Dynamic Scheduling for Charging Electric Vehicles: A Priority Rule

We consider the scheduling of multiple tasks with pre-determined deadlines under arbitrarily random processing cost and task arrival. This problem is motivated by the potential of large scale adoption of plug-in (hybrid) electric vehicles (PHEVs) in the near future. We seek to properly schedule the battery charging of multiple PHEVs so as to minimize the overall cost, which is derived from the total charging cost and the penalty for not completing charging before requested deadlines. Through a dynamic programming formulation, we establish the Less Laxity and Longer remaining Processing time (LLLP) principle that improves any charging policy on a sample-path basis, when the non-completion penalty is a convex function of the additional time needed to fulfill the uncompleted request. Specifically, the LLLP principle states that priority should be given to vehicles that have less laxity and longer remaining processing times. Numerical results demonstrate that heuristic policies that violate the LLLP principle, for example, the earliest deadline first policy, can result in significant performance loss.

[1]  Michael C. Caramanis,et al.  Coupling of day ahead and real-time power markets for energy and reserves incorporating local distribution network costs and congestion , 2010, 2010 48th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[2]  Ufuk Topcu,et al.  Optimal Decentralized Protocols for Electric Vehicle Charging , 2010 .

[3]  C. D. Locke,et al.  Best-effort decision-making for real-time scheduling , 1986 .

[4]  James W. Layland,et al.  Scheduling Algorithms for Multiprogramming in a Hard-Real-Time Environment , 1989, JACM.

[5]  Alan Burns,et al.  A survey of hard real-time scheduling for multiprocessor systems , 2011, CSUR.

[6]  Leandros Tassiulas,et al.  Optimal scheduling with deadline constraints in tree networks , 1997 .

[7]  J. Driesen,et al.  The Impact of Charging Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles on a Residential Distribution Grid , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[8]  Dionysios Aliprantis,et al.  Load Scheduling and Dispatch for Aggregators of Plug-In Electric Vehicles , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid.

[9]  Anthony Ephremides,et al.  Optimal scheduling with strict deadlines , 1989 .

[10]  Ufuk Topcu,et al.  Optimal decentralized protocol for electric vehicle charging , 2013 .

[11]  M. Ilic,et al.  Optimal Charge Control of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Deregulated Electricity Markets , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[12]  Christoph Goebel,et al.  Using ICT-Controlled Plug-in Electric Vehicles to Supply Grid Regulation in California at Different Renewable Integration Levels , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid.

[13]  Filipe Joel Soares,et al.  Integration of Electric Vehicles in the Electric Power System , 2011, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[14]  Nikos D. Hatziargyriou,et al.  A Multi-Agent System for Controlled Charging of a Large Population of Electric Vehicles , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[15]  Feng Pan,et al.  Scheduling for charging plug-in hybrid electric vehicles , 2012, 2012 IEEE 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[16]  Michael L. Dertouzos,et al.  Control Robotics: The Procedural Control of Physical Processes , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[17]  Kameshwar Poolla,et al.  Real-time scheduling of deferrable electric loads , 2012, 2012 American Control Conference (ACC).

[18]  Qing-Shan Jia,et al.  Matching EV Charging Load With Uncertain Wind: A Simulation-Based Policy Improvement Approach , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid.

[19]  Dimitri P. Bertsekas,et al.  Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Two Volume Set , 1995 .

[20]  Hosam K. Fathy,et al.  A Stochastic Optimal Control Approach for Power Management in Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology.

[21]  Olivier Boucher,et al.  Comparison of physically- and economically-based CO 2 -equivalences for methane , 2012 .