reduction 

N° of EVs
Type % 
100 Slow 44.5

100 Fast 52.5
300 Slow 42.2 
  
300 Fast 49.3 1XPEHURI3(9V
500 Slow 41.7
500 Fast 48.9 Figure 10: Percentage reduction of the
maximum aggregate demand.

8. Conclusions
This research developed an EV charging coordination model that min-
imizes the maximum aggregate demand of residential groups of loads with
EVs, comparing its performance for slow and fast home charging. We re-
ferred to “slow and fast charging” as the minimum and maximum EV charg-
ing speed allowed in the UK for 1-phase mode 3 charging of the IEC 61851-1
standard [12], which is 3.6kW and 7.2kW [13] [30]. To obtain accurate and
comprehensive conclusions, realistic data is used. Specifically, we constructed
the data by using residential EV charging profiles based on probability dis-
tributions [28] built from My Electric Avenue [14] project, and we also used
statistics associated with the periods of time where vehicles remain at home
(i.e., available for charging) from the UK National-Travel-Survey, 2002-2019
[15].

Since not all loads behave in the same way and the energy requirements
of EVs are not the same among all customers, to get stronger conclusions,
we solved the optimization problem thousands of times for different sets of
EV and loads for each group size under analysis. By solving the optimization
problem multiple times, we were able to obtain probability distributions of
the objective function for each group size and type of charge (slow and fast),
analyzing the maximum aggregate demand of the system and the reduction
percentage of the maximum aggregate demand from an uncoordinated-to-
coordinated scheme. This approach led us to conclusions based on robust
data and no particular cases.

21
 This research shows that when EV coordination is considered, residential
fast-charging of EVs does not imply a larger maximum aggregate demand
compared to the slow-charging case. In other words, given the greater flexi-
bility provided by the coordination of fast-charging events, its net effects are
equivalent to those achieved by coordinating EVs connected to slow charg-
ers. This is due to the flexibility provided by the shorter connection times of
higher-powered chargers, as opposed to slow-chargers, whose usage requires
longer connection times. For example, when the charging process was not
coordinated, the expected maximum aggregate demand for a group of 100
EVs and residential loads was 253.7[kW ] for fast-charging, and 216.8[kW ]
for slow-charging. But, if coordination is implemented, the expected max-
imum aggregate demand is very close. In fact, it dropped to 124[kW ] for
fast-charging (i.e., a reduction in 50.8%), and to 123.3[kW ] for slow-charging
(i.e., a reduction in 42.9%). Similar results were obtained when groups of
300 and 500 loads and EVs were analyzed.

Finally, the results proved that incorporating residential fast-charging is

effectively a good idea since even if the power extracted by each EV from the
network doubles, its aggregate effects only increase by 15% in the case with-
out coordination. Furthermore, if residential fast-charging is coordinated,
the aggregate demand would reach levels similar to those of coordinated
slow-charging; therefore, residential fast-charging would not generate greater
problems than residential slow-charging.

The previous findings may allow policymakers to encourage the adoption

of residential fast chargers whilst simultaneously implementing coordination
policies such as price signals, DSO control, among others. These solutions,
when combined with shorter charging periods, would directly lead to higher
possible usage time of the EVs, and therefore in turn encourage more res-
idential customers to adopt EVs. Thus, by having smart charging plans,
customers could freely enjoy the benefits of fast-charging without either in-
creasing demand or having to deal with the inconveniences presented by
slow-charging.

22
9. Acknowledgements
This work was fully funded by the National Agency for Research and De-
velopment (ANID) through the FONDECYT-INICIACION grant 11180875.

References
[1] Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ‘Climate Change 2021,
The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers’ (IPCC, 2021),
pp. 1-10

[2] IRENA (2022), NDCs and renewable energy targets in 2021: Are we on
the right path to a climate-safe future?, International Renewable Energy
Agency, Abu Dhabi.

[3] IEA, ’Global CO2 emissions from transport by subsector, 2000-2030,

IEA’, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/
global-co2-emissions-from-transport-by-subsector-2000-2030

[4] IEA, Global Energy Review 2021, IEA, Paris, 2021, https://www.iea.
org/reports/global-energy-review-2021

[5] IEA, Electric Vehicles, IEA, Paris, 2022, https://www.iea.org/

reports/electric-vehicles

[6] J.D. POWER., ’U.S. Electric Vehicle Experience (EVX) Home Charg-
ing’ (Publisher, 2020), pp. 1-10

[7] Nissan.co.uk. Charging that fits around you [Internet], UK, https://
www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/new-vehicles/leaf.html

[8] I. Sharma, C. A. Cañizares and K. Bhattacharya, ’Modeling and impacts

of smart charging PEVs in residential distribution systems,’ 2012 IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012, pp. 1-8, doi: 10.
1109/PESGM.2012.6345131.

23
 [9] Muratori, M. ’Impact of uncoordinated plug-in electric vehicle charging
on residential power demand’. Nat Energy 3, 2018, pp. 193–201 https:
//doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0074-z

[10] M. Ali, F. Ghazvini, G. Lipari, M. Pau, F. Ponci, A. Monti, J. Soares, R.

Castro, Z. Vale, Congestion management in active distribution networks
through demand response implementation, Sustain. Energy Grids Netw.
17 (2019) 100185 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2018.100185

[11] Julia K. Szinai, Colin J.R. Sheppard, Nikit Abhyankar, Anand R.

Gopal,’Reduced grid operating costs and renewable energy curtailment
with electric vehicle charge management’, Energy Policy, Volume 136,
2020, pp. 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111051

[12] IEC 61851-1: Electric vehicle conductive charging system - Part 1: Gen-
eral requirements, IEC, 2017
[13] Assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, 2022, Residential authorised charge-
point model list, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
1108301/residential-approved-chargepoint-model-list.csv/
preview, accessed 5 October 2022.
[14] EA Technology, ’My Electric Avenue’, project report,
May 2017, https://eatechnology.com/media/m5zfarnt/
1-myelectricavenue-i2ev-projectsummaryreport.pdf

[15] ’National Travel Survey’, https://www.gov.uk/government/

collections/national-travel-survey-statistics, accessed 9
August 2021

[16] ’CREST Demand Model’, https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/

articles/dataset/CREST_Demand_Model_v2_0/2001129, accessed 9
August 2021

[17] J. A. P. Lopes, F. J. Soares, and P. M. R. Almeida, ’Integration of

electric vehicles in the electric power system,’ Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, Jan.
2011., no. 1, pp. 168–183, doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2010.2066250

24
[18] M. Nour, H. Ramadan, A. Ali and C. Farkas, ’Impacts of plug-in elec-
tric vehicles charging on low voltage distribution network’, 2018 In-
ternational Conference on Innovative Trends in Computer Engineering
(ITCE), 2018, pp. 357-362, doi: 10.1109/ITCE.2018.8316650.

[19] A. Navarro-Espinosa and L. F. Ochoa, ’Probabilistic Impact Assess-

ment of Low Carbon Technologies in LV Distribution Systems’, IEEE
TPWRS, vol. 31, no. 3, 2016., pp. 2192-2203, doi: 10.1109/TP-
WRS.2015.2448663

[20] T. Ninković, M. Ćalasan and S. Mujović, ’Coordination of electric ve-

hicles charging in the distribution system,’ 2020 19th International
Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/INFOTEH48170.2020.9066303.

[21] T. Ninković, M. Ćalasan and S. Mujović, ’Coordination of electric ve-

hicles charging in the distribution system’, 2020 19th International
Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH), 2020, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/INFOTEH48170.2020.9066303.

[22] K. Clement-Nyns, E. Haesen and J. Driesen, ’The Impact of Charging

Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on a Residential Distribution Grid,’ in
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 25, no. 1, Feb. 2010, pp.
371-380, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2036481.

[23] Z. Luo, Z. Hu, Y. Song, Z. Xu and H. Lu, ’Optimal Coordination of Plug-

In Electric Vehicles in Power Grids With Cost-Benefit Analysis—Part I:
Enabling Techniques,’ in IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 28,
no. 4, Nov. 2013, pp. 3546-3555, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2262318.

[24] Z. Xu, W. Su, Z. Hu, Y. Song and H. Zhang, A Hierarchical Framework

for Coordinated Charging of Plug-In Electric Vehicles in China,’ in IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 428-438, doi:
10.1109/TSG.2014.2387436.

[25] E. Akhavan-Rezai, M. F. Shaaban, E. F. El-Saadany and A. Zi-

dan, ’Uncoordinated charging impacts of electric vehicles on elec-
tric distribution grids: Normal and fast charging comparison’, 2012

25
 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012, pp. 1-7, doi:
10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345583.

[26] J. Li, C. Li, Y. Xu, Z. Y. Dong, K. P. Wong and T. Huang, ’Nonco-

operative Game-Based Distributed Charging Control for Plug-In Elec-
tric Vehicles in Distribution Networks,’ in IEEE Transactions on In-
dustrial Informatics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 301-310, Jan. 2018, doi:
10.1109/TII.2016.2632761.

[27] E. Ramos, G. Razeghi, Li Zhang, F. Jabbari, ’Electric vehicle

charging algorithms for coordination of the grid and distribution
transformer levels’, Energy, Volume 113, 2016, pp. 930-942, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.07.122

[28] Quirós, J., Navarro, A., Ochoa, L. and Butler, T., ’Statistical Repre-
sentation of EV Charging: Real Data Analysis and Applications’ 2018
Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), 2018, pp. 1–7, doi:
10.23919/PSCC.2018.8442988.

[29] Stephen Cuddihey, ’EDS 08-5050, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CONNEC-

TIONS’, UK Power Networks, 2018

[30] GOV.UK. 2022. Residential chargepoints: minimum

technical specification, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/
residential-chargepoints-minimum-technical-specification,
acessed 19 October 2022].

[31] E. McKenna, M. Thomson, ’High-resolution stochastic integrated ther-

mal–electrical domestic demand model’, Applied Energy 165, 2016, pp.
445-461, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.089

[32] ’After Diversity Maximum Demand (ADMD) Report’,

http://www.networkrevolution.co.uk/project-library/
diversity-maximum-demand-admd-report/, accessed 24 October
2021

26
Conflict of Interest

Declaration of interests

☐The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☒The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:

Catalina Dominguez reports financial support was provided by National Fund For Scientific Technological
and Technological Innovation Development. Alejandro Navarro-Espinosa reports financial support was
provided by National Fund For Scientific Technological and Technological Innovation Development.
Agustin Dona reports financial support was provided by National Fund For Scientific Technological and
Technological Innovation Development.