Smart Grid Congestion Caused by Plug-in Electric
Vehicle Charging
Rachel Jarvis and Paul Moses
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Oklahoma
Norman, USA
{jarvis & pmoses}@ou.edu
Abstract—Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) will place a sizeable
load on future residential distribution systems. As the popularity
of PEVs increases, the network congestion of uncoordinated PEV
charging will likely also increase. Until smart charging becomes
available, the impact of uncoordinated charging on residential
distribution systems must be considered. This paper studies
the effects of PEV charger activities of randomly populated,
randomly arriving PEVs within several low voltage residential
networks. The impacts on network voltages, feeder congestion
overloads and distribution transformer loading are investigated.
Index Terms—congestion, plug-in electric vehicles, smart grids
I. I NTRODUCTION
As the capacity of batteries for electric vehicles increases
while the cost of them decreases, more consumers are buying
electric vehicles. In 2016, the market for electric vehicles
grew by 40% [1]. Although some public charging options
have been developed, there are six times as many electric
vehicles as there are public charging stations [1]. This means
most charging happens in private locations, especially at the
customers residence, which is the focus of this paper.
Currently, there is no system in place to regulate when this
charging occurs, though some suggestions have been made
[2]–[4]. However, there are several obstacles to overcome
before it becomes viable to implement a widespread charging
scheduling system. The major issue is the lack of an economi-
cal communications infrastructure for utility demand response
control for plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) chargers. For the
time being, these vehicles are charging in an uncoordinated
manner as their owners plug them in. It is unknown when
a charging coordination solution will be implemented, so the
uncoordinated loading patterns’ impact on today’s distribution
systems must be analyzed.
The load of PEV chargers is considerable, and consequently,
utilities may be facing challenges of serious network stresses
and overloads, diminished power quality and dependability of
the distribution system [5]–[8]. It is likely that PEV owners
will plug in their vehicles to charge upon arriving home from
work. As a result, the majority of PEVs will begin charging
in a small window of time in the evening, when residential
978-1-5386-9284-4/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
loads are already high. Elements of local distribution circuits
like feeder cables, distribution transformers and substation
equipment may experience levels of stress higher than ever
before due to the increase in PEV charging.
This paper studies a range of network congestion situations
from randomly located PEV charging at random times using
a 24-hour load flow analysis executed with 5-minute time
intervals and directs analysis towards the impact on distri-
bution transformer performance. Distribution transformers are
crucial elements of the grid, so it is necessary to investigate
PEV chargers effects on them. This examination is carried out
with a 1200 node distribution system composed of several
low voltage networks connected through distribution trans-
formers to a 23 kV feeder. This paper studies several PEV
penetrations, random PEV locations, and random charging
times. The outcome of this work can provide awareness of
potential future PEV loading and the subsequent impact on
capacity constraints and bottlenecks in critical links such as
transformers.
II. M ODELING A PPROACH
The effects of PEVs on power distribution systems have
been studied widely over the past decade. Many studies
employ load-flow based analyses, but consider very simplified
driving pattern statistics. For instance, in a previous study in
[9], random temporal PEV charger behavior on a distribution
feeder was modeled over different charging time periods,
however, the location of PEVs was fixed a priori for different
penetration levels. Furthermore, a Gaussian probability distri-
bution was used to model the random temporal charging times
of individual PEVs which is not an appropriate probabilistic
model for PEV time of arrival statistics.
In the proposed work, stochastic behavior of PEV charging
arrival locations and times are considered. For the arrival time,
a more realistic Poisson distribution which factors the rate
of PEV arrivals at different times of the day is considered.
The variable λ is used to represent the total number of
PEVs divided by the number of 5-minute timesteps within the
designated charging time span. The probability distribution is
calculated as follows:
e−λ λx
P (x) = , (1)
x!
where P (x) is the probability of a PEV arriving within time
interval x.
After randomly selecting which nodes will have PEV charg-
ing occurring, (1) is used to determine how many PEVs will be
arriving at their respective charging stations at each timestep.
Next, the order in which the PEVs arrive is randomized.
Finally, the loads created by the PEV charging are added to a
typical daily residential load curve, and the load flow analysis
is computed for each time step. The random temporal events of
PEV arrivals are discretized over 5 minute timesteps over a 24
hour period. The PEV charger loads are modelled as constant
real power loads in the load-flow solution. It is assumed that
the battery charger circuitry draws ac power at unity power
factor which is achievable with sophisticated power electronic
converter schemes. In this way, more realistic power flows are
considered leading to improved voltage profile determination
and loading stresses on distribution feeder elements such as
cables and transformers.
III. S MART G RID T EST S YSTEM F OR R ANDOM
U NCOORDINATED PEV C HARGING
A. System Under Study
In these simulation studies, the results are based on a
modified version of an IEEE test system [9]. The original
system has been modified by adding low voltage sections to
the medium voltage network. Each low voltage section consists
of 53 buses and has been repeated 22 times by attaching these
laterals to selected buses of the medium voltage system. The
line resistance and reactance data have been obtained from [9].
B. Load Profile for Residential Households
In this study we assume that each residential house follows
a fixed load curve. This is a typical loading pattern based on
true loading data of a distribution transformer which shows
peak usage of electricity during the late afternoon as people
come home from work. For this study, this load curve is
taken as a baseline without any PEV charging. In subsequent
simulations, the impact of uncoordinated electric vehicles on
the overall substation demand as well as individual distribution
transformer loadings are investigated.
Fig. 2. Typical daily load curve assumed as the load without PEVs for each
household in this study.
C. Plug-In Electric Vehicles Charger Load Profile
Based on the best-selling models of fully-electric vehicles in
2017, the storage capacity of these batteries exceeds the energy
consumed in the average daily distance driven in the United
States. Even though there is a large variation in the size of
batteries, the energy consumed per kilometer driven is similar
for all the models. Based on a 90% charging efficiency, 9.9 kW
is required to replenish the energy consumed in a day’s drive,
calculated with a weighted average of the top five best-selling
vehicles energy required to drive 47 km. A linear discharge
rate is assumed [10].
D. Ratings of PEV Chargers
A level 2 charger with an output of 6.6 kW is implemented
in this analysis. This output is achieved with a dedicated, 240
V household circuit. This moderate charging speed becomes a
primary load of the user’s household. Faster level 2 chargers
and level 3 chargers are not included in this study because
they are not cost-effective for a single user and require special
wiring installation [10].
E. PEV Penetrations and Charging Time Zones
Simulations are executed for PEV penetrations of 15%,
30%, 50%, and 70%. This random, uncoordinated charging
exhibits potential loading levels in the near and long-term
future. For this study, PEV penetration is the ratio of nodes
with PEV charging activity to the total number of low-voltage
residential nodes. The PEVs are placed randomly throughout
the network, and a Poisson distribution is used to randomly
determine arrival times. Charging activity is restricted within
each of the following three time distributions:
• 1700h-2200h: This time span is representative of PEV
owners charging their vehicles as soon as or shortly after
they arrive home in the evening. This feasible distribution
overlaps with a large portion of the residential on-peak
period.
• 1700h-0200h: If incentives were offered to PEV owners
such as lower electricity rates during partially off-peak
hours, some consumers may be convinced to delay their
charging until later at night. Many of today’s chargers
offer the ability to schedule charging at a later time, so
this would be simple for users to implement.
• 1700h-0800h: Without additional charger programming,
the achievement of this wide and mostly off-peak charg-
ing distribution is highly unrealistic.
F. Distribution System Transformers
The low voltage sections in these simulation studies are
supplied by 23kV/415V distribution transformers (DT-10 to
DT-31). These distribution transformers are rated at 100kVA
and are based on the impedance model given in [9].
IV. R ESULTS
Simulations are carried out for a variety of PEV penetration
levels (15%, 30%, 50%, and 70%) within residential networks.
The location of PEVs is randomly selected for each trial.
Fig. 1. The 1200 node smart grid distribution system consisting of the IEEE 23 kV 31 bus system connected through 22 distribution transformers (DT-10 to
DT-31) to low voltage 415 V networks (53 nodes each) populated with PEVs.

Fig. 3. Voltage profile at worst node (20-R33) with random, uncoordinated Fig. 5. Voltage profile at worst node (10-R33) with random, uncoordinated
charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-0800 hrs charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-0100 hrs

Fig. 4. Distribution transformer daily power flow with random uncoordinated Fig. 6. Daily distribution transformer power flow with random uncoordinated
charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-0800 hrs charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-0100 hrs

Fig. 7. Voltage profile at worst node (18-R33) with random, uncoordinated
PEV charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-2200 hrs
Fig. 8. Daily distribution transformer power flow with random uncoordinated
charging (50% PEV penetration) taking place between 1700-2200 hrs.
Additionally, random charging is investigated within three
time distributions (1700-2200hrs, 1700-0100hrs, and 1700-
0800hrs). A Newton-Raphson based 24-hour load flow analy-
sis with 5-minute time intervals is used for all calculations for
network voltage levels and power demands. All simulations
and load flow algorithms are programmed in MATLAB [11].
V. D ISCUSSION
It is improbable that random PEV charging would take place
over 1700-0800 hrs without remotely controlling when the
charging of each PEV begins. Another method to potentially
achieve this time distribution would be to program each
charger to begin charging at a random time within the desired
window. Table I indicates that such randomization of delays
would aid in reducing the load on distribution transformers
and reduce the magnitude of load peaks. In this dispersed
charging scenario with 15% PEV penetration, Table I indicates
a maximum power load 12.2% higher than the nominal load.
This maximum power load increases to more than double the
nominal maximum with a 70% PEV penetration. Even for 15%
TABLE I
D ISTRIBUTION T RANSFORMER P OWER L OADS
a. Daily average of all distribution transformer power loads
b. Distribution transformer at which maximum power magnitude occurs
c. Time at which maximum power magnitude occurs (to the nearest 5
minutes)
PEV penetration, Table II denotes that the voltage is deviating
below regulation limits.
Charging randomly spanning 1700-0100 hrs is more at-
tainable. PEV owners will likely plug in their vehicle upon
arriving home for the day, but through incentives, such as
lower electricity costs during off-peak hours, owners may
be persuaded to delay charging for a few hours. In this
charging span, Table I indicates the maximum distribution
transformer power load ranges from 24.4% to 131% higher
than the nominal maximum power load at 15% and 70% PEV
penetrations, respectively.
The most likely charging situation occurs when PEV owners
immediately plug in and begin charging their vehicles upon
arrival home, with charging occurring over 1700- 2200 hrs.
For low PEV penetrations of 15% and 30%, the increase from
no-PEV levels of the maximum distribution transformer power
load is 58.3% and 110%, respectively. This increase is more
significant because more charging is coinciding with on-peak
residential load hours.
VI. C ONCLUSION
This paper outlines the impact of random, uncoordinated
PEV charging on residential low-voltage networks and the
associated distribution transformers. The results are derived
 TABLE II [4] T. Zhao and Z. Ding, ”Distributed Initialization-Free Cost-Optimal
VOLTAGE P ERFORMANCE Charging Control of Plug-In Electric Vehicles for Demand Manage-
ment,” in IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 13, no. 6,
pp. 2791-2801, Dec. 2017.
[5] K. Moslehi and R. Kumar, ”A reliability perspective of the smart grid,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 57-64, 2010.
[6] A. R. Metke and R. L. Ekl, ”Security technology for smart grid
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 99-107,
2010.
[7] P. S. Moses, S. Deilami, A. S. Masoum, and M. A. S. Masoum,
”Power quality of smart grids with plug-in electric vehicles considering
battery charging profile,” in IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies Europe, Chalmers Lindholmen, Gothenburg, Sweden,
2010, pp. 1-7.
[8] A. Ipakchi and F. Albuyeh, ”Grid of the future,” IEEE Power and Energy
Magazine, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 52-62, 2009.
[9] P. S. Moses, M. A. S. Masoum, and S. Hajforoosh, ”Overloading of
distribution transformers in smart grid due to uncoordinated charging
of plug-In electric vehicles” in 2012 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies, 2012.
[10] M. Yilmaz and P. T. Krein, ”Review of Battery Charger Topologies,
Charging Power Levels, and Infrastructure for Plug-In Electric and
Hybrid Vehicles,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 28,
no. 5, pp. 2151-2169, 2013.
[11] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sanchez and R. J. Thomas, ”MAT-
POWER: Steady-State Operations, Planning, and Analysis Tools for
Power Systems Research and Education,” in IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12-19, Feb. 2011.

a. Daily average of all node voltages

b. Time at which worst voltage occurs (to the nearest 5 minutes)

from simulations of a 1200 node test system in which PEVs

are randomly located throughout low-voltage networks and are
plugged in randomly within three time intervals. The main
conclusions are:
• This study indicates that even under low penetrations,
transformers experience load surging.
• There is a significant increase in distribution transformer
power load between PEV penetrations 15% and 30%. It
is conceivable that penetrations of this magnitude could
occur in residential networks in the near future.
• Under the lowest considered PEV penetration and the
most spread out charging case, there are occurrences of
voltage deviations greater than what is allowed by the
strict regulations set for low-voltage systems.
• If a coordination strategy is not implemented soon, util-
ities may need to replace distribution transformers more
frequently and upgrade the capacities of the transformers.
• Future studies could include analysis of additional effects,
such as phase imbalance and power quality harmonics.
R EFERENCES
[1] ”International Energy Agency”, Global EV Outlook, April 2017.
[2] C. Li, X. Yu, W. Yu, G. Chen, ”Efficient Computation for Sparse Load
Shifting in Demand Side Management”, IEEE Tans. smart Grids, vol.
8, no. 1, pp. 250-261, 2017.
[3] L. Yao, W. H. Lim, T. S. Tsai, ”A Real-Time Charging Scheme for
Demand Response in Electric Vehicle parking Station”, IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 52-62, 2017.