Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395

3rd International Conference on Power and Energy Systems Engineering, CPESE 2016, 8-12
September 2016, Kitakyushu, Japan

Power losses reduction and reliability improvement

in distribution system with Very Small Power Producers
Noppatee Sabpayakom, Somporn Sirisumrannukul*
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok (KMUTNB)
1518 Pracharaj1 Rd, Wong Sawang, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand

Abstract

The promotion of small-scaled distributed generation, commonly known as Very Small Power Producer (VSPP) in Thailand’s
electric power industry, is derived from its incentive policy and environmentally friendly attribute. For this reason, distribution
systems have seen a high penetration level of VSPPs powered by conventional or renewable energy resources. One of the main
benefits for having VSPPs is the improvement of system reliability perceived by customers due to the availability of additional
backup generations at the point of common coupling (PCC) during the loss of the main supply as a result of equipment outage
without an adjacent feeder to perform open-loop configuration. Such a positive impact can, nevertheless, be only achieved when
intentional islanding operation is permitted. In addition, during normal operation, the VSPP normally, but not necessarily,
contributes to power loss reduction as the generation energy flow is generally against the major net flow. So the amount of the
major net flow transferred over long distance of the power system can be reduced. This paper investigates the impact of VSPP
based on power losses and reliability point of view. A case study with an existing urban 24 kV distribution system is presented
with sensitivity analysis for the capacities of VSPP, locations of VSPP, and different number of VSPPs. The study results show
that the VSPPs are useful as alternative generation resources for power losses reduction and reliability improvement in
distribution system. Electric utilities should, however, pay special attention on their existing control and protection scheme in
order to have their system to remain integrity.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2016.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2016
Keywords: distributed generation; intentional islanding; power losses; reliability

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, distribution networks have gradually seen a large number of small-scaled distributed
generators (DGs) because of they are becoming more efficient and less costly and have been promoted by incentive
financial policies by means of adder or feed-in tariff mechanism. DGs can be powered by conventional and
renewable energy resources such as photovoltaic (PV) solar arrays, wind turbine, fuel cells, and biomass fuel, as well

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 2 555-2000 ; fax: +66 2 587-4350 .

E-mail address: spss@kmutnb.ac.th

1876-6102 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CPESE 2016
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.192
 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395 389

as gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP), which are installed on-site, and owned and operated by customers or
utilities. In Thailand, a DG with a net injected capacity less than or equal to 10 MW is commonly known as Very
Small Power Producer (VSPP). As of June 2016, there are 789 VSPPs on commercial operation with a total capacity
of 4,100.78 MW or 9.99 % of 41,040 MW as total generation capacity (Energy Regulatory Commission) [1].
The conventional distribution system normally has a single-circuit main feeder because of its simple design,
generally low cost and supportive protection scheme. However, radial electrical power distribution system has one
major disadvantage is that any single component would cause some of the load points to be disconnected. Improving
reliability of the customers can be achieved, for example, by the reinforcement of protective or switching devices to
isolate the faulty parts from the rest of the system or the introduction of DG.
The installation of DGs in the distribution system offers an ideal alternative electric power supply to the electric
users. However, the advent of DG with significant penetration makes it possible for power flows to go reverse and
hence the distribution network is no longer a passive circuit supplying loads but an active system which power flows
and voltages determined by the interaction between the generation as well as the loads. This multidirectional power
flow situation on parts of the network which were originally designed for unidirectional power flow inevitably
creates a number of issues. Although DGs connected in the network can introduce negative impacts of the
distribution system in a number of aspects (e.g. impact on control and protection system that may worsen system
reliability [2]), of interest in this paper are power losses reduction and reliability improvement issues.

2. Distribution system reliability

A distribution circuit normally uses primary or main feeders and lateral distributions. A main feeder originates
from a HV/MV substation and passes through major load centers. The lateral distributors connect the individual load
points to the main feeder with MV/LV distribution transformers at their ends. Many distribution systems used in
practice have a single-circuit main feeder and defined as radial distribution system. A radial distribution system
consists of series components (e.g., lines, cables, transformers) to load points. This configuration requires that all
components between a load point and the supply point operate; and hence the distribution system is more susceptible
to outage in a single event. There are two types of reliability indices evaluated in the distribution system: load point
reliability indices and system reliability indices [3].

2.1. Load point reliability indices

The basic distribution system reliability indices of a load point p are average failure rate Mp (failure/year),
average outage duration rp (hours) and annual outage time U p (hours/year). These three basic indices are
calculated using the principle of series systems and given by
n
Mp  œ Mi (1)
i 1

n
U p  œ Mi ri (2)
i 1

Up œ Mi ri
rp   i 1 (3)
Mp n

œ Mi
i1

Where n is number of outage events affecting load point p , Mi is failure rate of component i (failure/year), and
ri is repair time of component i (hours).

2.2. Customer oriented reliability indices

With the three basic load point indices and energy consumption at load points, system average interruption
frequency index: SAIFI (interruptions/customer/year), system average interruption duration index: SAIDI
(hours/customer/year), and energy not supplied: ENS (kWh/year) can be calculated. These three customer oriented
reliability indices are obtained from
390 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395

nl

œMj N j
j 1 (4)
SAIFI  nl

œNj
j 1

nl

œU jN j
j 1 (5)
SAIDI  nl

œNj
j 1

nl
ENS  œ La( j )U j (6)
j 1

Where nl is total number of load points, M j is failure rate of load point j (failure/year), N j is number of
customers connected at load point j (customers) , U j is unavailability of load point j (hours/year), and La ,( j )
is average connected load at load point j (kW).

3. Reliability improvement with VSPP

In reliability point of view, VSPPs which offer alternative sources at various locations in the network play an
important role in reducing interruption durations in the event of a system failure. An example of intentional islanding
scenario for improvement of system reliability is shown in Fig. 1 [4]. That is, without the local utility grid, an
isolated system is formed and local loads obtain electricity supply from the VSPPs located in the islanded area. It is
obviously seen in this case that VSPPs can help improve system reliability, in terms of the reduction of outage
duration, energy not supplied, and therefore the customer outage cost. However, they can be useful when islanding
operation is allowed by the local electric power utility. In fact, the amount of reliability improvement greatly
depends on the location and size of VSPPs.

Fig. 1. Example scenario of intentional islanding for improvement of system reliability.

4. Power losses reduction with VSPP

The power loss in balanced three-phase distribution system is calculated by [5]

nl 2
PLoss  œ Il Rl (7)
l 1

Where PLoss is total power losses (kW), nl is total number of feeders, Il is current flow in branch l (A),
and Rl is resistance of branch l (Ohm).
As the advent of VSPPs with significant penetration, an active system which power flows determined by the
interaction between the generations as well as the loads creates issues of power losses. To be specific, power losses can
be either increased or decreased depending primarily on the location between VSPPs and loads along the feeder and their
capacities. A VSPP that is too large for a given feeder location (i.e., exports too much power) could actually increase
current flow in branch of feeder, and therefore increase system losses. A customer-owned VSPP that does not export
power but instead acts to reduce the load at a specific customer site will always reduce current flow and system losses.
Placement of VSPPs to optimize system losses (obviously more of concern for utility-owned VSPPs than customer-
 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395 391

owned VSPPs) is similar to placement of capacitors for the same purpose. The main difference is that capacitors can
affect only reactive power flow, whereas, VSPPs can impact both real power and reactive power flows [4].

5. Case study of power losses reduction and reliability improvement with VSPP

Although the existing grid code of Thailand [6, 7] prevents islanding operation of VSPP owning to technical and
safety concern, the simulation in this paper was based solely on the assumption that the VSPPs were allowed to
remain connected to provide local generation which enabled continuity of supply to be maintained while the main
grid was being out of service. To be specific, intentional islanding operation was assumed to be allowed.
An urban 24 kV distribution system with 34 customer load points was selected as a case study to show reliability
improvement and power loss reduction with reliability analysis and power flow analysis using DIgSILENT Power
Factory [8]. The system contains one main feeder with two branches supplying power from a HV/MV substation.
Note that in the existing case, one VSPP is connected at the middle of the lower branch with a capacity of 2 MW
injected to the grid. Fig. 2 shows a single line diagram of the network. The load points consist of:
x MV/LV distribution transformers such as 1-1(1) 800 and 2-1(1) 630, which 800 and 630 kVA are the installed capacity
x MV customers such as 1-1(3) and 2-1(2).

Fig. 2. Single line diagram of the network.

Note that the length of the single line diagram shown in the figure is not scaled based on the real circuit length.
The feeder is 4.957 kilometers long with 2,002 customers connected to the load points and a total system average
demand of 8.977 MW. Fig. 3 shows the simulated network, and Table 1 presents the parameters of the MV feeder.
392 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h
0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

1.275 h
0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

1.275 h
0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

0.460 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.462 h
0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.460 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.462 h

0.31 1/a
0.46 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h

0.31 1/a
0.46 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.238 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.238 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.460 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.755 h

0.755 h

1.462 h
1.275 h
1.462 h

0.401 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h
0.460 h/a

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.315 1/a

Load-break switch

0.31 1/a
0.40 h/a
0.00 $/a
G
~

0.460 h/a
0.315 1/a
1.462 h

0.31 1/a
0.46 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.31 1/a
0.30 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.31 1/a
0.30 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.46 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.755 h
0.238 h/a

0.31 1/a
0.30 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.315 1/a
1.275 h
0.401 h/a
0.31 1/a
0.30 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.315 1/a

0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h
G

0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
~

0.228 h

0.31 1/a
0.07 h/a
0.00 $/a
G
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a

~
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.228 h

0.228 h
0.31 1/a
0.07 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.07 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h
0.31 1/a
0.07 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.18 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.31 1/a
0.18 h/a
0.00 $/a
VSPP as in case study

0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.567 h

0.567 h
0.31 1/a
0.07 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.41 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h

0.567 h

0.31 1/a
0.18 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.41 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h
0.072 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.228 h

0.31 1/a
0.18 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.31 1/a
0.41 h/a
0.00 $/a
0.31 1/a
0.18 h/a
0.00 $/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h
0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.567 h
0.228 h
0.072 h/a

0.31 1/a
0.41 h/a
0.00 $/a
VSPP as in real case 0.315 1/a
0.567 h
0.178 h/a

0.178 h/a
0.315 1/a
0.315 1/a

0.567 h
G
~
G
~

Fig. 3. Simulated network.

Table 1. Parameters of MV feeder [9, 10].

Sequence impedance (Ohm/kilometer) Failure rate Repair time Total length
Feeder type
R1,2 X1,2 R0 X0 O (failure/km/yr) r (hr) (km)
24kV OH Spaced Aerial Cable 185 mm2 0.2000 0.2950 0.4750 1.6210 0.0650 2.0000 4.8144
24kV UG XLPE Insulated Copper Cable 400 mm2 0.0669 0.1053 0.7760 0.3710 0.0130 4.0000 0.1429

The following assumptions were made in the simulation.

x Because we considered only one feeder with a connected VSPP without the models of main generation sources,
transmission lines, and HV/MV substations, it was therefore assumed that the equipment components from the
generation source to the MV busbar were fully reliable.
x Because the model was exclusively built for only one feeder with the connected VSPP without neighboring
feeders, therefore the simulation did not take into account load transfer among the feeders.
x Reliability of VSPP as well as the step-up power transformer was fully reliable.

5.1. Scenario case 1: Impact of the presence of VSPP

Fig. 4 indicates the study outcome with two cases of interest: without the VSPP and with the VSPP connected at the
middle of the lower branch with a capacity of 2 MW injected to the grid. Fig. 4(a) shows that the VSPP could reduce
the annual outage time of some load points connected with the lower branch. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the interruption
frequency (SAIFI) for both cases remained the same. Because in this system, one feeder contained only one circuit
breaker (CB) at the MV busbar of the substation, wherever a fault was on the feeder, the CB would trip for fault
interruption. As a result, all the load points on the feeder were without electricity (i.e., facing with sustained supply
interruption) then subsequently fault isolation and restoration process were performed using the associated
disconnecting switches to recover the healthy part of the system (which could be resupplied by the main grid or the
associated VSPP) and/or repair or replace the damaged equipment component. With the presence of the VSPP, the
SAIDI and ENS were improved as the outage duration times of some load points connected with the lower branch were
decreased. In addition, during normal operation, with the presence of the VSPP, the system losses were seen improved.
 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395 393

Load point annual outage time: U (h/a) System reliability and power losses
(a) (b)
0.50 Without VSPP With VSPP (1x2MW, middle of lower branch) 4.0 Without VSPP With VSPP (1x2MW, middle of lower branch)

0.45 3.519
3.5
0.40
3.055
0.35 3.0

0.30
2.5
0.25

0.20
2.0

0.15

1.5
0.10

0.05
1.0
0.806
0.00
0.624
1-1(10)

1-1(12)
1-1(11) 800
1-1(2) 1250

1-1(9) 2000

2-2(2) 1500

2-2(4) 1600

2-2(7) 1500
1-1(3)
1-1(4)

1-1(8)

1-2(3)

2-1(2)
2-1(3)

2-1(6)

2-1(8)
2-1(9)

2-2(3)

2-2(5)
2-2(6)

2-2(9)
1-1(1) 800

1-1(5) 500
1-1(6) 630
1-1(7) 500

1-2(1) 150
1-2(2) 630

1-2(4) 600
2-1(1) 630

2-1(4) 750
2-1(5) 800

2-1(7) 315

2-2(1) 150

2-2(8) 800
0.5 0.394 0.331
0.315 0.315

0.0
Upper branch Upper branch Lower branch Lower branch
SAIFI (1/Ca) SAIDI (h/Ca) ENS (MWh/a) Losses (x0.1MW)
(first section) (last section) (first section) (last section)

Fig. 4. Simulation results of scenario case 1 (a) load point annual outage time; (b) system reliability and power losses.

5.2. Scenario case 2: Impact of VSPP capacities

A further analysis was examined with three different sizes of a VSPP connected at the middle of the lower branch: with
the capacity injection of 2 MW (real case), with an assumed injection of 4 MW, and with an assumed injection of 8 MW
(maximum allowable injection capacity per feeder of the 24 kV distribution systems). As shown in Fig. 5(b), the
simulation result indicates that reliability improvement varied with the size of VSPP, as could be seen by the least annual
outage time (SAIDI) achieved for the maximum allowable injection capacity (i.e., 8 MW). However, having a VSPP
injection of 8 MW increased the system losses, due to the reverse power flow from the VSPP to the upper branch.
In addition, if the system load of a feeder was much less than 8 MW and there was an 8-MW VSPP on site, there
would be power flows back to the substation (if MW loss is neglected). This problematic situation has been
observed in Thailand, particularly in the area where its total energy consumption is less than total generations (from
solar PV power plants). The reverse power flow to the transmission systems makes it complicated for the
transmission system operators to control their system and is still being a questionable issue.
(a) Load point annual outage time: U (h/a) (b) 4.0 System reliability and power losses
Without VSPP 1x2MW, middle of lower branch
0.50 1x2MW, middle of lower branch 1x4MW, middle of lower branch 1x8MW, middle of lower branch
1x4MW, middle of lower branch 1x8MW, middle of lower branch
3.5
0.45

0.40
3.0
0.35

0.30 2.5

0.25

2.0
0.20

0.15
1.5
0.10

0.05 1.0

0.00
1-1(10)

1-1(12)
1-1(11) 800
1-1(2) 1250

1-1(9) 2000

2-2(2) 1500

2-2(4) 1600

2-2(7) 1500
1-1(3)
1-1(4)

1-1(8)

1-2(3)

2-1(2)
2-1(3)

2-1(6)

2-1(8)
2-1(9)

2-2(3)

2-2(5)
2-2(6)

2-2(9)
1-1(1) 800

1-1(5) 500
1-1(6) 630
1-1(7) 500

1-2(1) 150
1-2(2) 630

1-2(4) 600
2-1(1) 630

2-1(4) 750
2-1(5) 800

2-1(7) 315

2-2(1) 150

2-2(8) 800

0.5

Upper branch Upper branch Lower branch Lower branch 0.0

(first section) (last section) (first section) (last section) SAIFI (1/Ca) SAIDI (h/Ca) ENS (MWh/a) Losses (x0.1MW)

Fig. 5. Simulation results of scenario case 2 (a) load point annual outage time; (b) system reliability and power losses.

5.3. Scenario case 3: Impact of VSPP locations

Because the system losses and reliability benefit of VSPP is site-specific, three cases with the same injected
capacity (i.e., 2 MW) of the VSPP were of interest: with the VSPP installed close to the substation, with the VSPP
installed at the middle of the lower branch, and with the VSPP installed at the end of the lower branch. The
simulation result is shown in Fig. 6. It is obvious from the simulation results as in Fig. 6(b) that the reliability effect
of intentional islanding depended strongly on the connection point, where the VSPP was able to pick up some loads.
A significant reduction in the outage times and outage costs was observed greatest in this case when the VSPP was
located at the end of the feeder. The VSPP located near the substation did not improve system reliability because
394 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395

that VSPP and the main grid shared the same path of power transportation. Therefore, the outage of components
between the source and load points always interrupted power flow to the customers. In this condition, the VSPP
could not help improve supply reliability. Generally speaking, if the load points were uniformly distributed along a
feeder and the reliability of the system components were not much different, it would be the most advantage for the
system to have a connection of high capacity VSPP at the near end of the feeder. In addition, in this case, the lowest
system losses occurred when the VSPP was connected at the end of the feeder.
(a) Load point annual outage time: U (h/a) (b) 4.0 System reliability and power losses
Without VSPP 1x2MW, beginning of feeder
0.50 1x2MW, beginning of feeder 1x2MW, middle of lower branch 1x2MW, end of lower branch
1x2MW, middle of lower branch 1x2MW, end of lower branch
3.5
0.45

0.40
3.0
0.35

0.30 2.5

0.25

0.20 2.0

0.15
1.5
0.10

0.05
1.0

0.00
1-1(10)

1-1(12)
1-1(11) 800
1-1(2) 1250

1-1(9) 2000

2-2(2) 1500

2-2(4) 1600

2-2(7) 1500
1-1(3)
1-1(4)

1-1(8)

1-2(3)

2-1(2)
2-1(3)

2-1(6)

2-1(8)
2-1(9)

2-2(3)

2-2(5)
2-2(6)

2-2(9)
1-1(1) 800

1-1(5) 500
1-1(6) 630
1-1(7) 500

1-2(1) 150
1-2(2) 630

1-2(4) 600
2-1(1) 630

2-1(4) 750
2-1(5) 800

2-1(7) 315

2-2(1) 150

2-2(8) 800
0.5

Upper branch Upper branch Lower branch Lower branch 0.0

(first section) (last section) (first section) (last section) SAIFI (1/Ca) SAIDI (h/Ca) ENS (MWh/a) Losses (x0.1MW)

Fig. 6. Simulation results of scenario case 3 (a) load point annual outage time; (b) system reliability and power losses.

5.4. Scenario case 4: Impact of different numbers of VSPPs

(a) Load point annual outage time: U (h/a) (b) 4.0 System reliability and power losses
Without VSPP 2x2MW, middle of both branches
0.50 2x2MW, middle of both branches 2x2MW, end of both branches 4x2MW, middle & end of both branches 2x2MW, end of both branches 4x2MW, middle & end of both branches
3.5
0.45

0.40
3.0
0.35

0.30 2.5

0.25

2.0
0.20

0.15
1.5
0.10

0.05 1.0

0.00
1-1(10)

1-1(12)
1-1(11) 800
1-1(2) 1250

1-1(9) 2000

2-2(2) 1500

2-2(4) 1600

2-2(7) 1500
1-1(3)
1-1(4)

1-1(8)

1-2(3)

2-1(2)
2-1(3)

2-1(6)

2-1(8)
2-1(9)

2-2(3)

2-2(5)
2-2(6)

2-2(9)
1-1(1) 800

1-1(5) 500
1-1(6) 630
1-1(7) 500

1-2(1) 150
1-2(2) 630

1-2(4) 600
2-1(1) 630

2-1(4) 750
2-1(5) 800

2-1(7) 315

2-2(1) 150

2-2(8) 800

0.5

Upper branch Upper branch Lower branch Lower branch 0.0

(first section) (last section) (first section) (last section) SAIFI (1/Ca) SAIDI (h/Ca) ENS (MWh/a) Losses (x0.1MW)

Fig. 7. Simulation results of scenario case 4 (a) load point annual outage time; (b) system reliability and power losses.

The impact of the numbers of VSPPs was investigated by three cases: 1) two 2 MW VSPPs located at the middle
of both branches, 2) two 2 MW VSPPs located at the end of both branches, and 3) four 2 MW VSPPs located at the
middle and end of both branches. The result in Fig. 7(a) compared with the others in the previous three cases reveals
that some load points connected with the upper branch could earn benefit as having a supplementary resource with
the presence of VSPP in their located area. The result in Fig. 7(b) indicates that increasing the number of VSPPs at
various locations in the network improved the system reliability of this feeder, depending on the interaction between
the supply and demand inside in each of the zonal isolated areas for each case. In addition, increasing the number of
VSPPs also reduced system losses. However, based on the existing grid code [6], the maximum allowable number of
VSPPs that can be installed in one feeder is four units (excluding that connected with LV feeder) for the sake of ease
of operation for the system operator.

6. Conclusion

VSPPs generally offer an alternative source at various locations in the network. Such local generations can be
considered as replacement or supplement of power supply to the main grid whenever it is interrupted due to forced
 Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul / Energy Procedia 100 (2016) 388 – 395 395

outage (e.g., derived from any fault) or planned outage of equipment (e.g., network reinforcement or maintenance).
For this reason, intentional islanding can help improve the reliability of distribution networks and yield benefit to the
customers in terms of the reduction of energy not supplied and therefore outage cost. Although the existing grid
code prevents intentional islanding of VSPP owning to technical and safety concern, the simulation in this scenario
was based solely on the assumption that the VSPPs were allowed to remain connected to provide local generation
which enabled continuity of supply to be maintained while the main grid was being out of service. In addition,
during normal operation, ideal placement and dispatch of VSPPs can reduce some of power losses. The VSPPs will
reduce load current–related losses on any section of the line or at any transformer where they reduce the current.
Full utilization of VSPPs can be realized when the system is specially prepared for intentional islanding and the
reverse power flow during normal operation (e.g., the future modernized network with high technology solutions
and innovative equipments, for example, smart grid development) to accommodate large penetration of green energy
resources toward which the incentive policy has been driving.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA) for the
financial and technical support of this research work.

References

[1] Energy Regulatory Commission [Online]. Available: http://www.erc.or.th/ERCSPP/.

[2] Noppatee Sabpayakom and Somporn Sirisumrannukul. Practical Impact of Very Small Power Producers (VSPP) on Control and Protection
System in Distribution Networks. IJOEE: Vol. 3, No. 3; September 2015. p. 162-168.
[3] Billinton, R. and Allan, R. N. Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems. Plenum Press, United States of America; 1996.
[4] D. Herman and P. Barker. Integrating Distributed Resources into Electric Utility Distribution Systems. EPRI Technology Review; December 2001.
[5] N. Rugthaicharoencheep and S. Sirisumrannukul. Feeder Reconfiguration for Loss Reduction in Three Phase Distribution System under
Unbalanced Loading Conditions. UPEC; 2010.
[6] Metropolitan Electricity Authorities in Thailand. Grid Code. 2008.
[7] Metropolitan Electricity Authorities in Thailand. Grid Code for Solar PV Rooftop. 2008.
[8] DIgSILENT GmbH. DIgSILENT PowerFactory - User Manual; 2013.
[9] Metropolitan Electricity Authority [Online]. Available: http://www.mea.or.th/.
[10] Allan, R. N., Billinton, R., Sjarief. R, Goel, L., and So. K.S. Reliability Test System for Educational Purposes - Basic Distribution System
Data and Results. IEEE Transactions on Power System; 1991. p. 813-820.