Electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy generation are widely regarded as key drivers of low-carbon transformation in the transportation and energy sectors due to their emission reduction potential and environmental benefits. However, the inherent intermittency and volatility of photovoltaic (PV) power, coupled with increasingly stochastic and disorderly EV charging demand, pose significant challenges to grid stability and local renewable energy utilization. To address these issues, this paper proposes a dynamic pricing optimization approach based on a Stackelberg game framework, in which the PV charging station operator acts as the leader and EV users as followers. Unlike conventional models, the proposed framework explicitly incorporates user psychological expectations and response deviations through a three-stage “dead-zone-linear-saturation” responsiveness structure, thereby capturing the uncertainty and partial rationality of EV charging behavior. The upper-level objective seeks to maximize operator profit and enhance PV self-consumption, while the lower-level objective minimizes user energy cost under price-responsive charging decisions. The bilevel optimization problem is solved via a differential evolution (DE) algorithm combined with YALMIP+CPLEX. Simulation results for a regional PV-EV charging station show that the proposed strategy increases PV self-consumption to about 90.5% and shifts the load peak from 18:00–20:00 to 10:00–15:00, effectively aligning charging demand with PV output. Compared with both flat and standard time-of-use (TOU) tariffs, the dynamic pricing scheme yields higher operator profit (about 7% improvement over flat pricing) while keeping total user energy expenditure essentially unchanged. In addition, the cumulative carbon reduction cost over the operating cycle is reduced by approximately 4.1% relative to flat pricing and 1.9% relative to TOU pricing, demonstrating simultaneous economic and environmental benefits of the proposed game-based dynamic pricing framework.
Qin et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: