1
A Roadmap for Distribution Energy
Management via Multiobjective Optimization
Bharadwaj R. Sathyanarayana, Student Member, IEEE, and Gerald T. Heydt, Life Fellow, IEEE
Abstract — Multiobjective optimization has been applied to the
problem of optimal energy management in power distribution
systems. Future distribution systems with increased deployment
of distributed energy storage devices and distributed energy re-
sources are being designed under the aegis of a number of sectors
of the power engineering community. This includes the National
Science Foundation supported Future Renewable Electric Ener-
gy Distribution Management (FREEDM) center. A technical
roadmap for the FREEDM center distribution system is pro-
posed that is based on multiobjective optimization. Diverse objec-
tives in the optimal control of the distribution energy manage-
ment system are handled through a Pareto optimal approach.
The normal boundary intersection method is used to develop a
Pareto optimal front and solving the multiobjective optimization
subroutine has been approached through separable program-
ming techniques. Uncertainty in load demand and distributed
resource power output are incorporated in the test cases studied
to formulate a robust algorithm for distribution energy manage-
ment. The paper also makes brief reference to the Smart Grid
and its objectives – and how the proposed distribution energy
management fits into this initiative.
Index Terms — Distribution engineering, multiobjective opti-
mization, energy management, renewable generation, ‘smart
grid’, Pareto optimization, robust optimization, linear program-
ming, normal boundary intersection, separable programming.
I. THE SMART GRID AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT IN
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
F UTURE electric power distribution systems are likely to
have a much greater range of automated features and
renewable resource penetration as compared with con-
temporary ‘legacy’ systems. The U. S. Department of Energy
has indicated the following main features of the Smart Grid
Initiative [1], [2] as:
• efficient
• accommodating
• motivating
• opportunistic
• quality focused
• resilient
• green.
There is no doubt that automatic control theory will play an
important role in primary distribution systems of the future,
and there have been several research initiatives of the past and
Manuscript received November 2009.
The authors acknowledge the support of the Future Renewable Electric
Energy Distribution Management Center; a National Science Foundation
supported Engineering Research Center, under grant NSF EEC-0812121.
Authors Sathyanarayana and Heydt are with the Department of Electrical,
Computer, and Energy Engineering at Arizona State University in Tempe,
Arizona. They can be reached at brsathya@asu.edu and heydt@asu.edu, re-
spectively.
978-1-4244-6551-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
the present that have been focusing on the same. One such
initiative for the control of power distribution energy man-
agement systems is presented in this paper.
In 2008, the U. S. National Science Foundation inaugurated
an engineering research center denominated the Future Re-
newable Electric Energy Distribution Management
(FREEDM) center. The essence of the FREEDM energy
management controls relates to the balancing or management
of various objectives including: peak demand reduction from
the legacy system, maximal penetration of renewable re-
sources, low cost to the consumer, the ability to support at
least part of the demand in the case of loss of power supply
from the conventional distribution system, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Several efforts to resolve some of the issues relating to
managing the energy needs of distribution systems with in-
creased penetration of distributed resources have been pro-
posed and implemented. Lasseter in [3], [4] discusses auto-
nomous control strategies for the microgrid systems using
active power versus frequency droop characteristics. Lehtonen
et al., in [5] present a distribution energy management system
in view of power system markets. The distribution energy
management problem is one of managing multiple objectives
some of which may be inherently conflicting. It can be viewed
as an optimal utilization of distributed energy resources and
distributed energy storage devices in the power distribution
system to minimize several objective functions, and subject to
energy balance and load balance constraints. Large system
solutions introduce high dimensionality and there is the added
possibility of issues relating to non-convergence. In addition,
generating a Pareto optimal solution can prove to be difficult
for non-convex problems.
The application of multiobjective optimization [6], [7] tools
and methods has been made in literature in various scientific
disciplines and interdisciplinary research initiatives. This pa-
per details the application of normal boundary intersection
method [8], [9] in solving the distribution energy management
problem. The computer solution for the multiobjective optimi-
zation is developed via a technique known as separable pro-
gramming [10].
A key element to a smart distribution system is the devel-
opment of a smart controller to manage energy. One such
controller integrates the voltage transformation functions of
conventional transformers and the high speed control characte-
ristics of electronic switches. The solid state transformer is
such a controller. The subject of solid state transformers suit-
able for distribution energy management systems (EMS) is
discussed in [11], [12]. The design of an energy management
strategy for distribution systems is addressed in a number of
venues. The literature also indicates other approaches with

various interpretations of the most desirable smart grid fea-
tures [13], [14].
This paper presents a roadmap of distribution energy man-
agement via a robust multiobjective optimization formulation,
as part of the research initiatives on ‘distributed controls’ by
the FREEDM system center. The ‘green hub’ system is a test
bed implementation of the FREEDM system currently being
developed in North Carolina State University, one of the insti-
tutions participating in FREEDM.
II. DISTRIBUTION ENERGY MANAGEMENT
A. Multiobjective Optimization
The optimal management of the energy needs of an electric
power distribution system with distributed energy resource
(DER) and distributed energy storage device (DESD) deploy-
ment is termed as distribution energy management (DEM).
Traditional distribution systems are radial systems that feed
the end use customers through three phase primary feeders
and single phase laterals [15]. In a conventional understand-
ing, load management [16] refers to the management of the
end-use load shape to satisfy a number of objectives includ-
ing: reduced demand during peak system load periods, accept-
able system reliability, acceptable customer convenience and
incentives, and compatibility with existing system designs.
With the presence of DERs and DESDs in the distribution
system, the optimal management is performed on the basis of
several diverse objective functions, hence resulting in a mul-
tiobjective optimization problem. In general, the distribution
energy management problem can be represented as a multiob-
jective minimization problem – namely the minimization of a
scalar aggregate function J,
min , ,…, (1)
subject to,
, (2)
, (3)
where m ≥ 2, and a is a vector of weights yet to be determined
and F(X) represents the objective vector of objective func-
tions, and , ,…, is the control vector of optimi-
zation. Equations (2) and (3) represent the constraints, lower
and upper bounds on X, respectively. The inequality (3) is a
term by term inequality.
B. Distribution Energy Management Objectives
There are several possible objective functions that can be
considered for the optimal management of the distributed
energy infrastucture. The objective functions chosen in the
present formulation are: optimizing the peak demand from the
distribution substation, optimizing the total cost of energy for
the demand interval, optimizing the energy demand during
peak period, and optimizing the power loss in power
converters. Each of the above objectives can be represented
emperically as a functions of the instantaneous active power
demand from the distribution feeder. Therefore, the control
vector X could be chosen to be the active power demand from
the utility grid. The voltage fluctuations at the load end for
variations in the active power has not been taken into account
2
in any computations, as it is a reasonable assumption in view
of the nature of the study undertaken.
At this point, the focus is on the multiobjective optimization
problem. In the following discussion, the generalized problem
shall be explained, and an application to the FREEDM system
given. For this purpose, consider several (e.g., m) objective
functions labeled fi. The parameter m could be quite large in
the case of many conflicting as well as agreeing objectives –
but for the discussion below, the case of m = 4 is illustrated.
With the primary constraint of load balance established, the
objective for the optimization problem can be formulated.
For purposes of illustration, consider the following four
objective functions:
1. The entire time horizon over which the optimization is
carried out is split into n equally spaced time intervals of
duration ΔT. The objective relating to peak power demand
from the distribution system is captured by f1,
. (4)
2. The peak period energy supplied from the distribution
network is,
∆ , (5)
where the peak period is user defined as the interval in which
the index i ranges from , … , .
3. The total cost of energy taken from the distribution supply
for the entire duration of the time horizon is expressed as
∆ ∆ , (6)
,…,
where cp and cop are the cost of energy in $/kWh for the peak
and off-peak periods, respectively.
4. The total power loss in the power converters for the DESD
is a function of the square of the current. As | | 1 . ., f4
can be approximated by,
1 , ∆ / , (7)
where is the efficiency of the power converter and battery
combined, Xs is the rate of charging (kW) of the energy
storage element.
Note that these are offered as examples. It may be that
there are other objectives that should be included (e.g.,
reduces CO2 emissions, voltage regulation, reactive power use
and production, harmonic distortion, factors that relate to the
cost of installation and equipment, and potentially a panoply
of factors relating to cost, use, and supply). The cited
objectives are captured in the form of the fi functions. Let X
be a vector of power levels supplied by the distribution system
at ΔT time intervals. The elements of X are xi. Also note that
several of the cited fi(X) functions could be interrelated (and
even nearly the same objective / mutually inclusive).
Function f1(X) is nonlinear and cannot be represented in a
conventional linear programming routine for the solution of
the multiobjective optimization. The function f1 is linearized
by augmenting the control variable with an additional variable
z such that,
(8)
1,2, … , . (9)

Equations (8) and (9) relax the requirements of f1 into a
constraint. Note that, n is the total number of time intervals in
the demand horizon. Since this optimization formulation is a
minimization problem, it is permissible to include (9) in the
set of all inequality constraints represented by (3) as n
additional constraints 1,2, … , ; and the updated X is
now represented by,
, ,…, , .
Given a forecast for load and DER power output over the
demand interval, the optimal strategy to manage the energy
demand during the demand interval can be calculated. The
general description of the system is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Distribution energy management strategy and system description
A detailed description of the strategy for energy
namagement has been presented progressively in the
forthcoming sections. The optimal solution seeks to utilize the
distributed resource infrastructure and the installed storage
capacity to minimize the several objectives. The distribution
energy management problem can hence be viewed as not
distant from the much more traditional unit commitment
problem which seeks to optimally schedule power generation
units to minimize the costs associated with power generation.
The time horizon of solving unit commitment algorithms is
one day ahead or one week ahead, typically. Distribution
energy management has been studied along similar lines as an
algorithm for optimal deployment of the distributed storage
capacity in a day ahead approach.
In the foregoing, the several multiobjectives have been
defined in terms of a control variable X. The control variable
selected is the charging power for the energy storage device.
However, the concept indicated is general enough to
accommodate other objectives and other control variables.
For example, there may be cases in which some elements of
the demand are controllable; there may be communication
between one load and another, and there could be exchange of
power in some way at the secondary level; if reactive power
were incorporated into the model, an additional control
3
variable might be the reactive power injected into the primary
distribution supply. It is believed that the multiobjective
approach taken would accommodate most of these
formulations (a generic discussion appears in [19]).
C. Constraints
The basic control mechanism for energy management of a
distribution system is facilitated by a solid state transformer
(10) (SST) [11], an electronic controller, and the primary objective
of an EMS controller is to effectuate a balance of load, storage
power, and distributed generation. This is constrained by the
power ratings of the electronic controllers, energy storage
medium, and other system components. The load balance
equation has been shown in (11) where the net power demand
from the distribution primary network is denoted by [x1, x2, …,
xn]T, the power output of the distributed energy resource is
XDG and the rate of charging (kW) of the energy storage
element by XS,
, ,…, (11)
where,
Xload, is the SST user load at the SST low voltage AC
terminals (kW, for every time interval in the study)
XDG is the power output of the DER (kW)
XS is the rate of charging of the DESD (kW).
Note that (11) is an instantaneous balance of power. Since
Xload and XDG are known to within a certain level of error
tolerance, the control variable for multiobjective optimization
can be changed from X to XS. For simplicity, in the remainder
of this paper the control vector which is the rate at which the
storage element is charged, will be represented by X, the
standard notation for control variable. Substituting (11) in (4) -
(7), the objective functions can be represented appropriately.
The balance of energy within the distributed storage device
(e.g., a battery) introduces additional constraints on the
optimization. To maintain the state of charge of battery device
within its permissible limits,
, (12)
0 1 (13)
where,
xi is the appropriate control(s) for the energy storage
element (where, 1)
s is the state of charge (SOC), assuming that the energy
storage element is a battery
Es,max is the maximum installed storage capacity (kWh).
Since the value of xi depends on the states corresponding to
the previous time intervals, (12) and (13) result in formulating
a portion of the inequality constraints that is represented by
(2). The remainder portion of (3) is constituted by the n
equations depicted in (9). The maximum power rating of the
converters Pmax, introduces the lower and upper bounds on
control variable X (see (3)). Note that the formulation
indicated is specific to the FREEDM configuration. It is
possible to envision other formulations in which different fi
are selected and different constraints are present. However,
the generic approach of multiobjective optimization is still
valid.
It is straightforward to develop the solution that individually
minimizes each of the stated objective functions –
individually, and not simultaneously. For the case of

cumulative optimization of an aggregate objective function,
the individual functions will need to be weighted suitably so
as to obtain the Pareto optimal solution X*. The definition of
Pareto optimality, weights for the objective functions and their
application in the distribution energy management problem
has been described and developed in the forthcoming section.
III. NORMAL BOUNDARY INTERSECTION
A. Pareto Optimality
The solution for traditional linear optimization problems is
easily faciliated through the use of linear programming tools
which make use of the simplex method. In the case of multiple
objective to be optimized simultaneously, with the functions
themselves not strictly linear, the use of superior techniques is
nessecitated. The calculation of a global optimal solution for
the multiobjective optimization, which is also the global
optimal solution for each of the individual objective functions,
is highly improbable, as different objective functions might be
at least partly conflicting and incommensurable. This lead to
the development of Pareto optimality [6]-[9]. Pareto
optimality is defined thus [7].
“A control vector is Pareto optimal, if there
does not exist another control vector , such that
1,2, … , , and
for at least one index j, where S is a nonempty subset
of called the feasibility region.”
The concepts of multiobjective optimization are often
viewed in terms of an approach that manages several objec-
tives that are integrated into an aggregate objective. This is
has been presented in literature in [7]. The aggregate objective
vector is generally taken to be a convex linear combination of
individual objective functions with weights forming the linear
combination coefficients,
(14)
∑ ,
∑ 1. (15)
The optimization of (14), results in X* called a Pareto optimal
solution. A trace of the curve of Pareto optimal points is called
the Pareto optimal frontier. The convex linear combination of
objectives is one technique for obtaining Pareto optimal solu-
tions. For problems with more than two objectives, the devel-
opment of Pareto optimal solutions is significantly complex
[7]. The work done in this paper makes use of an efficient
algorithm called normal boundary intersection (NBI), for the
same. In understanding the application of NBI to DEM, it is
essential to note the following:
• The NBI method for generating a set of Pareto optimal
points is different from the linear combination of objectives
that has been described earlier.
• The weights used to describe the NBI subproblems in the
forthcoming section are different from the linear combina-
tion weights ai discussed above.
For the DEM problem, each of the objectives corresponds to
separate objectives of load management for a distribution sys-
tem with the presence of DER and DESD. The knowledge of
how each objective is affected with changes to every other
objective will prove to be useful for the development of an
algorithm that is robust, i.e., which accommodates for the er-
rors in modeling the characteristics of the load and DER out-
4
put power. The generation of the entire set of Pareto optimal
points with respect to different weighting options is of interest
in the problem under study.
B. NBI based Distribution Energy Management
NBI based solutions to the multiobjective optimization shall
be developed in this subsection. Considering the specific
application to the FREEDM system, for the DEM problem the
number of objectives, m is four. The length of the control
vector X is 1, where n is the total number of time intervals
in the demand interval. Let, F* denote a vector of individual
global minima (that do not occur at the same state X) for each
of the objective functions in F, and Xi* denote the vector of
best minima for the minimization of fi, then a 4 x 4 matrix φ, is
defined as
(16)
. (17)
The subscript 4 x 4 reminds that the indicated matrices are
four by four in this formulation. It can be observed that the
diagonal elements of φ will always be zero. The off-diagonal
elements have to necessarily be non-negative as this
requirement ensures that the each Xi* is the best possible
solution for the individual minimization of function f1, and the
Pareto optimal solution (X*) can never be better than the
individual minima (Xi*). The set of all convex linear
combination of the columns of φ is referred to as a convex hull
of individual minima (CHIM),
| , ∑ 1, 0. (18)
The vector W, therefore are the weights of the NBI method for
solving the multiobjective problem. The convex hull can be
viewed as a set of all optimal solutions to any given
multiobjective problem and will be a four dimensional
hyperplane. Let u represent an unit normal to the CHIM
pointing towards the origin. Therefore, (φW + ud) represents
all points on the normal for different values of the variable d.
The variable d is a distance from a hyperplane of the Pareto
optimal solution. The point of intersection between the normal
norm and the vector of objective functions F that is a point on
the Pareto optimal front can be obtained by solving the
following optimization problem,
max (19)
,
subject to,
(20)
.
Given a weight vector W, the optimization above is a
subproblem in generating the Pareto optimal front. When the
optimization subproblems are repeated for different sets of W
terms, a set of Pareto optimal points for the multiobjective
optimization problem are obtained. These points provide us
the Pareto optimal frontier. The Pareto optimal front therefore
 5

is the locus of all points that is traversed by the Pareto optimal

solution, when the weights of the subproblem are modified. , , (22)
When the ||Wi - Wi+1||2, the euclidean norm of the difference in
the weights for two successive subproblems i and i +1 are less , , , , (23)
than an acceptable value, the solution of the subproblem
numbered i can be used as a starting point, or initial condition
for the subproblem numbered i + 1. Fig. 2 is a sample where for i = 1…N,
graphical representation of the NBI technique. Actual graphs
are much more complicated than Fig. 2 and actual graphs lie , , , , , , (24)
in multidimensional space. A detailed development of the 1 , , , . (25)
NBI method, from fundamental principles can be found in [8],
[9]. The points (xi,1….xi,M) are in the range of xi and are called
breakaway points, i.e., the points between which the functions
f1(X) fs,i are approximated as being linear. The variables denoted by
λ are the weights of the the breakaway points and they are
convex (i.e., they add to one) and non-negative. The
f 1* mathematical formulation presented above was for any general
function fs that is separable.
The principle described is applied to the objective functions
in F of the DEM problem. The variable N in case of DEM is n
+ 1. Using (7), f4 can be written as

∑ | |. (26)

Note that f4 is not a function of z, hence the summation in (26)

Solution
to subproblem i
Fig. 2 Graphical representation of the solution to NBI subproblems for the
case of two functions
The objective function f4(X) represents the power lost in
the DESD power converters. Since the values of xi can be
positive or negative depending on charging or discharging
operation respectively, f4 introduces a absolute value function
in the optimization which introduces a nonlinearity. To handle
the nonlinearity introduced by f4(X) a method called separable
programming (SP) is employed.
C. Separable Programming
A function is a separable function, if it can be written as a
sum of N single variable functions. When seperable functions
are applied in linear programming (LP) problems the resulting
class of optimization problems are classified in literature as
separable programming (SP) problems [10]. Further, in case a
function of N variables is nonlinear, it can be written by an
approximate form in SP by separating the functions into N
single variable functions such that the function is
approximately linear in each segment of the seperation.
The described separation is illustrated in the following
equations (21) - (25), for any separable N variable function fs
,
where, X = [x1 x2 …. xN]T. If the ith function fs,i is nonlinear it
can be approximated as
is terminated in n and k’ can be expressed as a function of ε.
Functions f2 and f3 can also be represented in the form shown
in (26) using separable programming. Three breakway points
are chosen on 1,2, … , as,
f 2* f2(X)
xi,1 = - Pmax (27)
xi,2 = 0 (28)
xi,3 = + Pmax. (29)
Therefore,
(30)
xi = -Pmax. λi,1 + 0.λi,2 + Pmax.λi,3.
where, Pmax is the maximum power rating of the DESD power
converter. The selection of the breakaway points were
motivated by the shape of the function f4(X) (v-shaped) which
is also piecewise linear in the the intervals generated between
the breakaway points. Corresponding to each xi for i = 1,2,…n;
transformation of variables using the breakaway points yeilds
λi = [λi,1, λi,2, λi,3]. Additional conditions for the λi,j are,
λi,1 + λi,2 + λi,3 = 1 (31)
0 ≤ λi,j ≤ 1. (32)
The variables of optimization have effectively been
modified from xi to λi,j. Functions f2, f3, and f4 are functions of
x1 - xn; and f1 is a function of z. Hence, to obtain the Pareto
optimal solution using NBI, f2, f3, and f4 will need to be
represented as a function of the λi,j. Table I shows the value of
objective functions computed at the breakaway points. Using
(21) (23) and the results depicted in Table I, it is possible to
represent the f’s in their final form for the optimization. Cp,
Cop, k’ are emperical constants.
 6

TABLE I where subscripts with ‘f’ indicate forecast values and index i
OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS COMPUTED AT BREAKAWAY POINTS indicates that the correction term introduced is due to i-1th
interval). Variable γ can represent load power demand or DER
Function Time Interval j=1 j=2 j=3 power output. In this fashion, the NBI - SP is solved in a day-
xi,j demand interval -Pmax 0 Pmax ahead format at the beginning of each hour and the forecast
f1(xi)* - - - - load and DER power output are progressively updated based
peak period -Pmax 0 Pmax on forecast errors for the previous time interval, at the end of
f2(xi,j)
off-peak period 0 0 0 each hour,
peak period -CpPmax 0 CpPmax ,
. (33)
f3(xi,j)
off-peak period -CopPmax 0 CopPmax
f4(xi,j) demand interval k’Pmax 0 k’Pmax
*
f1 is not computed at the breakaway points as it is not a
function of x1, x2, …, xn.

With the change of variables from x to λ, the existing

constraints of optimization (20) will need to be modified. The
energy balance constraints are inequality constraints. In
addition, the boundary conditions on x terms will disappear
due to their inherent inclusion in the separable program.
Additional constraints on the new control variables (i.e., the λ)
will apply now in the SP (see (31), (32)). The exact form of
the constraint equations are shown in the Appendix. The NBI
subproblems are resolved into the separable programming
form and solved for a given set of weight vector to obtain the
Pareto optimal point. Fig. 3 illustrates the normal boundary
intersection algorithm for distribution energy management and
its solution using separable programming. The forthcoming
sections highlight the DEM application through an example.

IV. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

The description of the mathematical concepts of NBI and
SP and their application to the DEM problem has been de-
tailed in the previous sections. The example studied in this
section, takes into account the system configuration for a sin-
gle household application of an energy management controller
(in this case a SST, for the FREEDM system application) and
the application of NBI and SP based energy management
strategy to it. Actual and forecast values for DER power out-
put and load demand are obtained for the study in this exam-
ple from [17], [18] and they have been shown in Fig. 4. The
load data and the DER power output have been obtained for
the location profile of southwest United States for a typical
winter day. The DER considered in this example is a PV ar-
ray.
The demand interval in this example, has been chosen as
one day and the number of time intervals (n) chosen is 24, i.e.,
with one variable for each hour of the day. After resolving the
objective functions and the constraints equations into the SP
form, the total number of variables in the control vector is 74
(= 3x24 + 2). The exact form of the constraint equations can Fig. 3 Normal boundary intersection algorithm with separable programming
be seen in the Appendix.
A ‘sliding technique’ has been incorporated to accommo- The selection of weights is performed such that the Eucli-
date the errors between the forecast values and the actual val- dean norm of the deviation between weight vectors for succes-
ues of load and DER output. In this method, the NBI based SP sive subproblems is less than a predefined tolerance level, ζ,
is solved at the beginning of each time interval (~ 1h) of the with W0 as the weights for the first subproblem. Table II de-
demand interval using forecast values for the load and DER tails the values of important system parameters used in the
output. At the completion of each interval, the forecast values case study.
for the next n intervals are updated based on the error between The Euclidean norm of XS has been used as an index to se-
the actual and forecast values for the past interval (see (33) lect a ‘model’ Pareto point on the Pareto front as having the
least norm of XS. Note that, several other indices could be used
 7

e.g., the Euclidean norm of the vector of deviations of the ob- 4

jective functions computed at a Pareto point from their global Load Pow er

Power (k W)
minima. Pow er Demand from Grid
3
Battery Output
4
DER Pow er Actual
Power (k W)

3.5 DER Pow er Forecast 2

Load Actual
Load Forecast
3
1

2.5

0
2

1.5 -1

Time (h)
1
-2
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
0.5
Fig. 5 Results of DEM strategy applied to example case study. Note that the
Time (h) battery charge / discharge is shown discharging for 0500 – 1000 h. The bat-
0 tery starts at t = 0 with a 50% charge from the previous day.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Fig. 4 Actual and forecast values for load and DER output power
TABLE II
SYSTEM INPUT DATA
Parameter Value Parameter
ε 0.98 ζ 0.01
[0.12, 0.06]
Es,max 5 kWh [cp, cop]
Pmax 3.6 kW s0*
[p, k] [5, 5] W0
*
is the initial state of charge.
The NBI based DEM algorithm provides a set of Pareto op-
timal points for the given set of weight vectors. The results for
a model set of weights that has the least ||Xs||2, i.e., correspond-
ing to WR = [0.049 0.1228 0.4949 0.3332]T are shown in Fig.
5. The load demand curve, grid power demand curve and the
battery output curve have been portrayed. It can be observed
that the battery storage device is seen to discharge during the
predefined peak period of 0500 h to 1000 h. For simplicity, a
single peak period has been defined in this problem, where the
effect of energy management is seen to reduce the energy con-
sumption from the distribution system during the peak hours.
It can be noted that for the min-norm solution corresponding
to WR, the peak demand minimization objective (f1) has been
weighted lower as compared to the peak period energy con-
sumption objective (f2). Consequentially, the battery storage
element is seen to minimize the energy consumption during
the predefined peak period but at the cost of overall peak de-
mand.
The example described in this section along with the prob-
lem formulation developed in this paper, seek to highlight the
following:
• the verification of the concepts of Pareto optimality and
their application to the DEM problem,
• provide a roadmap of a generalized strategy for DEM
using multiobjective optimization
• given a set of weights W, one Pareto optimal solution
results, but if alternative weights are selected, different
solutions will be obtained
Value • In the example shown, if different weights or different
load and forecast conditions were studied (e.g., admit-
ting uncertainty in DER power), a different Pareto op-
$/kWh timal result would occur.
0.5 As indicated in earlier discussions, one important advantage
[0 0 0 1]T of the NBI method is that it generates the Pareto optimal solu-
tions for the given DEM problem for different weighting op-
tions. Therefore, it is easy to assess the tradeoff on an objec-
tive for changes in the weights of the other objective with re-
spect to itself. With the knowledge of the tradeoffs seen in
individual objectives with respect to the others, it is possible
to select weights based on the nature of operation of the sys-
tem and specific requirements imposed on system functions.
This methodology is envisioned for future research efforts in
the distribution energy management.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
The application of multiobjective optimization concepts to
solving the distribution energy management problem has been
presented in this paper. The NBI method applied to the DEM
problem has been found to be suitable for calculating the op-
timal energy management strategy. The formulation of such a
strategy is dependent on the level of complexity and detail
envisioned and on the specific nature of its application. There-
fore, the formulation can be modified by appropriate changes
to the objectives in F and the constraints in AX ≤ b. The opti-
mization concepts however, have been developed for a general
problem formulation and the effectiveness of the NBI algo-
rithm in calculating the Pareto optimal solutions has been
demonstrated.

The major focus for future research efforts include: demon-
strating the application of the DEM strategy to a larger test
system, distributed control calculations among multiple
neighboring energy management controllers, and considera-
tion of several other objectives, e.g., the management of reac-
tive power. Also, the uncertainty in DER power needs to be
considered. It is also envisioned to apply the strategy depicted
in this paper to the FREEDM ‘Green Hub’ system model,
which is currently being developed at North Carolina State
University, one of the participating institutions in FREEDM.
The Green Hub is expected to be a demonstration project for
the general effort of the Smart Grid initiative.
VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge the input of Dr. R. Ayyanar of
Arizona State University in this work.
VII. APPENDIX
GENERALIZED DISTRIBUTION ENERGY MANAGEMENT
CONSTRAINTS
The general form of the multiobjective optimization con-
straints for distribution energy management is presented here.
The control vector can be expressed as,
The inequality constraints are (for all i in [1 2 .. n]),
The equality constraints are,
The length of the control vector is nℓ + 2. The total number of
inequality and equality constraints is 5n and n + m respective-
ly where,
n is the number of time intervals in the demand interval
m is the number of objectives of optimization
ℓ is the number of breakaway points chosen on the xi in
the separable program.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] 110th Congress of United States, “Smart Grid,” Title XIII, Energy Inde-
pendence and Security Act of 2007, Washington DC, Dec. 2007.
[2] Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution, United States Depart-
ment of Energy, “Grid 2030: a National Vision for Electricity’s Second
100 Years,” Washington DC, Apr. 2003.
[3] R. H. Lasseter, “Dynamic distribution using (DER) distributed energy
resources,” Proc. IEEE Power Engineering Society Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exhibition, 2006, pp. 932-934.
[4] H. Nikkhajoei, R. H. Lasseter, “Microgrid protection,” Proc. IEEE
Power Engineering Society General Meeting, June 2007, pp. 1-6.
8
[5] M. Lehtonen et al., “Distribution energy management in the environ-
ment of de-regulated electricity market,” Proc. Energy Management and
Power Delivery, v. 2, 1995, pp. 516-521.
[6] J. Branke, K. Deb, K. Miettinen, R. Slowinski, Multiobjective Optimiza-
tion: Interactive and Evolutionary Approaches, Berlin, Germany: Sprin-
ger-Verlag, 2008.
[7] K. M. Miettinen, Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization, Boston, MA:
Kluwer, 1999.
[8] C. Roman, W. Rosehart, “Evenly distributed Pareto points in multi-
objective optimal power flow,” IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, v. 21,
No. 2, May 2006, pp. 1011-1012.
[9] I. Das, J. Dennis, “Normal-boundary intersection: An alternate method
for generating Pareto optimal points in multicriteria optimization prob-
lem,” Institute for Computer Applications in Science and Engineering
(ICASE) report, No. 96-62, Nov. 1996.
[10] S. M. Stefanov, Separable Programming: Theory and Methods, Boston,
MA: Kluwer, 2001.
[11] T. Zhao, L. Yang, J. Wang, A. Q. Huang, “270 kVA solid state trans-
former based on 10 kV SiC power devices,” Proc. IEEE Electric Ship
Technologies Symposium, May 2007, pp. 145 – 149.
[12] T. Zhao, J. Zeng, S. Bhattacharya, M. E. Baran, A. Q. Huang, “An aver-
age model of solid state transformer for dynamic system simulation,”
Proc. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, Calgary AB,
July 2009, pp. 1 – 8.
[13] J. A. Momoh, “Smart grid design for efficient and flexible power net-
works operation and control,” IEEE Power and Energy Society Power
Systems Conference and Exposition, Mar. 2009, pp. 1-8.
[14] R. E. Brown, “Impact of smart grid on distribution system design,”
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, July 2008, pp. 1-4.
[15] T. Gönen, Electric Power Distribution System Engineering, NY:
McGraw Hill Inc., 1986.
[16] R. Delgado, “Load management - A planner’s view,” IEEE Trans. on
Power Apparatus and Systems, v. PAS-102, No. 6, 1983, pp. 1812-1813.
[17] Itron - Eshapes, Load profiles for electricity and gas usage, available at:
http://www.itron.com/pages/products_detail.asp?id=itr_000491.xml
[18] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - Renewable Resource
Data Center, PVWatts Calculator, available at:
http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/
[19] A. Belegundu, T. Chandrupatla, Optimization Concepts and Applications
in Engineering, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.
IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Bharadwaj R. Sathyanarayana (StM ’07) is from
Bangalore, India. He received his B. Tech. in
Electrical Engineering from VIT University, India.
In December 2008, he received his M. S. E. E.
degree from Arizona State University working in
the area of power distribution systems. Mr. Sa-
thyanarayana is presently a student in the doctoral
program at ASU. He is working in the area of
control of renewable resources in power distribu-
tion systems.
Gerald Thomas Heydt (StM ’62, M ’64, SM ’80,
F ’91, LF ‘08) is from Las Vegas, NV. He holds
the Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana (1970). His
industrial experience is with the Commonwealth
Edison Company, Chicago, and E. G. & G., Mer-
cury, NV. He is a member of the National Acade-
my of Engineering. Dr. Heydt is presently the site
director of a power engineering center program at
Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ where he
is a Regents’ Professor. He is the recipient of the
2010 Harold Kaufmann IEEE Field Award.