Stochastic Analysis to Determine Feeder Hosting

Capacity for Distributed Solar PV

1026640

10926184
10926184
Stochastic Analysis to Determine Feeder Hosting
Capacity for Distributed Solar PV

1026640
Technical Update, December 2012

EPRI Project Manager

J. Smith

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com

10926184
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF
WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI).
NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY
PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH
RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM
DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED
RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS
SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING
ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS
DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN
THIS DOCUMENT.
REFERENCE HEREIN TO ANY SPECIFIC COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, PROCESS, OR SERVICE BY ITS
TRADE NAME, TRADEMARK, MANUFACTURER, OR OTHERWISE, DOES NOT NECESSARILY
CONSTITUTE OR IMPLY ITS ENDORSEMENT, RECOMMENDATION, OR FAVORING BY EPRI.
THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATION PREPARED THIS REPORT:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at 800.313.3774 or
e-mail askepri@epri.com.

Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE FUTURE OF

ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

10926184
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following organization prepared this report:
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
942 Corridor Park Blvd.
Knoxville, TN 37934
Principal Investigators
M. Rylander
J. Smith

This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.

EPRI would like to acknowledge the support of the following organizations: Southern Company,
San Diego Gas & Electric, FirstEnergy, Salt River Project, National Grid, Progress Energy
(DUKE), Consolidated Edison, and PEPCO Holdings.

This publication is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following
manner:
Stochastic Analysis to Determine Feeder Hosting Capacity for Distributed Solar PV. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2012. 1026640.

10926184 iii
10926184
 ABSTRACT
Distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) generation has begun to impact distribution systems. The
impact is unique to individual distribution feeders and is based on certain or all issues ranging
from voltage, loading, power quality, protection, and control. The impact distributed PV will
have on a specific distribution feeder can only be determined with knowledge of that feeder’s
characteristics. These characteristics include but are not limited to load, voltage, regulation, and
impedance.
This Technical Update discusses the analysis developed by EPRI to determine distributed PV
impact to a specific feeder. The analysis uses a stochastic approach when creating potential PV
deployment scenarios. The stochastic nature of the analysis takes into account the uncertainty in
the size and location of potentially installed PV systems. Through the examination of issues for
thousands of potential scenarios, the feeder impact is used to determine the total amount of PV
that is likely to cause an adverse impact to the feeder. This amount of PV is considered the
feeder’s hosting capacity, or in other words, the maximum amount of PV that can be
accommodated. The feeder modeling, analysis, and evaluation of issues to determine hosting
capacity are all discussed in detail in this report.
Keywords
Distribution System
Hosting Capacity
Photovoltaic
Solar
Stochastic Analysis

10926184 v
10926184
 CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
2 DISTRIBUTED PV MODELING .............................................................................................. 2-1
Simulation Tool (OpenDSS) ................................................................................................. 2-1
Base Feeder Model .............................................................................................................. 2-1
Distributed PV System Modeling.......................................................................................... 2-2
Market Penetration ......................................................................................................... 2-2
Market Distribution ......................................................................................................... 2-3
Stochastic PV Deployment ............................................................................................. 2-4
PV Inverter Ratings and Reactive Power Control .......................................................... 2-6
Generation Profiles ........................................................................................................ 2-6
3 ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 3-1
Steady-State Analysis .......................................................................................................... 3-1
Time-Series Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3-2
4 FEEDER MONITORING CRITERIA ....................................................................................... 4-1
Voltage ................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Monitored Nodes ............................................................................................................ 4-2
Overvoltage .................................................................................................................... 4-2
Voltage Deviation ........................................................................................................... 4-3
Voltage Imbalance ......................................................................................................... 4-4
Loading ................................................................................................................................ 4-4
Thermal .......................................................................................................................... 4-4
Demand Masking ........................................................................................................... 4-5
Protection ............................................................................................................................. 4-5
PV Fault Contribution ..................................................................................................... 4-6
Total Fault Currents ....................................................................................................... 4-7
Forward Flow Fault Currents .......................................................................................... 4-8
Breaker/Fuse Coordination ............................................................................................ 4-8
Breaker Reduction of Reach .......................................................................................... 4-9
Sympathetic Tripping ..................................................................................................... 4-9
Anti-Islanding ............................................................................................................... 4-10
Power Quality ..................................................................................................................... 4-11
Resonance ................................................................................................................... 4-12
Distortion ...................................................................................................................... 4-13
Control................................................................................................................................ 4-14
5 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF HOSTING CAPACITY ......................................................... 5-1
6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 6-1

10926184 vii
10926184
1
INTRODUCTION
Traditional system planning techniques are well established in the power systems industry yet
the majority of distributed photovoltaic (PV) systems are installed without these analyses. This
can occur because the time and effort to conduct these studies can be impractical to small utilities
with limited personnel. To other utilities, the perceived impact of small PV systems may be
negligible. This can be the case for the first few installed systems, however, the question forms,
at what point should concern begin to be raised.
The point of concern can be approximated using the stochastic analysis described in this report
and developed through a multi-year project between EPRI and multiple utilities in the United
States to understand distributed PV impacts [1,2,3]. The answer comes in the form of the feeder
PV Hosting Capacity. Hosting capacity is defined as the maximum amount of PV that can be
accommodated without impacting system operation (reliability, power quality, etc.) under
existing control and infrastructure configurations. When the total PV on the feeder is near or
above this limit, adverse impacts may begin to occur. PV system requests that fall below the total
feeder PV limit may be allowed to connect without additional analysis. If the total PV is near or
exceeds the limit, additional analyses may need to be performed. The stochastic analysis is
effectively a method to pre-plan for distributed renewables.
The feeder analysis approach described throughout this report was developed under EPRI’s
Distributed PV (DPV) Feeder Analysis collaborative project [3]. As part of this project, EPRI
developed a comprehensive approach for analyzing the PV impacts on a range of feeder
configurations. This approach is currently being applied to a number of feeders throughout the
US as shown in Table 1-1. The generalized results across the different feeders are made available
to the DPV funders; however a number of the feeders analyzed are part of other publicly-funded
projects as noted.

10926184 1-1
Table 1-1
Application of Distributed PV (DPV) Feeder Analysis in the US

Participating Utility # of Circuits Type

(US location)
Southeast(1) 3 1 urban, 2 rural
West Coast(1) 5 3 urban, 2 rural
Northeast(1) 2 2 urban
Northeast(1) 3 2 urban, 1 rural
West(1) 4 4 urban
Southeast(1) 2 1 urban, 1 rural
Southeast(1) 2 1 urban, 1 rural
Northeast(1) 2 2 urban
Southeast(2) 1 1 rural
Northeast(3) 1 1 rural
Northeast(4) 4 TBD
West Coast(4) 5 TBD
West Coast(4) 5 TBD
Total 39 16 urban, 9 rural,
14 TBD
(1) EPRI DPV Feeder Analysis Project
(2) DOE Hi-Pen PV Project, Field Verification of High-Penetration Levels of PV into the Distribution Grid with Advanced
Power Conditioning Systems, Phase III, Dept of Energy (DOE) Award No. EE0004681, 2012-2013.
(3) NYSERDA PON 2474, Engineering Study to Determine Effectiveness of Smart Grid – Ready Inverters to Support PV
in the New York Electric Distribution
(4) CPUC/CSI 3, Developing Alternatives to the 15% Screening Method

The DPV feeder analysis project is aimed at examining a wide range of feeder configurations to
evaluate how system impacts from solar PV depend on feeder characteristics. This is
accomplished through detailed modeling and simulation of each distribution feeder.
How a feeder responds to photovoltaic generation is unique to the individual feeder’s
characteristics. The base feeder characteristics include:
• Voltage Level
• Load
• Feeder Topology
• Power Delivery Elements
• Lines, Transformers, Capacitors, etc.
• Power Conversion Elements
• Loads, Generators, Storage, etc.

10926184 1-2
• Control Operating Criteria
• Switched/Controllable Elements, Voltage Regulation, Local Planning Limits, etc.

Although feeder characteristics are a key factor in the feeder response from distributed PV [3,4],
additional factors include the PV size, location, and output. The distribution system connected
PV will ultimately mold the overall feeder response. Individual feeders are analyzed with a wide
range of PV deployments that incorporate distributed smaller residential PV systems in addition
to larger MW systems. The specific feeder impacts determine the appropriate PV penetration
limits/hosting capacity [5,6,7,8]. The impacts considered occur with
• Voltage
• Loading
• Protection
• Power Quality
• Control

This report discusses the DPV feeder analysis. Section 2 describes the detailed feeder modeling
including the development of the hypothetical PV deployments. Section 3 discusses the steady-
state and time-series analysis framework. Section 4 talks about issues distributed PV may present
and how those issues are analyzed. Section 5 gives an overview and example on how hosting
capacity is determined.

10926184 1-3
10926184
2
DISTRIBUTED PV MODELING
This section summarizes the detailed modeling used by EPRI to evaluate Distributed PV (DPV)
impacts on the electrical system. The analysis incorporates PV systems with the ‘base’ electrical
model of distribution feeders. Small-scale residential, commercial, and large-scale (MW) PV
systems are considered in the analysis. Distribution system impacts are characterized and
quantified through the model’s response to specific and randomly generated DPV scenarios.

Simulation Tool (OpenDSS)

The modeling and analysis approach presented here is performed entirely in the OpenDSS (Open
Source Distribution System Simulator). The OpenDSS tool has been used for more than a decade
in support of various research and consulting projects requiring distribution system analysis.
Many of the features found in the program were originally intended to support the analysis of
distributed generation interconnected to utility distribution systems. Other features support
analysis of such things as energy efficiency in power delivery and harmonic current flow. The
OpenDSS is designed to be indefinitely expandable so that it can be easily modified to meet
future needs.

Base Feeder Model

The base electrical feeder model used in the analysis consists of all primary and secondary power
delivery elements from the substation transformer to the individual customer. Control elements
such as capacitors and regulators are included with fully implemented control algorithms using
setpoints, delays, and bandwidths provided by the utility. Loads are based on SCADA or AMI
measurements, and depending on the location of measurement, load is allocated to each
individual customer. The complete model is usually derived from a number of data sources,
including the circuit simulation platform database (CYME, SynerGEE, Milsoft, etc), field
measurements, billing information, and GIS data as shown in Figure 2-1.
In the study, residential and commercial PVs are interconnected at the customer service level,
while large-scale PV systems are connected directly to the primary distribution system via an
Yg-Yg step-up transformer. Service drops are included in the model using detailed or default
data. As default, 100 ft of 1/0 Al triplex is assumed for individual customers. If the allocated
customer loading exceeds the cable capacity, the cable size is increased accordingly.

10926184 2-1
 Base Circuit
Model
(CYME,
Synergee, etc)

Complete OpenDSS Circuit Model

Circuit Model
Secondaries
Conversion to
OpenDSS Primary Distribution
Secondary/Service to Customer s
Service Transformers Service Transformer
Customer Load

Measurement Data
Parallel Feeder Load
Regulator Controls
Capacitor Controls

Figure 2-1
OpenDSS Feeder Model Input Data

Distributed PV System Modeling

A key component in accurately assessing the DPV impact on the distribution system is
accurately representing the nature of the PV systems themselves. This includes not only
sufficiently accounting for the electrical characteristics of the distributed generation, but also the
array size and solar irradiance which inherently drives the PV output. The method for modeling
the actual PV system itself is described in further detail in [9]. Other research efforts in this area
utilize satellite imagery to evaluate potential roof tops for possible PV locations and determine
PV sizes based upon available space and roof orientation. While this approach may provide a
better estimate of PV at any given location, the approach outlined and utilized in this study is
based primarily on market-based information that represents a larger range of existing PV system
installation sizes as well as a wider range of possible PV locations along the feeder. EPRI feels
this approach more effectively provides information relative to the overall goal of the project of
understanding when and where solar PV impacts feeder performance.
Market Penetration
Penetration of distributed PV onto a feeder is influenced by many different market conditions
and customer variables. In the analysis, market conditions are assumed favorable and non-
restrictive on customer PV system purchases.
Customer-based penetration is used to deploy PV systems onto the feeder. All customers are
assumed to have equal opportunity to acquire a PV system unless a subset of customers,
designated by the utility, should be weighted more heavily in a particular area due to factors such
as socioeconomics. Customer-based penetration is considered to deploy PV to 100% of
customers on the feeder.

10926184 2-2
The kilowatt amount of installed PV by the individual customers is dependent on customer
variables such as available space and system price. A detailed market distribution is used to
randomly determine PV size each time a customer is assigned a PV system.
Market Distribution
The market distributions used in the analysis are derived from the California Solar Initiative
Survey [10] for 42502 residential PV customers and 2625 commercial PV customers. The
distributions are sorted into residential and commercial load class. The residential class
distribution is shown in Figure 2-2. The approximate average individual residential customer PV
is 5.0 kW, while the median size is 4.3 kW. The commercial class distribution is shown in Figure
2-3. The average individual commercial customer PV is 168 kW, while the median size is 41
kW.

Figure 2-2
California Residential PV Distribution

10926184 2-3
Figure 2-3
California Commercial PV Distribution

Stochastic PV Deployment
In order to reasonably represent the affect of large and small scale PV, the analysis is split into
the two deployment routines:
• Small-Scale PV
• Large-Scale PV
Each deployment routine serves as a tool for examining system response from a different
conditional perspective. Results from the separate deployment routines can be used to provide a
complete picture concerning the nature and relationship between PV generation and system
impacts.
For the stochastic analysis, each PV system is assumed to operate at 100% of rated AC output,
irrespective of solar panel orientation and/or tilt. This approach for considering full output
capability is in line with well-established transmission and distribution planning practices.
Small-scale PV deployment uses the customer service as the most probable point of coupling for
each individual PV. Customer class is used to distinguish between using the residential or
commercial PV distribution for randomly selecting installed PV size. In the analysis, the
maximum PV size is restricted by the customer peak load and size of the service transformer.
The peak loading of the individual customers is used as a metric to gauge ‘likely’ maximum PV
size, while the total PV arrays on an individual service transformer is ultimately limited by the
kVA rating of the service transformer.
The allocation of PV is performed for multiple scenarios and penetration levels as shown in
Figure 2-4. As penetration increases for a specific scenario, further PVs accrued are in addition
to those existing in the same scenario at the previous penetration level. Penetration is increased
until all customer locations have been deployed with PV. Distributed PVs that exist on the feeder

10926184 2-4
prior to the analysis can be included in each scenario. Each scenario is unique in the order that
customers are selected to acquire PVs. Thousands of PV deployments are created.

Additional
Scenario 1 PV Scenario 1
PV Customer Penetration 1 Penetration N
Location(s) Class
Unique
Deploy PV Deployment

Scenario M Scenario M
Penetration 1 Penetration N

Construct M x N
PV Deployments

Figure 2-4
Small-Scale PV Deployment

Large-Scale PV deployment uses a select number of three-phase primary line locations as

probable points of interconnection. At each penetration level, one ungrounded 500 kW PV
system is interconnected at a randomly selected location behind a 480 V three-phase step-up
transformer. The PV penetration level is increased until 10 MW of PV has been deployed (20
MW for feeders above 15 kV). Again, each penetration level builds upon the previous
penetration level for a given scenario. Any previously existing PV can be included. Figure 2-5
shows the Large-Scale PV deployment.

Additional
Scenario 1 PV Scenario 1
Primary Bus PV 500kW PV
Penetration 1 Penetration N
Location(s) Each

Deploy PV Unique
Deployment

Scenario M Scenario M
Penetration 1 Penetration N

Construct M x N
PV Deployments

Figure 2-5
Large-Scale PV Deployment

A sweep of large-scale PV across the feeder is also conducted by deploying a 1 MW ungrounded

PV system at every three-phase primary node behind the step-up transformer. The one PV
system is swept through the feeder to determine potential isolated locations that would violate
feeder monitoring criteria. Figure 2-6 shows the Large-Scale PV Sweep deployment. This
analysis highlights the areas along the distribution feeder that are more/less susceptible to
adverse feeder impact.

10926184 2-5
 Scenario 1
1 MW PV at a Three-Phase Primary Bus Penetration 1

Deploy PV Unique
Deployment

Scenario M
Penetration 1

Construct M x 1
PV Deployments

Figure 2-6
Large-Scale PV Sweep Deployment

PV Inverter Ratings and Reactive Power Control

The size of the deployed PVs will ultimately determine the maximum power potentially supplied
to the grid. Based on the Calif. Solar Initiative [10], inverters are typically sized in excess of the
PV panel’s maximum power point. In the analyses, each inverter is rated 1.2 times the output
capability of the PV array. Thus the inverters have sufficient output capability.
Each PV system’s power factor is set to unity power factor (zero reactive power), which is
considered standard “off-the-shelf” setting for PV systems available in the US. Additional
reactive power control options such as constant off-nominal power factor or volt/var control can
be considered as well.
Generation Profiles
Data collected from the Distributed Photovoltaic Monitoring project [11,12] is used to determine
the time-based power production for specific locations on the feeder. Figure 2-7 shows an
example of a feeder with the geographic dependent normalized power production for a snapshot
in time derived from eight field monitors. The field monitors are shown by vertical lines to their
feeder location. Cubic interpolation between field monitor data points creates the high resolution
floating mesh. The mesh is used to determine the potential solar output capability at any
particular location on the feeder. Thousands of snapshots like this are stitched together to create
the time-series geographic dependent normalized power production curves.
A PV system allocated to the feeder is assigned the normalized power production curve for that
geographic location. The size of the interconnected PV system is used to determine the area of
the mesh to use for the power production curve. A single point or a small area of the mesh can
represent the output capability for a small PV system. A large area of the mesh is necessary to
represent the output capability of a large MW class PV system. The power production for a large
PV system is calculated as the average of all data points that fall within the section of the mesh at
the PV system’s geographic location. This is calculated for each snapshot in time to create a
large-scale PV system power production curve.

10926184 2-6
Figure 2-7
Space-Time Normalized Power Production

10926184 2-7
10926184
3
ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
The PV impact analysis is examined in two parts. The first part is a steady-state stochastic
analysis that examines a large variation of PV deployment scenarios. The steady-state analysis
determines the ‘worst case’ feeder response that would occur for the sudden change from zero to
full PV output. The second part is a time-series case analysis using specific PV deployments
selected from the steady-state analysis results. The time-series analysis determines a more
‘realistic’ feeder response that would occur based on measured load and solar data.

Steady-State Analysis
The steady state analysis is conducted for the four base load levels:
• Absolute maximum – maximum feeder load level derived from 8760 feeder measurement
data; irrespective of time-of-day
• Absolute minimum – minimum feeder load level derived from 8760 feeder measurement
data; irrespective of time-of-day
• Midday maximum – maximum feeder load level derived from 8760 feeder measurement
data; 11am-1pm local time considered only
• Midday minimum – derived from 8760 feeder measurement data; 11am-1pm local time
considered only
The absolute maximum and minimum feeder load levels are used to derive a bounding worst-
case response for extreme conditions and with the PV varying from zero to full output. The
midday maximum and minimum loads determine more probable bounds for the feeder response.
The midday load levels occur when fixed-axis PV is expected to produce full output.
The steady-state analysis procedure involves:
1. Solve the power flow with PV output set to zero.
2. Lock all regulator and capacitor switches at their present state.
3. Solve the power flow with PV producing maximum power.

When determining feeder response, it is assumed that all regulation equipment is locked due to
slower response times than the speed of cloud transients. This yields the feeder response due to
cloud transients just prior to regulating equipment operation. This point is illustrated in
Figure 3-1.

10926184 3-1
 Solar Ramping
PV Output

EPRI has measured up to

50kW/sec (1MW/20seconds) for
distributed-connected MW
systems
Analysis
Time
Overvoltage prior
to regulator operation Worst-case would be to
Regulation
Operation
assume PV ramp from
zero to full output
Voltage Impacts
BEFORE regulation
-Solar PV can change equipment operates
Voltage

voltage faster than feeder

regulation equipment can
Regulation
bandwidth
respond, thus resulting in
potential overvoltages
Time -Can result in excessive
regulator operations
Regulation time frame
(45-90 seconds)

Figure 3-1
Cloud Transient Feeder Response Prior to Regulator Action

Time-Series Analysis
The time-series analysis is conducted for load/PV time-of-day coincident scenarios. The load and
PV resemble scenarios from the steady-state analysis. One day of time dependent load is chosen
for the maximum load and one day for the minimum load. Each day is examined with highly
variable and non-variable solar irradiance data. The PV deployments used in the analysis are
selected from the steady-state analysis results based on monitoring criteria impact.
The objectives of the time series analysis include:
• Determine feeder response from actual load and solar data
• Compare time-series response to that indicated with the steady-state analysis
• Determine distributed PV influence on control elements

10926184 3-2
4
FEEDER MONITORING CRITERIA
Distributed generation planning criteria and limits have been identified by both North American
and European practices. Table 4-1 shows a summary of criteria and values used in the analysis to
flag potential concern. The flags in this table are applied for study purposes and are not
necessarily planning limits currently used in the industry. These values are used across all DPV
collaborative feeders to allow uniform comparisons to be made. Steady state and/or time-series
analyses are utilized for each criterion.
The criteria that have been identified fall into the following general categories of potential
concern:
• Voltage
• Loading
• Protection
• Power Quality
Table 4-1
Monitoring Criteria and Flags for Distribution PV Analysis

Category Criteria Basis Flag

Overvoltage Feeder voltage ≥ 1.05 Vpu
≥ 3% at primary
Voltage Voltage Deviation Deviation in voltage from no PV to full PV ≥ 5% at secondary
≥ ½ band at regulators
Unbalance Phase voltage deviation from average ≥ 3%
Loading Thermal Element loading ≥ 100% normal rating
Total Fault Total fault current contribution at each
≥ 10% increase
Contribution sectionalizing device
Forward Flow Fault Forward flow fault current contribution at
≥ 10% increase
Contribution each sectionalizing device
Sympathetic Breaker zero sequence current due to an
≥ 150A
Protection Breaker Tripping upstream fault
Breaker Reduction Deviation in breaker fault current for feeder
≥ 10% decrease
of Reach faults
Breaker/Fuse Fault current increase at fuse relative to
≥ 100A increase
Coordination breaker current increase
Anti-Islanding PV beyond each sectionalizing device ≥ 50% minimum load
Individual
Power Harmonic magnitude ≥ 3%
Harmonics
Quality
THDv Total harmonic voltage distortion ≥ 5%
Regulator Increased duty > basecase+1
Control
Capacitor Increased duty > basecase+1

10926184 4-1
Voltage
Flags for the voltage category are applied separately to primary nodes, secondary nodes,
capacitor nodes, and regulator nodes. The flags are adjusted for nodes with control elements to
account for control actions.
Monitored Nodes
The DPV analysis examines the PV voltage impact to the entire modeled feeder. This includes
all nodes (buses) modeled along primary and secondary lines. The monitoring criteria applied to
all nodes are overvoltage, voltage deviation, and voltage imbalance.
The overvoltage flags are restricted (or relaxed) at distribution capacitor and regulator nodes.
The maximum voltage flag is modified to the voltage control setting of the capacitor banks. This
is enforced to determine PV that could potentially cause the feeder capacitors to operate based on
local voltage. Feeder regulator and Load Tap Change (LTC) regulator points are further
restricted (or relaxed) to a voltage change flag of ½ of the feeder regulator bandwidth. The
modified flag allows better approximation of the PV penetration when the regulator may begin to
operate. This flag is also applied to the distribution capacitor nodes.
Overvoltage
The overvoltage criterion is generally the primary concern of the power system utility – the
steady-state voltage appearing throughout the power distribution system. The overvoltage caused
by PV output can be a key limiting factor to how much PV generation capacity can be supported
on a distribution system. Most systems have been designed assuming that load demand would
cause the voltage to drop from the substation bus to the ends of the feeder. Distributed PV will
counter that drop and if too much is installed in the wrong place it could result in unacceptably
high voltages.
The overvoltage impact is viewed as the maximum feeder voltage for each PV deployment
scenario and the feeder exposure to those overvoltages. Figure 4-1 shows an example how
maximum feeder voltages can rise with total PV penetration yet is dependent on the individual
PV size and location which gives the range in maximum voltages at any one penetration level.
Figure 4-1a illustrates the maximum voltage for any primary node along the feeder. There are
5000 markers in the figure for each of the 5000 possible PV size and location scenarios
considered. The maximum primary node voltage is recorded and plotted with each point
representing a different scenario. Figure 4-1b illustrates the exposure, or susceptibility, of feeder
nodes to voltages that exceed the monitoring criteria. The higher the penetration of PV, the more
nodes along the feeder are become exposed to overvoltages.

10926184 4-2
 ANSI Voltage Limit

(a) (b)
Figure 4-1
(a) Maximum Feeder Voltages and (b) Feeder Exposure to Overvoltages

Voltage Deviation
The voltage deviation criterion is important due to ramping capability of the PV systems. These
systems can change output quickly and unpredictably. Solar PV generation can have output that
changes more rapidly than the typical voltage regulation controls employed on utility distribution
systems. The side effect would be adverse voltage complaints by utility customers and increased
duty on utility voltage regulation equipment such as on capacitors and tap changers.
The steady-state analysis consists of comparing voltages throughout the system before and after
full PV comes online. This quantifies the voltage change that could occur prior to feeder control
actions. Figure 4-2 shows an example of the maximum voltage deviation at any node on the
feeder for each PV deployment along with the feeder exposure those deviations exceeding the
monitoring limit.

Voltage Deviation
Threshold

(a) (b)
Figure 4-2
(a) Maximum Feeder Deviations and (b) Feeder Exposure to Deviations

Deviations that increase voltage occur when PV comes online, however, similar deviations that
decrease voltage would occur when PV suddenly goes offline. Also, if PV output is not likely to
vary from zero to full PV output before control actions occur, the feeder impact would have a
relative change. For instance, if the PV output is only likely to vary from zero to 50% output, the

10926184 4-3
voltage deviation for 5 MW PV penetration would approximately be reduced from 0.09 Vpu to
0.045 Vpu. The time-series analysis quantifies realistic voltage change and accounts for the
increased duty from voltage regulation.
Voltage Imbalance
Voltage imbalance is primarily a per-phase loading concern, and PV deployment can
significantly alter the net per-phase loading on a feeder. Particular deployments will improve net
loading while other deployments will potentially exacerbate the problem. Ideally, voltage
imbalance would improve as heavily loaded phases with more customers (higher potential PV
growth) acquire PV systems.
The phase-phase voltage imbalance is calculated as the percent deviation from average at every
feeder node and specifically at the feeder head for each PV deployment in the steady-state
analysis. In the time-series analysis, the voltage imbalance is only calculated at the head of the
feeder. Figure 4-3 shows an example of the maximum feeder imbalance for each PV deployment.

Figure 4-3
Maximum Feeder Imbalance

Loading
Loading concerns involve the change in net demand on the feeder. As PV penetration increases,
net demand decreases and the power flow direction can change. Both situations can potentially
mask existing and new loads.
Thermal
Thermal loadings limits are an important factor that will restrict the capacity of PV on a given
feeder. Typically, the deployment of PV reduces the net forward (downstream) flow on the
system; however, PV systems can potentially cause a greater reverse flow on the feeder at low
load conditions. The thermal limits are more applicable for Large-Scale PV than Small-Scale
PV.
The Small-Scale PV deployment is limited by the customer peak load. The maximum reverse
loading would only exceed the base case forward flow peak loading if the PV size is allowed to
exceed the customer peak load.

10926184 4-4
The Large-Scale PV deployment can potentially place PV systems in locations with low load.
These PV systems could potentially increase the reverse flow beyond the base case peak load
power flow.
From the steady-state analysis, component normal ratings are used to determine if and for which
PV deployments capacity limits are violated. The steady-state analysis shows the extreme
conditions of full PV output with absolute minimum load, resulting in the highest potential
reverse flow. Time series results are typically less impacted if minimum load does not
coincidently occur during peak PV output.
Demand Masking
Demand masking can potentially hide the total feeder load and is a function of load coincidence
with the PV output. Masking can have severe consequences when PV output suddenly changes
without proper planning. In the analysis, demand masking is examined by correlating measured
solar data with measured annual feeder load as in the equation
PVtotal ⋅ NormalizedPowerProduction(t )
% Masking (t ) = ⋅ 100 .
NetLoad (t ) + PVtotal ⋅ NormalizedPowerProduction(t )

Based on the correlation, the maximum penetration of PV can then be estimated to prevent
masking a certain percent of peak load.
The PV output will vary based on different factors such as clouds, but the typical normalized
irradiance will remain approximately the same. The true masked value will tend to be less due to
shading, clouds, and inverter efficiency.
Masking can also cause reverse power flow to occur on the feeder. Penetration levels are
determined for regulating equipment that may be susceptible to incorrect functioning when this
occurs.

Protection
The chief means of fault detection on utility distribution systems is series overcurrent relaying.
The presence of PV systems has the potential to disrupt the coordination of the series overcurrent
devices by essentially turning the radial distribution system into a meshed network system. The
fault current contribution from the PV systems is used to judge whether a single or aggregation
of PV will interfere with the detection and clearing of faults [13].
The protection criterion deals with limits imposed for protection concerns. Fault clearing and
anti-islanding impacts are examined at the protection elements. These elements include the
feeder devices:
• Breakers
• Reclosers
• Fuses
• Switchgear

Three-phase to ground, line-line, and single-phase to ground faults are examined at all

10926184 4-5
sectionalizing devices, location permitting. An example of the bulk system fault contributions for
single-phase to ground faults without feeder PV is shown in Figure 4-4. Without PV on a radial
system, the fault current is primarily one directional, forward flowing from the substation.
Highest fault currents occur at the substation and decrease to the feeder end due to additional
system impedance.

Figure 4-4
Fault Currents Without PV for Single-Phase to Ground Faults (Colorbar Indicates Fault Current
(A))

PV Fault Contribution
Based on conservative fault response data, 200% of full load current is used as a conservative PV
system inverter short circuit contribution. Figure 4-5 shows the actual current measurements for
an inverter when experiencing a single-phase to ground fault. Maximum fault contribution
remains less than 190% of the full load current and voltage and current move out-of-phase.
Actual current measurements for the same inverter when experiencing a three-phase to ground
fault indicate the fault current remains less than 180% in the first cycle with a fast decay to near
full load current output. Fault current contributions for two additional tested inverters had lower
fault current contributions for similar faults [14]. Other studies have shown up to 300% fault
current contribution in the first quarter cycle with a rapid decay [15].
All-phase to ground, single-phase to ground, and line-line faults are simulated at the ‘to’ and
‘from’ node of all feeder sectionalizing devices. The ‘to’ and ‘from’ node is used to determine
the maximum forward and reverse fault currents potentially flowing through each device. The
addition of the forward and reverse fault currents equals the total current to the fault. These
values allow the computation of sympathetic breaker tripping, reduction of breaker reach, and
fuse/breaker coordination issues.
The feeder fault current is calculated with the PV deployments and compared to the base feeder
fault currents without PV in the steady-state analysis. The PV penetration is analyzed for:
• Small-scale PV deployments
• Existing PV with small-scale PV deployments, if applicable
• Large-scale PV deployments with ungrounded interconnection: using Yg-Yg transformers
with delta connected inverters

10926184 4-6
• Large-scale PV deployments with grounded interconnection: using Yg-D transformers with
delta connected inverters

Figure 4-5
Current Response for Single-Phase to Ground Fault

Total Fault Currents

Total fault current increase is calculated based on three-phase to ground faults. Fault currents
with PV at each sectionalizing device are compared to the fault currents prior to PV. Total fault
current increase includes the contribution from both upstream and downstream sources. This
total current would effectively be injected into the faulted element.
Figure 4-6 shows an example of the maximum increase in total fault current for any monitored
element subjected to a three-phase to ground fault. One value is shown for each PV deployment.
As penetration increases, so does the fault current contribution. At any one penetration level, the
fault current percent increase can be a range of values due to the size and geographic/phase
location of the PV. An adverse impact occurs when the total current increase is large enough to
make an element fail.

Figure 4-6
Maximum Total Fault Current Increase

10926184 4-7
Forward Flow Fault Currents
Forward flow fault currents are those flowing away from the substation and across each
monitored sectionalizing device. The forward flow fault current increase at each device is
calculated as the increase in fault current with PV compared to the fault current without PV. All
fault types are simulated. Figure 4-7 shows an example of the maximum increase in forward flow
fault current for any monitored element and any fault type. One value is shown for each
simulated PV deployment. Adverse impact occurs when the fault current flowing across an
element is too high and may cause that element fail.
Highest values are location and PV size specific. Based on our assumption of PV fault current
contribution, PV can contribute two times full load current when voltages collapse; however,
contribution can be greater than two times for single-phase faults when three-phase PV terminal
voltages do not fully collapse due delta connection. Various factors such as neutral shifts, voltage
rise, and delta connections all influence to PV fault contribution. This phenomenon can cause the
forward flow fault current increase to appear greater than those shown from total fault current
analysis.

Figure 4-7
Maximum Forward Flow Fault Current Increase

Breaker/Fuse Coordination
Fuse saving and coordination issues stem from an increase in fuse fault current relative to the
breaker or recloser fault current. An increase in fuse fault current beyond that at the breaker or
recloser can cause the fuse to inadvertently operate based on a different location on the fuse’s
time-current curve. The coordination issue is calculated as the fuse current increase minus the
breaker current increase for each fault.
An example of the maximum deviation for all fuses at each deployment is shown in Figure 4-8.
Since the breaker forward flow fault current increase is typically negligible or negative, the fuse
saving coordination issue is driven primarily by the change in fuse fault current. Adverse system
impact occurs when a fuse current increases too much beyond that at the breaker.

10926184 4-8
Figure 4-8
Maximum Breaker/Fuse Coordination Impact

Breaker Reduction of Reach

Breaker reduction of reach (decrease in fault current through the breaker) is due to the voltage
support from distributed PV and their influence on the system Thevenin equivalent. Figure 4-9
shows an example of the minimum deviation in breaker fault current due to faults at each
monitored element. One value is shown for the absolute lowest reduction from all faults at all
elements in each deployment. Adverse system impact occurs when the breaker fault currents
decrease too much causing inadequate breaker reach.

Figure 4-9
Breaker Reduction of Reach

Sympathetic Tripping
Sympathetic tripping of the breaker can occur due to feeder zero sequence current circulating
from feeder PV to faults above the breaker. Ground source PV interconnection transformers can
significantly increase zero sequence current. Fault current unbalance during a three-phase fault
can also increase zero sequence currents due to single-phase PV contribution. Figure 4-10 shows
an example of the maximum zero sequence currents for each type of upstream fault. Adverse
impact occurs when the current exceeds that of the ground current relay.

10926184 4-9
Figure 4-10
Breaker Zero Sequence Current due to Upstream Fault

Assuming the breaker did not trip due to the upstream fault, the PV systems may still potentially
trip offline due to inverter protection schemes. This effect can trip individual phase inverters that
accentuate masked load unbalances and increase zero sequence currents. An example of the zero
sequence current for maximum load with single-phase inverter loss for all PV deployments is
shown in Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-11
Zero-Sequence Current due to Single-Phase PV Loss After Upstream Single-Phase Fault During
Maximum Load

Anti-Islanding
Another key protection limit is whether or not inadvertent islanding conditions can exist. Islands
may form any time sectionalizing devices interrupt the feeder. If the PV supports the voltage on
the system for even a few cycles, there can be serious consequences to either the distribution
system and/or the PV system. Destabilizing methods help prevent inverter supplied islands,
however, if perfect load/generator balance does occur, islands could potentially exist.
The anti-islanding PV limit is based on steady-state minimum load power flow through each
sectionalizing device. The PV limit beyond each device is 50% of the device’s minimum load.
The 50% value is chosen such that load/generation balance is very unlikely to occur if that

10926184 4-10
sectionalizing device operates and causes an island. The limit is based solely on the base load at
each sectionalizing device and does not vary with PV deployment. This criterion does not take in
to account potential load tripping mechanisms, for which the PV penetration limit would be
lower.

Power Quality
Power quality impacts are analyzed first by a substation resonance scan for the base feeder
model. The feeder’s response to 1 amp harmonic current injected at the substation for the
fundamental-17th harmonic is used to generate the scan. The scan is performed for all capacitor
configurations to identify potential harmonic resonant frequencies. Harmonic issues are a
concern when resonance exists at frequency multiples.
A distortion analysis is also performed for maximum PV penetration deployments with all
capacitor configurations. The distortion analysis identifies if the inverter harmonics, background
load harmonics, and system resonance amplify system voltage distortion beyond the IEEE 519
standard of 3% for individual harmonics or 5% for total harmonic distortion. Due to potential
pre-existing harmonic resonant conditions, the impact of PV is also compared against harmonics
solely due to load.
Utilized background and inverter harmonic magnitudes and angles are given in Table 4-2. The
assumed load harmonic magnitude and angle creates a ‘flat top’ distorted building voltage which
can be common due to power electronic loads. The fundamental frequency load is assumed to
have a 0.95 power factor thus the harmonic ‘peaky’ nature of the current waveform is slightly
off-center as shown in Figure 4-12 [16]. The inverter distortion is derived from measurement
data [3].
The assumed harmonic phase angle discrepancy can lead to cancelation at the point of common
coupling. Therefore, as a second assumption, all harmonic phase angles are placed in-phase such
that the individual harmonic magnitudes potentially amplify at the point of common coupling.
As noted in [3], measurement and simulation results would seem to indicate that PV is not a
significant source of flicker on the distribution system due to the frequency and magnitude of the
power fluctuations. Therefore, flicker is not a criterion that is being considered for evaluation.
Table 4-2
Background Load and PV Inverter Current Harmonic Magnitude and Angle

Harmonic Load Load Inverter Inverter

(Magnitude) (Sine Angle) (Magnitude) (Sine Angle)

1 100 0 100 0
3 2.4 -110 0.7 129
5 2.7 113 0.6 207
7 2.4 -16 0.6 10
9 1.8 -9 0.2 356
11 1.2 237 0.1 329
13 0.9 293 0.2 304

10926184 4-11
Figure 4-12
Assumed ‘Peaky’ Load Current

Resonance
Harmonic resonance on the feeder is dependent on the 2N configurations of the N capacitors on
the feeder. Figure 4-13 shows an example of the positive sequence harmonic resonance scans at
peak load. Voltage is shown for the feeder head at the same location of the 1 A harmonic
injection. Voltage is therefore equivalent to harmonic impedance at that location. The resonant
conditions are different for zero sequence harmonics and at different load levels due to system
damping.

Figure 4-13
Peak Load Positive Sequence Harmonic Resonance Scan

10926184 4-12
Distortion
The PV distortion impact is examined including four principle variables. All four variables are
examined when calculating the impact of PV harmonics.
• Load level
• PV size/location
• Capacitor configuration
• Harmonic phase angle

Figure 4-14 shows an example of the potential harmonic distortion at the feeder head. The range,
identified by error bars, illustrates harmonics due to all capacitor bank configurations and all PV
deployments. The ‘No PV’ error bars represent harmonics only due to load and capacitor
configuration since PV is not included in those scenarios. The figure shows the influence when
all load and PV harmonic phase angles are assumed to be in-phase such that individual harmonic
amplification likely occurs at the point of common coupling. Similarly, the analysis is conducted
to show the impact with assumed harmonic phase angle diversity and also at minimum load. In
addition to monitoring at the feeder head, all capacitor banks are monitored.

Figure 4-14
Feeder Head Harmonic Distortion

Resonant conditions create a significant range of harmonic distortion solely due to load.
Therefore, the ‘With PV’ impact on harmonic distortion is more appropriately defined as the
deviation in harmonics from the ‘No PV’ case.
Figure 4-15 shows an example of the change in individual harmonic maximum distortion
between the ‘With PV’ and ‘No PV’ cases at the feeder head. The results are split between the
resonant cases ‘All Cap Configs’ and the non-resonant case ‘No Caps.’ Resonant cases are more
likely to increase harmonics with PV. The PV impact can be positive, neutral, or negative.

10926184 4-13
Figure 4-15
Change in Feeder Head Harmonic Distortion

Figure 4-16 shows an example of the change in total harmonic voltage distortion for the feeder
head (location 1) and all capacitor locations (locations 2-6). The capacitor configurations
typically lead to the highest potential increase in THDv.

Figure 4-16
Change in THDv at all Monitored Locations

Control
Control limits are analyzed in the time-series analysis. Cases are simulated while counting
increased duty on the individual devices. Both regulators and capacitors that have greater than
one operation beyond those occurring only due to load are considered to be adverse operations
that will ultimately decrease the device life. A single additional operation is not considered
adverse since the device moves to a new position and remains. This would easily occur if the
device is originally operating near the bandwidth.
The time series analysis is conducted with no PV, existing PV only, and future PV deployments
selected from the steady state analysis. All PV deployments are analyzed with partly cloudy and
clear day solar data for both peak and offpeak days.

10926184 4-14
Figure 4-17 shows an example of the net feeder demand on a peak day with partly cloudy
conditions for several PV deployments. Only the daylight hours are simulated. Voltage
imbalance, maximum voltages, and voltage deviations are observed and reported. Figure 4-18
shows the voltage at a capacitor and the cumulative count of deviations greater than 1% during
the course of the day. Losses and change in consumption for each simulation are also reported as
shown in Figure 4-19.
An example of the change in control element operations is shown in Figure 4-20. Based on the
steady state analysis regulator monitoring criteria, operations were determined to likely increase
with Scenario 56 Pen 6. Based on the time series analysis, those elements did increase
operations.

Figure 4-17
Net Feeder Demand

(a) (b)
Figure 4-18
Capacitor (a) Voltage and (b) Cumulative Voltage Deviations Greater than 1%

10926184 4-15
(a) (b)
Figure 4-19
Feeder (a) Losses and (b) Consumption

(a) (b)
Figure 4-20
Cumulative Operation Count (a) Regulators (b) Capacitors

10926184 4-16
5
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF HOSTING CAPACITY
Hosting capacity is defined as the maximum amount (capacity) of PV that a feeder can
accommodate before adverse feeder impact occurs. This value will be dependent on the feeder,
PV deployments, and monitoring/evaluation criteria. Each monitoring criteria that has been
identified in the previous section can be used to determine a criteria-based hosting capacity.
Ultimately, the lowest of the criteria based hosting capacities would be the overall PV limit for
the feeder.
The hosting capacity can be further defined to describe three different levels of simulated impact.
These levels can determine more/less conservative hosting capacities for each individual
monitoring criterion. Two of these three levels (minimum and maximum hosting capacity) are
shown in Figure 5-1. The third hosting capacity level falls in between. There are also three
regions of concern highlighted in the figure.
Region A includes simulated PV deployments that do not cause adverse impacts to the feeder. In
this example the criteria is overvoltage and the threshold is the ANSI 1.05 Vpu limit. All
deployments regardless of individual PV size and location in this region can be hosted by the
feeder since the monitored threshold is not exceeded. (Note that the simulated deployments are
randomly generated and may not include all possibilities).
At the start of Region B, the first PV deployment exceeds the monitored threshold. This PV
penetration level is termed the Minimum Hosting Capacity. In this context, minimum defines the
lowest amount of PV that can result in a criteria violation. This hosting capacity is the most
conservative and unique to the particular PV deployment. Region B continues until all PV
deployments cause a criteria violation. The rightmost side of this region defines the Maximum
Hosting Capacity. In this context, maximum defines the highest amount of PV that the feeder
may be able to accommodate. This hosting capacity is the highest yet is the least conservative
and would only occur under the most optimal PV conditions. The most probable PV deployment
will not be the one that defines the maximum or the minimum hosting capacity. The most likely
hosting capacity will be in the middle of Region B and determined when 50% of the simulated
PV deployments exceed the threshold. This hosting capacity is termed the Median Hosting
Capacity.
Region C includes all simulated deployments that exceed the monitoring threshold. All
deployments at that penetration level and above, regardless of individual PV size or location,
cause a violation in this region. Violations occur based solely on the total amount of PV on the
feeder.

10926184 5-1
 Minimum Hosting Capacity
Maximum Hosting Capacity

A B C A – All penetrations in
this region are
Maximum Feeder Voltages (pu)

acceptable, regardless
of location

B – Some penetrations
in this region are
acceptable, site specific
ANSI voltage limit
C – No penetrations in
this region are
acceptable, regardless
of location

Increasing penetration (kW)

Figure 5-1
Two Levels of Hosting Capacity

Hosting capacity can be further defined by the feeder exposure to the violated monitored criteria.
In all examples up to this point, one node or one protection element with a violation would deem
the PV deployment adverse to the feeder. Based on different exposure limits, more refined
hosting capacities can be calculated. For instance, if 20% feeder exposure to the overvoltage
violation is deemed the criteria, the minimum hosting capacity would be 1.3 MW as shown by
the crosshairs in Figure 5-2.

10926184 5-2
Figure 5-2
Feeder Exposure to Define Minimum Hosting Capacity

An example of small-scale PV feeder hosting capacity based all voltage criteria, the four load
levels, and the three levels of hosting capacity are shown in Table 5-1. The hosting capacity is
dependent on load level. Voltage deviation-based hosting capacity typically decreases with
increased load, while overvoltage-based hosting capacity typically increases with increased load.
The capacitor node overvoltages occur without PV. Imbalance criteria violations only occur at
absolute maximum load and for only a few PV deployments. The results for midday and absolute
minimum load are identical due to similar load levels in both cases.
Table 5-2 shows example overall minimum hosting capacities for small-scale PV and large-scale
PV based on all monitored criteria. Voltage based hosting capacity is slightly lower for small-
scale PV due to higher impedances to those systems. Imbalance is a low concern for large scale
PV due to balanced three-phase current injection. Single-phase units typically balance voltages
by compensating large loads; however, imbalance can increase for particular scenarios.
Thermal impact is negligible for the small-scale units due to PV size limited based on customer
peak load. Therefore, PV will compensate load yet not exceed the base case peak load current
flow. Large-scale units, however, may not be optimally placed to compensate load and thus
increase current flow to the substation during low load periods.
Protection criteria hosting capacity is low for large-scale PV primarily due to zero sequence
(ground) current contribution from grounded wye-delta interconnection transformers. Single-
phase units can also contribute to ground current issues due to phase imbalances. A main limiting
factor is the low system short circuit current at the extremities of the feeder; however,
sympathetic breaker tripping and breaker/fuse coordination hosting capacity is determined based
on current change and is therefore less dependent on the low system fault currents. Anti-

10926184 5-3
islanding hosting capacity is based on minimum load at each device and thus the same for both
small and large PV.
Harmonic thresholds are exceeded in the base case during low load and resonant conditions.
Therefore, no hosting capacity is determined based on this criterion.
While not covered in detail within this particular document, time series analysis is also
performed in order to validate the steady-state analysis. In this case, control thresholds are
exceeded with the flagged regulator deviation cases determined with the steady state analysis.
This result indicates the effectiveness of hosting capacity determinations for control criterion
using the steady state analysis.
Table 5-1
Small-Scale PV Feeder Hosting Capacity based on Voltage

Hosting Capacity (kW)

Absolute Midday Midday Absolute
Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum
Load Load Load Load
Minimum 938 938 1132 1132
Primary Nodes Median 1323 1323 1623 1623
Maximum 1678 1830 2173 2173
Minimum 249 249 326 326
Regulator
Median 373 373 481 481
Deviations

Nodes
Maximum 629 629 781 781
Minimum 288 288 373 373
Capacitor
Median 428 428 576 576
Nodes
Maximum 629 629 816 816
Minimum 1791 1795 2168 2168
Secondary
Median 2072 2172 2673 2673
Nodes
Maximum 2525 2628 3322 3322
Minimum 540 541 421 421
Primary Nodes Median 871 782 630 630
Maximum 1173 1073 977 977
Over Voltage

Minimum No PV No PV No PV No PV
Capacitor
Median No PV No PV No PV No PV
Nodes
Maximum No PV No PV No PV No PV
Minimum 877 938 171 171
Secondary
Median 1322 1227 477 477
Nodes
Maximum 1622 1524 816 816
Minimum 490 - - -
Primary Nodes Median - - - -
Imbalance
Voltage

Maximum - - - -
Minimum - - - -
Secondary
Median - - - -
Nodes
Maximum - - - -

10926184 5-4
Table 5-2
Minimum Feeder PV Hosting Capacity (kW) for PV Based on Each Criterion

Category Criteria Small Scale PV Large Scale PV

Voltage Primary Overvoltage 421 500
Voltage Primary Deviation 938 1500
Voltage Regulator Deviation 249 500
Voltage Primary Imbalance 490 >10000
Loading Thermal >5000 7500
Protection Total Fault Contribution 1685 500
Protection Forward Flow Fault Contribution 2253 500
Protection Sympathetic Breaker Tripping 1426 500
Protection Breaker Reduction of Reach 1489 500
Protection Breaker/Fuse Coordination 1426 500
Protection Anti-Islanding – Breaker 390 390
Power Quality Individual Harmonics No PV No PV
Power Quality THDv No PV No PV
Control Regulator 249 500
Control Capacitor 249 500

10926184 5-5
10926184
6
REFERENCES
1. Rylander, M., Smith, J., “Stochastic Approach for Distribution Planning with Distributed
Energy Resources”, CIGRE 2012 Grid of the Future Symposium, Kansas City, MO,
2012.
2. Rylander, M., Smith, J., “Comprehensive Approach for Determining Distribution
Network Hosting Capacity for Solar PV”, 2nd International Workshop on Integration of
Solar Power Into Power Systems, Lisbon, Portugal, Nov 2012.
3. Impact of High-Penetration PV on Distribution System Performance. EPRI, Palo Alto,
CA: 2011. 1021982.
4. Smith, J., “Feeder Characterization for PV Integration Assessment,” Department of
Energy High-Penetration PV Workshop, Sacramento, CA, June 13, 2011.
5. Smith,J. Dugan, R., Sunderman, W., “Distribution Modeling and Analysis of High
Penetration PV,” presented at the IEEE PES General Meeting, Detroit,MI,2011.
6. Smith, J., Rylander, M., Dugan, R., Key, T., “Advanced Distribution Planning Tools for
High Penetration PV Deployment,” presented at the IEEE PES General Meeting, San
Diego, CA, 2012.
7. Integration of Photovoltaic Generation into Distribution Systems. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2010. 1020870.
8. Modeling High-Penetration PV for Distribution Interconnection Studies. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2011. 1021980.
9. Modeling High-Penetration PV for Distribution Analysis: Solar PV Systems and Relevant
Grid-Related Responses. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2011. 1021980.
10. California Solar Statistics, http://www.californiasolarstatistics.org
11. Trueblood, C., Aumaugher, G., Key, T., Philpot, L., “Distribution Photovoltaic
Monitoring Program,” 4th International Conference on Integration of Renewable and
Distributed Energy Resources, Albuquerque, NM, Dec. 2010.
12. Distributed Photovoltaic Monitoring. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020795.
13. Planning Methodology to Determine Practical Circuit Limits for Distributed Generation:
Emphasis on Solar PV and Other Renewable Generation. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010.
1020157.
14. Bravo, R., Yinger, R, Robes, S., Tamae, W., “Solar PV Inverter Testing for Model
Validation,” 2011 IEEE PES General Meeting, Detroit, MI.
15. J. Keller and B. Kroposki. “Understanding Fault Characteristics of Inverter-Based
Distributed Energy Resources” NREL/TP-550-46698, January 2010.
16. M. Rylander, W. M. Grady, M. Narendorf Jr., “Experimental Apparatus, Testing Results,
and Interpretation of the Impact of Voltage Distortion on the Current Distortion of
Typical Single-Phase Loads,” IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 844-
851, April 2009.

10926184 6-1
10926184
10926184
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is granted (EPRI, www.epri.com) conducts research and
with the specific understanding and requirement that development relating to the generation, delivery
responsibility for ensuring full compliance with all applicable and use of electricity for the benefit of the public. An
U.S. and foreign export laws and regulations is being independent, nonprofit organization, EPRI brings
undertaken by you and your company. This includes an
together its scientists and engineers as well as
obligation to ensure that any individual receiving access
hereunder who is not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. experts from academia and industry to help
resident is permitted access under applicable U.S. and address challenges in electricity, including
foreign export laws and regulations. In the event you are reliability, efficiency, health, safety and the
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully obtain environment. EPRI also provides technology, policy
access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you acknowledge and economic analyses to drive long-range
that it is your obligation to consult with your company’s legal
research and development planning, and supports
counsel to determine whether this access is lawful.
Although EPRI may make available on a case-by-case research in emerging technologies. EPRI's
basis an informal assessment of the applicable U.S. export members represent approximately 90 percent of the
classification for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and electricity generated and delivered in the United
your company acknowledge that this assessment is solely States, and international participation extends to
for informational purposes and not for reliance purposes. more than 30 countries. EPRI's principal offices and
You and your company acknowledge that it is still the
laboratories are located in Palo Alto, Calif.;
obligation of you and your company to make your own
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification and Charlotte, N.C.; Knoxville, Tenn.; and Lenox, Mass.
ensure compliance accordingly. You and your company
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
understand and acknowledge your obligations to make a
prompt report to EPRI and the appropriate authorities
regarding any access to or use of EPRI Intellectual Property
hereunder that may be in violation of applicable U.S. or
foreign export laws or regulations.

© 2012 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, and TOGETHER…SHAPING THE
FUTURE OF ELECTRICITY are registered service marks of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
1026640

Electric Power Research Institute

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1338 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
10926184800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com