Assessment and Mitigation of Temporary
Overvoltages on Distribution Feeders with High
Penetration of Distributed Energy Resources
2021 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference - Latin America (ISGT Latin America) | 978-1-6654-4421-7/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ISGTLATINAMERICA52371.2021.9543079
Alexandre B. Nassif
LUMA Energy and ATCO
PR, United States
nassif@ieee.org
ORCID: 0000-0001-6279-5222
Abstract—Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) are
proliferating in distribution systems across most jurisdictions.
As distribution system operators work towards interconnecting
DERs, they experience new issues that require thorough
assessment and mitigation. Among these issues, one such
example is coping with intensified Temporary Overvoltage
(TOV) on un-faulted phases that results from a system
reconfiguration that causes the distribution system to no longer
be effectively grounded. In particular, inverter-based DERs
and/or certain preferred step-up transformer configurations
lead to worse TOV levels than those experienced in typical
distribution systems pre-DER connection. TOVs pose insulators
and surge arrestors at risk. Currently, there remains a gap in
distribution planning of most jurisdictions in formulating the
aspects of performance grounding and adopting simple and
practical measures to overcome the challenge. This paper
provides an overview and analytical evaluation of TOVs in
modern distribution systems with high DER penetration and
introduces mitigation options, including assessment and design
procedures of effective ground sources. Two real distribution
systems of a Canadian electric utility are presented as case
studies to illustrate the problem definition and proposed
mitigation strategies adopted in the project execution.
Keywords—Distributed Energy Resources, Inverter-Based
Generation, Temporary Overvoltage, Coefficient of Grounding
I. INTRODUCTION
Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) have been
proliferating in most jurisdictions across the globe for the past
decades. In recent years, the number of regulatory measures
and government mandates has incented their adoption in large
scale. One example is the shift in oil and gas industry
operation, which in order to meet government regulations no
longer can vent, flare or incinerate byproduct gas that results
from oil extraction [1], leading to higher adoption of gas-fired
generation plants. A second example of regulatory measures
was observed in the form of incentives such as the now
deceased Ontario Fit-In-Tariff (FIT) program and Alberta
Renewable Electricity Program (REP) [2]-[3]. This resulted in
many DER interconnection requests as large as 25MW
(individually) per distribution feeder. Technical challenges
inevitably arise with this level of penetration, which were
unplanned for when distribution systems were initially built to
supply load only.
The main challenges of interconnecting DERs have been
identified as voltage management [4], distribution feeder
protection coordination [5], non-intentional islanding
prevention [6], and maintaining effective grounding [7]. In
response, IEEE Std 1547 in its latest revision [8] ensures
978-1-6654-4421-7/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA SALESIANA. Downloaded on July 04,2022 at 23:56:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
DERs have provisions to integrate more seamlessly into
distribution grids. However, performance grounding
requirements are not addressed in this standard and industry
still faces associated problems. In fact, it is not addressed in
most international DER interconnection guides [9]. The
authors of [10] addressed Temporary Overvoltage (TOV)
concerns due to DER, but only during unintentional islanding.
The authors of [7] describe these issues but are focused on the
application in microgrids. To the knowledge of this
researcher, there remains a gap in distribution planning of
many jurisdictions on how to properly formulate the aspects
of performance grounding as high penetration of DERs is
experienced, and to adopt simple and practical measures to
overcome the challenge.
In response, the research contained in this paper addresses
the impact of DERs on utility performance grounding by (1)
analytically formulating distribution system TOV, (2)
reviewing the definitions and criteria of an effectively
grounded system according to IEEE Std 142 [11], (3)
evaluating mitigation options to add ground sources and
improve the Degree of Grounding, and (4) introducing a
procedure for designing and building grounding transformers
to mitigate the risk of TOV. A focal point of the paper is to
present two case studies based on real synchronous DER
interconnections, highlighting the performance grounding
deficiencies and the mitigation strategy adopted by the electric
utility. The first case study is a large DER interconnected to
an existing load site supplied by the interconnected
distribution grid, and the second case study is the planning and
operation of an isolated distribution grid, where the DER and
many load sites are owned by a single customer and the
distribution infrastructure was built, owned and operated by
the electric utility. The author expects the experience shared
in this manuscript will be useful to utility engineers in their
planning and interconnection of DERs.
II. REVIEW OF EFFECTIVE GROUNDING AND TEMPORARY
OVERVOLTAGES
IEEE Std. C62.92.1 states “[t]here is no simple answer to
the application of grounding. Each of a number of possible
solutions to a grounding problem has at least one feature that
is outstanding, but which is obtained at some sacrifice of
other features that may be equally worthy” [13]. From an
electric utility standpoint, there are different options to
achieve grounding objectives that have advantages and
disadvantages. In modern systems, DERs are prevalent and
their application is further proliferating. There are issues with
the application of different grounding schemes. Fig. 1 shows
 a typical distribution feeder and a large DER, or the
aggregation of multiple DERs. This section will define
important parameters used to evaluate the ground
effectiveness of this system.
Fig. 1. Simplified distribution system with a connected DER.
A. Degree of Grounding and Effective Grounding
IEEE Std. 142 [11] contains the requirements for a system
to be considered effectively grounded. It defines the
parameter Degree of Grounding (K) as
= .
According to this standard:
1. If X0/X1 < 3, and R0/X1 < 1, the system is called
effectively grounded.
2. The TOV ratio can be represented as a function of
K.
This definition, however, is a specific case of the more
accurate definition of effective grounding presented in [12]
which more comprehensively defines effective grounding as
a system with the Coefficient of Grounding (see below) <
80%. For the specific case of Z1 = Z2, and under certain X/R
ratios, the ratios defined in item 1 apply. This is a good
approximation for systems with synchronous DERs, but an
incorrect application for systems with inverter-based DERs.
B. Temporary Overvoltage (TOV)
Temporary Overvoltage can be calculated as the ratio
between the highest phase voltage of an un-faulted phase
during a ground fault and the pre-fault. It can be demonstrated
(proof omitted for conciseness) that TOV can be expressed as:
= + 1∠ − 120°
This equation allows concluding:
• For K = 0 (Z0 = 0), TOV = 0.86;
• For K = 1 (Z0 = Z1), TOV = 1 (fully grounded);
• For K = 3, TOV = 1.25 (degree of grounding
boundary);
• For K = ∞ (Z0 = ∞), TOV = √3 (ungrounded).
C. Coefficient of Grounding and Effective Grounding
The term coefficient of grounding (COG) can be
calculated as the highest rms line-to-ground power-frequency
voltage on an un-faulted phase during a line-to-ground fault
affecting one or more phases [13]:
!"#$ %& '(&)#* +,-./01 23-456
= .
!"#$ %& !"#$ +7.8 23-456
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA SALESIANA. Downloaded on July 04,2022 at 23:56:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The effective grounding condition is that of the COG not
exceeding 80%. This is approximately equivalent to the
conditions presented in subsection A.
D. Grounding Practices when Integrating DERs
The most prominent DER interconnection standards, such
[8] and [14], address grounding aspects of DER
interconnection. However, no standard prescribes a definite
transformer winding configuration. As explained in [7], some
utilities have strict requirements and do not allow a DER
transformer connection configured as a Delta LV – Yg MV,
because this transformer provides a low impedance ground
path that reduces the ground current flowing supplied by
upstream protective devices, an effect analytically quantified
in [5]. However, the configuration (Delta LV – Yg MV) has
many advantages:
- Improving K, resulting in a solution to improving
grounding in weak systems supplied by small
conductor sizes (the case of this paper).
(1)
- Large synchronous DGs often require an ungrounded,
or high impedance grounded system, typically
through an NGR. This is often done to avoid
overheating and consequential damage due to
elevated single-line to ground fault levels at the
generator side.
- Large string inverters and central inverters are
sometimes connected in Delta and this configuration
provides a ground path.
Hence, a distribution system grounding reference can be
achieved by employing a Delta LV – grounded wye MV or
by installing a grounding transformer.
III. GROUNDING TRANSFORMER DESIGN
Grounding transformers can be constructed by using
different configurations. In distribution system applications,
a grounding transformer is typically a Zig-Zag-Delta or an
Yg-Delta. The grounding transformer provides a ground
source as illustrated in Fig. 2, which shows the system zero-
sequence network of an ungrounded power system source
equivalent (coupled with a Yg-Yg transformer, which does
not provide a ground source on its own) with the additional
(2) ground path provided by the grounding transformer. The
grounding transformer provides a low impedance path for
ground current.
This electrical utility has had experience designing and
building its own grounding transformers as Yg-Delta units.
Fig. 3 explains the design procedure as follows. In a system
with ZS1 and Zs0 impedances at a given location, a grounding
transformer with ZT1 and ZT0 is installed.
Transformer Z0
Grounding
Transformer Z0
(3) Fig. 2. Illustration of a grounding transformer connection to an
ungrounded power system.
 Coupling). The DER was installed about 23km away from the
substation through a feeder that is composed by a mixture of
3x266 ACSR and 3x1/0 ACSR. This customer was originally
served by a 10MVA delta-Yg transformer (Yg on the low
side; to note, the neutral was grounded through a neutral
grounding resistor [NGR]). Given the fact the system is weak
at this location, and that the interconnection transformer does
not provide a source of ground, the system is not effectively
Fig. 3. Illustration of a grounding transformer connection a generic
power system and how it impacts the zero-sequence equivalent network. grounded. Table I shows some of the system parameters,
showing that the ratios X0/X1 and R0/X1 do not meet the
The new zero sequence system impedance Z0_New can be criteria to be considered effectively grounded. In addition, the
calculated as (it is assumed the grounding transformer does TOV can reach up to 1.49 p.u. and the COG is above 80%.
not significantly affect the system positive-sequence
impedance):

_:8; = < ∕∕ > (4)

Utilizing the criterion for effective grounding, ZT0 can be
obtained, and the transformer rating can then be calculated by
?= % A3B8 × ⁄ > (5)
Fig. 5. Equivalent system representation of Case Study #1, showing the
Furthermore, the transformer needs to be properly rated grounding transformer banks.
and not be damaged during system faults, as described in [13]
(essentially the transformer damage curve). This results in a Employing the design as per Section III, a grounding
combination of clearing times and fault current contribution transformer of about 600kVA and %Z = 2.5% should be
by the transformer, which can be conservatively obtained by installed. This was calculated as follows:
applying a bolted or low impedance fault near the high side
of the transformer by using any commercial short-circuit E _:8; =3× < = 17.2 Ω (6)
software and capturing the zero-sequence fault contribution This equation results in
by the transformer (effectively 3 x IT0). The derived damage
IJ_K$L ×IMJ
curve as prescribed by [15] is derived and illustrated in Fig. E> = H N = 26.12 Ω (7)
4 (decaying curve). For further illustration, the figure also IJ_K$L IMJ

shows the fault contribution of a 225KVA grounding Using (5), ST is calculated as 600kVA (minimum size
transformer (obtained from short-circuit software) in the required). The 2.5% transformer percent impedance is being
vertical line. For the example presented in this figure, the quoted here because the electric utility has single-phase units
transformer is contributing about 7 times its rated current to with this impedance in its warehouse. Hence, the largest units
the ground fault, and it will suffer damage if the fault persists that can be easily assembled with off-the-shelf overhead
longer than 28 seconds, implying that for practical clearing warehouse materials are 225kVA (three single-phase units of
times, the transformer has been properly sized. 75kVA). To avoid procuring transformers for this
application, the electric utility builds its grounding
Fault Current & Tx. Withstand Capability (IEEE C57.109)
60 transformers in 225kVA blocks. To meet the requirement,
55
50
three units, totalling 675kVA, are required. However, these
45 transformers are protected by fuses (each block of 225kVA is
40 individually fused) and therefore are not monitored. Only
Time (secs.)

35
30
periodic field checks can determine if one of them is
25 damaged. For this reason, four banks of 225kVA were
20
Y-D Transformer Damage Curve installed for redundancy, resulting in the new system
15
10
Per unit fault current (Io) in Y-D Tx. characteristics also shown in Table I. This table shows the
5 impact of the solution, which now results in an effectively
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 grounded system that exhibits TOV less than 1.2p.u. and
Per unit current (Io) on transformer base COG below 70%.
Fig. 4. Transformer damage curve vs. per-unit ground current supplied
by the transformer during fault. TABLE I. SYSTEM INFORMATION BEFORE GROUNDING SOLUTION
ADOPTED
IV. CASE STUDIES Before Grounding Transformer After Grounding Transformer
Two case studies are presented to illustrate the challenges Generator 10MW Generator 10MW
and mitigations adopted to modify the system characteristics disconnected Generator disconnected Generator
R0 14.94 14.94 2.85 2.85
in a way it becomes effectively grounded. The first study R1 9.91 1.63 9.91 1.63
addresses the case of a grid-connected DER and the second X0 50.3 50.3 12.74 12.74
study addresses the case of an isolated grid. X1 12.95 5.73 12.95 5.73
X 0/ X 1 3.88 8.78 0.98 2.22
A. Case Study #1 – Grid Connected Distribution System R 0/ X 1 1.15 2.61 0.22 0.5
Fig. 5 shows the distribution system where a developer K 3.22 8.81 0.8 2.19
installed a 10MW DER adjacent to an existing load site. The TOV 1.36 1.49 1.1 1.2
DER location is identified as PCC (Point of Common COG 0.79 0.86 0.63 0.69

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA SALESIANA. Downloaded on July 04,2022 at 23:56:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 4 shows the transformer withstand capability curve
and maximum clearing time. For this condition, the clearing
time must not exceed 25 seconds, a requirement easily
achievable, since this is an interconnected distribution grid.
Fig. 6 shows Electromagnetic Transient (EMT) simulations
obtained by using software package EMTP-RV for a bolted
ground fault near the PCC and the response in time domain.
Fig. 6a. shows the aggravated TOV of close to 1.5p.u. that
results from the new system configuration (fault occurs at
0.3s), whereas Fig. 6b shows its reduced value of 1.2p.u.
when the 4 grounding transformers are installed (fault occurs
at 0.5s).

Fig. 7. Equivalent system representation of Case Study #2.

Voltage [kV]

Table III shows the results obtained for the Base Case (no
grounding banks at all – note that R0, X0, X0/R1, R0/X1 are
termed 99999 but those are values close to infinity, as only
line charging capacitances provide zero sequence path to
ground). For this condition, the transformer clearing time, as
given by the withstand capability curve (see Fig. 8), is about
1.19 seconds, which is reasonably achievable for such small
a. distribution system.

Fault Current & Tx. Withstand Capability (IEEE C57.109)

60
Voltage [kV]

55
50
45
40
Time (secs.)

35
30
25
20
Y-D Transformer Damage Curve
15
Per unit fault current (Io) in Y-D Tx.
10
5
b.
0
Fig. 6. Time-domain response to a ground fault post-DG connection, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Per unit current (Io) on transformer base
(a) base case, and (b) with the grounding transformer installed
Fig. 8. Transformer damage curve vs. per-unit ground current supplied
B. Case Study #2 – Isolated Distribution System by the transformer during fault for Case Study #2.
The second case study is an isolated grid supplied by the
TABLE II. SYSTEM INFORMATION WITH THE FOUR BANK
utility. The total installed generation was about 5.2 MW to GROUNDING SOLUTION ADOPTED
supply about 3 MVA of load. The electric utility procures all
transformers 5MVA and above with a delta-Yg configuration Base 1 GND 2 GND 3 GND
Case bank banks banks
(delta on high voltage side) for reasons beyond the scope of
R0 99999 17 12.5 10
this paper. As a result, the MV distribution system would be R1 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
supplied by the delta winding, not suitable to supply line-to- X0 99999 66.8 50 40
ground loads and not having provision for zero sequence X1 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3
unbalance due to the absence of ground sources. As a result, X 0/ X 1 99999 3.6 2.74 2.1
the system base case has infinite X0. as shown in Table II. R 0/ X 1 99999 0.91 0.69 0.55
The system configuration is illustrated in Fig. 7. K 99999 3.8 2.8 2.3
TOV 1.6 1.58 1.48 1.42
For this system, the electric utility followed the same COG 0.92 0.914 0.91 0.9
design procedures and found that two grounding banks are
required to bring the system to an effectively grounded Fig. 9 shows EMT (time-domain) simulations,
condition. In fact, the grounding transformer nameplate highlighting the impact of the grounding transformer (fault
would need to be 285kVA with %Z of 2.5%. Rounding that occurs at 0.3s and 0.5s) on TOV.
up to the next existing transformer, it would be two banks of
225 kVA, as this is the building block used for this
application, as explained in the previous case study. For the
same reasons presented in the previous case study, an extra
bank is employed for redundancy.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA SALESIANA. Downloaded on July 04,2022 at 23:56:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

a.
b.
Fig. 9. Time-domain response to a ground fault post-DG connection,
(a) base case, and (b) with the grounding transformer installed
V. CONCLUSIONS
The focus of this paper was to present a methodology for
assessing performance grounding and proposing practical
mitigation schemes that could become employed by industry
in general. It delves in the practical aspects of designing and
constructing grounding transformers to convert an
ineffectively grounded power system into effectively
grounded power systems. The coefficient of grounding,
degree of grounding, and effective ground criteria are used
and monitored for these cases, which contain synchronous
DERs. These applications, as adopted in this manuscript,
provide a good approximation to synchronous DERs, but
should not be employed to inverter-based DERs because their
negative-sequence impedance would impact X0/X1 and R0/X1
ratios relate to effective grounding.
The main highlights of the paper are:
- A review of power system performance grounding
assessment.
- A method to design grounding transformers,
including practical aspects of construction.
- The presentation of two real case studies along with
grounding transformer design and EMT simulations.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD POLITECNICA SALESIANA. Downloaded on July 04,2022 at 23:56:18 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
- The monitoring of system parameters as they pertain
to performance grounding.
The main contribution of the paper is the guidance to
electric utilities facing high penetration of DERs on how to
perform grounding assessment and share knowledge on
mitigation options.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is grateful to ATCO for allowing him to
execute this project and gain industry insight on several
aspects of power system grounding. The author acknowledges
the support of Prof. Xu of the University of Alberta.
REFERENCES
[1] Alberta Energy Regulator Directive 060: Upstream Petroleum Industry
Flaring, Incinerating, and Venting.
[2] http://www.ieso.ca/Sector-Participants/Feed-in-Tariff-
Program/Overview
[3] https://www.aeso.ca/market/renewable-electricity-program/
[4] C. L. Masters, “Voltage rise – the big issue when connecting embedded
generation to long 11kV overhead lines,” IEE Power Enegineering
Journal, vol. 16, Feb 2002, pp. 5-12.
[5] A. B. Nassif, “An analytical assessment of feeder overcurrent
protection with large penetration of distributed energy resources”,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 5400-5407, Sept./Oct. 2018.
[6] An Assessment of DG Islanding Detection Methods and Issues for
Canada CETC Varennes 2004-074 (TR) 411-INVERT, July, 2004.
[7] A. Vukojevic, S. Lukic, “Microgrid protection and control schemes for
seamless transition to island and grid synchronization”, IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, Early Access.
[8] IEEE 1547-2018 - IEEE Standard for Interconnection and
Interoperability of Distributed Energy Resources with Associated
Electric Power Systems Interfaces.
[9] R. Torquato, T. R. Ricciardi, D. Salles, T. Barbosa, H. F. F. Costa,
“Review of international guides for the interconnection of distributed
generation into low voltage distribution networks”, 2012 PES General
Meeting.
[10] L. Chen, J. Zhao, R. Liu, F. Velez-Cedeno, H. Liu, Y. Liu, “Distributed
energy resource overvoltage during un-intentional islanding”, 2019
IEEE IAS Annual Meeting, Sept./Oct. 2019.
[11] IEEE Std. 142-2007 - IEEE Recommended Practice for Grounding of
Industrial and Commercial Power Systems (IEEE Green Book).
[12] "IEEE Guide for the Application of Metal-Oxide Surge Arresters for
Alternating-Current Systems," in IEEE Std C62.22-2009 (Revision of
IEEE Std C62.22-1997) , vol., no., pp.1-142, 3 July 2009, doi:
10.1109/IEEESTD.2009.6093926.
[13] IEEE Std. C62.92.1-2019 – IEEE Guide for the Application of Neutral
Grounding in Electrical Utility Systems—Part I: Introduction.
[14] Canadian Standards Association CSA C22.3 No. 9:20. Interconnection
of distributed energy resources and electricity supply systems
[15] IEEE Std. C57.109-2018 - IEEE Guide for Liquid-Immersed
Transformers Through-Fault-Current Duration.