CIRED 2020 Berlin Workshop (CIRED 2020)
22-23 September 2020
Theme 1: Integrating New Flexibility Tools and Principles for Planning
Simulation of an integrated planning
of power and gas distribution grids
considering power-to-gas and
gas-to-power units
Joshua Jakob 1 ✉, Björn Uhlemeyer 1, Marlon Koralewicz 1,
James Garzon-Real 1, Markus Zdrallek 1, Johannes Ruf 2,
Wolfgang Köppel 2, Bastian Bauhaus 3
1
University of Wuppertal, Rainer-Gruenter-Str. 21, Wuppertal, Germany
2
DVGW Research Centre, Engler-Bunte-Ring 1-7, Karlsruhe, Germany
3
SWKiel Netz GmbH, Uhlenkrog 32, Kiel, Germany
✉ E-mail: jakob@uni-wuppertal.de
Abstract: This study presents the simulation of a concept for the integrated planning of power and gas distribution grids.
For this purpose, the influence of grid coupling units, as power-to-gas and gas-to-power units, is examined. Afterwards,
the developed concept is applied to exemplary power and gas distribution grids and the results are compared with
conventional power grid expansion.
1 Introduction
The energy system is undergoing an unprecedented transformation
because of the required defossilisation of the energy mix. The
integration of renewable energy sources has a particular impact on
the power grid infrastructures designed to transport energy from
central, conventional power plants to end customers. Furthermore,
the integration of synthetic gaseous fuels into the gas grid leads to
a need for adaptation of the gas infrastructure, e.g. to enable a
higher hydrogen tolerance. The joint planning of the power and
gas grid – in combination with coupling units (CUs) like
power-to-gas (PtG) and gas-to-power (GtP) – expands the solution
space, whereby an overall more cost-efficient solution can be
found to overcome these challenges. This is gaining additional
relevance nowadays due to the long investment cycle of many
components of the energy system (e.g. about 40 years for power
lines). The first concepts for integrated planning of power and gas
distribution grids are described in recent publications [1–3]. As the
main contribution of these publications, the integrated planning
pursues the goal of a more holistic view of the future energy
system in which a far larger number of actors must interact with
each other to come as close as possible to the overall systemic
optimum. Thus, based on the assumption that the energy system
has to be considered as a whole, new methods of integrated energy
system planning are needed. This paper presents the simulation of
a concept for integrated power and gas distribution grid planning,
with the added value of identifying the most economic systemic
result, as shown in Section 4.4.
2 Integrated planning concept
Grid expansion planning is based on the synthesis, analysis and
optimisation of development strategies or expansion variants [4].
To carry out these processes, grid models are required, on the
basis of which new development scenarios can be defined
(synthesis). In the following analysis, possible solutions for
guaranteeing the supply task under the developed conditions
(scenarios) are investigated. Finally, optimisation is conducted,
whereby the obtained solution is further improved. The method to
70 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
ISSN 2515-0855
doi: 10.1049/oap-cired.2021.0025
www.ietdl.org
carry out these three steps of planning in a joint manner for power
and gas grids is shown in Fig. 1 and explained in detail afterwards.
The concept aims to obtain a cost-optimal solution for a possible
future energy system. In addition, it attempts to describe a possible
interaction between grid operators and operators of CU (unit
operators). To this end, in the first step, data with a significant
influence on the integrated planning process are identified. To
determine the schedules of the CU, time series for energy prices,
temperature and gas pipeline flows are used. These time series are
deployed as input factors for the solution of a mixed-integer linear
problem (MILP), in which the revenue from the operation of the
CU (influenced by the energy prices) is maximised. The objective
function of the optimisation problem is shown in the following
equation:
 




min : ci(s,e) (t ) · wi(s,e) (t ) ·t (1)
t[T (s,e)[E i[I
The function consists of the energy flow wi(s, e) of the CU with the
respective costs ci(s, e) resulting from the energy price times series
for power and gas. These, in turn, are multiplied with the
time-increment of the simulation (t=15 min). The equation is
summed over the time horizon T, the number E of CU and the
cost time-series I. The compliance with the constraints of the
hydrogen feed-in limit and the volatile heat demand is ensured by
the use of gas pipe flow and temperature time series. For the
hydrogen feed-in, simulations were performed for different limits
(10, 20, 30 and 100 vol.%). Since current developments indicate
that a higher feed-in limit (current regulation: if no critical
consumers are connected to the grid, up to 10 vol.% can be fed in
[5]) can be assumed for a future scenario, in the following only
the results for 30 vol.% will be presented. Further, it is assumed
that above a limit temperature of 16°C the heat demand can be
covered by more cost-efficient units or processes, and therefore no
more heat can be supplied by combined heat and power (CHP)
units. The MILP and the associated energy system are modelled
and solved with the open energy modelling framework (OEMOF).
The energy system consists of CU interconnecting both energy
grids. For the scheduling of these units, in the first step, the power
CIRED, Open Access Proc. J., 2020, Vol. 2020, Iss. 1, pp. 70–73
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 objective function (1), a model was then created in which the unit
operator tries to maximise his profit. This means, for example, that
the operator of a PtG unit always operates his unit when the price
for gas is greater than or equal to the price for power multiplied
by the efficiency of the unit. The operator of a CHP unit, on the
other hand, operates his unit whenever the revenues from the
outputs power and heat multiplied by the respective efficiencies
exceed the costs for the gas input.

3 Application on exemplary data

In the following the concept is applied on exemplary grid,

temperature and energy price data, which are described below.

3.1 EEX stock market prices for power and gas

from 2018
Fig. 1 Concept to integrated power and gas grid planning
The used stock market time series for power (EEX intraday) and gas
(EGIX DE) is shown in Fig. 2. The absolute volatility of the two
grid restrictions such as voltage limits and thermal overload are price series differs significantly, which makes different business
neglected. The results of the MILP are economically optimised cases feasible, according to the dispatch of CU explained in
power time series for the PtG and CHP units and heat time series Section 2.2.
for the CHP units. The power time series are then provided to the
power grid calculation, where the schedules of the CU are 3.2 High pressure (16 bar) gas grid model
matched with the power grid, using an optimal power flow (see
Section 2.1). If a limit violation, such as overload or voltage limit The gas grid model is shown in Fig. 3. The main gas feeding point is
violation in the grid occurs due to the operation of the CU, its represented by the gas pressure regulating station 1 (GPRS 1) where
scheduled feed-in (CHP) or feed-out (PtG) power is adjusted. In the gas is expanded from 30 to ∼12.6 bar. This station supplies two
addition, other limit violations occurring in the grid can be fixed parallel pipelines that extend to the GPRS 2, where the gas is further
by the CU. As output, the new schedule of the CU according to expanded to 8 bar to supply downstream distribution grids.
the described redispatch is generated. In the following, aspects of
the concept are further explained.
3.3 Medium-voltage (20 kV) power grid model
2.1 Gas and power grid calculation Fig. 4 shows the exemplary rural power grid [7] used to validate the
® concept. Starting from the substation, the existing medium-voltage
The transient gas grid calculation is performed by STANET
applying the Newton–Raphson method. Input data are the grid
model (see Section 3.2), standard load profiles, and temperature
time series. A python-based docking container used for the
STANET® simulation has originally been developed at the DVGW
Research Centre with the support of the software developer [6].
The calculated grid states (nodal pressures and gas pipe flows) are
used to check for violations of grid restrictions and to determine
the hydrogen injection limit of the PtG unit. The power flow
calculation is provided by PandaPower. The applied solver is
based on the Newton–Raphson method. In addition, the optimal
power flow (see objective function (2)) is used to re-schedule the
CU considering the grid restrictions, which also represents a
provision of grid services (redispatch).

 
min : fi Pi (2) Fig. 2 Power and gas stock market prices in 2018
i[CU

The goal of the objective function is to minimise the costs and,

respectively, the changes in the power feed-in of the CHP and the
feed-out of the PtG considering the power grid constraints. Thus,
possible limit value violations are eliminated at minimal cost by
employing the CU.

2.2 Economic dispatch of the CU

To allow an analysis of the need for adapting the currently prevailing

regulatory framework, the concept neglects some aspects of this (e.g.
regarding energy prices) to investigate an economically and overall
optimal systemic integration of CU. For this purpose, the stock
market prices for power and natural gas – used as input factors for
the decision making of the CU operator – exclude taxes and other
charges. In addition, it is assumed that the current energy-specific
natural gas price can be applied to hydrogen. With the help of the Fig. 3 Section of the gas grid model

CIRED, Open Access Proc. J., 2020, Vol. 2020, Iss. 1, pp. 70–73
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons 71
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
 Fig. 5 Power line loading over 1 year

Fig. 4 SimBench power grid model
grid can be divided into strands with an open ring topology. For the
purpose of visibility, the strands are numbered in the order shown in
Fig. 4. Due to the open ring topology, and considering the N − 1
criterion, a maximum load of 60% of the maximum thermal
current is assumed for the power lines [8]. In addition, 105.5% of
the nominal voltage is assumed as the upper voltage limit and
96.5% as the lower voltage limit.
3.4 Synthesis: SimBench power grid scenario 2034
A first preliminary power grid analysis showed that problems as
thermal power line overloads or voltage limit occur in particular at
strand 1 and strand 2. At strand 1 these problems are caused by an
increased feed-in of wind energy. On strand 2, on the other hand,
the voltage dip (node with minimum voltage in the grid) is found
at node 96, in 72% of all simulated time steps over the year. In the
following, the scenario developed within the project SimBench [7]
for the year 2034 is applied to both strands. The scenario for
generation capacity (2034) is applied to strand 1 and the load
scenario to strand 5. The scenario is applied to these two strands,
each equipped with one CU (PtG respectively CHP), to enable the
demonstration of the advantages of the proposed method in a lucid
manner.
steps over the year. It was found that the problems occur locally
(only a few lines are affected). These are lines, which are located
in strands 1 and 2. In strand 1, limit value violations occur
frequently, whereas, in strand 2, these occur only occasionally
over the year.
4.2 Technical results – conventional grid expansion
To prevent limit value violations in the power grid, the power lines in
the affected grid sections can be conventionally reinforced. For this
purpose, a standard 240 mm2 line (NA2XS2Y 1 × 240) replaces the
overloaded lines. Fig. 6 shows the results for the line loading in
percent after the grid reinforcement. It can be seen that no more
limit violations occur for the described scenario. The grid
expansion activities in strands 1 and 2 and the assumed costs are
summarised in Table 1.
4.3 Technical results – integrated planning
If instead of grid expansion the presented concept is applied to the
energy grids with the respective scenario, all limit violations can
also be successfully eliminated by the use of the CU. For this
purpose, a 1 MW electrical power PtG unit was placed on strand 1
(node 14) and a 2.1 MW electrical power CHP unit (with an
additional 2.4 MW heat output) on strand 2 (node 96). The results
for the power line loading are shown in Fig. 7.

3.5 Use cases

4.4 Economic results and comparison to grid expansion
The net present value (NPV) is considered as the evaluation
parameter to compare conventional grid expansion with the Table 2 shows the economic results for a comparison between
alternative use of grid services provided by CU. Two use cases are conventional grid expansion and the usage of grid serving CU
examined: the use of the CU exclusively for grid services (3) and
the multi-use of the CU (4).

NPVgrid services = RGO − CAPEX − OPEX (3)

NPVmulti-use = RGO + RUO − CAPEX-OPEX (4)

R stands for the revenues, which can be generated by the grid

operator (GO) and/or the unit operator (UO). The CAPEX and
OPEX are related to the CU.

4 Simulation results

The results of the simulation entail the power grid state for the Fig. 6 Power line loading after grid expansion
scenario and the technical and financial results of the conventional
grid expansion as well as of the case with grid serving operation
of the CU.
Table 1 Power line reinforcement at strands 1 and 2

4.1 Analysis of the power grid Line Strand Line length, km CAPEX, €/km OPEX

1–3, 11 1 4.95 122,000 1%/a. from CAPEX

As shown in Fig. 5, the described scenario causes a violation of the 75–77 2 0.53 122,000 1%/a. from CAPEX
maximum thermal current (Ith) of some power lines in several time

CIRED, Open Access Proc. J., 2020, Vol. 2020, Iss. 1, pp. 70–73
72 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)

Fig. 7 Power line loading after grid serving CU operating
Table 2 Economic results (NPV for the year 2020)
Strand Grid expansion, € Grid serving CU, € Multi-use CU, €
1 −251,473.03 −436.817,92 −393.080,40
2 −27,122.21 −426.165,85 191.492,10
(integrated planning case). The values correspond to the NPV for the
year 2020. Overall, it can be noticed that for both strand 1 (PtG) and
strand 2 (CHP) the exclusive grid serving usage of the CU is not
profitable compared to grid expansion. This result is coherent with
other available literature (e.g. [9]). For the multi-use case, the
utilisation of the CU is profitable for strand 2 (CHP) due to the
high revenues of the UO and relatively low negative revenues of
the GO. However, strand 1 (PtG) is not profitable and, compared
to grid expansion, more expensive. This is due to the high
CAPEX and the low revenues of the PtG unit. For the economic
analysis of the PtG unit, a CAPEX of 842.80 €/kW [10] has been
used. For the used set of assumptions, CAPEX would need to
drop below 440 €/kW to make a business case. However, the
literature clearly indicates that the impact on the PtG potential of
system drivers (ambitious GHG reduction targets, high PV and
wind capacities, high CO2 prices, regulatory framework,
unavailability of CCS and biomass potential) is significantly
higher than the influence of technology drivers (efficiency,
CAPEX, subsidies) [11, 12].
5 Conclusions
The simulation of a concept for an integrated power and gas grid
planning is presented in this paper. The application of the concept
to exemplary data shows that a better overall systemic optimum
CIRED, Open Access Proc. J., 2020, Vol. 2020, Iss. 1, pp. 70–73
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
can be found. However, this requires close cooperation between
the two parties responsible for infrastructure planning in the two
sectors and the operators of CU. The multi-use employment of CU
increases the economic viability. In general, from the point of
view of the grid operator, grid expansion is in the simulated case
and under the considered assumptions the most favourable option.
However, CUs are important and necessary actors, not only to
maintain the stability of the power grid, but also, for example, for
the defossilisation of other demand sectors. The regulatory
framework must be designed in a way that allows investments in
and the operation of CU with the desired effect.
6 Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Kopernikus
project ENSURE ‘New ENergy grid StructURes for the German
Energiewende’.
7 References
1 Yang, F., Yuan, X., Bai, H., et al.: ‘Collaborative planning of integrated natural gas
and power supply system considering P2G technique’, 2018
2 Sun, K., Yin, W., Li, C.: ‘Optimal planning model for integrated district energy
systems considering electricity and gas distribution networks’, IEEE PES Innov.
Smart Grid Technol. Asia, Chengdu, China, May 2019, pp. 1733–1738
3 Ghasemi, H., Aghaei, J., Gharehpetian, G.B., et al.: ‘Effect of smart multiple hub
planning on distribution networks integrated expansion’, 2019 International
Conference on Smart Energy Systems and Technologies (SEST), Porto,
Portugal, September 2019, pp. 1–6
4 Sillaber, A.: ‘Leitfaden zur verteilnetzplanung und systemgestaltung’, 2016,
pp. 133–142
5 DVGW Deutscher Verein des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V.: ‘Arbeitsblatt DVGW
G262 (A)’, 2011
6 Ruf, J., Zimmerlin, M., Sauter, P.S., et al.: ‘Simulation framework for multi-carrier
energy systems with power-to-gas and combined heat and power’, 2018
7 Spalthoff, C., Sarajlic, D., Kittl, C., et al.: ‘Simbench: open source time series of
power load, storage and generation for the simulation of electrical distribution
grids’. Int. ETG-Congress, Esslingen, Germany, 2019, pp. 1–6
8 Gwisdorf, B., Stepanescu, S., Rehtanz, C.: ‘Effects of demand side management on
the planning and operation of distribution grids’, 2010
9 Robinius, M., Raje, T., Nykamp, S., et al.: ‘Power-to-gas: electrolyzers as an
alternative to network expansion – an example from a distribution system
operator’, Appl. Energy, 2018, 210, pp. 182–197
10 Gorre, J., Ortloff, F., van Leeuwen, C.: ‘Production costs for synthetic methane in
2030 and 2050 of an optimized power-to-gas plant with intermediate hydrogen
storage’, Appl. Energy, 2019, 253, article 113594
11 Blanco, H., Nijs, W., Ruf, J., et al.: ‘Potential for hydrogen and power-to-liquid in a
low-carbon EU energy system using cost optimization’, Appl. Energy, 2018, 232,
pp. 617–639
12 Liu, W., Wen, F., Xue, Y.: ‘Power-to-gas technology in energy systems: current
status and prospects of potential operation strategies’, J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean
Energy, 2017, 5, (3), pp. 439–450
73