## 7 Comparative Analysis and Discussions  
The numerical results indicate that PEVs and MESSs are discharged to the MGs whenever power from DGs (wind and PVs) is or is not adequate, and charged where and whenever power from DGs (wind and PVs) is noticeably higher than the amount to critical loads. Furthermore, exchanging energy and power between MGs to provide critical loads in the DS, PEV-PLs, and MESSs can reduce the overall cost. Additionally, PEVs discharge and function as storage systems at times of high demand. Table 5 clearly shows that in comparison to Case 2, the overall load restoration grew by 6.76%, while the load restored for Priority 1 has grown by 9.65% and dropped for Priority 2 by 0.39%.  
between 14:00-15:00, before being discharged until 20:00, and so forth. Therefore, MESS1 was used to transmit energy from MG14 to MG25. Likewise, it is possible to see similar behavior in the other MESSs. Furthermore, Figure 14 indicates the power balance at each MG as a combination of the services offered by PEVs-PLs with PV-DG power generation. As can be noticed, the first and last hours of power generation were grossly inadequate due to the lack of PV-DG power generation and the low initial condition of PEVs, which started charging during these hours by consuming power from the DS, while there was enough power from 07:00 to 17:00 for PLs services. The reason for this is that PV-DG power generation was widely available.  
The comparison of three cases reveals the importance of MESS storage and transportation when applied in combination with PEV-PLs for post-disaster restoration. The effectiveness of PEV-PLs would dramatically reduce the costs associated with supporting the MGs by permitting energy to be transmitted between MGs by using MESSs to serve critical loads and attain an effective restoration scheme. Moreover, the PEV-PLs with MESSs might occasionally operate as stationary battery energy storage systems, SBESSs, to adopt the load-shifting mechanism in the DS.  
The difference in the overall cost savings achieved by the unit interruption cost and unit transportation cost were USD 10/kWh for Priority 1 (commercial and industrial load) and USD 2/kWh for Priority 2 (residential load), respectively. Comparing the total costs in Cases 2 and 3 yields the percentage of the overall cost saving. Due to the use of PEV-PLs in cooperation with MESSs to transfer energy throughout other MGs for the restoration of critical loads, in this case compared to Case 2, the overall cost dropped by 49.33% and 0.99% for Priorities 1 and 2, respectively. The strengths of the PEV-PLs integrated with MESS and vice versa will therefore be felt as a result of the reduced unit interruption cost and higher unit transportation cost. Furthermore, if the unit transit cost is too high, MESSs will remain at their reference MGs to function as SBESSs. It should be highlighted that despite the cost of unit interruptions continually rising, the overall reduction in cost will remain stable. The main reason is that the scheduling of MESSs might end in the same trip cycle when the unit interruption costs are excessively high and the transportation cost is therefore ignored.  
This comparative analysis can therefore be used as a decision support tool to demonstrate the adaptability of MESSs units and how well they cooperate with PEV-PL operations across various MGs post disasters, as well as to highlight the effectively suggested model to bring up the distribution system's level of resilience.