Paper accepted for presentation at 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference, June 23th-26th, Bologna, Italy

Impact of Distributed Generation Allocation and Sizing on Reliability, Losses and Voltage Profile
Carmen L. T. Borges, Member, IEEE, and Djalma M. Falco, Senior Member, IEEE
electric losses, voltage profile, reliability, among other, needs to be appropriately evaluated. The selection of the best places for installation and the size of the DG units in large distribution systems is a complex combinatorial optimization problem. This paper presents a methodology to evaluate the impact of DG units installation on electric losses, reliability and voltage profile of distribution networks. The influence of the local of installation and the capacity of DG on these system performance characteristics may be compared for different generation expansion planning alternatives using the proposed methodology. II.
IMPACT OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION

Abstract This article presents a methodology for evaluating the impact of DG units installation on electric losses, reliability and voltage profile of distribution networks. The losses and voltage profile evaluation is based on a power flow method with the representation of generators as PV buses. The reliability indices evaluation is based on analytic methods modified to handle multiple generations. The methodology may be used to evaluate the influence of the local of installation and the capacity of DG on these system performance characteristics for different generation expansion planning alternatives The results obtained with the proposed methodology for systems extracted from the literature demonstrates its applicability. Index Terms Distributed Generation, Distribution Systems, Reliability, Electrical Losses, Voltage Regulation.

I. INTRODUCTION Distributed generation (DG) is related with the use of small generating units installed in strategic points of the electric power system and, mainly, close to load centers. The technologies applied in DG comprise small gas turbines, micro-turbines, fuel cells, wind and solar energy, etc. DG can be used in an isolated way, supplying the consumer's local demand, or in an integrated way, supplying energy to the remaining of the electric system. In distribution systems, DG can provide benefits for the consumers as well as for the utilities, especially in sites where the central generation is impracticable or where there are deficiencies in the transmission system. In this context, the utilities obligation of providing access to distribution network to independent producers that want to install DG units confronts with the need of controlling the network and guaranteeing appropriate security and reliability levels. The uncertainties involved in system planning and operation become larger than in the past and certainly new methods need to be developed to analyze and to foresee the behavior of the system. The planning of the electric system with the presence of DG requires the definition of several factors, such as: the best technology to be used, the number and the capacity of the units, the best location, the network connection way, etc. The impact of DG in system operating characteristics, such as
Carmen L. T. Borges and Djalma M. Falco are with Federal University of Rio de Janeiro EE/COPPE P.O.Box 68516 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro RJ Brazil, Phone: +55-21-25628027 FAX: +55-21-25628017, E-mail: carmen@dee.ufrj.br, falcao@nacad.ufrj.br.

A. Reliability If the DG units are correctly coordinated, they can have a positive impact on distribution system reliability. A simple example of DG use is as generation backup, in which the unit is operated in the case of local utility supply interruptions. In an online system that includes DG, load transfer to other feeders via switches operation can be performed in interruption situation in order to keep customers supply. With the electrical sector restructuring taking place in the world, it is of great importance to maximize the positive impact of the presence of DG [1]. Another DG application that is gaining popularity is the injection of the excess power of a DG unit generation in the distribution network that may occur when the DG capacity is higher than the necessary to attend the local loads. The energy that is injected in the network is measured and the consumer has to pay only for the difference between the energy consumed from the distribution utility and the amount injected in the network. When the DG is operating in parallel with the system, new considerations are introduced. For radial analysis, the simplest alternative is to model DG as negative active and reactive power injections, independent of the system voltage at the terminal bus. To model DG units as negative loads can have a positive impact in reliability whenever the model of reliability evaluation considers capacity constraints during system reconfiguration after a fault.

0-7803-7967-5/03/$17.00 2003 IEEE

If the method of reliability evaluation can deal with systems with multiple DG sources operating in parallel, the units of DG can be modeled as constant voltage sources. A preoccupation when using DG in those circumstances is to avoid treating all DG sources as available for dispatch by the utility and using them in network reconfiguration situations. This may not always be carried out, since the DG units are not necessarily property of the energy utility. This problem can be solved using a radial configuration and allocating transfer switches whenever necessary. Reported results [1] indicate that when DG is used in systems with high power flows, it results in the feeders where DG was allocated and also in the adjacent feeders reliability improvement. B. Losses and Voltage Profile The distribution systems are usually regulated through tap changing at substation transformers and by the use of voltage regulators and capacitors on the feeders. This form of voltage regulation assumes power flows circulating from the substation to the loads. DG introduces meshed power flows that may interfere with the traditionally used regulation practices [2]. Since the control of voltage regulation is usually based on radial power flows, the inappropriate DG allocation can cause low or over-voltages in the network. On the other hand, the installation of DG can have positive impacts in the distribution system by enabling reactive compensation for voltage control, reducing the losses, contributing for frequency regulation and acting as spinning reserve in main system fault cases. Two situations have been reported [2] in examples: one of increase and another of decrease in voltage that can happen given the incompatibility of DG with the voltage regulation in radial power flows. A precise way of analyzing the voltage regulation of a system with embedded DG is by making a simulation using power flow algorithms capable to analyze multiple sources of DG together with the operation of voltage regulators. In this analysis, it is important to recognize that the power injected by the DG unit can result in voltages within the allowed limits at the DG installation site, but it could result in undesired values at other parts of the feeder. DG also causes an impact in electric losses due to its proximity to the load centers. DG units should be allocated in places where they provide a higher reduction of losses. This process of DG allocation is similar to capacitor allocation to minimize losses. The main difference is that the DG units cause impact on both the active and reactive power, while the capacitor banks only have impact in the reactive power flow. In feeders with high losses, a small amount of DG strategically allocated (10-20% of the feeder load) could cause a significant reduction of losses [3]. Unfortunately, the electric energy utility doesnt have absolute control of the installation places, since DG is usually of the consumer's property. In spite of that, it is of great interest for the utility to have a methodology for proper allocation of DG units in order to have an indication of the effects caused in the system by the location suggested by the independent producer.

III. ALLOCATION AND SIZING OF DG Great attention should be rendered to the problem of allocation and sizing of DG. The installation of DG units at non optimal places can result in an increase in system losses, implying in an increase in costs and, therefore, having an effect opposite to the desired. For that reason, the use of a methodology capable of analyzing the influence on some system characteristics of DG allocation and sizing can be very useful for the system planning engineer when dealing with the increase of DG penetration that is happening nowadays. Given a set of possible expansion alternatives, the evaluation of a DG allocation and sizing strategy should be made through a power flow program for distribution networks with the representation of generators. A way of modeling the DG units is by constant power injection sources connected to voltage controlled buses (PV buses). The representation of PV buses in radial systems, if a forward-backward sweep power flow method is used, implies in the creation of network breakpoints, where the voltages of the two buses (terminal and fictitious) should be maintained at the same specified module through reactivate power injection at the buses [4,5]. The system reliability indices in the presence of DG may be evaluated using analytic methods for reliability indices calculation in radial networks [6,7], adapted to handle multiple generation sources at distribution level. The protection system selectivity needs also to be guaranteed in order not to harm the reliability of the system. IV.
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

The proposed methodology aims to evaluate the impact of DG units allocation and sizing on electric losses, reliability and voltage profile of distribution networks. Conceptually, the methodology is based on the following methods: The electric losses and voltage profile evaluation is based on a power flow method with the representation of generators (PV buses). The reliability indices evaluation is based on analytic methods modified to handle multiple generations. The proposed methodology can be used as standalone by a specialist to evaluate different DG installation alternatives or it can be used as integral part of an automatic optimization method. A. Distribution Power Flow with Generator Representation The Newton-Raphson and fast decoupled methods for power flow solution have efficiently solved the problem for well conditioned power systems. However, these methods may fail or have problems when dealing with distribution networks, mainly because of the following characteristics [8]: Radial or almost radial topology (weakly meshed); High R/X relation of the cables; Mix of low impedance (switches, voltage regulators, etc) with high impedance elements; Unbalanced load operation.

With the consideration of DG in distribution networks, it is necessary to use power flow methods with adequate robustness and convergence characteristics. The proper network components models (feeders, switches, transformers, loads, etc) and power flow solution methods for almost radial networks (Ladder, power summation, etc) must be used. One way to represent a generator connected to a node is to define it as a PV bus and to introduce mechanisms to control the power generation in the power flow method. The methodology adopted in this work is based on the power summation method with each DG unit represented by a PV bus with specified voltage magnitude. The PV bus is modeled as a network breakpoint, as shown in Fig. 1. At each iteration, the voltage mismatch between the two sides of the breakpoint is calculated and reactive power injections are calculated in order to correct the voltage mismatch [6]. This process continues until the voltage mismatch is less than an acceptable tolerance.
Ps Q Ps Q j ~

Supply

1
F

2
F

3
F

Island 4 S
F

DG

5000 kW

a A
5000 kW

b B
4000 kW

c C
3000 kW

d D
2000 kW

Fig. 2 - Reliability benefit due to DG

V.

RESULTS

A. Test System 1 Fig. 3 shows an example system extracted from [9]. The arrows show two locals for DG installation while the boxes show the protective devices available in the network.
Local 1 Local 2

Vj=Vs

Rest of the Restante da rede Network

Rest of the Restante da rede Network

Supply Breaker

1
FUSE 1

SECT 1

SECT 2 FUSE 2

3
FUSE 3

SECT 3

4
FUSE 4

b B
4000 kW

c C
3000 kW

d D
2000 kW

Fig. 1 PV Bus representation

A
5000 kW

B. Distribution Reliability Evaluation in the Presence of DG The DG influence on distribution systems reliability evaluation was done base on [9]. In the developed methodology, it is considered that the DG can supply all or part of the load in the case of main source unavailability. It is also considered that the occurrence of a failure causes the disconnection of both the main supply and the DG from the system. After the isolation of the fault via proper switches operation, the DG is re-connected to the system. In this way, the frequency related indices are not modified in the presence of DG. On the other hand, there will be a reduction on duration related indices since part of the load can be attended by DG while the main supply interruption cause is being repaired. This benefit is greater is the DG energy source is considered always available and the units can be prescheduled. In a general way, the DG is modeled similarly as a back feed with transfer restriction equal to the DG unit capacity. The load block reliability indices are calculated comparing the block installed load with the total capacity of DG directly connected to the block. If the DG capacity is higher than the load, the load block unavailability duration is only the time for isolating the fault and connecting the DG. Otherwise, the block unavailability duration will be the repair time of the failed component. Fig. 2 shows an example where loads C and D may be supplied by the DG unit in the case of a failure in section 2 isolated by the opening the isolator on section 3.

Fig. 3 Test System 1

Table 1 shows the main system reliability indices prior to DG installation. The maximum voltage drop is 0.018503 pu and the losses are 209.9 KW.
TABLE 1 RELIABILITY INDICES WITHOUT DG

SAIFI [/year] 1.153

SAIDI [hour/year] 2.577

Table 2 shows the DG units available for installation on any of the two locals. The DG breaker switching time was considered 0.5 hour.
TABLE 2 AVAILABLE DG UNITS

DG Type DG #1 DG #2 DG #3

Capacity 2000 kW 3000 kW 4000 kW

Nom. Voltage 13.8 kV 13.8 kV 13.8 kV

Suppose that one alternative is to allocate DG units as show in Table 3. In that case, the system reliability indices after the DG allocation are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 3 ALTERNATIVE 1

Local #1 #2

DG Type DG #3 DG #2

Capacity 4000 kW 3000 kW

TABLE 4 RELIABILITY INDICES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

SAIFI [/year] 1.153

SAIDI [hour/year] 2.262

Lp 1

21

Disp 4

20
Lp 11

#1

Lp 12

Lp 10

19
Disp 3

It can be observed that the duration related indices improves with DG installation, since some loads interruption duration reduces when the main supply is unavailable. However, the frequency related indices remain the same, since the DG breaker is also trigged when a fault occurs in the system. In terms of power flow, the maximum voltage drop is reduced to 0.007422 pu and the losses become 74.26 kW after DG allocation. Table 5 shows a comparison of losses and voltage drop prior and after DG installation, where a 64.62% reduction in system losses is obtained. The voltage profile is also improved by DG installation, becoming almost flat along the feeder.
TABLE 5 LOSSES AND VOLTAGE DROP COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

18

Lp 3

2 Supply B1 1 3 5

6 7
Disp 1

17

Lp 9

15

16

8 10
Lp 4 Disp 2 Lp 6

Lp 8

Lp 2

11

Lp 5

13

12

Breaker Load Point Isolators Candidate Local

14

#2
Lp 7

Fig. 4 Test System 2 TABLE 8 RELIABILITY INDICES WITHOUT DG

Comparison Losses (KW) Max Voltage Drop

Without DG 209.90 0.018503

With DG 74.26 0.007422

SAIFI [/year] 1.805

Suppose now that the DG penetration must be limited to 5000 KW and another alternative is to install DG units as shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6 ALTERNATIVE 2

SAIDI [hour/year ] 3.492

Local #1 #2

DG Type DG #2 DG #1

Capacity 3000 kW 2000 kW

Table 9 shows the DG units available for installation on any of the two locals. The DG breaker switching time was considered 0.5 hour, as in the previous test system.
TABLE 9 AVAILABLE DG UNITS

Table 7 shows a comparison of losses and voltage drop prior and after the installation of the required amount of DG (5000 KW). Since the DG penetration is smaller than the previous case (7000KW), the system losses are less reduced (reduction of 38.36%) and the voltage profile improvement is slightly smaller.
TABLE 7 LOSSES AND VOLTAGE DROP COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE 2

DG Type DG #1 DG #2 DG #3

Capacity 2000 kW 7500 kW 15000 kW

Nom. Voltage 13.8 kV 13.8 kV 13.8 kV

Suppose that one alternative is to allocate only one DG unit as shown in Table 10. In that case, the system reliability indices after the DG allocation are shown in Table 11.
TABLE 10 ALTERNATIVE 1

Comparison Losses (KW) Max Voltage Drop B. Test System 2

Without DG 209.90 0.018503

With DG 129.37 0.007417

Local #1

DG Type DG #2 SAIFI [/year] 1.805

Capacity 7500 kW

TABLE 11 RELIABILITY INDICES FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

Fig. 4 shows an example system extracted from [10], where the filled circles represent isolators and the dashed circles represent two locals for DG installation. Table 8 shows the main system reliability indices prior to DG installation. The maximum voltage drop is 0.141987 pu and the losses are 2152.0 KW.

SAIDI [hour/year] 3.219

It can be observed that the duration related indices improve with DG installation. In terms of power flow, the maximum voltage drop is reduced to 0.029779 pu and the losses become 788.9 kW after DG allocation. Table 12 shows a comparison of losses and voltage drop prior and after DG installation, where a 63.34% reduction in system losses is obtained. The voltage profile along the feeder is also improved by DG installation.

TABLE 12 LOSSES AND VOLTAGE DROP COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE 1

Comparison Losses (KW) Max Voltage Drop

Without DG 2152.02 0.141987

With DG 788.87 0.029779

VI.

CONCLUSIONS

Suppose now that the SAIDI index obtained with Alternative 1 (3.219 hour/year) is considered elevated and DG allocation should be done in a way to reduce even more the SAIDI index. A DG unit with higher capacity can attend a higher number of consumers in the case of a main supply interruption and therefore, the overall system SAIDI index can be reduced. For that purpose, consider as Alternative 2 the DG installation as shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13 ALTERNATIVE 2

This paper presented a methodology to evaluate the impact of the local and capacity of DG units on electric losses, reliability and voltage profile of distribution networks. Results for two test systems and different allocation alternatives are presented demonstrating the applicability of the method. As continuation of the present work, it is being carried out the integration between the method for evaluating the impact of DG on reliability, losses and voltage profile, described in this paper, and a Genetic Algorithm. The resulting method will be able to provide the optimal DG allocation and sizing for minimal losses and adequate voltage and reliability levels. Preliminary results indicate the suitability of the proposed methodology and will be reported in a following publication. VII.
[1] REFERENCES

Local #1

DG Type DG #3

Capacity 15000 kW

Table 14 shows the reliability indices calculated after the DG allocation of Alternative 2. It can be observed that the SAIDI index was reduced from 3.219 hour/year to 1.563 hour/year, what may be considered satisfactory if the index should be less than 2.0 hour/year, for example.
TABLE 14 RELIABILITY INDICES FOR ALTERNATIVE 2

SAIFI [/year] 1.805

SAIDI [hour/year] 1.563

Table 15 shows a comparison of the minimum voltage calculated along the feeder prior and after the installation of the DG of 15000 KW, here expressed in KV.
TABLE 15 MINIMUM VOLTAGE COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE 2

Comparison Minimum Voltage (kV)

Without DG 11.841

With DG 13.392

Suppose now that the minimum voltage along the feeder should be 13.5 KV. Since the minimum voltage shown in Table 15 happens close to local # 2, one alternative is to install another DG unit in local #2. Table 16 shows Alternative 3 for 2 DG units installation in order to improve the voltage profile.
TABLE 16 ALTERNATIVE 3

R. E. Brown and L. A. Freeman, Analyzing the Reliability Impact of Distributed Generation, Proceedings of the IEEE Summer Meeting, pp. 1013-1018, July 2001. [2] P. P. Baker, Determining the Impact of Distributed Generation on Power Systems: Part 1 - Radial Distribution Systems, Proceedings of IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Vol. 3, pp. 1645 -1656 Seattle, 2000. [3] F. L. Alvarado, Locational Aspects of Distributed Generation, Proceedings of IEEE PES Winter Meeting, Volume 1, pp. 140, Ohio, 2001. [4] G.X. Luo and A. Semlyen, "Efficient Load Flow for Large Weakly Meshed Networks", IEEE Trans on Power Systems, Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1990. [5] D. Shirmohammadi, H.W. Hong, A. Semlyen and G.X. Luo, "A Compensation-Based Power Flow Method for Weakly Meshed Distribution and Transmission Networks", IEEE Trans on Power Systems, Vol.3, No.2, May 1988. [6] R. Billinton and R. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Engineering Systems: Concepts and Techniques, Plenum Press New York, Second Edition, 1992. [7] R. Billinton and R. Allan, Reliability Evaluation of Power Systems, Plenum Press New York, Second Edition, 1996. [8] M.S. Srinivas, Distribution loads flows: A brief review , IEEE, 2000. [9] R. Allan, R. Billinton, Probabilistic Assessment of Power Systems, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.88, No.2, February 2000. [10] Y. He, G. Anderson and R. N. Allan, Determining Optimum Location and Number of Automatic Switching Devices in Distribution Systems, Proceedings of IEEE Power Tech99 Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 1999.

Local #1 #2

DG Type DG #3 DG #1

Capacity 15000 kW 2000 kW

Table 17 shows a comparison of the minimum voltage calculated along the feeder prior and after the DG installation of Alternative 3. It can be observed that after DG installation the minimum voltage obtained is higher that the desired minimum limit.
TABLE 17 MINIMUM VOLTAGE COMPARISON FOR ALTERNATIVE 3

Comparison Minimum Voltage (kV)

Without DG 11.841

With DG 13.545