1158

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

An Integrated Distributed Generation Optimization Model for Distribution System Planning

Walid El-Khattam, Student Member, IEEE, Y. G. Hegazy, Member, IEEE, and M. M. A. Salama, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractThis paper proposes a new integrated model for solving the distribution system planning (DSP) problem by implementing distributed generation (DG) as an attractive option in distribution utilities territories. The proposed model integrates a comprehensive optimization model and planners experience to achieve optimal sizing and siting of distributed generation. This model aims to minimize DGs investment and operating costs, total payments toward compensating for system losses along the planning period, as well as different costs according to the available alternative scenarios. These scenarios vary from expanding of an existing substation and adding new feeders to purchasing power from an existing intertie to meet the load demand growth. Binary decision variables are employed in the proposed optimization model to provide accurate planning decisions. The present worth analysis of different scenarios is carried out to estimate the feasibility of introducing DG as a key element in solving the DSP problem. Index TermsDistributed generation (DG), distribution system planning (DSP), economic analysis.

T TN TU

NOMENCLATURE BK Backup distributed generation unit capacity (MVA). Present worth factor. Distributed generation investment cost (in dollars per MVA). Distributed generation operating cost (in dollars per MVA). Electricity market price (in dollars per megawatthour). Total feeder cost from to (in dollars). Potential transformer in existing substation cost (in dollars). Intertie electricity market price as function of the amount of imported power (in dollars per megawatthour). Load demand (MVA). DISCOunt rate. Bus indices. Objective function (in dollars). Total number of system load buses. System power factor. Power generated from distributed generation (MVA). Distributed generation capacity limit (MVA).

Power ow in feeder connecting bus to (MVA). Feeders thermal capacity limit from to (MVA). Transformer in substation dispatched power (MVA). Amount of power imported by the intertie (MVA). Power purchased by the distribution utility (MVA). Substation capacity limit (MVA). Total number of systems existing substations. Incremental time intervals (in years). Horizon planning year (in years). Total number of system buses. Total number of substation transformers. Bus voltage (in volts). System nominal voltage (in volts). Maximum permissible voltage drop (in volts). Feeder segment impedance from bus to (in ). Distributed generation binary decision variable. Feeder to binary decision variable. Transformer in substation binary decision variable. Intertie binary decision variable as function of the amount of purchased power. I. INTRODUCTION

Manuscript received September 17, 2003; revised March 3, 2004. Paper no. TPWRS-00540-2003. The authors are with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada (e-mail: waselkha@engmail.uwaterloo.ca). Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2005.846114

LECTRIC power system deregulation has affected the electric system design, generation, reconguration, operation, and decision-making concepts. Electric utility distribution companies (DISCOs) aim to improve their prots and minimize the investment risk to meet the growth demands in their territories while keeping their customers bills affordable. DISCO planners venture to implement new planning strategies for their network in order to meet the load growth economically, serve their customers with a reliable electricity supply, and survive in the competitive electricity market [1]. These goals can be achieved by introducing new alternatives for solving the distribution system planning (DSP) problem in addition to the traditional options. Traditional utility DSP strategies are based on an established rule-based experience. The load growth value is forecasted until it reaches a predetermined threshold by the DISCO; then, a new capacity must be added to the electric system. This new capacity is obtained by considering the addition of new substations or expanding existing substations capacities and their associated new feeders or both of them [2][4]. The options for this rule-based strategy are limited and valid only if the economic status is not varying rapidly. However, if the economic variations are tremendous, this rule-based strategy must be readjusted

0885-8950/$20.00 2005 IEEE

EL-KHATTAM et al.: AN INTEGRATED DG OPTIMIZATION MODEL

1159

to include nontraditional alternative capacitys investment options to address the varying economic environments [5]. Distributed generation (DG) is one of the new attractive alternative capacity options for DISCOs planning. DG reduces the systems capital cost by deferring distribution facilities [6]. DG reduces the power ow in the system, thus improving the system voltage prole [7], [8], minimizing the system losses [7][10], and relieving the heavy loaded feeders and extending the equipments lifetime [6]. This paper proposes the implementation of DISCO DG as an economical attractive new tool for the DSP problem to make use of its economical and operational benets, solve the lacking electric power supply problem, and meet the load growth requirements with a reasonable price. The new integrated DSP model with DG implementation aims to minimize DISCOs capital investment and operating costs in new facility capacities (substations, transformers, feeders, and DGs) as well as payments to be made toward DISCOs system loss compensation, cost of DGs generated power, and cost of power purchased from the main grid. The proposed model decides the necessary new facilities sizing and siting as well as the required power to be imported from the main grid through DISCOs substations or an existing intertie to meet the demand in an optimal way. The attractive feature of the proposed optimization model is that it uses binary decision variables, thereby providing the optimal decisions without any need for rounding the solution. The results of this model can be used to provide the new estimation for billing DISCOs customers. Several comprehensive analysis scenarios are discussed to cover the different possibilities that can exist in DISCOs territories. The scenarios models are carried out to investigate the optimal economical DGs investment feasibility based on the proposed new objective function and its constraints. II. NOVEL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLANNING MODEL This section presents the mathematical formulation for DISCOs investment planning problem and DISCOs system under study. It is considered that the DISCO is the owner and operator of a distribution system that supplies electricity to its customers. In addition, the existing substations have to be fully utilized as much as possible to get the whole benet from their snuck capital costs. The proposed problem in this paper tackles the problem of meeting the growth in the DISCOs demand. The DISCO has the following alternatives to serve its demand growth. Scenario A: Purchasing the required extra power from 1) the main grid and pumping it to its distribution network through its junction substations with the main grid. This scenario might require expanding the existing substations by installing new transformers and upgrading some existing feeders capacities if their thermal capacities are violated. 2) Scenario B: Purchasing the required extra power from an existing intertie and delivering it to its distribution network territory. This scenario might require upgrading some existing DISCOs feeder capacities to overcome the feeders overloading problem.

3)

Investing in DG as an alternative candidate option for solving the DSP problem locally challenges all of the above options under different scenarios without the need for feeder upgrading.

A. Mathematical Model Formulation The DISCOs cost is split into two main parts: investment (xed) cost and variable [operation and maintenance (O&M)] cost. Fixed cost is a one-time cost that is spent during construction and installation and does not depend on intended loading variation to be served after operation. It is called a Single Budget Expense, which consists of construction, installation, equipment, land, permits, site developing and preparation, taxes, insurance, labor, and testing costs. A variable (running) cost exists as the system is in service and depends mainly on the loading required. It is the cost of fuel, electric system losses, inspection, maintenance, and regular modication like parts replacement, taxes, and insurance [11]. The presented total investment objective function is based on the supply chain example model formulation. It aims to minimize the investment and operating costs of candidate local DGs, payments toward purchasing the required extra power by the DISCO, payments toward loss compensation services, as well as the investment cost of other chosen new facilities for the given two scenariosA and B. The mathematical formulation is described in (1)(9). The objective function in (1) and (2) or (3) are minimized subject to variousconstraints,whichrangefromsystemtofacilitiesconstraints. These operating constraints satisfy the electrical distribution network requirements as well as DG and other new facilities capacity constraints. These constraints are described in detail in (4)(9).

Cost of Scenario A or Cost of Scenario A

Cost of Scenario B (1)

(2) Cost of Scenario B

(3) where from [11], .

1160

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

The DSP constraints: 1) Total Power Conservation: The summation of all incoming and outgoing power over the DISCOs feeders, taking into consideration the DISCOs feeders losses and the power supplied by DG, if it exists, should be equal to the total demand at that bus.

1)

(4) 2) Distribution Feeders Thermal Capacity: The DISCOs feeder has a capacity limit for the total power ow through it during peak loads. 2) (5) 3) Distribution Substations Capacity: The summation of total power delivered by the substations transformers to the DISCOs network must be within the substations capacity limit.

3)

The optimal new facilities investments can either be both or one of the following: a) substation expansion through new transformers and DISCOs feeders upgrading to higher capacity if it is mandatory; b) DG units sizing and siting at different DISCOs buses. Initially, it is assumed by the model that the DISCOs aggregated load buses are candidate DG locations, and each bus has a predetermined maximum number of DG units. By performing the optimization model, we get certain load buses that require DGs investment (DG siting) and the needed amount of power generated by DG (DG sizing). The amount of additional power (more than the existing substations capacity, 40 MVA) that is required to be purchased by the DISCO from the main grid to meet the load demand and compensate for the network losses. Purchasing power can be done through the expandable substation or from an existing intertie option. The DGs running cost to provide the required additional power to the DISCOs network to meet its demand growth without purchasing power from the main grid through an existing intertie or from the junction substation that may require investing in its expansion.

(6) 4) Voltage Drop: The DISCO provides the predetermined maximum permissible voltage drop limit [12].

B. Primary Distribution System Under Study The existing primary distribution system under study is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of one 132 kV/33 kV substation of 40 MVA capacity (bus-9) to serve eight aggregated loads (33 kV/11 kV service transformers at buses 18) at normal operation. These aggregated load buses are assumed to be connected to the natural gas network, and therefore, natural gas is available to drive candidate DGs at these buses. However, there is a forecasted load growth by approximately 28% (51.1 MVA) that is required to be served at the horizon year (four years). The system has four existing primary distribution feeders with a thermal capacity of 12 MVA [4]. C. Cost Data

(7) 5) DG Operation: The DGs generated power must be less than the DGs capacity. (8) 6) Interties Delivery Power Capacity Limit: The interties delivery power cost rates are predetermined by the DISCO and the other identitys contract. The rate of charge depends on the amount of power purchased by the DISCO. MVA MVA MVA MVA

(9)

This model is formulated as mixed-integer-nonlinear on GAMS [13] using binary decision variables, which gives accurate decisions, where unity or zero decision variables mean invest or do not, respectively. The model provides different planning information as follows.

Based on the end of year 2002 market indexes (in US dollars), a base price of $70/MWh is considered as the electricity market price for purchasing power at peak demand by the DISCO from the main grid. The natural gas generator sets investment cost is assumed to be 0.5 M$/MVA. The candidate DGs have sizes of multiples of 1 MVA at a generated electricity price of $50/MWh. At each selected DG bus, an extra DG unit (1 MVA) is installed as backup in case of any DG failure and for maintenance periods. There is an assumed maximum limit of the investing in DG capacities at each bus (4 DG units of 4 MVA total capacity plus one DG unit as backup) so that the maximum candidate DGs capacity on a DISCOs primary distribution feeder is approximately 30% of its peak demand loading. This limit is used to keep the concept of dispersed generation not a centralized plant and take the most benet from the existing substation with its sunk cost. The paper proposes to use a modular of a small size natural gas generator set to avoid any anticipated land availability problems. These DG units have limited dimensions that

EL-KHATTAM et al.: AN INTEGRATED DG OPTIMIZATION MODEL

1161

Fig. 1. Primary distribution system under study.

can t in relatively small areas [14], [15]. The systems existing substation capacity is 40 MVA, which is capable of serving the normal operation load. The total load growth to be served is 51.1 MVA at the horizon year. Two three-phase 10-MVA potential transformers can be installed for expanding the existing substation, each of 0.2 M$. The cost of upgrading the existing primary distribution feeder with another of higher capacity is 0.15 M$/km [12]. All existing equipment and feeders costs are entered as zeroes for the optimization model. The system power factor is set to 0.9. The DISCOunt rate is taken as 12.5%. It is important to mention that DG siting has some environmental restrictions. Therefore, this paper adopted the use of the natural gas generator set since this technology is known to be environmentally friendly and produces the least pollution compared to other fossil fuels DGs [14], [15]. III. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The main two scenarios discussed in Section III are carried out to evaluate the feasibility of implementing DG investment in DSP versus other traditional planning options. The new facility investment is mandatory in order to serve the DISCOs load growth in its territory. Each one of the main two scenarios is divided further into two cases. In the rst case, there is no need for DISCOs feeders upgrading. On the other hand, in the second case, the DISCOs feeders upgrading is essential as the power ow exceeds the feeders thermal capacity. These scenarios are discussed in detail as follows. A. Scenario A: DG versus Substation Expansion If there is difculty in nding suitable land for building new substations, existence of rapid economic variation that may lead to high investment risks, or a long time government regulatory permission is required, then expanding an existing substation is the available option. In this scenario, two candidate transformers are used in the optimization model for investigating the existing substation expansion option. During the proposed scenarios, the existing DISCOs feeder thermal capacities may be violated, and therefore, the analysis is done under the following two conditions.

1) DISCOs Feeder Thermal Capacity Is Adequate: If the substation expansion is the only available option, the proposed optimization model (1) and (2), constrained by (4)(7), is carried out by setting the candidate DG capacity decisions to zero. The model will provide the optimal total new transformers substation investment cost and their power transferred from the grid to the DISCOs network, which represents the additional amount of power purchased by the DISCO to meet its peak demand growth. Also, it provides the total payments toward compensating the DISCOs network losses based on the present worth value calculations. The rst column in Table I shows the output solution for substation expansion option only by investing in two transformers. The output indicates that one transformer is fully utilized, and the other has 44% usage, which provides additional room for more power to be served later if required. However, by comparing the option of DG investment with substation expansion versus expanding the substation only, better planning decisions are obtained. The proposed optimization model (1) and (2) calculation is carried out, taking into consideration the electrical constraints (4)(8) and setting a multiple DG units of a maximum candidate DG operating capacity limit of 4 and 1 MVA as backup at all DISCOs demand buses. The output shown in the second column of Table I provides one transformer for expanding the existing substation and three groups of DGs; each group contains 4 MVA operating capacity, and 1 MVA as backup at DISCOs buses 2, 6, and 8 is required. Therefore, we get the optimal DGs sizing and siting with a lower total planning cost than in the case of expanding the substation alone by 12.4%. It is noted that the obtained optimal solution introduces an investment in one transformer to provide only 0.7328 MVA, which is 7% of its capacity, which is not practical. Therefore, a planner experience decision must take place by setting the transformer investment decision to zero. The third column in Table I shows the nal optimal planning decision for investing only in DGs and no substation expansion with a total planning cost less than expanding the substation alone by 10.5%. The optimal DGs sizing and siting at DISCOs buses consists of two groups of DGs. In the rst group to be installed at buses 2 and

1162

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

TABLE I DG VERSUS SUBSTATION EXPANSION

Fig. 2.

Scenario A: DISCOs buses voltage prole.

Fig. 3.

Scenario A: DISCOs primary distribution feeder power ow.

8, each has 4-MVA DG operating capacity and 1-MVA backup, while the other group consists of 3-MVA DG operating capacity and 1-MVA backup at buses 4 and 6. The optimization model results for Scenario A are shown in Table I. Note that the base market price for purchasing power at peak demand from the main grid is assumed to be 70 $/MWh; however, by investing in new facilities and compensating for the losses, more money is spent, and it should be added on the customer billing. By investing in DG rather than expanding the existing substation, the DISCO can minimize its total planning cost and reduce its customers bills as well by a value of 2.306 $/MWh. This adds more social economical benet to the use of DGs as a new attractive tool in solving the DSP problem, rather than the traditional planning options. In this way, the DISCO can keep its customers and reduce the risk of losing them by contracting with other DISCOs [1]. Examining the implementation of DG as a key element in the DSP is not only a matter of minimizing the total planning cost but also has social economic benets as discussed above and electrical operational benets. Fig. 2 shows the DISCOs buses voltage prole in either investing in substation expansion alone or DG and substation expansion option, taking into consideration the planners decision. The voltage prole, as shown in Fig. 2, in the case of DG planning is much better than that for substation expansion alone at all DISCOs buses 18, while the substation bus-9 voltage is kept constant. One more benet of introducing DG to solve the DSP problem is shown in Fig. 3. It shows a reduction in the power

Fig. 4.

Scenario A: DISCOs DG and substation powers.

ow in the primary feeders, which results in reducing the DISCOs system network losses and, therefore, the total payment spent for compensating the losses. Also, it reduces the stress on the feeders loading, especially for the outgoing substation feeder segments, as a result increasing their lifetime. It adds the opportunity to use the existing DISCOs network for further load growth without the need for feeder upgrading. The optimal power obtained from each selected DG and the existing substation is given in Fig. 4. It is to be mentioned that the authors do not perform reliability analysis, and therefore, the model results do not include the cost of system reliability. Reliability analysis can be conducted as a post process using the approaches presented in [16] and [17]. 2) DISCOs Feeders Thermal Capacity Is Violated: In this case, we examine the benets that can be obtained if implementing DG for DSP versus substation expansion if the DISCOs feeder thermal capacity is violated. Therefore, some feeder upgrading is required in the case of investing in expanding the existing substation alone. The same proposed optimization model is executed after giving the option of feeder upgrading. The optimal results are shown in Table II.

EL-KHATTAM et al.: AN INTEGRATED DG OPTIMIZATION MODEL

1163

TABLE II DG VERSUS SUBSTATION EXPANSION WITH FEEDER UPGRADING

Fig. 5. Scenario A: DISCOs buses voltage prole with feeder upgrading for the substation planning option.

Fig. 6. Scenario A: DISCOs primary distribution feeder power ow with feeder upgrading for the substation planning option.

Table II shows that in the case of the substation expansion option, three out of four outgoing feeder segments from the substation are upgraded with an investment decision of 4.5 M$. However, the rest of the ve feeder segments are kept without upgrading, as their power ow is less than their thermal capacity limits. As we mentioned before, two transformers are selected by the optimization model to meet the load growth. On the other hand, implementing DG as an alternative option in DSP provides 20% less total planning cost. These savings are gained without any need for feeders upgrading while keeping the feeder thermal capacity limit. The optimal DGs siting occurs at bus-1 for 1-MVA operating capacity and another as backup and three groups, each consisting of 4-MVA operating capacity and 1-MVA backup at buses 2, 4, and 8. Fig. 5 shows the DISCOs bus voltage prole. It is obvious that in the case of substation expansion, the voltage prole will be the same as in Fig. 2, while in the case of DG, the voltage prole is better than that for substation expansion alone and different from that obtained in Fig. 2, as the obtained optimal DGs sizing and siting is different from that obtained in Table I. Results show an improvement in the voltage of DISCOs buses 14, 7, and 8, with less improvement than those in Fig. 2 at DISCOs buses 5 and 6. Fig. 6 shows the power ow in DISCOs feeders. The feeders power ow in the case of an expanding substation is quite similar to that shown in Fig. 3, as the violated feeders have been chosen to be upgraded, while in the case of DG planning, it is different from its similar DG planning case in Fig. 3, as DGs can limit the feeders power ow to their thermal capacity limit. The optimal DGs sizing and siting and the existing substation power obtained from the optimization model are given in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. Scenario A: DISCOs DG and substation powers.

B. Scenario B: DG versus Intertie In this scenario, the DISCOs existing substation is connected to another identity through an existing intertie. The DISCO has the option to purchase power from the main grid at predetermined market price rates or invest in the DG option to meet the load growth demand. The optimization model examines the DG investment option versus purchasing power from intertie in four rates according to the amount of power purchased, as stated in (9). 1) DISCOs Feeder Thermal Capacity Is Adequate: In this case, the DISCO has the option to use an existing intertie as a planning option to satisfy its load growth demand. The proposed optimization model (1) and (3) is carried out, subject to constraints (4)(9) and setting the candidate DG capacity decisions to zero. The model will provide the optimal number of intertie transactions and their amount of power delivered from the main grid to the DISCOs network, which represents the additional amount of power purchased by the DISCO to meet its

1164

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 20, NO. 2, MAY 2005

TABLE III DG VERSUS INTERTIE

Fig. 8.

Scenario B: DISCOs buses voltage prole.

Fig. 9.

Scenario B: DISCOs primary distribution feeder power ow.

peak demand growth. The output solution for the intertie planning option is shown in the rst column of Table III, where three intertie transactions are carried out. However, in the case of using DG as an alternative option with the intertie option for DSP, much better planning decisions are obtained. The proposed optimization model (1) and (3) calculation is carried out taking constraints (4)(9) and setting multiple DG units, as discussed in Scenario A. The second column in Table III shows the output solution for DG investment and intertie options. It is to be noted that in three groups of DGs, each group contains 4-MVA operating capacity, and 1-MVA as backup at DISCOs buses 2, 6, and 8 is chosen in addition to a single transaction taking place by the intertie of 0.7328 MVA. This intertie amount of power is practically acceptable as the intertie feeder already exists, unlike the case of expanding an existing substation (see the second column in Table I). Therefore, we get the optimal intertie transactions and the DGs sizing and siting with a lower total planning cost than in the case of purchasing power from the intertie alone by a total planning savings of 16.2%. Table III provides detailed results obtained from the optimization model for Scenario B. It is obvious that by investing in DG rather than purchasing power at high market price rates from an existing intertie, the DISCO can reduce its customers bills by a value of $3.6882/MWh. As discussed before in Scenario A, Fig. 8 shows a better voltage prole for all DISCOs buses in the case of DG planning with intertie rather than the intertie planning option alone. A reduction in the primary feeders power ow, as shown in Fig. 9, occurs that results in the reduction of the DISCOs system losses cost and relief of feeders loading. Fig. 10 shows the optimal DG sizing and siting, intertie transactions, and substation purchased power in the case of introducing DG and intertie planning options to the DSP optimization model. 2) DISCOs Feeder Thermal Capacity Is Violated: If the DISCOs primary feeders thermal capacity is violated, then

Fig. 10.

Scenario B: DG, intertie, and the substation power.

some of the feeders have to be upgraded in the case of the intertie planning option or examining the feasibility of implementing DG for DSP with the intertie option to avoid the feeders upgrading. Table IV shows the optimal output from the proposed optimization model. Table IV shows that similar to the case of the substation expansion option (Scenario A), three segments have to be upgraded; however, implementing DG with the intertie in the DSP as an alternative option provides a lower total planning cost of 22.26% without any feeder upgrading. IV. CONCLUSION This paper introduces a novel framework for implementing DG capacity investment as an attractive option in distribution system planning. A new developed optimization model is implemented successfully to estimate the optimal DG capacity investment (sizing and siting) to serve peak demands optimally integrated with other traditional planning decisions. The proposed optimization model aims to minimize the total system cost: DG investment and O&M costs, cost of purchasing power by the DISCO from the main grid, and the payments toward

EL-KHATTAM et al.: AN INTEGRATED DG OPTIMIZATION MODEL

1165

TABLE IV DG VERSUS INTERTIE WITH FEEDER UPGRADING

REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (2001) Interim Report on Distributed Generation. Maine Public Utilities Commission. [Online]. Available: http://www.state.me.us /mpuc/2001legislation/DG_Rpt_Final.htm M. Ponnavaikko, K. S. Prakasa, and S. S. Venkata, Distribution system planning through a quadratic mixed-integer programming approach, IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. PWRD-2, no. 4, pp. 11571163, Oct. 1987. S. K. Khator and L. C. Leung, Power distribution planning: A review of models and issues, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 11511159, Aug. 1997. V. H. Quintana, H. K. Temraz, and K. W. Hipel, Two-stage powersystem-distribution-planning algorithm, Proc. IEE Gen., Transm., Distrib., vol. 140, pp. 1729, Jan. 1993. R. C. Dugan, T. E. McDermott, and G. J. Ball, Planning for distributed generation, IEEE Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 8088, Mar.-Apr. 2001. T. Grifn, Placement of dispersed generations systems for reduced losses, in Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., 2000, pp. 14461454. P. P. Barker and R. W. De Mello, Determining the impact of distributed generation on power systems. I. Radial distribution systems, in IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, vol. 3, 2000, pp. 16451656. X. Ding and A. A. Girgis, Optimal load shedding strategy in power systems with distributed generation, in IEEE Winter Meeting Power Eng. Soc., vol. 2, 2001, pp. 788793. N. Hadjsaid, J. F. Canard, and F. Dumas, Dispersed generation impact on distribution networks, IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 2228, Apr. 1999. L. Coles and R. W. Beck, Distributed generation can provide an appropriate customer price response to help x wholesale price volatility, in IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, vol. 1, 2001, pp. 141143. H. L. Willis, Power Distribution Planning Reference Book. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1997. nen, Electric Power Distribution System Engineering. New York: T. Go McGraw-Hill, 1986. A. Brooke, D. Kendrick, and A. Meeraus, GAMS A Users Guide. San Francisco, CA: Scientic, 1988. Caterpillar (2003). [Online]. Available: http://www.cat.com/products/engines_n_power_systems/spec_sheet_library/EPG/pdf /LEHE2487-01.pdf Caterpillar (2003). [Online]. Available: http://www.cat.com/shared /electric_power/applications/distributed_ generation/distributed_generation.html A. A. Chowdhury, S. K. Agarwal, and D. O. Koval, Reliability modeling of distributed generation in conventional distribution systems planning and analysis, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 14931498, Sep./Oct. 2003. Y. G. Hegazy, M. M. A. Salama, and A. Y. Chikhani, Adequacy assessment of distributed generation systems using Monte Carlo simulation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 4852, Feb. 2003.

compensating for the DISCOs system loss. It has the privilege of implementing binary decision variables, using both capital investment and O&M DG costs and including a trade off between generating power from DG and/or purchasing power from the main grid through existing substation or intertie according to the planning investment cost. The developed framework calculation is based on total planning cost minimization. The outcome obtained from this model provides not only the DG size and site but also the need for other new facilities investments (transformers and feeder upgrading) and their operating cost as well. Different scenarios are examined to validate the economical and electrical benets of introducing DG for solving the DISCOs DSP problem. Based on the data and the market prices used in the paper to examine the model, the results reported that DG minimizes the total DISCOs planning cost, improves the DISCOs system voltage prole, reduces the power ow in the DISCOs primary distribution feeders, minimizes the DISCOs system network losses (i.e., the total payment spent for compensating the losses), and increases the feeders lifetime by reducing their loading. Hence, DG adds the opportunity to use the existing DISCOs network for further load growth without the need for feeder upgrading. After obtaining the optimal planning selection, the developed framework can be used to estimate the DISCOs savings in its customer billing, which seems to be less in the case of DG planning options in the examined scenarios as obtained from the optimization model. The results of the proposed model are valid for the parameters portrayed in the paper, which can vary over time, location, and the type of scenario under study.

[14] [15] [16]

[17]

Walid El-Khattam (S00) is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada. He is with the teaching faculty in the Department of Electrical Power and Machines, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

Y. G. Hegazy (M96) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Power and Machines, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, and a Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.

M. M. A. Salama (F02) is a Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.