sensors

Article
Optimal Energy Scheduling Based on Jaya Algorithm for
Integration of Vehicle-to-Home and Energy Storage System
with Photovoltaic Generation in Smart Home
Min Wang 1, * and Modawy Adam Ali Abdalla 1,2, *

1 College of Energy and Electrical Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
2 Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering Science, Nyala University, Nyala 63311, Sudan
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.W.); [email protected] (M.A.A.A.);
Tel.: +86-138-5175-3101 (M.A.A.A.)

Abstract: With the emerging of the smart grid, it has become easier for consumers to control their
consumption. The efficient use of the integration of renewable energy sources with electric vehicle
(EV) and energy storage systems (ESSs) in the smart home is a popular choice to reduce electricity
costs and improve the stability of the grid. Therefore, this study presents optimal energy management
based on the Jaya algorithm for controlling energy flow in the smart home that contains photovoltaic
generation (PV), integrated with ESS and EV. The objective of the proposed energy management is to
reduce electricity cost while meeting the household load demand and energy requirement for the EV
trip distance. By using the Jaya algorithm, the modes of home-to-vehicle (H2V) and vehicle-to-home
(V2H) are controlled, in addition to controlling the purchase of energy from the grid and sale of the
energy to the grid from surplus PV generation and ESS. Before EV participation in the V2H process,
the amount of energy stored in the electric vehicle battery will be verified to be more than the energy
amount required for the remaining EV trip to ensure that the required energy for the remaining





 EV trip is satisfied. Simulation results highlight the performance of the optimal energy scheduling
Citation: Wang, M.; Abdalla, M.A.A. to achieve the reduction of the daily electricity cost and meeting of load demand and EV energy
Optimal Energy Scheduling Based on required. The simulation results prove that optimal energy management solutions can be found with
Jaya Algorithm for Integration of significant electricity cost savings. In addition, Jaya is compared with the particle swarm optimization
Vehicle-to-Home and Energy Storage (PSO) algorithm in order to evaluate its performance. Jaya outperforms PSO in terms of achieving
System with Photovoltaic Generation optimal energy management objectives.
in Smart Home. Sensors 2022, 22, 1306.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s22041306 Keywords: smart home; electric vehicle; energy storage system; photovoltaic generation;
Academic Editor: Ennio Gambi vehicle-to-home (V2H); Jaya algorithm

Received: 5 December 2021

Accepted: 31 January 2022
Published: 9 February 2022
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Nowadays, the increase in energy consumption has become one of the problems that
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
face the power network, especially in the residential sector due to population growth and
published maps and institutional affil-
urbanization, in addition to the use of many appliances by several homes at the same time,
iations.
which in turn leads to the peaks load [1,2]. Moreover, with the advent of electric vehicles as
new technology, carbon emissions have decreased in the transportation sector. In contrast,
electricity consumption has increased in the energy sector due to the dependence of electric
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
vehicles on electricity energy as it is the main source [3–5]. A recent report indicated that
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
the number of EVs has reached 13 million in 2021 and is expected to exceed 73 million
This article is an open access article by 2025 [6]. The increase in the number of EVs may increase the peak demand, especially
distributed under the terms and in the residential sector, because electric vehicles are considered among loads of high
conditions of the Creative Commons energy consumption. The peak demand affects the grid flexibility and creates an imbalance
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// between generation and demand. To balance generation and demand, utility companies
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ offer a program called demand response (DR). The demand response program urges the
4.0/). consumers to shift their consumption from peak period to off-peak period (lower electricity

Sensors 2022, 22, 1306. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22041306 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 2 of 23

price time), depending on the prices provided by utility companies such as time of use
(TOU) and real-time pricing (RTP) [7].
On the other hand, the inclusion of renewable energy sources such as solar energy
along with the grid contributes to reducing the peak and enhances the flexibility of the
grid in addition to the economic benefits due to photovoltaic electricity price subsidy and
decrease of PV module cost [8]. However, due to the variability of the available solar energy,
the generation period sometimes does not coincide with the period of energy demand.
To avoid the intermittent generation of PV, solar energy is used with battery storage [9].
Storage in both stationary battery and electric vehicle batteries has spread because of a
reduction in their prices. Although the spread of EV is considered a challenge to the power
grid, if it is used in a smart way, such as the technology of the vehicle to anything in
conjunction with the stationary battery, it can reduce peak demand and electricity costs.
In contrast, the challenge is how to manage the energy for combining storage in both
stationary battery and electric vehicle batteries with grid-connected PV. Therefore, en-
ergy management strategies represented by demand-side management (DSM) techniques
are significantly important to deal with these challenges. Energy management strategies
that rely on the DSM technique operate to match generation with demand by managing
the appliances energy consumption on the user side and controlling stationary battery,
electric vehicle battery, and PV generation [10]. There are many advantages that DSM
techniques provide to grid utilities and consumers, such as reducing peak demand, re-
ducing consumers energy costs, improving the system load curve, and maximizing the
use of renewable energy sources. Therefore, this study will focus on optimal scheduling
of grid-connected photovoltaic system with stationary battery and EV under a TOU pro-
gram, in addition to how homeowners schedule their consumption, storage, and sale of
surplus energy to the grid so that energy is managed in an optimal way and electricity
costs are reduced.
The rest of this study is arranged as follows: The literature review is introduced in
Section 2. Section 3 describes system structure and mathematical formulation. Optimal
energy scheduling based on the Jaya algorithm is detailed in Section 4. Section 5 dis-
cusses the simulation results of the optimal energy scheduling. Lastly, Section 6 elaborates
the conclusion.

2. Literature Review
The problem of optimal scheduling of consumption, storage, and/or generation in
smart homes is considered an optimization problem that is not easy to control. Therefore,
several studies have been presented on optimization methods for optimal energy optimal
scheduling in smart homes, such as genetic algorithm (GA) [11], mixed-integer linear
programming (MILP) [12], mixed-integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) [13], stochastic
dynamic programming (SDP) [14], convex programming (CP) [15], shuffled frog leaping
algorithm (SFLA) [16], multi-agent system (MAS) [17], and particle swarm optimization
(PSO) [18]. In order to determine optimal load energy consumption under a dynamic
pricing environment in residential buildings, the genetic algorithm (GA) is proposed with
the purpose of reducing the total energy costs [11]. The framework of mixed-integer linear
programming (MILP) under the home energy management system (HEMS) model was
presented in [12], to limit the peak power with the possibility of bidirectional use of the
electric vehicle and energy storage system. Small-scale PV generation, bidirectional energy
storage system, V2H, and V2G capabilities, and different demand response strategies were
integrated into the proposed HEMS model. In [13], mixed-integer nonlinear programming
(MINLP) was formulated for scheduling battery and home appliances under the TOU tariff
in the smart home to reduce cost, peak shaving, and valley filling. In [14], the study exam-
ined stochastic energy management for the smart home associated with sustainable energy
supplies (PV) and the local energy storage opportunity provided by vehicle electrification
(EV). Random-variable models such as PV generation and home energy consumption
predictive models and Markov Chain model of EV mobility are developed. The stochastic
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 3 of 23

energy management problem was formulated using optimal stochastic dynamic program-
ming (SDP) to manage the power flow between energy sources and reduce the energy cost
under TOU while satisfying EV charging requirements and home power demand. In [15],
an optimization framework for sizing components and efficient energy use in a residential
building with electric vehicle, ESS, and photovoltaic generation was devised. The opti-
mization framework was formulated as a convex programming (CP) problem to efficiently
control and optimize the ESS parameters. Vehicle-to-home (V2H) mode, home-to-vehicle
(H2V) mode, and buying of electric energy to charge the energy storage system from the
grid were controlled based on the convex programming (CP) algorithm.
In [16], the shuffled frog leaping algorithm (SFLA) was designed for optimal schedul-
ing of photovoltaic generation (PV), energy storage system, electric vehicle (EV), and the
electric heater (EH) in the smart home through HEMS. The suggested algorithm minimized
the daily energy consumption cost and met the electrical and thermal loads. In [17], an
efficient real-time embedded system and energy management (RT-ES-EM) was developed
in the smart home by using a new multi-agent system (MAS). The proposed algorithm seeks
to optimize electricity production without interruption in the hybrid-system-contained
solar system with fuel cell backup system (FC). The integration of the electric vehicle
(EV) as energy storage systems (ESSs) with uninterruptible power supply (UPS) under
demand response help was introduced to reduce electricity bills while maintaining user
comfort in the smart home. Electric water heater (EWH), an electric water pump (EWP),
heating ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) were taken as home appliances which
are scheduled by an algorithm of particle swarm optimization (PSO) [18]. In [19], a robust
swarm-based optimization algorithm inspired by the grey wolf lifestyle, called grey wolf
optimizer (GWO), was adapted to address power scheduling problems in a smart home
(PSPSH). PSPSH is formulated as a multi-objective optimization problem to minimize the
cost of the power consumed by home appliances, balancing the power consumed during a
time horizon, particularly at peak periods, and maximizing the satisfaction level of users.
Furthermore, grey wolf optimizer (GWO) and artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization
algorithm under ToU pricing scheme based on the Internet of energy have been proposed
to define the rates for shoulder-peak and on-peak hours and reduce demand in smart
homes [20].
Moreover, several hybrid optimization algorithms have been proposed for optimal
energy scheduling in smart homes, for instance, in [21], the HEMS model is designed based
on four heuristic algorithms: genetic algorithm (GA), wind driven optimization (WDO),
binary particle swarm optimization (BPSO), and bacterial foraging optimization algorithm
(BFOA). In addition, a hybrid algorithm called genetic BPSO (GBPSO) is suggested for
optimal scheduling of household appliances under real-time pricing (RTP), aiming to
reduce the electricity bill and peak-to-average ratio (PAR). In [22], authors proposed a home
energy management (HEM) strategy modeled as a mixed-integer linear programming
(MILP) with a general algebraic modeling system (GAMS). The proposed strategy reduces
electricity cost and compensates reactive power at the grid integration point. The proposed
HEM works on scheduling the charging and discharging of the ESS and EV, in addition
to scheduling shiftable loads (SL). An algorithm called quadratic binary particle swarm
optimization (QBPSO) has been proposed for scheduling household appliances in a smart
home equipped with variable renewable energy sources (wind and solar). The proposed
algorithm works on optimal scheduling of appliances under both RTP and TOU tariffs to
reduce electricity bills with consideration of consumers’ comfort [23]. A hybrid algorithm
called firefly lion algorithm (FLA) has been proposed for reducing the cost of energy and
the waiting time of consumers or end-users on the university campus [24].
Considering the valuable contributions introduced through the above-proposed op-
timization algorithms in the HEMS model, most mathematical algorithms, such as MILP
and MINLP, have computational complexity or increased system complexity. On the other
hand, the heuristic algorithms mentioned above, such as GA and PSO, require algorithmic-
specific control parameters that can affect performances and increase computational time.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 4 of 23

Therefore, optimization algorithms that do not need any algorithmic-specific parameters for
their execution and functioning, but just require common parameters such as population
size and generation size, have recently been used in solving optimization problems, for
example, the Jaya algorithm. Jaya is a simple, powerful, and new optimization algorithm
developed by Rao for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems (which
only requires common control parameters) [25]. Many studies have been proposed for
optimal energy scheduling in smart homes by using the Jaya algorithm in the HEMS model,
as in [26,27]. In [26], the Jaya algorithm was proposed for optimal energy scheduling in
smart homes integrated with the photovoltaic system (PV) and energy storage system (ESS).
The proposed algorithm operates on optimal scheduling of ESS and home appliances in
response to critical peak price (CPP) and time-of-use (TOU) to reduce the cost of electricity.
A multi-objective self-adaptive multi-population algorithm has been suggested for optimal
energy scheduling in smart buildings equipped with rooftop PV and ESS. The proposed
algorithm based on the Jaya algorithm was developed to minimize carbon emission and
electricity price [27]. Table 1 shows a summary of techniques, objectives, features, and
limitations of the literature.

Table 1. Summary of literature.

Techniques Objectives DER DSMR Limitations

Minimizing overall Computational complexity
[11] GA - -
electricity cost and inconsideration
of DER and DSMR
Peak power limitation
[12] MILP PV ESS and EV Computational complexity
and cost reduction
Achieving of cost
[13] MINLP saving, peak shaving, - ESS Ignoring of DER
and valley filling
Minimize consumer
charges and satisfying System complexity
[14] SDP PV EV
load and EV is increased
energy requirements
Home economy
maximization and System complexity
[15] CP PV ESS and EV
satisfying load and is increased
EV energy requirements
Minimization of electricity
bill and air pollution
[16] SFLA of the home and balances PV ESS and EV System complexity
electricity and natural is increased
gas consumption during seasons
Improvement of electricity
production without
RT-ES-EM Implementing of V2H
[17] interruption to provide PV ESS and FC
with MAS and cost reduction
comfortable services
were not considered
for users
Bill reduction and
[18] PSO - EV as ESS Ignoring of DER
satisfying user requirement
Minimize the cost, balance the
[19] GWO power consumption, and maximize - ESS Ignoring of DER and EV
the satisfaction level of users
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 5 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Techniques Objectives DER DSMR Limitations

Inconsideration of DER and
[20] GWO and ABC Reduce the demand - -
DSMR
GA, WDO, Reduction of electricity
[21] BPSO,BFOA, cost and peak- - - Ignoring of
and GBPSO to-average ratio (PAR) DER and DSMR
Reduces electricity
MILP cost and compensates
[22] PV ESS and EV Computational complexity
with GAMS the reactive power at
the grid integration point
Electricity bill minimization
Wind and
[23] QBPSO and maximizes the - Inconsideration of DSMR
PV
consumer comfort
[24] FLA Cost reduction - - Ignoring of DER and DSMR

[26] Jaya Reduction of electricity cost PV ESS Inconsideration

of V2H
PMO- Minimization of economic Use of EV as electrical
[27] PV ESS
SAMP Jaya cost and CO2 emissions load and ignores
the use of V2H

To overcome the shortcomings of the previous studies, this study proposes a Jaya
framework for the rapidly and efficiently optimal energy scheduling of a smart home with
the ESS, EV, and photovoltaic generation. The aim of this work is to reduce the daily cost
of electricity and meet the household demand and energy requirement for the EV trip
distance. The major contributions of this study are summarized as follows:
• Indeed, the main contribution of this work was to monitor the energy flow of the
studied home by using the Jaya algorithm according to the following constraints:
TOU electricity price signal, the specific daily load profile, PV generation profile, EV
constraints, ESS constraints, and power balance, exchange, and flow constraints.
• One of the advantages that distinguish this work is that it takes into account the effect
of EV travel distance when using the EV in vehicle-to-home (V2H) mode. Therefore,
before EV participation in the V2H process, the amount of energy stored in the electric
vehicle battery will verify to be enough for the remaining vehicle trip distance to
ensure that the required energy for the electric vehicle trip distance is satisfied based
on vehicle trip distance. The verification of required energy for the electric vehicle trip
distance has not been performed in any literature.
• The proposed model elaborates that by using the Jaya algorithm, the modes of home-
to-vehicle (H2V) and vehicle-to-home (V2H) are controlled, in addition, to controlling
the purchase of energy from the grid and sale of the energy to the grid from PV
generation and ESS.

3. System Structure and Mathematical Modeling

3.1. Studied System Structure
The configuration of the typical smart home is depicted in Figure 1. Besides the utility
grid, the smart home under study includes a load profile, electricity price signal, solar
radiation, photovoltaic system (PV), an electric vehicle (EV), household appliances, and
an energy storage system. In order to achieve an optimal energy scheduling between the
power grid and the studied smart home, a smart meter is required to collect information
about the power quantity required or supplied to the utility grid [28]. In addition, the
smart home energy management system (HEMS) is in charge of optimal energy exchange
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 6 of 23

between smart house components and the utility grid [29,30]. The optimal control problem
of energy scheduling between the power grid and the studied smart home entails control
inputs as TOU electricity price signal, the specific daily load profile, PV generation profile,
EV parameters, and ESS parameters. The control decisions are the power flows between
the grid and the studied smart home, state of charge (SOC) of EV and ESS, which have
battery charging and discharging power as control variables, and the arrival and departure
time of the electric vehicle. The main objective is to reduce the daily cost of electricity and
meet the household demand and energy requirement for the EV trip distance, taking into
account the necessary constraints. This problem is of great importance because worldwide
research on DSM, of which the main purpose is to match generation with demand by
managing and controlling the energy consumption, energy storage, and generation on the
user side, has opened new possibilities for advanced planning and control of consumption
storage and generation, especially at the residential level in which the scheduling of energy
consumption storage and generation can play a major role. Figure 2 displays the different
combinations of energy exchange paths between components of the smart home.
Grid
Information Flow
Power Flow

Smart Meter

Grid

PV Price Signal

Smart Meter

HEMS Based ESS

on Jaya
Load Curve Algorithm
EV
EV

Appliances
ESS

Figure 1. Configuration of smart home.

ESS
开始

数，包括（人口规模、迭代
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 7 of 23
限）、储能系统参数、电动
据、负载数据和光伏数据

小、终止和设计变量
ESS to Grid
Grid

最佳和最差解决方案 Grid to ESS Grid Grid to EV

PV to Grid
后的方程更新解

Grid to Load
PV to ESS PV to EV

YES
液面糊比旧液好 ESS PV EV

EV to Load
PV to Load
用新解决方案替换
ESS
旧解决方案
EV

ESS to Load
NO
到迭代次数
Appliances

S
家庭能源调度
PV
Figure 2. Energy exchange paths between components of the smart home.
结尾 Appliances
3.2. Mathematical Modeling
3.2.1. Objective Function
The objective function of this study is the economic optimization of the smart home
performance, aiming to minimize the total cost of electricity. The objective function is
composed of three parts. The first part is the cost of power bought from the grid. The
second part is the daily cost of PV and ESS installation and the daily EV battery degradation
cost. The third part is the revenue of power sold to the grid.
buy
MinHcost = Cost P + Costinstallation sell
PV,ESS,EV − revenue P (1)

24 24
∑ λt [ PGL,t − PPVL,t − PESSL,t − PEVL,t ] + ∑ λo f f [ PGESS,t + PGEV,t ]
buy
Cost P = (2)
t =1 t =1
capital capital degradation
Costinstallation
PV,ESS,EV = Cost PV + Cost ESS + Cost EV (3)
24
sell
revenuePgrid = ∑ γ[λt PPVG,t + λk PESSG,t ] (4)
t =1

where PGL,t is power from the grid-to-load (kW), PGESS,t represents the power from the
grid-to-ESS (kW), PGEV,t represents power from the grid-to-EV (kW), PPVG,t represents the
power from the PV-to-grid (kW), PESSG,t represents the power from the ESS-to-grid (kW),
PPVL,t represents the power from the PV-to-load (kW), PESSL,t represents the power from
the ESS-to-load (kW), PEVL,t represents the power from the EV-to-load (kW), and gamma is
the contracted ratio for selling power to the grid.
The TOU pricing signal λt is used in the economic optimization of the smart home
performance, peak price λk , mid-peak price λm , and off-peak price λo f f . The daily electricity
price during different periods can be formulated as follows.

 λk , ∀t = tk
λt = λ , ∀t = tmid (5)
 mid
λo f f , ∀t = to f f
capital capital
The Cost PV and Cost ESS represent the daily capital cost of the PV installation and
the daily capital cost of ESS installation, which are formulated as in Equations (6) and (7)
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 8 of 23

degradation
respectively [31], and Cost EV represents the EV battery degradation cost due to V2H,
which is formulated as in Equation (8) [32].

capital i (1 + i ) N
ZPV
Cost PV = CPV N
(6)
N
(1 + i ) − 1 days

capital i (1 + i ) N
ZESS
Cost ESS = CESS N
(7)
N
(1 + i ) − 1 days
degradation CEV  R

d
Cost EV = ZEV DOD − EEV ηEV (8)
C f DOD
where CPV is one-time installation cost of PV ($/kW), i is the interest rate, N is lifetime,
Ndays is the total number of days during the year, ZPV is rated capacity of PV array size
(kW), CESS is the one-time installation cost of ESS ($/kWh), ZESS is rated capacity of ESS
(kWh), CEV is the replacement cost of EV battery, C f is the full cycles number during battery
lifespan, DOD is the total number depth of discharge, ZEV is rated capacity of EV battery
(kWh), EEVR is the required energy for the EV travel distance in the typical day (kWh), and
d
ηEV is the EV battery discharge efficiency.
The required energy for the electric vehicle trip distance can be represented by the
following equation [33].
R
EEV = ηV D (9)
where ηV represents vehicle efficiency (kWh/km), and D represents the vehicle travel
distance (km).

3.2.2. Operational Constraints of PV

The PV output constraint depends on power out from the PV array. The PV array
consists of many solar cells that are interconnected in series and/or parallel to convert
sunlight into DC power by a photovoltaic effect. The hourly power output from the PV
generator of the specific area size can be formulated as follows:

PPV = ηPV ZPV IPV (10)

where ηPV represents PV generator efficiency and IPV represents the solar radiation
(kWh/m2 ).
The efficiency of the PV generator is given by [34].
   
IPV
ηPV = ηR 1 − 0.9ρ ( TC,NT − TA,NT ) − ρ( TA − TR ) (11)
IPV,NT

where ηR is the PV generator efficiency measured at reference cell temperature TR , i.e.,

under standard test conditions (25 ◦ C); ρ is the temperature coefficient for cell efficiency
(typically 0.004–0.005/◦ C); IPV,NT is the average hourly solar irradiation incident on the
array at NT (0.8 kWh/m2 ); TC,NT (typically 45 ◦ C) and TA,NT (20 ◦ C) are, respectively, the
cell and ambient temperatures at NT test conditions.
The constraint of PV output in this study that lies in PV power generation should be
greater than or equal to the amount of PV power for immediate customer use, the amount
of PV power used to charge ESS and EV, and the amount of PV power sold to the grid.

PPVL,t + PPVESS,t + PPVEV,t + PPVG,t ≤ PPV,t (12)

3.2.3. Operational Constraints of ESS

The state of charge of ESS constraint: Due to the limited capacity of the ESS, the ESS
state of charge at time interval t will change depending on the residual energy from the past
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 9 of 23

period and the charging and discharging in that interval. According to the state of charge
of ESS at the past period, the state of charge of the current period can be formulated as
d
" #
1 c c
PESS,t
SOCESS,t = SOCESS,t−1 + η P − d (13)
ZESS ESS ESS,t ηESS
c
where SOCESS,t is the ESS SOC at time t, SOCESS,t−1 is the SOC of ESS in past period, PESS,t
d
represents charging power of ESS (kW), PESS,t represents discharging power of ESS (kW),
c
ZESS represents the ESS rated capacity (kWh), and ηESS d
and ηESS represent charging and
discharging efficiency of ESS, respectively.
ESS SOC boundary constraint: To maintain the state of charge of the ESS within
the minimal and maximal allowable capacity, the state of charge of ESS is constrained
as follows.
SOCESS,min ≤ SOCESS,t ≤ SOCESS,max (14)
where SOCESS,max is the maximum SOC of ESS, and SOCESS,min is the minimum SOC
of ESS.
The constraint of sale of energy stored in the ESS to the grid: The energy stored in the
ESS must be sold to the grid at peak price periods only.
max ,

0 ≤ PESSG,t ≤ PESSG ∀λt = λk
PESSG,t = (15)
0, otherwise

The constraint of charging ESS from the grid: The ESS must be charging from the grid
at off-peak price periods only.
max ,

0 ≤ PGESS,t ≤ PGESS ∀λt = λo f f
PGESS,t = (16)
0, otherwise

3.2.4. Operational Constraints of EV

Similar to ESS, the EV battery state of charge will change due to charging and dis-
charging depending on the remaining energy from the previous period. The following
equation expresses the state of charge of EV battery in the current period depending on the
state of charge of EV battery at the past period.
" #
P d
1 EV,t
SOCEV,t = SOCEV,t−1 + η c Pc − d (17)
ZEV EV EV,t ηEV

where SOCEV,t represents EV battery SOC at time t, SOCEV,t−1 represents state of charge
c
of EV battery at the past period, PEV,t d
represents charge power of EV (kW), PEV,t represents
discharge power of EV (kW), ZEV represents the EV battery rated capacity (kWh), and ηEV c
d
and ηEV represent charging and discharging efficiency of EV battery, respectively.
In addition, similar to the ESS SOC constraint, the SOC of the EV should be within a
certain range represented by the maximum and minimum state of charge levels as follows.

SOCEV,min ≤ SOCEV,t ≤ SOCEV,max (18)

where SOCEV,max is the maximum SOC of EV battery, and SOCEV,min is the minimum SOC
of EV battery.
The constraint of charging EV from the grid: The EV must only be charging from the
grid at off-peak price periods.
max ,

0 ≤ PGEV,t ≤ PGEV ∀λt = λo f f
PGEV,t = (19)
0, otherwise
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 10 of 23

The constraint of providing the required energy for the electric vehicle trip distance
in case of EV battery discharging: Before the participation of EV in the V2H process, the
amount of energy stored in the electric vehicle battery will be verified to be enough for the
remaining vehicle trip distance to ensure that the required energy for the electric vehicle
trip distance is satisfied based on vehicle trip distance. Therefore, the state of charge
of EV battery at departure time must be equal or higher than SOC required for the EV
trip distance.

SOCEV,t ≥ SOCEV,R1 , ∀t = td1 . (20)

SOCEV,t ≥ SOCEV,R2 , ∀t = td2 . (21)

where SOCEV,R1 is the SOC required for the EV trip distance at the first departure time
td1 , and SOCEV,R2 is the SOC required for the remaining EV trip distance at the second
departure time td2 .

3.2.5. Power Balance Constraint

The power of grid, PV, ESS, and EV must supply household power demand as follows.

PGL,t + PPVL,t + PESSL,t + PEVL,t = PL,t (22)

From Equation (22), the bought power from the grid and power generated by PV
besides the discharged power from ESS and EV battery should be equal to the home power
demand, where PL,t is the household power demand at time t (kW).

3.2.6. Power Exchange Constraints

Electricity energy should not be sold to the grid and bought from the grid at the
same time, which can be formulated and satisfied using a binary variable (β). From
Equations (23) and (24), it is worth noting that the home can draw power from the grid
when β is equal to 1 and sell back power to the grid when β is equal to 0.
grid
PGL,t + PGESS,t + PGEV,t ≤ βPmax (23)

sell
PPVG,t + PESSG,t ≤ [1 − β] Pmax (24)
grid sell is the
where Pmax is the maximum power that can be drawn from the grid (kW), and Pmax
maximum power that can be sold back to the grid (kW).

3.2.7. Power Flow Constraints

For safety and other physical reasons, power flow from each source must be non-
negative and less than the maximum allowable value as
max
0 ≤ PGL,t ≤ PGL (25)
max
0 ≤ PGEV,t ≤ PGEV (26)
max
0 ≤ PGESS,t ≤ PGESS (27)
max
0 ≤ PPVL,t ≤ PPVL (28)
max
0 ≤ PPVEV,t ≤ PPVEV (29)
max
0 ≤ PPVESS,t ≤ PPVESS (30)
max
0 ≤ PPVG,t ≤ PPVG (31)
max
0 ≤ PESSL,t ≤ PESSL (32)
max
0 ≤ PESSG,t ≤ PESSG (33)
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 11 of 23

max
0 ≤ PEVL,t ≤ PEVL (34)

4. Optimal Energy Scheduling Based on Jaya Algorithm

In this work, the problem introduced in Section 3.1 is the optimal control problem of
energy scheduling between the power grid and the studied smart home, which belongs
to scheduling problems. Most traditional mathematical algorithms, such as MILP and
MINLP, are not adequate to control the scheduling optimization, and have computational
complexity or increase system complexity. Therefore, metaheuristic algorithms such as
GA, PSO, and Jaya are more and more used in scheduling optimization. In most cases,
they give a good solution in a reasonable time for larger problems. However, some of
the metaheuristic algorithms, such as GA and PSO, require algorithmic-specific control
parameters that can affect performances and increase computational time. Therefore, to
address this, we apply a metaheuristic Jaya algorithm to actualize our set of objectives,
which do not need any algorithmic-specific parameters for their execution and functioning
but just require common parameters such as population size and generation size. The Jaya
algorithm is proposed and the result is compared with the PSO algorithm.
The theoretical and algorithmic aspects of Jaya are detailed in [25]. Suppose there is
F(x) as an objective function that can be maximized or minimized. In any iteration t, let j
represent the variables number (m = 1, 2, . . ., j) and k represent population size or candidate
number (n = 1, 2, . . ., k). In addition, assume that the best value of the objective function
(F(x)best) is found from the best candidate among all candidate solutions and the worst
value of the objective function (F(x)worst) is found from the worst candidate among all
candidate solutions. Let Xm,n,t be the value of mth variable for nth candidate at the tth
iteration, then the value will be modified by the following equation:
0
Xm,n,t = Xm,n,t + r1 ( Xm,best,t − | Xm,n,t |) − r2 ( Xm,worst,t − | Xm,n,t |) (35)

where Xm,best,t represents the variable m best value obtained for the best candidate, Xm,worst,t
0
is the variable m worst value obtained for the worst candidate, Xm,n,t the modified value of
Xm,n,t , r1 and r2 are random values between zero and one. The r1 ( Xm,best,t − | Xm,n,t |) is the
term of moving near to the best solution and r2 ( Xm,worst,t − | Xm,n,t |) is term of avoiding the
0
worst solution. After that, the new solution value, found by Xm,n,t , and previous solution
value found by Xm,n,t will be compared, and if the new solution value is better than the
previous solution value, the new value will be accepted and will replace the previous
solution. Otherwise, the previous solution will be kept and it will continue to work in that
manner until the end of iteration t. The pseudocode of Jaya is outlined in Algorithm 1,
which is simple to understand.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 12 of 23

Algorithm 1: Pseudocode of Jaya.

1: Input: Input: objective function (f), Population size (n)
Number of design variables (m), Lower and Upper bounds (Lb,Ub),
and Maximum number of iterations (Maxiter)
2: Output:best solution and best objective function value
3: Initialize the population within lower and upper bounds randomly
4: Evaluation of fitness values
5: iter = 1
6: while iter < Maxiter
7: Find the best and worst solution among the current population
8: for n = 1 to k do
9: for m = 1 to j do
10: Update the solution according to Equation (35)
0
11: if Xm,n,t < Lb
0
12: Xm,n,t = Lb
0
13: else if Xm,n,t > Ub
0
14: Xm,n,t = Ub
15: else
0 0
16: Xm,n,t = Xm,n,t
17: end if
18: end for
0
19: if solution f(Xm,n,t ) better than f(Xm,n,t )
0
20: Xm,n,t =Xm,n,t (replace old solution by new solution)
21: else
22: Xm,n,t =Xm,n,t (keep old solution)
23: end if
24: end for
25: iter = iter + 1
26: end while

The objective function of the studies system in Equation (1) is used as Jaya objective func-
tion, which is of great interest to the household economic optimization performance, which is
formulated to minimize the total cost of electricity. The constraints in this study are represented
by PV constraints (Equation (12)), the ESS constraints (Equations (13)–(16)), the EV battery
constraints (Equations (17)–(21)), the power balance constraints (Equation (22)), power ex-
change constraints (Equations (23) and (24)), and power flow constraints (Equations (25)–(34)).
The number of design variables in this work is equal to the number of power flow equations,
which include PGL,t , PGESS,t , PGEV,t , PPVL,t , PPVEV,t , PPVESS,t , PPVG,t , PESSG,t , PESSL,t , and
PEVL,t . The flowchart in Figure 3 displays the optimal energy scheduling based on the Jaya
algorithm for integrating vehicle-to-home and energy storage systems with photovoltaic
generation in smart homes.
 Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 13 of 23

Start

Input common JAYA control parameters including (population size, number of iteration, lower
and upper bound of design variables), ESS parameters including (SOCESS ,in , SOCESS ,min , and 输入常用的 Jaya 控制
SOCESS ,max ), EV parameters including (SOCEV ,in , SOCEV ,min , SOCEV ,max , SOCEV , R , ta , and 次数、设计变量的上
汽车参数、价格
td ), price data including  t , k , and off  , load data PL,t , and PV data PPV ,t

Initialize population size, termination criterion, and the

design variables ( PGL,t , PGESS ,t , PGEV ,t , PPVL,t , PPVEV ,t ,
初始化种群
PPVESS ,t , PPVEV ,t , PPVG ,t , PESSG ,t , PESSL,t , and PEVL,t )
d

Determine the best and worst solutions among the population 确定人群中

Update the solutions based on equation (35) 根据修

EV
V

NO Is the obtained new solution YES NO

得到的
better than old solution

Preserve the Replace the old solution

保留旧的解
old solution by the new solution
决方案
ances

Is the number of NO
是否
iteration reached

YES
id

Display the optimal home energy scheduling 显示最

End

Figure 3. The flowchart of optimal energy scheduling based on Jaya algorithm.

ances EV 5. Simulation Results and Discussion

This section provides simulation results to verify the proposed algorithm’s perfor-
mance and efficiency in minimizing the smart home’s daily electricity cost. The computa-
tional time of this study is executed within 24 h.
The solar irradiation and temperature data were taken from [35], which provides the
solar meteorological data from 1981 to the date of access on 1 November 2021. To simplify,
the hourly solar meteorological data during the last five years were utilized to evaluate
V the average power output curve of solar in summer and winter, which can be depicted in
Figure 4a.
The electricity pricing signal for residential customers is shown in Figure 4b, which
represents the residential time-of-use rates that refer to the Southern California Edison
(SCE) TOU plans [36]. This figure displays the price profile of electricity with TOU in
different intervals, which displays off-peak, mid-peak, and peak electricity prices during
the time of day. It motivates the customers to charge their ESS and EV at low prices of
electricity which can be used later on to feed load demand or sell it back to the grid at high
prices of electricity to achieve economic benefits.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 14 of 23

6 Summer Winter TOU

0.3
5
0.25

Price ($/kWh)
Power (kW)
4
0.2

3
0.15

2 0.1

1 0.05

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Power output curve of solar in summer and winter; (b) TOU price signal.

Near-real-time hourly electricity consumption data was collected from 48 states by the
US energy information administration (EIA) [37]. They found that household electricity
consumption is highest in the summer months. In contrast, hourly electricity load is
less variable during the winter months but peaks in both the morning and the evening.
Therefore, in this study, the home energy consumption in summer and winter are predicted
as shown in Figure 5a.
PV systems prices in 2021 decreased by 5% compared to the previous year for systems
from 2.5 kW to 10 kW. The PV data used in this study are presented in Table 2 [38].

Table 2. PV parameters.

Parameter Value
Lifetime 25 year
PV rated power 6 kW
One-time investment cost 3780 $/kW
Module efficiency 18%

It is supposed that the electric vehicle charges only at home, and the adequate level
to charge the EV in the house ranges between 1.5–3 kW [39]. The electric vehicle daily
travel distance is considered 40 miles, which is the average travel distance in the United
States [40]. Furthermore, it is assumed that the electric vehicle is away from the house at
8:00 a.m., and back at the house at 12:00 p.m., away from the house again at 02:00 p.m., and
back at house at 05:00 p.m., as in Figure 5b. Technical and economic data of the EV utilized
in this study are taken from [41], and manufacturer specification and economic data of the
chosen batteries used in the hybrid system are taken from [42]. Table 3 lists the parameters
of EV and ESS used in this simulation. In this work, the interest rate is considered to be 6%.
All Jaya parameters used in this simulation are shown in Table 4.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 15 of 23

Summer Winter EV connection status

3

EV connection time
2.5
1

Power (kW)
2

1.5

0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Hourly home energy consumption; (b) EV connection time.

Table 3. Parameters associated with the ESS and EV.

Parameters EV ESS
Battery capacity 19 kWh 19.68 kWh
Cost 324 $/kWh 250 $/kWh
SOCmax 90% 90%
SOCmin 20% 20%
Initial SOC 50% 50%
Depth of discharge DOD 80% 80%
Charging efficiency 0.95 0.85
Discharging efficiency 0.95 0.95
Lifetime 2000 cycles 10 years
Vehicle depart time 08:00, 02:00 -
Vehicle arrive time 12:00, 17:00 -
Vehicle efficiency 14 kWh/100 km -

Table 4. Jaya parameters.

Parameter Value
Population 100
Max iteration 100
Upper bound 1
Lower bound 0

Figures 6–10 display the optimal power flows achieved with the proposed optimal
energy scheduling based on the Jaya algorithm.
Figure 6a,b show the optimal power flows to feed the load demand of the customer
during the typical day in summer and winter, respectively, which include power from the
grid to load, power from PV to demand, power from ESS to demand, and power from
EV to demand. During the peak time (high electricity price), the load is fed only by PV
generation, ESS, and EV, while the load is fed from the grid during low electricity price
or off-peak period only, unless the PV generation is not sufficient to supply the load, and
maximum allowable value for feeding the load from ESS or EV is less than the load, or if
EV is not available at home, the load will be fed from the grid at peak time.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 16 of 23

PGL PPVL PESSL PEVL PGL PPVL PESSL PEVL

2.5 2.5

2 2

Power (kW)

Power (kW)
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 6. Optimal power scheduling to feed the load demand in summer and winter.

Figure 7 displays the optimal power flows from/to the energy storage system during
the typical day in winter and summer, which include power from ESS to load and grid
and power from PV generation and grid to ESS. The ESS is charged from the grid during
off-peak intervals. When the PV generation is sufficient and more than the household
load, priority is given to charge the ESS from the PV generation in those periods. The
energy stored in the ESS is utilized to minimize the daily cost of electricity and satisfy the
demand by discharging the ESS to feed the load during peak periods, and periods when
PV generation is insufficient, in addition to selling the energy stored in the ESS to the grid
when the electricity prices are high.

PGESS PPVESS PESSL PESSG PGESS PPVESS PESSL PESSG

2.5 2.5

2 2
Power (kW)

Power (kW)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 7. Optimal power flows from/to energy storage system during summer and winter.

The optimal power flows from/to EV battery during the typical day in winter and
summer are plotted in Figure 8. The electric vehicle power flows include charging EV from
the grid during the off-peak periods, charging EV from solar when the solar generation
is higher than the load demand, and EV discharging to feed the load. In addition, this
involves meeting the load demand through discharging of EV to feed the load demand
when the load demand is greater than the generated PV and has not been fed by the ESS,
after making sure that the energy stored in the EV battery is more than the amount of
energy required for the remaining electric vehicle trip.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 17 of 23

PGEV PPVEV PEVL PGEV PPVEV PEVL

2 2

Power (kW)

Power (kW)
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 8. Optimal power flows from/to electric vehicle during summer and winter.

Figure 9a,b illustrate procured power from the grid to feed the load demand, ESS, and
EV in summer and winter, respectively. According to Figures 9a,b procured power from
the grid was reduced during the high electricity price intervals and increased during low
electricity prices, which minimized the household’s total cost.

PGEV PGL PGESS PGEV PGL PGESS

2.5 2.5

2 2
Power (kW)

Power (kW)

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 9. Procured power from grid.

Figure 10a,b illustrate sold power to the grid in summer and winter, respectively,
including the power sold to the grid from PV and ESS. It is noted that PV power is sold
to the grid as soon as the PV generation is redundant, while the energy stored in the ESS
is not sold to the grid unless the electricity prices are high, which increases the income of
selling electricity.

PPVG PESSG PPVG PESSG

3
3
2.5
2.5
Power (kW)
Power (kW)

2
2
1.5
1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 10. Sold power to the grid.

Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 18 of 23

The ESS state-of-charge curve in summer and winter is illustrated in Figure 11a,b,
respectively. These figures show that the ESS is in charge and discharge status, and it is
noted that the state of charge is increased in the period of high irradiation and off-peak
time and decreased at the peak period. In addition, the figures confirm that the SOC is
within the maximum and minimum levels during ESS charge and discharge, and the SOC
boundary constraints have been satisfied.

100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
SOC (%)

SOC (%)
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 11. Energy storage system state of charge.

Figure 12a,b show EV battery SOC profiles in summer and winter, respectively, and
the increase and decrease of EV battery SOC values confirm the charge and discharge cases.
From these figures, it is worth noting that the EV battery SOC boundary constraints have
been satisfied.

EVSOC EV out of Home EVSOC EV out of Home

100 100
90 90
80 80
70
SOC (%)

70
SOC (%)

60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)
(a) Summer (b) Winter

Figure 12. EV state of charge.

In order to evaluate the performance of the Jaya algorithm and prove its reliability,
PSO is adapted and evaluated in terms of achieving optimal energy scheduling objectives.
The results obtained by Jaya and PSO are compared to show and evaluate the performance
of the algorithms. PSO is examined using the same parameters and constraints used in the
studied smart home. Table 5 shows the parameter settings of the PSO.
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 19 of 23

Table 5. PSO parameters.

Parameter Value
Population 100
Max iteration 100
Upper bound 1
Lower bound 0
Wmax 0.9
Wmin 0.4
C1 2
C2 2

The results of Jaya and PSO are compared in summer and winter. Table 6 shows
the results obtained by Jaya and PSO in summer and winter. The table clearly shows the
powerful performance of Jaya in achieving the optimal energy scheduling objectives.

Table 6. Comparison between base case, Jaya, and PSO in summer and winter.

Seasons Cases Total Daily Cost (USD) Daily Cost Reduction (%)
Without the optimal energy scheduling 9.27 Base case
Summer Optimal energy scheduling based on Jaya 2.79 70
Optimal energy scheduling based on PSO 3.0 68
Without the optimal energy scheduling 8.75 Base case
Winter Optimal energy scheduling based on Jaya 4.0 54
Optimal energy scheduling based on PSO 4.3 51

In the summer, without the proposed energy scheduling system, the daily home
electricity cost due to the feed of household appliances and EV from the grid is USD 9.27,
while after the use of proposed optimal energy scheduling based on the Jaya and PSO
algorithms, daily home electricity cost dropped to USD 2.79 and USD 3, which represent
30% and 32% of total energy consumption cost during the summer, respectively (which
means that the total energy consumption cost during the summer was reduced by 70% and
68%). On the other hand, in the winter, without the proposed energy scheduling system,
the daily home electricity cost due to the feed of household appliances and EV from the
grid is USD 8.75. However, after utilizing the Jaya and PSO algorithms with the proposed
hybrid system, the daily home electricity cost was reduced to USD 4.0 and USD 4.3, which
represent 46% and 49% of total energy consumption cost during the winter, respectively
(which means that the total energy consumption cost during the winter was reduced by
54% and 51%).

6. Conclusions
This paper introduced optimal energy management based on the Jaya algorithm for
the smart home that integrates PV generation of EV and ESS. The aim of the proposed work
was to reduce the daily cost of electricity and meet the household demand and energy
requirement for the EV trip distance according to the set of constraints: TOU electricity
price signal, the specific daily load profile, PV generation profile, EV constraints, ESS
constraints, and power balance, exchange, and flow constraints. The Jaya algorithm was
used to control modes of home-to-vehicle (H2V) and vehicle-to-home (V2H), in addition to
control of the energy purchase from the grid and sale of the energy to the grid from surplus
PV generation and ESS. Simulation results highlight the performance.
The simulation results display that, by utilizing optimal energy scheduling based
on the Jaya algorithm in a smart home containing electric vehicle, ESS, and photovoltaic
generation, the use of PV generation, EV, and ESS was maximized. In addition, it can
be noted that ESS and EV play a great role in storing power from the grid during cheap
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 20 of 23

electricity price periods and feeding the load demand and selling it back to the grid during
high electricity price periods. Therefore, with the optimal scheduling based on the Jaya
algorithm of PV generation, EV, and ESS, the homeowner consumes a minimum grid power
amount and minimizes their daily electricity cost.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.A.A.A. and M.W.; methodology, M.A.A.A. and M.W.;
software, M.A.A.A.; validation, M.A.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.A.A.; writing—
review and editing, M.W.; supervision, M.W.; funding acquisition, M.W. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Science and Technology Project of State Grid Corporation
of China, Grant Number: 52094021000Q.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
SOC State of charge
V2H Vehicle-to-home
H2V Home-to-vehicle
PV Photovoltaic
EV Electric vehicle
ESS Energy storage system
HEMS Home energy management system
NT Standard and nominal cell operating temperature conditions
DOD Total number depth of discharge
D Vehicle travel distance (km)
i Interest rate
N Lifetime
Ndays Total number of days during the year
γ Contracted ratio for selling power to the grid
λt Electricity price during different periods of day
λk Peak price
λm Mid-peak price
λo f f Off-peak price
d
ηEV EV battery discharge efficiency
ηV Vehicle efficiency (kWh/km)
ηPV PV generator efficiency
ηR The PV generator efficiency at reference temperature
c
ηESS Charging efficiency of ESS
d
ηESS Discharging efficiency of ESS
c
ηEV Charging efficiency of EV battery
d
ηEV Discharging efficiency of EV battery
β Binary variable
ρ Temperature coefficient for cell efficiency
PGL,t Power from the grid-to-load (kW)
PGESS,t Power from the grid-to-ESS (kW)
PGEV,t Power from the grid-to-EV (kW)
PPVG,t Power from the PV-to-grid (kW)
PESSG,t Power from the ESS-to-grid (kW)
PPVL,t Power from the PV-to-load (kW)
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 21 of 23

PESSL,t Power from the ESS-to-load (kW)

PEVL,t Power from the EV-to-load (kW)
c
PESS,t Charging power of ESS (kW)
d
PESS,t Discharging power of ESS (kW)
c
PEV,t Charging power of EV (kW)
d
PEV,t Discharge power of EV (kW)
PL,t Household power demand at time t
grid
Pmax Maximum power that can be drawn from the grid (kW)
sell
Pmax Maximum power that can be sold back to the grid (kW)
capital
Cost PV Daily capital cost of the PV installation
capital
Cost ESS Daily capital cost of ESS installation
degradation
Cost EV EV battery degradation cost due to V2H
CPV One-time installation cost of PV (USD/kW)
CESS One time installation cost of ESS (USD/kWh)
CEV Replacement cost of EV battery
Cf Full cycles number during battery lifespan
ZPV Rated capacity of PV array size (kW)
ZESS Rated capacity of ESS (kWh)
ZEV Rated capacity of EV battery (kWh)
R
EEV Required energy for the EV travel distance in the typical day (kWh)
IPV Solar radiation (kWh/m2)
IPV,NT The average hourly solar irradiation incident on the array at NT
TA Ambient temperatures
TR Reference cell temperature
TC The cell temperature
TC,NT Cell temperatures at NT
TA,NT Ambient temperatures at NT
SOCESS,t ESS SOC at time t
SOCESS,t−1 SOC of ESS in past period
SOCESS,max Maximum SOC of ESS
SOCESS,min Minimum SOC of ESS
SOCEV,t EV battery SOC at time t
SOCEV,t−1 State of charge of EV battery at the past period
SOCEV,max Maximum SOC of EV battery
SOCEV,min Minimum SOC of EV battery
SOCEV,R1 SOC required for the EV trip distance at the first departure time td1
SOC required for the remaining EV trip distance at the second
SOCEV,R2
departure time td2
td1 First departure time
td2 Second departure time
Xm,best,t Variable m best value obtained for the best candidate
Xm,worst,t Variable m worst value obtained for the worst candidate
0
Xm,n,t Modified value of Xm,n,t
r1 and r2 Are random values between zero and one

References
1. Nejat, P.; Jomehzadeh, F.; Taheri, M.M.; Gohari, M.; Majid, M.Z.A. A global review of energy consumption, CO2 emissions and
policy in the residential sector (with an overview of the top ten CO2 emitting countries). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43,
843–862. [CrossRef]
2. Abbaker, A.O.; Wang, H.; Tian, Y. Voltage control of solid oxide fuel cell power plant based on intelligent proportional integral-
adaptive sliding mode control with anti-windup compensator. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2020, 42, 116–130. [CrossRef]
3. Habib, S.; Kamran, M.; Rashid, U. Impact analysis of vehicle-to-grid technology and charging strategies of electric vehicles on
distribution networks a review. J. Power Sources 2015, 277, 205–214. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 22 of 23

4. Slama, S.A.B. Design and implementation of home energy management system using vehicle to home (H2V) approach. J. Clean.
Prod. 2021, 312, 127792. [CrossRef]
5. Abdalla, M.A.A.; Min, W.; Gomaa Haroun, A.H.; Elhindi, M. Optimal Energy Scheduling Strategy for Smart Charging of Electric
Vehicles from Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System. In Proceedings of the 2021 7th International Conference on Electrical,
Electronics and Information Engineering (ICEEIE), Malang, Indonesia, 2 October 2021; pp. 37–42.
6. Bibra, E.M.; Connelly, E.; Gorner, M.; Lowans, C.; Paoli, L.; Tattini, J.; Teter, J. Global EV Outlook, Accelerating Ambitions Despite the
Pandemic; International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris, France, 2021.
7. Hafeez, G.; Wadud, Z.; Khan, I.U.; Khan, I.; Shafiq, Z.; Usman, M.; Khan, M.U.A. Efficient energy management of IoT-enabled
smart homes under price-based demand response program in smart grid. Sensors 2020, 20, 3155. [CrossRef]
8. Martinopoulos, G. Are rooftop photovoltaic systems a sustainable solution for Europe? A life cycle impact assessment and cost
analysis. Appl. Energy 2020, 257, 114035. [CrossRef]
9. Lee, S.; Choi, D.H. Energy management of smart home with home appliances, energy storage system and electric vehicle: A
hierarchical deep reinforcement learning approach. Sensors 2020, 20, 2157. [CrossRef]
10. Gelazanskas, L.; Gamage, K.A. Demand side management in smart grid: A review and proposals for future direction. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2014, 11, 22–30. [CrossRef]
11. Oladeji, O.; Olakanmi, O.O. A genetic algorithm approach to energy consumption scheduling under demand response. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2014 IEEE 6th International Conference on Adaptive Science & Technology (ICAST), Ota, Nigeria, 29–31 October
2014; pp. 1–6.
12. Erdinc, O.; Paterakis, N.G.; Mendes, T.D.; Bakirtzis, A.G.; Catalao, J.P. Smart household operation considering bi-directional EV
and ESS utilization by real time pricing-based DR. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 6, 1281–1291. [CrossRef]
13. Setlhaolo, D.; Xia, X. Optimal scheduling of household appliances with a battery storage system and coordination. Energy Build.
2015, 94, 61–70. [CrossRef]
14. Wu, X.; Hu, X.; Moura, S.; Yin, X.; Pickert, V. Stochastic control of smart home energy management with plug-in electric vehicle
battery energy storage and photovoltaic array. J. Power Sources 2016, 333, 203–212. [CrossRef]
15. Wu, X.; Hu, X.; Teng, Y.; Qian, S.; Cheng, R. Optimal integration of a hybrid solar-battery power source into smart home nanogrid
with plug-in electric vehicle. J. Power Sources 2017, 363, 277–283. [CrossRef]
16. Lorestani, A.; Aghaee, S.S.; Gharehpetian, G.B.; Ardehali, M.M. Energy management in smart home including PV panel, battery,
electric heater with integration of plug-in electric vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2017 Smart Grid Conference (SGC), Tehran, Iran,
20–21 December 2017; pp. 1–7.
17. Sami, B.S.; Sihem, N.; Bassam, Z. Design and implementation of an intelligent home energy management system: A realistic
autonomous hybrid system using energy storage. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2018, 43, 19352–19365. [CrossRef]
18. Sisodiya, S.; Kumbhar, G.B.; Alam, M.N. A home energy management incorporating energy storage systems with utility under
demand response using PSO. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEMA Engineer Infinite Conference (eTechNxT), New Delhi, India,
13–14 March 2018; pp. 1–6.
19. Makhadmeh, S.N.; Al-Betar, M.A.; Alyasseri, Z.A.A.; Abasi, A.K.; Khader, A.T.; Damasevicius, R.; Abdulkareem, K.H. Smart
Home Battery for the Multi-Objective Power Scheduling Problem in a Smart Home Using Grey Wolf Optimizer. Electronics 2021,
10, 447. [CrossRef]
20. Alhasnawi, B.N.; Jasim, B.H.; Rahman, Z.A.S.; Siano, P.A. Novel Robust Smart Energy Management and Demand Reduction for
Smart Homes Based on Internet of Energy. Sensors 2021, 21, 4756. [CrossRef]
21. Javaid, N.; Naseem, M.; Rasheed, M.B.; Mahmood, D.; Khan, S.A.; Alrajeh, N.; Iqbal, Z. A new heuristically optimized Home
Energy Management controller for smart grid. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 34, 211–227. [CrossRef]
22. Golshannavaz, S. Cooperation of electric vehicle and energy storage in reactive power compensation: An optimal home energy
management system considering PV presence. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 317–325. [CrossRef]
23. Jordehi, A.R. Binary particle swarm optimisation with quadratic transfer function: A new binary optimisation algorithm for
optimal scheduling of appliances in smart homes. Appl. Soft Comput. 2019, 78, 465–480. [CrossRef]
24. Ullah, H.; Khan, M.; Hussain, I.; Ullah, I.; Uthansakul, P.; Khan, N. An Optimal Energy Management System for University
Campus Using the Hybrid Firefly Lion Algorithm (FLA). Energies 2021, 14, 6028. [CrossRef]
25. Rao, R. Jaya: A simple and new optimization algorithm for solving constrained and unconstrained optimization problems. Int. J.
Ind. Eng. Comput. 2016, 7, 19–34.
26. Samuel, O.; Javaid, S.; Javaid, N.; Ahmed, S.H.; Afzal, M.K.; Ishmanov, F. An efficient power scheduling in smart homes using
Jaya based optimization with time-of-use and critical peak pricing schemes. Energies 2018, 11, 3155. [CrossRef]
27. Manzoor, A.; Judge, M.A.; Almogren, A.; Akhunzada, A.; Fattah, S.; Gani, A.; Zareei, M. A priori multiobjective self-adaptive
multi-population based jaya algorithm to optimize ders operations and electrical tasks. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 181163–181175.
[CrossRef]
28. Duerr, S.; Ababei, C.; Ionel, D.M. SmartBuilds: An energy and power simulation framework for buildings and districts. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Appl. 2016, 53, 402–410. [CrossRef]
29. Li, W.T.; Thirugnanam, K.; Tushar, W.; Yuen, C.; Chew, K.T.; Tai, S. Improving the operation of solar water heating systems in
green buildings via optimized control strategies. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 1646–1655. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2022, 22, 1306 23 of 23

30. Benzi, F.; Anglani, N.; Bassi, E.; Frosini, L. Electricity smart meters interfacing the households. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2011, 58,
4487–4494. [CrossRef]
31. Singh, S.; Singh, M.; Kaushik, S.C. Feasibility study of an islanded microgrid in rural area consisting of PV, wind, biomass and
battery energy storage system. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 128, 178–190. [CrossRef]
32. Li, X.; Tan, Y.; Liu, X.; Liao, Q.; Sun, B.; Cao, G.; Wang, Z. A cost-benefit analysis of V2G electric vehicles supporting peak shaving
in Shanghai. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 2020, 179, 106058. [CrossRef]
33. Abdalla, M.A.A.; Min, W.; Mohammed, O.A.A. Two-Stage Energy Management Strategy of EV and PV Integrated Smart Home to
Minimize Electricity Cost and Flatten Power Load Profile. Energies 2020, 13, 6387. [CrossRef]
34. Tazvinga, H.; Xia, X.; Zhang, J. Minimum cost solution of photovoltaic-diesel-battery hybrid power systems for remote consumers.
Sol. Energy 2013, 96, 292–299. [CrossRef]
35. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Available online: https://midcdmz.nrel.gov/ (accessed on 1 November 2021).
36. Time-of-Use Residential Rate Plans—Southern California Edison. Available online: https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/
Time-of-Use-Residential-Rate-Plans (accessed on 1 November 2020).
37. U. EIA, Hourly Electricity Consumption Varies Throughout the Day and Across Seasons. Available online: https://www.eia.
gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 (accessed on 1 November 2021).
38. Feldman, D.; Wu, K.; Margolis, R. H1 2021 Solar Industry Update. United States: N. 2021. Available online: https://www.nrel.
gov/docs/fy21osti/80427.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2021).
39. Young, K.; Wang, C.; Wang, L.Y.; Strunz, K. Electric vehicle battery technologies. In Electric Vehicle Integration into Modern Power
Networks; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 15–56.
40. McGuckin, N.; Fucci, A. Summary of Travel Trends: 2017 National Household Travel Survey; Technical Report No. FHWA-PL-18-019;
Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
41. Konig, A.; Nicoletti, L.; Schroder, D.; Wolff, S.; Waclaw, A.; Lienkamp, M. An Overview of Parameter and Cost for Battery Electric
Vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021, 12, 21. [CrossRef]
42. Trojan J185 Solar AGM SAGM 12 205 12V 205 AH Battery. Available online: https://www.thesolarbiz.com/trojan-solar-j185
-agm-12v-205-ah-battery.html (accessed on 1 November 2021).