290 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO.

3, SEPTEMBER 2000

Determining the Relative Effectiveness of Islanding

Detection Methods Using Phase Criteria and
Nondetection Zones
Michael E. Ropp, Member, IEEE, Miroslav Begovic, Senior Member, IEEE, Ajeet Rohatgi, Fellow, IEEE,
Gregory A. Kern, R. H. Bonn, Sr., and S. Gonzalez

Abstract—Islanding of a utility-interactive photovoltaic (UIPV)

system occurs if the UIPV system continues to power a section of
the utility system after that section has been disconnected from
the utility source. Since islanding creates hazards for personnel
and equipment, UIPV systems are required to detect and prevent
it. It is desirable to have a simplified method of determining which
islanding detection methods (IDM’s) are most effective. In this
paper, a previously described method for finding the nondetection
zones (NDZ’s) of IDM’s is experimentally verified. This method is
used to determine the NDZ’s of several common IDM’s. These re-
sults indicate that, of the IDM’s discussed in this paper: 1) Sandia
Frequency Shift (SFS) is most effective; 2) the worst-case loads
are low-power loads that are near resonance at the line frequency
and have a large capacitance and small inductance (a high value Fig. 1. System configuration for explaining islanding.
of the quality factor ).
SFS Sandia Frequency Shift
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS SMS Slide-Mode Frequency Shift
AFD Active Frequency Drift (frequency bias) UFR Underfrequency relay
AFDPF AFD with positive feedback (aka SFS) UIPV Utility Interactive Photovoltaic (system)
Load capacitance Instantaneous node voltage
Normalized load capacitance Frequency of node voltage (rad/sec)
Chopping fraction (AFD parameter) Utility voltage frequency (rad/sec)
Phase threshold (PJD parameter)
Transfer function used to implement SMS I. INTRODUCTION
IDM Islanding Detection Method
PV system output current
Gain (SFS parameter) I SLANDING of a UIPV system occurs when a section of the
utility system is isolated from the main utility voltage source,
but the UIPV system continues to energize that section. Con-
Load inductance (H)
sider the system drawn in Fig. 1. A UIPV system, consisting of
OFR Overfrequency relay
a PV array and a PC’s (or inverter), is connected to the local
Real power (W)
utility system at Node . The utility voltage source at the right
PCS Power Conditioning System (aka inverter)
can be disconnected from Node by the switch. A local load
PJD Phase Jump Detection
assumed linear) is also connected at Node . Power flows are
PLL Phase Locked Loop
defined in the figure. , the reactive power being supplied
POCC Point Of Common Coupling
by the PV system, is typically zero. Consider a case in which
PV Photovoltaic
, and (a unity power factor
Load reactive power (VAR)
load). Under this condition, there is no current flowing through
Load quality factor
the switch, and and are both zero. Thus, Fig. 1 illus-
Load resistance ( )
trates that if the switch were opened under this condition no
change would occur at Node ; that is, the voltage at Node
Manuscript received May 10, 1999. would be the same before and after the opening of the switch.
M. E. Ropp is with the Electrical Engineering Department, South Dakota This means that there is no change that could be used as a signal
State University, Brookings, SD 57007.
M. Begovic and A. Rohatgi are with the School of Electrical and Computer that islanding is occurring. The PV system continues to operate,
Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250. Node is held at high potential, and islanding is not prevented.
G. A. Kern is with Ascension Technology Inc., Boulder, CO 80301. Islanding is undesirable for several reasons [1]–[3]. Probably
R. H. Bonn, Sr. and S. Gonzalez are with Sandia National Laboratories, Al-
buquerque, NM 87185. the most important reason is that utility personnel may be un-
Publisher Item Identifier S 0885-8969(00)08436-9. aware that the portion of the utility system including Node
0885–8969/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
ROPP et al.: DETERMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ISLANDING DETECTION METHODS
Fig. 2. A nondetection zone defined within the “power mismatch space.”
is still being energized by equipment on the customer’s side of
the point of common coupling (POCC). They are therefore un-
knowingly exposed to an electric shock hazard. Another impor-
tant reason is that if the PV system drifts slightly out of phase
with the utility voltage source during islanding, large surge cur-
rents can flow upon reconnection, and these can damage the PV
system, customer loads, or utility equipment. In spite of the fact
that the likelihood of islanding is very small, due to the seri-
ousness of these risks, utilities and standards-making bodies re-
quire that PV PCS’s be equipped with specific islanding detec-
tion and prevention schemes such that the PCS disconnects the
PV system from Node when islanding is detected.
Over the years, several control schemes for PV PCS’s
have been devised to reliably detect islanding. Examples
include standard over/undervoltage and over/underfrequency
relaying (OVR/UVR and OFR/UFR), phase jump detection
(PJD) [3], [4], slide-mode frequency shift (SMS) [3], [5], and
active frequency drift (AFD), or frequency bias [6]. Utilities,
standards-making bodies, and PCS manufacturers have a
common interest in determining which of these methods is
“best;” that is, which one detects islanding most reliably. Such
a determination may be made through the use of nondetection
zones (NDZ’s). NDZ’s are regions in an appropriately defined
space in which the islanding detection scheme under test fails
to detect islanding. Several definitions of NDZ are possible.
In the past, NDZ’s have usually been defined in a “power
mismatch space” like that shown in Fig. 2, in which the axes
are defined in terms of and as defined in Fig. 1.
PCS’s were typically tested under full-load (maximum
power) conditions, and with specific values of , , and .
Frequently, the test load was purely resistive, so that
and . and were varied from zero up to the level
at which the islanding detection method reliably detected the
islanding condition. The region very near in
which the change in the Node voltage was insufficient for the
islanding detection method to operate, as shown in Fig. 2, was
defined as the NDZ. Tests of this type have been used to declare
that certain islanding prevention methods or combinations of
methods have no NDZ at all. However, such declarations on the
basis of this type of testing are based on the assumption that a
full-load, – test with a small value of and a large
value of represents a worst-case scenario, an assumption
which previously had been unproven.
In this paper, we propose a new NDZ definition in terms of
a “load parameter space” (to be defined shortly). We have pre-
viously described a simple procedure for fording the locations
291
Fig. 3. Block diagram representation of PV system and load after the switch
is opened.
of the NDZ’s of certain islanding prevention methods within
this space [6]. This procedure is used here to obtain the NDZ’s
for several common islanding prevention methods, and experi-
mental verification of the results is provided. These results not
only suggest that the Sandia Frequency Shift method is the most
effective of those discussed here, but they also indicate that an
NDZ in the power mismatch space taken at a single load condi-
tion can lead to incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of
islanding prevention methods.
II. PROCEDURE
Several islanding detection techniques that rely on a change
in the frequency of the Node a voltage to detect islanding were
studied analytically, using simplified, closed-form expressions
called phase criteria. The phase criteria were derived and
presented in an earlier paper [6]. However, the principles upon
which the derivations were based are as follows. For those
islanding prevention techniques which rely on a frequency
change, the islanding-detection behavior of the system is
governed by the behavior of the phase-locked loop (PLL) that
synchronizes the PV system’s output current to the utility
voltage. The PV and load real powers are assumed to be
matched . When islanding begins, the PV system
and load may be modeled as shown in Fig. 3. The Node
voltage, , is determined by the Ohm’s Law response of the
load. This voltage is monitored by the PV PCS. The PLL
inside the PCS will cause the frequency of the output current
of the PV system, , to change until there is no phase shift
between and . When and are in phase, no further
change in the frequency of occurs; a steady-state frequency
is reached. However, the phase shift between the PV output
current and the Node voltage is simply the phase of the
load, which is a known function of frequency. Therefore, the
steady-state condition may be described by an expression
in terms of the parameters of the particular islanding prevention
method and the , and of the load. These expressions are
the phase criteria. (A brief description of the derivation of the
phase criterion for AFD is given in the Appendix to this paper.)
The phase criteria for several common islanding prevention
schemes, along with the methods for using them, are given in
Table I. The methods considered are OFR/UFR, PJD, SMS,
AFD, and Sandia Frequency Shift (SFS). The details of the is-
landing prevention methods are given elsewhere [6], [7]; how-
ever, the reader should be aware that all of these methods rely
on a change in the frequency of the voltage at Node to detect
islanding. In the Table, is the frequency of the voltage at Node
and is the utility voltage frequency. Several design param-
eters also appear in the Table: is the phase threshold used in
PJD (commonly between 2 and 5 [6]), is the transfer
292
TABLE I
PHASE CRITERIA FOR SEVERAL ISLANDING PREVENTION METHODS
(FROM [6], [7])
is also shown.
function that implements the SMS method, is the “chopping
fraction” used in the AFD method, is a gain used in SFS, and
is defined as .
The phase criteria can be used to map the NDZ of an is-
landing prevention method into a load parameter space. For
each point in the load parameter space, the steady-state fre-
quency of the PV system may be calculated using the phase
criterion for the particular islanding prevention method under
study. If the steady-state frequency lies within the trip thresh-
olds of the OFR/UFR, taken throughout this study to be those set
by the new proposed IEEE-P929 standard ( Hz [2]), then
that load lies within the NDZ of that islanding prevention
method. If not, the load lies outside the NDZ. Note that the phase
criteria can predict NDZ locations, but they cannot predict the
values of run-on time (the time elapsed between the opening of
the switch and the detection of islanding by the PCS).
III. ANALYTICAL AND MODELING RESULTS
Using the phase criteria, the NDZ’s of the islanding preven-
tion methods in Table I were mapped into a load parameter space
defined by the load “normalized capacitance” vs. the
load inductance . is defined as the ratio of the load
capacitance to the capacitance that resonates with the load in-
ductance at the utility line frequency:
(1)
Fig. 4 shows a mapping of the NDZ of the AFD method.
The boundaries of the AFD NDZ for three different values of
resistance (3.6, 14.4, and 57.6 ) are shown, along with the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2000
Fig. 4. Mapping of the NDZ of the AFD (frequency bias) method of islanding
prevention in a load parameter space, for three different values of load
resistance. The NDZ of the SMS method for R = 14:4
Fig. 5. Mapping of the NDZ of the SMS method of islanding prevention
in a load parameter space. NDZ’s are shown for three different values of
load resistance. In these calculations, the G(j!) used is that of a (formerly)
commercially-available PCS [3].
boundaries of the NDZ of the OFR/UFR alone (dashed hori-
zontal lines) and the NDZ of the SMS method for
(for comparison). The narrowing of the NDZ’s at very small
values (corresponding to very large values) is due to the
sharpening of the magnitude response of the load in that
region. The magnitude of the load changes so rapidly with fre-
quency that, as the frequency changes slightly but the current
amplitude remains constant, the voltage changes sufficiently to
cause an undervoltage or overvoltage trip. Note that the NDZ
bends upward, into a range of leading-power-factor loads, as
the inductance increases (and decreases). The phase criterion
predicts that AFD could be made to fail for loads (a fact al-
ready experimentally verified [8]), but it also predicts that AFD
can be made to fail for unity power factor loads with small
and large .
The NDZ’s of SMS (Fig. 5), PJD (Fig. 6), and SFS (or
AFDPF, Fig. 7) with a small amount of frequency bias were
similarly mapped. The SMS mapping in Fig. 5 shows behavior
similar to that of AFD, except that above a certain threshold
SMS has no NDZ at all. Below that threshold , the NDZ
of SMS is the same as that of the OFR/UFR acting alone, and
the NDZ narrows at very small (large ) values due to the
sharpening of the load’s magnitude response. The NDZ plot of
PJD shows the opposite behavior; PJD’s NDZ becomes wider
and wider as increases and decreases. In fact, for practical
values of PJD appears to be at best only as effective as the
OFR/UFR acting alone.
ROPP et al.: DETERMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ISLANDING DETECTION METHODS
Fig. 6. Mapping of the NDZ of the PJD method of islanding prevention in a
load parameter space, obtained using phase criteria. In these calculations,  =
2 [3].
Fig. 7. Mapping of the NDZ of the SFS method (AFDPF in the figure). For
comparison, the NDZ of AFD is also shown, as are the NDZ’s of SMS and the
OFR/UFR.
However, the SFS method (Fig. 7) has an extremely narrow
NDZ, encompassing fewer loads than the NDZ of any
other method considered here. Thus, the phase criteria predict
that SFS is the most effective of the islanding prevention
methods discussed here. Because of the frequency bias, the
NDZ bends upward into a range of leading power factor
loads as increases. However, this NDZ is so narrow that its
boundaries appear to lie nearly atop one another until smaller
values (larger values) are reached. The NDZ is much
wider at small (large ) values, but it is still narrower than
that of any other method. From a practical standpoint, one
might expect that this NDZ shape would suggest that it would
be nearly impossible to obtain a long run-on time for a load
with large and small because of the required level of
accuracy of the component values coupled with experimental
variability. The model also predicts a narrowing of the NDZ
for decreasing values. Therefore, experimental run-on times
could also be expected to decrease for higher-power loads. The
phase criterion thus predicts two behaviors for a PCS equipped
with SFS with frequency bias: a) the NDZ should contain only
leading power factor loads for “large” ;
b) long run-on times may be obtained for loads with “small”
, but a long run-on time would be practically impossible to
obtain for a “large” . Similarly, long run-on times should be
very difficult to obtain for “small” , but for “large” longer
run-on times should be possible.
In general, for all of the islanding prevention methods that
depend on a frequency change for islanding detection except
293
Fig. 8. Experimental setup used to map the NDZ of SFS.
PJD, the worst case loads (that is, those that lead to the longest
run-on times) are predicted to be loads with a relatively low real
power consumption (small ), a small value of , and a large
value of . This may be expressed in terms of the quality factor,
or -factor, of the circuit. (This is not the same as the
reactive power consumption of the load, denoted or .)
The -factor is given by
(2)
and is the ratio of the amount of energy stored in the load’s re-
active elements to the amount of energy dissipated in the load’s
resistance. (For example, for , there is twice as much en-
ergy stored in the and of the load as is being dissipated in
.) Loads that are near resonance at and have a high -factor
are the ones that cause difficulty in islanding detection.
It is clear from the phase criteria and the NDZ mappings that
the steady-state frequency of depends on the load pa-
rameters. Unfortunately, the level of real or reactive power mis-
match is not uniquely determined by load parameters. Specifi-
cally, the reactive power consumption of the load is given by
(3)
Equation (3) clearly shows that there are infinitely many combi-
nations of and that will yield the same , and will there-
fore map onto the same point in the power mismatch space for a
given . Some of these combinations result in nondetection of
islanding, while others do not. Therefore, an NDZ in the power
mismatch space measured at a load other than the worst-case
load can lead to misleading conclusions about the effectiveness
of the islanding detection method under test.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
An experiment was conducted to verify the accuracy of the
NDZ predictions made by the phase criteria. The experimental
setup used is shown in Fig. 8. The PCS in this setup used the
SFS method. The load inductance was set to a “high” or “low”
value, and the load capacitance was then swept over a narrow
range near . This procedure was repeated for “high” and
“low” load resistance values. The values used in the experiment
are given in Table II, along with the results in terms of the value
of at which the longest run-on times were obtained. The
experimental results are shown graphically in Figs. 9 and 10.
Fig. 9 shows the run-on time of the SFS-equipped PCS as
a function of for “small” and “large” values (96.6
and 345 mH). Both sets of data are for the “high” value
(108.1 for mH, 134.4 for mH). The
model predicted that the longest run-on times would be ob-
tained for loads with , that the at which
294
TABLE II
PARAMETER VALUES FOR NDZ MAPPING EXPERIMENT
Fig. 9. Run-on time of the SFS-equipped PCS as a function of C , for
two different values of R.
Fig. 10. Results of NDZ mapping experiment, demonstrating the trend in
run-on times vs. L and R. The islanding detection method is SFS.
maximum run-on times were obtained would increase as in-
creased, and that maximum run-on times would decrease as
increased. The latter two of these trends are clearly evident in
the data. However, maximum run-on times are actually obtained
for in the “small” case. This is due to the influence
of the large capacitors in the output stage of the PCS, an effect
which is not accounted for in the phase criteria. The NDZ loca-
tions predicted by the phase criteria may thus need to be shifted
slightly toward lower values. However, the location and
shape of the NDZ appear to be predicted quite well. Fig. 9 also
illustrates the effectiveness of the SFS method, as indicated by
the extremely narrow range of values over which high
run-on times are obtained.
Fig. 10 gives further corroboration of the phase criterion pre-
dictions. This Figure shows the longest run-on times obtained
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2000
Fig. 11. Results of islanding testing on an AFD-equipped, commercially-
available PCS feeding a purely resistive load.
Fig. 12. Results of islanding testing on the same PCS used in the tests in
Fig. 11, but now with varying L(C = C ).
as a function of and (“high” or “low”). Run-on times in-
crease for decreasing and for increasing . Thus, as pre-
dicted, high- -factor loads are the worst-case loads in terms of
islanding detection. This general trend has been confirmed in
repeated experiments [9]. However, the reader should be aware
that although the trend has been consistently demonstrated, both
longer and shorter maximum run-on times have been experi-
mentally observed.
The shortcoming of the power mismatch space representa-
tion of NDZ’s of islanding prevention methods is now clear.
One could, for example, test an AFD-equipped PCS at full load
(small value of ) and with a purely resistive load ( ,
, -factor = 0), vary and , and conclude that
AFD has no nondetection zone. This conclusion is clearly false,
as indicated by the AFD NDZ in Fig. 4. Since the NDZ has been
supported by experimental observations, we may conclude that
AFD should always detect islanding for purely resistive loads,
but will fail for high- , resonant RLC loads.
To further verify this claim, a commercially available PCS
equipped with AFD was tested under different load conditions.
These experimental results are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. In
Fig. 11, the load is purely resistive, and is varied. Some
scatter in run-on times was observed, but in spite of this the
converter always detects islanding and ceases operation within
0.14 seconds (less than 9 line cycles at 60 Hz), far less than the
2 seconds allowed by IEEE-P929 [2]. This behavior is consis-
tent with that predicted by the phase criterion for AFD (Fig. 4).
However, as shown in Fig. 12, the situation is entirely different
ROPP et al.: DETERMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ISLANDING DETECTION METHODS
Fig. 13. i waveform for AFD.
when the load has a unity power factor but is not purely resis-
tive. In these tests, . Notice that, as the -factor
of the RLC load increases (that is, decreases and increases,
maintaining near resonance at the line frequency), the run-on
time of the PCS also increases. The scatter in run-on times is
primarily due to experimental variability, as discussed previ-
ously. The observed results are consistent with the predictions
suggested by the results in Fig. 4.
V. CONCLUSION
This work demonstrates that phase criteria (expressions de-
rived from the conditions at which the PLL of the PV PCS de-
tects a zero phase error between the PV output current and ter-
minal voltage) are highly useful in determining the relative merit
of islanding prevention methods that rely on a frequency change
for islanding detection. In spite of their simplicity, the phase cri-
teria predict the ranges of loads that lead to detection failure with
good accuracy. In addition, clear evidence is provided that the
SFS method is the most effective islanding prevention method
among those discussed here. Finally, this work also establishes
clearly that nondetection limited range of loads can give a mis-
leading picture of the effectiveness of an islanding prevention
method. Mappings should be made in a load parameter space
such as the space used here, or several power mis-
match mappings should be made with different values of RLC.
Furthermore, in order to obtain an accurate test of the effec-
tiveness of an anti-islanding method that depends on frequency
change for islanding detection, it is suggested that the PCS be
tested with loads with high values of the -factor. The data pre-
sented here indicate that tests should include a sweep of
over the range 0.9 to 1.1, in order to ensure that the NDZ is
accurately located.
APPENDIX
CURSORY DESCRIPTION OF THE DERIVATION OF THE PHASE
CRITERION FOR AFD
AFD is implemented by adding short zero or “dead” times
into the PV system output current, as shown in Fig. 13. These
dead times have length . The AFD waveform has neither odd
nor even symmetry; therefore, there will be a phase shift in the
295
fundamental component of this waveform equal to 0.5 [6],
[7]. If is assumed small, then the amount of distortion of
introduced by the zero times is also small. Thus, the AFD
waveform is reasonably approximated by its phase-shifted fun-
damental component. From the system in Fig. 3 and an under-
standing of the operation of the PCS’s PLL, it may be deduced
that if the PCS were equipped with AFD the frequency of
will increase until the phase shift of the load “un-does” the phase
shift between and its fundamental. Thus,
which is the phase criterion given in Table II, with
.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Kitamura, M. Okamoto, F. Yamamoto, K. Nakaji, J. Matsuda, and K.
Hotta, “Islanding phenomenon elimination study at Rokko Test Center,”
in Proceedings of the 1st IEEE World Conference on Photovoltaic En-
ergy Conversion, 1994, pp. 759–762.
[2] IEEE-P929: Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photo-
voltaic (PV) Systems, Draft 9 of IEEE Prestandard P929, December
1998.
[3] R. A. Jones and T. R. Sims, “Investigation of potential islanding of
dispersed photovoltaic systems,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albu-
querque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND87-7027,
1988.
[4] H. Kobayashi, K. Takigawa, and E. Hashimoto, “Method for preventing
mismatch islanding phenomenon on utility grid with a number of small
scale PV systems,” in Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Photovoltaic Spe-
cialists Conference, 1991, pp. 695–700.
[5] S. Yuyuma, T. Ichinose, K. Kimoto, T. Itami, T. Ambo, C. Okado, K.
Nakajima, S. Hojo, H. Shinohara, S. Ioka, and M. Kuniyoshi, “A high-
speed frequency shift method as a protection for islanding phenomena of
utility interactive PV systems,” Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells,
vol. 35, pp. 77–486, 1994.
[6] M. Ropp, M. Begovic, and A. Rohatgi, “Prevention of islanding in grid-
connected photovoltaic systems,” Progress in Photovoltaics, Summer
1999, to be published.
[7] M. Ropp, “Design issues for grid-connected photovoltaic systems,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA,
December 1998.
[8] G. Kern, “SunSine300: Utility interactive AC module anti-islanding test
results,” in Proceedings of the 26th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Con-
ference, 1997, pp. 1265–1268.
[9] G. Kern and Ascension Technology, Inc., “Status report #6: Sandia anti-
islanding investigation,”, contract report to Sandia National Laborato-
ries, May 27, 1998.
Michael E. Ropp (S’94–M’99) received the Ph.D. in EE from the Georgia In-
stitute of Technology in December, 1998. He is currently an Assistant Professor
of Electrical Engineering at South Dakota State University. His research inter-
ests include power electronics, renewable energy, and electric vehicles.
Miroslav Begovic (S’87–M’89–SM’92) received the Ph.D. in EE from Virginia
Tech in 1989. He is presently an Associate Professor in the School of Electrical
and Computer Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Begovic’s
research activities are in computer applications in power systems monitoring
and control, and PV systems.
296 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2000

Ajeet Rohatgi (M’78–SM’86–F’91) received the Ph.D. degree in metallurgy R. H. Bonn Sr. is currently the PV balance of systems Project Leader for the
and material science from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, in 1977. He is a Sandia National Laboratories PV program. He is responsible for developing
Regents’ Professor and a Georgia Power Distinguished Professor in the School standardized methods for evaluating PV PCS’s and for developing a laboratory
of Electrical Engineering. He is the Founding Director of the University Center that supports PV PCS manufacturers. Dr. Bonn has over 30 years’ experience in
of Excellence for Photovoltaic Research and Education at Georgia Tech. His re- instrumentation and measurements.
search interests include design and fabrication of high-efficiency silicon solar
cells; performance and reliability of PV systems; silicon MOS devices; semi-
conductor material and device characterization; defects and recombination in
semiconductors; and MBE and MOCVD growth of compound semiconductors.

Gregory A. Kern is the Manager of Research and Development at Ascension

Technology’s Boulder, CO lab. Mr. Kern has been responsible for the develop-
ment of Ascension Technology’s AC PV modules, the SunSine™300 and the S. Gonzalez obtained the M.S.E.E. from New Mexico State University. He has
SunSine™325 under development. He has conducted extensive research into been at Sandia National Laboratories for 2 years as an Electrical Engineer on
anti-islanding issues for UIPV systems. the Technical Staff. His responsibilities include instrumentation and test design.