Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DR
DER
Watt
Var
PEV
5
2
I.
INTRODUCTION
Control
of LTC
Control
of vars
Volts
(PQ)
Watts &
vars
Power
Factor
Power
Flow
Losses
Change
of Bills
Power
Flow
Dispatcha
ble load
Losses
Voltage
Power
Factor
Congest
ion
LMP
3
P-Q-V
Capacity
P &Q Redispatch
Operating
Reserve
Energy
Cost
2
changed demand of real power and change of available
capacity, the generation can be re-dicpatched, impacting the
operating reserves and, finally, the cost of supply and
ancillary services. This, again, impacts the LMP. In the end,
the change of LMPs would impact the customer electricity
bills.
The high penetration of Distributed Energy Resources,
including Energy Storage (ES), Demand Response, and plugin electric vehicles, will significantly change the operating
conditions of the power systems. On one hand, the operations
of these technologies will impact the volt/var situation in the
system and should be taken into account by the IVVO
function, and on the other hand, these devices could be
integrated in the Volt/Var optimization as controllable
variables and provide significant added benefits.
The presence of multiple active components and the many
impacting factors associated with IVVO suggest that the
IVVO may follow several operational objectives and is also
constrained by a number of limits imposed on the possible
impacts.
II. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF IVVO
The main objective of IVVO is providing the voltage quality
at the customer service terminals in accordance with the
effective power quality standards. In addition, the following
objective can be followed by the IVVO depending on the
utilitys conditions:
a)
1.05
-0.1
1.04
1.03
Amps. p.u.
1.01
-0.3
%Amp-to-%Volt ratio
-0.2
1.02
-0.4
0.99
0.98
-0.5
0.97
0.96
-0.6
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
Voltage, p.u.
Amps
%Amp/%Volt
1.03
0.35
1.02
0.3
1.01
0.25
0.2
0.99
0.15
0.98
0.1
0.97
0.05
0.96
%Amp-to-%Volt ratio
Amps. p.u.
3
voltage reduction leads to loss increase, and a case, when
it leads to loss reduction respectively. As also seen in the
figures, the sensitivities of losses expressed in percentage
of the real load are different from the sensitivity of the
losses expressed in kW. The percentage loss may show
reduction, while the absolute losses increased.
1.06
1.05
-0.1
1.04
1.03
0.95
1.05
1.1
Voltage, p.u.
Amps
1.02
1.15
%Amp/%Volt
Amps. p.u.
0.9
1.01
-0.3
%Amp-to-%Volt ratio
-0.2
0.85
-0.4
0.99
c)
0.98
-0.5
0.97
0.96
-0.6
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
Voltage, p.u.
Amps
%Amp/%Volt
1.03
0.35
1.02
0.3
1.01
0.25
0.2
0.99
0.15
0.98
0.1
0.97
0.05
0.96
%Amp-to-%Volt ratio
Amps. p.u.
0
0.85
0.9
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
Voltage, p.u.
Amps
%Amp/%Volt
4
III. CONSTRAINTS OF IVVO
The main objective of IVVO is providing standard voltages
at the customer service terminals. This does not mean that
IVVO can search for the optimum solutions within the
standard voltage limits. There is always an uncertainty in the
execution of the optimal solution. This uncertainty is caused
by the bandwidths of the voltage- and var- controlling
devices, by the inaccuracy of voltage measurements and
models used for the optimization, by the unknown voltage
imbalances in different points, etc. Due to these random
factors, the tolerances for voltage optimization should be
reduced in comparison with the standard tolerances, especially
for the load reduction and energy conservation objectives.
Reduced tolerances for voltage optimization reduce the IVVO
benefits.
Also, there may be highly sensitive end-users which need
narrower than standard voltage tolerances at their service
terminals at all times, or at specific times. Hence, the voltage
tolerances limiting the Volt/Var optimization may be different
at different service terminals and at different times.
Although the optimization tolerances for all load nodes are
represented in the IVVO model, only few of them are limiting
the optimization. These are the nodes, where the actual
voltages are the closest to the limits. If the optimization limits
are different in different nodes, the critical voltages are not
necessarily the lowest or the highest voltages.
There is a notion that the lowest voltage is always in the
end of the feeder. In many situations this is not the case, even
for the primary voltages, which are often used as indicators of
voltage quality. In general, the voltages in the primary
distribution are not indicative of the voltage quality at the
service terminals due to different loading and impedances of
the distribution transformers and different characteristics of
the secondaries between the distribution transformers and the
service terminals. If there is a high-impedance, heavily-loaded
distribution transformer at the beginning of the feeder, the
voltage at its secondary bus may be much lower than the
voltage at the bus of a transformer at the end of the feeder. If
there is a high-impedance secondary circuit between the
distribution transformer bus and the customer terminals, this
may be the critical point in the feeder.
Because different nodal load shapes at different nodes
impact the voltage drops differently at different times in both
primaries and secondaries, the voltage critical points move
along the feeder during the day, week, and season.
There is another notion that flattening the voltage profile
along the primary distribution feeder provides better benefits
from conservation IVVO. However, flattening the primary
voltage profiles does not guarantee flat profiles of the voltages
at the service terminals in the secondaries due to the different
locations of the critical secondary nodes and their dynamics.
Presently, the voltage limits at the customer terminal sites
are not observable by the utility operation personnel.
Therefore, the utility sets limits at the observable buses,
mostly at the distribution buses of the T/D substations
monitored by SCADA. Typically, these limits are defined by
the peak load conditions and are kept the same for all other
times over a long duration. However,
the optimal bus
(1)
where
bw uncertainty caused by the voltage controller
bandwidth,
mod - uncertainty caused by the model inaccuracy
Figure 6 illustrates the percent loss of benefits due to the
uncertainty of the controller bandwidth added to an
uncertainty of 0.5% introduced by the inaccuracy of the
model. The figure shows the benefits dependences on the
available optimization tolerance without the bandwidth
5
uncertainty. As seen in the figure, when the potential room for
optimization is small and the bandwidth is large, there may
not be any benefits at all (100% loss of benefits). Hence, the
size of the controllers bandwidth has a significant impact on
the IVVO benefits, and this factor should be compared with
other reasons for its selection.
The IVVO function issues optimal setpoints to the voltage
controller for the look-ahead interval. During this interval, the
controller continues to control voltage following the last
received setpoints until new setpoints arrive. IVVO should
also issue signals to the controllers about its normal
performance (heartbeats). If the signal is not received by the
controller within a given time interval, the controller should
automatically switch to default settings until the signal is
restored. The controller, in turn, replies to IVVO about
receiving the signal, confirming its availability for the remote
control [5]. This procedure is necessary to avoid being stuck
with setpoints issued for past conditions and which are
unacceptable under new conditions in the case of a lost control
signal.
Other significant volt/var controlling devices in distribution
are feeder and station capacitors. The IVVO algorithm
provides coordinated control of the capacitors and other
voltage controlling devices. Sometimes the group of
commands
120%
100%
80%
Loss of benefits, %
2.5
60%
2
20%
0%
0.5
1.5
2.5
40%
1.5
Potential
tolerance, %
LTC bandwidth, % 1
LTC bandwidth, % 2
LTC bandwidth, % 3
0.5
0
1
1.5
2.5
LTC bandwith, %
Voltage change = 0.5%
(6)
Where
Volt needed added tolerance, V
tan() tangent of the phase angle of the load reduced by
DR.
Figure 8 illustrates the sequence of control with the
integration of DR into IVVO: 1 IVVO issues the setpoints
and statuses to the LTC, voltage regulators and capacitor
controllers to utilize the available room for load reduction; 2
if the load needs to be reduced more, IVVO issues triggers
enabling DRs at the critical points; 3 the execution of DR is
reported by the customer interfaces; 4 the Distribution
Operation Model updates the IVVO model; and 5 IVVO
issues additional commands to the LTC, voltage regulators,
and capacitor controllers to utilize the additional optimization
tolerances created by DR. Such a method of integration of
IVVO with DR requires minimal demand response and may
provide significant added benefits of IVVO.
7
Setpoints 1, 5
LTC/VR
Setpoints/Statuses 1, 5
IVVO
Updates
Capacitors
DER/SVC
4
DR Triggers 2
DR
3
DR execution
AMI
Critical points
8
Integrated Voltage and Var Optimization functions and
impose additional constraints on its operations.
2. The variety of the new active elements in distribution and
customer domains will present significant challenges for the
coordinated and optimal control of volt/var related devices in
the near-real-time.
3. The near-real-time measurements obtainable from AMI
meters can be directly used for calculating required voltages at
selected service terminals to be executed by controlling
devices with known impacts on these voltages.
This
information in itself is insufficient for a comprehensive IVVO
which should take into account all impacts of the different
active elements and their interrelationships.
4. In order to comprehensively optimize the voltages and vars
in a holistic manner, the IVVO should be based on adaptive
models adequately representing the impacts of these devices
on the operation of the power system. The models of the
behavior of the customer loads should represent the
dependencies of the loads on the customer choices and on the
external conditions that impact these models.
5. The AMI-provided data combined with the relevant data
from external systems is the major source of information for
the development and update of the behavioral models. The
development and updates of such models could be performed
within the AMI Data Management Systems or in special
processors associated with AMI.
6. The voltage tolerances for IVVO should be different from
the standard voltage tolerances by the amount of uncertainty
of the models, control execution, voltage imbalances, and
random fluctuations of voltages at the service terminals.
7. The location of the critical voltage tolerances limiting the
IVVO can be at any point along the distribution feeder and
can change in time.
8. In addition to the traditional volt/var controlling devices,
the controllable variables of IVVO in the Active Distribution
Networks can include reactive and real power of DER,
Electric Storage and Demand Response.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Mr. Martin Delson for his
comments on this paper.
VII. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]