260
1, JANUARY 2009
Energy Loss Allocation in Radial Distribution
Systems: A Comparison of Practical Algorithms
J. S. Savier and Debapriya Das
Abstract—This paper presents allocation of energy losses to
consumers connected to radial distribution networks in a deregu-
lated environment. A detailed comparison of the proposed “Exact
Method” with three alternative algorithms, namely, pro rata,
quadratic allocation and proportional allocation are presented.
Pro rata procedure is based on the load demand of each consumer,
quadratic and proportional allocations are based on identifying
the real and reactive parts of current in each branch and the losses
are allocated to each consumer, and the proposed “Exact Method”
is based on the actual contribution of real power loss by each
consumer. A case study based on a 30-node distribution system is
provided.
Index Terms—Deregulation, energy loss allocation, radial distri-
bution systems.
I. NOMENCLATURE
node number;
kVA load demand of consumer at node ;
total real power loss in the system;
total number of nodes in the system;
load current at node;
real power load at node;
reactive power load at node;
voltage at node;
branch number, ;
current of branch- ;
total number of nodes beyond branch- ;
nodes beyond branch- , for
; the nonlinearity between the losses and delivered power which
loss allocation factors for the consumer at
node ; Different techniques have been published in the literature for
loss allocation factors for the consumer at
node ; gories—pro rata procedures, marginal procedures and propor-
load current of consumer at node ; tional sharing procedures. Pro rata procedure [2], [3] is the sim-
real component of load current at node
;
Manuscript received April 30, 2007; revised August 13, 2008. Current version
published December 24, 2008. Paper no. TPWRD-00243-2007.
The authors are with the Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India (e-mail: savier_js@yahoo.com;
ddas@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2008.2007018
0885-8977/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 24, NO.
reactive component of load current at node
real power loss of branch- ;
resistance of branch- ;
real part of complex quantity, ;
real power loss of branch- allocated
to consumer connected at node
;
real power loss supported by consumer
;
duration of load level in hours;
total power loss allocated to consumer at
load level.
II. INTRODUCTION
EREGULATION of the power industry was intended to
D introduce competition and to bring down prices, improve
efficiency, and generate an overall improvement in the industry.
It was primarily aimed at demolishing the monopolistic, protec-
tive and vertically integrated structure of the industry and pro-
viding a chance for the new entrants to make their contributions
to the business in general. Unlike generation and sale of elec-
trical energy, activities of transmission and distribution are gen-
erally considered as a natural monopoly. The cost of transmis-
sion and distribution activities needs to be allocated to the users
of these networks. Allocation can be done through network use
tariffs, with a focus on the true impact they have on these costs.
Among others, distribution energy losses are one of the costs
to be allocated. The main difficulty faced in allocating losses is
complicates the impact of each user on network losses [1].
allocation of real power losses, most of them dedicated to trans-
mission networks and can be classified into three broad cate-
plest one, in which, the total losses are allocated to loads or gen-
erators based on the load active power demand or bus genera-
tion. In marginal procedures [4]–[7], losses are assigned to gen-
erators and demands through the so-called incremental trans-
mission loss (ITL) coefficients. In proportional sharing proce-
dures [8]–[13], losses are allocated to the generators and con-
sumers by using the results of a converged power flow plus a
linear proportional sharing principle. Conejo et al. [14] have
presented a new procedure for allocating transmission losses to
SAVIER AND DAS: ENERGY LOSS ALLOCATION IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PRACTICAL ALGORITHMS
generation and loads based on the network Z-bus matrix. Conejo
et al. [15] have also presented a comparison of four different
practical algorithms for transmission loss allocation. Fang and
Ngan [16] proposed a succinct method for allocation of network
losses which takes into consideration the influence of both ac-
tive and reactive power injected into grids. Costa and Matos [17]
have addressed the allocation of losses in distribution networks
with embedded generation by considering quadratic loss alloca-
tion technique.
As there is no unique or ideal procedure available, any loss
allocation algorithm should have most of the desirable proper-
ties stated below [15]:
1) to be consistent with the results of a power flow;
2) to depend upon the amount of energy either produced or
consumed;
3) to depend on the relative location in the distribution net-
work;
4) to avoid volatility;
5) to be easy to understand;
6) to be easy to implement.
In the light of the above developments, this work proposes a
simple loss allocation method, called the “Exact Method”, for
energy loss allocation to consumers in radial distribution sys-
tems. In the proposed “Exact Method”, energy losses are al-
located to each consumer by finding the actual contribution of
power loss at different load levels by that consumer and no as-
sumptions regarding the sharing of power losses are used as op-
posed to other algorithms available in the literature. Energy loss
allocation to each consumer obtained with the proposed method
is compared with three different practical approaches for loss
allocation, namely, pro rata, quadratic allocation, and propor-
tional allocation.
III. DISTRIBUTION LOSS ALLOCATION METHODS
In radial distribution systems, power is fed at substations and
the power flows from substation to down stream. Energy loss
allocation to each consumer is made based on the real power loss
allocated at different load levels of the load duration curve. Real
power loss allocation methods for radial distribution systems
considered in this study are first presented and then the energy
loss allocation to different consumers.
261
A. Pro Rata (PR) Allocation Method
The pro rata method proportionally allocates losses to the
consumers based on the kW load demand (in the case of trans-
mission systems) [15]. In order to take into account reactive load
of each consumer, instead of considering real power demand of
the consumer, kVA load demand is considered for radial distri-
bution systems.
The total kVA demand of the system can be written as
(1)
Note that substation is marked as node 1, i.e., .
Hence, power loss allocated to consumer at node is given
by
(2)
(3)
It may be noted that the demand loss allocation factors
are identical for all buses. Hence, pro rata procedure is simple
to understand and implement but they ignore the relative loca-
tion of the consumers within the network. That is, two identical
demands located respectively near substation and far away from
the substation are equally treated, and this is unfair to the load
located near the substation.
B. Quadratic Allocation Method
In quadratic loss allocation scheme, since the power losses
grow quadratically with power flows, the following constraint
is imposed [1]:
(4)
and
(5)
Based on this principle, the power loss of the branch- of
the network allocated to consumer at node , beyond
branch- , for are (Derivation given in
Appendix A) as shown in (6), found at the bottom of the page.
(6)
262 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 24, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009

The global value of losses to be supported by consumer re- In this case also, the global value of losses to be supported by
sults from the sum of the losses allocated to it in each branch- consumer results from the sum of the losses allocated to it in
of the network, i.e., each branch- of the network, i.e.,

(7)
(13)

Note that node 1 is substation. Equation (7) indicates that

each consumer has allocated losses only at branches to which Note that node 1 is substation.
power-flow contributes.
D. Proposed Exact Method
C. Proportional Allocation Method
The proposed Exact Method uses the results of a converged
The proportional loss-allocation scheme is the most intuitive load flow based on the identification of nodes and branches pro-
and straightforward approach results which from the propor- posed in [18].
tionality assumption [1], i.e., In a radial distribution system, current through any branch-
can be written as:
(8)
(14)
and

(9) Real power loss of branch- with sending end and receiving
end voltages and is given by
The power loss of the branch- of the network allocated to
consumers beyond branch- , for can be (15)
derived similar to that of quadratic loss allocation scheme which
is given in (10), shown at the bottom of the page, where
i.e., see (16), at the bottom of the page, and (17)–(19), shown
at the bottom of the next page.
(11) Hence

and

(12)
(20)

(10)

(16)
SAVIER AND DAS: ENERGY LOSS ALLOCATION IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PRACTICAL ALGORITHMS
Using (20), real power loss in branch- can be allocated to
consumers beyond branch- . Real power loss of branch- al-
located to consumer connected to node is given by
(21)
The global value of losses to be supported by consumer con-
nected to node at load level results from the sum of the
losses allocated to it in each branch- of the network, i.e.,
(22)
Note that node 1 is substation.
Total cost of energy losses allocated to consumer for
the load duration curve considered is determined using the
following relation:
(23)
In the present study, the cost of energy is assumed as
. losses to both the consumers, i.e., 4.3624 kW, considering that
IV. CASE STUDY
A practical, 11-kV distribution system having 30 nodes as
shown in Fig. 1 is considered to compare the four distribution
loss allocation methods. The line and load data for this system
are given in Appendix B. The loads considered are either indus-
trial or commercial type. The discretized load duration curve
data for the system is given in Table I. The total real power
loss of the system, during the load levels of 1.0 (High), 0.7
(Medium), and 0.3 (Low) are 146.09, 67.61, and 11.59 kW, re-
spectively.
The real power loss allocated to each consumer with the
four approaches at different load levels are shown in Figs. 2–4.
Power flow data and results are used as input data for the
four loss allocation algorithms. The real power loss allocation
based on pro rata procedure allocates losses irrespective of
the geographical location of consumers. Hence, consumers
having same load demands are allocated same losses, even
though the power loss contribution of the consumer electrically
263
Fig. 1. Distribution system with 30 nodes.
TABLE I
LOAD DURATION CURVE
closer to the substation is less as compared to those consumers
electrically away from the substation. For example, consumers
at nodes 10 and 28 are having the same load demand. Hence,
loss allocation based on pro rata procedure allocates same
the load level is 1.0. Whereas, loss allocation to consumers at
nodes 10 and 28 based on quadratic, proportional, and exact
method are different. Quadratic loss allocation scheme allo-
cated 3.3636 and 3.6851 kW to the consumers at nodes 10 and
28, respectively, proportional loss allocation scheme allocated
3.7022 and 3.9995 kW to the consumers at nodes 10 and 28,
respectively, and exact method allocated 4.2312 kW and 4.4907
kW to the consumers at nodes 10 and 28, respectively. It can be
seen that all the methods except pro rata method allocated less
power loss to consumer at node 10, which is electrically closer
to the substation, as compared to losses allocated to consumer
at node 28, which is electrically away from the substation.
Energy loss cost allocated to consumers at different nodes,
assuming cost of energy as , with the four
different approaches is shown in Fig. 5. It can be seen from
Fig. 5 that, cost of energy loss allocated to consumers with pro
rata method at node nos. 10 and 28 is the same, i.e., $ 1101.4.
But the energy loss cost allocated with all the other methods to
these two consumers (consumers at node nos. 10 and 28) are
(17)
(18)
(19)
264
Fig. 2. Real power loss allocated at load level = 1:0 . Fig. 5. Energy loss cost allocated to consumers at different nodes.
Fig. 3. Real power loss allocated at load level = 0:7 .
Fig. 4. Real power loss allocated at load level = 0:3 . demand charge ($ per kW per month) and energy volume charge
different. Quadratic, proportional and proposed methods allo-
cated $ 851.92, $ 937.11, and $ 1070.75, respectively, towards
energy loss cost to the consumer at node 10 whereas it allocated
$ 931.46, $ 1010.63, and $ 1134.94, respectively, to the con-
sumer at node 28.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 24, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009
Quadratic and proportional loss allocation techniques make
use of assumptions to obtain power loss of each branch allocated
to consumers beyond that branch. The proposed “Exact method”
allocates branch losses to different consumers based on actual
contribution of the branch power losses by each consumer beyond
that branch. In the present work, a load flow algorithm developed
in [18] for solving the radial distribution network has been used.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In the present work, a comparison of energy loss allocation in
a radial distribution network, based on three different methods
namely, pro rata, quadratic, and proportional methods with the
proposed “Exact Method” has been presented. From the case
study, it can be seen that even though pro rata procedure is
simple and easy to implement, power loss, and energy loss cost
allocated to consumers having same load demands are the same,
which is an injustice to the consumer electrically nearer to the
substation. Quadratic and proportional loss allocation schemes
are based on branch current flow and these two methods allocate
branch power loss to only those consumers beyond that branch.
Quadratic loss allocation scheme makes the assumption that the
loss allocation factors of a particular consumer is proportional to
the square of real/reactive load current of that consumer whereas
proportional loss allocation scheme assumes that the loss allo-
cation factors are proportional to real/reactive load current. In
the proposed ‘exact method’, losses are allocated to consumers
without making any assumptions and can be implemented easily.
Distribution systems are almost universally socialized in con-
trast with transmission losses that can be attributed to individual
customers and generators. Hence, distribution companies may
adopt a tariff structure in which in addition to the fixed charge
($ per month), capacity charge ($ per kW per month), actual
($ per kWh), a portion of the actual energy loss caused by the con-
sumer may be charged (say, 50% of the total energy loss caused
by a consumer). The remaining energy loss may be allocated
based on some other criteria (say, based on installed capacity).
The proposed “Exact Method” for loss allocation can also be
used as a guide in distribution planning. While planning a distri-
bution system, engineers can visualize actual real power losses
SAVIER AND DAS: ENERGY LOSS ALLOCATION IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PRACTICAL ALGORITHMS 265

The load current at any node is given as

(A1)

Consider branch-8 of Fig. 6. Number of node beyond

Fig. 6. Sample distribution network with 12 nodes.
branch-8 is one and this is node 9. Therefore, current through
branch-8 is
(A2)
Similarly consider branch-7. Total number of nodes beyond
branch-7 is three and these nodes are 8, 9, and 12. Therefore,
current through branch-7 is

TABLE II
(A3)
BRANCH NUMBER, SENDING END NODE, RECEIVING END NODE, AND NODES
BEYOND DIFFERENT BRANCHES From (A2)–(A3), it is clear that, if we identify the nodes be-
yond all the branches and if the load currents are known, then
it is extremely easy to compute the branch currents. In [18], an
algorithm for identifying the nodes beyond all the branches has
been proposed. A load flow algorithm based on the identification
of these nodes beyond all the branches has also been proposed
in [18]. In the present work, this load flow algorithm is used to
compute the load currents and branch currents.
General expression of branch current through branch- is
given by [18]:

(A4)

In Table II, total number of nodes (consumers) be-

yond branch- and nodes (consumers) beyond
branch- are given for Fig. 6
allocated to consumers having same load demands. The distribu- for the purpose of explanation.
tion system can thus be designed in such a way that the real power Let us define
losses allocated to consumers having same load demands, located (A5)
at different parts of the distribution system, will not differ much.
From (A4) and (A5), we obtain
APPENDIX A
QUADRATIC LOSS ALLOCATION METHOD (A6)

For the purpose of explanation of the quadratic loss-alloca-

Magnitude of current in branch- is expressed as shown in
tion method, consider a sample distribution network as shown
(A7) and (A8), shown at the bottom of the page.
in Fig. 6. In Fig. 6, branch numbers are shown in . The
Power loss of branch- can be written as
branch number, sending end, and receiving end nodes are given
in Table II. (A9)

(A7)

(A8)
266 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 24, NO. 1, JANUARY 2009

From (A8) and (A9), we get (A10), found at the bottom of Equations (A11) and (A12) can be simply written as:
the page.
The development of expression given by (A10), the consumer (A13)
(consumers beyond branch- for
(A14)
) has the impact on the terms and
of the power loss of branch- , which are
where and are the variable loss allo-
exclusively due to consumers for .
cation factors for the consumer at node .
The terms In quadratic loss allocation scheme, since the power losses
are the grow quadratically with power flows, the following constraint
results of the simultaneous influence of consumers is imposed [1].
and the remaining consumers in the components of
the current in the branch- . These crossed terms must also be
allocated. The allocation of crossed terms has been done in a (A15)
quadratic way, as mentioned in [1].
The crossed terms and and
are split into two compo-
nents as described here. Let us define (A16)

From (A13) and (A15), we get,

(A11) (A17)
Similarly, from (A14) and (A16), we get,
and

(A18)
Based on this principle, the power loss of the branch- of
the network allocated to consumers beyond branch- , for
(A12) are shown in (A19), at the bottom of the page.

(A10)

(A19)
SAVIER AND DAS: ENERGY LOSS ALLOCATION IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PRACTICAL ALGORITHMS
The global value of losses to be supported by consumer re-
sults from the sum of the losses allocated to it in each branch-
of the network, i.e.,
(A20)
Note that node 1 is substation. Equation (A20) indicates that
each consumer has allocated losses only at branches to which
power flow contributes.
APPENDIX B
TABLE III
LINE AND LOAD DATA OF 30 NODE RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
REFERENCES
[1] A. Gómez, J. M. Riquelme, T. González, and E. Ruiz, “Fair allocation
of transmission power losses,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 184–188, Feb. 2000.
267
[2] J. J. Gonzalez and P. Basagoiti, “Spanish power exchange market and
information system. Design concepts, and operating experience,” in
Proc. 1999 IEEE Power Industry Computer Applications Conf., Santa
Clara, CA, May 1999, pp. 245–252.
[3] J. W. Bialek, S. Ziemianek, and N. Abi-Samra, “Tracking-based loss
allocation and economic dispatch,” in Proc. 13th Power Systems Com-
putation Conf., Trondheim, Norway, Jul. 1999, pp. 375–381.
[4] O. I. Elgerd, Electric Energy Systems Theory: An Introduction. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1982.
[5] F. Schweppe, M. Caramanis, R. Tabors, and R. Bohn, Spot Pricing of
Electricity. Boston, MA: Kluwer , 1988.
[6] M. Meisingset and Ö Breidablik, “A method to determine charging
principles for losses in the Norwegian main grid,” in Proc. 13th PSCC,
Trondheim, Norway, Jun./Jul. 1999, pp. 382–387.
[7] F. D. Galiana, A. J. Conejo, and I. Kockar, “Incremental transmission
loss allocation under pool dispatch,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 26–33, Feb. 2002.
[8] J. W. Bialek, “Identification of source-ink connections in transmission
networks,” in Proc. 4th Int. IEE Conf. Power System Control and Man-
agement, London, U.K, Apr. 16–18, 1996, pp. 200–204.
[9] J. W. Bialek, “Tracing the flow of electricity,” Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.,
Gen. Transm. Dist., vol. 143, no. 4, 1996.
[10] D. Kirschen, R. Allan, and G. Strbac, “Contributions of individual gen-
erators to loads and flows,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 1, pp.
52–60, Feb. 1997.
[11] J. W. Bialek, “Topological generation and load distribution factors
for supplement charge allocation in transmission open access,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1185–1193, Aug. 1997.
[12] G. Strbac, D. Kirschen, and S. Ahmed, “Allocating transmission system
usage on the basis of traceable contributions of generators and loads to
flows,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 527–534, May 1998.
[13] D. Kirschen and G. Strbac, “Tracing active and reactive power between
generators and loads using real and imaginary currents,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1312–1319, Nov. 1999.
[14] A. J. Conejo, F. D. Galiana, and I. I. Kockar, “Z-bus loss allocation,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 105–110, Feb. 2001.
[15] A. J. Conejo, J. M. Arroyo, N. Alguacil, and A. L. Guijarro, “Transmis-
sion loss allocation: A comparison of different practical algorithms,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 571–576, Aug. 2002.
[16] W. L. Fang and H. W. Ngan, “Succinct method for allocation of net-
work losses,” IEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 149, no. 2, pp.
171–174, Mar. 2002.
[17] P. M. Costa and M. A. Matos, “Loss allocation in distribution networks
with embedded generation,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 19, no. 1, pp.
384–389, Feb. 2004.
[18] S. Ghosh and D. Das, “Method of load flow solution of radial distribu-
tion networks,” Proc. IEE Gener. Trans. Distrib., vol. 146, no. 6, pp.
641–648, Nov. 1999.
J. S. Savier received the B.Tech. degree from the University of Kerala, Thiru-
vananthapuram, India, in 1996 and the M.E degree from the Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, in 2002. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Debapriya Das received the B. E degree from Calcutta University, Calcutta,
India, in 1982, the M. Tech degree from the Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, in 1984, and the Ph.D. degree from the Indian Institute of Tech-
nology, Delhi.
Currently, he is a Professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur.
His research interests are electric power distribution system and power system
operation and control.