IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 6, NO.

1, JANUARY 2016 295

Photovoltaic (PV) Impact Assessment for Very High

Penetration Levels
Danling Cheng, Barry A. Mather, Senior Member, IEEE, Richard Seguin, Joshua Hambrick, Member, IEEE,
and Robert P. Broadwater, Life Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper describes a granular approach for investi- [9], dealt with the time-varying nature of distribution system
gating the impacts of very high photovoltaic (PV) generation pen- load and solar output is dealt with. It modeled solar output and
etration. Studies on two real-world distribution feeders connected variability and performed snapshot analyses of identified criti-
to PV plants are presented. The studies include both steady-state
and time-series power flow analyses, which include the effects of cal times. Quiroz and Reno [10] performed detailed time-series
solar variability. The goal of the study is to predict the effects of in- load modeling and PV impact analysis at the 100% penetration
creasing levels of PV generation as it reaches very high penetration level, assuming all PV systems are unity power factor (PF) out-
levels. The loss and return of generation with and without regula- put plants. Bank and Mather [11] emphasized the importance of
tion is simulated to capture short-term problems such as voltage the nature of high-resolution load and solar irradiance data sets
fluctuations. Impact results from the analyses are described along
with potential mitigations. in assessing the impacts of distributed generation on the grid.
In [12] and [13], PV impacts are investigated in terms of cir-
Index Terms—Distributed power generation, photovoltaic (PV) cuit voltage rise, voltage unbalance, and reverse power flows by
systems, power system simulation, PV impact assessment.
utilizing detailed three-phase power system models. Hou et al.
[14] presented the steady-state power flow simulation results of
I. INTRODUCTION voltage rise effects for a real distribution grid, at annual peak
load and summer minimum load time points.
ITH decreasing prices of photovoltaic (PV) panels,
W coupled with government financial incentive schemes,
deployment of distributed PV systems is increasing rapidly, es-
In this paper, we present a guide and analysis study procedure
to perform detailed grid integration analysis of distributed PV
at very high penetration levels. This includes the following:
pecially in utility-scale PV installations [1], [2]. The California
1) multiphase distribution system modeling with control de-
Solar Initiative aims to install 12 000 MW new solar genera-
vices and time-varying loads;
tors by 2020 [3]. Despite the potential benefits, such as cost
2) use of high-resolution solar irradiance data to model the
predictability and reduced emissions, integration of significant
variability of PV output;
levels of PV generation will produce some negative impacts on
3) detailed time-series impact studies at extreme load and
the system, such as voltage rise and fluctuation, reverse power
generation time points;
flow, exceedance of transformer and cable ratings, increased
4) analysis of the loss and return of generation with and with-
power losses, voltage unbalance, etc. [4]–[8]. Some of these
out regulation, capturing short-term voltage fluctuations;
impacts might limit maximum PV energy generation.
5) mitigation control strategy investigations with PV inverter
As power grids experience higher PV penetrations, identi-
PF control;
fying key technical issues and barriers associated with very
6) impact studies for different PV penetration levels up to
high-penetration PV scenarios will help utilities better manage
the 300% level.
the integration of PV into the power grid.
This study addresses impacts from PV integration on two
Challenges of PV integration assessment require more de-
distribution circuits operating in California that already have
tailed studies in order to fully characterize system impacts. In
high PV penetration rates. In order to understand and predict
the effects of very high-penetration deployment, the PV impact
Manuscript received June 1, 2015; revised July 29, 2015; accepted September assessment uses PV penetration rates even higher than those
6, 2015. Date of publication October 14, 2015; date of current version December
18, 2015. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under
currently realized in the field. These potential future PV de-
Contract DOE-EE0002061 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. ployment scenarios included PV penetration rates from 100%
D. Cheng and R. Seguin are with Electrical Distribution Design Inc., Blacks- to 300% of each circuit’s annual peak load. While the likelihood
burg, VA 24060 USA (e-mail: dcheng@vt.edu; rich-seguin@edd-us.com).
B. A. Mather is with Distributed Energy Systems Integration Group,
of reaching penetration rates of this magnitude may seem un-
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401 USA (e-mail: realistic, the goal of this effort is to investigate what the major
barry.mather@nrel.gov). limitations to distributed PV integration may be in future very
J. Hambrick was with Electrical Distribution Design Inc., Blacksburg, VA
24060 USA and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401
high-penetration scenarios.
USA. He is now with GE Energy Consulting, Schenectady, NY 12345 USA
(e-mail: joshua.hambrick@ge.com).
R. P. Broadwater is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
II. SYSTEM MODEL
neering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA (e-mail: dew@vt.edu). The two 12-kV distribution feeders considered in this study
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. were modeled in the Distribution Engineering Workstation soft-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JPHOTOV.2015.2481605 ware suite environment. The definition of penetration level used

2156-3381 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
296 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JANUARY 2016

TABLE I
CIRCUIT CAPACITORS AND CONTROL

Device Size ON OFF High Low

Number (KVAR) Control Time Time Voltage (V) Voltage (V)

1 600 Time-Bias 7:04 A.M. 9:04 P.M. 126 121

Voltage
2 600 Voltage 12:00 A.M. 12:00 A.M. 125 120
3 600 Time-Bias 6:04 A.M. 10:04 P.M. 126 121
Voltage
4 600 Time-Bias 9:04 A.M. 7:04 P.M. 126 121
Voltage

the Porterville feeder has four overhead capacitor banks for volt-
age regulation. These capacitors are modeled as they operate in
the field with time-biased and voltage override as shown in Ta-
ble I [15]. The circuit models were verified using the operating
Fig. 1. Palmdale distribution circuit. circuit one-line diagrams.
In this analysis, a granular approach is taken to investigating
the ever increasing impacts of higher penetration PV. The base
models, described above, were extended to 100%, 125%, 150%,
175%, 200%, 250%, and 300% levels of PV penetration. Where
two PV sites exist in a system, we assume any new PV injection
will be equally distributed between the two sites. Because the
PV panels and the sites are all relatively close together, the entire
PV generation on the two sites will be considered to act together
for analysis purposes.

III. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Fig. 2. Porterville distribution circuit.
in this paper is
total PV nameplate
%penetration = . (1)
annual circuit peakload
The multiphase Palmdale feeder, shown in Fig. 1, has a peak
load of 3600 kW spread over 16 customer loads. The current
penetration level is 83% with two 1.5-MW PV systems. The
Porterville feeder shown in Fig. 2 is also a multiphase model.
It has a peak load of 4600 kW for 442 customer loads. The
current penetration level is 109% with one 5-MW PV system.
Customers on the feeders were represented by spot loads dis-
tributed throughout the circuit. Each spot load size was based
on the transformer-connected kVA. This became the base load
at every load point in the circuit, which we scaled by measure-
ment matching functionally for time-varying analysis, as will
be discussed in Section III. The two feeders are supplied from
two 66-kV substations, which do not have load tap changers
(LTC). The substation impedance is modeled at the start of the
circuit. The voltage regulator modeled at the beginning of the
feeder simulates the start-of-circuit’s voltage being regulated to
122.5 ± 1.5 V according to the operation records. In addition,
A. Time-Series Measurement Inputs
Highly detailed and accurate measurements of the impacts of
high penetration PV should be investigated with time-varying
analysis [10]. This usually involves large amounts of high res-
olution time-series data in order to capture the time-varying
interaction between load, generation, and control equipment.
The computation can be very time consuming and complex.
One of the goals of this study was to strike a balance between
the accuracy of PV impact assessments, as well as the amount
of data and computational requirements for performing such
assessments.
The measurement data involved in this study include a full
calendar year SCADA measurement at the start of the circuit
from utility, and a full year PV kW measurements at the PV
site location from Clean Power Research. Both sets of data have
a 1-min sampling interval. The combination of start-of-circuit
measurements and PV measurements is used to calculate the
system native load each minute in the base circuit models, i.e.,
without any new PV added. The native load defined as the circuit
load exclusive of any distributed energy resources providing
power into the system is used to scale the base customer loads
at each simulation time point.
Annual assessments performed using 1-min interval data can
provide very accurate results but require 1 051 200 power flow
runs, which takes up considerable computational and storage
resources. Instead, if a handful of critical days can be used to
represent the extreme/enveloping operation points of the sys-
tem, significant savings in time, effort, and resources can be
CHENG et al.: PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR VERY HIGH PENETRATION LEVELS
Fig. 3. Variability analysis on maximum load day of Porterville.
achieved. The impact study on critical days can provide the
information necessary for a utility to plan for effectively ad-
dressing the severity of issues that may occur with high levels
of PV penetration.
For this PV impact study, critical days for specific loading
and PV generation conditions are determined for evaluating the
largest impacts on the feeder. Daytime maximum PV generation,
maximum circuit load, and minimum circuit load are selected
as critical time points for analysis. These are the time points that
the impact of the PV is likely to be most severe.
B. Photovoltaic Variability Analysis
PV generation is variable in nature. Sudden and signifi-
cant voltage drops resulting from intermittent cloud movements
could be a big concern for the utility if the PV is a major gener-
ation source on the circuit. PV variability can have more signif-
icant impacts on distribution systems at very high penetration
rates.
In this study, the PV variability index is a measure of the PV
power output changes over a selected sampling time interval
divided by the PV rating, as follows:
|Pt − Pt−Δ t |
PV Variability Index =
Prating
where Δt is the sampling time interval, Pt is the PV output at
time t, and Prating is the PV rating.
The PV variability analysis for the Palmdale circuit revealed
that the variability during the critical days was generally less
than 5%, and its maximum was less than 20%. For the Porter-
ville PV plant, the variability was again generally less than 5%,
and its maximum was about 20%. An example is illustrated for
Porterville on the maximum load day in Fig. 3. The PV variabil-
ity analysis for every daytime minute of a year revealed that the
majority of variability index value was less than 5%. Fig. 4 gives
an example of the variability index distribution for the annual
PV variability analysis of Porterville.
C. Photovoltaic Stepping Impact Assessment
In this study, the PV impact assessments are performed
through a series of power flow analyses runs associated with
297
Fig. 4. Distribution of variability index value for Porterville.
loss and restoration of user-selected PV generation and corre-
sponding load conditions. For each penetration rate to be exam-
ined, at each critical time point reported in the previous section,
a series of five distinct power flow runs are made. They are the
following:
1) base condition;
2) loss of PV generation without feeder controls operating;
3) loss of PV generation with feeder controls operating;
4) return of PV generation without feeder controls operating;
5) return of PV generation with feeder controls operating.
For each penetration level, the simulation first performs the
Worst Case Study, which considers the loss and return of PV
output at 100% rated kW. By making the PV system operate at
its extreme condition, this scenario is helpful to quickly bracket
the potential system problems, if one exists. The interconnection
of PV at this penetration level is acceptable if the system can
operate at these extremes without adverse impacts. If a study
criteria violation is noted, then a further Detailed Study should
be considered.
A Detailed Study consists of running the same series of power
flows at each critical time point using a variety of more realistic
variability step changes to determine more accurately the extent
(2) of study criteria violations, for instance, a sudden loss and return
of 60% rated PV output.
For the 100% PV penetration level, both Worst Case and
Detailed Study were performed. For PV penetration rates of
125%, 150%, 175%, 200%, 250%, and 300%, only Worst Case
PV generation changes were analyzed to provide an overview
of the most severe impact the system could experience at each
penetration rate.
D. Mitigation Investigation
One of the potential impacts of high penetration levels of PV
is voltage variations due to output intermittency [16]. PF con-
trol is the preferred method of mitigating these voltage effects
[17], [18]. Many inverters have the capability to inject or absorb
reactive power, which can be turned ON with the electric utility
approvals. The control settings may be either in VARs or in PF.
Here, mitigation studies using PV absorbing PF control were
performed where applicable, taking into account the results of
298 IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JANUARY 2016

TABLE II
PALMDALE MITIGATION STUDY CASE DESIGN

PV Generation Loss and Return

Power Factor 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

PV Stepping Range
1.0 Case 1-1 100% – 0% Case 1-2 100% – 20% Case 1-3 100% – 40% Case 1-4 100% – 60% Case 1-5 100% – 80%
0.975 Absorbing Case 2-1 100% – 0% Case 2-2 100% – 20% Case 2-3 100% – 40% Case 2-4 100% – 60% Case 2-5 100% – 80%
0.95 Absorbing Case 3-1 100% – 0% Case 3-2 100% – 20% Case 3-3 100% – 40% Case 3-4 100% – 60% Case 3-5 100% – 80%
0.925 Absorbing Case 4-1 100% – 0% Case 4-2 100% – 20% Case 4-3 100% – 40% Case 4-4 100% – 60% Case 4-5 100% – 80%
0.90 Absorbing Case 5-1 100% – 0% Case 5-2 100% – 20% Case 5-3 100% – 40% Case 5-4 100% – 60% Case 5-5 100% – 80%

Fig. 5. Palmdale POI voltage deviation—100% penetration level with various Fig. 6. Porterville POI voltage deviation—125% penetration level with vari-
PF control set points and PV variability levels. ous PF control set points and PV variability levels.

the PV variability analyses. An example of a mitigation design

is shown in Table II. The effects of voltage fluctuation were ex-
amined under different PV control PFs and different percentages
of generation loss and return. For example, 80% PV generation
loss and return in Table II means the PV starts at 100% of full
rated output; then, the output drops to its 20% full rated output
and then returns back to 100%.
IV. IMPACT RESULTS
The steady-state studies for PV stepping impact revealed
some common issues for both circuits under study. They are
the following:
1) potential point of interconnection (POI) voltage deviation;
2) potential POI voltage higher than 1.05 p.u. when PV pen-
etration reaches a certain level;
3) reverse power flows in critical days.
Figs. 5 and 6 demonstrate the results for both the Worst Case
and Detailed Study for the two circuits under study for the 100%
PV penetration level. Generally, the amount of absorbing PF
depends on the allowable voltage deviation to other customers.
If a 600-kVAR capacitor bank were installed on the end of
the Palmdale circuit for voltage regulation, it would produce a
2.4-V voltage deviation. In the Porterville circuit, the existing
600-kVAR capacitor switching would produce 2.8-V voltage
deviation. In this duty, the POI voltage fluctuation criterion is
set as the voltage change that would be no worse than a capacitor
switching voltage change of the circuit.
For the Palmdale circuit under 100% PV penetration level,
we can see from Fig. 5 that using a 0.95 absorbing PF setting
should assure that the voltage deviation would be no worse than
the circuit capacitor switching voltage rise or fall, even in the
Worst Case (100% PV generation sudden loss and return).
For the Porterville circuit, as the existing 5-MW PV system
capacity was already greater than 100% of the 4.6-MW peak
loading, it was not necessary to study the 100% PV penetration
case. Instead, the high PV penetration study started at 125%
penetration level, as shown in Fig. 6. The PV stepping analysis
again ran over a range of PFs and PV variability. We can see
that a 0.96 absorbing PF setting led to voltage deviation being
no worse than the circuit capacitor switching voltage for any PV
stepping size.
Figs. 7 and 8 demonstrate the different voltage deviations for
the Worst Case at different penetration levels under various PF
settings for the Palmdale and Porterville circuits, respectively.
Table III shows the summary of recommended PV absorbing
PF settings for different penetration levels, with POI voltage
fluctuations maintained within the criteria, and the POI voltage
level within [−0.9 p.u, +1.05 p.u].
Time-series power flow analysis was also performed, over
daytime hours, to determine customer voltage variations for
CHENG et al.: PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR VERY HIGH PENETRATION LEVELS 299

Fig. 9. Penetration level comparison—Palmdale voltage variations with 60%

loss of PV output and −0.9 PF.
Fig. 7. Penetration level comparison—Palmdale voltage deviation with 100%
loss of PV output.

Fig. 10. Penetration level comparison—Porterville voltage variations with

60% loss of PV output and −0.98 PF.
Fig. 8. Penetration level comparison—Porterville voltage deviation with
100% loss of PV output.

The time-series simulation for all three critical days (maximal

TABLE III load, minimal load, maximal PV) revealed that 0.90 and 0.98
RECOMMENDED PV PF SETTING
absorbing PF settings are sufficient to maintain a fairly constant
voltage level for Palmdale and Porterville circuits, respectively,
Penetration Level Palmdale PV PF setting Porterville PV PF setting
when experiencing a sudden 60% loss and return of PV gen-
100% −0.95 n/a eration. Fig. 9 plots an example of customer voltage variations
125% −0.925 −0.96 simulation at different penetration rates for Palmdale PV system
150% −0.90 −0.96
175% −0.90 −0.96 on maximal PV day. Fig. 10 provides another example of cus-
200% −0.90 −0.96 tomer voltage variations comparison for Porterville PV system
250% −0.875 −0.98 at different penetration rates on maximal load day.
300% −0.875 −0.98
The power flow study performed in PV stepping impact anal-
yses revealed that reverse power flow at substations is also a
concern at critical time points. Reverse flow can cause prob-
the critical days, using more realistic PV stepping ranges for lems for the protection system. Voltage regulators may be uni-
each case shown in Table II. From the PV variability analysis directional and cannot accommodate reverse flow. Reverse flow
described in Section III, we determined that modeling a 60% loss can also affect substation LTC regulation, causing line drop
of generation would result in a very conservative scenario for compensators to not operate correctly. Therefore, the design of
investigating customer voltage variations. Thus, more realistic distribution system components, such as voltage regulators and
PF settings sufficient to cover most cases of actual PV output protection devices, should take into account bidirectional power
fluctuations could be found. flow [19]. For single-phase reverse flows, phase balancing could
300
also be considered as mitigation on the utility side. For three-
phase reverse flows, possible mitigation methods include using
bidirectional regulators to maintain voltage regulation for flows
in both directions.
V. SUMMARY OF WORK
A granular PV impact analysis for very high PV penetration
levels up to 300% is studied. The analysis identifies negative
impacts that may occur for future high PV penetration scenarios.
In this study, critical days and time points are found to repre-
sent the extremes of system operation, from the time-series load
and PV generation data analysis. This provides a methodology
for balancing between the accuracy of PV impact assessments
and the data and computational requirements. PV step change
analysis determines the potential impacts of sudden changes in
PV output on circuit criteria violations. Methods of mitigating
the discovered negative impacts were presented. Recommended
PV PF settings are given for each circuit under study, for both
extreme and realistic PV stepping scenarios. The system mod-
eling and PV impact analysis methods presented in this paper
can be used to prepare for the grid integration challenges posed
by increasing levels of renewable energy generation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Southern California
Edison, which provided data for this analysis.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Ellis, B. Karlson, and J. Williams, “Utility-scale photovoltaic proce-
dures and interconnection requirements,” Sandia Natl. Lab., Albuquerque,
NM, USA, Tech. Rep. SAND2012–2090, 2012.
[2] J. Jung et al., “Monte Carlo analysis of plug-in hybrid vehicles and dis-
tributed energy resource growth with residential energy storage in Michi-
gan,” Appl. Energy, vol. 108, pp. 218–235, 2013.
[3] J. Russell and S. Weissman, “California’s transition to local renewable en-
ergy: 12,000 megawatts By 2020,” a report on the Governor’s Conference
on Local Renewable Energy, Jun. 2012.
[4] G. K. Ari and Y. Baghzouz, “Impact of high PV penetration on voltage
regulation in electrical distribution systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Clean Electr. Power, 2011, pp. 744–748.
[5] A. Kenneth and K. Folly, “Voltage rise issue with high penetration of grid
connected PV,” presented at the Int. Federation Autom. Control, Cape
Town, South Africa, Aug. 24–29, 2014.
[6] K. Farid and J. R. Aguero, “Solar PV integration challenges,” IEEE Power
Energy Mag., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 62–71, May/Jun. 2011.
[7] R. Tonkoski, D. Turcott, and T. H. El-Fouly, “Impact of high PV pen-
etration on voltage profiles in residential neighborhoods,” IEEE Trans.
Sustainable Energy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 518–527, Jul. 2012.
[8] A. Ellis, “Grid operations and high penetration PV,” presented at the
Utility/Lab Workshop PV Technol. Syst., Tempe, AZ, USA, Nov. 8–9,
2010.
[9] M. J. Reno, A. Ellis, J. Quiroz, and S. Grijalva, “Modeling distribution
system impacts of solar variability and interconnection location,” in Proc.
World Renewable Energy Forum, May 2012.
[10] J. Quiroz and M. J. Reno, “Detailed grid integration analysis of distributed
PV,” presented at the IEEE Photovoltaic Spec. Conf., Austin, TX, USA,
2012.
[11] J. Bank and B. Mather, “Analysis of the impacts of distribution connected
PV using high-speed datasets,” in Proc. IEEE Green Technol. Conf., 2013,
pp. 153–159.
[12] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “A comprehensive assess-
ment tool for solar PV impacts on low voltage three phase distribution
networks,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. Developments Renewable Energy
Technol., Jan. 2012, pp. 1–5.
IEEE JOURNAL OF PHOTOVOLTAICS, VOL. 6, NO. 1, JANUARY 2016
[13] J. Aramizu and J. C. Vieira, “Analysis of PV generation impacts on
voltage imbalance and on voltage regulation in distribution networks,”
in Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. General Meeting, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[14] Y. Hou, J. Magnusson, G. Engdahl, and L. Liljestrand, “Impact on volt-
age rise of PV generation in future Swedish urban areas with high PV
penetration,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Energy Conf., May, 2014, pp. 904–911.
[15] B. A. Mather et al., “NREL/SCE high penetration PV integration project:
FY13 annual report,” Nat. Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, USA,
Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5D00-61269, 2014.
[16] M. Farivar, R. Neal, C. Clarke, and S. Low, “Optimal inverter VAR control
in distribution systems with high PV penetration,” in Proc. IEEE Energy
Soc. General Meeting, 2012, pp. 1–7.
[17] J. Bank, B. Mather, J. Keller, and M. Coddington, “High penetration
photovoltaic case study report,” Nat. Renewable Energy Lab., Golden,
CO, USA, Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-5500-54742, Jan. 2013.
[18] B. Parida, S. Iniyan, and R. Goic, “A review of solar photovoltaic tech-
nologies,” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., vol. 15, pp. 1625–1636,
2011.
[19] J. von Appen, M. Braun, T. Stetz, K. Diwold, and D. Geibel, “Time in the
sun: The challenge of high PV penetration in the German electric grid,”
IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 55–64, Mar./Apr. 2013.
Danling Cheng received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from the
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, and the M.S.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA,
USA.
She is currently a Senior Engineer with Electrical Distribution Design, Inc.,
Blacksburg. Her specialties include reliability and contingency analysis, co-
ordinate control, outage and reconfiguration, load analysis, impact analysis
of high-penetration photovoltaic integration into the distribution system, and
power system modeling. Prior to pursuing her graduate study at Virginia Tech,
she worked with the Wuhan University of Technology, where she performed
teaching and researching work related to industrial automation design.
Barry A. Mather (S’03–M’10–SM’14) received the B.S. and M.S. degrees
from the University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USA, in 2001 and 2004, re-
spectively, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO,
USA, in 2010, all in electrical engineering.
In March 2010, he joined the Power Systems Engineering Center, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA, where he currently leads
multiple research projects focused on the modeling and mitigation of photo-
voltaic (PV) integration impacts on interconnected distribution power systems.
His research interests include distributed PV standards, the bulk system impact
of distributed PV systems, the analysis and mitigation of high-penetration PV
integration into the distribution system, and advanced power electronic appli-
cations in renewable energy systems.
Richard Seguin received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Clark-
son University, Potsdam, NY, USA, and completed graduate courses in electrical
engineering and environmental and hazardous waste management from Wayne
State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
He is the Manager of Engineering Services with Electrical Distribution De-
sign, Inc., Blacksburg, VA, USA. In his current position, he provides customer
modeling support and analysis consulting.
Joshua Hambrick (M’15) received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in elec-
trical engineering from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
He is currently a Principal with GE Energy Consulting, Schenectady, NY,
USA, where he focuses on distribution and transmission modeling and sim-
ulation. Prior to joining GE, he was with Electrical Distribution Design Inc.,
Blacksburg, VA, USA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
CO, USA, where he performed research related to high penetrations of dis-
tributed resources, developed cosimulation techniques for distribution modeling
software with power hardware-in-loop simulators, and participated in intercon-
nection and interoperability standards development.
Robert P. Broadwater (LM’13) received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees, all
in electrical engineering, from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
He is currently a Professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. He has worked for the U.S.
Army Material Command, General Electric, Babcock & Wilcox, and Tennessee
Tech. He has developed a new approach to system modeling and analysis known
as Graph Trace Analysis (GTA). GTA enables new organizational and analysis
paradigms.