IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO.
4, NOVEMBER 2004
The Coordinated Automatic Voltage Control of
the Italian Transmission Grid—Part I: Reasons
of the Choice and Overview of the Consolidated
Hierarchical System
Sandro Corsi, Member, IEEE, Massimo Pozzi, Carlo Sabelli, and Antonio Serrani
Abstract—Transmission network voltage regulation through
coordinated automatic control of reactive powers is now becoming
a challenging objective for many utilities and system operators
(ISO or TSO) to achieve significant improvements in the security,
quality, and efficiency of power system operation. This survey
paper is concerned with application of Secondary and Tertiary
Voltage Regulations (SVR and TVR), already operating in the
Italian transmission network. The basic concepts behind SVR
and TVR and the related hierarchical control system are first
described in terms of system characteristics, main functions and
design requirements. Cost/benefit analysis and comparison with
alternative voltage control solutions are also provided in relation to
the influence of power system restructuring process on the voltage
ancillary service. More details about control system apparatuses
and their field test results are provided in Part II.
Index Terms—Automatic control, coordinated voltage control,
multivariable hierarchical control, optimal reactive power flow, re-
active power, reactive power coordination, secondary and tertiary
voltage regulation, stability margins, transmission losses, voltage,
voltage ancillary service.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE CONTROL of grid voltages and reactive powers has
become more critical in recent years, due to the general
trend by system operators and electrical utilities to operate the
transmission networks as close as possible to their maximum ca-
pacity. The need for suitable control solutions capable of dealing
with increased power loads and losses, possible grid contin-
gencies, and the risk of voltage collapse in ever more tightly
meshed networks has therefore grown. Nevertheless, the lack of
real-time and closed-loop “automatic” coordination of reactive
power resources appears, in common network voltage control
practice, to be as persistent as it is unjustified.
“Manual” grid voltage control, largely used by system opera-
tors worldwide up to the present, typically involves dispatching
the generating units’ forecasted reactive powers, scheduling the
power plants’ high-side voltages, switching the banks of shunt
capacitors or reactors, and setting the voltage set-points of
Manuscript received April 19, 2004. Paper no. TPWRS-00184-2003.
S. Corsi and M. Pozzi are with the Centro Elettrotecnico Sperimentale
Italiano (CESI), 54-20134 Milan, Italy (e-mail: corsi.sandro@cesi.it; pozzi.
massimo@cesi.it).
C. Sabelli and A. Serrani are with the Gestore della Rete di Trasmissione
Nazionale SpA (GRTN), 101-00138 Rome, Italy (e-mail: sabelli.carlo@grtn.it;
serrani.antonio@grtn.it).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2004.836185
0885-8950/04$20.00 © 2004 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1723
OLTC and FACTS controllers. This conventional approach to
solving the network voltage control problem is now considered
quite unsatisfactory because:
— dispatching units’ reactive power and scheduling
plants’ high-side voltages are based on off-line fore-
casting: actual network operating conditions are often
different from their forecasted values and are quite
unpredictable;
— voltage set-points coordination is often operated
through written requirements or requested by the
system operator when strongly needed: untimely or
inadequate control actions may occur during most
dynamic phenomena.
To improve voltage control in transmission grids, many ap-
proaches have been applied in the past by utilities and system
operators and many projects have been developed around the
world. In most cases, the approach adopted is limited to power
factor correction, by increasing the installed capacitors or re-
actor banks, requiring significant investment. Availability, in
some cases, of unit step-up transformers with OLTC offers an
additional opportunity for network voltage control, provided
that their regulation system supports plant EHV side instead of
generator stator side. The solution of automatically supporting
power plant high-side voltage control through AVR line drop
compensation is also commonly used. This practice increases
grid voltage support but introduces destabilizing interactions be-
tween primary voltage regulators. Use of FACTS controllers for
network voltage support, mainly SVC and STATCOM, has been
seriously considered in the last years, even though the costs in-
volved do not always justify this choice and, if extensively ap-
plied, they require a coordinated control system similar to those
described here for generators. Recently, in response to ongoing
market liberalization, some exciter manufacturers offer unit re-
active power or power factor control and plant high-side voltage
control.
Hierarchical systems based on network area subdivision and
automatic coordination of reactive power resources were first
studied in Europe for achieving network voltage control. These
innovative solutions, named Coordinated Voltage Regulation
(CVR) or Secondary and Tertiary Voltage Regulations (SVR
and TVR), depending on their hierarchical level, have been
studied in Italy [1]–[3], France [4], [5], Belgium [6], [7] and
Spain [8], [9]. Some of them operate in real systems and are
1724
extended at the national level. As a result of changes in the
organization of European utilities and the resulting energy
markets deregulation, hierarchical voltage control systems are
increasingly being appreciated and reinforced. In fact, system
operators recognize that SVR and TVR permit both simpli-
fication of automatic control of overall transmission network
voltages and recognition of the contributions of different par-
ticipants to the voltage ancillary service.
In North America, interest in SVR and TVR [10] or simpler
power plant solutions, such as high-side voltage control, is
growing. A wide area voltage control is under development at
BPA, based on the coordination of generator or load tripping,
reactive power switching, TCSC/SVC modulation, power plant
high-side voltage scheduling, and OLTC tap-changing [11].
SVR concepts are also under consideration in Brazil [12],
where voltage control is proposed for critical distribution areas
too, based on a methodology providing a guideline for OLTC
assessment and coordination [13].
At the beginning of the new millennium, progress and trends
in transmission network voltage control require major develop-
ment and innovation through use of simple, effective, automatic
control systems, managed and supervised directly by system
operators. The cost/benefit analyses strongly support this inno-
vation [14]. Moreover, because voltage control is prevalently
a local problem, potential solutions must consider automatic
coordination of local reactive power resources, primarily those
of generators and compensators but also shunt capacitors and
reactors, OLTCs, SVCs, and STATCOMs. For this reason, the
goals (quality and security improvements in network opera-
tion) of voltage ancillary service can be pursued through a
decentralized voltage control system, by introducing local co-
ordination in each area/region of the power system. Such co-
ordination requires exchange of data and signals between the
regional dispatcher and local plants/substations: the more data
are exchanged in real-time, on the basis of power system dy-
namics, the more the voltage control system can improve per-
formance and effectiveness. The benefits of network voltage
control in terms of grid efficiency, on the other hand, are more
strongly linked with inter-area coordination, requiring effective
exchange of data and signals among regional dispatchers and
the central/national system operator. In particular, the exchange
of measurements with the neighboring utilities (e.g., boundary
bus voltages and tie-line reactive flows), as well as the co-
ordination of mutual control actions, are very important for
reducing system losses. The on-line and real-time monitoring
of actual EHV control system performance also represents a
challenging opportunity for indubitable correct recognition of
power plants’ contributions to the voltage service [15], in the
framework of energy sector liberalization and ancillary market
competition. The main reasons supporting coordinated “auto-
matic” real-time voltage regulation can therefore be summa-
rized as follows:
— the quality of power system operation is improved, in
terms of reduced variation around the defined voltages
profile across the overall transmission network;
— the security of power system operation is enhanced,
in terms of reactive power reserves kept available
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2004
by generating units for dealing with emergency
conditions;
— the transfer capability of power system is improved, in
terms of increased active power levels transmissible,
with reduced voltage instability and collapse risks;
— the efficiency of power system operation is enhanced,
in terms of minimization of active losses, reduction
of reactive flows and better utilization of reactive
resources;
— the controllability and measurability of voltage an-
cillary service is simplified, in terms of definition of
functional requirements and performance monitoring
criteria.
II. BASIC SVR AND TVR CONCEPTS
The basic concepts of SVR are summarized here to permit
understanding of the proposed control system’s structure, per-
formance and advantages:
a) the idea of automatic real-time control of hundreds of
transmission bus voltages is too complex, very critical,
not reliable and therefore unrealistic and uneconomical;
b) the generating units’ reactive power is, obviously, the
main resource already available in the field, low-cost and
simple to control for network voltage support;
c) a realistic simple voltage control system should consider
the dominant buses only (a small amount), thus allowing
a sub-optimal but feasible and reliable control solution;
d) to more easily realize the dominant bus (pilot node) idea
we call joint-buses those having high electrical coupling
to form a “control area” with voltages close to each other;
e) the control structure, based on the subdivision of the grid
into control areas, automatically and, as much as possible,
independently regulates each area pilot node voltage;
f) the control resource is essentially based on the reactive
powers of the largest units in the area (control plants),
which mainly influence the local pilot node voltage.
The basic idea of TVR comes from the need to increase
the system’s operating security and efficiency through
centralized coordination of the decentralized SVR struc-
ture:
g) the pilot nodes voltage set-points must be adequately
updated and coordinated with dynamics slower than
SVR, considering the real condition of the overall grid
and avoiding useless and conflicting inter-area control
efforts;
h) the pilot nodes voltage set-points can be computed and up-
dated in real-time, considering the global control system
structure and its real-time measurements;
i) the pilot nodes voltage set-points have to be optimized
to minimize grid losses while still preserving control
margin.
It is necessary to point out that, notwithstanding the goal of
minimizing control system complexity, the effort involved in
achieving an effective control system is in any case considerable
when a large transmission network is involved, as confirmed
by past experience and existing applications. On one hand, a
CORSI et al.: COORDINATED AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE CONTROL OF THE ITALIAN TRANSMISSION GRID—PART I
Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure for transmission network voltage control.
new power plant apparatus is needed to control the reactive
power production of generating units, as well as of synchronous
compensators, according to the local bus-bar or remote pilot
node voltage regulator and taking into account the instantaneous
available capability of the plant generators. On the other hand, a
specific regional dispatcher regulator is necessary to automat-
ically maintain pilot node voltages at their scheduled values,
controlling the new power plant apparatuses via rapid telecom-
munications, turning on/off reactor banks and shunt capacitor,
and ordering OLTCs and FACTS controller set-points. Lastly, a
new voltage and reactive power optimizing regulator is required
at the national/utility control level, to coordinate and update all
the pilot node voltage set-points on-line and in real-time (see
Fig. 1). All of these special control apparatuses are not available
on the market and so far they have had to be specifically de-
signed, developed, and commissioned by the utilities or system
operators involved.
III. THE ITALIAN NETWORK VOLTAGE CONTROL SYSTEM
The Italian hierarchical voltage control system (see Fig. 2)
regulates the voltages of the main EHV buses (pilot nodes) in a
closed loop through real-time control of the reactive resources
which most influence those buses. This permits secure transmis-
sion network operation, very close to the highest voltage limits,
through rapid control of the main generators (control plants), co-
ordinated by a reactive power level within the same grid portion
(control area) and automatically forced to their limits only when
needed. The Regional Voltage Regulators (RVRs) close the con-
trol loops of the pilot node voltages, providing each area with
a specific reactive power level which controls the local power
plants’ Voltage and Reactive Power Regulators (REPORTs). In
turn, the REPORT closes the reactive power control loops of
the plant units, directly acting on the set-points of the genera-
tors’ Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVRs). RVR also controls
capacitor banks, shunt reactors, OLTCs and SVCs to avoid satu-
ration of area generators. AVR rapid control is referred to as Pri-
mary Voltage Regulation (PVR). The combination of REPORT
[16] and RVR [17] implements the SVR. At the highest hierar-
chical control level, a Tertiary Voltage Regulator (TVR) coordi-
nates the RVRs in a real-time closed loop.
It establishes, on the basis of the actual field measurements,
the current pilot node voltages which achieve the minimum fea-
sible grid losses, by slow RVR set-point correction, keeping the
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1725
system under control at all times. To achieve this aim, an Op-
timal Reactive Power Flow (ORPF) for Losses Minimization
Control (LMC) computes, in short (the day ahead) or very short
(minutes ahead) terms, the forecasted optimal voltages and re-
active levels, starting from the foreseen/current state estimation.
Therefore TVR minimizes the differences between the actual
field measurements and the optimal forecasted references. This
computed “compromise” represents the maximum tenable volt-
ages plan at any instant. The combination of TVR [18], [19] and
LMC [20], [21] forms the National Voltage Regulator (NVR),
which so links ORPF forecasting with real-time optimization of
SVR set-points.
The hierarchical voltage control system has different opera-
tion modes, according to its implementation progresses, main-
tenance interventions and transient or persistent failures:
— without plant telecommunications, or when the RVR
is not operating, REPORT automatically regulates the
local EHV bus voltage (high-side voltage regulation),
according to defined daily trends or the plant operator’s
voltage set-points, agreed by phone with the regional
dispatcher;
— without ISO telecommunications or when TVR is not
operating, the RVR autonomously regulates the pilot
node voltages of its controlled areas, according to
stored daily trends or the regional dispatcher’s chosen
set-points, agreed by phone coordination with national
control center;
— when the LMC is not operating, the TVR au-
tonomously coordinates the RVRs, assuming, as a
reference for the optimization of pilot node voltages
and reactive power margins, the available long term
forecasted optimal plan or the national control center
operator’s manual reference.
In the framework of the voltage control service, the Italian
ISO (GRTN), having completed the application of REPORT ap-
paratuses on all the main power plants, as well as of RVR sys-
tems in the regional dispatchers’ control rooms, defines voltage
service rules in a link with the operating SVR.
IV. CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS AND
EXPECTED PERFORMANCE
The three hierarchical levels consist of overlapped closed-
loop controls, whose coordination in space and time requires
a careful design of their stability and dynamics to achieve ad-
equate performance even when faced with contingencies. The
design starting point requires proper subdivision of the overall
grid into control areas around the selected pilot nodes, and cor-
rect choice of the most appropriate control plants.
A. Selection of Pilot Nodes, Control Areas, and Control Plants
The selection of pilot nodes is based on the intuitive idea
that such buses must be chosen among the strongest ones, able
to impose voltages on the other electrically close buses. The
design criteria, based on short-circuit capacities and sensitivity
matrix computations, also requires electrical coupling between
pilot nodes to be sufficiently low to avoid possible problems of
1726
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of the Italian hierarchical voltage control system.
dynamic interaction between secondary control loops. With this
constraint, in fact, excessive reactive power exchanges among
adjacent control areas, determined by even slight differences
between the pilot node voltages imposed by the regulating
system, are basically prevented. If network operational require-
ments condition pilot node selection by determining excessive
electrical coupling between control areas, the secondary control
law should de-couple the dynamic interactions between control
loops.
The analytic procedure of selection of pilot nodes consists
of a successive reordering of the sensitivity matrix, expressing
the dependence of the whole grid’s bus voltages on reactive
power injections, with primary voltage regulation operating.
The method assumes the load or generation bus, having the
strongest short-circuit capacity, as the “pilot node 1.” All buses
with the highest coupling coefficient with “pilot node 1” are
assumed belonging to “control area 1” and excluded from
subsequent pilot node choices. This procedure, progressively
applied, identifies the other pilot nodes which are the strongest
of the remaining buses and therefore gradually weaker, until
the procedure stops due to insufficient short-circuit capacity.
The choice of control plants is based on the simple criterion
that they must operate in the control area and have the largest re-
active power capability and the highest electrical coupling with
the selected pilot node. Selection of control plants also permits
advance recognition of control areas with consistent reactive
power resources, as well as those where the reactive power re-
serves are critical and pilot node voltage regulation could more
easily reach saturation.
The analytic procedure for the choice of control plants re-
quires successive reorganization of the sensitivity matrix, ex-
pressing the dependence of the pilot node voltages on the re-
active power injections by generators. The method assumes all
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2004
the generators belonging to the “control area i” and having their
highest coefficient placed in the “pilot node i” row, as potential
“control plants i.” All potential plants with the highest product
of sensitivity coefficient by rated reactive power capability are
definitely assumed as “control plant i.”
These simple methods are not computationally heavy and
give satisfactory results, once some threshold values have been
refined, taking particular network characteristics into account.
For instance, accepting a higher electrical coupling increases
the number of pilot nodes but also requires more complex con-
trol laws to deal with closed-loop interaction and dynamic insta-
bility risks. Moreover, frequent reselection of pilot nodes, even
in the case of small network changes, is required. On the con-
trary, excessively low electrical coupling reduces the number of
pilot nodes and significantly de-couples their control loops, but
at the same time worsens voltage quality. Similarly, accepting
excessively low products of sensitivity coefficients by rated re-
active powers increases the number of control plants and the
corresponding reserve margins, but could require more unnec-
essary control infrastructures to permit the participation and co-
ordination of small generators.
The subdivision of the whole system into control areas must
be robust and conservative, to prevent control system reconfig-
uration from becoming too frequent in response to minor net-
work changes. Relevant structural changes, however, must be
analyzed to determine their impact on pilot nodes, control areas
and control plant selection, and to adequately re-tune regula-
tion parameters. Updated studies for selection of pilot nodes and
control power plants have resulted in the Italian power system
(55 000 MW peak) subdivision into 18 control areas (see Fig. 3).
This plan involves the largest thermal and hydro power plants
connected to the 400/230 kV grids, for a total reactive power
capacity of about 20 000 MVAR.
CORSI et al.: COORDINATED AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE CONTROL OF THE ITALIAN TRANSMISSION GRID—PART I 1727

Fig. 3. Application plan of the Italian hierarchical voltage control system.

B. Control System Algorithms and Dynamics Design
In the hierarchical voltage control system, the inner loop is
typically faster than the outer one, in such a way as to achieve
substantial dynamic de-coupling between overlapped levels. In
other words, the time-decomposition criterion requires that the
dominant time constant of any external control loop be higher
than the dominant time constants of all its internal loops. Such
a criterion is applied to unit voltage regulation, unit reactive
power control, EHV bus voltage regulation, pilot node voltage
regulation and pilot nodes voltage set-point optimization:
• AVR closes the conventional unit voltage control loop,
which is basically of the proportional-integral type. It is
characterized by closed-loop dynamics dominated by a
time constant of about 0.5 s.
• Unit reactive power control within REPORT defines,
in closed-loop and real-time, the AVR voltage set-point
in the range between minimum and maximum

Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1728 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2004

value , which obtains the unit reactive power pro- 5 min, and is the sensitivity matrix between area reactive
duction corresponding to its reference value levels and pilot node voltages

(5)
(1)
Relation (4) integrates the result of the TVR objective function
where is the regulator integral gain, tuned in such a minimization, which is based on the actual network state esti-
way that the closed loop has a dominant time constant of 5 mation and the forecasted optimal voltages and reactive powers
s. The fastest AVR dynamic responses, mainly required in plan
response to major local network perturbations, are then not
significantly affected by the reactive power loop. The ref-
erence value is obtained from the product of the re-
active power level by the unit capability limit ,
computed on-line according to the actual operating condi- (6)
tions of the electrical generator and cooling system where , are the vectors of pilot node voltages and
(2) area reactive power levels; , are the vectors of the
optimal forecasted pilot node voltages and area reactive power
• The reactive power level may be provided by the levels; , are weight matrices whose selection allows be-
local EHV bus-bar voltage regulator (REPORT in high- stowing a privilege on pilot node voltage differences, rather then
side voltage control) or by the pilot node voltage regulator on the effort of control area reactive power levels. The compro-
(RVR control). Both of them define, in closed-loop and mise reached by TVR, when the available optimal forecasted
real-time, the reactive level in the interval between plan does not fit the real situation, should properly consist in
its minimum and maximum value the achievement of the highest voltage plan consistent with real
, which achieves the EHV bus-bar or pilot node operating conditions, which minimize network losses as much
voltage corresponding to its reference value as is feasible. To achieve this result it is necessary to preserve
system controllability, even if close to the limits, in such a way
as to avoid the disastrous consequences of open-loop operation.
In this condition, in fact, the uncontrolled voltages determine
undesired heavy reactive power flows, which increase system
(3) losses and worsen the operation efficiency. TVR is therefore the
correct and necessary completion of the hierarchical automatic
where and are the regulator proportional and real-time voltage control system.
integral gains respectively, tuned in such a way that the
closed loop has minimum-phase and a dominant time con- C. Data Acquisition and Communication Design
stant of 50 s. The fastest contribution to the dynamic re- The dynamics of pilot node voltage control requires fast and
sponses is properly given by proportional correction. high resolution measurements, achievable with unconventional
• The pilot node voltage set-point may be provided voltage transducers, as well as negligible telecommunication
by the local daily trend (RVR automatic setting) or by delays. Being the dominant time constant of the voltage loop
the regional dispatcher operator (RVR manual setting) or of 50 s, but requiring the proportional correction of the control
voltage set-point optimization (TVR output). The latter law to contribute with rapid dynamics, the telecommunication
defines the most appropriate pilot node voltage set-points delay must be lower than 2 s. TVR can in principle accept longer
for secure/efficient operation, on the basis of an in- delays, as its dominant time constant is 5 min. As for LMC, the
tegral law of the optimal variations with respect only time requirement is related to its on-line version providing
to the present voltage values an updated optimal voltage reactive power plan with respect to
the forecasted one, computed the day before through the off-line
version. This happens when the TVR apparatus recognizes that
actual grid operating conditions are very different from the fore-
casted ones. The time delay for computing the new ORPF must
be marginal with respect to the system state estimation time (in
the order of 5 min or more).

D. Voltage Stability Limit Increase

Suitable static and dynamic analyses show that SVR and TVR
increase the overall loadability of the transmission system. The
(4) study case, the results of which are presented in Fig. 4, involves
a load ramp increase at some nodes in the Rome control area.
where is the regulator integral gain, tuned in such a From this case it is possible to compare the dynamic simulation
way that the closed loop has a dominant time constant of results obtained with SVR only and with the TVR in service.

Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CORSI et al.: COORDINATED AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE CONTROL OF THE ITALIAN TRANSMISSION GRID—PART I 1729

Fig. 4. Italian grid load ramps stability margins (dynamic evaluation): primary voltage regulation (continuous line), secondary voltage regulation (dotted line),
secondary and tertiary voltage regulation (dashed line).

Fig. 5. Italian grid load ramps stability margins (static evaluation): the dQgtot/dQctot voltage stability indicator represents the sensitivity of total reactive
production with respect to total reactive consumption.

The - trajectory reveals the expected stability improving ef- Such increased overall loadability is also demonstrated by
fect, in terms of both voltage profile and load margins (200 MW computing suitable off-line and on-line voltage stability indica-
and 300 MW margin are increased at Roma Nord and Roma Sud tors [20]. The study case, whose results are presented in Fig. 5,
buses respectively). concerns the overall Italian network and involves an increase in

Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1730
Fig. 6. SVR and TVR: expected loss reduction in the overall italian grid.
load ramps at all the nodes. In this particular simulation very
short-term reactive power re-dispatching by LMC has also been
simulated: TVR uses in fact four different optimal pilot node
voltages and area reactive levels, computed at every 2000 MW
of total load increase. Due to the presence of SVR and TVR, the
largest amount of load margin increase achieved is 1500 MW for
the overall Italian grid.
E. Restoration Stability Improvement
In terms of security and repeatability, the execution of the
voltage launch during restoration does in general represent a
relatively hazardous maneuver, whose risk margin remains,
with the currently adopted common practice and control solu-
tions, beyond the full control of plant operators. In this context,
the most effective power plant control solution is a multi-
variable scheme [22], involving use of new under-excitation
limits or, better yet, a superimposed centralized reactive power
control. The objective is to reduce line extra voltages during
energization, balancing the control efforts of all power plant
units while stabilizing generators’ under-excitation operation
and preventing self-excitation wherever possible. Such a con-
trol feature could easily be implemented by using the high-side
voltage regulator (REPORT), where it is easy to come up
with suitable adaptive control solutions, at both the reactive
power control level and the high-side voltage regulation level.
This solution could be based on proper real-time and on-line
identification of the equivalent external reactance exhibited by
the islanded rather than interconnected network. This reactance
value is useful for correct selection of the most suitable control
law at different stages in the restoration process. In this way,
a power plant with centralized reactive power control is fully
capable of maintaining the working point of the generating
units within the under-excitation region. At the same time it
represents the simplest way of decreasing manual coordination
problems during restoration, starting from the voltage launch
maneuver up to the synchronization and re-closure of the
network.
F. Network Losses Reduction
The main objective of LMC is achievement of minimum
losses in the grid, by optimizing the values of network voltages
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2004
in such a way as to reduce overall system operation costs.
Many static analyzes conducted on the overall Italian network
in recent years (see Fig. 6) have demonstrated that application
of the multilevel control system for grid voltages and reactive
power regulation allows a reduction in transmission losses
of about 4%–6%. Such a control system also achieves better
service to the final user in terms of operation quality, security
and reliability.
V. COSTS-BENEFITS ANALYSIS OF THE CONTROL SYSTEM
In order to analyze the costs-benefits [14] of the hierarchical
voltage control system, let us consider a reference application
involving 35 large power plants, 20 controlled grid stations,
three regional dispatchers, and one national control center.
A. Capital and Operational Costs
Assuming an application lifetime of 25 years and a discount
rate minus inflation of 12%, the total yearly cost is about 4400
kEuro/year, which can easily be subdivided into capital costs
and operational costs. Capital costs, related to 50 REPORTs and
3 RVRs for the SVR, 1 TVR and 1 LMC for the NVR, total about
18 000 kEuro, subdivided into:
• studies, design, and software development: 5600 kEuro;
• apparatus manufacturing and testing: 6200 kEuro;
• installation, AVR modifications and tests: 6200 kEuro.
The yearly capital cost is then equal to 2580 kEuro/year. The
operational costs are related to maintenance and upgrading of
tools, control apparatuses and telecommunication equipment
(775 kEuro/year), as well as to voltage/reactive operation at
regional dispatchers/national control center (1045 kEuro/year).
B. Estimated Operational Benefits
A prudent value estimation of the achievable benefits gives a
yearly amount of about 14 250 kEuro/year, subdivided into:
1) reduction up to 5% of the real losses in the power system,
by containing reactive power flows through better coordi-
nation of reactive power resources;
2) reduction of about 3%–5% in the duration of partial lack
of loads feeding (for operational security reasons), due to
CORSI et al.: COORDINATED AUTOMATIC VOLTAGE CONTROL OF THE ITALIAN TRANSMISSION GRID—PART I
TABLE I
COSTS/BENEFITS DATA FOR THE HIERARCHICAL VOLTAGE CONTROL SYSTEM
the increase in reactive reserves made available for facing
the network transients determined by large perturbations;
3) reduction of about 20% of the time when contractual
voltage quality at the customers’ end is not guaranteed;
4) increase in active power transfer capability, under suitable
operational security constraints;
5) reduction of black-out risk, due to voltage collapse.
C. Costs/Benefits Comparison
Costs/benefits analysis based on the above data, gives the very
interesting results shown in Table I. The payback period of the
hierarchical voltage control project for application to a large
network is shorter than the duration of the project itself. Each
partial realization (REPORT or RVR) can in fact also operate
autonomously, regulating the local power plant or pilot node
voltage as soon as it is put into operation.
VI. COMPARISON WITH A REFERENCE—SVC
BASED—NETWORK VOLTAGE CONTROL SERVICE
The conventional approach of “manual” dispatching of volt-
ages and reactive powers, typically operated by phone calls or
according to written orders, is generally based on suitable net-
work studies and optimal forecasting plans. With such an ap-
proach, it is quite difficult to assign a precise value to the quality,
security and efficiency of the corresponding “voltage service”,
because its performance can range from unacceptable levels to
minimum acceptable ones and up to high degree levels. In fact,
performance mainly depends on unpredictable correctness, as
well as timely co-ordination, of the players participating in the
service. Even considering high degree levels, the achievable
benefits are lower than those guaranteed by an automatic voltage
control system, which also provides an opportunity to define a
correct voltage service which is simple to manage [15]. As far
as “automatic” solutions are concerned, it is interesting to com-
pare the hierarchical voltage control scenario with an equiva-
lent “reference” situation in which all the units generate only
active power (power factor ). Meanwhile all the load
reactive powers are locally and dynamically compensated by
SVCs (minus network contribution), regulating the voltages of
the EHV and MV load buses at their optimal values required
by regional dispatchers. This network operating condition is an
ideal-optimal reference because network losses are reduced at
the minimum (lowest reactive power flows), while the quality of
the voltage service achieves top level as the voltages of the HV
and MV load buses are kept constantly at optimal values. The
SVC based ideal reference permits comparison with the best
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1731
TABLE II
ESTIMATED YEARLY RATE COSTS OF NETWORK VOLTAGE CONTROL SYSTEMS
(even if unrealistic) control, in terms of losses minimization,
dynamic performance and voltage quality at the EHV- MV load
buses. Comparing this reference alternative with the hierarchical
voltage control system presently under operation in the Italian
power system, the following considerations are reasonable:
1) the dynamic performance of both the “automatic” net-
work voltage control solutions is very similar;
2) the reduction in real losses is in favor of the ideal alterna-
tive, but the expected differences are very small;
3) the investments in SVCs for the Italian network is about
17 GVAR, corresponding to a rate of 56 800 kEuro/year
(25 years application and 12% discount rate);
4) the estimation of SVC capital costs for studies, software
development and dispatching is 2580 kEuro/year;
5) the SVC O&M costs estimation is of 2580 kEuro/year.
In short, the yearly rate cost comparison between the ideal
solution and the real Italian voltage control system, with the
same operation standards, gives the values in Table II. These
are obtained assuming an yearly cost rate of 24 000 kEuro/year,
for PF compensators already available, and of 12 900 and 15 200
kEuro/year, for units and lines extra losses respectively.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has functionally described the characteristics of
the hierarchical voltage control system presently applied on the
Italian transmission grid, giving many references where more
specific details can be found. The main innovations of SVR
and TVR (distributed control architecture, advanced control
methods, enlarged monitoring of system operating conditions,
decision support tools) and operational benefits (improved
voltage quality, increased power system security, enhanced
power transfer capability, improved operational efficiency)
have also been described. SVR and TVR have been proven to
operate together with success, contributing to simplification and
improvement of network voltage operation. They allow grid
operators to achieve fuller exploitation of the power transfer
capabilities of the transmission networks, as required by re-
structured and liberalized energy markets. In the framework
of the ancillary services market, data made available by the
proposed control system also allows simple, correct recogni-
tion of the real contribution of each generator to the voltage
service. The advantages of the SVR-TVR application in terms
of cost/benefit analysis are clearly shown. The Italian experi-
ence started (1985) with experimental application in Florence
area, which revealed significant benefits. The control system
grew step by step, with plants first operating with REPORT
(high-side voltage control) and then, with RVR, participating in
SVR. The very satisfactory results inspired GRTN to promote
widespread application of SVR and begin the development of
TVR—LMC (expected in 2004).
1732
REFERENCES
[1] V. Arcidiacono, “Automatic voltage reactive power control in transm.
System,” in Proc. CIGRE-IFAC Survey Paper E, Florence, Italy, Sept.
1983.
[2] S. Corsi, “The secondary voltage regulation in Italy,” in Panel Ses-
sion—2000 IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA.
[3] S. Corsi, M. Pozzi, U. Bazzi, M. Mocenigo, and P. Marannino, “A simple
real-time and on-line voltage stability index under test in italian sec-
ondary voltage regulation,” in Proc. CIGRE, 2000, paper 38–115.
[4] J. P. Paul, J. Y. Leost, and J. M. Tesseron, “Survey of secondary voltage
control in France: Present realization and investigation,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 2, May 1987.
[5] H. Lefebvre, D. Fragnier, J. Y. Boussion, P. Mallet, and M. Bulot, “Sec-
ondary coordinated voltage control system: Feedback of EDF,” in Panel
Session—2000 IEEE PES Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA.
[6] J. P. Piret, J. P. Antoine, and M. Subbe et Alii, “The study of a central-
ized voltage control method applicable to the Belgian system,” in Proc.
CIGRE, Paris, France, 1992, paper 39–201.
[7] J. Van Hecke, N. Janssens, J. Deude, and F. Promel, “Coordinated
voltage control experience in Belgium,” in Proc. CIGRE, Paris, France,
2000, paper 38–111.
[8] J. L. Sancha, J. L. Fernandez, A. Cortes, and J. T. Abarca, “Secondary
voltage control: Analysis, solutions, simulation results for the Spanish
transmission system,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 11, pp. 630–638,
May 1996.
[9] L. Layo, L. Martin, and M.Álvarez, “Final implementation of a multi-
level strategy for voltage and reactive control in the Spanish electrical
power system,” in Proc. PCI Conf., Glasgow, Scotland, U.K., 2000.
[10] D. M. Ilic, X. Liu, G. Leung, M. Athans, C. Vialas, and P. Pruvot, “Im-
proved secondary-new tertiary volt. Control,” in Proc. IEEE WM ’95,
New York.
[11] C. W. Taylor, V. Venkatasubramanian, and Y. Chen, “Wide area stability
and voltage control,” in Proc. VII SEPOPE, Curitiba, Brazil, May 2000.
[12] G. Taranto, N. Martins, A. C. B. Martins, D. M. Falcao, and M. G. Dos
Santos, “Benefits of applying secondary voltage control schemes to the
Brazilian system,” in Proc. IEEE/PES SM, Seattle, WA, July 2000.
[13] F. A. B. Lemons, W. L. Feijo, Jr., L. C. Werberich, and M. A. da Rosa,
“Assessment of a transmission and distribution system under coordi-
nated secondary voltage control,” in Proc. PSCC 2002, Sevilla, Spain.
[14] Corsi, V. Arcidiacono, M. Cambi, and L. Salvaderi, “Impact of the re-
structuring process at ENEL on the network voltage control service,” in
Proc. IREP, Santorini, Greece, Aug. 1998.
[15] S. Corsi, M. Pozzi, V. Biscaglia, and G. Dell’Olio, “Fiscal measure of the
generators support to the network voltage and frequency control in the
ancillary service market environment,” in Proc. CIGRE, Paris, France,
2002.
[16] S. Corsi et al., “General application to the main ENEL’s power plants
of an advanced voltage and reactive power regulator for EHV network
support,” in Proc. CIGRE, Paris, France, 1998.
[17] S. Corsi, V. Arcidiacono, U. Bazzi, R. Chinnici, M. Mocenigo, and G.
Moreschini, “The regional voltage regulator for ENEL’s dispatchers,” in
Proc. CIGRE, Paris, France, 1996.
[18] S. Corsi, P. Marannino, N. Losignore, G. Moreschini, and G. Piccini,
“Coordination between the reactive power scheduling and the hierar-
chical voltage control of the EHV ENEL system,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 10, pp. 686–694, May 1995.
[19] A. Berizzi, S. Sardella, F. Tortello, P. Marannino, M. Pozzi, and G.
Dell’Olio, “The hierarchical voltage control to face market uncertain-
ties,” in Proc. Bulk Power System Dynamics and Control, IREP V Conf.,
Onomichi, Japan, 2001.
[20] S. Corsi, M. Pozzi, P. Marannino, F. Zanellini, M. Merlo, and G.
Dell’Olio, “Evaluation of load margins with respect to voltage collapse
in presence of secondary and tertiary voltage regulation,” in Proc. Bulk
Power Systems Dynamics and Control, IREP V Conf., Onomichi, Japan,
2001.
Authorized licensed use limited to: TU Ilmenau. Downloaded on May 06,2022 at 06:37:56 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 19, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2004
[21] P. Marannino, F. Zanellini, A. Berizzi, D. Medina, M. Merlo, and M.
Pozzi, “Steady state and dynamic approaches for the evaluation of the
loadability margins in the presence of the secondary voltage regulation,”
in Proc. MedPower Conf., Athens, Greece, Nov. 2002.
[22] S. Corsi and M. Pozzi, “A multivariable new control solution for in-
creased long lines voltage restoration stability during black startup,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, pp. 1133–1141, Aug. 2003.
Sandro Corsi (M’89) received the Doctorate degree in electronics (automatic
systems) from the Polytechnic of Milan, Milan, Italy, in 1973.
In 1975, he joined ENEL’s Automatica Research Center, where his main in-
terests were power system voltage control, generator control, power electronics
devices, advanced control technology, and power system automation. He was a
Research Manager at ENEL S.p.A Ricerca beginning in 1997, in charge of the
Power System Control and Regulation Office. After ENEL reorganization, he
was a Research Manager at CESI, Milan, in charge of the Network and Plant
Automation Office from 1999 and of the Electronics and Communications Of-
fice in the Automation Business Unit beginning in 2000. Since 2001, he has
been with CESI R&D and Sales. He is the author of more than 60 papers on
system control.
Dr. Corsi is a Member of CIGRE, IEEE-PES, CEI, and the IREP Board.
Massimo Pozzi received the Doctorate degree in electronics (automatic sys-
tems) from the Polytechnic of Milan, Milan, Italy, in 1987.
In 1989, he joined the Control System and Voltage Regulation Department,
Automatica Research Center, where his main interests were simulation and real-
time design, turbine and generator regulation, and wind and photovoltaic unit
control. He became a Senior Researcher with ENEL S.p.A Ricerca in 1997,
working in the framework of grid voltage control and power electronics appli-
cation. He has been with CESI, Milan, since 2000 as a Product Leader in the
T&D Networks B.U., in the field of grid control and supervision. He is the au-
thor of about 20 papers on power system control.
Carlo Sabelli was born in 1948. He received the electrical engineering degree
from the University of Rome, Rome, Italy, in 1974.
He joined ENEL in 1977, and spent most of his career in transmission (sched-
uling, forecasting, optimization, substation automation, and control). In 1999 he
joined GRTN (the Italian transmission system operator), Rome, Italy, where he
is presently Head of Dispatching. He took part in standardization activities in
IEC and in the Italian AEI. At present, he is active in CIGRE C2.
Antonio Serrani received the physics degree in 1976 from La Sapienza Uni-
versity, Rome, Italy.
His professional career since 1960 has been in the power industry. His early
work included the fields of construction, operation, and maintenance of hydro
power plants and electrical stations. From 1978 to 1983, he moved to Rock-
well International, Canoga Park, CA, as Coordinator of the ENEL project on
Power Generation and Transmission Control. He was appointed Manager in
1989, with responsibility for dispatching and operational planning. In 1999,
moved to GRTN (the Italian transmission system operator) as Director of the
Dispatching Division and he has been Director of the Grid Division since 2002.
Dr. Serrani is a Member of ETSO, UCTE, SUDEL, CIGRE, UNIPEDE, and
MEDELEC. He is Convenor of the ETSO TF “Southeast Europe TSO” and Vice
President of UCTE.