Optimal Design of a Planning and Contracting Framework to Enable Vehicle to Building and Grid Services via Demand Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bidirectional electric vehicle (EV) charging enables stored energy to reduce peak loads for vehicle to buildings (V2Bs) and the vehicle to grid (V2G). However, building owners investing in V2B infrastructure while generating revenue from V2G services face challenges in planning and coordinating with EV owners due to uncertainties in their schedules and profit-sharing expectations. Additionally, misaligned building and grid peak times can create conflicts between V2B and V2G goals, which may negatively impact the building electricity bill. Unlike previous studies that used a contract-free approach for aggregating V2B and V2G, resulting in inconsistent participation, this article proposes a novel planning and contracting framework that enables building owner to determine the optimal contract parameters with EV owners. These parameters include minimum participation time in DR events, minimum arrival state of charge (SoC), and permitted emergency departure hours. The framework supports V2B aggregation with on-site distributed energy resources (DERs) for DR and V2G services, ensuring transparency and fairness through shared profits and performance-based penalties, while compensating building electricity bills due to V2G activities. The framework is composed of a tri-stage optimization process that uses Monte Carlo simulations to generate EV owner profit assessments, select optimal EV candidates based on charger availability, estimate contract parameters with profit/penalty sharing, and assign contracts between power system operators (PSOs), building owners, and EV owners under multiple virtual scenarios. Simulation results validate the contract parameter assessment and its performance via a 3-day case study with real-world datasets that demonstrates net revenue generation of <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\$}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>209 for each EV owner and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${\$}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>950 for building owners during DR events with a return on investment (ROI) of 134.5% and 130.7% for the EVs and Building owners, respectively.
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".