2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Integration of Photovoltaic Distributed Generation in the Power Distribution
Grid
Miroslav M. BegovicI, Insu KimII, Damir NovoselIII,
I, II, V
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA
I II
mb50@mail.gatech.edu iskim@gatech.edu
IV
julio@quanta-technology.com
Abstract
Numerous North American utilities are integrating
growing numbers of investor-owned photovoltaic
distributed generation (PV-DG) plants into their
distribution systems to comply with state-mandated
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Given the fact
that distribution systems have been designed to be
operated in a radial fashion, interconnection of PV-DG
may lead to significant impacts on planning and
operations that need to be studied to identify mitigation
measures and ensure seamless integration. The purpose
of this paper is to discuss impacts of PV-DG on power
distribution systems planning and operations, including
those of steady state and dynamic nature, with
emphasis on utility-scale PV-DG. This paper also
discusses mitigation measures to address these impacts
and presents results of analyses conducted on real
distribution feeders and other ramifications of their
increased use in distribution networks, especially urban
ones.
1. Introduction
Distributed generation (DG) can be defined as small-
scale, dispersed, decentralized, and on-site electric
energy systems. Currently, capacities of DGs vary
typically in the range of several kW to hundreds of
MW. As more DG penetrates the electric energy
systems, more accurate and efficient system analysis
algorithms are needed in order to analyze the impact of
the DG system on various types of microgrids and
distribution networks. The influence of uncertainties
can be modeled via suitably optimized Monte Carlo
techniques.
Since distribution systems have been designed to be
operated in a radial fashion, i.e., to supply
unidirectional power flow from substations to loads,
DG interconnection needs to be studied to ensure that
its potential impacts are identified and that required
mitigation measures are implemented. It is worth noting
that some impacts are common to all technologies
including conventional ones (e.g., reciprocating
engines, small hydro, biomass, etc), however,
978-0-7695-4525-7/12 $26.00 © 2012 IEEE 1977
DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2012.335
Julio Romero AgueroIV, Ajeet RohatgiV
III, IV
Quanta Technologies, Raleigh, NC
III
DNovosel@Quanta-Technology.com
V
ajeet.rohatgi@ece.gatech.edu
intermittent DG (e.g., photovoltaic, wind) poses
specific challenges given the volatile and uncontrollable
nature of its primary resource.
Since DG can change the operation of the
distribution system and interfere with its protection and
control, electric power utilities are not motivated to
interconnect customer owned small generators to their
distribution networks. Utilities tend to put non-utility
generation under the extensive technical analysis.
Conversely, the regulating authorities tend to act in
favor of DG owners and support that the
interconnection be as easy and transparent as possible.
The objective of the paper is to discuss some of the
issues and challenges faced by the industry due to the
growing and rapid proliferation of photovoltaic DG
(PV-DG), including distribution system impacts, energy
savings, ecological aspects, and generation cost.
Section 2 discusses the evolution of the PV industry
and some of the most recent technology and market
developments; section 3 presents an introduction to PV-
DG, sections 4 and 5 discuss potential impacts of PV-
DG on planning and operation of power distribution
systems and potential mitigation measures to these
issues; and sections 6, 7 and 8 analyze impacts of PV-
DG on generation costs, energy savings and critical
peak loading.
2. Roadmap to Grid Parity for PV
The commercial PV power industry started
developing in the 70s. In spite of a 70% reduction of
real price of PV modules over 40 years, energy from
PV remains expensive in comparison to conventional
generation sources. Furthermore, PV cell efficiencies
are still below 20 percent
In the early 80s, changes in politics in the United
States ended substantial funding of solar energy
research and, since the nation represented nearly 80%
of the global market for solar energy at that time,
virtually halted solar energy development around the
world [4]. However, in 2008, renewable energy sources
including hydropower accounted for more than 9% of
total electricity generation in the United States and
17.7% worldwide. China was the leading nation by
renewable generation capacity in 2008 (598 TWh of
renewable energy produced that year). A total of 3,584
TWh of renewable energy was produced in the world in
2008, of that only 12 TWh was from solar photovoltaic
generators while, for example, 16% (3,288 TWh) of
world electric energy was produced from hydroelectric
plants. The PV market, however, grew at a rate of ~ 13
% per year during 1982-1996, and further expanded to
an average annual growth rate of ~ 40 % during 1996-
2010. In 2008 in the United States, cumulative solar PV
net capacity increased by 44% from 2007. The growth
rate shows PV is an ongoing shift in electricity
generation. PV module shipments increased at an
average annual growth rate of 13% since 1982 as one of
the most rapidly growing generation resources.
Estimated potential growth may transform PV into a
$100 billion industry.
Crystalline silicon (Si) has been the most popular
technology for manufacturing PV cells and panels for
more than half a century and is largely the reason for its
impressive growth in recent times. Crystalline Si is
currently facing strong competition from other
materials because of its higher manufacturing cost, but
it still represents about 90 percent share of the PV
market. Significant innovations are taking place in the
all areas of (Si) PV cell manufacturing to increase cell
efficiencies and lower their cost. Rapid growth of PV
installed capacity is expected to continue worldwide
and the consequences of the changing generation
portfolios will require careful rethinking of planning,
operational and many other practices of the electric
utilities.
Productions PV cell efficiencies are still below 20
percent. The scale of the PV market, however, grew at a
rate of ~ 13 % per year during 1982-1996, and further
expanded to an average annual growth rate of ~ 40 %
during 1996-2010. Crystalline Si increased its share of
the marketplace from 68 % to 90 % in 1990-
2007.Current module prices are about $1.30/W with
residential balance of system (BOS) cost of~$2.50/W.
This results in an installed system cost of ~ $4/W and
levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of ~15 ¢/kWh in
Phoenix AZ type of location (regarding solar flux).
Further installed price decrease are needed (to
approximately $3/W) to reach LCOE of 10 ¢/kWh,
which is viewed as grid parity in the U.S for residential
applications. Installed system price needs to be even
lower for grid parity in lower insolation regions.
Figure 1 displays the learning curve for PV:
whenever the amount of installed PV in the world is
doubled, the price of PV modules decreases by
1978
approximately 20%. In 1975 PV modules were $ 80/W
with cumulative installed capacity of 0.4 MW while
presently there is ~18 GW of installed capacity and
module prices are approaching $2/W. Extrapolation of
this curve (linearly in the log-log domain) suggests that
module price could drop to $1/W when the installed PV
capacity reaches 100 GW. That would correspond to
the cost of electricity of 10 ¢/kWh. If the growth trend
of PV continues into the future then the PV module
prices could reach $1/W by 2015.
Due to a variety of conditions (recent shortage of
polycrystalline Si, wafers and inverters), growth of PV
industry capacity is expected to temporarily outpace the
demand (according to some forecast from early 2011,
the projections for shipment capacity are exceeding 23
GWp while the demand was estimated to be less than 16
GWp) [5]. If these forecasts turn out correct, there will
be severe pressures on more than 100 module suppliers
which currently operate around the world.
Figure 1: Learning curve for the PV industry [4]
Some boost for PV is expected in spite of the
unfavorable economic conditions in the last few years,
considering recent catastrophic events in Japan and
ripples of the news which quickly spread around the
world about the triple (possibly larger) nuclear reactor
meltdowns at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant
which were seriously damaged by tsunami following
the catastrophic earthquake in March of 2011. In June
of 2011, the German government has announced its
intention to permanently shut down its 17 nuclear
reactors by 2022 at the expected cost of $40 billion, not
counting a possible litigation with plant owners and
other unforeseen consequences of that decision.
German government has at the same time announced its
increasing commitment to renewable generation
technologies as part of the plan to partially offset the
loss of generation created by that decision. The French
government, which relies on nuclear energy for nearly
80 percent of its electricity generation, is also
considering a 5 percent reduction of its nuclear
resources, while the Italian government has announced
a freeze in all new nuclear initiatives while other
governments are contemplating similar measures.
While those decisions are not equivalent to promotion
of renewable, they will create energy shortages that will
partly be possible to balance with increased
proliferation of all renewable technologies, including
photovoltaics. Figure 2 shows a roadmap for LCOE to
quantify the need for technology development [5]. In
Figure 2, LCOE contours are plotted as a function of
module price and efficiency for a location in Phoenix,
AZ. As an example, 18% to 20% efficient modules at a
price of $1.00 to $1.25/W can produce electricity at ~10
¢/kWh. This assumes a BOS cost of $2/W for 20%
efficient modules, resulting in an installed system cost
of $3.0. Figure 2 also shows that the price of a 10%
efficient module needs to be ~ 60 ¢/kW in order to
produce electricity at 10 ¢/kWh and a less than 8%
efficient module cannot attain grid parity even if it is
free unless significant successes are achieved in
reducing the BOS cost.
Figure 2: Relationship between module cost, efficiency
and the cost of electricity [5].
Lower costs are promoted by higher efficiency cells
because variable component of the BOS cost
(installation labor, hardware and land area) increases
with lower efficiency due to larger system area. A 15%
efficient module with a 0.5%/ºC efficiency degradation
coefficient (KT) needs to cost $1.17/W in order to
produce electricity at 10 ¢/kWh. An 18% efficient
module can achieve the same goal at a price of $1.38/W
because of lower BOS cost. However, an 18% efficient
module (~20% efficient cells) generally has higher
open circuit voltage VOC and lower temperature
coefficient KT (≤ 0.4%/ºC) and so one can afford to pay
$1.47/W for the module for grid parity. A 10% efficient
Si module needs to be $0.57/W due to much higher
BOS cost or efficiency premium of $0.90/w.
For cost effectiveness of the installation, module
price is also a function of local retail price of electricity
and solar flux or insolation. It is important to recognize
that the required module price for grid parity is a strong
function of module efficiency, temperature coefficient
for efficiency degradation, module life, local price of
electricity and solar insolation because all these factors
influence the total power generated by the module over
its life.
1979
Silicon PV technology is benefiting from improved
cell efficiencies and lower costs consistent with the goal
of attaining grid parity by 2015. The benefits are
achieved through innovation in crystal growth and ingot
slicing, low-cost technology development for efficiency
enhancement and the use of thinner wafers. Model
calculations show that 20% screen printed cells on
~170 μm thick wafers produced from $40/kg feedstock
Si can lead to ~$1.20/W modules, ≤$3.0/W installed
system cost and LCOE of ~10 ¢/kWh [5].
3. Photovoltaic Distributed Generation
Numerous North American utilities are experiencing
rapid proliferation of investor-owned solar photovoltaic
distributed generation (PV-DG) on their distribution
feeders. This is being driven by the need to comply
with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and the
availability of incentives for electricity production
using renewable resources [1].
PV-DG may be classified as micro, small, medium
and utility-scale:
• Micro-scale PV-DG consists of highly distributed
VA-size single-phase units (e.g., 200 W) such as
the ones described in [2].
• Small-scale PV-DG consists of few kW-size single-
phase units (e.g., 5 to 10 kW) such as the ones
installed on rooftops of residential households.
• Medium-scale PV-DG consists of larger kW-size
three-phase units (e.g., 100 to 500 kW) such as the
ones installed on rooftops of small commercial
buildings.
• Utility-scale PV-DG consists of MW-size three-
phase units that have nominal capacities that are
manageable by distribution feeders and substations,
e.g., between 500 kW and 10 MW.
PV-DG integration may lead to severe impacts on
different areas of distribution systems planning and
operations, including effects on active and reactive
power flows, voltage profiles (e.g., voltage rise, voltage
unbalance), interaction with voltage control and
regulation equipment (LTCs, voltage regulators,
capacitor banks), equipment maintenance and life cycle,
feeder loading, overcurrent and overvoltage protection
(e.g., modification of reach of overcurrent protection
devices, Temporary Overvoltage), electric losses,
power factor, and power quality. It is worth noting that
these impacts are not exclusive of utility-scale PV-DG,
they may also be caused by large proliferation of
smaller scale PV-DG.
Impact severity is a function of the penetration level
and location of PV-DG. Since reverse power flow is
one of the main drivers of PV-DG impacts on
distribution feeders, penetration level may be defined
on a feeder basis as the ratio of the total installed
capacity of PV-DG vs. a predefined feeder demand [3].
A convenient approach is to use the PV-DG system’s
AC ratings (PPVAC) and the annual minimum feeder load
at times of maximum PV-DG output (PFmin,PVmax), e.g.,
at noon, as shown in (1), where Pi,PVAC is the AC rating
of the i-th PV-DG plant in the feeder:
σ೙ ௉೔ǡುೇಲ಴
ܲ ൌ ௉ ೔సబ (1)
ಷ೘೔೙ǡುೇ೘ೌೣ
Using this definition the following penetration levels
may be defined:
• Low penetration:
σ௡௜ୀ଴ ܲ௜ǡ௉௏஺஼ ൏ ݇ଵ ܲி௠௜௡ǡ௉௏௠௔௫
• Moderate penetration:
݇ଵ ܲி௠௜௡ǡ௉௏௠௔௫ ൏ σ௡௜ୀ଴ ܲ௜ǡ௉௏஺஼ ൏ ݇ଶ ܲி௠௜௡ǡ௉௏௠௔௫
• High penetration:
σ௡௜ୀ଴ ܲ௜ǡ௉௏஺஼ ൐ ݇ଶ ܲி௠௜௡ǡ௉௏௠௔௫
A similar definition may be used for determining
penetration levels for distribution substations or
individual distribution transformers, in that case
PFmin,PVmax must be replaced by PSubmin,PVmax and
PTransfmin,PVmax, respectively. The selection of k1 and k2
would depend, among others, on the utility’s
distribution planning and operation guidelines and
criteria, system characteristics, etc. For instance, if k1 =
1 and k2 = 2, then low penetration level does not lead to
reverse power flow, moderate penetration causes
“modest” reverse power flow and high penetration
produces “severe” reverse power flow at distribution
feeder level. A more “conservative” utility with feeders
that are more prone to be impacted by PV-DG may
prefer to use k1 = 0.5 and k2 = 1 to define penetration
levels. However, it is worth mentioning that other
definitions may also be used, e.g., penetration level on
the basis of the percentage of residential customers that
adopt the technology, i.e., that install PV-DG systems.
It is worth noting that conventional DG output is
relatively constant and controllable, therefore most of
its impacts can be investigated through steady state
analyses. Due to the intermittency of its primary
resource due to clouding phenomena, PV-DG impacts
also need to be analyzed by means of dynamic studies.
Given the complexity of these studies, impacts and
mitigation measures are more difficult to identify, and
utilities and distribution planners are generally are less
prepared to deal with them. Moreover, many existing
1980
utility interconnection standards and planning
guidelines need to be revisited to ensure that all these
aspects are appropriately taken into account.
Section 4 of this paper discusses impacts of PV-DG
on power distribution systems and measures to mitigate
them, with emphasis on utility-scale PV-DG. In order to
capture a wide range of possible phenomena and
impacts, the results of analysis performed for a variety
of scenarios on real distribution feeders are presented
and discussed. These scenarios cover different
penetration levels and location of PV-DG and various
feeder loading conditions.
4. PV-DG Impacts on Distribution Systems
Some of the most common impacts driven by PV-
DG integration on distribution systems are:
• Reverse power flow: high penetration levels of PV-
DG can lead to reverse active power flow at feeder
and substation transformer level. This condition
may affect overcurrent protection coordination and
the operation of line voltage regulators, particularly
of those set to forward operation mode and/or Line
Drop Compensation (LDC) [1]. Furthermore,
reverse power flow at substation transformer level
may affect voltages and loading limits of some
transformers [6].
• Voltage rise: PV-DG integration modifies feeder
voltage profiles and may lead to significant voltage
rise particularly at locations close to PV-DG plant
sites. This can cause violations on utility planning
limits and industry standards, cause complaints
from customers, and cause the operation of
overvoltage protection systems of PV-DG plants.
Figure 3 shows an example of steady-state voltage
rise at four PV-DG plant sites (base case represents
no PV-DG generation). Since the magnitude of
voltage rise is, among others, a function of PV-DG
output, in this case the voltage profiles follow the
typical bell-shape of PV-DG output. Voltage rise is
a limitation for integration when large PV-DG
units are connected at the end of long, lightly-
loaded feeders.
• Voltage fluctuations: PV-DG intermittency can
have significant impacts on feeder voltages. This is
more noticeable on feeders with low short-circuit
power levels, i.e., with low stiffness factor, and on
PV-DG plants located far from distribution
substations. Figures 4 and 5 show examples of PV-
DG intermittency. Figure 4 shows the output
profiles of a real PV-DG plant for the month of
August of 2010. This plot shows that significant
 fluctuations with magnitudes as hhigh as 1.5 MW he basis of customer
level defined in this case on th
may occur in a matter of a few m minutes. Similarly that adopt the technology).
Figure 5 shows a histogram of PV V-DG outputs of
the same plant for 10 AM of the m month of June of
90
2010. This plot shows the wide raange of observed
80
variations for this PV-DG plant. Evidently these
large output variations may leaad to significant 70

voltage fluctuations along the feedder that can cause 60

Frequency
power quality issues and coomplaints from 50
customers. The severity of these voltage 40
fluctuations and power quality issues can be
30
evaluated using specialized tools annd models.
20
Voltage Profile PV-DG - Minimum Case
C
1.05 10
1.04 0

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
1.03
P (MW)
Voltage (PU)

1.02
Figure 5. Histogram of PV-DG outp
put intermittency
1.01
Fir
1.00
1.60

Voltage Unbalance Factor (%)

0.99 1.40
1.20
0.98 1.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.80
Hour 0.60
PV1-Base PV2-Base PV3-Base PV4-Base 0.40
PV1-Connected PV2-Connected PV3-Connecte
ed PV4-Connected 0.20
0.00
Figure 3. Voltage rise at PV-DG plant sitess (no mitigation)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Distance from substatio
on (miles)

0% 50% 100%

Figure 6. Voltage unbalance factor (%) as

a a function of PV-DG
penetration level
• Feeder loading and power lossees increase: Low and
P (MW)

moderate penetration levels of o PV-DG generally

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 177 18 19 20 21 22 23
Hour
Figure 4. PV-DG output intermiittency
• Voltage and current unbalance: llarge penetration
levels of single-phase PV-DG ((e.g., small-scale
PV-DG installed on rooftops of residential
households) may offset feeder currrents and lead to
significant voltage and current unbalance (e.g.,
phase A of a three-phase lateral may experience
reverse power flow while phase B and C may not
be affected at all). Such situationn may lead to an
increase on voltage unbalance facctor, as shown in
Figure 6 for a real distribution ffeeder and three
different penetration levels of PV--DG (penetration
decrease the magnitude of feeder currents,
principally on feeders that peeak during daylight
hours, this in turns reduces lin ne losses (which are
proportional to the square of line current) and
overall feeder loading. Large penetration
p levels of
PV-DG, on the other side, may cause reverse
power flow and increase the magnitude of
osses and equipment
distribution line currents, line lo
loading. Interestingly, both situ uations can occur in
the same feeder during the daay, since they are a
function of the feeder load proffile. This is shown in
Figure 7 for various penetrattion levels, e.g., for
100% penetration, losses (wiith respect to base
case) initially increase, espeecially during noon
time, and then decrease during g late afternoon. The
overall effect on feeder losses can be evaluated by
calculating average instead of instantaneous losses.
• Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) increase: large
penetration levels of PV-DG may lead to THD
increase. This is becoming an important subject

1981
 given the fact that additional power electronics- • Interaction with voltage-controlled capacitor banks,
interfaced equipment is expected to be connected LTCs, and line voltage regulators: Voltage rise and
to the distribution grid, e.g., Plug-in Electric voltage fluctuations may cause an increase in the
Vehicles and Distributed Energy Storage (DES). tap changes LTCs and line voltage regulators, and
Therefore, interaction among all these equipment cause switching of voltage-controlled capacitor
plus the presence of capacitor banks on the banks. This in turn can cause additional voltage
distribution system may lead to other harmonic and reactive power flow fluctuations, affect power
related issues such as resonance. Figure 8 shows quality, equipment maintenance frequency and life-
the THD values for different feeder locations and cycle, and impact the implementation of advanced
100% penetration of PV-DG. Volt-VAr Optimization (VVO) schemes such as
Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR).
40
5. Mitigation Measures
Ploss (kW)

30
The severity of the steady-state and dynamic issues
20
caused by PV-DG integration is estimated via impact
10 studies. The objective of these studies is to determine
0
economically feasible mitigation measures that alleviate
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the impacts and facilitate integration of PV-DG plants.
Hour
Mitigation measures are a function of the nature of the
impacts identified during the studies (steady state,
BASE 10% 20% 30%
40% 50% 60% 70% dynamic or both) and applicable regulation, policies
80% 90% 100%
and standards. Alternatives for mitigating PV-DG
Figure 7. Feeder losses as a function of PV-DG penetration level
impacts can be classified as conventional and smart grid
for two real distribution feeders
0.05
Harmonic Spectrum at source
approaches. Conventional approaches include the
utilization of existing technologies, examples of this
are:

• Set line voltage regulators and LTCs to co-

0.0 generation or bidirectional operation modes, and
[3] 0.0290617

0.05
Harmonic Spectrum at mid point
modify or customize their control settings (e.g.,
reference voltage) to account for the voltage rise
and load offset (e.g., for Line Drop Compensation
applications) introduced by PV-DG plants
• Modify control settings of capacitor banks, relocate
0.0

[83] 0.00442317
Harmonic Spectrum at end point
existing capacitor banks, and install controls on
0.05
fixed capacitor banks
• Rebalance feeder loads to mitigate steady state
high voltage, voltage and current unbalance, and
reduce voltage fluctuations
• Use express or dedicated feeders for independent
0.0

[3] 0.0409815 interconnection of utility-scale PV-DG plants.

Figure 8. THD for 100% PV-DG penetration level and different Considerations such as express feeder voltage and
feeder locations. THD from top to bottom is 4.35% (feeder
gateway), 4.85% (feeder midpoint) and 7.45% (feeder end). annual energy losses are important for selecting the
length of express feeders and the maximum
• Overcurrent and overvoltage protection: Potential capacity of PV-DG plants to be interconnected by
impacts of PV-DG on protection systems include it.
reach modification of overcurrent protection
devices such as reclosers and relays, and Smart grid approaches make use of new technologies
Temporary Overvoltage (TOV) due to ungrounded and novel operational methodologies, examples of this
system operation during accidental islanding are:
conditions. Overall overcurrent protection
coordination may also be affected. • Operate PV-DG plants at fixed non-unity leading
power factor (absorbing VArs within inverter

1982
 limits) or under a power factor schedule
• Implement dynamic volt-VAr compensation
schemes using either PV-DG inverters or Flexible
AC Distribution Systems (FACDS) such as
distribution Static Synchronous Compensator
(STATCOM), commercially known as D-VAr [7]
• Use DES to level out and “firm” PV-DG output
during intermittency conditions and mitigate
voltage fluctuations
• Using Direct Transfer Trip schemes (DTT) or
grounding banks to prevent ungrounded system
operation and TOV during accidental islanding of
PV-DG
• Use directional protection to prevent overcurrent
protection miss-operation.
• Use GPS-based synchrophasor measurement
technology to detect islanding.
Figure 9 show the simulation results of operating
PV-DG plants at fixed non-unity leading power factor
for the same plants as Figure 3. The results show that
the steady-state voltage increase at the PV-DG plant
sites is alleviated by this mitigation measure.
Voltage Profile PV-DG - Minimum Case (mitigation)
1.05
1.04
1.03
Voltage (PU)
1.02
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
PV1-Base PV2-Base PV3-Base
PV1-Connected PV2-Connected PV3-Connected
Figure 9. Voltage rise at PV-DG plant sites (mitigation case using
fixed non-unity leading power factor of 0.97)
However, in some cases the utilization of a fixed
non-unity leading power factor does not mitigate
voltage fluctuations or voltage violations during rapid
PV-DG output fluctuations caused by intermittency
(incident solar radiation fluctuation due to clouding).
Such situation may require implementing a dynamic
volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG inverters,
this schemes dynamically modifies the inverters
reactive power output, i.e., the plant power factor, to
keep voltages within predefined limits. Figure 10 shows
solar radiation (top curve) and a comparison of three
cases, b) no mitigation, c) mitigation using fixed non-
unity leading power factor, and d) mitigation using
dynamic volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG
inverters. The maximum voltage limit in these
simulations is 1.04 PU. The results show how dynamic
volt-VAr compensation outperforms power factor
mitigation. The highest voltage with no mitigation
exceeds 1.52 p.u. (curve b), with power factor
mitigation is limited to 1.05 p.u. (curve c), and while
with volt-VAr compensation is limited to 1.4 p.u.
(curve d).
6. PV-DG Impacts on Generation Costs
In the following sections, an installation involving
various PV-DG capacities distributed across the feeder
is investigated from the standpoint of ecological and
economic effectiveness. While some simplifying
assumptions are being made (mostly due to the lack of
actual data), the conclusions drawn are not impacted by
those simplifications.
Solar radiation
No mitigation
PF mitigation
Dynamic volt-VAr
mitigation
0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Time (seconds)
PV4-Base
PV4-Connected Figure 10. Dynamic voltage fluctuations at PV-DG plant site: a)
solar radiation, b) no mitigation, c) mitigation using fixed non-
unity leading power factor of 0.97, and d) mitigation using
dynamic volt-VAr compensation scheme using PV-DG inverters
A load profile varies in time in accordance with the
customer type (residential, commercial, agricultural and
pumping, industrial, and large industrial customers).
The load profiles used in this analysis are obtained from
actual utility data [11]. To account statistically for a
variety of types of loads, reactive power consumption is
generated randomly while the power factor is kept over
0.85. It is assumed that all the individual customer
loads have nearly identical load profiles at the feeder.
Feeder peak demand is assumed to be 3.49 MW applied
to the IEEE 123 test feeder. The characteristics of
different load profiles are analyzed in Figures 11 and
12. Figure 11 presents the load duration curves of total
active power of each load type. It shows that large
1983
 550
industrial type loads exceed the active power load Large Industrial
profile most often, while residential type loads are least 500 Agriculture and Pumping
Industrial
likely to exceed it. Figure 12 presents the probability 450
Commercial
curves of total active power of each load type. 400
Residential

Generation cost in $
4000 350
Large Industrial
Agricultural and Pumping 300
3500
Industrial
250
Commercial
3000 Residential
200

150
Power in kW

2500

100
2000
50
0% 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100%
Figure 13. The generation cost curve in 100 kW blocks of
1500
each load type in 2010
1000
According to the assumed cost rate for base,
500
intermediate, and peak power generation, the projected
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100%
Percentage of time that power exceeds curve[%] annual generation costs are calculated. The elements in
Figure 11. Duration curves of annual 3-phase active power of the following tables are obtained using the following
each load type in 2010 formula where Pi is the active power produced in hour i
Interaction between DG utilization and load profile will of the year and CPi is the cost of avoided generation at
affect the total energy costs. For the utility, the benefit the same time:
of using DG is avoided energy production near peak 8760
levels and reduction in transmission and distribution
Annual
CGeneration = ¦P ×C
i =1
i Pi
losses. Reducing the effective feeder load in the
distribution networks where it is installed also reduces The validation of the PV system output in the Atlanta
the transmission and distribution losses. area was obtained using the System Advisor Model
The total energy savings can be translated into the total (SAM) from NREL to compare the performance of the
generation cost savings. Assumed costs for base, 340 kW system on Georgia Tech campus with its
intermediate, peak power generation are shown in Table modeled forecast. The results, shown in Figure 14,
1. The generation cost curve in 100 kW blocks is shown show a good agreement between the actual and
in Figure 13. forecasted data.
0.35 50
Residential GTAC PV SIM
Commercial 45 SAM
0.3
Industrial
Agricultural and Pumping 40
0.25 Large Industrial
35
Net Output in MWh

0.2 30
Probability

25
0.15
20
0.1
15

0.05 10

5
0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Power in kW 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 12. Probability curves of annual 3-phase active power of Figure 14. Comparison of SAM and GTAC PV simulation
each load type in 2010 program at the 90° azimuth (facing east) and 15° tilt angle

1984
Table 1. Levelized cost data for generation [12] etc.). In addition to CO2 reduction, it can also cause
Capacity Generation Cost water footprint reduction through avoided
Fuel
(kW) ($/MWh) thermoelectric and hydroelectric generation, fuel
Base Coal, Coal: 78$ ~ 144 $ reduction, such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas in
0~1500
Power Nuclear Nuclear: 107$ ~ 138$
the thermal power generation. Energy savings and
Intermedia IGCC, IGCC: 110$ ~ 141$
1500~3000 replacement values using alternative energy generation
te Power GCC GCC: 74$ ~ 102$
Peak Gas are shown in Table 2.
3000~ Gas Peak: 225$ ~ 342$
Power turbine If shaving of peak load levels is the main objective, it
is possible to orient the PV system more westward,
7. PV-DG Impacts on Energy Savings thereby boosting the PV output at the peak load times at
The main objective of PV installation is to boost the the expense of some reduction of the overall production
energy savings. Figure 15 shows annual estimated of energy. Assuming that a feeder has 3,000 kW critical
monthly PV generation output of an assumed PV peak loads, if the total critical load reductions are 1000
system in the Atlanta area in the United States. It is kW in the presence of a 10% PV generation with 100
assumed that the total PV capacity is equal to 40 % of hours/year, then the avoided generation cost at peak
the peak load demand. Figure 16 presents the impact of rate is 21,280 [$/year] per feeder. Table 3 presents this
PV on feeder load demand. Penetration levels from 0- potential impact of the cost for the critical peak load on
40% are assumed. each penetration level. Figure 17 shows the annual total
1600 300
Total Demand
generation cost curves of each penetration level.
1400 PV Output Generation(40%)
250 Table 2. Energy savings and replacement values on a IEEE test
Monthly PV Output Generation in MWh

1200 distribution feeder considering alternative energy generation

Energy CO2 Water
Monthly Demand in MWh

200 PV
Energy Thermoelectr. Hydroelect Weighd
1000 Penetr. Reduction
Savings Site Water . Total Site
Rate
MWh/yr tons/yr MGal/yr MGal/yr MGal/yr
800 150 10% 538.12 339.0 0.3 25.5 0.9
20% 1070.95 689.0 0.6 50.8 1.8
600 30% 1598.49 1028.3 1.0 75.8 2.6
100 40% 2119.77 1364.0 1.3 100.5 3.5
Fuel
400 PV
Coal Petrol Natural Gas Other Biomass
Penetr.
50 Gases
Rate
200 tons/yr Barrels/yr Cubic Feet/yr Mbtu/yr Mbtu/yr
10% 286.1 942.4 4153767.2 4325.1 5718.1
0 0 20% 569.3 1875.5 8266700.7 8607.6 11380.1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30% 849.8 2799.3 12338800.6 12847.7 16985.8
Figure 15. Annual PV generation and load demand 40% 1126.9 3712.2 16362579.3 17037.4 22525.0

on a typical distribution feeder.

3400 Table 3. Potential impact for the critical peak load
0%
3200 Reduced Load Avoided
10% Penetration
Peak Reduction Hour Generation
3000 15% Level
20%
Load(kW) in 100kW Cost($/year)
2800 25% 0% 3557.87 0 0 $0
Active Power in kW

30% 10% 2547.37 1000 100 $21,280

2600 35% 15% 2506.58 1000 100 $21,280
40% 20% 2448.62 1100 100 $22,348
2400
25% 2412.54 1100 100 $22,348
2200 30% 2374.96 1200 100 $23,415
2000
35% 2339.35 1200 100 $23,415
40% 2310.88 1200 100 $23,415
1800
The total energy savings can be also translated into
1600 the total generation cost savings. It is known that
1400 different generation technologies are used for
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
persistent, low inertia and low cost generation at the
Figure 16. The effect of PV generation on a typical day of the year
(horizontal axis represents time of the 244th day of the yr) base load level (coal, nuclear), while more expensive
and much more dynamic power plants are used to
In addition, the PV output energy savings are follow sometimes rapidly changing loads at the peak
providing the opportunity to create the avoided carbon level (gas turbines). The cost differences between
footprint of peak generators by not using the more different generation technologies contribute to higher
ecologically impactful technologies (coal, natural gas, cost of generation during peaks loading conditions. The
difference may be 10-20 times higher than the cost of

1985
generation at base load. According to the typical cost with respect to operational aspects in distribution
rate for base, intermediate, and peak power generation, networks, as well as energy savings, ecological, and
the projected annual generation costs are presented in generation cost. In addition, this study addresses
Table 4. potential cost impacts on critical peak load.
Continuously decreasing prices and increasing
550
efficiencies of the PV modules and BOS and favorable
500 0% analyses of large level integrations of renewable
10%
450 generation into distribution networks offer
400
opportunities for peak load reduction, as well as
reduction of electric utilities carbon and water
Generation Cost in $

350
footprints. When the combined impact of these factors
300 Peak is taken into account, grid parity may be reached sooner
250 than some analysts are predicting.
200 9. Acknowlegement
150 The authors gratefully acknowledge support of
100
National Science Foundation under grant #0836046
Critical Peak Load (100 Hours/Year) which was used for part of the work presented herein.
50
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Power in kW
10. References
Figure 17. Annual generation cost curve for penetration levels [1] J. Romero Agüero, S. Steffel, “Integration Challenges of
Photovoltaic Distributed Generation on Power Distribution
Table 4. Total annual generation costs of each penetration level Systems”, Proceedings of IEEE PES 2011 General Meeting,
Detroit, MI, July 2011.
Total Projected [2] http://www.petrasolar.com/downloads/SunWave-UP-Series.pdf
Energy Cost
Penetration Consumed Generation [3] M. Ropp, J. Newmiller, C. Whitaker, B. Norris, “Review of
Savings Savings
Rate Energy Cost potential problems and utility concerns arising from high
MWh/yr MWh/yr $/yr $/yr penetration levels of photovoltaics in distribution systems”,
A A0%  AN % B B0%  BN % 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference 2008, San
0% 10419.06 0 $1,262,919 0 Diego, CA
10% 9880.94 538.12 $1,199,792 $63,126 [4] Rohatgi.A., Ristow.A., Das.A., Ramanathan.S., Road to Cost
20% 9348.11 1070.95 $1,138,441 $124,478 Effective Silicon PV, 18th I-PVSEC, Jan 2009.
30% 8820.57 1598.49 $1,076,766 $186,153 [5] Kim, P., Polivarapu, H., “Solar Photovoltaic Industry: 2011
40% 8299.29 2119.77 $1,016,124 $246,794 Outlook – FIT cuts in key markets point to over-supply,”
Deutsche Bank, January 5, 2011.
The results shown in Table 4 do not take into account [6] L.M. Cipcigan, P.C. Taylor, Investigation of the reverse power
the cost of PV generators installed on a feeder. The flow requirements of high penetrations of small-scale embedded
third column represents energy savings through local generation, IET Renewable Power Generation, pp. 160-166, No.
3, Vol. 1, Sep. 2007.
PV production at penetration levels equal to [7] http://www.amsc.com/products/transmissiongrid/reactive-
percentages of the peak load (first column). The cost power-AC-transmission.html
savings accounting for types of avoided generation [8] G.M Masters, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems,
technologies are shown in the last two columns. It is Wiley, 2004
[9] T.A. Short, Electric Power Distribution Handbook, CRC Press,
assumed that such generation may be the result of green 2003
energy incentive programs or individual customer [10] Miroslav M. Begovic, Insu Kim,” Distributed Renewable PV
initiative. If the cost of PV is taken into account, it Generation in Urban Distribution Networks”, Proceedings 2011
IEEE PSCE, March 2011, Phoenix, AZ.
would allow calculating the break even times for [11] http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/Regulatory/loadprofiles/2010lo
economic recovery of the investment. As those costs adprofiles.htm
are rapidly declining at the present time, it is reasonable [12] “Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis, Version 3.0”, Lazard, pp.
2, February 2009. Begovic, M., Pregelj, A., Rohatgi, A., “Four-
to assume that PV technology will reach grid parity at year performance assessment of the 342 kW PV system at
some time between 2013 and 2017 in the most Georgia Tech”, Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2000.
developed countries. Conference Record of the Twenty-Eighth IEEE 15-22 Sept.
2000 Page(s):1575 – 1578
[13] Seth Borin, Joy Wang, and Valerie Thomas, “City of Atlanta
8. Conclusions Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory”, pp. 9, March 2009. P.
This paper provides a viewpoint of technological and Torcellini, N. Long, and R. Judkoff, “Consumptive Water Use
for U.S. Power Production”, NREL, pp. 5, December 2003.
economic snapshot of the current PV technology with a “Annual Energy Review 2009”, U.S. Energy Information
view of achieving grid parity in the near future, and Administration, pp. 230, August 2010
presents a discussion of the impact of PV generation

1986