750
2, MAY 2005
A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm for the
Sizing and Siting of Distributed Generation
Gianni Celli, Member, IEEE, Emilio Ghiani, Susanna Mocci, Member, IEEE, and Fabrizio Pilo, Member, IEEE
AbstractIn the restructured electricity industry, the engi-
neering aspects of planning need to be reformulated even though
the goal to attain remains substantially the same, requiring var-
ious objectives to be simultaneously accomplished to achieve the
optimality of the power system development and operation. In
many cases, these objectives contradict each other and cannot
be handled by conventional single optimization techniques. In
this paper, a multiobjective formulation for the siting and sizing
of DG resources into existing distribution networks is proposed.
The methodology adopted permits the planner to decide the best
compromise between cost of network upgrading, cost of power
losses, cost of energy not supplied, and cost of energy required
by the served customers. The implemented technique is based
on a genetic algorithm and an -constrained method that allows
obtaining a set of noninferior solutions. Application examples
are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed
procedure.
Index TermsDistributed generation, distribution networks, ge-
netic algorithms, multiobjective programming.
I. INTRODUCTION
N OWADAYS, the need for more flexible electric systems,
the changing in the regulatory and economic scenarios,
the importance of harnessing energy savings and minimizing
environmental impacts have been providing the impetus for the
development of distributed generation (DG). For these reasons,
DG is predicted to play an increasing role into the electric power
system of the near future [1][6].
Whether DG is properly planned and operated it may pro-
vide benefits to distribution networks (e.g., reduction of power
losses and/or deferment of investments for network enforcing,
etc.), otherwise it can cause degradation of power quality, reli-
ability, and control of the power system [5]. Thus DG offers an
alternative that planners should explore in their search for the
best solution to electric supply problems and requires new plan-
ning paradigms and procedures able to face a more complex and
uncertain scenario [4], [7], [8]. Ault et al. in [9] have pointed
out the dichotomy between the advanced status of academic re-
searches on planning and the unwillingness of companies to re-
sort to such algorithms. Indeed, the planners need tools to deal
with uncertainties, risks, and multiple criteria. The final choice
will be subjectively operated in the set of good solutions [9].
The idea behind the paper is to deal with both questions by
taking into consideration the need of planning tools for the ac-
Manuscript received May 11, 2004; revised November 14, 2004. This work
was partly supported by the Italian Ministry for Productive Activities (MAP)
under a Public Interest Energy Research Project named Ricerca di Sistema
(MAP Decree of February, 28th 2003). Paper no. TPWRS-00251-2004.
The authors are with the University of Cagliari, 09123 Cagliari, Italy (e-mail:
celli@diee.unica.it; pilo@diee.unica.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846219
0885-8950/$20.00 2005 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO.
commodation of DG in a distribution system according to the
planners point of view. The starting point has been the obser-
vation that a planning tool should incorporate some of the mul-
tiple drivers in current electricity distribution planning practice
(e.g., reliability aspects, DG integration, economic and technical
aspects of competitive electricity markets, etc.). The second im-
portant point is that such a tool should leave the planner the fac-
ulty of choosing which aspects to consider in his search for the
optimal solution. This is particularly important in the problem
of the optimal siting and sizing of DG, where the distinctive-
ness of the planning objectives, which may conflict each other
(e.g., investments cost vs. the cost of the expected energy not
supplied), has a tremendous impact on the search for a feasible
configuration. Therefore, this optimization has been stated as
a multiobjective (MO) planning problem. The MO permits a
better simulation of the real world, often characterized by con-
trasting goals, and gives the planner the capability of making the
final decision by selecting, on the basis of his individual point
of view, the most trade-off solution in a wide range of suitable
solutions.
The proposed MO optimization procedure makes use of a ge-
netic algorithm (GA) proposed by the authors in [10][12] and
it is constituted by a three steps process that can be described as
follows.
1) Find a global noninferior solution for the MO problem
with the GA.
2) Adopt the -constrained technique to create a set of
noninferior solutions with an iterative procedure.
3) Choose the best compromise solution in a set of fea-
sible solutions.
The structure of the paper is the following. In Section II, the
evolution of distribution system is delineated as well as the need
of new planning and design tools. In Section III, IV, V, and VI
the description, formulation and implementation of the method-
ology are proposed. In Section VII the results obtained by the
application of the methodology are deeply discussed to high-
light the usefulness of the MO approach.
II. DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF THE FUTURE
Until now, distribution networks have been regarded as a pas-
sive termination of the transmission grid. Their task is to pro-
vide energy reliably and efficiently to the final users connected
to the medium and low voltage networks. Distribution networks
are configured according to the radial scheme, with unidirec-
tional power flows and with simple protection equipment that
permits the safe and economical operation of the power system.
A greater penetration level of DG into existing systems will
CELLI et al.: A MULTIOBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM
change completely this well consolidated environment into a
new one, where distribution networks will be no longer passive.
Hence, a gradual but ineluctable changing toward a new kind
of active networks has been foreseen, with DG units actively
involved in system management and operation [13][19]. In ac-
tive networks intentional islanding, the ability of managing
an unfaulted portion of the network by using DG to enhance the
service provided thereby, plays a key role. New control algo-
rithms for rapid network reconfiguration, new communication
protocols for data exchange between generators and loads, and
reliable communications systems are essential to allow that such
innovative practice can take place efficiently [15][21].
Drivers and political decisions are essential to provoke and
support such a drastic and revolutionary development, which
will take many years to be completed. Anyway, the first political
directives have been recently promulgated to favor the changing
[22]. Indeed, if DISCO is allowed to own its generation, DG
may be a valuable option to defer investments and to improve
the quality of service. If only private generators are allowed,
DISCO may resort to planning methodologies to evaluate any
additional credit that might be offered to private investors who
decide to place generators in appropriate locations of the net-
work. By so doing, DISCO may solve some specific problems
(e.g., improving the voltage profile or reducing the frequency
and the duration of sustained interruptions with the intentional
islanding) minimizing the investments to upgrade the network
[7], [8]. This is the Italian current situation, where some regu-
lated DISCOs purchase energy from the wholesale liberalized
energy market to feed their retail customers at a fixed price all
over the country. Regardless of the fact that Italian DISCOs are
currently not allowed to own generators, DG, as well as other
distributed resources, is a feasible option that should be con-
sidered and compared to traditional power supply. According
to this need, the proposed tool aims at solving DG siting and
sizing problems, allowing the planner to improve a particular
term of the global network cost by taking into account uncer-
tainties in power production [10], [11]. Furthermore, in a lib-
eralized energy market the methodology can be used to assess
the economically adopted network. Cost and benefits of the real
network can be allocated to loads and generators by comparing
the effective situation to the reference network [22].
III. MULTIOBJECTIVE PROGRAMMING
The new scenario of power system forces a change in duties
and objectives of traditional planning and it compels to take into
account several objectives that are in mutual conflict. The use of
MO methodologies gives information on the consequences of
the decision with respect to all the objective functions defined.
Whereas traditional optimization procedures result in an unique
solution point, MO methods provide a set of optimal solutions
(Pareto set). The general formulation of a MO problem is ex-
pressed by
(1)
751
where represents a decision vector, is the th objective func-
tion, is the domain of solutions, and are the equality end
inequality constraints, respectively.
In order to solve an MO optimization problem, three basic
steps have to be taken: define the objective functions, find the
noninferior solutions and finally choose a solution from this set.
The decision maker has to consider the relative importance of
the conflicting objectives and the final global noninferior solu-
tion depends on his point of view. Noninferiority means that im-
provements in one objective (e.g., the cost of power losses) is
attained only at the cost of some sacrifice in the other objective
functions (e.g., investment cost or reliability). There are various
techniques for generating noninferior solutions. In the paper the
-constrained method has been applied [24], [25].
In the -constrained technique, a particular objective function
is selected as master objective function (e.g., the th function).
The other objective functions, the slave ones, are regarded as
new constraints to be complied with. The resulting problem can
be formulated as in (2), where represents the upper limit of
the th objective
(2)
and
can be obtained by adding to the initial noninferior value of
the -th objective, , the trade-off preference assigned by the
planner, . The trade-off preferences can be seen as the com-
promised value between the conflicting objectives. The decision
maker on the basis of his experience and/or system operating
policies can establish them.
IV. OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS FOR THE MULTIOBJECTIVE
OPTIMAL DG SITING AND SIZING
The main goal of the proposed planning algorithm is to de-
termine good locations for new generators and their optimal
size by minimizing different functions related to the cost of en-
ergy losses, the cost of service interruptions, the cost of network
upgrading, and the cost of energy purchased. Such objectives
should be met subject to the network power flow equations as
well as to the limits on the bus voltages, steady state current and
short circuit currents (see Appendix A for details on the proba-
bilistic load implemented and the technical constraints).
A mathematical expression of the problem is
(3)
where is a power flow solution calculated as function
of the vector , which stores data about the position and the
size of the generators. The optimization problem is constrained,
nonlinear, with mixed integer variables (due to the discrete size
of DG units), and it may be solved with a GA [10], [12].
In the following, each cost function is described in detail
under the hypothesis of a linear growth rate of the power de-
mand during the whole study period.
752
A. Cost of Network Upgrading
This cost takes into account investments that can be necessary
toupgradeadistribution networktofacewith thenaturalgrowthof
energy demand or with the appearance of new loads or generators
connected to the grid. The objective function to be minimized is
thus represented by the total cost of the generic network, with
present value taken at the beginning of the whole planning period
of years. The general expression is the following:
(4)
where is the number of network nodes, is the number
of substations, is the number of branches in the net-
work, is the present cost of the th branch, and is the
cost of Automatic Sectionalizing Switching Devices (ASSDs)
in the network. The cost of every branch is the sum of con-
struction, residual, and management costs transferred to the cash
value at the beginning of the planning period by using econom-
ical expressions based on the inflation rate, the interest rate, and
the load growth rate (all of them constant).
B. Cost of Purchased Energy
In order to allow assessing the more convenient penetration
level of DG in a given distribution network, the cost of pur-
chasing energy from the transmission grid and from
DG has been considered.
In a competitive electricity market, different retail sale rates of
the energy produced by a DG unit, that depends on the technology
adopted (mini gas turbine, CHP, wind turbine, etc.), and of the
energy fed by transmission system have to be considered. By as-
suming a constant power demand growth rate and by calculating
the amount of energy generated per year by each generator on the
basis of its power production probability density function, it is
possible to assess the energy that a DISCO may buy from both the
transmission system andthe DG installed in its network duringthe
study period. By resorting to an average value of the energy rate in
the planning period, it is easy to calculate the terms and
,opportunelytransferredto thecash valueatthebegin-
ning of the planning period, so that they can be comparable with
the other costs of the objective function. The authors are aware
that calculating the cost of energy from transmission and DG is not
an easy task and that many costs terms cannot be exactly known.
Anyway, it should be noticed that more complex cost models can
be easily introduced without modifying the general approach pro-
posed by the authors.
Equation (5) allows assessing the impact of DG on MV dis-
tribution networks and the more convenient penetration level.
Indeed, this limit will be reached when the benefits, achievable
by adding new DG, no longer compensate their relative costs
(5)
C. Cost of Energy Losses
This objective attempts to minimize the total cost of the en-
ergy losses arising from line branches. By dividing the whole
planning period of years into subperiods, the Net Present
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005
Value (NPV) of the power losses cost for the th branch in the
th subperiod can be calculated as follows:
(6)
where is the annual power losses cost, and are
the branch current at the beginning and at the end of the th
subperiod, respectively, represents the duration of the th
subperiod, is the beginning year of the th subperiod and
is the actualization rate. The total energy losses cost is
then obtained as the sum of the for each branch and each
subperiod [see Appendix B for more details on (6)].
D. Cost of Energy Not Supplied
In order to calculate the cost of energy not supplied the du-
ration of a branch fault is usually divided into two phases: fault
location and fault repair [20]. Automatic sectionalizers and re-
closers can restrict the area of influence of a fault, reducing the
number of customers affected by long-term interruptions during
the fault location phase. In this stage, intentional islanding may
be used to supply unfaulted portions of the network automati-
cally separated from the faulted section. The repair stage con-
sists of the time required to isolate the faulted branch, connect
any emergency ties and repair the fault. DG, enabling power to
be restored to the nodes downstream the sectionalized branch,
can lead to significant reliability improvements [21]. Load flow
studies should be performed to check that voltages and currents
are within their operative ranges and that DG units have a suffi-
cient probability to pick up the loads in the islanded network.
Equation (7) gives the contribution of the th network branch
in the th subperiod to the annual cost of energy not supplied
for a generic combination of ASSD
(7)
where is the branch fault rate (number of faults per year
and km of feeder), is the branch length (km), is the
cost of the energy not supplied ($/kWh), and are the
number of nodes isolated during the fault location and repair
stages, respectively, is the node power (kW) at the begin-
ning of the th subperiod, and and are the durations of
the fault location and repair stages (h), respectively. de-
pends on the presence of emergency ties, whereas and
decreases with the number of ASSD, because the fault location
becomes easier and faster. The optimal number and position of
ASSD is determined with the algorithm in [20] and [21].
The NPV of the cost of energy not supplied due to a fault in
the th branch during the th subperiod is calculated with the
following expression:
(8)
CELLI et al.: A MULTIOBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM
where is the load growth rate assumed equal for each node.
The cost energy not supplied is then obtained as the
sum of the for each branch and each subperiod [see
Appendix C for more details on (8)].
V. GA IMPLEMENTATION
In this paper, a GA optimization technique developed by the
authors in a previous work [12] has been used for finding the
noninferior solutions of the MO optimization algorithm.
The first important aspect of a correct GA implementation is
the coding of the potential solution. If the network structure is
fixed, all the branches between nodes are known, and the eval-
uation of the objective functions described above depend only
on the size and location of DG units. For this reason each so-
lution can be coded by using a vector, whose size is equal to
the number of MV/LV nodes, in which each element contains
the information on the presence or not of a DG unit. A binary
coding would be sufficient to solve the DG siting problem (1
for presence and 0 for no presence of DG unit), but not the DG
sizing one. Therefore, a prefixed number (NDG) of generator
sizes have been assumed, and each element of the vector solu-
tion is represented by means of the following alphabet:
no DG located in the node
NDG size index of the DG installed in the node
The implemented GA starts by randomly generating an ini-
tial population of possible solutions. For each solution a value of
DG penetration is chosen between 0 and a maximum limit, fixed
by the planner on the ground of economical and technical jus-
tifications; than, a number of DG units of different sizes is ran-
domly chosen until the total amount of power installed reaches
the DG penetration level assigned. At this point, the DG units
are randomly located among the network nodes and the objec-
tive function is evaluated verifying all the technical constraints;
if one of them is violated, the solution is penalized. Regarding
the population size, the best results have been found assuming
it equal to the number of network nodes.
Once the initial population is formed, the genetic operators
are repeatedly applied in order to produce the new solutions. In
particular, a classical remainder stochastic sampling without
replacement scheme has been adopted for the selection oper-
ator [26], and a uniform crossover has been chosen by which
each vectors element is swapped with probability 0.5. For the
mutation operator, all the vector elements are mutated, with a
small mutation probability, choosing a different value in the de-
fined alphabet. If one technical constraint is violated or the total
amount of DG exceeds the maximum level of DG penetration,
the new solution is penalized.
Finally, according to the GA steady-state typology, the
new population is formed comparing old and new solutions
and choosing the best among them. The algorithm stops when
the maximum number of generations is reached or when the
difference between the objective function value of the best and
the worst individuals becomes smaller than a specified value.
753
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the optimization algorithm.
VI. MO ALGORITHM IMPLEMENTATION
The block diagram of the described MO optimization algo-
rithm is depicted in Fig. 1.
The starting configuration is achieved by minimizing the
weighted sum of all the objective functions.
Afterwards, the iterative application of the -constrained
technique allows to generate the Pareto set, which satisfies the
decision makers requirements [24]. At the beginning of the it-
erative MO procedure, the planner defines the master objective
function , whereas the other slave functions are regarded
as constraints. Furthermore, the decision maker has also to
choose acceptable trade-off variation levels for each single
objective function . Once the setting of these parameters is
completed, the procedure can automatically generate a nondom-
inated solution. The master function is optimized with the same
GA used for finding the starting solution. Of course, the GA
objective function must be modified according to the planners
choice: in this phase, the GA looks for those solutions which
improve the master function, and simultaneously complies with
constraints remaining within the allowed variation margin of
deterioration in one or more objective functions. By so doing,
a set of potential nondominated solutions can be achieved
with a new GA run. The optimization process can be stopped
when the solutions are acceptable or it can be restarted with
different values of until a satisfactory result is obtained. In
particular, the planner can decide that a network characterized
by a lower building and maintenance cost to the detriment of
energy losses or not supplied energy costs is more suited to his
needs (provided that such increase remains within the prefixed
threshold). Obviously, the final decision, about which solution
from the Pareto set can be advantageously adopted, relies on
the decision maker. This feature of the procedure can be very
useful in the present scenario, which requires the planner to
consider several alternatives for different uncertain futures.
The presented optimization procedure permits the definition
of the optimal size and allocation of DG in a given network as a
compromise among different noninferior solutions produced by
the application of the MO methodology. This way of proceeding
may be very useful because it allows the planner to be aided by
a software tool, able to take into account quickly and precisely
all possible combinations in real size cases, but it does leave to
754
TABLE I
COSTS PROGRESSION IN MO ITERATIVE PROCEDURE (CASE STUDY 1)
the decision maker the control on the process to make the final
decision.
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In order to show the capability of the proposed methodology to
solve the problem of the optimal DG allocation, a small portion
of a distribution network constituted by 142-MV/LV nodes and
two primary substations has been considered. The period taken
into consideration for the planning study is 20 years long, with all
nodes existing at the beginning of the period. The annual medium
active power delivered to the MV nodes is, at the beginning of the
this period, about 5MW. For each MV/LV node a constant power
demand growth rate of 3% per year has been assumed (this as-
sumption has been made for the sake of clarity but there are no re-
strictions to define a power demand growth rate differentiated for
each node and for each subperiod). The majority of the branches
are of the overhead type, but some buried cables exist.
The optimization algorithm can choose different sizes of DG
generators within a discrete number of prefixed sizes. In the pro-
posed application, generator sizes of 200400600 kW have been
adopted. The price of the energy purchased from the wholesale
electricity market has been assumed equal to 4.0 /kWh, whereas
the price of the energy supplied by DG has been considered equal
to 4.5 /kWh. This low price may be considered acceptable only
for the current cheapest energy sources (e.g., large scale wind
farms) and has been adopted in order to stress the methodology
on a small example. It should be highlighted that, in presence of a
liberalized electricity market, different retail sales rate of the en-
ergy produced by a DG unit should be considered. These retail
sales depend on the technology adopted (mini gas turbine, CHP,
wind turbine, etc.), the regulatory actions and the willingness to
harness renewables.
The application of the GA to minimize the generalized cost
of the network (see Section IV) has allowed finding the starting
configuration. The global cost of the network during the as-
signed study period is equal to k$27 008.1 (see Tables I and
II) without any operating DG. Such a high generalized network
cost is due to the significant growth rate of the demand, which
requires the enforcement of a large number of branches. The
attempt to minimize the global cost has led to a solution with
many lines close to their maximum capacity and for this reason
the cost of the energy losses counts for a significant percentage
of the generalized cost of the network. The use of DG as an elec-
tric supply option can reduce both costs.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005
TABLE II
COSTS PROGRESSION IN MO ITERATIVE PROCEDURE (CASE STUDY 2)
Very often the planner needs more alternatives to evaluate
and sometimes he can prefer to reduce the cost of losses instead
of improving service quality, depending on strategic decisions,
regulatory directives regarding the electric service, and budget
restrictions. As showed in the following examples, the proposed
MO optimization process permits of finding out alternative
configurations, characterized by different costs for each single
function constituent of the global cost. In each optimization
stage the MO algorithm looks for alternative solutions, which
improve the master function to the detriment of the slave
functions.
Two different cases have been investigated. In the first case
study, the power losses cost has been regarded as the
master objective function. The value assumed by the cost of
the power losses in the initial network configuration is
equal to k$1 076.5. Two consecutive steps of iteration have
been run. In the first iteration, a deterioration margin of the
slave functions, necessary to allow the GA a more exhaustive
exploration in the space of solution, has been admitted. By so
doing, the new optimized configuration permits reducing the
power losses cost in percentage of the 23% against an
increase in the global cost. This losses reduction is obtained
resorting to a DG penetration level of 13.64% (DG% is the
ratio between the DG capacity and the power of load). In
the second iteration, by admitting a larger variation of ,a
new DG arrangement has been found by the GA. The optimal
network configuration, corresponding to the last iteration, is
shown in Fig. 2. In the new optimal solution the cost of
decreases from the value of k$829.0 to the value of k$656.5.
The penetration level of DG increases from the value of the
13.64% to the value of 44.34% and consequently the cost of the
purchased energy is higher. This kind of optimization can be
very useful if the decision maker is committed to reduce losses
and to improve network performance maintaining investments
to a reasonable low level. This feature may be very useful
in case the revenue recovered by DISCO is not based on the
asset value but also on network performance (e.g., on the level
of losses or reliability). In this scenario, the objective of the
distribution planner is not the reduction of global costs but
the individuation of a trade-off solution that allows both cost
reduction and performance maximization.
In the second case study, the cost of service interruptions
has been regarded as the master objective function. In this
case the planner aims at reducing the number and the duration
CELLI et al.: A MULTIOBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM 755

Fig. 2. DG units as positioned by the GA (Case Study 1, MO iteration #2). Fig. 3. DG units as positioned by the GA (Case Study 2, MO iteration #2).
Light and heavy gray areas identify the intentional islands formed during the
fault location and repair stages, respectively, for the fault indicated with the
black arrow. Each area is accepted if the probability that generation exceeds
TABLE III load demand is greater than 30%.
DATA USED FOR RELIABILITY CALCULATION
TABLE IV
RELIABILITY INDEXES IN THE NETWORK DEPICTED IN FIG. 3

of service interruptions by positioning DG in suited locations

(Table III reports data used for reliability calculations). Even
though many standards and almost all the distributors do not
during upstream faults. Global benefits on ENS and cost of not
generally allow resorting to intentional islanding operation,
supplied energy are clearly recognizable, but benefits are much
in order to emphasize the effect of DG it has been hypothesized
more significant for those customers that suffer for poor quality
that this practice can take place [20], [21]. Indeed, among the
due to their position in the network. For example, nodes 1 and
many new features of new active networks, the possibility of
2 in Fig. 3, due to the coordination between DG and network
using DG to supply loads in self-sustaining islands seems to
automation, drastically reduce their number and duration of
have a real interest for the local distribution companies. In [21]
long interruptions (see Table IV). It can be easily noticed that
Celli et al. have pointed out that the practice of intentional
system indexes cannot capture the importance of intentional
islanding can be really useful for those nodes that suffer for
islanding for customers seeking for premium power contracts.
low service continuity (e.g., nodes that cannot use alternative
Finally, it is prominent to observe that this amelioration can
energy routes during faults in the main feeder), provided that
only be achieved by accepting a major generalized cost of the
DG could feed the island and network automation is optimally
network and this fact justifies the adoption of MO approaches,
located. In the proposed example, the capability of optimizing
that allows the planner to stress some terms of the objective
the location of DG has been advantageously used to find a
function in order to get some specific results (e.g., reliability
network arrangement able to give the customers a much more
improvements under regulatory actions or market pressure).
reliable service avoiding the construction of new emergency
ties. The starting network configuration is equal to the previous
VIII. CONCLUSION
case study, where the cost has the value of k$1 226.6.
With the first optimization step this value is reduced to k$893.5 Nowadays, a number of impediments and barriers still inhibit
(see Table II). A further optimization permits reducing an increased market penetration of DG. The high costs and un-
up to k$801.3 thanks to a new allocation of DG (see Fig. 3) certain performances of many DG technologies, the lack of uni-
and the purchase of more energy from DG. It is worth noticing form standards and communication protocols, the architecture
that in this case generators are located at the end of long and of the distribution system are examples of the most common
heavy loaded lateral edges to serve as back up energy sources barriers to the DG development. Anyway, DG is destined to play
756
an important role in the distribution system of the future. Distri-
bution engineers need new planning tools to maximize benefits
in the new uncertain scenario. According to these assumptions,
an algorithm for the optimal allocation of DG in a given net-
work is proposed. The procedure, based on the application of
GA and MO, allows the planner to drive the solution toward his
particular requirements. In the context of a liberalized energy
market, it can be used to find the most valuable sites to exploit
and evaluate any additional credits DISCO might offer if the DG
is placed in the appropriate location to have real benefits for the
network [7], [8].
Further studies will improve the proposed MO methodology
taking into account the liberalized energy market, the interac-
tion with the transmission grid, the market of ancillary services,
DSM, etc. In addition, the consideration of the power quality
aspects in the planning of DG siting and sizing is compulsory.
APPENDIX
A. Load Flow Calculation and Technical Constraints
In order to consider the random behavior of DG and loads,
a simplified probabilistic load flow (PLF) has been developed
and implemented. This procedure takes into account the pdf of
both loads and generators. Correlation among DG units, be-
tween generators and loads and also among loads have been
considered with the assumption that such correlation is linear
(no dispatch action at the distribution level) [27], [28].
Once the currents flowing in each branch and the voltage of
each node are calculated as probabilistic quantities, they can
be used to design the network so that all the technical con-
straints are complied with [29]. In particular, only those config-
urations having a reasonable probability to verify the constraints
on the maximum and minimum allowable node voltage can be
accepted. Known the pdf of the voltage module in each node,
the probability to have a voltage drop or an overvoltage greater
than the maximum allowable limit is evaluated. Then, this value
is compared with an acceptable value of probability defined by
the planner and, if necessary, actions are taken to bring back
the voltage within its limits (e.g., network enforcement). A sim-
ilar approach has been followed for network sizing. Firstly, the
planner defines an acceptable probability of overload occur-
rence . Then, from the pdf of the branch current the
current value that has a probability of occurrence greater than
is derived. By comparing, for each network branch, the
current with the corresponding branch capacity, it is straight-
forward that those conductors whose capacity is smaller than
should be reinforced [29].
B. Actualization Factor for Power Losses
The cost of power losses for the th branch in one year of the
th subperiod is evaluated assuming a constant branch current
during the year, equal to the value of the current at the end of
the year. Then, this cost has to be actualized in order to obtain
its NPV. By summing this costs for each year of the subperiod,
the whole NPV of power losses cost for the th branch in the
th subperiod is assessed.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005
Supposing a linear growth of the branch current in the th
subperiod, the current value at the end of each year can be
easily evaluated by
(9)
where is the th year of the th subperiod, is the duration
in years of the th subperiod, and are the current of
the th branch evaluated, respectively, at the beginning and at
the end of the th subperiod, by means of adequate load flows.
Equation (9) can be rewritten as follows:
(10)
By applying the actualization rate , function of the inflation
rate and the interest rate, the NPV of the power losses cost for
the th branch in the th subperiod can be written as
(11)
where is a factor that depends on the unitary cost of the power
losses and the resistance of the th branch, and is the begin-
ning year of the th subperiod.
C. Actualization Factor for Energy Not Supplied
The cost of energy not supplied due to a fault on the th
branch in the th subperiod is evaluated referring to the power
of the isolated nodes. Thus, it is necessary to calculate the total
power absorbed by these nodes in the whole subperiod, and to
actualize the related disruption cost in order to assess the NPV
of the cost of energy not supplied.
Supposing a linear growth of the power absorbed by the th
node, the power demand growth rate can be treated as the
angular coefficient of the power growth line, expressed in p.u.
of the power node at the beginning of the th subperiod . In
this case the power at the end of the th year of the subperiod
can be expressed by
(12)
The NPV of the cost of the energy not supplied to the th node
in the th subperiod due to a fault in the th branch can be eval-
uated as follows:
(13)
CELLI et al.: A MULTIOBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM
where is a factor that depends on the unitary cost of the energy
not supplied, the fault rate and the length of the th branch.
Equation (8) is finally obtained by summing this cost for all the
nodes that remain isolated due to a fault on the th branch, and
assuming a power demand growth rate equal for each node.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is based on a contribution presented by the authors
at the IEEE PowerTech Conference, Bologna, Italy, June 2326,
2003.
REFERENCES
[1] Impact of Increasing Contribution of Dispersed Generation on the
Power SystemFinal Report,, CIGRE WG 37-23, Sep. 1998.
[2] Dispersed generationPreliminary report, presented at the CIRED
Conf., Nice, France, Jun. 25, 1999. CIRED WG04.
[3] H. L. Willis and W. G. Scott, Distributed Power Generation. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 2000.
[4] P. P. Barker and R. W. de Mello, Determining the impact of distributed
generation on power systems: Part 1Radial distribution systems, in
Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, vol. 3, Seattle, WA, Jul.
1620, 2000, pp. 16451656.
[5] N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, D. Kirschen, and G. Strbac, Embedded
Generation. London, U.K.: IEE, 2000.
[6] T. E. McDermott and R. C. Dugan, PQ, reliability and DG, IEEE Ind.
Appl. Mag., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1723, Sep.Oct. 2003.
[7] R. C. Dugan and S. K. Price, Issues for distributed generation in the
US, in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, vol. 1, New York,
Jan. 2002, pp. 121126.
[8] R. C. Dugan, T. E. McDermott, and G. J. Ball, Planning for distributed
generation, IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 8088, Apr. 2001.
[9] G. W. Ault and J. R. McDonald, Planning for distributed generation
within distribution networks in restructured electricity markets, IEEE
Power Eng. Rev., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 5254, Feb. 2000.
[10] G. Carpinelli, G. Celli, F. Pilo, and A. Russo, Distributed generation
siting and sizing under uncertainty, in Proc. IEEE Powertech Conf., vol.
4, Porto, Portugal, Sep. 1013, 2001, pp. 376401.
[11] , Distributed generation planning under uncertainty including
power quality issues, ETEP, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 381389, Nov./Dec.
2003.
[12] G. Celli and F. Pilo, Optimal distributed generation allocation in MV
distribution networks, in Proc. IEEE PICA Conf., Sydney, NSW, Aus-
tralia, May 2024, 2001, pp. 8186.
[13] I. Bouwmans. Distributed NetworksThe Grid and the Net Compared.
[Online]. Available: www.inem.tbm.tudelft.nl/ivo
[14] V. Roberts, A. Beddoes, A. Colinson, and F. van Overbeeke, Active
networks for the accommodation of dispersed generation, in CIRED
Conf., Barcelona, Spain, May 1215, 2003, pp. 16. Session 4, Paper
51.
[15] Review of Technical Options and Constraints for Integration of
Distributed Generation in Electricity Networks [Online]. Available:
http://www.sustelnet.net
[16] Grid of the Future White Paper on Interconnection and Controls for Reli-
able, Large Scale Integration of Distributed Energy Resources [Online].
Available: http://certs.lbl.gov
[17] T. Bopp et al., Commercial and technical integration of distributed
generation into distribution network, presented at the CIRED Conf.,
Barcelona, Spain, May 1215, 2003, pp. 14. Session 4, Paper 45.
[18] I. Chilvers, N. Jenkins, and P. Crossley, Development of distribution
network protection schemes to maximize the connection of distributed
generation, presented at the CIRED Conf., Barcelona, Spain, May
1215, 2003, pp. 14. Session 4, Paper 46.
[19] C. A. Coello Coello, An updated survey of evolutionary multiobjec-
tive optimization techniques: State of the art and future trends, in Proc.
IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput., 1999, pp. 313.
[20] G. Celli and F. Pilo, Optimal sectionalizing switches allocation in
distribution networks, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
11671172, Jul. 1999.
[21] F. Pilo, G. Celli, and S. Mocci, Improvement of reliability in active
networks with intentional islanding, in DRPT Conf., vol. 2, Honk Kong,
Apr. 58, 2004, pp. 474479. Paper 117.
[22] Directive 2003/54/EU (2003, Jun. 26). [Online]. Available: http://eu-
ropa.eu.int/eur-lex
757
[23] G. Strbac and N. Jenkins, Calculation of cost and benefits to the dis-
tribution network of embedded generation, presented at the Inst. Elect.
Eng. Colloq. Econ. Embedded Gen., Oct. 29, 1998, pp. 6/16/13. Ref.
no. 1998/512.
[24] Y. T. Hsiao and C. Y. Chien, Optimization of capacitor allocation using
an interactive trade off method, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm.,
Distrib., vol. 148, no. 4, pp. 371374, Jul. 2001.
[25] A. Berizzi, C. Bovo, and P. Marannino, The surrogate worth trade-off
analysis for power system operation in electricity markets, in Proc.
IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, vol. 2, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Jul. 1519, 2001, pp. 10341039.
[26] D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization & Machine
Learning. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1989.
[27] A. Dimitrovski and R. Ackovski, Probabilistic load flow in radial dis-
tribution networks, in Proc. T&D Conf., 1996, pp. 102107.
[28] R. N. Allan and M. R. G. Al-Shakarchi, Linear dependence between
nodal powers in probabilistic a.c. load flow, Proc. IEE, vol. 124, no. 6,
pp. 529534, Jun. 1977.
[29] G. Celli, R. Cicoria, S. Mocci, and F. Pilo, Probabilistic optimization of
MV distribution network in presence of distributed generation, in Proc.
PSCC Conf., Sevilla, Spain, Jun. 2428, 2002, pp. 17. paper S11-1.
Gianni Celli (M98) was born in Cagliari, Italy, in
1969. He received the electrical engineering degree
from the University of Cagliari in 1994.
He has been an Assistant Professor of Power
System with the University of Cagliari since 1997.
Current research interests are in the field of MV
distribution network planning optimization, power
quality, and neural networks. He is the author of
several papers published on international journals or
presented in various international conferences. He is
an AEI member.
Emilio Ghiani was born in Oristano, Italy, in 1973.
He received the electrical engineering degree from
the University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy, in 1999.
He has been an Assistant Professor of Power
System with the University of Cagliari since 2003.
Current research interests are in the field of MV
distribution network planning optimization and
power quality. He is an AEI member.
Susanna Mocci (M04) was born in Cagliari, Italy, in
1973. She received the electrical engineering degree
from the University of Cagliari in 2001, where she
currently is working toward the Ph.D. degree.
Her research activity is focused on DG and distri-
bution system. She is an AEI member.
Fabrizio Pilo (M97) was born in Sassari, Italy, in
1966. He received the electrical engineering degree
from the University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy,
in 1992 and received the Ph.D. degree from the
University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy, in 1998.
Since 2001, he has been an Associate Professor
of Electrical Power Systems at the University of
Cagliari. His research activity is focused on electrical
power systems, network planning and optimization,
and distributed generation. He is author of several
papers published on international journals or pre-
sented in various international conferences. He is an AEI member. He is Special
Reporter of the CIRED S5 and invited expert at the CIGRE SC6.