Demand Response and Solar to Mitigate Peak Load
Ward Jewell
Tushar Sethi
Department of Electrical Engineering &
Computer Science
Wichita State University, Kansas
txsethi@shockers.wichita.edu
Abstract—Six hundred houses were simulated in this study
of the effect of varying solar photovoltaic penetration levels on
peak load. In the simulations, demand response (DR) was
implemented in the form of air conditioner (AC) load control
to reduce the peak load. Results show that solar generation
decreases the peak AC load, but this reduction diminishes as
solar penetration increases. On the other hand, depending
upon how demand response is implemented, the peak load may
increase, decrease, or remain unchanged. GridLAB-D, a power
system simulation tool, was used for research purpose.
Keywords—Demand Response, PV Generation, GridLAB-D
I. INTRODUCTION
For a number of years, many states have been actively
pushing to increase their capacity of renewable energy.
According to data published in January 2019 [1], Arizona
has set a target to reach 15% of total electric generation
through renewables by 2025, California’s target is to reach
44% by 2024 and 100% by 2045, and so on. Furthermore,
according to data published in November 2018 [2] California
has already achieved 12,194 MW from distributed generation
and 17,260 MW from large-scale renewable generation.
Previous research [3,4,5,6] has involved the examination
of the effect of thermal integrity and air conditioner (AC)
sizing, comparison of peak load and ramping with and
without demand response by controlling AC load, and
assessing a house’s indoor temperature for occupant comfort
based on a temperature range of 67-83°F, according to
ASHRAE standard 55-2010 [7] [8]. As states are
increasingly adopting renewables, our research addresses two
issues:
1. The effect of different percentages of photovoltaic
(PV) penetration on peak demand.
2. The effect of demand response (DR) in the form of
controlling the AC load to further reduce peak load.
For research purposes, 600 houses were simulated using
GridLAB-D, a power system simulation tool.
II. PREVIOUS WORK
A previous study [3] implemented DR by controlling the
AC operation to mitigate variability in solar generation, in
order to reduce the net ramp rate arising from variations in
solar power generation.
Another study [4] evaluated the effect of different
thermal integrities of the houses for both oversized and
properly sized air conditioners. The same group assessed the
effect of peak load and ramping by implementing a 50% PV
penetration. In addition, DR was implemented by controlling
AC load to reduce the peak demand.
978-1-7281-0407-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Department of Electrical Engineering &
Computer Science
Wichita State University, Kansas
ward.jewell@wichita.edu
One study [5] found that improving thermal integrity and
using an appropriate-sized air conditioner while
implementing DR in the form of cycling the AC on/off could
reduce peak demand. Residential occupant comfort may be
degraded during DR events [6], depending on the thermal
integrity of the house and size of the air conditioner.
This paper extends these previous results by adding
varying levels of residential or community PV generation.
The effect of PV generation alone, as well as combined with
DR air conditioning, is evaluated. No previous research was
found to address these issues.
III. RESEARCH APPROACH
In this study, a residential module of the GridLAB-D tool
was utilized for simulating 600 homes with PV generation
and a DR program that controls air conditioning during peak
events. GridLAB-D is an open-source power distribution
system simulation and analysis tool [9]. At the core of
GridLAB-D is the agent-based algorithm coordinating
millions of independent devices simultaneously which are
described by multiple differential equations. This algorithm
results in better handling of unusual situations and different
time scales compared to traditional simulators based on finite
differences. This provides valuable information to users in
designing and operating electric power transmission and
distribution systems, and utilities for taking advantage of the
latest smart grid technology [9].
GridLAB-D was developed by the U.S. Department of
Energy at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in
Richland, Washington [9] under funding provided by the
Office of Electricity.
For research purposes, a single-family home model of the
GridLAB-D residential module was simulated. The floor
area of the single-story structure was considered to be
2,500 ft2 with the tool’s default parameters [10][11] and the
house design from the work of Jewell [5]. For variability,
600 houses were simulated with a floor area of 2,500 ft2 +
10% (using random function) and properly sized air
conditioner. A properly sized AC is one that maintains the
indoor air temperature at 75°F (74 + 1°F for 2°F thermostat
deadband) for 97.5% of the hours for a cooling season of
June through September [7] [12].
Since more efficient homes would have lower electric
energy use and thereby less opportunity to reduce the peak
load [5], houses with good thermal integrity, as defined by
GridLAB-D, as shown in Table I, were used for this study to
prevent biased results from houses with poor or normal
thermal integrity. On average, the demand response
programs turn off more of the properly sized ACs, as shown
in Table II, compared to oversized ACs [5], because properly
sized ACs run continuously compared to oversized units that
cycle off once they reach 73°F. Thus, properly sized ACs For July 15, 2003, the maximum outdoor temperature
were used in this study because they run continuously and, was 107.01°F, and the minimum was 77.16°F, with an
hence, will always be available to be cycled on and off for average of 90.88°F. For the houses in this study, the
the DR program. thermostat was set to 74°F for the duration and not subjected
to the DR program.
TABLE I: HOUSE THERMAL INTEGRITY [3]
IV. RESULTS
Little Normal Good
(old home, (old home, (very well A. PV Output without DR
insulated) upgraded) insulated)
R-value, walls To address the first issue of this research, the demand of
19 30 30 houses simulated was recorded before using PV. Figure 2
(°F-ft²-hr/Btu)
R-value, ceilings 11 11 19 shows the air conditioning demand per minute from the
GridLAB-D simulation. The peak load for 600 houses was
R-value, floors 4 19 22 1,670 kW for the day. The demand started increasing
R-value, doors 3 3 5 between 4 and 5 am, and by 9 am, the demand crossed 1,500
R-value, windows 1.2 1.7 2.1 kW and stayed in a similar range for the next 9 hours before
Air exchanges decreasing.
1.5 1.0 0.5
per hour

TABLE II : AIR CONDITIONER SIZING [3]

Sample
Thermal Integrity A/C Size (Btu/hr)
No.
1 Little 87,900 (oversized)
2 Little 56,800 (proper size)
3 Normal 56,800 (oversized)
4 Normal 36,350 (proper size)
5 Good 36,350 (oversized)
6 Good 28,550 (proper size)

PV cells of the single crystal silicon type with efficiency
of 15% were used. PV penetrations of 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%,
80%, 100%, and 120% were simulated. A 100% PV
penetration means that the annual energy generated by the
PV cell is equal to the energy consumed by the houses
during the year. Subsequently, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and
120% PV penetration means that the annual energy
generated by the PV is 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, and 120%,
respectively, to the energy consumed by the houses during
the year.
Fig 2. Demand without PV
Next, the power generated from PV cells was recorded,
and the graph in Figure 3 shows the pattern of solar
generation of 20% PV penetration. There was one instance of
cloud lasting for 3 minutes at time 17:56 as is evident by a
sudden drop in generation. The peak solar generation was in
the range of 440 kW, and for 6 hours, the energy generated
was more than 400 kW before dropping to nearly zero in the
evening after 6 pm.

Because peak demand is the focus of this research, a

clear, hot summer day was used. Lamont, Oklahoma, US,
was selected as its one minute solar radiation data was
available. July 15, was the hottest day of the year. The
indoor and outdoor temperatures for the default house are
shown in Figure 1.

Fig 3. PV output (for 20% PV penetration)

Figure 4 shows the demand pattern with 20% PV

penetration, which includes a spike due to clouds. For this
study, that three minutes of data was not considered because
it lasted for such a short instance and would have resulted in
unreliable results for peak load, especially at higher PV
penetration.
Fig 1. Indoor and outdoor temperatures for default house
 The graph in Figure 5 represents the demand pattern
observed after removing the spike that resulted from the
short duration of clouds. For this research, the cloud data was
excluded, so these results represent a completely clear day
with no clouds. The AC peak demand was reduced to
1,410 kW, a 15.6% reduction from the base case with no PV.
peak load; however, the difference was significant only for
the initial 40% PV penetration. The peak load decreased by
15.56% for the first 20% PV penetration and by 22.15% for
another 20% increase in PV penetration. After the 40% PV
penetration, the decrease was barely 6 percentage points for
40% through 120% PV penetration.

Fig 4. Demand with 20% PV with cloud

Fig 6. Percentage change of peak demand reduction from no PV vs

percent point change of peak demand reduction while adding
another 20% PV penetration

The graph in Figure 7 compares the variation of demand

with PV generation for 40% PV penetration. Comparing the
demand at 20% from Figure 5, by increasing the PV
penetration to 40% the demand requirement was brought
down further from 06:00 to 18:00, after which the solar
generation dropped to nearly zero.

Fig 5. Demand with 20% PV after removing cloud

Simulations were repeated for 40%, 60%, 80%, 100%,

and 120% PV penetrations, and the results are summarized in
Table 3.

TABLE III: CHANGE IN PEAK DEMAND DUE TO PV

Percentage Drop in
PV Penetration Peak Demand
Peak Demand
(%) (kW)
Compared to No PV
0 (no PV) 1670.00 —
Fig 7. Demand vs PV power generation for 40% PV penetration
20 1410.00 15.56
40 1300.00 22.15 The graph in Figure 8 compares the variation of demand
60 1249.860 25.15 with the generation of electricity for 120% PV penetration. It
can be seen that the demand peaks around 18:00, which is
80 1223.650 26.71
when people from offices would be back at home and
100 1211.460 27.48 starting to use their air conditioners. On the other hand, solar
120 1199.270 28.20 generation starts dropping after 15:00 and is almost zero after
18:00. Hence, increasing the PV penetration after 40% PV
According to results of the simulaton of multiple PV generation will not have much effect in reducing the peak,
penetrations, the highest drop in peak level was when PV which is observed after 18:00.
penetration went from 0% to 20%. Also, there was a
significant drop when PV penetration was increased to 40%
from 20%. However, after the 40% PV penetration, the peak
demand drop started diminishing.
Figure 6 summarizes the percentage change in peak load
for different PV penetrations and percent point changes in
peak load while adding another 20% of PV penetration
capacity. From these results, the PV energy decreased the
 TABLE IV: CHANGE IN PEAK DEMAND DUE TO DR FOR CASE 1
Peak Peak Percentage
Solar
Demand Demand with Change in
Penetration
without DR DR Case 1 Peak
(%)
(kW) (kW) Demand
20 1410 1423 0.92
40 1300 1336 2.76
60 1249 1329 6.40
80 1223 1323 8.17
100 1211 1317 8.75
Fig 8. Demand vs PV power generation for 120% PV penetration 120 1200 1310 9.16

TABLE V: CHANGE IN PEAK DEMAND DUE TO DR FOR CASE 2

B. PV Output with DR
For each PV penetration, three cases of DR were Peak Peak Percentage
Solar
Demand Demand with Change in
simulated: Penetration
without DR DR Case 2 Peak
1. Air conditioners were cycled off for 30 minutes (%)
(kW) (kW) Demand
between 1830 and 1930 hours in 100 houses. The
20 1410 1452 2.97
thermostat was set to 74°F for the time when the air
conditioners were running. 40 1300 1452 11.69
2. Air conditioners were cycled off for 30 minutes 60 1249 1451 16.17
between 1800 and 2000 hours in 150 houses. 80 1223 1451 18.64
3. Air conditioners were cycled off for 30 minutes
between 1900 and 2000 hours in 75 houses. 100 1211 1451 19.73
120 1200 1451 20.80
The graph in Figure 9 compares the pattern (from top to
bottom) for demand without solar, demand with 20% solar TABLE VI: CHANGE IN PEAK DEMAND DUE TO DR FOR CASE 3
penetration, and demand during DR for cases 1, 2, and 3.
Results show that the load decreased during the DR time Peak Peak Percentage
Solar
period; however, based on how it is implemented, it could Demand Demand with Change in
Penetration
increase significantly once air conditioners are back on. This without DR DR case 3 Peak
(%)
(kW) (kW) Demand
is commonly referred to as “rebound” and occurs when the
DR event ends because all ACs that were cycled off begin to 20 1410 1428 1.27
start and run until the houses are cooled to the thermostat 40 1300 1297 –0.23
setting. 60 1249 1190 –4.72
80 1223 1101 –9.08
100 1211 1101 –9.08
120 1200 1101 –8.25
Note: Negative sign means demand decreases

TABLE VII: MAXIMUM INDOOR TEMPERATURE FOR HOUSES IN

DR PROGRAM (°F)
1800–1830 1830–1900 1900–1930 1930–2000
Hours Hours Hours Hours
Case 1 77.68 76.95 – –
Case 2 77.01 75.82 78.26 77.65
Fig 9. Top to bottom: demand without solar, with 20% solar, case Case 3 76.98 75.76 – –
1, case 2, and case 3
Note: Rows represent data only for those houses that were under DR
program for that particular time slot
Tables IV to VI summmarize the demand response data
for all three cases, and Table VII represents the indoor From the data collected, for case 1, the percentage
temperature of the houses that were subjected to the DR change in peak load increased as the solar penetration
program. As can be seen, the rebound effect increased the increased; however, this change was negligible after 60% PV
demand for cases 1 and 2. The reduced number of houses penetration. The maximum temperature reached 77.68°F,
included in case 3 allowed the demand to actually be reduced which is very well within the ASHRAE acceptable range of
by the DR event. 67–83°F.
 For case 2, a similar pattern was observed with DR. The
peak load increases as solar penetration increases for DR.
The increase in peak load was higher than the equivalent PV
penetration of case 1 because more houses were subjected to
the DR program and hence a higher number of air
conditioners resulting in the rebound effect. After the 60%
penetration, case 2 also resulted in a similar result as case 1,
with a negligible change in peak load. The maximum
temperature reached 78.26°F, which is very well within the
ASHRAE acceptable range.
For case 3, only a small number of houses were subjected
to the DR program compared to cases 1 and 2. The change in
peak load was less than 1.5% for the initial 40% of PV
penetration. This difference is not considered significant due
to marginal error in the simulator’s results. From the results
for case 3, as the PV penetration increases, the peak load
decreases. The maximum temperature reached 76.98°F,
which is again very well within the ASHRAE acceptable
range.
Based on these results, the DR program may increase or
decrease or may have no significant effect on the peak load,
depending upon the number of houses under the DR
program, the time period for cycling of the load, and PV
penetration.
From the above three cases, it can be seen that the greater
the number of houses subjected to DR, the higher the peak
load at the end of DR, due to the rebound effect of the air
conditioner. To obtain better results through the DR
program, a limited number of houses may be subjected to
DR, or the ACs should not be directly switched on to 74°F,
but instead the thermostat temperature could be gradually
lowered to 74°F over a span of a half hour to one hour
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This research simulated 600 houses on a distribution
feeder on a clear day in Lamont, Oklahoma. The objective of
the work here was to study the effect on peak load of
photovoltaic generation with and without demand response.
The DR program was implemented by cycling on and off the
air conditioner load. Houses with good thermal integrity
were simulated because more efficient homes already have
lower electric energy usage and thereby less opportunity to
reduce the peak load. Furthermore, properly sized ACs were
used for the DR program because they run almost
continuously on peak days and hence are more often
available to be cycled off and on for DR.
From the data obtained through simulation using
GridLAB-D, increasing the PV penetration from 0% to
120% in increments of 20% decreases the peak air
conditioning demand. The decrease in peak load is most
significant at lower PV penetrations, and the load reduction
obtained from additional PV decreases for PV penetrations
above 40%.
When DR is used with PV penetration, demand actually
increases for the cases with 100 and 150 houses that are
controlled. This is due to the rebound effect, whereby all
controlled ACs run simultaneously at the end of the DR
evening. Only for the 75 AC cases included in the DR
program was the demand actually reduced by the DR event.
This could be improved by redesigning the DR program.
The indoor temperature range was monitored and stayed
very well within the occupant’s comfort level based on the
ASHRAE acceptable temperature range of 67–83°F.
As the PV penetration increases, so does excess
generation. For the research here, excess generation has been
discarded. It would be interesting to use the excess energy to
cool the houses in advance below 74°F and then implement
DR to reduce the peak load. This would utilize the excess
energy and reduce resources for storing it with batteries, etc.
Ramp rates were not considered as part of this research.
Using DR may require high ramping if there are more houses
participating in the DR program. Future research could
consider ramp rate as well for an optimum number of houses
and the duration of DR.
Although peak load decreases as PV penetration
increases, this is only until a threshold penetration. After
that, the peak load does not decrease significantly compared
to the increase in PV penetration. The economical aspects of
PV installation and running costs must be considered before
increasing the PV penetration.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Goals,
http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/renewable-portfolio-
standards.aspx , accessed Jun. 2019.
[2] Energy.ca.gov,,https://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/trackin
g_progress/documents/renewable.pdf, accessed Jun 2019.
[3] Ward Jewell, Demand Response To Mitigate Variability In
Solar Generation, Frontiers Of Power Conference, Stillwater,
Oklahoma, pp. I-1–I-8, October 2014.
[4] Ward Jewell, Milan Dahal, Kesh Pun, Demand Response and
House Design to Mitigate Photovoltaic Ramping, Frontiers of
Power Conference, Stillwater, Oklahoma, pp. IX-1-10,
October 2017
[5] Ward Jewell, The Effects of Residential Energy Efficiency on
Electric Demand Response Programs. Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Sciences 47, January 2014.
[6] 2012 ASHRAE Handbook – HVAC Systems and Equipment.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, ashrae.org.
[7] Ward Jewell, “Residential Energy Efficiency and Electric
Demand Response,” Hawaii International Conference on
Systems Sciences 49, January 2016.
[8] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010, Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy. ASHRAE, 2010.
[9] GridLAB-D Simulation Software, https://www.gridlabd.org/ ,
accessed Jun. 2019.
[10] SourceForge. GridLAB-D,
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gridlab-d/ ,accessed Jun. 2019.
[11] Residential module user's guide,
sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/gridlabd/index.php?title=Resi
dential_Module_Guide, accessed May 2013.
[12] Gridlab-D, sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/gridlabd/
index.php?title=Main_Page, accessed May 2013.
[13] Manual J Residential Load Calculation, A/C Contractors of
America. 8th Edition, 2011.