Charging Strategies for Electric Vehicles Using a Machine Learning Load Forecasting Approach for Residential Buildings in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global electric vehicle (EV) market is experiencing exponential growth, driven by technological advancements, environmental awareness, and government incentives. As EV adoption accelerates, it introduces opportunities and challenges for power systems worldwide due to the large battery capacity, uncertain charging behaviors of EV users, and seasonal variations. This could result in significant peak–valley differences in load in featured time slots, particularly during winter periods when EVs’ heating systems use increases. This paper proposes three future charging strategies, namely the Overnight, Workplace/Other Charging Sites, and Overnight Workplace/Other Charging Sites, to reduce overall charging in peak periods. The charging strategies are based on predicted load utilizing a hybrid machine learning (ML) approach to reduce overall charging in peak periods. The hybrid ML method combines similar day selection, complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition with adaptive noise, and deep neural networks. The dataset utilized in this study was gathered from 1000 EVs across nine provinces in Canada between 2017 and 2019, encompassing charging loads for thirty-five vehicle models, and charging locations and levels. The analysis revealed that the aggregated charging power of EV fleets aligns and overlaps with the peak periods of residential buildings energy consumption. The proposed Overnight Workplace/Other Charging Sites strategy can significantly reduce the Peak-to-Average Ratio (PAR) and energy cost during the day by leveraging predictions made three days in advance. It showed that the PAR values were approximately half those on the predicted load profile (50% and 51%), while charging costs were reduced by 54% and 56% in spring and winter, respectively. The proposed strategies can be implemented using incentive programs to motivate EV owners to charge in the workplace and at home during off-peak times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".