Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsr

Optimal deloading of PV power plants for frequency control: A

techno-economic assessment
Ishtiak Mahmud a, #, Nahid-Al Masood a, #, *, Atik Jawad a, b, #
a
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh
b
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Due to the lack of inertial support from photovoltaic (PV) systems, large-scale PV integration into the existing
Frequency control grid poses a major threat to frequency stability. To address this, numerous techniques for incorporating energy
Deloaded PV storage systems have been proposed in the existing literature, but they incur significant operational costs. PV
Optimal deloading
systems with deloading mechanisms have been researched as an alternative efficient strategy in many studies as a
Techno-economic analysis
Renewable energy
key frequency response support after a disturbance. However, deloaded PV systems incur a cost burden due to
idle reserve capacity during regular operation. Consequently, an optimum deloading of PV systems is required to
enhance the grid’s frequency stability while minimizing its total operating cost. To that aim, this paper proposes
a gradient descent-based optimization method to determine the optimum deloading of PV systems. The opti­
mization considers both frequency response constraints (frequency nadir and rate of change of frequency –
ROCOF) and operating cost constraints (generation, up-regulation, and value of lost load cost). The proposed
technique is employed in a modified IEEE 39 bus New England System for varying levels of PV integration under
two distinct cases. The optimization and relevant simulations are performed in Python and DIgSILENT Power­
Factory platforms. In the case of a major generator outage with PV penetrations of 30%, 40%, and 50%, the
optimal deloading percentages are 6.96%, 5.931%, and 4.968%, respectively, with no load shedding. Moreover,
in the interconnection outage case, the optimal deloading percentages increase to 14.92%, 13.3%, and 12.42%,
respectively, with load shedding. Nevertheless, in each case, deloaded PV systems consistently preserve fre­
quency stability in the grid while incurring minimized operating costs. Furthermore, the performance and cost of
the proposed solution are compared to two other primary frequency response support systems, viz. Battery
Energy Storage System (BESS) and Synchronous Condenser (SC). The optimally deloaded PV system outperforms
both these devices considering both technical and economic aspects.

(MPPT) mode to extract the maximum available power. Therefore, no

1. Introduction
Renewable energy resources are supplanting conventional power
generators around the world, due to the increased awareness regarding
the climate change caused by the greenhouse gas emission of fossil-fuel-
based generators [1,2]. From 2010 to 2020, renewable energy sources
had a growth of 42%, making them the fastest-growing energy source in
the USA [3]. Among renewable sources, the growth of solar PV systems
has been remarkably rapid around the world. As of 2021, the solar PV
generation capacity of the world is 843 GW, with a rise of 19% from the
previous year [4].
PV systems are generally operated in maximum power point tracking
reserve power is available in a PV system in this mode of operation.
Consequently, unlike synchronous generators (SGs), PV systems do not
have inherent inertia, headroom, and governor response capabilities. As
a result, they cannot participate in improving the frequency response
following a disturbance. Therefore, a high PV-enriched grid faces fre­
quency instability, voltage instability, and power quality issues
following a disturbance [5–7]. Among these issues, frequency stability is
a prominent factor that needs careful consideration [8]. To tackle that,
several approaches have been considered in different literature.
Installation of several types of energy storage and associated
methods are studied in several research works for providing primary
frequency response in a PV-enriched grid [9–18]. El-Bidairi et al.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, 1205, Bangladesh.
E-mail addresses: ishtiakmahmud6@gmail.com (I. Mahmud), nahid@eee.buet.ac.bd (N.-A. Masood), atikjawad001@gmail.com (A. Jawad).
#
All authors contributed equally to this work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2023.109457
Received 21 January 2023; Received in revised form 26 April 2023; Accepted 2 May 2023
Available online 6 May 2023
0378-7796/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
I. Mahmud et al.
Nomenclature
MPPT Maximum Power Point Tracking
BESS Battery Energy Storage System
ROCOF Rate of Change of Frequency
VOLL Value of Lost Load
SC Synchronous Condenser
UFLS Under Frequency Load Shedding
AVR Automatic voltage regulation
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
SOC State of Charge
LR Linear Regression
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
SG Synchronous Generator
presented a method of optimum battery energy storage sizing as a dy­
namic frequency control device in a high PV penetrated grid [9]. He
et al. proposed a deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based method
considering frequency performance and operational economy for
microgrids with shared energy storage. [10]. Ansaripour et al. demon­
strated a chance-constrained optimization model for managing trans­
mission congestion with wind turbines and energy storage systems for
effective energy storage use in frequency regulation [11]. Akpinar et al.
developed a fuzzy logic-based power management algorithm for battery
energy storage systems to optimize battery life and provide grid fre­
quency support [12]. Barakat et al. conducted a comparative analysis of
five battery technologies’ performance for a PV/battery hybrid
grid-connected system using cost and renewable energy fractions as
comparative indexes [14]. Moreover, Güven et al. proposed optimal
sizing for hybrid renewable energy systems, using the Harmony Search
algorithm and rule-based energy management [15]. Samy et al. intro­
duced statistical and neural network-based approaches for hybrid sys­
tem optimization, comparing algorithms for a PV-wind off-grid system
[16]. In another work, Güven et al. used techno-economic feasibility
analysis to propose a sizing method for grid-connected PV systems with
battery technologies. [17]. Furthermore, utilizing spatial analysis,
Mokhtara et al. developed a multi-objective optimization technique for
designing hybrid renewable energy systems that take climate diversity
and building energy efficiency into account [18]. However, all of these
require the necessity to install additional devices which increases the
installation cost. To solve this problem, deloaded PV systems have been
studied in several studies [19–30].
A deloaded PV system can emulate the characteristics of SGs and
provide frequency support without additional devices by operating at a
point away from MPPT. Zarina et al. proposed a deloaded PV system
controller in their research and investigated its frequency regulation
aspects [19]. The same researchers developed an upgraded controller for
a deloaded PV system that considers the available reserve of a system
while participating in frequency regulation [20]. Xin et al. developed a
dual-mode deloaded system for frequency droop and emergency control
[25]. Rahmann et al. presented a deloaded system control and discussed
fast frequency response in high PV penetrated grids after major distur­
bances [26]. Tavakkoli et al. demonstrated the efficiency of incorpo­
rating a deloaded PV system in the power grid’s frequency control loop,
reducing frequency deviation and improving settling time after a
disturbance [27]. Verma et al. evaluated the operating cost of a deloa­
ded PV system and compared it with other existing methods [22]. They
also investigated a control strategy for active power reserve in a
deloaded PV system under partially shaded conditions [28]. Zhong et al.
proposed a novel control strategy for a deloaded PV system that exploits
the similarity between the power-angle curve of the SG and the
power-voltage curve of the PV system [29]. Sharma et al. proposed a
deloaded system controller to enhance the frequency response capability
2
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
of a grid-connected PV system [30]. In this work, a fuzzy-based adaptive
deloading controller is proposed to deal with changing operating con­
ditions. Zarina et al. performed a cost assessment of a deloaded PV
system and compared its effectiveness with respect to a Battery Energy
storage system [21]. However, none of these studies investigated the
optimum sizing of a deloaded PV system.
Operating a PV in deloaded mode generates less power compared to
MPPT. Hence, to generate the same amount of PV power, the installed
capacity of a PV system must be larger than the capacity required while
operating in MPPT mode. Moreover, while operating under a fixed
installation capacity and supplying a fixed load, increasing the deload­
ing percentage of a deloaded PV system requires additional power from
the SGs to balance the power mismatch. This results in unused capacity
and increased fuel costs. Therefore, there is a trade-off between the
frequency stability of the grid and overall cost. For this reason, it is
necessary to operate a deloaded PV system with an optimum deloading
percentage in order to maximize system stability while minimizing the
overall cost. Jawad et al. proposed a technique for estimation of the
appropriate deloading percentage required to maintain frequency
response in a renewable incorporated grid [31]. This method uses a
regression technique to find out the minimum deloading level required
to satisfy frequency stability constraints. However, it does not provide
any optimization technique in order to find the optimum deloading
level. Moreover, this model only considers the frequency stability of the
system and ignores the operating cost perspective. In addition, it does
not provide any insight into the cases where the installed PV capacity is
fixed, and the active power output of PV is changed with the change in
deloading percentage.
Moreover, none of the previous works considered the up-regulation
cost of unused PV capacity due to deloading. The cost associated with
idle or unused capacity is known as up-regulation cost [32]. To get an
accurate view of the overall operating cost of a deloaded system, the
up-regulation cost needs to be taken into consideration. Additionally,
none of the previous works investigated the use of load shedding in a
deloaded system to maintain the balance between frequency stability
and operating cost. Instead of keeping a high percentage of reserve in a
deloaded system, frequency stability can be maintained by introducing
load shedding following a disturbance. This reduces the up-regulation
cost of the system. However, there is an additional cost associated
with load shedding. Load shedding cost or the ‘Value of Lost Load
(VOLL)’ refers to a financial indicator that represents the cost of an
interruption in the supply of electricity [33]. Hence, up-regulation cost
and load shedding cost can be used to make a trade-off between the
frequency stability and the associated operating cost. Taking into ac­
count all of the literature reviews, the following significant research
gaps can be identified:
• Multiple research studies have been performed on deloaded PV
systems. However, almost all of those are performed considering a
fixed deloading percentage. Investigations to find the optimal
deloading percentage in order to reduce unused PV power reserves
have not been performed in those studies.
• A small number of studies estimated the appropriate deloading
percentage of a deloaded PV system for maintaining frequency sta­
bility. However, no work has been done to determine the optimum
deloading percentage of a PV system by considering both the eco­
nomic and stability aspect of it.
• No work on the deloaded PV system has been performed considering
the value of lost load due to load shedding and the up-regulation cost
of unused PV capacity caused by deloading.
By considering the existing research gaps, the objective of this work
is to determine the optimum deloading percentage while considering
both the frequency stability as well as the operational cost associated
with it. It will also consider a power grid with fixed PV installation ca­
pacity so that a perfect trade-off between the frequency stability and
I. Mahmud et al.
overall operating cost can be done. Up-regulation cost and load shedding
cost, caused by excess and insufficient deloading of PV systems,
respectively, also need to be analyzed in order to get a full under­
standing of the economic aspect of its operation. The following contains
the key contributions of this paper:
• A gradient descent-based optimization technique is proposed to find
the optimum deloading percentage in a deloaded PV system for a
high PV enriched grid. This optimization technique focuses on
maintaining frequency stability after a disturbance while minimizing
the operating cost under normal operating conditions. The technique
is applied to two case studies involving a major generator outage and
an interconnection network outage.
• A comprehensive cost analysis is performed on the deloaded PV
system for different PV penetration levels under both case studies.
The up-regulation cost and value of the lost load are considered in
the overall operating cost to get a complete economic view of its
operating costs.
• The proposed model’s outcome is validated by comparing it to two
current primary frequency regulation devices: Battery Energy Stor­
age System (BESS) and Synchronous Condenser (SC).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, a brief
description of the system architecture and the operation of system
components are provided. The proposed optimization methodology with
relevant diagrams is discussed in Section 3. Section 4 describes a
detailed description of the case studies and simulation scenarios. In
Section 5, the proposed model’s performance and validity are evaluated
in comparison to the BESS and SC integrated grid over a range of PV
penetration levels under the two case studies. Section 6 presents a brief
overview of the potential applications of the proposed method. Lastly,
Section 7 provides some insights and a summary of the outcomes of the
proposed model.
2. System architecture
This section describes the system architecture used in this paper. A
brief description of the working mechanisms of the grid-connected PV
system as well as the deloaded PV system modeling is presented here. All
the modellings and the time-domain dynamic simulations are done in
DIgSILENT PowerFactory software [34].
Fig. 1. Power vs voltage characteristics of a photovoltaic system.
3
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
2.1. Photovoltaic system modeling
A PV system consists of a collection of PV modules. The PV system’s
modules are connected in series and parallel, respectively, to enhance
the voltage and current. The voltage of a PV system dictates its output
power. Hence, there is a particular voltage at which the PV system
generates maximum power for a specific level of temperature and irra­
diance, as depicted in Fig. 1. Usually, a PV system is operated using the
MPPT algorithm. In this mode, PV is operated at a voltage VM for which
the power output, PM , is the maximum for a particular value of irradi­
ance and temperature. Moreover, VM is dependent on irradiance (R), the
value provided by the PV module’s manufacturer (VM0 ), temperature
(T), and temperature correlation (TCF ) factor as expressed by
ln(R)
VM = VM0 ∗ ∗ [1 + TCF (T − TSTC )] (1)
ln(RSTC )
Here, TSTC and RSTC are standard temperature and irradiance,
respectively.
2.2. Deloaded PV system modeling
When a PV system is operated at a different voltage, Vnew , away from
VM , the generated power (Pnew ) will be lower than PM (Fig. 2). Thus,
additional power can be obtained at that configuration by changing the
operating voltage closer to VM . The reserve power, Pdl , can be expressed
as
Pdl = PM − Pnew (2)
And the operating voltage Vnew for generating Pnew :
Vnew = VM + Vdl (3)
This type of system where PV is operated at a lower power compared
to PM and possesses additional reserve is known as a deloaded PV system
[19]. To extract this reserve power, at the moment of necessity, a signal
proportional to Δf is subtracted from the output voltage. Therefore, the
operating voltage VPVnew becomes,
VPVnew = VM + Vdl − Kgain ∗ Δf (4)
Following a disturbance, the frequency starts to decline in a power
system. As a consequence, the operating voltage VPVnew also decreases.
This increases the output power of the PV system. Hence, a PV system
can provide additional power to the grid, proportional to the frequency
deviation, following a contingency. In this manner, a PV system can
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 2. Operation of a PV system in deloaded mode.
mimic the governor reaction of a conventional SG. The frequency droop
mechanism of the deloaded PV model is depicted in Fig. 3.
3. Proposed methodology
The section describes the proposed method for determining the op­
timum PV deloading percentage to maintain system frequency stability
while minimizing the overall cost for a specific PV penetration. The
optimization algorithm and the associated constraints are explained
first, followed by an in-depth description of the method. Note that, no
previous research has considered both stability and economical
perspective when determining the optimum deloaded PV size. More­
over, consideration of load shedding cost and up-regulation cost is also
unique to this paper. Here, the PV penetration level is considered as the
ratio of the maximum possible output of the PV system to the total power
generation of the grid [35]. Hence, for a fixed level of PV installation
capacity, the PV penetration level (pen) can be expressed as the ratio of
output PV power at 0% deloading to the total power generation of the
grid.
PV generation output at 0% deloading
pen = (5)
Total power generation of the system
3.1. Optimization methodology
The description of the equations required for solving the optimiza­
tion problem is discussed in the optimization methodology, along with
Fig. 3. Frequency droop control of a deloaded PV system [31].
4
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
details of the utilized algorithm.
3.1.1. Optimization equations
At first, the cost function of the optimization problem is defined. To
this end, the overall operating cost is divided into three parts: power
generation cost, up-regulation cost due to PV deloading, and value of
lost load due to load shedding. As a result,
Overall operating cost = Power generation cost + Upregulation cost
+ Load shedding cost
(6)
The up-regulation cost of a PV system can be calculated by multi­
plying the unused deloaded capacity of a PV system by the per unit up-
regulation cost. The load shedding cost can be calculated by multiplying
the quantity of load shed by the per unit load shedding cost. Per unit
values associated with each cost are presented in Table 1. Hence, the
cost function can be written as:
ng (
∑ )
f = ai + bi Pgi + ci P2gi + CPV ∗ PPV + Cur ∗ Pdl + CVOLL ∗ LS (7)
i=1
Here, ai , bi and ci are generator constants for ith generator. In this
system, ai = a, bi = b and ci = c. ng is the number of generators. Pgi is
the power generated by ith generator. CPV , Cur , and CVOLL are the per unit
PV power cost, up-regulation cost, and load-shedding cost respectively.
PPV is the generated PV power, Pdl represents the deloaded power ca­
pacity and LS denotes the load shedding amount. PPV and Pdl can be
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

Table 1 tively. Similarly, Qgi , Qmin max

gi and Qgi are generated reactive power, min­
Per unit values associated with several types of costs.
imum and maximum allowed reactive power output of ith generator
Type of cost Per unit costs Reference respectively.
Synchronous generator constant ’a’ 0.01 ($/h) [36]
Synchronous generator constant ’b’ 0.3 ($/MWh) [36] a) The frequency stability parameters chosen for this optimization, fnadir
Synchronous generator constant ’c’ 0.2 ($/MW2h) [36] and ROCOF, must always remain within a specified limit for all valid
Photovoltaic power (CPV ) 61.8 ($/MWh)
[37] simulation scenarios.
Up-regulation cost of PV (Cur ) 11 ($/MWh)
[38] min
fnadir max
≤ fnadir ≤ fnadir (16)
Value of lost load (VOLL) cost (CVOLL ) 500 ($/MWh)
[39]
Operational cost of BESS (CB ) 143,000 ($/MWh)
ROCOF min ≤ ROCOF ≤ ROCOF max (17)
[40]
Operational cost of SC (CSC ) 41.6 ($/MWh
[41]

min max
Here, fnadir , fnadir , fnadir are frequency nadir, minimum allowable
written as follow: frequency nadir, and maximum allowable frequency nadir. Similarly,
(
d
) ROCOF, ROCOFmin , ROCOFmax are ROCOF, minimum allowable ROCOF,
PPV = PG ∗ pen ∗ 1 − (8) and maximum allowable ROCOF.
100

d 3.1.2. Optimization algorithm

Pdl = PG ∗ pen ∗ (9) In this optimization problem, the cost function is convex, continuous,
100
and differentiable. Moreover, the contrasting nature of the components
Pdl Pdl of the cost function enables only a single minimum value. Due to these
d= ∗ 100 = ∗ 100 (10)
PG ∗ pen PPV + Pdl characteristics of the cost function, a gradient descent optimization al­
gorithm is used [42]. It is a first-order optimization algorithm that can
Here, PG is the power generated by all the available generators
find the minima or maxima of a cost function through an iterative
combined. pen is the PV penetration level (in decimal) and d is the PV
process. In this problem, there are two independent variables on which
deloading percent. Hence, the cost function or the objective function can
the cost function depends: deloading percentage and load shedding.
be written as:
Hence, X = [d, LS]. As a result, the gradient of the cost function will be a
( )
∑ng ( ) d vector containing the partial derivatives with respect to these two var­
fminimize = a + b Pgi + c P2gi + CPV ∗ PG ∗ pen ∗ 1 − + Cur ∗ PG
i=1
100 iables. Consequently,
d ⎡ ⎤
∗ pen ∗ + CVOLL ∗ LS ∂f (X)
100 ⎢ ∂d ⎥
(11) ∇f (X) = ⎢⎣ ∂f (X) ⎦
⎥ (18)

Next, while minimizing the previously stated cost function, the ∂ LS

optimizing algorithm must also satisfy all the constraints associated with
the optimization problem. These constraints are stated below:
a) To maintain system stability, at all points of its operation, the sum of
generated power of a system must equate to the sum of total demand
and system loss.
ng
∑ current solution point.
Pgi + PPV = PLoad + PLoss (12)
i=1
b) As the deloaded capacity of a system is left unused unless there is a
disturbance in the system, keeping a large portion of PV capacity
deloaded is not financially viable. For this reason, there is a
maximum limit on PV deloading defined as dmax .
d ≤ dmax (13)
Here, X = [d, LS], f is a multivariate cost function dependent on
d and LS, ∇f(X) is the derivative of that function f at point X.
For ith iteration, the gradient is calculated at the point Xi using (18).
After choosing an initial solution in this process, the gradient is calcu­
lated at that point. The updated solution point is chosen by subtracting
the product of the calculated gradient and the learning rate from the
Xi+1 = Xi − α ∗ ∇ f (Xi ) (19)
In this way, the current solution point is updated in each iteration.
The iterative process continues up until the updated solution point’s
deviation from the current solution point is less than a tolerance value:
|di+1 − di | ≤ tolerance (20)
3.2. Step-by-step implementation of the model

The step-by-step explanation of finding the optimal PV deloading

c) Generators connected to the system have real and reactive output percentage for a definite level of PV penetration is presented below. The
limits that need to be maintained in order to have a stable and eco­ whole process is depicted in Fig. 4.
nomic operation. Step 1: Assigning limits and initial points: Before starting the optimi­
Pmin ≤ Pgi ≤ Pmax (14) zation process, assigning the boundary limits of the parameters associ­
ated with constraints is necessary. In (14)-(15), the maximum and
gi gi

minimum power output (real and reactive) of the generators is selected

Qmin ≤ Qgi ≤ Qmax (15)
according to their respective values provided by the manufacturers. In
gi gi

(16), the minimum value of frequency nadir is set as 59 Hz to avoid

activation of the UFLS scheme after power disturbance. The maximum
allowable magnitude of ROCOF is set as 1 Hz/s in (17). The maximum
Here, Pgi , Pmin max
gi and Pgi are generated active power, the minimum
deloading percentage or dmax in (13) is set as 20, as using a deloading
and maximum allowable active power output of ith generator respec­ level greater than 20% is not financially feasible [43]. As the initial point

5
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

Fig. 4. Flowchart of the proposed optimization methodology.

of the optimization process, di = d0 = 0 and LSi = LS0 = 0 MW is ∑i=ng

chosen.
Step 2: Executing time-domain dynamic simulation: For the given di
and LSi , time-domain dynamic simulation of a major SG outage event is
performed. The equivalent frequency of the system can be expressed as:
feq = i=1 Hi ∗ Si ∗ fi
∑ (21)
i=ng
i=1 Hi ∗ Si
Here, fi , Hi , and Si represent the frequency (Hz), inertial constant (s),
and apparent power rating (MVA) of the ith generator consecutively.
Step 3: Calculation of frequency nadir and ROCOF: Here, fnadir denotes

6
I. Mahmud et al.
the lowest point in the frequency excursion graph of a system. And,
ROCOF (rate of change of frequency) represents the initial rate of fre­
quency deviation of a system following a disturbance. It can be calcu­
lated by the following formula [44]:
df 1 Pdis ∗ f0
ROCOF = = ∗ (22)
dt 2 IR
Here, Pdis is the size of the disturbance (MW), f0 denotes the nominal
frequency of the system before the disturbance (Hz) and IR stands for the
system’s overall inertia. (MWs).
Step 4: Checking optimization constraints: After calculating the fnadir
and ROCOF, it should be checked whether the obtained values follow the
required frequency stability constraints (16–17). If the obtained pa­
rameters do not satisfy the constraints, an increase in load shedding is
introduced in the system. The value of the increment, ΔLS, is equal to
1MW. With this updated load-shedding amount, step 2 and 3 is per­
formed again until the constraints are satisfied.
Step 5: Calculation of gradient: The obtained point after step 4 is
considered the current solution point. To find the updated solution
point, the gradient at the current solution point is calculated using (18).
Step 6: Calculation of updated solution point: From the obtained
gradient, the updated solution point can be calculated by subtracting the
scaled version of the gradient value from the current solution point.
Scaling is performed by multiplying the value of the gradient with the
learning rate. From the gradient obtained in step 5, the updated solution
is calculated using (19).
Step 7: Checking iteration halting condition: If the difference between
two consecutive solution points satisfies (20), the optimization process is
halted. The deloading percentage in the updated solution point is
considered the optimum deloading percentage of that deloaded PV
system. Otherwise, steps 2 to 6 are performed again to obtain the new
Fig. 5. Modified IEEE 39 bus system single line diagram.
7
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
updated solution points
4. Simulation settings and case analyses
The proposed methodology for finding the optimal deloading of the
PV system is thoroughly assessed in this section. The used test system’s
specifications are explained in depth along with the simulation scenarios
that were taken into consideration. Thorough outcome analyses of the
optimizations are carried out for every simulation scenario. In addition,
the used algorithm for this specific optimization process is justified by
comparing it with an existing algorithm.
4.1. Test system
The IEEE 39-bus New England system is used for performing simu­
lation in this research work [43]. For evaluating the stability aspects of
power systems, this test grid is a popular and widely researched standard
system [45]. It has widely been used for testing and validating new
models for dynamic analysis. In addition, the dynamic models used in
this test system (the governor model, the automated voltage regulator
model, and the load model) are all state-of-the-art models that have been
validated in earlier studies [46]. This test system is very robust in terms
of inertia, making it suitable for frequency stability investigation. As a
result, changing this grid for renewable integration and performing
frequency stability analysis is also evident in the existing literature [31].
Taking all of these factors into account, this test system was selected for
simulations in this research. This grid contains 19 load buses which
consume a total power of 6097.1 MW. The rated frequency of the grid is
60 Hz with a base MVA of 100 MVA. To achieve a specific level of PV
integration, several SGs of the test system (at buses 37,35, 36, and 32,
consecutively) are replaced with PV systems of the same rated
I. Mahmud et al.
generation capacity. Note that, PV intermittency is not considered
considering the short duration of simulations. For each PV penetration
level, the total power generation and load are kept constant. A
single-line diagram of the modified test grid with 50% PV penetration is
depicted in Fig. 5.
4.2. Simulation scenarios
The proposed approach is applied to two outage cases in order to
assess its implementation: (1) A major generator outage (Generator 5 –
508 MW), and (2) An interconnection network outage (Generator 1 –
1000 MW). For each outage case, three different PV penetration sce­
narios are simulated. These scenarios represent 30% to 50% PV pene­
tration in the grid with a 10% increment in each step. Additional details
about these scenarios are presented in Table 2. For each PV penetration
scenario, steps 1 to 7 are performed sequentially to obtain the optimal
deloading percentage. For automation and optimization purposes, Py­
thon is integrated with DIgSILENT PowerFactory in this work.
4.3. Result analysis
The goal of this subsection is to provide a concise yet thorough
outcome analysis based on the simulation findings from the case studies
mentioned above. The suggested method’s viability is evaluated
throughout the process.
4.3.1. Case 1: major generator outage event
The Generator 5 (508 MW) outage event is simulated in this case
study to optimize PV deloading using the proposed approach. three
scenarios for this case—30%, 40%, and 50% PV penetration—are given
below with the associated findings and descriptions.
4.3.1.1. 30% PV penetration scenario. For this level of PV penetration,
the PV capacity is set equal to 1842 MW. The gradient descent optimi­
zation algorithm is initiated with an initial value of d0=0 and LS0=0
MW. Here, (11) represents the cost function, and (12)-(17) demonstrate
the corresponding optimization constraints. To optimize the function, an
adaptive learning rate with an initial value of 0.1 is employed. Following
initialization, a dynamic simulation of the generator outage event is
conducted. The frequency excursion curve from the simulation is uti­
lized to calculate the corresponding fnadir and ROCOF, which are then
evaluated against the predefined constraints. In the event of violating
constraints, the load shedding value is incrementally increased by 1
MW, and the outage event is repeatedly performed with updated values
until the constraints are satisfied. The specific sets of values that
conform to the constraints are chosen as the current solution point.
Subsequently, the objective function (11) and gradient (18) are evalu­
ated at the current solution point, and the solution point is updated
using the gradient descent technique in accordance with (19). The dif­
ference between two successive solution points is then calculated to
verify the fulfillment of the halting criteria (20). If the difference exceeds
the predetermined threshold, the iterative process is repeated with the
updated solutions until convergence is achieved.
In this instance, the iterative process was performed 67 times to
obtain an optimum deloading percentage of 6.96% (128.224 MW) with
0 MW load shedding. Fig. 6(a)-(b) illustrate the optimization process
path to identify the point of minimum cost concerning the deloading
Table 2
Summary of simulation scenarios.
Case Study
Case 1: Major generator outage event Case 2: Interconnection network outage event
(Generator 5 – 508 MW) (Generator 1 – 1000 MW)
8
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
percentage and load-shedding size, respectively. Fig. 6(c) presents a
three-dimensional view of the obtained locus of solution points at each
step for better visualization of the process. Additionally, an arrow in the
graph indicates the direction of the optimum solution path finding. The
figures demonstrate the gradual convergence of solution points towards
the optimal solution with minimum cost.
The overall operating cost, which includes the costs of power gen­
eration (SG: 619,480.5847 $/h and PV system: 113,854.14 $/h), up-
regulation (1410.46488 $/h), and load shedding (0 $/h), is deter­
mined to be 734,745.1896 $/h. As the optimally deloaded system does
not require load shedding to satisfy frequency constraints, the load
shedding cost is zero in this scenario.
4.3.1.2. 40% PV penetration scenario. For this particular scenario, the
PV penetration is enhanced to 2457 MW. Employing the same meth­
odology as the previous scenario, the optimization converged after 89
iterations with an optimal deloading percentage of 5.931% (145.689
MW). Note that there is still no required load shedding for the optimal
solution. The grid is capable of sustaining frequency stability solely with
deloaded PV support. Additionally, Fig. 7 illustrates the entire process
through a three-dimensional view. The solution point convergence
pattern is comparable to the previous scenario. Despite the increased
deloaded PV size, the overall deloading percentage has decreased with
an increased PV penetration.
Due to higher PV integration, the power generation cost of SGs has
declined to 488,720.1929 $/h. Despite the increase in PV generation
cost to 151,805.52 $/h, the impact is not as significant as the reduction
in SG production cost. Moreover, the up-regulation cost has marginally
increased to 1602.579924 $/h due to the larger PV deloading size.
Nevertheless, the total overall operating cost has reduced to
642,128.2928 $/h. Like the previous scenario, load shedding cost is 0 $/
h denoting the absence of load shedding.
4.3.1.3. 50% PV penetration scenario. In this final scenario, PV pene­
tration accounts for half of the total generation in the grid. The same
optimization process yields an optimal deloading percentage of 4.968%,
which corresponds to a PV deloading size of 152.542 MW. The three-
dimensional view, depicted in Fig. 8, indicates a visible trend of solu­
tion points toward the optimal solution. In this scenario, the required
deloading size marginally increases, while the corresponding deloading
percentage decreases compared to the previous scenarios. Interestingly,
no load shedding is again required to maintain system stability during
the outage event. In terms of cost at the optimal solution point, the
overall operating cost decreases to 504,149.1332 $/h. Similarly, to the
previous scenarios, the cost of SG generation significantly decreases to
312,714.2663 $/h, while the cost of PV generation increases at a slower
rate to 189,756.9 $/h. The up-regulation cost also increases to
1677.96684 $/h, while the cost of load shedding remains at 0 $/h.
According to the findings, as the PV integration increases, the
optimal deloading size required also increases. However, the overall
percentage of optimal deloading decreases gradually. Load shedding is
not required for any scenarios in the event of a major generator outage
while ensuring minimum cost. Furthermore, the overall operating cost
decreases with increased PV penetration.
4.3.2. Case 2: interconnection network outage event
In the previous case, no load shedding was required to maintain
Simulation PV penetration SG output PV generator output
scenario (%) (MW) (MW)
Scenario 1 30 4299 1842
Scenario 2 40 3684 2457
Scenario 3 50 3070.5 3070.5
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 6. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient descent algorithm in 30% PV penetration case for a major generator outage: (a) Cost vs
Deloading percentage, (b) Cost vs Load shedding size, and (c) Cost vs Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size.
minimum operating costs during the major generator outage. To
investigate whether more severe disturbances result in a combination of
deloading and load shedding, a larger tripping event is investigated.
Thus, the interconnection network outage (Generator 1 - 1000 MW) is
considered for the 30%, 40%, and 50% PV penetration scenarios in this
case.
4.3.2.1. 30% PV penetration. Following the same process as the previ­
ous scenarios, the optimization is conducted and the solution is found
after 72 iterations. The result shows that 14.92% of PV deloading
(equivalent to 274.83 MW) is required along with 110.6 MW load
shedding, as demonstrated in Fig. 9. Due to significant power distur­
bance and increased grid dynamics, the resultant path of the simulation
points is also more scattered. Unlike the previous cases, this scenario
requires load shedding to preserve the frequency response of the system
while ensuring economic viability. The overall operating cost (similar to
Case 1) for this scenario is $846,391/h, which is the highest among all
cases due to the significant disturbance size. For the first time, the load
shedding cost (55,500 $/h) is also incorporated into it. Nonetheless, this
specific combination of deloaded PV and load shedding results in the
minimum operating cost compared to all other possible solution points.
This outcome justifies the robustness of our optimization approach,
which effectively considers all relevant factors, including load shedding
9
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
and upregulation costs, to determine the optimal deloading.
4.3.2.2. 40% PV penetration. The optimization process yielded an
optimal solution of 13.3% PV deloading, equivalent to 326.8 MW, and
119 MW loading, after 97 iterations for the 40% PV penetration. Inter­
estingly, the deloading percentage followed a decreasing trend, similar
to the previous generator and interconnection outage cases. In order to
maintain economic frequency stability, load shedding was required. The
solution trajectory, shown in Fig. 10, exhibited increased complexity
towards the end due to multiple cost combinations. However, the min­
imum operating cost achieved was $741,246/h, which is lower than that
of the 30% PV scenario. The incorporation of more PV generation in
place of SGs contributed to this cost reduction.
4.3.2.3. 50% PV penetration. Increasing the PV capacity to 50% of the
total generation required a longer convergence time of 105 iterations for
optimization. The optimal solution involved a combination of 12.42%
PV deloading, corresponding to 381.4 MW, and 129 MW of load shed­
ding for economic frequency stability. Fig. 11 depicts the trajectory of
the solution points to the optimum point in three dimensions. Like the
previous scenarios, the overall deloading percentage decreased while
the size of load shedding slightly increased. The operating cost also
decreased to $622,541/h, the lowest among all three scenarios for
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 7. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient descent algorithm in 40% PV penetration case for a major generator outage (Cost vs
Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size).
Fig. 8. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient descent algorithm in 50% PV penetration case for a major generator outage (Cost vs
Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size).
increased PV penetration.
The proposed method’s robustness and adaptability were verified by
analyzing both case studies (Case 1 and Case 2), resulting in a successful
optimization process in all six scenarios. The optimization algorithm
consistently converged to the optimal point, with or without load
shedding, while ensuring a minimum operating cost. The results indi­
cated that as the PV penetration level increased, the optimal deloading
percentage decreased, despite an increase in the required PV support.
This finding suggests that with more PV integration at the grid level, less
deloading will be necessary, and the operating cost will decrease. To
provide a comprehensive overview of the optimization results, Table 3
summarizes the deloading percentage and load shedding for all sce­
narios, while Table 4 outlines the cost aspects of all case studies.
10
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
4.4. Justification of the gradient- descent optimization
In this research, the optimization is performed using a gradient
descent optimization algorithm because of the convex nature of the cost
function graph. Moreover, the contrasting nature of the up-regulation
cost and load-shedding cost with a change in deloading size ensures
that the cost function does not have multiple local minima but only a
single global minimum value. For this reason, gradient descent is used in
this research as it can provide accurate results faster as well as reduces
model complexity.
Moreover, to validate the algorithm, optimization was also con­
ducted using a genetic algorithm (GA), which is a population-based
approach that generates and evolves candidate solutions through
crossover and mutation operations [47]. The constraints were modified
for our optimization problem and simulations were conducted for both
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 9. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient
descent algorithm in 30% PV penetration case for interconnection network
outage (Cost vs Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size).
Fig. 10. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient
descent algorithm in 40% PV penetration case for interconnection network
outage (Cost vs Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size).
Fig. 11. Visual representation of finding optimal solutions using gradient
descent algorithm in 50% PV penetration case for interconnection network
outage (Cost vs Deloading percentage vs Load shedding size).
case studies taking 10 chromosomes. The results are summarized in
Table 5 for a thorough comparison. It can be observed that the optimal
solutions obtained using GA are very close to the gradient-descent
optimization solutions for each case, thus justifying our approach.
However, GA requires more simulations and consequently more simu­
lation time in each scenario. Here, the chromosomes take a significant
11
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
amount of time to reach the global optima. Although GA is superior to
gradient descent in many complex optimization problems, the nature of
our optimization problem is better suited for the gradient descent al­
gorithm. Therefore, our usage of gradient descent is further justified for
this optimization problem.
5. Validation methodology and performance analysis
The objective of this section is to analyze the performance and
validate the use of optimally deloaded PV systems in the grid. In order to
assess its feasibility, the performance of the deloaded PV system is
compared with that of two existing support mechanisms: the synchro­
nous condenser and the BESS. The comparison considers both frequency
stability performance and cost aspects, which are unique to this work.
An overexcited synchronous motor that works without a load is
denoted as a synchronous condenser (SC), also known as a synchronous
capacitor or compensator. Decommissioned synchronous machines can
be modified to function as synchronous condensers. It can also be used as
a supplementary device to improve the frequency response of a
renewable-dominated power grid, following a disturbance [48]. On the
other hand, BESS is a type of energy storage system that can capture,
accumulate, and store energy for later use. In times of necessity, this
stored energy can be released through an electrochemical process to
supply active power quickly. It is a very popular supporting mechanism
that can also be used in renewable integrated grids to enhance frequency
stability [49]. A detailed description of the BESS model used in this
research is provided in DIgSILENT [34].
5.1. Simulation scenarios
For validation purposes, the selected test system is the IEEE 39 bus,
which was previously used in Section 4. Simulations are performed for
all PV penetration scenarios for both cases (Case 1 and Case 2) discussed
in Section 4. For each scenario, the outage event simulation is performed
for the optimally deloaded PV as well as BESS and SC. Note, both the
BESS and SC capacities are set to match the optimal deloading size. A
UFLS setting is also used (5% load shed) which is activated if the system
frequency falls below 59 Hz. The overall operating cost of these sce­
narios is also compared against each other to get an understanding of
their feasibility.
5.2. Performance analysis
A thorough analysis of the simulation case studies and associated
comparison analysis is discussed in detail in this subsection.
5.2.1. Case 1: major generator outage event
In this case, the validation is performed for the previously mentioned
major generator outage event (Generator 5 - 508 MW) in the grid for
three PV penetration scenarios. According to the optimization’s find­
ings, the optimal deloaded PV sizes for scenarios with 30%, 40%, and
50% PV adoption were found to be 128.224 MW, 145.689 MW, and
152.542 MW, respectively. To ensure a comprehensive comparison be­
tween the scenarios, similarly-sized BESS (in MW) and SC (in MVAR)
were considered for frequency response performance and operating cost
comparisons. The subsequent sub-sections provide detailed descriptions
of these two aspects.
5.2.1.1. Frequency response performance comparison
At first, the frequency response curves are generated for the 30% PV
penetration scenario keeping the UFLS settings activated. The resultant
curves are illustrated in Fig. 12(a). It can be observed that the frequency
nadir values for the deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated scenarios are
59.0305 Hz, 58.9951 Hz, and 58.96756 Hz, respectively. Note that UFLS
is triggered for both the BESS and SC integrated grids. However, the
optimally deloaded PV system keeps the frequency excursion curve
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

Table 3
Optimal deloading percentage and deloaded power capacity for each PV penetration scenario.
Case Study PV penetration level Optimal deloading Optimal Load-shedding Deloaded power Number of
(%) (%) (MW) (MW) iterations

Case 1: Major Generator Outage Event (508 MW) 30 6.96 0 128.224 67

40 5.931 0 145.689 89
50 4.968 0 152.542 92
Case 2: Interconnection Network Outage Event (1000 30 14.92 111 280.8 72
MW) 40 13.3 119 326.8 97
50 12.42 129 381.4 105

Table 4
Summary of the overall operating cost in optimally deloaded case for each PV penetration scenario.
Case Study PV penetration Overall operating Generation cost of Generation cost Power generation Up-regulation Load shedding
level (%) cost ($/h) SG ($/h) of PV ($/h) cost ($/h) cost ($/h) cost ($/h)

Case 1: Major Generator 30 734,745.1896 619,480.5847 113,854.14 733,334.7247 1410.46488 0

Outage Event (508 MW) 40 642,128.2928 488,720.1929 151,805.52 640,525.7129 1602.579924 0
50 504,149.1332 312,714.2663 189,756.9 502,471.1663 1677.96684 0
Case 2: Interconnection 30 846,391.1 691,299.4 96,500.7 787,800.1 3090.882 55,500
Network Outage Event (1000 40 741,245.8 546,539.52 131,609.28 678,148.8 3597.761 59,500
MW) 50 622,541.3 387,663.92 166,186.38 553,850.3 4190.882 64,500

Table 5
Comparative analysis between gradient-descent optimization and genetic algorithm-based optimization.
Case Study PV penetration Gradient descent optimization Genetic algorithm-based optimization (10 chromosomes)
level (%) Optimal solution No. of Simulation Time Optimal solution No. of Simulation Time
for deloading (%) simulations (in seconds) for deloading (%) simulations (in seconds)
required required

Case 1: Major Generator 30 6.96 67 1005 7.03 302 4530

Outage Event (508 MW) 40 5.931 89 1335 5.98 316 4770
50 4.968 92 1380 5.24 343 5145
Case 2: Interconnection 30 14.92 72 1080 15.10 366 5490
Network Outage Event 40 13.3 97 1455 13.43 375 5625
(1000 MW) 50 12.42 105 1575 12.69 381 5715

within 59 Hz without activating UFLS. Moreover, the ROCOF values are
0.13156 Hz/s, 0.14182 Hz/s, and 0.14404 Hz/s, consecutively. Though
all ROCOF magnitudes are well within the acceptable limit, the deloa­
ded PV scenario experiences the minimum ROCOF following the outage.
In a similar manner, the simulated frequency excursion curves for the
40% PV penetration are shown in Fig. 12(b). The calculated frequency
nadir points are 59.0434 Hz, 58.981 Hz, and 58.9712 Hz, respectively
for the same three mechanisms consecutively. In addition, the ROCOF
magnitudes are 0.14314 Hz/s, 0.15298 Hz/s, and 0.1622 Hz/s, in
sequence. Interestingly, the optimized deloaded PV support again de­
livers better performance than the other two supporting mechanisms,
halting frequency decline without triggering UFLS and doing so with the
lowest ROCOF values. Finally, for the 50% PV penetration, the simula­
tions are again conducted and the associated frequency excursion curves
are illustrated in Fig. 12(c). The outcomes display a similar pattern with
deloaded PV maintaining the frequency nadir at 59.0451 Hz without
UFLS activation. BESS and SC, on the other hand, trigger UFLS activa­
tion, resulting in frequency nadirs of 58.99662 Hz and 58.92054 Hz, in
that order. When it comes to ROCOF numbers, the deloaded PV inte­
grated grid has the lowest ROCOF (0.16 Hz/s), while the BESS and SC
integrated grids have slightly greater ROCOFs of 0.16232 Hz/s and
0.17264 Hz/s, consecutively.
To better understand the performance differences between the three
frequency response support mechanisms, additional simulations were
conducted without the UFLS scheme. The resulting frequency response
curves for the 30%, 40%, and 50% PV integrated scenarios are presented
in Figs. 13(a)-(c), respectively. As anticipated, the frequency nadir
points for the deloaded PV remain unchanged across all scenarios.
However, it is evident that the BESS and SC exhibit significant perfor­
mance differences. Specifically, the frequency nadir points for the BESS
integrated grid are 58.85121 Hz, 58.8742 Hz, and 58.86606 Hz,
respectively, indicating a slightly weaker performance than the deloa­
ded PV. Meanwhile, the frequency nadir points for the SC integrated grid
(58.4324 Hz, 58.372 Hz, and 58.0779 Hz, respectively) are the lowest
among all three mechanisms, suggesting a weak ability to maintain
frequency response. These results provide further validation for the use
of the optimized deloaded PV system in ensuring grid stability.
5.2.1.2. Operating cost comparison. A comprehensive analysis of oper­
ating costs is performed using the per-unit data provided in Table 1 for
the optimized deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid. The results of
the analysis reveal that for the 30% PV penetration, the overall oper­
ating cost of the deloaded PV integrated grid is 734,745.1896 $/h,
excluding any load shedding cost. Conversely, for both the BESS and SC
connected grid, the total operating cost is considerably higher at
19,222,903.16 $/h and 892,193.8464 $/h, respectively. It is noteworthy
that the power generation costs for all three instances are the same.
Furthermore, neither the BESS nor the SC integrated grid has any PV
reserve allocated for frequency response support (0$/h up-regulation
cost). However, the significantly higher operating cost of these two
mechanisms explains the considerable difference in cost with the
deloaded PV integrated grid. Additionally, UFLS is activated in both of
them, and 5% of the total load is disconnected, resulting in additional
load shedding costs. These reasons justify the lower overall operating
cost of the deloaded PV system in comparison to the other two
mechanisms.
The same analyses are repeated for the 40% and 50% PV penetration
scenarios, and the same trend is observed as in the previous scenario. For
the 40% PV penetration, the overall operating cost of the same-sized
deloaded PV system, BESS, and SC connected grid is 642,128.2928

12
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 12. Frequency response curve for a major synchronous generator outage event (with UFLS scheme activated) for PV penetration level of (a) 30%, (b) 40%,
(c) 50%.
$/h, 21,627,589.72 $/h, and 800,111.3788 $/h, respectively. The
deloaded PV integrated grid remains economically feasible by a signif­
icant margin when compared to the other two mechanisms. Similarly,
for the 50% PV penetration scenario, the cost of the deloaded PV inte­
grated grid is the lowest (504,149.1332 $/h), while the cost for BESS
(22,469,565.09 $/h) and SC (662,341.9318 $/h) integration in the grid
remains very high. Although BESS provides good frequency support, the
cost of a BESS-integrated grid is much higher than that of the other two
mechanisms in each scenario. Furthermore, SC integration increases the
overall cost, but with very poor frequency support. These results once
again confirm the economic feasibility of utilizing the optimized
deloaded PV support mechanism.
5.2.2. Case 2: interconnection network outage event
A second case study is conducted to validate the performance of the
optimized deloaded PV system in the event of an interconnection
network outage. As discussed in Section 4, the deloading sizes for the
30%, 40%, and 50% PV penetration scenarios were determined to be
180.8 MW, 326.8 MW, and 381.4 MW, respectively. To minimize costs
during the outage event, load shedding was also necessary, with corre­
sponding amounts of 110 MW, 119 MW, and 129 MW for each scenario.
For comparison purposes, the same-sized BESS and SC systems were
integrated into the grid with the same UFLS settings. As the optimization
findings already include load shedding values for optimum operation, it
should be noted that only UFLS scheme integrated grids are taken into
consideration. The performance and operating cost of the three mech­
anisms during the outage event are discussed below.
13
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
5.2.2.1. Frequency response performance comparison. In the case of 30%
PV integration in the grid, Fig. 14(a) illustrates the simulated frequency
excursion plots for the deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid. The
frequency nadir values calculated for these mechanisms are 58.97 Hz,
58.82 Hz, and 58.802 Hz, consecutively. In all cases, the frequency nadir
falls below 59 Hz, triggering UFLS for the predetermined outage of 110
MW. It should be noted that even under these conditions, the deloaded
PV system exhibits the highest frequency nadir value. Additionally, the
ROCOF values are 0.2274 Hz/s, 0.2392 Hz/s, and 0.2438 Hz/s,
consecutively. As in the previous case, the ROCOF values are within the
allowable range, but the deloaded PV support once again generates the
lowest ROCOF. These results demonstrate that even during intercon­
nection outages, the optimized PV support performs better than the
other two mechanisms in preserving frequency stability.
After conducting simulations for the 40% and 50% PV penetration
scenarios, the corresponding frequency excursion plots are presented in
Figs. 14(b)-(c). It can be seen that the deloaded PV system still delivers
the superior frequency response as the PV penetration increases in the
grid. Specifically, for the 40% PV scenario, the frequency nadir values
are 58.986 Hz, 58.812 Hz, and 58.808 Hz, consecutively for the deloa­
ded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid. For the 50% scenario, the results
follow a similar trend, with values of 58.973 Hz, 58.809 Hz, and 58.802
Hz, consecutively. In both scenarios, the ROCOF values demonstrate the
same trend as seen in the graphs. It is noteworthy that SC support re­
mains the weakest mechanism, while BESS performs somewhat better
than SC. Nonetheless, the optimized deloaded PV system still out­
performs both of them in providing frequency support during
I. Mahmud et al.
Fig. 13. Frequency response curve for a major synchronous generator tripping event (without UFLS schemes activated) for PV penetration level of (a) 30%, (b) 40%,
(c) 50%.
interconnection outages.
5.2.2.2. Operating cost comparison. Similar to the previous case study,
this interconnection outage event’s total operating cost analysis is car­
ried out. Note, load shedding cost is added for each of the cost calcu­
lations. The findings indicate that, even with the substantial up-
regulation and load shedding costs, the cost of operation of the deloa­
ded PV integrated grid for 30% PV integration (846,391.1 $/h) is the
lowest. The operating costs of BESS and SC integrated grid, however, are
much higher, coming in at 28,409,373.59 $/h, and 956,604.03 $/h
respectively. Because of the high operating costs of BESS and SC, there is
a substantial cost discrepancy. The same trend is observed when PV
penetration increases to 40% and 50%. The deloaded PV integrated grid
again has the lowest cost (741,245.8 $/h), while the integration of BESS
(24,871,962.33) and SC (829,589.79) results in a drastic increase in cost
for 40% PV penetration. Similarly, for 50% PV penetration, the oper­
ating costs of the deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid are
622,541.3 $/h, 20,878,862.04 $/h, and 686,680.377 $/h, respectively.
These results highlight the economic benefits of integrating deloaded PV
into the grid and the economic challenges associated with integrating
BESS and SC systems.
The results of the simulations conducted in both major generator
outage and interconnection network outage cases demonstrate the su­
periority of the proposed deloaded model over the existing support
mechanisms of BESS and SC. In the major generator outage case, only
the optimally deloaded PV system was able to maintain the system
frequency above 59 Hz without triggering the UFLS scheme. The
simulation without UFLS activation clearly distinguishes the
14
Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457
performance of the three cases. Although the frequency nadir of the
BESS integrated grid was somewhat closer to the deloaded PV integrated
grid, the SC integrated grid shows far inferior performance. Even in the
interconnection network outage case where load shedding was required,
the deloaded PV system provided enhanced frequency stability
compared to the other mechanisms. Table 6 and Table 7 provide an
overview of the frequency nadir points and the ROCOF magnitudes
found in the deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grids for both cases.
Regarding the operating cost aspect, increased PV penetration in the
grid leads to a reduction in the overall operating cost in each case.
Furthermore, the deloaded PV integration incurs the lowest cost in every
scenario, whether the load shedding cost is involved or not. Due to the
low operating cost of PV systems, deloading operation remains a cost-
effective option compared to the utilization of BESS or SC. For better
comparison, Table 8 provides an in-depth cost breakdown of each sce­
nario in the two cases.
6. Discussion on the applicability of the proposed method
The proposed method outlined in this research considers both fre­
quency response metrics and operating cost constraints to determine the
optimal deloading of PV systems. Before the implementation of the
proposed approach, simulations need to be carried out during the
planning stage of the grid, while taking into consideration the grid pa­
rameters. Once optimization is successfully achieved, the optimal
deloading of PV systems can be implemented in the grid to ensure both
stable and economic operation. Since this method is generic, it can be
applied to any small or large grid as needed, and constraint limits can be
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

Fig. 14. Frequency response curve for interconnection network outage event (with UFLS scheme activated) for PV penetration level of (a) 30%, (b) 40%, (c) 50%.

Table 6
Frequency nadir points for Deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid (with and without UFLS scheme activation) in conducted case studies.
Case Study PV penetration Deloaded PV BESS without SC without Deloaded PV with BESS with SC with UFLS
level (%) without UFLS (Hz) UFLS (Hz) UFLS (Hz) UFLS (Hz) UFLS (Hz) (Hz)

Case 1: Major Generator Outage 30% 59.0305 58.85121 58.4324 59.0305 58.9951 58.96756
Event (508 MW) 40% 59.0434 58.87426 58.372 59.0434 58.981 58.9712
50% 59.0451 58.86606 58.0779 59.0451 58.99662 58.92054
Case 2: Interconnection Network 30% – – – 58.97 58.82 58.802
Outage Event (1000 MW) 40% – – – 58.986 58.812 58.808
50% – – – 58.973 58.809 58.802

Table 7
ROCOF magnitudes for Deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid (with and without UFLS scheme activation) in conducted case studies.
Case Study PV penetration Deloaded PV BESS without SC without Deloaded PV with BESS with SC with UFLS
level (%) without UFLS (Hz/s) UFLS (Hz/s) UFLS (Hz/s) UFLS (Hz/s) UFLS (Hz/s) (Hz/s)

Case 1: Major Generator Outage 30% 0.13156 0.14182 0.14404 0.13156 0.14182 0.14404
Event (508 MW) 40% 0.14314 0.15298 0.1622 0.14314 0.15298 0.1622
50% 0.16 0.16232 0.17264 0.16 0.16232 0.17264
Case 2: Interconnection Network 30% – – – 0.2274 0.2392 0.2438
Outage Event (1000 MW) 40% – – – 0.2581 0.2653 0.2715
50% – – – 0.2738 0.2874 0.2998

modified as per the grid planner’s requirements. If any modifications are
made to the grid, calculations must be performed again, and the updated
modified deloading can be employed for efficient grid operation.
Therefore, this method is adaptable for practical implementation in any
renewable integrated grid.
Note, PV intermittency is not considered in this work for the short
duration of the simulations. The load-side fluctuations during grid
operation are also not taken into account. However, these limitations
can be overcome by adapting the constraints to consider extreme situ­
ations and running simulations accordingly. Additionally, this method
can be utilized in the grid considering any major disturbance event as
necessary. As observed from the results of this research, the proposed
method works efficiently in every case with the utilized algorithm, and
the deloaded PV support provides the expected outcomes. Therefore, the

15
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

proposed approach is also highly applicable in any grid running situa­

tion as required by the grid planner.

operating
Overall

0.892
0.800
0.662
0.956
0.829
0.687
7. Conclusions

cost
This research presents a novel optimization methodology for deter­
mining the optimal deloading percentage of deloaded PV systems in a

shedding

0.154
0.154
0.154
0.056
0.060
0.065
renewable integrated grid. Unlike previous research, this work considers

Load

cost
both economic factors (including power generation, load shedding, and
up-regulation costs) and frequency stability when determining the
Synchronous condenser (M$/h)

optimal deloading size. The method is implemented in the New England

Operating
cost of SC

0.00533
0.00606
0.00635
IEEE 39 bus test system, and two different case studies of outage events

0.0919
0.0683
0.113
are considered. The results show that in scenarios with 30%, 40%, and
50% PV penetration under the major generator outage case, the optimal
PV deloading is 6.96%, 5.931%, and 4.968%, respectively (with no load
generation

shedding). For the interconnection outage case, the optimal deloading

Power

values increase to 14.92%, 13.3%, and 12.42%, respectively (with load

0.733
0.642
0.502
0.788
0.678
0.554
cost

shedding). Additionally, a comprehensive comparison of the deloaded

systems with BESS and SC integrated systems is performed. The opti­
mally deloaded PV system shows superior performance in both technical
operating

and economic aspects in all PV penetration scenarios. Unlike BESS and

Overall

19.223
21.628
22.469
28.409
24.872
20.878
cost

SC of the same size, it avoids the activation of UFLS in the first case while
preserving frequency stability. Although load shedding was required in
the second case, deloaded PV still provided better frequency stability in
shedding

the grid. Moreover, the overall operating cost of the deloaded PV inte­
0.154
0.154
0.154
0.056
0.060
0.065
Load

grated scenario is much lower compared to BESS and SC integrated grid

cost

scenarios in both cases.

The proposed methodology can be extended to all available grid-
cost of BESS

level integration. Moreover, this approach will help grid planners in

Operating

18.336
20.834
21.814
27.566
24.134
20.261

effectively finding the optimal deloading percentage of an existing or

new grid. In this way, many existing renewable enriched grids can be
made more stable and their operating cost can also be minimized at the
BESS (M$/h)

same time. Note that, the variability of PV output with respect to time
generation

and weather conditions is not considered in this research. In future

Power

0.733
0.642
0.502
0.788
0.678
0.554

works, these aspects will be considered while finding the optimal

cost
The overall operational cost for Deloaded PV, BESS, and SC integrated grid in conducted case studies.

deloading.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

operating
Overall

0.735
0.642
0.504
0.846
0.741
0.623
cost

Ishtiak Mahmud: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Vali­

dation, Data curation, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Nahid-Al Masood:
shedding

Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization,

0.056
0.060
0.065
Load

cost

Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft,

0
0
0

Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Atik Jawad: Conceptualiza­

tion, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Data curation,
regulation

Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review

0.00141

0.00168
0.0016

0.0031
0.0036
0.0041

& editing.
cost
Up-
Deloaded PV (M$/h)

Declaration of Competing Interest

generation

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

Power

0.733
0.642
0.502
0.788
0.678
0.554

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence

cost

the work reported in this paper.

Data availability
penetration
level (%)

30%
40%
50%
30%
40%
50%

Data will be made available on request.

PV

Case 2: Interconnection

Acknowledgement
Event (1000 MW)
Generator Outage
Event (508 MW)

Network Outage
Case 1: Major

The authors express their gratitude to the Research and Innovation

Case Study

Centre for Science and Engineering (RISE), Bangladesh University of

Table 8

Engineering and Technology (BUET) for the grant (ID: 2021-01-014) to

accomplish this work.

16
I. Mahmud et al. Electric Power Systems Research 221 (2023) 109457

References [24] P. Kushwaha, V. Prakash, R. Bhakar, U.R. Yaragatti, Synthetic inertia and
frequency support assessment from renewable plants in low carbon grids, Electr.
Power Syst. Res. 209 (2022), 107977, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[1] S. Mokeke, L.Z. Thamae, The impact of intermittent renewable energy generators
epsr.2022.107977.
on Lesotho national electricity grid, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 196 (2021), 107196,
[25] H. Xin, Y. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Gan, T. Yang, A new frequency regulation strategy for
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107196.
photovoltaic systems without energy storage, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4 (4)
[2] S. Wang, Q. Dong, J. Zhang, J. Sun, X. Gu, C. Chen, Robustness assessment of
(2013) 985–993, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2013.2261567.
power network with renewable energy, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 217 (2023),
[26] C. Rahmann, A. Castillo, Fast frequency response capability of photovoltaic power
109138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2023.109138.
plants: the necessity of new grid requirements and definitions, Energies 7 (10)
[3] CCES. "Renewable Energy". Center for climate and energy solutions. https://www.
(2014) 6306–6322, https://doi.org/10.3390/en7106306.
c2es.org/content/renewable-energy/. (accessed Aug. 2022).
[27] M. Tavakkoli, J. Adabi, S. Zabihi, R. Godina, E. Pouresmaeil, Reserve allocation of
[4] Installed Solar Energy Capacity, OWD, 2022 [Online]. Available: https://ourwo
photovoltaic systems to improve frequency stability in hybrid power systems,
rldindata.org/grapher/installed-solar-pv-capacity.
Energies 11 (10) (2018) 2583, https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102583.
[5] M.Z. Zakariya, J. Teh, A systematic review on cascading failures models in
[28] P. Verma, T. Kaur, Power reserve control strategy of PV system for active power
renewable power systems with dynamics perspective and protections modeling,
reserve under dynamic shading patterns, Array (2022), 100250, https://doi.org/
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 214 (2023), 108928, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1016/j.array.2022.100250.
epsr.2022.108928.
[29] C. Zhong, H. Li, Y. Zhou, Y. Lv, J. Chen, Y. Li, Virtual synchronous generator of PV
[6] Ö. Çelik, M. Büyük, A. Tan, Mitigation of power oscillations for energy harvesting
generation without energy storage for frequency support in autonomous microgrid,
capability improvement of grid-connected renewable energy systems, Electr.
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 134 (2022), 107343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Power Syst. Res. 213 (2022), 108756, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijepes.2021.107343.
epsr.2022.108756.
[30] H. Sharma, C. Bhende, P. Sekhar, Enhancement in frequency response capability of
[7] C. Shuai, Y. Deyou, G. Weichun, L. Chuang, C. Guowei, K. Lei, Global sensitivity
grid connected photovoltaic system, in: 2022 IEEE 2nd International Conference on
analysis of voltage stability in the power system with correlated renewable energy,
Sustainable Energy and Future Electric Transportation (SeFeT), IEEE, 2022,
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 192 (2021), 106916, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/SeFeT55524.2022.9909329.
epsr.2020.106916.
[31] A. Jawad, N. Al-Masood, A systematic approach to estimate the frequency support
[8] M.Y. Yousef, M.A. Mosa, A.A. Ali, S.M.E. Masry, A.M.A. Ghany, Frequency response
from large-scale PV plants in a renewable integrated grid, Energy Rep. 8 (2022)
enhancement of an AC micro-grid has renewable energy resources based generators
940–954, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.12.017.
using inertia controller, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 196 (2021), 107194, https://doi.
[32] K. Bates, J. Bradshaw, Costing systems and the spare capacity conundrum:
org/10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107194.
avoiding the death spiral, SSRN Electr. J. (2011), https://doi.org/10.2139/
[9] K.S. El-Bidairi, H.D. Nguyen, T.S. Mahmoud, S.D.G. Jayasinghe, J.M. Guerrero,
ssrn.2028699.
Optimal sizing of battery energy storage systems for dynamic frequency control in
[33] W. Kuckshinrichs, T. Schröder, Value of lost load: an efficient economic indicator
an islanded microgrid: a case study of Flinders Island, Australia, Energy 195
for power supply security? A literature review, Front. Energy Res. 3 (2015),
(2020), 117059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.117059.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2015.00055.
[10] X. He, S. Ge, H. Liu, Z. Xu, Y. Mi, C. Wang, Frequency regulation of multi-microgrid
[34] DIgSILENT, DigSILENT GmbH, DIgSILENT PowerFactory V15.1- User Manual,
with shared energy storage based on deep reinforcement learning, Electr. Power
DIgSILENT, 2013.
Syst. Res. 214 (2023), 108962, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108962.
[35] O. Gandhi, D.S. Kumar, C.D. Rodríguez-Gallegos, D. Srinivasan, Review of power
[11] R. Ansaripour, H. Barati, A. Ghasemi, A chance-constrained optimization
system impacts at high PV penetration Part I: factors limiting PV penetration, Solar
framework for transmission congestion management and frequency regulation in
Energy 210 (2020) 181–201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2020.06.097.
the presence of wind farms and energy storage systems, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
[36] B. Singh, R. Mahanty, S. Singh, Security Constraints Optimal Power Flow and
213 (2022), 108712, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.108712, 2022/12/01/.
Generator Rescheduling Using Interior Point Optimization Technique, Power
[12] K.N. Akpinar, B. Gundogdu, O. Ozgonenel, C. Gezegin, An intelligent power
Systems Division, CPRI, 2012, pp. 1–7.
management controller for grid-connected battery energy storage systems for
[37] "IRENA POWER GENERATION COSTS IN 2020," ed: IRENA, 2020.
frequency response service: a battery cycle life approach, Electr. Power Syst. Res.
[38] C. Lueken, G.E. Cohen, J. Apt, Costs of solar and wind power variability for
216 (2023), 109040, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2022.109040.
reducing CO2 emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (17) (2012) 9761–9767,
[13] C. Jamroen, The effect of SoC management on economic performance for battery
https://doi.org/10.1021/es204392a.
energy storage system in providing voltage regulation in distribution networks,
[39] M.R. Tur, Calculation of value of lost load with a new approach based on time and
Electr. Power Syst. Res. 211 (2022), 108340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
its effect on energy planning in power systems, Int. J. Renew. Energy Res. 10 (1)
epsr.2022.108340.
(2020) 416–424, https://doi.org/10.20508/ijrer.v10i1.10237.g7888.
[14] S. Barakat, A. Emam, M.M. Samy, Investigating grid-connected green power
[40] W. Cole, A.W. Frazier, and C. Augustine, "Cost projections for utility-scale battery
systems’ energy storage solutions in the event of frequent blackouts, Energy Rep. 8
storage: 2021 update," United States, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.
(2022) 5177–5191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.03.201.
gov/biblio/1786976[Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/pur
[15] A.F. Güven, N. Yörükeren, M.M. Samy, Design optimization of a stand-alone green
l/1786976.
energy system of university campus based on Jaya-Harmony Search and Ant
[41] C. Li, M. Liu, Y. Guo, H. Ma, H. Wang, X. Yuan, Cost analysis of synchronous
Colony Optimization algorithms approaches, Energy 253 (2022), 124089, https://
condenser transformed from thermal unit based on LCC theory, Processes 10 (9)
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124089.
(2022) 1887, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091887.
[16] M.M. Samy, A. Emam, E. Tag-Eldin, S. Barakat, Exploring energy storage methods
[42] A.-.L. Cauchy, M´ethode g´en´erale pour la r´esolution des syst`emes d’´equations
for grid-connected clean power plants in case of repetitive outages, J. Energy Stor.
simultan´ees, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris (25) (1847)
54 (2022), 105307, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105307.
536–538.
[17] A. Fatih Güven, M. Mahmoud Samy, Performance analysis of autonomous green
[43] A. Cabrera-Tobar, E. Bullich-Massagué, M. Aragüés-Peñalba, O. Gomis-Bellmunt,
energy system based on multi and hybrid metaheuristic optimization approaches,
Review of advanced grid requirements for the integration of large scale
Energy Convers. Manage. 269 (2022), 116058, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
photovoltaic power plants in the transmission system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
enconman.2022.116058.
62 (2016) 971–987, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.044.
[18] C. Mokhtara, B. Negrou, N. Settou, B. Settou, M.M. Samy, Design optimization of
[44] T. Athay, R. Podmore, S. Virmani, A practical method for the direct analysis of
off-grid Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems considering the effects of building
transient stability, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. (2) (1979) 573–584, https://doi.
energy performance and climate change: case study of Algeria, Energy 219 (2021),
org/10.1109/TPAS.1979.319407.
119605, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119605.
[45] P. Demetriou, M. Asprou, J. Quiros-Tortos, E. Kyriakides, Dynamic IEEE test
[19] P. Zarina, S. Mishra, P. Sekhar, Deriving inertial response from a non-inertial PV
systems for transient analysis, IEEE Syst. J. 11 (4) (2017) 2108–2117, https://doi.
system for frequency regulation, in: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Power
org/10.1109/JSYST.2015.2444893, doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2015.2444893.
Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES), IEEE, 2012, pp. 1–5, https://doi.
[46] Q. Wang, F. Li, Y. Tang, Y. Xu, Integrating model-driven and data-driven methods
org/10.1109/PEDES.2012.6484409.
for power system frequency stability assessment and control, IEEE Trans. Power
[20] P. Zarina, S. Mishra, P. Sekhar, Exploring frequency control capability of a PV
Syst. 34 (6) (2019) 4557–4568, https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2019.2919522.
system in a hybrid PV-rotating machine-without storage system, Int. J. Electr.
[47] A.M.A. Youssef, Z.J. Zhai, R.M. Reffat, Genetic algorithm based optimization for
Power Energy Syst. 60 (2014) 258–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
photovoltaics integrated building envelope, Energy Build. 127 (2016) 627–636,
ijepes.2014.02.033.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.018.
[21] P. Zarina, S. Mishra, Cost benefit of using deloaded PV instead of battery, in: 2016
[48] V. Arayamparambil Vinaya Mohanan, I.M. Mareels, R.J. Evans, R.R. Kolluri,
IEEE International Conference on Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems
Stabilising influence of a synchronous condenser in low inertia networks, IET
(PEDES), IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/PEDES.2016.7914468.
Gener. Trans. Distrib. 14 (17) (2020) 3582–3593, https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
[22] P. Verma, T. Kaur, R. Kaur, Cost Assessment of Deloaded Photovoltaic Systems, in:
gtd.2020.0178.
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1033, IOP Publishing,
[49] C. Zhang, Y.-.L. Wei, P.-.F. Cao, M.-.C. Lin, Energy storage system: current studies
2021, 012001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1033/1/012001.
on batteries and power condition system, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018)
[23] S.G. Malla, C.N. Bhende, Enhanced operation of stand-alone “Photovoltaic-Diesel
3091–3106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.10.030.
Generator-Battery” system, Electr. Power Syst. Res. 107 (2014) 250–257, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2013.10.009.

17