See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319483454

Investigating the impact of decentralized Energy Storage Systems in Active

Low-Voltage Distribution Networks

Conference Paper · August 2017

DOI: 10.1109/UPEC.2017.8231944

CITATIONS READS

13 256

3 authors:

Angelos Nousdilis Grigoris Papagiannis

University of Western Macedonia Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
45 PUBLICATIONS 402 CITATIONS 219 PUBLICATIONS 2,800 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Georgios C Christoforidis
University of Western Macedonia
164 PUBLICATIONS 1,683 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Georgios C Christoforidis on 05 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Investigating the impact of decentralized Energy
Storage Systems in Active Low-Voltage Distribution
Networks
Angelos I. Nousdilis,
Grigoris K. Papagiannis
School of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
angelos@ece.auth.gr, grigoris@eng.auth.gr
Abstract― Photovoltaic (PV) penetration in Low-Voltage
(LV) networks is expected to increase in the following years,
posing a series of problems in the operation pf low-voltage
networks. Among the most important challenges imposed, is the
reverse power flow caused by high injected energy from
distributed PVs during peak irradiation hours. This is the reason
of voltage rises above the permissible limits. Amongst other
solutions, such as active power curtailment and reactive power
absorption, the installation of distributed Energy Storage Systems
(ESS) seems to be an attractive solution since it can absorb
surplus power locally, avoiding curtailment methods, power flow
losses on the feeder and grid reinforcements. As the cost of storage
is decreasing, ESS are expected to be increasingly adopted by
prosumers. This work evaluates the influence of such systems on
the voltage profile of LV feeders and on the self-consumed energy
of prosumers. Intensive simulations on a benchmark feeder assess
the conflicted benefits of power system operators and ESS
owners.
Index Terms-- Energy storage, Low-Voltage distribution
grids, overvoltage, photovoltaic, self-consumption rate, self-
sufficiency rate.
I. INTRODUCTION
Energy policies of European Union are promoting the
increase of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) share in the
production of electrical energy. The Paris Agreement that is
effective globally after 4 November 2016 is becoming a
decisive element for the utilization of electricity from RES [1].
PV technology is one of the key choices for moving towards
this direction. However, the existing electrical power systems
are not always ready to support a high penetration of PVs. For
example, on June 2014, there was about 23 GW of solar power
on the German grid, covering more than 50% of the total
electricity demand at noon [2]. Under this situation a huge
amount of PV produced energy had to be curtailed to maintain
the stability of the power system. A solution that can avert the
curtailment PV generated power is the installation and
operation of distributed Energy Storage Systems (ESS). Such
a solution can provide flexibility to the system by storing the
surplus energy and shifting its consumption to periods with low
production and high demand.
Simultaneously, the concept of the Nearly Zero Energy
Buildings (NZEB) was introduced in Europe in 2010 with the
Recast of the Energy Performance Building Directive [3].
Georgios C. Christoforidis
Electrical Engineering Department,
Western Macedonia University of Applied Sciences,
Kozani, Greece, gchristo@teiwm.gr
NZEB is meant to be a building of very low energy demand, a
requirement that should be achieved mostly by energy
produced from on-site renewables. For South Europe at least,
this refers mostly to PVs. Under the requirements of this
directive, all new buildings should be NZEB from 2019, thus a
considerable number of PVs is expected to be installed in LV
distribution networks.
Distributed generation poses unprecedented technical
challenges for the smooth and reliable LV network operation
grids, such as: voltage regulation issues, overloading of
network equipment and dynamic stability problems [4]. ESSs
can tackle the problems occurring during high generation of
PVs, by absorbing locally the energy that is not consumed at
that time, thus alleviating high reverse power. In that way,
voltage rises created by the reverse power flow can be
prevented and the Distribution System Operator (DSO) may
postpone necessary grid reinforcements. At the same time, the
self-consumed energy of the prosumer owning a PV-storage
system can be increased.
A thorough investigation of the impact of decentralized ESS
installations on the grid operation and prosumers’ self-
consumption is needed. In [5] the possibilities of ESS to
mitigate the challenges of high PV integration on LV grids are
evaluated under storage control strategies that satisfy the
German DSO guidelines. Different charging and discharging
rates were tested in [6] for the operation of certain capacity
ESSs installed on a practical distribution feeder, showing that
selecting proper charging and discharging rates can alleviate
voltage rises. In [7], the analysis of several control strategies
of ESS estimated that using battery management based on
forecasts may provide a higher potential to the grid relief than
selecting a charge scenario which aims on maximizing self-
consumption. However, the results were not evaluated by
simulations on a distribution grid. The study in [8] proposes
the calculation of a power threshold above which PV energy
should be stored in the ESS, thus preventing voltage rises. This
threshold is highly dependent on the PV penetration level of
the examined feeder.
Our study carries out an analysis of LV grid operation in the
presence of PVs and ESSs, aiming to explore the extent to
which battery capacity and control strategy of ESSs affect the
voltage level along a distribution network. At the same time
the study evaluates the ESSs influence on the prosumers’ self-
consumed energy. A common benchmark LV feeder is used
for time-series simulations of different examined cases. The
study provides conclusions about the benefits of ESSs for
prosumers and network operators.
The paper is organized as follows. Firstly, section II
describes the theoretical background of the metrics used to
evaluate the impact of ESS on grid operational limits and on
customers’ energy management. Section III presents the
system that is used for the simulations and describes the
different scenarios tested. In Section IV results of the multiple
scenarios are demonstrated and discussed, while section V
concludes the paper. Fig. 1. Sample PV production and consumption profiles of a certain
installation throughout a day. Letters are indicating energy amounts used in
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND equations 1, 2.

A. ESS technology 𝐶𝐶 + 𝐸𝐸
Among the most commonly used battery technologies is SSR = (2)
𝐴𝐴 + 𝐶𝐶 + 𝐸𝐸
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) [9]. Li-ion technology characteristics
such as lifetime, self-discharge rate and charge-discharge
efficiency are superior compared to other battery technologies, III. SYSTEM UNDER STUDY
thus making it an attractive solution for investments on ESS by
residential prosumers. Therefore, we assume that this A. Network Description
technology is used in the simulations carried out in this work. A CIGRE LV distribution network benchmark [10] is used
The usable capacity of Li-ion batteries is limited to a State of in this work to evaluate the impact of distributed storage
Charge (SOC) between 20% and 90%, to ensure a longer systems on the voltage profile. The residential feeder of the LV
lifetime [8]. An inverter efficiency of 95% is assumed for the benchmark network is used, with a base frequency of 50Hz, as
ESS. depicted in Fig. 2. It has a radial structure and is connected to
the medium-voltage (MV) network through a 500 kVA, 20/0.4
B. Self-consumption Rate and Self-sufficiency Rate kV transformer. This feeder supplies 35 customers, which for
Self-consumption Rate (SCR) and Self-sufficiency Rate our case are assumed to have three-phase connections.
(SSR) are two indicators showing at what extent the prosumer Alongside, three-phase PVs are installed at every load bus. The
takes advantage of the energy generated by his own PV following paragraphs describe how the load and generation
installation. These two indicators that characterize each profiles are used.
prosumer in our test are defined below.
Self-consumption is the fraction of electrical energy B. PV and Load profiles
generated by the PV system that is directly consumed on-site The consumers connected to the feeder include single family
residences and commercial loads. Demand data are derived
or stored for later use, over the total PV generated energy. This
is better demonstrated through (1) and Fig. 1: from [11], a dataset developed by the U.S. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). This dataset consists of averaged
𝐶𝐶 + 𝐸𝐸 load data, randomized to emulate real load profiles. Consumers
SCR = (1) were randomly placed on the test network. As an example, Fig.
𝐵𝐵 + 𝐶𝐶 + 𝐷𝐷
3 depicts indicative load profiles of five residential loads
located at nodes 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17, for one day of July. The
Self-sufficiency is defined as the ratio of the renewable reactive load is calculated by using a power factor of 0.95 on
energy generated by the PV system, which is used to supply the active load profiles.
the prosumer’s own needs, over the total consumed energy, as Generation profiles used for the simulations have been
shown in (2) and Fig. 1: constructed using solar irradiation data from the Photovoltaic
Geographical Information System (PVGIS) online platform of
the EU Joint Research Centre [12]. The PV output power in
kW/kWp depends on global horizontal solar irradiation, air
temperature, orientation and performance characteristics of the
PV-inverter system. In this test, an inclination angle of 220
(inclined roof) is assumed.
 MV the option of installing an ESS of a certain capacity at each
customer is supposed.
20/0.4 kV
Different cases of battery size and operation control are
LV
1
examined in order to evaluate on the one hand the effect of ESS
on the feeder operating limits and on the other hand ESS
11 2 contribution on increasing prosumers’ self-consumed energy.
3 The last is quantified using the indicators SCR and SSR.
5x
12 13 14
Battery nominal capacities examined in our test are in the
4 range of 5 kWh to 40 kWh with a step of 5 kWh. For every
simulation the ESS size is equal at every prosumer. Three
16 5 15
5x charging-discharging schedules are adopted [8], as mentioned
5x 6 below:
a) charge of the battery starts as soon as PV generated power
7
is greater than demand power (Scenario I),
8 b) charge of the battery occurs during peak generation, i.e.
17
5x while PV power exceeds the 70% of its peak production
9 (Scenario II),
18
5x 10
Node c) charge of the battery occurs during peak generation, i.e.
Prosumer while PV power exceeds the 80% of its peak production
(Scenario III).
Fig. 2. Single-line diagram of the residential feeder of CIGRE Low Voltage It should be noted that in all scenarios, the battery is charged
benchmark network.
only if the PV output power exceeds load demand. The
maximum charge and discharge rate that is adopted on our tests
8
Node 10
is 1C, i.e. a 5 kWh battery can be charged in one hour with a
7
Node 11 charge rate of 5 kW.
Node 14
Node 15
Network power flow is simulated with a 15-min resolution
6 Node 17 for the month with the highest PV produced energy, i.e. July,
5
in order to obtain the voltage profile for all nodes.
D. Simulation Tool
Power (kW)

4
3 time-series power flow analysis in the test network. This tool
2
1
0 4 8 12 16
Time
Fig. 3. Load profiles during the 1st of July for residential loads located at
nodes 10, 11, 14, 15 and 17.
The same solar irradiation data apply for all PVs, because of
the short length of the examined network. A profile of the
production for a typical day of each month in 15-min. time
steps is then constructed using the appropriate kWp installed
capacity of each PV and assuming 10% system losses.
C. Investigated Scenarios
It is assumed that every one of the 35 customers has a PV
system installed, acting as a prosumer. The size of each PV
system has been calculated so that an average SCR of 30% is
obtained at the month of maximum PV generation. Due to the
overvoltages occurring on the network during peak generation
hours, PV power curtailment is taking place in order to
maintain the voltage under the accepted operating limits,
defined by the Standard EN 50160, i.e. 0.9 - 1.1 p.u. [13]. In
order to avoid the loss of RES energy injected to the grid and
the loss of prosumers’ revenues occurring by the curtailment,
A simulation tool developed in [14] has been used for the
offers a graphical user interface for the design of electrical
circuits and uses Open Distribution System Simulator
20 24
(OpenDSS) [15] and Matlab [16] for the analysis of electrical
distribution systems.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Various scenarios were simulated to investigate how the
battery size and energy management influence the voltage
levels across the LV feeder and the SCR and SSR of
prosumers. Longer voltage violations are observed at node 15
of the network in the case where no ESS are installed on the
prosumers’ sites. Results of different cases are presented and
discussed below.
A. Scenario I
In this scenario, the ESS at each installation is charged as
soon as the generated power exceeds load demand. The daily
mean duration of overvoltages at node 15 can be seen in Fig.
4a. It is shown that even with an ESS capacity of 40 kWh, the
voltage limit is surpassed for more than three hours a day. This
is because the SOC of each battery reaches 90% before
maximum generation. At the time of peak production, a huge
amount of generated power is injected to the network by all
prosumers causing overvoltages, as all batteries are already
fully charged.
 Regarding the self-consumption of prosumers, their SCR
and SSR are increasing as battery capacity is growing. Fig. 5 55

illustrates the SCR of 6 indicative prosumers connected on 50

nodes 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18. Starting from the case where no
45
ESS is installed, the SCR is 30% as assumed for the tests. It

SCR (%)
40
can be seen that with a battery size of 40 kWh prosumers
achieve an SCR of 47%. The SSR depends on the battery size 35

at the same way as SCR, as shown in Fig. 6. 30

40
30 35
B. Scenario II 10 11 15 16 10 15 20 25
17 18 0 5
In this scenario a different strategy for battery charging is Node number Battery size (kWh)

adopted. In order to absorb locally the high generated PV

power during peak irradiation hours, energy is stored in the
batteries at that period. The charging schedule selected to
achieve this, is to allow the charge process when PV output is
above a threshold, at this point set as the 70% of its peak
Fig. 5. SCR of 6 indicative prosumers connected on nodes 10, 11, 15, 16, 17,
18 for several battery sizes, using charging scenario I.
100

production. The battery is charged during these hours with a 90

power defined by the difference of instant PV power minus the
80
threshold power.

SSR (%)
70
Among the different battery capacities that are tested, it is
shown that overvoltage occurrences are reduced as battery size 60

increases until the size of 30 kWh, above which voltage limit 50

is not exceeded, as demonstrated in Fig. 4c. 40

30 35 40
25
The dependence of SCR and SSR on the battery capacity is 10 11 15 16 17 18 5 10 15 20
0
Battery size (kWh)
demonstrated in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8. As expected, increasing the Node number

battery size causes a rise on prosumers’ self-consumption and

Fig. 6. SSR of 6 indicative prosumers connected on nodes 10, 11, 15, 16, 17,
self-sufficiency. 18 for several battery sizes, using charging scenario I.

a) b)
4 4 45

40
2 2
SCR (%)

35
0 0
Duration (h)
Duration (h)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

c) d) 30
4 4 40
30 35
10 20 25
11 15 16 17 5 10 15
18 0
2 2 Node number Battery size (kWh)

Fig. 7. SCR of 6 indicative prosumers connected on nodes 10, 11, 15, 16,
0 0 17, 18 for several battery sizes, using charging scenario II.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Battery size (kWh) Battery size (kWh)

80

Fig. 4. Daily mean duration of voltage limit violation at node 15 for different
70
sizes of battery installed at each prosumer, under 4 different ESS control
strategies: (a) Charge as soon as PV power exceeds load power, (b) Charge
SSR (%)

after PV power reaches (b) 50% of the peak power, (c) 70% of the peak power, 60

(d) 80% of the peak power.

50

40 35 40
25 30
10 15 20
11 15 10
16 17 5
18 0
Node number Battery size (kWh)

Fig. 8. SSR of 6 indicative prosumers connected on nodes 10, 11, 15, 16,
17, 18 for several battery sizes, using charging scenario II.
C. Scenario III
This scenario examines the schedule in which the battery is
50
set to charge when PV output power is greater than the 80% of
its peak output power. In this case, the overvoltage occurrence 45

duration is reduced as battery size increases until the size of 20 40

SCR (%)
kWh, above which voltage limit is not violated. A size of 20 35

kWh is the limit of the tested network, below which 30

40
35
overvoltages will occur due to high PV generation. Fig. 9 25
20
25
30
15
illustrates the voltage profile along the feeder at the time of A 5
10
ario B 0 Battery size (kWh)
Scen ario io C
month’s highest value of voltage observed, in the case where Scen Scen
ar

no ESS are installed at the prosumers’ sites and the case where Charge strategy
ESS with 20 kWh batteries are installed. As expected, in the
Fig. 10. Comparison of SCR of load on node 10, for several battery sizes,
second case voltage is below the limit of 1.1 p.u. at any node. between the three charging strategies described in scenarios A, B, C.

D. Evaluation of different scenarios

90
Comparing the different scenarios it is noticed that besides
80
the selected battery capacity, the strategy of battery charging is
70
playing also an important role on the feeder operation limits.

SSR (%)
60
In Fig. 4, the daily mean duration of voltage limit violation at
node 15 for different sizes of battery installed at each prosumer 50
35
40
30
is illustrated, under 4 different ESS charge strategies: (a), (c), 40
15
20
25
10
(d) correspond to Scenarios I-III and (b) refers to the case ar io A B 0
5
Battery size (kWh)
Scen rio rio C
cena a
where battery is charged while PV output is beyond 50% of the S Scen

peak power. It can be realized that for a specific network, load
characteristics and PV installed capacity, there is a minimal
ESS capacity that should be installed at all prosumers, above
which overvoltages can be prevented. This minimal capacity
highly depends on the ESS charging schedule. In our test
network, overvoltages are prevented when charge scenarios II
and III are employed and for capacities above 30 kWh and 20
kWh respectively, whereas in scenario I the voltage limit is
surpassed.
In addition, the self-consumption and self-sufficiency of
each prosumer greatly depend on the selected charge strategy
and ESS capacity. Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 depict the SCR and SSR
of an indicative prosumer connected at node 10.
1.12
1.1
1.08
1.06
Voltage (p.u.)
Charge strategy
Fig. 11. Comparison of SSR of load on node 10, for several battery sizes,
between the three charging strategies described in scenarios A, B, C.
As explained already, the SCR and SSR rise when the ESS size
increases. However, it should be noticed that for Scenario III,
there is a certain ESS capacity above which SCR and SSR are
not increasing, i.e. 20 kWh for the prosumer shown in Fig. 10
and Fig. 11. When operating the ESS following Scenario III
and for ESS sizes beyond 20 kWh the battery is never fully
charged, since the energy produced when PV output exceeds
80% of peak production is not sufficient to make full use of the
battery capacity.
V. CONCLUSIONS
High PV penetration in LV distribution networks is one of
the causes of inverse power flow and violation of voltage
operational limits. DSOs already use various methods to
prevent such phenomena, frequently including PV power

curtailment. In order to avoid loss of RES generated power

1.04
caused by such curtailment, storage systems can be mounted at
1.02 prosumers installations, storing the generated power by the PVs
during peak irradiation hours, thus preventing the high inverse
1
power flow. Our investigation on a benchmark LV feeder
0.98
0 35 70 105 140 210 245 280 315 345
showed that there is a minimum ESS capacity which could be
SB 175
Distance (m) installed by each prosumer, preventing in this way overvoltage
occurrences along the network. Various scenarios were
Fig. 9.Voltage profile across the feeder length at the instant with highest examined presenting that this minimum ESS capacity is
voltage observed. Dotted red line: no ESS are installed at prosumers sites.
Continuous blue line: ESS with 20 kWh capacity using charging scenario III.
dependent on the charge-discharge management used for the
SB: Slack bus. operation of the ESS.
The case when ESS starts charging as soon as PV power
exceeds load demand is not ideal for the DSO, since voltage
rises are not avoided. However, it may be advantageous for the
prosumers as it raises their SCR and SSR, which may affect
their revenues under energy policies that are based on the self-
consumed energy, e.g. the Net-metering scheme currently in
place in Greece [17]. When ESS is planned to charge during
peak hours, both SCR and SSR are improved, although to a
lower level than the first case. However at the same time
overvoltages can be avoided. Our tests showed that with an ESS
capacity of 20 kWh and by charging the battery during peak
generation, voltage limits are maintained at all times.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been co-financed by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) through the Interreg MED
Programme, under the project “StoRES - Promotion of higher
penetration of distributed PV through storage for all”.
DISCLAIMER
This document reflects only the authors’ view and the ERDF
is not responsible for its contents or any use or exploitation of
the information it contains.
REFERENCES
[1] UNFCCC. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Tech. Rep.
FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. [Online]. Available: http://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf (2015)
[2] Jäger - Waldau, A. PV Status Report 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC103426/
ldna28159enn.pdf
[3] European Union, On the Energy Performance of Buildings. Directive
2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (recast),
Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, May 2010.
[4] R. Tonkoski, D. Turcotte, and T. H. M. El-Fouly, "Impact of high PV
penetration on voltage profiles in residential neighborhoods," IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 518–527, 2012.
View publication stats
[5] J. Von Appen, T. Stetz, M. Braun, and A. Schmiegel, "Local voltage
control strategies for PV storage systems in distribution grids," IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1002–1009, 2014.
[6] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, "Distributed energy
storage for mitigation of voltage-rise impact caused by rooftop solar PV,"
IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., pp. 1–8, 2012.
[7] J. Moshövel, K. P. Kairies, D. Magnor, M. Leuthold, M. Bost, S. Gährs,
E. Szczechowicz, M. Cramer, and D. U. Sauer, "Analysis of the maximal
possible grid relief from PV-peak-power impacts by using storage
systems for increased self-consumption," Appl. Energy, vol. 137, pp.
567–575, 2015.
[8] F. Marra, G. Yang, C. Træholt, J. Østergaard, and E. Larsen, "A
decentralized storage strategy for residential feeders with photovoltaics,"
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 974–981, 2014.
[9] P. D. Lund, J. Lindgren, J. Mikkola, and J. Salpakari, "Review of energy
system flexibility measures to enable high levels of variable renewable
electricity," Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 45, pp. 785–807, 2015.
[10] "Benchmark systems for network integration of renewable and dis-
tributed energy resources," Cigre Task Force C6.04.02, Tech. Rep.,
2014. [Online]. Available: http://c6.cigre.org/Publications/Technical-
Brochures
[11] A. Hoke, R. Butler, J. Hambrick, and B. Kroposki, "Steady-State
Analysis of Maximum Photovoltaic Penetration Levels on Typical
Distribution Feeders," IEEE Trans.on Sust. Energy, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 350-
357, Apr. 2013.
[12] M. Šúri, T. A. Huld, E. D. Dunlop, H. A. Ossenbrink, "Potential of solar
electricity generation in the European Union member states and
candidate countries," Sol. Energy, vol. 81, no. 10, pp. 1295-1305, 2007.
[13] Voltage Characteristics of Electricity Supplied by Public Distribution
Networks, Standard EN 50160, 2010.
[14] G. C. Kryonidis, E. O. Kontis, A. I. Chrysochos, C. S. Demoulias, D.
Bozalakov, B. Meersman, T. L. Vandoorn, and L. Vandevelde, "A
simulation tool for extended distribution grids with controlled distributed
generation," in 2015 IEEE Eindhoven PowerTech, pp. 1-6.
[15] R.C. Dugan, "Reference guide: The open distribution system simulator
(opendss)," Electric Power Research Institute, Inc, 2012.
[16] MATLAB 8.6.0, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, United
States.
[17] G. C. Christoforidis, I. P. Panapakidis, T. A. Papadopoulos, G. K.
Papagiannis, I. Koumparou, M. Hadjipanayi, G. E. Georghiou, "A Model
for the Assessment of Different Net-Metering Policies," Energies, vol. 9,
no. 4, pp. 262, 2016.