Smart Grid

SMART GRIDS: A PARADIGM SHIFT ON ENERGY GENERATION AND
DISTRIBUTION WITH THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW ENERGY

MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MODEL
JESUS ALVARO CARDENAS

International Business
APPROVED:
Leopoldo A. Gemoets, D.Sc., Chair

Jose H. Ablanedo-Rosas, Ph.D
Kallol K. Bagchi, Ph.D.
Robert J. Sarfi. Ph.D.
Bess Sirmon-Taylor, Ph.D.

Interim Dean of the Graduate School
Copyright
by
Jesus A. Cardenas
2014
SMART GRIDS: A PARADIGM SHIFT ON ENERGY GENERATION AND

DISTRIBUTION WITH THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW ENERGY
MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MODEL
by
JESUS ALVARO CARDENAS, BSEE, MBA, MSIE
DISSERTATION
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
International Business
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2014
UMI Number: 3623383
All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3623383
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ABSTRACT
An energy and environmental crisis will emerge throughout the world if we continue with
our current practices of generation and distribution of electricity. A possible solution to this
problem is based on the Smart grid concept, which is heavily influenced by Information and
Communication Technology (ICT). Although the electricity industry is mostly regulated, there
are global models used as roadmaps for Smart Grids implementation focusing on technologies
and the basic generation-distribution-transmission model. This project aims to further enhance a
business model for a future global deployment. It takes into consideration the many factors
interacting in this energy provision process, based on the diffusion of technologies and literature
surveys on the available documents in the Internet as well as peer-reviewed publications. Tariffs
and regulations, distributed energy generation, integration of service providers, consumers
becoming producers, self-healing devices, and many other elements are shifting this industry into
a major change towards liberalization and deregulation of this sector, which has been heavily
protected by the government due to the importance of electricity for consumers.
We propose an Energy Management Business Model composed by four basic elements:
Supply Chain, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Stakeholders Response, and
the resulting Green Efficient Energy (GEE). We support the developed model with an exhaustive
literature survey, diffusion analysis of the different technologies under the umbrella of Smart
Grids (SG), and two surveys: one administered to peers and professionals, and another for
experts in the field, based on the Smart Grid Carnegie Melon Maturity Model (CMU SEI
SGMM). The contribution of this model is a simple path to follow for entities that want to
achieve environmental friendly energy with the involvement of technology and all stakeholders.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................1
1.1 Background Information ..........................................................................................1
1.2 The Birth of a New Model .......................................................................................4
1.3 The Most Important Elements .................................................................................5
1.4 The Enhanced Energy Management Business Model .............................................6
1.5 Research Question And Objectives .........................................................................8
1.6 Contributions of This Dissertation ...........................................................................9
CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH IN SMART GRID ....................................10
2.1 Background Information ........................................................................................10
2.2 Theoretical Background .........................................................................................12
2.2.1 Smart Grid Concept Defined ........................................................................12
2.2.2 SWOT Analysis ............................................................................................13
2.3 Methodology For Taxonomy Research .................................................................17
2.3.1 Google Scholar Research Results .................................................................18
2.3.2 Preliminary Conclusions of Google Research ..............................................24
2.4 Literature Survey Using ISI Web of Science .........................................................25
2.4.1 Hypotheses H2 ..............................................................................................26
2.4.2 Research Purposes ........................................................................................28
2.4.3 Research Methodology .................................................................................32
2.4.3.1 Classification by Research Categories ...........................................33
2.4.3.2 Classification by Research Focus ...................................................35
2.4.3.3 Classification by Data Collection Method .....................................36
2.4.3.4 Classification by Data Analysis Technique ...................................38
2.4.3.5 Classification by Discipline ...........................................................39
2.4.3.6 Taxonomy of Papers Purpose .......................................................41
v
2.4.3.7 Smart Grid Technologies ...............................................................44

2.4.3.8 Originating Countries .....................................................................45
2.4.4 Further Analysis and Prognosis ....................................................................52
2.4.4.1 ICT Related Papers.........................................................................57
2.4.4.2 Physical Infrastructure Related Papers ...........................................58
2.4.4.3 Economics Related Papers .............................................................59
2.4.4.4 Environmental Related Papers .......................................................61
2.4.5 Hypotheses H2 Results .................................................................................62
2.5 Data Oriented Analysis ..........................................................................................63
2.5.1 Word Mining .................................................................................................63
2.5.2 Bass Diffusion Model ..................................................................................67
2.5.3 Author-oriented analysis ...............................................................................70
2.6 Gap Analysis of Literature and Investments ..........................................................75
2.6.1 Background Information ...............................................................................75
2.6.2 Hypotheses H3 ..............................................................................................76
2.6.3 US Government ............................................................................................76
2.6.4 Private Sector ................................................................................................81
2.6.5 Academic Sector ...........................................................................................82
2.6.6 Methodology .................................................................................................83
2.6.7 Results ...........................................................................................................85
2.6.8 Gaps Conclusions ........................................................................................87
2.7 Conclusions and Graphical View...........................................................................87
2.7.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................87
2.7.2 Graphical View .............................................................................................91
CHAPTER 3: DIFFUSION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND RISKS ..........................................93
3.1 Generation and Consumption Information ............................................................93
3.1.1 Hypotheses H4 ..............................................................................................94
3.1.2 Private Investments on Energy .....................................................................95
3.1.3 Sources of Consumption and Generation Statistics ......................................97
3.1.4 Global Trends on Energy Use and Availability ..........................................102
3.1.5 Global Trends on Generation and Sources .................................................106
3.1.6 Global Sources of Generation Capacity versus Production ........................109
vi
3.1.7 Diffusion of Renewable Generation ...........................................................114

3.1.7.1 Wind Generated Electricity in the US ..........................................115
3.1.7.2 Solar Generated Electricity in the US ..........................................117
3.1.8 Global Prognosis .........................................................................................118
3.2 Advanced Metering Infrastructure Background ..................................................123
3.2.1 Hypotheses H5 ............................................................................................125
3.2.2 Implementation Progress ............................................................................126
3.2.3 Bass Diffusion Model for AMI/AMR .......................................................127
3.2.3.1 Geographical Clusters of States ...................................................127
3.2.3.2 Utility Company Ownership ........................................................135
3.2.3.3 Urban Concentration Analysis .....................................................137
3.2.4 Hypotheses H5s Results ............................................................................139
3.2.5 Findings and Prognosis for AMI.................................................................139
3.3 Electric Vehicles Background Information .........................................................139
3.3.1 Implementation Progress ............................................................................140
3.3.2 Hypotheses H6 ............................................................................................141
3.3.3 Deployment of Electric Vehicles in the US ................................................141
3.3.4 Findings and Prognosis for Electric Vehicles .............................................149
3.4 Cyber Risks Background Information .................................................................150
3.4.1 Security Breaches Measures and Research Focus ......................................152
3.4.2 Types of Cybersecurity Risks .....................................................................153
3.4.3 Hypotheses H7 ............................................................................................154
3.4.4 Methodology ...............................................................................................154
3.4.5 Hypotheses Results .....................................................................................162
3.4.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................162
3.5 Adding All Diffusions Together ..........................................................................163
3.5.1 Distributed Generation Diffusion ...............................................................163
3.5.2 Smart Meters Diffusion...............................................................................164
3.5.3 Electric Vehicles Diffusion .........................................................................165
3.5.4 Cyber Attacks Diffusion .............................................................................166
3.5.5 All the Prior Diffusions Together ...............................................................167
3.5.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................168
vii
CHAPTER 4: ROLE OF CONSUMERS IN THE NEW BUSINESS MODEL ...................169

4.1 Background Information ......................................................................................169
4.2 Literature Review.................................................................................................170
4.3 Model Development.............................................................................................174
4.3.1 Background Information .............................................................................174
4.3.2 United Kingdom Road Map ........................................................................175
4.3.3 German E-energy Road Map ......................................................................176
4.3.4 United States Road Map for Smart Grids ...................................................178
4.3.5 China Strong Smart Grid ............................................................................179
4.3.6 Masdar: The Sustainable City .....................................................................180
4.3.7 Texas Smart Grid Investment Model ..........................................................182
4.3.8 Ontario Smart Grid Model ..........................................................................183
4.3.9 Developing our Own Model .......................................................................184
4.4 First Survey ..........................................................................................................187
4.4.1 Survey for Smart Energy Perception ..........................................................187
4.4.2 Survey Methodology...................................................................................189
4.4.3 Data Analysis ..............................................................................................190
4.4.3.1 Gender of Respondents ................................................................190
4.4.3.2 Education Level............................................................................191
4.4.3.3 Household Income........................................................................191
4.4.3.4 What is important for the consumer? ...........................................192
4.4.3.5 What is everyones role? ..............................................................193
4.4.3.6 Importance to Society...................................................................196
4.4.3.7 Important for the individual .........................................................197
4.4.3.8 Interviewees Own Definition ......................................................197
4.4.3.9 Cost of Energy ..............................................................................198
4.4.3.10 Location ......................................................................................198
4.4.4 PLS-SEM Model for the First Survey ........................................................199
4.4.5 Conclusions and Next Steps........................................................................203
4.5 Proposed Business Model Development and Validation .....................................204
4.5.1 New Business Model First Draft.................................................................205
4.5.2 Questions Development, Grouping and Analysis .......................................205
4.5.2.1 Development of Questions ...........................................................205
viii
4.5.2.2 Survey Preparation .......................................................................206

4.5.3 Hypotheses H8 ............................................................................................207
4.5.4 PLS Model for the Second Survey..............................................................209
4.5.5 Responders Statistic Analysis....................................................................211
4.5.6 PLS Model Results .....................................................................................216
4.5.7 Hypotheses H8s Results ............................................................................220
4.5.8 Conclusions and Next Steps........................................................................221
4.6 Cost of Smart Energy ...........................................................................................221
4.6.1 Hypotheses H9 ............................................................................................223
4.6.2 Electricity Consumption .............................................................................225
4.6.3 Generation and Costs by Sources ...............................................................227
4.6.4 Deregulation Status .....................................................................................230
4.6.5 Competition by State...................................................................................231
4.6.6 Urban Concentration ...................................................................................232
4.6.7 Methodology ...............................................................................................233
4.6.8 Hypotheses H9 Results ...............................................................................238
4.6.9 Conclusions .................................................................................................238
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................241
5.1 Global Position Of Smart Grid Distribution Literature .......................................241
5.2 Diffusion Models for ICT Enhanced Technologies .............................................241
5.3 Enhanced Business Model ...................................................................................243
5.4 General Conclusions ............................................................................................244
5.5 Next Steps and Further Research .........................................................................244
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................246
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................337
VITA ......................................................................................................................................344
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Results of Hypotheses H1 ............................................................................................ 25
Table 2.2: General classification of this paper.............................................................................. 34
Table 2.3: Disciplines and Descriptions (Chicco, 2010) .............................................................. 39
Table 2.4: Row & Column Percentages for Research Classification versus Focus...................... 47
Table 2.5: Row & Column Percentages for Data Collection versus Papers Focus ..................... 48
Table 2.6: Row & Column Percentages for Data Analysis vs. Papers Focus ............................. 48
Table 2.7: Row & Column Percentages for Conference papers SG technologies vs. Purpose ... 49
Table 2.8: Row & Column Percentage for Journal Papers SG technologies vs. Purpose ........... 50
Table 2.9: Row & Column Percentages for Country vs. Papers Purpose ................................... 51
Table 2.10: Row & Column Percentages for Country vs. SG Technology .................................. 52
Table 2.11: Regression statistics for relationship of Journal and Conferences papers................ 54
Table 2.12: Category mixes related to SGD techs ........................................................................ 56
Table 2.13: Hypotheses H2 results ............................................................................................... 63
Table 2.14: Top 25 words on number of mentions in the past 5 years ......................................... 64
Table 2.15: Top 20 SGD Technologies mentions in the past 6 years ........................................... 65
Table 2.16: Bass Diffusion Model results for SGD technologies ............................................... 69
Table 2.17: Distribution of top 20 countries of origin of SGD papers authors ........................... 71
Table 2.18: Distribution of papers by number of authors ............................................................. 71
Table 2.19: Comparison of Journal and Conference papers by country of authors ...................... 72
Table 2.20: Distribution of authors by Country and writing order ............................................... 73
Table 2.21: Distribution of top 20 most prolific writers of SGD papers ...................................... 74
Table 2.22: Type of publication of most prolific authors (co-authors)......................................... 74
Table 2.23: DoE distribution on selected categories .................................................................... 84
Table 2.24: EPRI distribution on selected categories ................................................................... 85
Table 2.25: Academic Research distribution by categories .......................................................... 85
Table 2.26: Comparisons between DoE, EPRI and the Literature Survey ................................... 86
Table 2.27: Gap from the average of DoE and EPRI versus Literature survey ............................ 86
Table 2.28: Correlation results for comparison groups ................................................................ 86
Table 2.29: Hypotheses H3 results ............................................................................................... 87
Table 3.1: Consumption and generation regression lines statistics ............................................. 98
Table 3.2: Sensitivity analysis for the crossing-point year ........................................................... 99
Table 3.3: Consumptions sensitivity analyses ........................................................................... 101
Table 3.4: Generation sources sensitivity analysis ..................................................................... 102
Table 3.5: Regression statistics for Generation and Imports ...................................................... 103
Table 3.6: Regression lines for Energy use and availability ....................................................... 105
Table 3.7: Sensitivity analysis for crossing line year for use and available energy ................... 106
Table 3.8: Capacity factors ......................................................................................................... 108
Table 3.9: Hydro capacity (KWh) .............................................................................................. 109
Table 3.10: Hydro production (KWh) ........................................................................................ 110
Table 3.11: Nuclear Capacity (KWh) ......................................................................................... 110
Table 3.12: Nuclear Production (KWh) ...................................................................................... 111
Table 3.13: Solar Capacity (KWh) ............................................................................................. 111
Table 3.14: Solar Production (KWh) .......................................................................................... 112
Table 3.15: Thermal Capacity (KWh) ........................................................................................ 112
x
Table 3.16: Thermal Production (KWh) ..................................................................................... 113

Table 3.17: Wind Capacity (KWh) ............................................................................................. 113
Table 3.18: Wind Production (KWh).......................................................................................... 114
Table 3.19: Evolution of Sources of Electricity Generation in the US ....................................... 114
Table 3.20: Diffusion Indexes for Wind Electricity Generation in the US by States ................. 115
Table 3.21: t-test for top 10 States using Wind generated Electricity ........................................ 116
Table 3.22: Diffusion Indexes for Solar Electricity Generation in the US by States ................. 118
Table 3.23: t-test for top 10 States using Solar generated Electricity ......................................... 118
Table 3.24: Hypotheses H4 Results ............................................................................................ 123
Table 3.25: Regional Clustering for the US................................................................................ 124
Table 3.26: Ownership of the utility Company .......................................................................... 125
Table 3.27: Urban concentration indexes for the US .................................................................. 127
Table 3.28: Cluster Totals for Diffusion ..................................................................................... 129
Table 3.29: t-test Results for Clusters ......................................................................................... 129
Table 3.30: Average statistics by States Clusters ...................................................................... 130
Table 3.31: Standard Deviation statistics by States Clusters..................................................... 130
Table 3.32: Standard Deviation t-test for States Clusters .......................................................... 130
Table 3.33: Diffusion Results by States Division...................................................................... 131
Table 3.34: t-test Results for Divisions....................................................................................... 132
Table 3.35: Average statistics by States Clusters ...................................................................... 132
Table 3.36: Standard Deviation statistics by States Divisions .................................................. 133
Table 3.37: Statistics from the Individual States ........................................................................ 133
Table 3.38: Standard Deviation t-test for States Divisions ....................................................... 134
Table 3.39: Top 10 States Diffusion Statistics............................................................................ 134
Table 3.40: Diffusion Statistics by Company Ownership .......................................................... 135
Table 3.41: Diffusion Statistics for Ownership Categories ........................................................ 136
Table 3.42: Diffusion Statistics for Urban Concentration .......................................................... 138
Table 3.43: Hypotheses H5s Results ......................................................................................... 139
Table 3.44: Regression results for gasoline price vs PHEV sales .............................................. 142
Table 3.45: Average tax credits vs. PHEVs sold in the US ........................................................ 144
Table 3.46: Regression results for PHEV price vs sales ............................................................. 146
Table 3.47: Registered PHEVs vs. charging stations per state ................................................... 147
Table 3.48: PEV Sales in 2013, Battery Size and Miles Run in One Charge ............................. 148
Table 3.49: Hypotheses H6 Results ............................................................................................ 149
Table 3.50: Categories of Security Breaches (Source: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse) ............. 155
Table 3.51: Breaches Victims Categories.................................................................................. 156
Table 3.52: Number of Breaches versus Type of Attack ............................................................ 158
Table 3.53: Number of Victims by Type of Attack versus Breach ............................................ 158
Table 3.54: Number of Breaches and Victims per State ............................................................. 159
Table 3.55: Detail of Victims per Type of Breach...................................................................... 160
Table 3.56: Types of Breaches versus Victimized Areas ........................................................... 161
Table 3.57: Breached Victims versus Victimized Sector ........................................................... 161
Table 3.59: Diffusion Results for Homes with Solar/Wind Energy ........................................... 163
Table 3.60: Diffusion Comparison of SG Technologies ............................................................ 167
Table 4.1: Elements of smart use of energy ................................................................................ 174
xi
Table 4.2: Statistics from Question # 4 ....................................................................................... 192

Table 4.3: Row and Columns Percentages of Bucket Assignments ........................................... 194
Table 4.4: ANOVA analyses for Buckets Ranks ...................................................................... 195
Table 4.5: Statistics from Society Responsibilitys Question ..................................................... 196
Table 4.6: Word mining of individual inputs.............................................................................. 198
Table 4.7: Residence States of the Survey Respondents ............................................................ 199
Table 4.8: Elements, Questions and Definitions ......................................................................... 200
Table 4.9: Loading and Cross-loading ........................................................................................ 201
Table 4.10: Latent Variables Coefficients .................................................................................. 201
Table 4.11: Correlations among I vs. Square root of AVE......................................................... 202
Table 4.12: P-Values for Models Correlations .......................................................................... 202
Table 4.13: SGMM Surveys Questions ..................................................................................... 206
Table 4.14: Our Surveys Questions ........................................................................................... 206
Table 4.15: Elements and Questions for the PLS Analysis ........................................................ 210
Table 4.16: Means and t-tests for Questions not used in the Model ........................................... 211
Table 4.17: Gender Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.) ................................ 212
Table 4.18: Occupation Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.) ............. 212
Table 4.19: Year of Experience Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.) . 213
Table 4.20: Education Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.) ................ 214
Table 4.21: Location Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.) .................. 215
Table 4.22: Surveys Sample Analysis ....................................................................................... 215
Table 4.23: Model Fit Results..................................................................................................... 216
Table 4.24: Loading and Cross-loading Results ......................................................................... 217
Table 4.25: Models Path Coefficients ....................................................................................... 218
Table 4.26: Models Path Coefficients p-values ......................................................................... 218
Table 4.27: Models Correlations of I vs. Square root of AVEs ................................................ 219
Table 4.28: Models Correlations p-values................................................................................. 219
Table 4.29: Models Latent Variable coefficients ...................................................................... 220
Table 4.31: Sources of Electricity Generation by Census Division............................................ 227
Table 4.32: Sources of Electricity Generation per State ............................................................. 228
Table 4.33: Generation Costs for Sources of Electricity ............................................................ 229
Table 4.34: States with Electricity Deregulation Status ............................................................. 231
Table 4.35: Competition by State and Ownership of Utility Companies ................................... 232
Table 4.36: Competition compared to Deregulation Status ........................................................ 233
Table 4.37: Cost per Energy generation Mix by State ................................................................ 234
Table 4.38: 27 Regulated Entities Regression Results with R2=0.794 ....................................... 234
Table 4.39: Regulated formerly Deregulated Entities Regression Results ................................. 235
Table 4.40: 16 Deregulated Entities Regression Results with R2=0.765.................................... 235
Table 4.42: Percentages of Tariff vs. Regulation Status ............................................................. 239
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.2: Log trend line of SG articles ...................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.3: Selected articles by categories .................................................................................... 19
Figure 2.4: Growth of SG by discipline ........................................................................................ 20
Figure 2.5: Time series for SG technologies (Cardenas et al., 2011) ........................................... 20
Figure 2.6: SG technologies per country ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.7: SG technologies by state ............................................................................................ 23
Figure 2.8: Normalized articles mentions of technology per state ............................................. 23
Figure 2.9: Distribution of Research Papers ................................................................................. 34
Figure 2.10: Primary purpose of papers ........................................................................................ 36
Figure 2.11: Analyzed papers by research purpose ...................................................................... 36
Figure 2.12: Research by collection approach .............................................................................. 37
Figure 2.13: Papers by data collection categories & time ............................................................ 37
Figure 2.14: Data analysis techniques used .................................................................................. 38
Figure 2.15: Data analysis techniques evolution in time .............................................................. 39
Figure 2.16: Distribution of papers by category ........................................................................... 40
Figure 2.17: Number of papers by type in time ............................................................................ 40
Figure 2.18: Categories of papers by topics.................................................................................. 42
Figure 2.19: Categories by time .................................................................................................... 43
Figure 2.20: Distribution of SGD technologies ............................................................................ 44
Figure 2.21: Trend of SGD technologies in time .......................................................................... 45
Figure 2.22: Distribution of papers by country............................................................................. 46
Figure 2.23: Trends of Papers by First Authors Country and Year ............................................. 46
Figure 2.24: Conference papers by continent and year................................................................. 52
Figure 2.25: Journal papers by continent and year ....................................................................... 53
Figure 2.26: Conference papers topics by continent and Chiccos categories ............................ 54
Figure 2.27: Journal papers topics by continent and Chiccos categories ................................... 55
Figure 2.28: Category mixes versus time ..................................................................................... 56
Figure 2.29: ICT Papers by year & country .................................................................................. 57
Figure 2.30: ICT Papers by SG Technology and Country ............................................................ 57
Figure 2.31: Physical Infrastructure Papers by Country and Year ............................................... 58
Figure 2.32: Physical Infrastructure Papers by SG Technology and Country .............................. 59
Figure 2.33: Economics Related Papers by Country and Year ..................................................... 60
Figure 2.34: Economics related papers by SG Technology and Country ..................................... 60
Figure 2.35: Environmental Related Papers by Country and Year............................................... 61
Figure 2.36: Environmental Related Papers by SG Technology and Country ............................. 62
Figure 2.37: Text Mining Cloud ................................................................................................... 70
Figure 2.38: Distribution of papers by number of authors ........................................................... 72
Figure 2.39: DOE recovery awards .............................................................................................. 78
Figure 2.40: EPRI funded projects................................................................................................ 81
Figure 2.41: Academics distribution of Literature ........................................................................ 83
Figure 2.42: Number of Papers per Technology in the Preliminary Model Graph ...................... 92
Figure 3.1: Private investment in Energys sector around the world ............................................ 96
Figure 3.2: Evolution of consumption and generation of electricity ............................................ 98
xiii
Figure 3.3: Projected lines of consumption and generation until 2035 ........................................ 99
Figure 3.4: Evolution of the crossing point from the sensitivity analysis .................................. 100
Figure 3.5: Other uses of electricity to consider (source: UN data) ........................................... 103
Figure 3.6: Importations of electricity and current trend ............................................................ 104
Figure 3.7: Trend of global use and availability of electricity (source: UN data) ...................... 104
Figure 3.8: Projected lines of use and availability of energy (source: UN data) ........................ 105
Figure 3.9: Growth of electricity capacity assuming 6870 hours per year (source: UN data) ... 107
Figure 3.10: Sources of production of electricity (source: UN data) .......................................... 107
Figure 3.11: Capacity percentage -Production vs. installed capacity (source: UN data) ........... 108
Figure 3.12: Diffusion of Wind Generation by State .................................................................. 116
Figure 3.13: Diffusion of Solar Generation by State .................................................................. 117
Figure 3.14: Energy generation using coal (source: World Bank database)............................... 119
Figure 3.15: Electricity generated using hydro power (source: World Bank database) ............. 119
Figure 3.16: Electricity generated with natural gas (source: World Bank database).................. 120
Figure 3.17: Electricity generated using nuclear plants (source: World Bank database) ........... 120
Figure 3.18: Electricity generated burning oil (source: World Bank database) ......................... 121
Figure 3.19: Global energy generation sources (source: World Bank database) ........................ 121
Figure 3.20: Worldwide top electricity generation producers .................................................... 122
Figure 3.21: Diffusion Speeds of AMI for different states clusters ............................................ 128
Figure 3.22: Diffusion Curves by Cluster of States by Division ................................................ 131
Figure 3.23: Diffusion curves for the Top Ten States ................................................................ 135
Figure 3.24: Diffusion Speeds of AMI for different states clusters ............................................ 136
Figure 3.25: Diffusion curves by Utility Company Ownership .................................................. 137
Figure 3.26: Diffusion Speeds for AMI depending on Urban Concentration............................. 138
Figure 3.27: Electric vehicles produced in the U.S. ................................................................... 142
Figure 3.28: Average Gasoline Prices (Source: eia.gov) ............................................................ 143
Figure 3.29: Hybrid vehicles breakdown by brand ..................................................................... 144
Figure 3.30: Number of PHEVs sold versus average price ........................................................ 145
Figure 3.31: Plug-in Electric vehicles breakdown in the U.S. .................................................... 147
Figure 3.32: Types of Cyber Attacks based on Chen et al. (2012) ............................................. 153
Figure 3.33: Number of Breaches per Year ................................................................................ 156
Figure 3.34: Number of Breaches Victims per Year .................................................................. 156
Figure 3.35: Number of Breaches per Categories and Groups of Victims ................................. 157
Figure 3.36: Number of Breached Victims by Group................................................................. 157
Figure 3.37: Diffusion of Wind and Solar Generated Electricity by Households ...................... 164
Figure 3.38: Smart Meters Diffusion by Census Division and Total US ................................... 165
Figure 3.39: Electric Vehicles Diffusion in the US .................................................................... 166
Figure 3.40: Cyber Attacks Diffusion in the US......................................................................... 167
Figure 3.41: Smart grid Technologies Diffusion Comparison.................................................... 168
Figure 4.1: What is the smart grid? (Source: http://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid) ......... 170
Figure 4.2: Environmental Performance Index (Esty et al., 2006) ............................................. 173
Figure 4.3: ENSG Road Map for UK Smart Grid Deployment .................................................. 175
Figure 4.4: The European Unions Smart Grid vision (source: VDE, 2010) ............................. 177
Figure 4.5: NIST Smart Grid Framework 1.0 ............................................................................. 178
Figure 4.6: Comparison of China and US/EU Smart Grids (source: Jiandong, 2011) ............... 179
Figure 4.7: Masdar: The Sustainable City (source: http://masdarcity.ae/en/) ............................ 180
xiv
Figure 4.8 Masdar City Energy (source: http://masdarcity.ae/en/) ............................................. 181

Figure 4.9: Texas Smart Grid Investment Model (Source: SGRC) ............................................ 182
Figure 4.10: Ontario Smart Grid (source: http://ieso-public.sharepoint.com) ............................ 183
Figure 4.11: Enhanced Model by Blocks related to PDCA Cycle .............................................. 186
Figure 4.12: Proposed Enhanced Model ..................................................................................... 187
Figure 4.13: Comparison of 2010 Census results and survey respondents................................. 190
Figure 4.14: Comparison of Educational Level of the Respondents vs. 2010 Census ............... 191
Figure 4.15: Household income comparison of 2010 census and survey respondents ............... 192
Figure 4.16: Survey smart grid focus importance evaluation .................................................... 193
Figure 4.17: Who is responsible for smart grids technologies? ................................................ 194
Figure 4.18: What is important for the society? ......................................................................... 196
Figure 4.19: Personal importance responses ............................................................................... 197
Figure 4.20: Range on cost of energy responses......................................................................... 198
Figure 4.21: Smart Use of Energy Survey Model....................................................................... 200
Figure 4.22: First PLS Model with Results ................................................................................ 203
Figure 4.23: Detailed Enhanced Energy Management Business Model..................................... 205
Figure 4.24: Second PLS Model with Results ............................................................................ 219
Figure 4.25: Total Electricity Consumption by Census Division ............................................... 225
Figure 4.26: Total Electricity Revenue by Census Division....................................................... 226
Figure 4.27: Cost of Electricity per Census Division ................................................................. 226
Figure 4.28: Regression Predicted Values for the Regulated Entities ........................................ 236
Figure 4.29: Regression Predicted Values for the Formerly Deregulated Entities ..................... 237
Figure 4.30: Regression Predicted Values for the Deregulated Entities ..................................... 237
Figure 5.1: Diffusion of Smart Grid Distribution Technologies in the US ................................ 242
xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In the past one hundred years, countries around the world have been investing in
monolithic transmission, distribution and generation infrastructures to support growing
electricity needs usually referenced in the sequence of the value chain, generation, transmission
and distribution. Unfortunately, these infrastructures have not been robust enough, as there is an
estimated global loss of energy ranging from 10 to 52%, mostly due to distribution losses and
theftswhich depend on the advancement of the available technology and implemented theft
controls in every country (Najjar et al., 2012). These losses in the US are smaller than many
other countries, for instance in 1995 they were 7.2%, with 40% of the losses coming from
transformers and 60% from the lines (Hong & Burke, 2010).
Considering some of the concerns that have an environmental impact, the transportation
and energy generation sectors are the top contributors of CO2 to the atmosphere, with 20% and
40% of the emissions respectively (Lo & Ansari, 2012). These sectors mostly depend on burning
hydrocarbon based fuels that create emissions which then affect the environment. There is an old
initiative toward the generation of energy using renewable resources but it has not reached the
right price yet, but at the same time, consumers are buying more devices for modern world
needs, namely consumer electronics, which only increases the demand of energy and, as a result
of this process, more energy needs to be generated, hence more harm to our environment.
By the year 2030, the consumption of electricity throughout the world is expected to
increase 76% (Ramchurn et al., 2012). In order to satisfy this required electricity demand, the
actual generation processes need to increase, thus increasing the emission of CO2 and SOx to the
atmosphere. To overcome this challenge, many countries are writing directives and goals to
1
reduce contamination in the short term. Battaglini et al. (2009) refers specifically to the many
environmental protection requirements set forth by the European Community.
To address these environmental concerns, there is an ongoing integration and growth of
new cleaner sources of energy such as wind, photovoltaic, natural gas, nuclear, and others.
Renewable resources have been growing as well, including nuclear generation which has reached
6% of the worlds total produced energy. However, following the incident provoked by the
tsunami in the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, the reaction of the Federal
Republic of Germany was to immediately close 8 nuclear sites and schedule the closure of the 9
remaining plants in 10 years (Rmer et al., 2012). The rest of the world is also taking precautions
to reduce or even eliminate nuclear energy generation, unless a breakthrough technology is
discovered.
With the task of reducing global contamination, scientists and engineers face the
challenge of reducing contamination and making better use of the currently generated electricity
via reduction of losses inherent to the distribution and transmission processes of the traditional
grid. One possible solution to this problem is the Smart Grid, which is based on recent
technologies: The Smart grid is characterized by: the efficient distribution of energy with the
inclusion of state of computer power, the use of renewable resources to generate electricity,
participation of the consumers in the process by generating and/or conserving energy, low
latency feedback to consumers and utility companies about real-time consumption via smart
meters to be able to take advantage of smart rates, the use of electric vehicles batteries to store
and distribute energy at homes, and distributed energy resources, among others.
All these Smart Grid elements are being developed and even implemented in some
countries, while developing countries are waiting to see the results before following those steps.
The United States seems to be the leader in this effort with the support of the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department
of Energy (DoE), National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Edison Electric
Institute (EEI), and the American Public Power Association (APPA) (Lo & Ansari, 2012).
Other national governments are promoting efforts for the implementation of Smart Grids
in the near future. For instance, Korea launched the K-grid project in 2002 (Son & Chung, 2009),
India created the Indian Smart Grid Task Force (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2012), and China formed
the Strong and Smart Grid (SSGC) (Uslar et al., 2012).
There are important efforts in the promotion of Smart Grids in Europe, where one of the
biggest concerns seems to be the implementation of advanced meters and green energy. The
US, being leader in developing smart grids appropriated $4.5 billion of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) for deployment of programs such as Smart Grid
Investment Grant (SGIG) and the Smart Grid Demonstration (SGDP) Program The Electric
Power Research Institute (EPRI) has also been working on this effort with the IntelliGrid
Program which focuses on standards, interoperability and cyber security.
When we consider the global amount of monies invested on Smart Grid research, the
majority comes from the United States, with 31% as reported by Bloomberg New Energy
Finance (BNEF). Although the US is the leader, analysts predict that China will overtake this
leadership position because the Smart Grid program launched by the Obama administration
comes to an end in the year 2015. At the same time, China is continuously growing, with an
investment of $3.2 billion compared to the US that has already spent $4.3 billion in 2012.
The Smart Grid brings a two-way communication and flow of energy, instead of the
traditional one-way flow from traditional electricity (Ramchurn et al., 2012) and information
systems (Fadlullah et al., 2012). The US government has invested $3.4 billion dollars in grants
for the investigation of Smart Grids (Gngr et al., 2011).
As ICT has been evolving from wire-line to wireless media, there are important proposals
about the concept of ZigBee smart energy with wireless communications to remotely control
devices. The utility company or the consumer will be able to remotely turn appliances, or other
devices, on or off depending on their needs and based on the cost of energy or present
environmental conditions.
With all these technologies under the umbrella of Smart Grids, we chose to focus only on
energy distribution for the literature survey in chapter 2. Distribution is a current fast-growing
area and very visible to consumers, utility companies, and governments who are trying to involve
the general public in this discussion. If distribution is enhanced, the expected result is energy
conservation to avoid unnecessary investments in new large generating plants by reducing
energy consumption.
1.2 THE BIRTH OF A NEW MODEL
Through this dissertation we developed the advent of a new decentralized Energy
Management Business Model that is changing the role of the consumer, utilities and government
with the emergence of new and advanced technology. The elements of the model are analyzed
and measured in regards to their impacts on the implementation of ICT in the energy
management systems. Prior efforts have tried to focus on consumers participation via smart
houses (Tanaka et al., 2012) interconnected with control systems that include distributed
generators and storage. In order to understand the growth of renewable resources generation, and
4
in a way the diffusion of distributed generation (DG), we research and analyze all sources of
electricity generation in chapter 3.
Another component of the model also includes the vehicle-to-grid (V2G) as a source of
energy, where the battery pack is charged while being connected to the grid, and later, the battery
will become a major source of energy (Khayyam et al., 2012; Erol-Kantarci & Mouftah, 2011).
Chapter 5 presents the diffusion of electric vehicles for both Plug-In Hybrid (PHVE) and Plug-in
Electric Vehicles (PEV). Although EVs are not considered commonly as sources of energy, their
role in the future seems to be critical to achieve the environmental goals because one of the
major sources of contamination are the emissions of the fuel vehicles on the road. A factor that
needs to be carefully considered is the timing and places for charging batteries of these cars, or
the suburbs will collapse at the evening hours when most people go home and plug the car to the
grid. There are many studies using Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) as a strategy for the
battery charging process during the night (Celli et al., 2012; Sousa et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2012)
Other scholars focus on the outcome of their own models, environmental protection being
one of the most mentioned, (Lo & Ansari, 2012), energy conservation (Feng & Yuexia, 2011),
and social participation via consumers who explore energy resources possibilities (Aliprantis et
al., 2010). Based on the prior models, we developed our own energy management model that
includes some of the above mentioned elements that are further analyzed in the following
chapters.
1.3 THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS
Based on the literature review and analysis detailed in chapter 2, we consider information
and Communication technology (ICT) as the main element of the model because it is the driver
5
of the model. Without contemporary advances in technology, it would be very difficult to look
for the levels of efficiency that we can achieve nowadays. For instance, we can have a blackout
and the backup source can be activated without our human senses perceiving it; also, informing
consumers about the instantaneous price of electricity throughout the day could not be possible
without computerized networks reaching every home and maintaining two-way communication.
This communication has a potential issue, namely cybersecurity because with all meters
connected to huge networks, it would be very difficult to develop robust enough systems to
prevent attacks, and what is more critical and vulnerable for the energy sector is the false data
injection, as presented in Chapter 3. Although these types of attacks are not frequent, the
potential capability of detection is low, increasing the vulnerability of all energy systems, which
now require a computerized system to monitor the requests and, compared to normal
consumption patterns, they can detect these types of breaches.
From the different technologies under the umbrella of Smart Grids (SG), we specifically
focus on the most visible element for SG integration, that is, the Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI), or smart meters as they are called in Europe. Their diffusion can be
representative of the SG progress, so we analyzed them using the Bass Diffusion model in
Chapter 3. As a new business model was proposed by Lehr (2013) with focus on the utility
companies, the analysis is conducted by region, division, ownership, and urban concentration of
the population to better understand the trends and develop our prognosis.
1.4 THE ENHANCED ENERGY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MODEL
This dissertation contributes to the International Business literature by proposing an
enhancement to some of the Energy Management Business Models that present the relationships
6
among the selected elements to determine if they are strongly influenced among themselves. The
extensive literature survey extends the academic knowledge on the areas where literature is
focusing and those areas that are being neglected at this time. The Model is presented in detail in
Chapter 4 of this dissertation and is supported by two models that are similar and grounded in
theory. We have conducted also two surveys that backup the model, as both the structural
equation modeling (SEM) and Partial Least Squares (PSL) models support our proposal. In
general, our model seems to cover the key requirements for a Smart Grid model, and it is
supported by other research and our primary data.
The enhanced model that we propose in this dissertation introduces how distributed
generation and possibly the electric vehicle will provide electricity that will be stored in
distributed storage to use this energy when necessary, not as generated. Once the energy is
stored, it can be automatically distributed with ICT devices communicating through networks to
the consumers that require it. Consumers in general will have the ability of responding to the
tariff information, so they can increase or decrease consumption based on the real-time cost of
this service. By reducing peaks and optimizing consumption, we expect efficient and
environmental friendly energy.
There are some new models but they are unilateral, with the utility company making all
decisions, and consumers just accepting them. The enhanced model foresees decentralized
generation where consumers are important actors in the process. Another figure that might come
forward very strongly is the service providers who will do the distribution of the available stored
energy in a free market. The consumers will also have an important role on the demand response
area, as they will decide when to use energy and when not.
The involvement of all stakeholders in the process will certainly help for better results.
Utility companies have traditionally made most decisions along with the regulating bodies, while
the consumer perception and opportunities have not been explored yet. Allowing two-way
communication with the consumer opens up a horizon of possibilities to make the distribution
process more efficient.
To validate the proposed enhanced model we used the literature survey to show how
these elements are the most important ones for published researches at this time. The
relationships among the elements were modeled and validated with a survey conducted to
specialists in the field who show that the storage element is the only one that they do not see as
important because we are in the process of designing better batteries, and this is the Achilles
heel. We know that at this time there is no good option as of yet. The practical proof of the
model is not part of the dissertation, because it would have to be implemented and we do not
have the resources. This is a conceptual enhanced model.
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTION AND OBJECTIVES
With the proposed model we aim to answer the following problem statement: How can
we, as a global society, prepare for the imminent paradigm shift towards distributed generation
and distribution automation with ICT and other technologies, which introduce a new business
model where consumers might also be producers, whereby millions of connections can make our
systems vulnerable, and the economics seem unfeasible? In order to answer this question, we
divide the dissertation into three major blocks to achieve the following objectives:
Understand the global position of Smart Grid based on peer-reviewed publications
Study diffusion models and risks for technologies enhanced with ICT
Analyze and design a business model with consumers being also producers of energy.
1.6 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS DISSERTATION

This dissertation brings forth contributions to the business administration, information
systems and energy areas. The Smart Grid is a topic that recently appeared and along with the
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is provoking major changes in the
distribution of electricity throughout the world. Being such a new topic, there are not many
studies focusing on this area and this dissertation contributes with studies never done before. The
major contributions in this dissertation are:
A Fad or fashion study for peer-reviewed literature, from Internet & Web of Science
about Smart Grid, applied to this area for the first time.
An exhaustive literature survey was conducted on 966 papers about Smart Grid to
classify them into six categories set by Chicco and the different technologies.
A model was developed for Green Efficient Energy based on global Roadmaps.
The perspectives of government, practitioners and academics on regards to Smart Grids

were compared with a novel simple classification method.
Diffusion curves for Solar, Wind, Electric Vehicles and Cyber breaches for the first time.
Partial least Squares (PLS) models were developed to support the proposed model.
First evaluation of Smart Grid by 184 professionals not involved in the specific field, but
responding as consumers of electricity.
A snapshot of the opinion of 32 specialists in the field about the elements in the model
A proposed energy management model validated with a survey using questions from the
Carnegie Melon Smart Grid Maturity model for utilities.
CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH IN SMART GRID

It is projected that oil and gas reserves will be depleted by 2060-2065 (Klimenko et al.,
2008). Needless to say, in the face of dwindling carbon based fuel reserves and fears associated
with energy independence, there is considerable attention being paid to energy conservation.
While there are numerous initiatives to conserve energy, one of the more promising
approaches of achieving energy efficiency is a suite of intelligent technologies held under the
umbrella of a Smart Grid. The Smart Grid relies on intelligent systems to make real-time
decisions that can save energy without inconveniencing the consumer. Making the smart grid
successful will require a creative and multidisciplinary approach from areas such as power and
systems engineering, security, business intelligence, social networking, mathematical research,
and others. (He, 2010)
In 1940, 10% of the energy consumption in the US was used to generate electricity; in
2003 it was 40% (US DoE, 2003), and in 2012 the level still remains around 40%, according to
the DoE website (http://www.eia.gov). The largest man-made contributing factor that harms the
environment is the energy production processes that use CO2 emissions (Jiang et al., 2009).
Among this and other factors, we are facing global warming, which is expected to increase 5
degrees in global temperature by the end of the 21st century, which has not occurred in 70 million
years (Klimenko et al., 2009).
For the past 25 years the construction of transmission facilities in the United States has
decreased as energy demand increased, resulting in grid congestion. To prevent this situation, the
Department of Energy (DoE) is working on the implementation of smart grids, following
10
President Bushs signing of the project Grid 2030 in 2003 (US DoE, 2003).
Smart grids seem to be the future for energy conservation, as they are expected to save 10%
of the energy used in the US by focusing on providing the required amount at the right time. The
smart grid concept also includes other technologies, including:
Demand Response (DR) to manage consumption responding to supply conditions
Electric Vehicle (EV)/ Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)
Distribution Automation (DA) intelligent control over electrical power grid distribution
level
Community Energy Storage (CES) presenting an alternative to store energy at suburbs
Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) systems that collect and analyze energy
consumption data. The nomenclature of smart meters was included in this category as it
is the name used at Europe.
Distributed Storage (DS) as a smart way to reserve the available energy
Distributed Generation (DG) looking for a better way to generate decentralized

electricity.
Although Smart Grids are very popular, there are still some unanswered questions about
future uses, as its strengths and weaknesses are not recognized because their anticipated benefits
have not been fully received yet. The purpose of this chapter is twofold:
Clearly define what is expected from the use of smart grids; this can be accomplished by
conducting a SWOT analysis using the available information; and
Investigate whether the multiple technologies under the umbrella of the smart grid
concept are being accepted and promoted worldwidein what jurisdictions and under
what study areas.
11
The first part of the chapter will research definitions and develop a SWOT model. The
second part of the paper uses a bibliographic analysis to identify mentions of smart grids in
worldwide literature, applying the Management Fashion Theory (Abrahamson, 1991).
2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.2.1
Smart Grid Concept Defined
The largest machine with multiple interconnections in the world is the US power grid,
which includes over 9,200 generators and 300,000 miles of transmission lines. The US power
grid generates more than 1,000,000 megawatts (He, 2010). Modernizing and further developing
this huge machine will require a clear focus on the goals of the project.
To better understand SG, we define the concept as an approach to modernize electrical
distribution that would transform the way that a utility interacted with its customers in order to
provide a higher level of service and reliability, put the customer in control of their energy costs,
and to achieve energy conservation and sustainability goals (Sarfi et al., 2010, p.200).
After conducting thorough research, we can define Smart grids as efficient ways to
conserve energy and prevent waste; they ought to be accommodating, as the future of energy
might not be based on hydrocarbons but other sources of energy. Motivating users to do energy
required activities at the proper time can be accomplished with smart grids. SGs shall be quality
focused to do things correctly every time. The opportunistic concept of the vision means that it
will take advantage of any opportunity that might arise and integrate it as a plug and play. The
resilient requirement of the model is critical, as the smart grid shall be prepared to resist any
cyber-attack. Green is the name given to any environmental activity and the vision of a smart
grid shall be environmentally compliant. And finally, the model has to be intelligent, which is
12
indeed the toughest requirement, as it is expected that the grid shall have enough information and
programming that it would react smartly to any behavior (He, 2010)
The architecture of a smart grid is very important but its decision making mechanisms are
equally critical for they:
Shall be flexible to accommodate needs of different utilities,
Shall extend to the ever changing requirements,
Shall be open to interoperate with other different providers,
Shall handle and degrade faulty conditions such as noisy data (Davidson et al., 2010).
Less essential, but certainly desirable, are extended capabilities such as utilizing all
available data within a utility to influence operation, and allowing utilities themselves to select
the level of automation for a given situation or scenario.
The areas of application of smart grids include: smart meters integration, demand
management, smart integration of generated energy, administration of storage and renewable
resources, using systems that continuously provide and use data from an energy network
(Davidson et al., 2010)
2.2.2
SWOT Analysis
Strengths:
Self-healing systems are desirable to prevent dependence on human intervention at critical

moments; by providing the systems with enough data, they can make smart decisions at the right
moment: artificial intelligence (AI).
With the tremendous growth of digital technologies, providing information faster and with fewer
13
errors in communication, the smart grid will utilize a digital platform (Jiang et al., 2009)
Demand and load management are critical parts of the concept, as they helps to optimize delivery
and consumption by reducing customer demands at peak hours (Liu, 2010)
The smart grid shall not have a central vulnerable system that could deactivate the whole
network using decentralized control schemes (Jiang et al., 2009)
One of SGs most important features is that it can be customized to specific needs/wants (Jiang
et al., 2009)
The future of hydrocarbon resources is looking weaker, Therefore, some generations have to
consider the integration of intermittent renewable resources, such as wind, solar, etc. (Liu, 2009)
Smart sub-stations ought to be autonomous and have enough information and data to optimize
their continuous operation (Jiang et al., 2009)
Another important feature of SG is that, due to the system transparency, we are able to see what
is happening at all times in real-time (Liu, 2009)
Weaknesses:
Cyber security anticipates compromises of adjacent systems. This has been a major concern area
addressed by IT under SG (Overman & Sackman, 2010)
A smart grid contains so many sensors and devices that it increases the system complexity for
maintenance and repairs (Overman & Sackman, 2010)
There could be failures in communications link, sensor and/or actuator, unplanned control center
system failure, and nonexistent, late, or improper commands by untrained and/or distracted
control room personnel (Overman & Sackman, 2010)
As more modern and state of the art devices are integrated into the SG, there are possible
compatibility issues (Bull, 2010)
14
Opportunities:
Cyber security controls will become more critical in future systems (Overman & Sackman, 2010)
Balancing demand and generation using SGD can achieve optimal flow (Davidson et al, 2010)
An information security active defense model will not only protect but also defend the system
from attacks and unexpected responses (Zhang, 2010)
SG can have decentralized storage areas to achieve the desired system balance (Slootweg, 2009)
Threats:
Communication channels in the future may be more dedicated (Jiang et al, 2009), creating a need
for dedicated conduits for SG, affecting cost and reliability of the system.
Due to the complexity of grid, it might not be easy to provide technical support from a single
source (Bull, 2010)
As web applications are preferred targets of hackers (Bull, 2010), the SG might be attacked until
its vulnerabilities are found.
New regulations may have an impact on the grid as well (US DoE, 2003)
Figure 2.1: SWOT Analysis

15
2.2.3
Hypotheses H1
In this global environment that we live in, we are seeing that some concepts related to
conservation and better utilization of energy are in vogue. We expect that worldwide literature
should also reflect this emphasis on Smart Grid Distribution (SGD), as this is one of the goals of
this dissertation to achieve. Therefore, we present our first hypothesis which claims that there
shall be an upward trend in scholarly literature about this subject.
H1a: Smart Grids research shows growth of published papers in global literature.
There is a possibility of SG becoming just a fad. To understand if it is indeed a fad or if it
is becoming a fashion or a concept that will persist for a long time we will use the methodology
used by Ponzi and Koening to analyze the lifecycle and diffusion of new concepts. Specifically,
we will utilize bibliometric techniques (Ponzi & Koening, 2002). The lifecycle of a fad is shown
as a quickly increasing concept in popularity that peaks and disappears very quickly, while a
fashion grows more slowly, matures and stays atop for a while and begins to come down slowly
(Abrahamson, 1991). It is our expectation that SG has not reached the maturity to begin
declining, so we propose our second hypothesis:
H1b: Smart Grid Distribution has not reached the maturity stage of its global lifecycle.
As presented in the papers introduction, there are many different technologies that are
correlated to the main concept of SG. Entities are pushing technologies according to their
strategic plans and needs; therefore, if they have a different technological need, their definition
and interpretation of SG is going to vary as well. Thus our third hypothesis proposes that:
H1c: There is a different emphasis on Smart Grid Distribution technologies literature based on
the number of articles published by regulatory jurisdiction.
16
As we conduct bibliometric studies, we shall propose a null hypothesis that the number of
articles mentioning every technology is going to be equal for all countries and states. So our final
hypothesis claims that:
H1d: All technologies under the SG umbrella are equally mentioned in the literature
2.3 METHODOLOGY FOR TAXONOMY RESEARCH
We counted the number of articles containing the words smart grid, eliminating those
papers with citations only to ensure the selected articles are referring to the concept and are not
only references. The research was conducted using Google Scholar for all papers published from
January 1st. 2001 until December 31st. 2010. Once the information was retrieved, we developed
charts with the annual counts of articles over this period on a yearly basis to see if the shape of
the chart shows a fad, a fashion or a growing concept and so support hypotheses 1a and 1b.
In order to correlate the main areas of study of SG, we only considered the following
disciplines: engineering, business, physics, chemistry, environmental and social sciences. It is
our expectation that the engineering, physics and chemistry study areas represent the technical
aspect behind SG, while the business, environmental and social sciences provide the planning
aspectas they refer to goals, strategies, and non-technical implementation plans.
Technologies under the concept of SG are also separated to support hypotheses 1c and
1d, because these technologies will show if there is a different perception in regards to SG at the
different jurisdictions. We used only some of the technologies, DA, DR, EV/PHEV, AMI along
with smart meters, DS, etc. We will finally probe countries and even states to correlate
technology to every jurisdictions perception.
17
2.3.1
Google Scholar Research Results
Researching Google Scholar for worldwide articles containing SG and the above
mentioned technologies, we were able to find 5,125 articles written in the ten year period. The
trend chart shows exponential growth that can be better seen using a log scale as shown in
Figure 2.2. The number of articles written about smart grids has been increasing exponentially,
and there are no signs of decrement. Based upon these findings we can support both hypothesis
1a and 1b, as we see a rapid growth of worldwide articles without showing signs of stagnation or
decrement that may signal the smart grid concept being a fad. The trend is still going up or it is
about to reach its maturity level before stabilizing and then going down. To better understand the
study areas that are promoting this growth, we categorized of articles based on their area of
specialization.
Figure 2.2: Log trend line of SG articles

The area with the highest number of mentions is engineering, as the know-how about
technical achievement of SG is being developed. Far in second place is the business area which
accounts only for 20% of the engineering articles, as shown in Figure 2.3
18
Figure 2.3: Selected articles by categories

To have a better view of the growth, and determine if the technologies are beginning to
slow down and become stagnant, we calculated the percentage increments on a yearly basis per
category. The chart shows that the social sciences, environmental and business areas are growing
at slower rates than the other sciences. This might be a sign of them getting closer to reaching
maturity. In other words, we might say that the foundation for SG in the social, environmental
and business areas has been set and the maturity phase will begin with smaller growth and even
decrease in the upcoming years. This can be seen in Figure 2.4, as social and environmental
sciences are decreasing in growth. The previous charts support hypothesis 1a and 1b in that the
overall trend in worldwide literature is still growing. The SG concept has not reached maturity,
as there are no signs of stagnation or decrements in growth. In the business, environmental and
social sciences, the trend seems to be slowing down and even reaching maturity, but this is still
to be shown. On the other hand, engineering, physics and chemistry disciplines are still growing
rapidly in literature about the concept and details on how to build and improve SG.
19
Figure 2.4: Growth of SG by discipline
Figure 2.5: Time series for SG technologies (Cardenas et al., 2011)

Focusing on the technologies under the SG umbrella, we did the time study shown in
Figure 2.5. This study introduces distribution automation as the first technology that was
mentioned in SG literature, while CES is the last technology appearing in the papers. All
20
technologies are showing important increments in the past years, and none of them are giving
signs of slowing down yet. The lines are showing exponential growth in most instances, such
that we can conclude, looking at Figure 2.5, that Demand Response (DR) is the term more
commonly associated with SG in the reviewed literature. This is not peculiar, as the smartness
concept is linked to responding intelligently to the demand and supply energy levels. The 2nd
technology in number of mentions was AMI, better known as smart metering, which has been
highly accelerated in the past 2 years.
Figure 2.6: SG technologies per country

We asked ourselves if the SG concept, technologies and trends are the same all around
the world; so we took literature and data mined the definition concepts from Figure 2.5 and
related them to the countries that are implementing it. The results show that the United States is
number one in SG mentions in literature. The second place is almost a tie between the United
Kingdom and China. After the general interest on demand response, the UK focuses on smart
21
metering while Chinas main interest revolves around electric vehicles. Germany and Canada are
close in fourth and fifth place with smart metering as their key interest after DR. Many other
important points can be noted by looking at Figure 2.6.
We support hypothesis 1c and reject hypothesis 1d because we can see that every country
has a different perception of what SG is, and not all the concepts are mentioned equally. Because
the country with the most articles related to SG is the United States, we further researched and
subdivided the papers into the different technologies under the SG umbrella per state. There have
been some successful implementations of SG technologies at some states, so data mining by
states we found some interesting facts shown in Figure 2.7. California and Pennsylvania are the
leaders in regards to technical papers about smart grid implementation, followed closely by
Texas and Illinois. It is interesting to note that New Jersey is paying more attention to smart
metering than demand response as all other states do.
In the US, we can also support hypothesis 1c for every states perception in regard to SG,
which are different and their levels are not equalthus rejecting hypothesis 1d. The technologies
mentioned for the US and the world follow the same path: demand response is number one at the
selected countries and even states in America. Second and third place are also the same for smart
metering and electric vehicles. For a better idea on the perceptions at every state, we normalized
the results and calculated the percentage of written articles per state and technology to confirm
the interest of every state in regard to the SG technologies. The results are shown in Figure 2.8.
For demand response, the average percentage of mentions was 36%, with California and
New Jersey being the least interested in this area with 23 and 22% of articlesalthough their
interest was biased toward smart metering. Smart metering and electric vehicles are tied in
second place in regards to mentions in the literature for the selected states. Electric vehicles are
22
receiving an important push from Colorado while smart meters have spread support throughout
the states. On distribution generation Texas and Florida are the least interested states while New
Jersey is the one showing the most interest.
Figure 2.7: SG technologies by state
Figure 2.8: Normalized articles mentions of technology per state
23
2.3.2
Preliminary Conclusions of Google Research
Based on the research conducted using Google Scholar, in the period from 2001 to 2010,
we can conclude that the SG concept has been growing rapidly around the world. The concept
has not reached the expected maturity level, but because the bibliometric study shows that SG
has experienced growth in the past but is beginning to slow down now, we doubt that it is a fad.
Until the number of SG papers stabilizes or decreases in number, we might be able to
conclude if it is a fashion, as we expect the number of articles to reduce slowly until it goes to a
minimal level; a fad would grow quickly, reach its peak, and then diminish rapidly. Thus we do
not expect SG to be a fad (Cardenas et al., 2011). Dissecting the SG concept into the different
technologies related to the SG concept, we are able to see that the individual components are also
growing and none of them has reached the maturity stage yet; although the growth has taken over
7 years, so we do not expect them to be fads either.
With the business, social science and environmental disciplines showing increases of
around 100% in the past year, we can infer that these study areas seem to be slowing down
compared to the engineering, physics and chemistry areas with yearly growths from 271 to
715%.
Worldwide, we found that demand response is the concept more closely related to SG
followed very closely by smart meters and electric vehicles. This is surprising given that
distribution was expected to be more related than electric vehicles, showing a global perspective
of energy conservation, enhanced distribution, optimized generation, and intelligent consumption
breaking away from the current energy schemes towards a greener environment and smarter
systems driven by business intelligence.
24
Table 2.1: Results of Hypotheses H1
2.4 LITERATURE SURVEY USING ISI WEB OF SCIENCE

In order to use a more rigorous method for paper publication, we analyze and count the
peer-reviewed articles published containing the words: Smart Grid & Distribution. Two
different publishing sources were used: conference and journal papers. This research was
conducted using the ISI Web of Science for serious academic peer-reviewed papers published
from January 1st. 2008 until December 31st. 2013. It is important to emphasize that the first
mention of SG happened in 2008, for that reason we are analyzing up to 2013, to include more
than five years of information, an earlier version of this literature review was published by the
Journal of Cleaner Production (Cardenas et al., 2014). In a period of one year, from the time
when the original paper was written to the time of the conclusion of this dissertation, over 150
papers were added to ISI listing. Therefore, we expect the same to happen in 2013, thus we are
not worried about the lower number of conference papers in the past year.
25
2.4.1
Hypotheses H2
While the field holds many publications, in this section we are going to focus exclusively
on peer-reviewed papers. We expect that the behavior of academic reviewed articles is going to
be the same as the more general Internet listing site. Thus, we develop the following hypothesis:
H2a: Peer-reviewed conference and journal papers about SG are still showing growth.
Smart Grid literature has been mostly related to engineering, specifically focusing on its
technical aspects. It is our expectation that most serious literature will be devoted to developing
theories for its Smart Grid implementation. Because SG is such a new concept, new technologies
and new operating philosophies have to be developed to achieve the expected results (Klein et al.
2011). Thus, through the peer-review literature, we will analyze if the technology has matured
enough to be at the theory building, testing or implementation stage.
H2b: Smart Grid Distribution literature is more focused on theory building and testing than
empirical implementation.
If the diffusion of Smart Grid Distribution literature is reaching at least the early
majority, there is going to be enough examples from case or field studies to be analyzed in the
articles and develop prognoses for future implementations. As technology evolves, the need for
accurate operating information becomes paramount (Bank, 2012.) Due to the newness of SGD, it
is our expectation that there are more case studies than sources of data at this time:
H2c: The majority of peer-reviewed papers collect data from case studies rather than other
research sources.
In the early 70s Akao and others developed the Quality Function Deployment (Chan and
Wu, 2002) This technique presents a sequence for planning the product or service all the way to
process control; based on this theory, we expect strategy (planning) be the first part of the
26
implementation process, while control will be the last part. Because SGD is a new technology,
we expect most papers to be related to strategy instead of process controls, or quality focus. The
next hypothesis proposes that:
H2d: Strategic papers have a leadership role over quality focus on efficiency and control.
With the green revolution push in the new millennium and an increase on energy
demand, the new energy has to be generated from renewable wind, solar and tidal resources
(Ramchurn et al., 2012). If renewable energy is correlated to the SG concept, we expect that the
generation of energy using renewable resources will be correlated to the number of papers
written on SGD. The name for the renewable generation of energy is coined under distributed
generation (DG) or distributed energy resources (DER). Although the necessary investment is
high at first, the benefits are being studied throughout the world, such that we can expect that:
H2e: Distributed Generation is steadily growing in importance throughout the world.
The United States has been the leader on some technologies in the past. Recently, the US
has been the creator of programs such as Intelli-Grid, Gridwise, Modern Grid Initiative, and
Smart 2030, which have been propelled by the stimulus plan (ARRA). With this investment in
Smart Grids, we expect the US to be the leader in the generation of literature focusing on
planning and strategies for the future.
H2f: The US is the leader in peer-reviewed SGD literature
Considering the country of origin of the writers, it is our expectation that most papers for
both conferences and journals would be from the US, but what about the economic blocks? Is
America a leader in peer-reviewed conference and journal papers when compared against the
European or Asian blocks? Because America is very much represented by the US and Canada,
27
we expect that the leadership position might be challenged by the European Union or the Tigers
of Asia, but America may still be the leader.
H2g: America is the leader on SG conference papers in the world
H2h: America is the leader on SG journal papers in the world
Conference papers are preliminary journal papers in nature, so we expect that the number
of conference papers will predict the number of journal papers in that subject matter. Because the
number of peer-reviewed conference papers is much higher than journal papers, that relationship
might be linear:
H2i: Journal papers follow a linear regression to the number of conference papers in the SG
subject.
2.4.2
Research Purposes
Following the method used by Cardenas et al. (2014) and Gupta et al. (2006) the selected
published papers are also classified into the three categories of research: theory building, theory
verifying, and theory application. Theory building is going to include the published papers that
present new theories or formulate existing ones; theory verifying include the research that prove
previously presented theory, while theory application are practical papers that present how the
technologies are implemented in the field.
In the category of theory-building authors develop new relationships, algorithms, or
hypotheses to be confirmed in future research papers (Kleinberg et al., 2009). Although this
literature survey is written from the social science perspective of Information and Decision
Sciences, these papers are required to be conceptual and also contain empirical data to support
the author(s) hypotheses. For example, Tom Jauch (2009) proposes the coordination of
Volt/VAR Management systems and equipment with an innovative adaptive technique to
28
automatically adjust to changing loads, circuit changes, reverse power applications, and circuit
switching and reconstruction. Sanz et al (2009) also researched the introduction of electronic
circuitry in the control of distribution to optimize the process. More recently, Dukpa and
Venkatesh (2010) proposed a new model for distribution systems using fuzzy charts.
For theory-verification, the authors conduct tests to prove those hypotheses previously
proposed in earlier research (Saleem et al., 2009; Vokony and Dan, 2009). For examples, Tenti et
al. (2010) introduced the token ring approach to minimize the lost energy where a voltage control
algorithm sets a progressive reduction of the voltage at the other end down to zero. Moreover, Li
et al. (2008) examined the system configuration and control methods at the typical radial
distribution network, where locations of DEs are affecting the grouping of the buses; therefore,
they affect the reduced network structure and the appropriate range of the controller parameter.
The most commonly observed type of empirical research for Smart Grid Distribution is
the application of existing theories, models, or frameworks. For example, Bushby (2009) focused
on the Building Automation and Control Networks (BACnet) to provide a standard, network
visible interface to configure and manage facility load shedding operations. Son et al. (2009)
applied the principles of Smart Grid in Korea under the name K-grid established there since
2004; and Kirkham (2009) presented research using four different innovative methods to
measure current efforts to address the issues of transduction and isolation from the circuits
measured.
Smart Grid Distribution (SGD) is a recent development, the focus in the past years was
on energy transmission, and hence there are not many available sources for data collection.
However, many of the papers on SGD refer to simulations and pilot runs before implementation.
These simulations and pilot runs could help prevent catastrophic events if the proposed models
29
are not validated or even tested beforehand due to the size of the endeavor. Due to the fact that
empirical studies are designed to focus on the effectiveness of proposals for new theories (e.g.,
algorithms to forecast electric vehicles charging process (Soares, J. et al. 2012)), it is not
surprising that 60.5% of the reviewed papers are empirical studies, with a quarter (25.0%) being
conceptual, and only 13.8% focusing on developing new models.
In this dissertation we classify the data-collection approaches for empirical research in
Smart Grids Distribution into these categories: case study, field research, laboratory research,
archival research, and surveys (Gupta et al 2006).
The SGD implementation process is in the early stages; therefore, we were only able to
identify 314 case studies in the analyzed papers. Also, there were utilities and other companies
data collection efforts over short periods of time. The scope of case studies varies, ranging from
radial distribution networks (Calderaro et al. 2011) to a proposed roadway microgrid to be
deployed at Lincoln, Nebraska (Qiao et al. 2011), and a super-grid implementation at Sardinia,
Italy (Purvins et al. 2011).
A field research study (18.3%) is similar to a case study, but it does not require many
visits to the project being analyzed; only one or two visits would be enough for the data
collection purpose. In other words, we only need a short period of time to gather the necessary
information needed to make conclusions (Gong & Guzmn, 2012; Son & Chung 2009). Some of
the examples of field research studies include Carlson et al.s (2009) review of the application of
cutout type reclosers, and the work of Lindsey (2010) on the application of line sensors in the
field.
The laboratory research category (27.2%) includes simulations and experiments that are
done under controlled conditions to discover new theories. Because of the newness of the Smart
30
Grid technology, many of the published papers are about experimentation to simulate the
possible conditions of circuitry, controls, and processes beforehand (Mohammed et al. 2010; Lo
and Chen 2011). Examples of laboratory studies include an evaluation of the accuracy for an
islanding impedance detection system conducted by Fort et al. (2010) and the development of a
Smart Grid test bed using emerging technologies such as multi-agent systems (Belkacemi et al.,
2011).
Archival research (21.2%) refers to the use of secondary data obtained from sources other
than direct data collection. Examples of this research include the use of publicly available data
from public or companies sources. This category also includes general information or comments
about Smart Grids that have been published and are available for reference. Because prior
experiences on the Smart Grid technologies have not been documented, some papers only
present comments about public information, while others use these sources of information for
further researches (Liu 2010; Bilgin & Gngr, 2012). Two examples of archival researches are
the worldwide annual electrical power generation, reported from Siemens databases in the paper
written by Bosselmann (2010), and the information about the McAlpine substation at Charlotte,
NC as presented by Miller et al. (2012)
When there is no information available due to cost, time, or other constraints, there is the
possibility of conducting a survey to gather information and come up with conclusions. In this
particular area, there were only seven of these cases, one example being Pakonen et al. (2012)
who surveyed 18 Finnish distribution network operators (DNOs) about smart meters.
In this section, we discuss the analysis techniques mentioned most in the published
literature. From all of the analyzed papers, 215 of them contain concepts but do not have any
data analysis (e.g., Galli et al 2011; Heydt 2010). In most of these cases, the papers present
31
challenges or opportunities detected by the authors and suggest possible alternatives but do not
proceed further; therefore, the next research steps should include data collection.
Simulation is the technique that is used the most in the literature, which is not surprising
due to the newness of the Smart Grids in distribution and the scope of the implementation
challenge (e.g., Gudi et al 2012; Strasser et al 2011). The next categories are time series (e.g.,
Acampora et al. 2011; Giri et al 2012), descriptive statistics (e.g., Cheema et al. 2010; Ochoa et
al 2011), and mathematical modeling (e.g., Andreotti et al 2012; Mohagheghi et al 2009).
Smart Grid Distribution literature is evolving because the analysis technique that is
mostly used is the simulation of what is going to happen when this technology is implemented.
Simulation has the purpose of providing confidence for implementation, and a successful
simulation shall help the scholars identify opportunities, and enhance the process before
investing in a major implementation. Charging electric vehicles batteries at certain times (Han et
al. 2012), using wind power for distributed generation at homes (Wang et al. 2010), and
strategies for demand response (Fuller et al. 2011) show the ample field of simulation
approaches discussed there.
2.4.3
Research Methodology
For this literature survey, we queried Reuters ISI Web of Science using Smart Grid and
Distribution as selected topics with no restrictions other than requiring the papers to be peerreviewed. The result was a list of 966 papers in a 6 year period from 2008 to 2013; that is, there
was no mention of Smart Grid distribution prior to 2008 as catalogued by the ISI Web of
Science. As we reviewed these papers, 688 of them were proceedings from conferences and
society meetings, while 278 were journal papers. The trend of journal papers on this topic has
been climbing steadily, while in regards to conference papers the last two years seem to be on the
32
same level. In the year 2013 we are seeing as many conference papers as in 2012, but the number
of conference papers included in the listing is smaller than 2012. So, it is our expectation that
once all conferences are added, the number of papers will be much higher.
Looking at all listed papers thus far, the total number of papers increased from 151 to 324
in the period 2011-2012, and then to 345 in 2013 (even though the information is not complete).
Based on these numbers, we can support hypothesis H2a that there is still growth on peerreviewed papers on SGD. Probing deeper into all selected papers, we classified them according
to the categories shown in Table 2.2, and the next sections describe our findings.
2.4.3.1
Classification by Research Categories
This survey classifies the articles as empirical research if they contain any real data.
Papers outside this category were classified as modeling and analytical methodologies based
on mathematical functions and/or simulated datasets, conceptual and general category
(including papers without any data and based on comments about the topic), and the final
category is called survey and review which consists of papers reviewing the existing literature.
Out of the 966 reviewed papers, a total of 584 fell into the empirical research category
and the remaining were classified as modeling, conceptual, survey or education-related published
papers. Figure 2.9 illustrates the distribution of papers in these categories where empirical
research is the majority of all papers. This is expected because the different technologies under
the umbrella of Smart Grid have practical applications and are being analyzed before they are
implemented at macro levels. Because there are important differences among peer reviewed
papers depending on the publication outlet, another important delineation is by use of their
33
publication source. Some articles are published at conference proceedings or general meetings of
engineering societies, while the others are published for academic and scientific journals.
Table 2.2: General classification of this paper
Classification
Research
Classification
Research Focus
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Types of Category
Taxonomy of
Papers Purpose
Smart Grid
Categories
Originating
Countries
Components of the classification

Empirical Research, Modeling & Analytical Methodologies,
Conceptual and General, Survey and Review, and SG Education
Theory building, theory testing, and applications
Case study, surveys, field, laboratory and archival researches.
Descriptive statistics, neural networks, mathematical modeling,
regression, Cronbachs alpha, game theory, DEA, time series,
simulation, non-linear and linear programming, or non-data analysis
Physical (P), Regulatory (R), Environmental (E), Social (S), Economic
(F), Information and Communication technology ICT (I)
Strategy, Quality Management, Supply Chain Management,
Environmental Issues, Service Design, Process Design, Scheduling,
Planning, and Blackout
Demand Response, Automated Meter Reading, Distribution
Automation, Distributed Generation, Electric Vehicles, Energy storage,
Cybersecurity, Vol/VAR Analysis, User friendly enhancements,
Efficiency, and Self-healing
United States, China, Canada, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Japan
and others
Figure 2.9: Distribution of Research Papers
34
2.4.3.2
Classification by Research Focus
Separating the reviewed papers based on the purpose of the research, we classified them
into three categories: theory building, theory verifying, and applications. Theory building is
second in order with a 14.1% contribution, theory testing is third with only 9.2%, and application
papers are identified as the major purpose of research, accounting for 76.7% of all analyzed
papers. Although there are many research papers focusing on theory building, the percentage is
low compared to the overwhelming amount of application papers. Figure 2.11 shows an increase
of papers on theory building until 2010, when the trend reached a peak and then proceeded to
descend to 40%. However, theory-building papers did come back up in 2012 to a higher level
than the one in 2010. Theory testing is consistently trending upwards while application papers
are showing a positive trend, although the overall number of published articles in 2013 is going
to still grow. Application papers focus on the practical implementation of technologies or ideas;
therefore we are seeing a large number of application papers as practitioners are analyzing SG
for implementation. Authors seem to be focusing on the process of implementing those practical
applications around SG, based on field and lab results without proper theory supported, but with
a strong pragmatic support.
Based on the numbers shown on both Figures 2.10 and 2.11, we can reject hypothesis
H2b, as we can see that the number of papers focusing on applications are now higher than the
theory based ones. Our prognosis is that the applications papers will continue growing for a
longer period of time, while the theory related ones will still climb until the reach the peak and
begin descending.
35
Figure 2.10: Primary purpose of papers
Figure 2.11: Analyzed papers by research purpose

2.4.3.3
Classification by Data Collection Method
Empirical research papers can be classified by the data-collection method used. Almost
one third of the papers used case studies (32.5%); Archival research accounts for 21.2% of all
papers and laboratory research also accounts for 27.2%. It is not surprising to see case studies as
the majority of data collection efforts because SGD technologies are recent and being fine-tuned
in the field by simulating and quantifying their impact to a specific selected case. Later this case
will be compared to others under different characteristics to validate the hypothesis and shape
36
theories. That is, case studies represent a grounded reality. Figure 2.13 shows that trends are
positive in most cases.
Field and lab research are at the highest level in the period of time analyzed, showing
increased interest in collecting data at these locations as real life validations are needed.
Considering all these facts, we support hypothesis H2c, as we see that case studies are the
primary source of data collection, but as this data is available in time, the use of archival
information will increase.
Figure 2.12: Research by collection approach
Figure 2.13: Papers by data collection categories & time
37
2.4.3.4
Classification by Data Analysis Technique
Papers can also be classified based on the numerical analysis techniques used. Although
some of the published papers have no data analysis, we identified 12 techniques used in the
analyzed papers. Some papers use more than one technique, but for analytical purposes we chose
the one technique which is the focus of the paper. Figure 2.14 weights the relative importance of
the techniques used when measured as a percentage of the total incidences (966).
Figure 2.14: Data analysis techniques used

Simulation is the analysis technique used most frequently in the analyzed papers with a
35% contribution and continuing on an upward trend. We expected to find such a large number
of simulation papers because 45.8% of the case studies studying applications use simulation as
the main tool and 17% of the simulations use the Monte Carlo method. Papers without data
(22%) are also showing an upward trend as new techniques, opportunities and challenges are
constantly discovered and discussed before conducting any data analysis.
38
Figure 2.15: Data analysis techniques evolution in time

2.4.3.5
Classification by Discipline
To separate the categories of papers, we used the six layers presented by Giannfranco
Chicco (2010) identified on the basis of interaction between elements in the Smart Grid papers. It
is important to emphasize that there are going to be overlaps as two or more layers can be
addressed in a single paper.
Table 2.3: Disciplines and Descriptions (Chicco, 2010)
Category
Physical (P)
Regulatory (R)
Environmental
(E)
Social (S)
Economics (F)
Information (I)
Description of Category
Network interconnections used for the distribution of energy
Applying standards, rules and other types of incentives or penalties to
moderate the activity in the market, control prices and/or protect consumers
Activities to have an impact on the defense of human life and protection of
the planet
Customers willingness to do something by investing on devices, changing
consumption habits, participating in the utility companies programs, etc.
Those activities that have an impact on the economy of the consumer or the
company
Includes efforts to integrate ICT in the distribution of energy via
management, communications, and control
39
The Smart Grid literature has been evolving from an early focus on transmission and
generation with unilateral flow of communications and electricity to bidirectional
communications whereby electricity flows from the generator to the consumption location and
from the consumption location distributed generator to the grid. Using the definitions in Table
2.3, we identified the papers with the six categories using the first letter as, identifier, with the
exception of economics changed to financial (F) to avoid repeating (E) which was already being
used for environmental papers. All categories show upward trends to date.
Figure 2.16: Distribution of papers by category
Figure 2.17: Number of papers by type in time
40
An important finding on this chart is the increase of economics related papers in the past
three years. These papers tended to focus on efficiency because the energy generation and
conversion process are of low efficiency (Dov et al., 2009). This financial analysis has not
peaked yet, and is rapidly growing to overtake second place from physical interconnection
papers. The papers show an increased awareness on the financial impact of SG with the
appearance of a new business model based on the elements of distributed generation, electric
vehicles and automated metering that are inspiring new customer behaviors. The role of the
consumers and producers merging together as prosumers will bring added complexity to the
commercial relationship between utilities and entities generating energy for self-consumption
because they can also sell their excess capacity to the utility company. In the same way that
communication and energy now are flowing bi-directionally instead of unilaterally, energy costs
will also have tariffs from and for the utility company, creating a new situation that has not been
addressed recently. This new model is an effect of the upward trend of economics papers related
to SG because it will require participation of many stakeholders who were previously passively
involved in this process. The social and cultural changes from this new business model have to
be analyzed in detail before companies fail to involve consumers and implement SG with their
strong opposition. On the other hand, if companies successfully involve the stakeholders in the
enhancement of the generation, distribution and consumption processes, the result could bring
forth a new quality of life for consumers in general. Chapter 4 presents this enhanced model that
has been developed within this dissertation.
2.4.3.6
Taxonomy of Papers Purpose
By analyzing the general purpose of the published paper, we use several categories to
sum up a given projects intention. The categories include: Strategic, Quality Management,
41
Supply Chain Management, Environmental Issues, Service Design, Process Design, Scheduling,
Planning, and Blackouts. Strategic papers will present clearly defined strategies or guidelines for
future implementation. Quality Management focuses on optimization and performance. Supply
Chain Management centers on the continuous supply of inputs. Environmental Issues papers are
concerned with reducing environmental impacts (greener planet). Service and Process Designs
are very similar because energy provision is a service, but the focus on the generation,
transmission and distribution process will be considered as process design, while service design
is related to the activities around the process to aid and enhance the customer perception;
Scheduling is related to Planning in time; while the Planning category is used for those activities
as developed beforehand. Finally, Blackouts papers concentrate on avoiding power outages. The
results are presented in Figure 2.18 and their trends are presented in Figure 2.19. The three most
important topics in the reviewed literature are Strategy (31%), quality management (29%), and
supply chain (14%). It is not surprising to see strategy as the leading category because the
alternatives for proper implementation are still being developed in some of the technologies.
Figure 2.18: Categories of papers by topics

The value in quality management is increasing due to the growing importance of using
resources efficiently. The efforts to optimize energy distribution are aiming to save some of the
42
typical loss of generated energy due to energy transportation losses (Grbe et al., 2012), which in
the US account for 5-12% (Lauby, 2010) and 15 to 20% in India (Sinha et al. 2011). The third
important category is the supply chain, which describes how energy users have changed from
only being consumers to now becoming prosumers who generate and consume energy
(Zhabelova & Vyatkin 2012).
Figure 2.19: Categories by time

Figure 2.19 shows how Quality Management is overtaking strategy in 2013 in total
number of papers, which confirms the increasing notion of a SG definition as a way to look for
efficiency (Wissner, 2011). Strategy is still strong because some areas of SG have not been fully
developed, such as electric vehicles. EVs bring new and expensive interactions including driving
range, recharging time (Silvester et al. 2012) and vehicle charging, which still needs to be
considered before massive implementation can be accomplished (Shuaib, 2012). Based on the
numbers and trends, we reject hypothesis H2d because we see that strategies have been passed
by quality.
43
2.4.3.7
Smart Grid Technologies
There are several technologies under the umbrella of Smart Grid Distribution (SGD); the
most typical ones are Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Demand Response (DR),
Distribution Automation (DA), Electric Vehicles (EV), Distributed Generation (DG), System
Efficiency Improvement, Self-Healing, Cybersecurity, and Distributed Storage. Looking at the
966 papers, we classified them into 11 categories. Figures 2.20 and 2.21 show distribution and
trends. Only efficiency and Volt/VAR analysis show reduction of papers beyond the 2010 level,
all others show positive trends as techniques are becoming more popular and important to our
society.
The three most important technologies based on the number of papers are: Distributed
Generation (23%), Distribution Automation (18%), and System Efficiency (16%). These three
areas show the current trends of SGD. Distributed Generation is a growing area mostly in
Europe, where there is a major effort to move to self-generation using renewable resources that
could reduce 2-4% of the energy losses in Europe (Lasseter, 2011); based on this growth we
support hypothesis H2e.
Figure 2.20: Distribution of SGD technologies
44
There is also an important effort to automate the distribution process with the use of ICT
devices. The automation process will allow quicker and better responses on energy consumption
that will result in efficient use of energy, thus reducing the negative impact on environment
(Koroneos at al. 2012). Additional methods to make energy distribution more efficient vary from
replacing transformers with new more efficient ones (Grigoras et al. 2010) to the identification of
the most probable configuration of the wind to locate mills (Chertkov et al. 2011).
Figure 2.21: Trend of SGD technologies in time

2.4.3.8
Originating Countries
Figure 2.22 shows the countries where the papers originated, i.e. the home of the first
authors, the country referred in the paper, or the sponsor country of the publication. More than
one quarter of the papers are from the US, which generated 27% of all literature, followed by
China with 13%, Canada with 6%, Italy with 5% and India with 4%. Figure 2.23 shows the
continuous increase of papers coming from other countries not listed in the top 5. The diverse
composition of this category shows a worldwide interest in the area. The US is still maintaining
leadership while other countries are making smaller contributions. These figures support
45
hypothesis H2f, which states that the US is the world leader in peer-reviewed SGD literature
generation. Something important to emphasize is the growth of literature from other countries.
Figure 2.22: Distribution of papers by country

Even though the top 5 represent 55% of all papers analyzed, the number of contributions
from other countries is increasing, as there is growing worldwide attention on this subject. Some
countries are specializing in certain technologies. For instance, Portugal is writing more papers
about electric vehicles than most countries, with a particular focus on particle swarm for vehicle
to grid scheduling (e.g. Soares et al. 2012, Sousa et al. 2012).
Figure 2.23: Trends of Papers by First Authors Country and Year

46
It is interesting to note that as many as 81 countries have participated in the generation of

literature. We see a technological wave throughout the world to meet the upcoming challenges
and to be prepared for implementation. Environmental protection and energy sustainability are
two of the many subjects addressed globally and their importance is critical.
Analyzing matrices by doing cross-tabulation between columns and rows, we have
identified some facts that are important for this area of knowledge. Table 2.4 shows that
applications have the major contribution for the published papers with a 77% contribution,
followed by theory building in the modeling and analytics area. We are seeing more application
papers of Smart Grid Distribution because this area is being optimized with the aid of
technologies already available and previously used for transmission (e.g., SCADA, D-SCADA)
or in the areas of communication (e.g. wireless technologies). The empirical analysis is the
largest share of the pie with 60%, followed by the conceptual papers with less than half of the
empirical contribution. 92% of the conceptual papers are focused on practical applications.
Table 2.4: Row & Column Percentages for Research Classification versus Focus
Application
Empirical Research
Conceptual & General
Modeling & Analytical
Survey
SG Education
Total
58%
30%
11%
1%
0%
100%
Theory Theory
Theory Theory
Total Application
Total
building Testing
building Testing
68% 72% 60%
73% 16% 11% 100%
10%
6% 25%
92%
6%
2% 100%
21% 22% 14%
63% 22% 15% 100%
0%
0% 1%
100%
0%
0% 100%
0%
0% 0%
100%
0%
0% 100%
100% 100% 100%
77% 14%
9% 100%
Table 2.5 shows that case studies is the data collection method used by the largest group
of papers with 33% of all analyzed articles. Archival research is used mostly for applications
(89%) because secondary data sources are used to represent the way things are in real life, not to
build or test theory. For theory building and testing, authors are writing around 34% of the
47
papers using case studies, followed by laboratory research with around 29 and 37% of the
papers. These numbers show that using implementations in the field and case studies represent
51% of all papers confirming the expected focus on practical applications for future
implementation validation.
Table 2.5: Row & Column Percentages for Data Collection versus Papers Focus
Application
Case Study
Lab Research
Archival Research
Field Research
Surveys
Total
32%
26%
25%
17%
1%
100%
Theory Theory
Theory Theory
Total Application
Total
building Testing
building Testing
35% 33% 33%
75% 15%
9% 100%
29% 37% 27%
72% 15% 13% 100%
11%
9% 21%
89%
7%
4% 100%
24% 21% 18%
71% 19% 11% 100%
0%
0% 1%
100%
0%
0% 100%
100% 100% 100%
77% 14%
9% 100%
Table 2.6: Row & Column Percentages for Data Analysis vs. Papers Focus
Application
Simulation
No data analysis
Time Series
Descriptive
Model
Game Theory
Neural Networks
Genetic Algorithm
Linear
Regression
Non-linear
Crombach's Alpha
DEA
Total
34%
25%
21%
13%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
Theory Theory
Theory Theory
Total Application
Total
building Testing
building Testing
40% 45% 36%
73% 16% 12% 100%
15% 11% 22%
86%
9%
5% 100%
19% 17% 21%
80% 13%
8% 100%
13% 15% 13%
75% 15% 10% 100%
3%
6% 4%
75% 11% 14% 100%
4%
2% 1%
36% 45% 18% 100%
1%
0% 1%
90% 10%
0% 100%
1%
2% 1%
56% 22% 22% 100%
3%
0% 1%
56% 44%
0% 100%
0%
1% 0%
67%
0% 33% 100%
1%
0% 0%
67% 33%
0% 100%
1%
0% 0%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0%
1% 0%
0%
0% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
77% 14%
9% 100%
Table 2.6 shows that simulation is the technique used most often with 36% of the total
papers, mainly because the implementation of automation and new developments in this area in
48
the field need prior validation to prevent catastrophic failures. The creation of algorithms to
simulate consumer patterns was also used to build theory, while some other papers simulated
current or expected conditions to test already developed theory. Simulations represent a larger
share than theory testing (45%), theory building (40%) and applications (34%).
Table 2.7: Row & Column Percentages for Conference papers SG technologies vs. Purpose
Strategy
Distributed
Generation
Distribution
Automation
Efficiency
Distribution
Network
Electric
Vehicles
AMR/ AMI
Cybersecurity
Demand
Response
Self-healing
Distributed
Storage
Vol/VAR
User friendly
Total
Supply
Supply
Process Service
Quality
Process Service
Quality
Chain
Planning Others Total Strategy
Chain
Planning Others Total
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
Mgt
15%
18%
70%
9%
0%
19%
28% 23%
21%
24%
39%
3%
0%
5%
8% 100%
25%
18%
3%
31%
11%
26%
9% 19%
41%
28%
2%
13%
4%
8%
3% 100%
19%
20%
3%
9%
14%
26%
7% 16%
37%
38%
3%
5%
6%
10%
3% 100%
10%
11%
0%
7%
7%
0%
5%
8%
40%
42%
0%
8%
6%
0%
4% 100%
4%
6%
9%
4%
7%
7%
28%
7%
16%
27%
16%
4%
6%
6%
24% 100%
3%
6%
11%
6%
0%
0%
4%
4%
23%
20%
5%
7%
0%
0%
6%
6%
16%
33%
51%
31%
0%
0%
5%
5%
23%
23%
5%
8%
0% 100%
0% 100%
7%
4%
0%
15%
7%
5%
5%
6%
39%
21%
0%
21%
8%
5%
5% 100%
6%
1%
2%
5%
7%
0%
16%
4%
40%
10%
7%
10%
10%
0%
23% 100%
3%
1%
9%
4%
2%
2%
2%
3%
30%
13%
35%
9%
4%
4%
4% 100%
2%
0% 2%
0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
13%
50%
31%
27%
50%
30%
13%
0%
13%
33%
0%
8%
7%
0%
6%
7%
0%
6%
0% 100%
0% 100%
6% 100%
1%
2%
2%
9%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Tables 2.7 and 2.8 show the relationship between the Smart Grid technology and the
focus of the conference and journal papers. Table 2.7 shows the relationship for conference
publications only. As shown in Table 2.7, strategy is the most published paper focus followed
closely by quality management and supply chain. Strategies for distribution automation (25%)
and efficiency (19%) represent 44% of all published strategies. This is due to the new definition
of the Smart Grid as the automation of distribution with the inclusion of ICT for optimized
results. The focus of conference papers for distributed generation is most importantly related to
supply chain (70%), as this concept of home generation of own energy is growing rapidly in
some countries. Planning papers are focusing on achieving efficiency (26%) and distribution
49
automation (26%), but the approach is beyond strategy and moving into the how to mode. The
process design papers focus mainly in distribution automation (31%), demand response (15%)
and efficiency (9%) because these are the practical papers the nuts and bolts of the Smart
Grid implementation.
Table 2.8: Row & Column Percentage for Journal Papers SG technologies vs. Purpose
Strategy
Distributed
Generation
Efficiency
Distribution
Automation
Cybersecurity
Distribution
Network
Electric
Vehicles
Demand
Response
Self-healing
Distributed
Storage
AMR/ AMI
Vol/VAR
User friendly
Total
Supply
Supply
Quality
Process Service
Quality
Process Service
Chain
Planning Others Total Strategy
Chain
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
Mgt
10%
20%
68%
9%
0%
22%
30% 22%
15%
26%
48%
3%
0%
3%
5% 100%
21%
22%
0%
4%
15%
33%
10% 16%
42%
40%
0%
2%
7%
7%
2% 100%
21%
14%
5%
22%
10%
22%
10% 15%
45%
26%
5%
12%
5%
5%
2% 100%
12%
9%
0%
0%
20%
11%
0%
8%
48%
30%
0%
0%
17%
4%
0% 100%
11%
11%
0%
9%
10%
0%
0%
8%
43%
39%
0%
9%
9%
0%
0% 100%
3%
5%
11%
9%
25%
11%
10%
8%
14%
19%
24%
10%
24%
5%
5% 100%
8%
4%
0%
17%
0%
0%
20%
6%
44%
19%
0%
25%
0%
0%
13% 100%
3%
6%
0%
9%
5%
0%
20%
5%
23%
38%
0%
15%
8%
0%
15% 100%
4%
1%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
33%
8%
58%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100%
0%
0% 4%
0%
0% 3%
0%
0% 0%
100% 100% 100%
33%
25%
0%
33%
33%
38%
0%
29%
0%
0%
0%
16%
17%
25%
100%
8%
17%
13%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
5%
0%
9% 10%
2%
4%
0%
9%
5%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table 2.8 shows the relationship between the Smart Grid technology and the focus of
journal papers. As shown in Table 2.8, the order of the conference papers contribution is
changed for journals, because quality is the dominant focus here, followed closely by strategy
and supply chain. Quality related papers focus mostly on efficiency (22%) and distributed
generation (20%). SGD Strategies at journals have the same influence of distribution automation
and efficiency (21%) and they are 42% of all published strategies. The focus of journal papers
for distributed generation is most importantly related to supply chain (68%). Planning papers are
focused on achieving efficiency (33%) and distribution automation (22%). Service design papers
focus mainly on electric vehicles (25%), efficiency (15%), distribution automation (10%), and
50
advanced metering (10%). Journal papers show technologies reaching maturity because
conference papers emphasize strategy while journals are paying more attention to Quality.
Table 2.9: Row & Column Percentages for Country vs. Papers Purpose
Strategy
USA
China
Canada
Italy
India
Korea
UK
Germany
Brazil
Spain
Japan
Iran
Others
Total
28%
12%
5%
6%
6%
4%
3%
3%
4%
1%
3%
3%
24%
100%
Supply
Quality
Process Service
Planning Others
Chain
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
23% 28% 31% 23%
33% 28%
14%
8%
9% 17%
16% 19%
7%
7%
3%
6%
2%
6%
5%
5%
4%
5%
2%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
4%
4%
6%
4%
2%
2%
0%
5%
4%
5%
3%
4%
0%
4%
3%
1%
6%
8%
4%
4%
0%
6%
0%
4%
4%
4%
4%
1%
3%
0%
2%
1%
5%
0%
3%
0%
6%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
24% 24% 29% 27%
25% 21%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Total Strategy
27%
13%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
25%
100%
33%
29%
28%
36%
41%
34%
24%
24%
35%
13%
33%
40%
31%
31%
Supply
Quality
Process Service
Chain
Mgt
Dsgn Dsgn
Mgt
25% 14%
9%
6%
7%
6% 100%
33%
8%
6%
9%
7%
8% 100%
37% 17%
4%
7%
2%
6% 100%
30% 14%
6%
6%
2%
6% 100%
27% 12%
7%
5%
2%
5% 100%
29% 23%
9%
3%
3%
0% 100%
38% 15%
12%
6%
6%
0% 100%
30% 12%
3% 12%
12%
6% 100%
35%
0%
16%
0%
6%
6% 100%
50% 21%
4%
8%
0%
4% 100%
17% 29%
0%
8%
0% 13% 100%
20% 15%
10%
5%
5%
5% 100%
29% 13%
10%
7%
5%
5% 100%
29% 14%
8%
7%
5%
5% 100%
Table 2.9 shows the relationship between the focus of the papers and the country where
the document was generated. As the US is the leader in strategy, quality, and supply chain, we
support hypothesis H2f, stating that the US is the leader in strategic papers. As shown in Table
2.9, strategy is the most published paper focus with 28% followed closely by supply chain
(28%), and then quality (23%). Although the US is the leader in all categories, it is important to
emphasize the contribution of China in planning (16%), service (17%), and quality (14%), while
Canada has a balanced contribution on most topics.
Table 2.10 shows the relationship between the SG technologies and the countries
publishing articles. The leadership of the US in the Cybersecurity (44%), Demand Response
(37%), and the top 3 (25%) shows the interest on developing these technologies while the rest of
the world is following the example. Germany is writing more papers on efficiency (33%) than
the rest of the countries, which shows an interest in migrating to efficient ways of generating
energy as they have a plan to go green without nuclear power. The UK is an important
51
contributor for electric vehicles, with 9% of all papers on this subject. In general, we see that the
US is leading over all SGD technologies with China as a distant second. Based on this analysis
we can conclude that the US is and will be the leader of all clean energy efforts that come to
place in the next 20 years.
Table 2.10: Row & Column Percentages for Country vs. SG Technology
USA
China
Canada
Italy
India
Korea
UK
Germany
Brazil
Spain
Japan
Iran
Others
Total
DG
DA
Eff.
DN
EV
CS
25%
11%
7%
7%
3%
5%
1%
1%
3%
4%
4%
2%
27%
100%
25%
14%
4%
6%
6%
3%
5%
1%
5%
2%
2%
2%
24%
100%
25%
16%
5%
3%
5%
5%
2%
7%
1%
2%
3%
1%
26%
100%
15%
13%
8%
8%
5%
1%
5%
0%
9%
4%
0%
0%
31%
100%
20%
19%
6%
4%
3%
3%
9%
6%
3%
0%
3%
3%
23%
100%
44%
15%
5%
2%
3%
8%
3%
6%
0%
2%
0%
2%
11%
100%
2.4.4
AMI
DR Others Total DG DA Eff. DN EV CS AMI DR Others Total
24% 37% 36%

11% 9%
7%
5% 6%
6%
2% 4%
6%
5% 4%
4%
0% 2%
3%
4% 4%
4%
5% 4%
4%
5% 0%
2%
9% 0%
0%
0% 4%
3%
0% 6%
5%
29% 22% 22%
100% 100% 100%
27%
13%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
25%
100%
21%
20%
28%
30%
17%
29%
9%
9%
23%
33%
38%
20%
25%
23%
17%
20%
13%
22%
24%
17%
24%
6%
26%
17%
13%
20%
18%
18%
15%
20%
13%
10%
17%
20%
9%
33%
6%
13%
21%
5%
17%
16%
4%
8%
11%
12%
10%
3%
12%
0%
23%
13%
0%
0%
10%
8%
5%
11%
7%
6%
5%
6%
18%
12%
6%
0%
8%
10%
7%
7%
Further Analysis and Prognosis
Figure 2.24: Conference papers by continent and year

52
10%
7%
6%
2%
5%
14%
6%
12%
0%
4%
0%
5%
3%
6%
5%
5%
6%
2%
7%
0%
6%
9%
10%
21%
0%
0%
7%
6%
8%
4%
6%
4%
5%
3%
6%
6%
0%
0%
8%
15%
5%
6%
14%
6%
11%
12%
10%
9%
12%
12%
6%
0%
13%
25%
10%
11%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
To understand the impact of neighboring countries as blocks, we are consolidating the

number of publications into continents, in order to assess the influence and spread of these
technologies across borders. We are using the country of the first author only, classified into the
main 5 continents: Africa, America, Asia, Europe and Oceania.
Figure 2.25: Journal papers by continent and year

Both Figures 2.24 and 2.25 show the analyzed papers grouped by publishing outlet and
the continent of the papers first writer. America is the leader in conference papers that present
strategies and technologies earlier, but Europe has been very close to taking leadership in
conference papers production. With these facts we cannot support hypothesis H2g, which states
that America is the leader in conference papers if we compare continents instead of countries. It
is important to note that considering continents, America is represented mostly by the US,
Canada and an emerging presence of Brazil, while Europe includes Germany, France, UK and
other countries.
In the journal papers categories, which present more solid and proven proposals, Asia has
taken the leadership role. Europe was the leader of journal publications until 2012 when Asia
53
took the leadership position. Therefore we cannot support hypothesis H2h because the US is not
a leader in this area. We expect journals to be influenced by the number of conference papers.
We thus ran a regression study for the Chiccos categories vs. 5 continents. We discovered a
linear regression with an R2 of 0.927 which is deemed adequate for this regression that is
significant to 0.9%, supporting our hypothesis H2i.
Table 2.11: Regression statistics for relationship of Journal and Conferences papers
Figure 2.26: Conference papers topics by continent and Chiccos categories

Figures 2.26 and 2.27 show the distribution of Chiccos categories on the different
continents separated by conference or journal papers. Journal publications are led by Europe in
all categories while Asia is passing America in the Physical interconnection category.
54
Figure 2.27: Journal papers topics by continent and Chiccos categories

Figure 2.28 shows that physical interconnections with ICT aid under the category PI,
have the highest contribution (21%), followed closely by the same category PI, which also
includes financial analysis PFI (16%). In third place is the financial ICT impact FI, with a
contribution of 7%. The SF column is completely blank, which means that the combinations of
social involvement and financial results have not been used in conjunction, except when
including ICT to the equation. In other words, ICT allows consumers to reduce costs, but without
ICT it is not feasible to reduce some of these expenses. Adding ICT to social and financial
columns, the results show the third highest column. Unexpectedly, the weakest line is the
regulatory environmental, which was expected to be an important one due to the needs of
renewable energy.
The new clean technology should come along with political and their upcoming
regulations to ensure sustainable energy development for all society (Kleme et al., 2012). It is
awakening for us the importance of ICT in general SGD instead of regulatory efforts, as this
shows that the Clean Tech Energy Revolution is heavily impacted by ICT, more than any other
effort to move towards a clean tech nation (Pernick & Wilder, 2007, 2012).
55
Figure 2.28: Category mixes versus time

Table 2.12: Category mixes related to SGD techs
DG DA Eff DN EV CS AMI DR SH Others Total
PI
31 43 31 29
2 18 17
6 18
12 207
PFI
31 30 20 22
2
8 11
9 11
13 157
FI
6 19 18
2
7
4
8
4
1
69
PEI
36
8
4
5
3
1
1
4
1
4
67
PEFI
35
3
3
3
1
2
2
5
2
11
67
I
5 20
9
7
11
2
1
2
57
PESFI 15
9
14
2
2
3
45
PSFI
1
2
5
1 14
3
1
8
1
36
PRI
5
9
5
3
3
4
1
1
31
EFI
13
5
2
2
1
1
3
27
Figure 2.28 shows how most of the highest literature contributors are still growing with
the exceptions of the EFI (environmental-financial-ICT) category which shows a small decrease
in 2012. The financial impact of ICT (FI) is growing. Papers show a move from physical
interconnection analysis to pure ICT impact on the energy distribution process. The combination
PFI (physical-financial-ICT) has migrated to either PI or FI, which is a sign of specialization in
the papers, as they address either the interconnection physical aspect or the financial one.
56
2.4.4.1
ICT Related Papers
Figure 2.29 shows an upward trend in papers related to ICT, even though Canada and
Germany show decreases beyond 2010s performance. US leadership is holding strong compared
to the rest of the countries in the world. The United Kingdom and China are showing growth,
although there were adverse conditions in the year 2012.
Figure 2.29: ICT Papers by year & country
Figure 2.30: ICT Papers by SG Technology and Country

There are 53 countries writing papers about ICT, and the top seven contribute 69% of all
literature (shown in Figure 2.29) The United States is undoubtedly the largest contributor with
28% of all papers. In second place is China with a remote contribution of 9%, but the gap might
57
be shrinking as we see more papers and conferences held in China regarding the use of ICT in
Smart Grid distribution. Figure 2.30 shows how DG & AMR are spreading throughout the world.
Because there is strong leadership from the US in regards to Volt/ VAR and demand response
(DR), we can infer that as these two areas are technical in nature, the world is following the US
lead in these fields.
2.4.4.2
Physical Infrastructure Related Papers
Figure 2.31 shows a continuous increase chart on physical interconnection related papers,
with the US being the leader in growth after the drop in 2011. Canada, Italy and UK show small
growths in physical connection papers while there is also important growth in Brazil and India.
Figure 2.31: Physical Infrastructure Papers by Country and Year

Although there are 61 countries contributing to this subject, the selected seven countries
contribute 60% of the total papers. The United States is the strong leader (24% of all papers), and
China is in second place (12%). The US is publishing twice as much as the next highest
publishing country. The US is writing about strategies for new developments, while China is
working on improving those developments.
58
Figure 2.32 shows how the physical interconnection of distributed generation has more
literature around the world than in the US. This is an area of opportunity for America because
there is a strong European push towards this technology that has not been developed with the
same emphasis here. Distribution automation and efficiency are important topics that have a
strong push from the US, focusing on state of the art and ICT technologies to optimize processes
and transferring decision making from people to automatic controls.
Figure 2.32: Physical Infrastructure Papers by SG Technology and Country

The importance of DA and DG into the physical infrastructure category shows that they
are components of a new SGD supply chain, bringing reductions to the fluctuation of energy
while reducing costs (Daim et al. 2012).
2.4.4.3
Economics Related Papers
Figure 2.33 shows a deeper fall compared to the other layers. Economics, however, have
to change to adapt to the real world and transform from being a part of the problem to an element
of the solution (Spangenberg, 2010). Germany is showing important decreases in economics
related papers. The US is the leader in this category with China a distant second. The shown
59
seven countries in the chart represent 65% of all literature, although there are 57 countries
writing about this topic. The United States has a contribution of 29% of all papers. Second place
is China with a remote contribution of 13%, that is, the US is publishing more than twice as
much as the next largest contributing country. It is important to emphasize that green initiatives
have high initial capital requirements that have to be recovered soon (Chang et al. 2011).
Figure 2.33: Economics Related Papers by Country and Year
Figure 2.34: Economics related papers by SG Technology and Country

Figure 2.34 shows that the main interest for economic analysis in the distributed
generation area, as a new business model will come out of this technology implementation.
Second in importance is the topic of efficiency, followed by distribution automation. China is
60
looking at DA before DG because of the national interest on automation. In China, home

generation is not a priority under actual conditions. The cost of energy will soon become a major
topic of discussion because DG is closely related to financing, so the implementation of selfgeneration will require contracts between stake holders that were not involved before. The
market suggests the system will soon move into a growth phase of technology diffusion towards
a new economic model (Khler et al. 2012).
2.4.4.4
Environmental Related Papers
As shown in Figure 2.35, Canada, Italy and Germany are showing important decreases on
environmental related papers while the USs leadership is stabilizing and China is quickly
growing. Although there are 50 countries that have written papers about environmental issues,
the selected seven countries contribute 61% of the papers on this topic. The United States is
stabilizing as the leader with a contribution of 24% of all papers. In second place is China with a
remote contribution of 13%.
Figure 2.35: Environmental Related Papers by Country and Year

According to the UN millennium development goal statistics in 2009 China was the
largest polluter with a contribution of 7,687,114 thousand metric tons of CO2 emission in the
61
environment. These pollution levels arise because most of their energy generation depends on
coal, and 80% of CO2 emission comes from coal (Feng & Yuexia, 2011.) The US, with
5,299,563 tons of CO2 emission is publishing more than three times as many papers as China. As
expected, distributed generation is the technology most related to environmental protection, as it
pertains to renewable energy and home generation to reduce and prevent contamination.
Figure 2.36: Environmental Related Papers by SG Technology and Country
2.4.5
Hypotheses H2 Results
Table 2.13 shows the results of all the hypotheses presented in section 2.5.1. From the
results it is evident that the US is the leader in this technological breakthrough and that, after
being discussed at conferences, SG is growing in importance in journal papers. There arent
many data secondary sources, so case and field studies are primary sources for data analysis. As
blocks, the strength of the European Union and Asia is evident. They are trending up and have
already passed America (US and Canada) in literature generation at both journal and conferences
in the past year.
62
Table 2.13: Hypotheses H2 results
2.5 DATA ORIENTED ANALYSIS

2.5.1
Word Mining
Continuing our analysis on the 966 papers listed, we conducted a word mining process.
Of the 966 papers, only 959 of the papers had abstracts available. Most papers have an abstract
available within the ISI database, and these abstracts contain the key words and actions of the
researchers. Under these premises, we conducted a word mining analysis on the 959 abstracts to
determine what the direction and key areas of research are for this particular technology.
63
The first step was to identify the keywords that are important while being together, for
instance, distribution automation. Distribution automation is an element of Smart Grids
specifically focusing on automating controls of the distribution process, so we placed a dash to
unite both words when together (distribution-automation).
Table 2.14: Top 25 words on number of mentions in the past 5 years
Conference Papers
Journal Papers
Words
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
system
36 71 237 218 447 291 1,300
3 52 116 156 244 571
smart-grid
14 50 162 216 357 223 1,022
2 50 96 147 200 495
power
19 45 157 176 346 156 899
13 37 118 119 165 452
distribution
28 48 131 193 337 194 931
2 45 91 106 168 412
paper
13 32 104 128 262 156 695
4 33 56 84 125 302
energy
9 20 97 147 249 136 658
8 31 69 80 132 320
network
6 12 70 118 183 150 539
5 22 46 74 132 279
control
15 34 91 105 144 115 504
6 23 50 74 121 274
grid
7 26 49 87 165 129 463
5 15 39 63 96 218
communication
4
7 56 73 162 100 402
1 11 41 55 103 211
technology
6 24 65 85 178 75 433
2 13 27 38 49 129
data
4 22 45 63 141 71 346
1 12 18 42 97 170
proposed
12
8 31 51 103 71 276
2
8 39 60 99 208
management
10 12 43 47 116 52 280
4
8 35 42 62 151
based
3
5 37 56 102 84 287
11 28 27 77 143
Results
4 11 23 47 101 67 253
10 31 40 72 153
load
7
8 38 55 73 65 246
14 36 41 65 156
voltage
11 18 46 51 86 57 269
1 20 26 46 34 127
new
13 32 33 46 101 50 275
2 11 21 27 38 99
generation
10 23 62 97 43 235
1 10 25 47 52 135
Model
3 10 41 45 83 48 230
1 18 18 34 43 114
electricity
11 12 30 40 73 49 215
4 14 10 40 49 117
distribution-network
2
2 33 42 87 70 236
9 16 26 42 93
power-system
4 24 27 48 80 47 230
1 14 26 18 23 82
transmission
13 17 34 31 82 31 208
1
9 19 22 48 99
Grand
Total
1,871
1,517
1,351
1,343
997
978
818
778
681
613
562
516
484
431
430
406
402
396
374
370
344
332
329
312
307
The key concepts that were marked this way are: advanced-metering, cyber-security,
demand-response, distributed-generation, and distributed-storage, distribution-automation,
distribution-networks, electric-vehicles, energy-efficiency, information-technology, micro-grid,
self-healing, smart-grid and vehicle-to-grid. In the second step, some of the words with the same
64
meaning were merged to identify the key words in the literature. The final step was to cluster key
words to predict direction on this area. Table 2.14 shows the top words and the number of
mentions in general; this list does not include articles, prepositions, auxiliaries and conjunctions,
so that we can focus only on words related to the SGD topic.
Table 2.15: Top 20 SGD Technologies mentions in the past 6 years
Words
2008 2009
smart-grid
14 50
distributed-generation
8
8
distribution-network
2
2
power-system
4
24
electric-vehicle
5
real-time
14
4
demand-response
5
5
power-grid
2
10
smart-meter
7
5
distributed-storage
1
power-quality
2
distribution-automation
6
self-healing
1
vehicle-to-grid
1
information-technology
6
multi-agent
6
micro-grid
two-way
demand-side
cyber-security
Conference Papers
Journal Papers
2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
175 221 372 235 1,067 2
50 116 147 201
11 62 99 62
250 3
27 31 42 42
33 42 89 70
238
9
16 26 42
27 48 80 47
230 1
14 26 18 23
11 44 66 50
176
5
23 47 15
17 28 50 30
143
11 12 21 27
19 24 58 39
150
17
2
10 27
17 25 51 24
129
12 13 18 33
29 30 41 28
140 4
2
5
15 23
8
18 37 13
77
6
2
17 13
10
6
25 15
58
3
11
7
5
9
1
31 19
66
1
3
4
3
6
25
8
43
1
1
7
7
13 13
27
1
6
17
1
12
9
3
6
36
1
4
4
3
8
9
12
4
39
7
1
3
5
3
10
21
9
3
3
4
4
11
2
21
1
2
4
6
2
2
8
1
13
4
2
7
1
10
4
2
17
1
2
2
Grand
Total Total
516 1,583
145
395
93
331
82
312
90
266
71
214
56
206
76
205
49
189
38
115
26
84
8
74
16
59
25
52
12
48
8
47
15
36
13
34
13
26
5
22
The total number of words contained in the abstracts was 154,706. The connected words
that we mentioned in the prior section were counted as well as the times their initials were
mentioned. The results are shown in Table 2.15. As the terms Smart Grid and Distribution
were used for filtering out results, it is not surprising that these terms were high on number of
mentions. From the technologies under the umbrella of Smart Grid, distributed generation was
the one with most mentions followed by distribution networks and electric vehicles. Focusing on
the SGD technologies and the TLAs related to them, we added the mentions of the complete
65
word and the TLAs, and then separated these technologies to determine if they show a trend in
regards to mentions in the selected literature. Results are shown in Table 2.15, where the
continuous growth of some of the technological nomenclatures is evident.
To identify the trend of these technologies, we proceeded to mine the words and cluster
them by publishing year of the paper. The table uses yellow coloring for base line (first year)
and to identify when the number does not change more or less than 10% over time; green shows
an increase over the prior years performance and red represents a decrease in the number of
word usage over 10%.
Table 2.15 confirms that there is not enough conference papers listed in ISI because most
words are showing reductions compared to 2012. Looking at conferences up until 2012 and
journal papers up until 2013, we make the following observations: Smart grids, distributed
network, distribution generation, distribution network, power systems, demand response, smart
meters, distribution automation, and self-healing grew or were stable in the past year, reinforcing
the point that these technologies are considered as SGD tools. On the contrary, electric vehicles,
distributed storage, power quality and cybersecurity decreased in mentions in the last year.
These results may well infer that the increase of electric vehicles mentions comes
coupled with the growth of vehicle-to-grid mentions, showing that the concept of the vehicle is
evolving from a simple transportation mode to a new generation of energy source (Brown et al.
2010). Micro-grids mentions are reduced but distributed generation mentions are relatively
stable, which might infer that the concept of the microgrid is diluted under that name into DG,
DN and DA. Information-technology words were also reduced, but distribution automation
increased by more than the decrease. Therefore, the overall concept has not faded, but moved
from ICT to automatic controls and demand responses.
66
The term energy-efficiency, which is also a part of the modern definition of a smart grid,
was considered as a stand-alone concept for a short time and it is now fading. The last concept
that was reduced from 2011 was Cybersecurity, which entered into SGD and quickly faded
because the need of security measures has always been an integral part of the smart grid concept.
2.5.2
Bass Diffusion Model
As noted by Peres, Muller and Mahajan (2010), traditionally, the main thread of diffusion
models has been based on the framework developed by Bass. Thus we adopted the Bass model in
the present research. We begin this section with the representation of the Bass model for a single
series. We adopt the definition of diffusion offered by Peres et al. (2010). They define diffusion
as the process of the market penetration of new products and services, which is driven by social
influences. Such influences include all of the interdependencies among consumers that affect
various market players with or without their explicit knowledge. Using the extension of the
basic diffusion model (Mahajan et al., 1990) a non-linear solution is implemented. Boswijk and
Franses (2005) borrow from financial econometrics a modified stochastic error process for the
Bass model. Their approach is designed to capture heteroscedasticity errors and a tendency for
the data to revert to the long-term trend. Additionally, this model includes an additional
regressor, which leads us to rely on simulated maximum likelihood to estimate the parameters.
The first developed Bass model states that the probability that an individual will adopt the
innovation given that the individual has not yet adopted itis linear with respect to the
number of previous adopters. The model parameters p, q, and m can be estimated from the actual
adoption data. Here p is the innovation parameter, q is the imitation parameter, and m is the
maturity or saturation level. Following the representation as advocated in Boswijk and Franses
67
(2005), we discuss the multi-level model for a panel of diffusion time series of smart meters.
Finally, we report the parameter estimation of this last model.
The Bass model assumes a population of m potential adopters, where, in the context of
citations, we will associate m with the maturity level or in this case the maximum amount of
written, published and listed papers. In our context, adopters should be viewed as scholars that
write a paper related to Smart Grids that is peer-reviewed and later listed in Reuters ISI Web of
Science. Maturity can be viewed as the saturation level when the total number of papers has been
exhausted. For each adopter, the time to adoption is a random variable with a distribution
function F(t) and density f(t), such that the hazard rate equals
f(t)
= p + q F(t)
1 - F(t)
(1)
where p and q are the parameters that determine the shape of the diffusion process. The
cumulative number of adopters at time t, denoted by N(t), is a random variable with mean
_
N(t) = E [ N(t) ] = m F(t)
(2)
where t is measured in continuous time and E denotes the expectation operator. It can be shown
that the function n(t) obeys the following differential equation:
_
_
_
dN(t)
____
q N(t) [ m N(t)]
n(t) = dt = p[ m N(t)] + __
(3)
m
According to Boswijk and Franses (2005), the solution of this differential equation is given by:
__
N(t) = m F(t) = m
1e
(p+q)t
1+(q/p)e
(4)
(p+q)t
Note that the parameters p, q and m exercise a non-linear impact on the pattern of N(t)
and n(t). Basic characteristics of the diffusion are also non-linearly dependent on p and q. These
parameters provide us with speed of diffusion data. According to Van den Bulte (2004) a high p
value shows that the diffusion has a quick start but it will go down quickly while a high q value
shows that the diffusion is slow at first but will accelerate afterwards. We are going to calculate
p, q and m, but our main index is going to be the diffusion speed defined as the ratio of q/p. It is
68
important to notice that if p is almost zero, the ratio will tend to infinite, so we are going to use a
natural log of q/p.
Table 2.16: Bass Diffusion Model results for SGD technologies
Category
Cum Level Maturity Innovation Imitation
Smart Grid
1,583 1,965
0.0070
1.07
Distributed Generation
395
467
0.0045
1.21
Distribution Network
331
435
0.0038
1.14
Power System
313
378
0.0117
0.99
Electric Vehicle
266
287
0.0009
1.67
Real-time
214
307
0.0124
0.84
Demand Response
206
337
0.0097
0.81
Smart Meters
189
271
0.0152
0.79
Distributed Storage
115
126
0.0011
1.61
Distribution Automation
74
115
0.0053
0.97
Self Healing
59
62
0.0001
2.15
Analyzing the available five year trend, we used the Bass Diffusion Model to determine
if the technology is about to reach maturity or if it is in the early stages. We expect the word
count to follow the S shaped curve for non-linear regression. The curve is broken into 5
sections: Innovators (5%), early adopters (11%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%) and
late adopters (16%). The curve in formula (1) contains 3 variables that are important: p, q and m.
The results are shown in Table 2.16, where microgrids and power quality seem to be
words that will not be used much more. Smart grid, advanced metering and distributed
generation still have some time to go, while real-time is the concept that is exponentially
growing and will probably mature in a longer period. Using Wordstat, specialized software for
word mining, we introduced all the available abstracts. The resulting Figure 2.37 shows an
illustration of the number of mentions, proximities and relationships. By only looking at Figure
2.37, the filtering words: smart, grid and distribution are evident with the number of mentions, as
was expected. The other words that are noticeable are system and power, which reinforce the
69
development of a new way of distributing power with the use of systems (ICT). The next
concepts are energy, electric, generation, control and network, which relate to the power sector
and the use of ICT.
Figure 2.37: Text Mining Cloud
2.5.3
Author-oriented analysis
We used the identified 966 papers written by 2,632 authors (average of 2.72 authors per
paper) from 81 different countries (average of 11.9 papers per country). The origin country was
selected based on the authors country. That is, if the author got his/her bachelor degree in China
and is currently in the US working on a PhD, the country of origin is still China. When
biographical information was not available for authors, the country referred to in the general
information was assigned to the authors. Table 2.17 presents the distribution of the top 20
authors countries. The United States (US) has the highest number of authors publishing peerreviewed papers with 24% (almost a quarter of all authors, with 808 papers). Authors from China
ranked second with 13% (with 435 papers). Italy occupied third place with 6% (199 papers).
Brazil is a close fourth place with 5% (with 174 papers). Almost half of all authors (48%) are
from these first mentioned countries. The number of authors per paper is presented in Table 2.18.
The average number of authors per paper is 2.72 (2,632/966). Ten percent of the papers were
70
written by a single author; 21% of the papers were prepared by two authors, and 26% were
presented by three authors; and 21% were written in collaboration of four authors.
Table 2.17: Distribution of top 20 countries of origin of SGD papers authors
Country 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
USA
15 50 89 122 245 287 808
China
6
3 36 63 195 132 435
Italy
1 22 37 58 81 199
Brazil
6
8 33 127 174
Canada
3
12 24 43 77 159
Korea
15
1 28 37 61 142
UK
1
1 10 13 49 59 133
Germany
2
3 18 25 61
7 116
India
2
1
5 17 38 51 114
Japan
3 11 27 47 23 111
Spain
4
8
6 36 40 94
Portugal
8 40 31 79
Australia
15
9 17 23 64
Netherlands
3 11 14 25 53
Iran
1
3 12
6 14 15 51
Belgium
5
14 25 44
Finland
4
4 16 19 43
Malaysia
1 20 21 42
France
1
3
1
3 13 19 40
Denmark
3
3
4
8 22 40
Table 2.18: Distribution of papers by number of authors

# of authors
Quantity
%
Single author
96
10%
Two authors
197
20%
Three authors
254
26%
Four authors
204
21%
Five authors
110
11%
Six authors
48
5%
Seven authors
32
3%
Eight authors
9
1%
Nine authors
8
1%
Ten authors
5
1%
Eleven authors
1
0%
Twelve authors
2
0%
71
Figure 2.38: Distribution of papers by number of authors

Table 2.19: Comparison of Journal and Conference papers by country of authors
USA
China
Italy
Brazil
Canada
Korea
UK
Germany
India
Japan
Spain
Portugal
Australia
Netherlands
Iran
Belgium
Finland
Malaysia
France
Denmark
2008
15
6
3
1
2
2
4
Conference Papers
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
49 82 92 141 209
3 13 47 164 78
13
5 52 36
6
1 33 106
8 21 30 44
13
1
3 31 24
1
6 10 36 29
14 20 56
7
1
4 14 32 42
2 11 21 32 18
4
1 29 17
8 20 27
12
9 13 11
3
6
8 18
3 10
6 10 15
1
11 24
13 19
1 16 15
3
1
9 11
3
3
4
8 18
Total 2009
588
1
311
106
1
146
106
72
2
83
99
3
95
84
1
55
55
45
35
45
36
32
32
25
36
Journal Papers
Grand
2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Total
7 30 104 78 220
808
23 16 31 54 124
435
9 32
6 45 93
199
7
21 28
174
4
3 13 33 53
159
25
6 37 70
142
4
3 13 30 50
133
4
5
5
17
116
1
3
6
9 19
114
6 15
5 27
111
4
5
7 23 39
94
20
4 24
79
3
4 12 19
64
5
6
7 18
53
2
4
6
51
4
3
1
8
44
4
4
3
11
43
4
6 10
42
3
4
8 15
40
4
4
40
Analyzing the country of origin and how many first authors a country has, we see that the
US has 259 first authors. China is a distant second with 124, but the majority of papers there
72
have at least 3 authors, while in the US, 56 papers have a single author. There are just a few lone
rangers in other countries, as the number of papers with one and two authors are almost equal for
most cases. The next part of our analysis is to identify the most productive writers, shown in
Table 2.21, based on the previously mentioned research criteria. Morais and Vale, from Portugal,
are the two most prolific authors although they have written only in the past three years. Their
focus is on electric vehicles and the burden they will bring to the electric grid when it is time to
charge them. Schneider and Fuller from the US have focused their research on distribution
automation, but they have not written any other papers in the past year.
Table 2.20: Distribution of authors by Country and writing order
Country
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total
USA
259 229 155 89 43 16 12 4 1
808
China
124 104 89 66 25 12 6 4 4
1
435
Italy
50 41 37 28 17 8 5 4 3
2
2
2 199
Brazil
31 31 30 25 20 17 7 6 4
3
174
Canada
54 53 35 12 3 1 1
159
Korea
35 29 26 19 14 10 6 2 1
142
UK
34 34 28 17 9 6 3 1 1
133
Germany
33 32 26 14 8 2 1
116
India
41 34 28 7 3 1
114
Japan
24 25 19 17 14 7 2 1 1
1
111
Spain
24 22 21 15 9 3
94
Portugal
19 19 18 15 6 1 1
79
Australia
15 20 12 5 5 4 2 1
64
Netherlands 17 13 12 9 1 1
53
Iran
20 15 10 2 2 1 1
51
Belgium
12 9 7 5 4 4 3
44
Finland
10 11 10 8 4
43
Malaysia
9 10 6 8 5 2 2
42
France
9 12 10 7 2
40
Denmark
8 10 10 5 2 1 1 1 1
1
40
73
Table 2.21: Distribution of top 20 most prolific writers of SGD papers

Author 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Morais, H
2
10
5
17
Vale, Z
2
10
5
17
Heydt, GT
4
1
1
2
8
Schneider, KP
2
2
3
7
Senjyu, T
2
2
3
7
Mohagheghi,
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
Fuller, JC
1
2
4
7
Gungor, VC
1
2
2
2
7
Yang, F
1
2
1
2
6
Sousa, T
1
4
1
6
Pilo, F
1
2
3
6
El-Saadany, EF
3
2
1
6
Jauch, ET
3
1
1
1
6
Faria, P
1
2
3
6
Chow, MY
1
1
1
3
6
Wang, P
1
1
3
5
Chassin, D
2
3
5
Yona, A
2
2
1
5
Soares, J
1
4
5
Suryanarayanan, S
1
2
2
5
Table 2.22: Type of publication of most prolific authors (co-authors)

Conference Papers
Journal Papers
Grand
Author 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Total
Morais, H
2
5
4 11
5
1
6
17
Vale, Z
2
5
4 11
5
1
6
17
Heydt, GT
4
1
5
1
1
1
3
8
Schneider, KP
2
2
2
6
1
1
7
Senjyu, T
2
1
3
6
1
1
7
Mohagheghi,
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
7
Fuller, JC
1
2
3
6
1
1
7
Gungor, VC
1
1
1
1
2
2
6
7
Yang, F
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2
6
Sousa, T
1
2
1
4
2
2
6
Pilo, F
2
1
3
1
2
3
6
El-Saadany, EF
3
1
4
1
1
2
6
Jauch, ET
3
1
1
5
1
1
6
Faria, P
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
6
Chow, MY
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
6
Wang, P
1
1
1
3
2
2
5
Chassin, D
2
2
4
1
1
5
Yona, A
2
1
1
4
1
1
5
Soares, J
1
1
2
3
3
5
Suryanarayanan, S
1
1
2
4
1
1
5
74
Analyzing the contribution in journals, we can see the impact of Gngr from Turkey,
who started writing in 2010 and focused on wireless communications; more importantly, his
contribution has been consistent and mostly in journal papers.
2.6 GAP ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE AND INVESTMENTS
2.6.1
Background Information
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has been implemented globally, and
has facilitated many processes that in the past could not be accomplished. Along with the
development of new ideas, however, inevitably come the weaknesses surrounding them. The old
energy scheme of large energy generating sites, transporting electricity through HV wires to
substations, is being challenged with the new strategies of distributed generationthat provide a
localized energy generation for small communities or even homes.
In this section of the dissertation we will compare three different communities:
1. Government agencies that are distributing the monies assigned for the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for the Department of Energy (DoE) more than
28 billion dollars were used for several projects under this government department.
2. Private sector research represented by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) that
although it is partially funded with DoE monies, represents the interests and focus of
practitioners research.
3. The Academic sector, represented by peer-reviewed articles published and listed by ISI
Web of Science.
75
2.6.2
Hypotheses H3
Because ARRA is a governmental program to aid communities, it is our expectation that

the largest amount will be invested on measures that will result in an improved image favorable
to the government. Based upon this observation, we expect the spread of funds to be a populist
measure that, by reaching the consumers, will probably have an impact on the majoritys
perception of the government.
H3a: ARRA largest share on energy is devoted to homes efficiency to be a populist factor.
Practitioners and researchers are curious by nature, and are accustomed to confronting
failures and continually pursuing success in their areas. Due to recent concerns about nuclear
energy, some countries are closing their nuclear sites, despite the fact that researchers are still
looking for alternative ways to prevent the presented issues and develop further safer nuclear
energy generation processes. It is our expectation that EPRI will still be investing heavily in
nuclear energy, as it was their focus since day one. Thus, our next hypothesis is:
H3b: Research of nuclear energy is still supported by EPRI
Practitioners and academics are not always in the same boat, so we expect that there may
be different targets for these groups, but the governmental approach might be closer to the
academic world, as they represent the consumers who use the energy. It is our expectation that
academically generated literature and governmental fund distribution may be more similar than
the practitioners research focus.
H3c: Academic research and DoE have similar focuses on the energy area
2.6.3
US Government
The US government is partially responsible for the well-being of citizens and providing
electricity, a commodity that is critical for all people. The governments role on the provision of
76
this utility becomes very important. For many years, the government has spent tax monies on
building a gigantic electricity infrastructure that has been used consistently with focus on: large
generation plants, long high voltage transmission towers and wires and multiple substations
where electricity is brought to lower voltages for distribution. This electric infrastructure has
been considered the largest machine in the world, as it resembles a single machine with a size
that goes from side to side on the continental US. With the evolution of technology, the overall
scheme is going to change dramatically, such that all the worlds governments are thinking about
their investment in energy for the short term. In the case of the US, the government has been
looking for initiatives on energy investment that will aid the future direction.
President Obama has promoted energy from renewable sources to reduce the harm to the
planet and, thus, the government has supported certain initiatives. On April 13, 2010, the White
House presented these initiatives:
Invest $3.4 billion on a Smart Grid Investment Grant (part of ARRA).
Launch the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
Question how the federal government can help to create a "self-sustaining home energy
efficiency"
Create new efficiency standards for home appliances,
Develop a new National Fuel Efficiency Policy for cars model years 2012 through 2016
Create measures to increase the production of biofuels
Develop an interagency task force for a federal strategy of carbon capture and storage,
And produce a new Environmental Protection Agency ruling (called the Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule) requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions by major emitters in the United States.
77
In 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), with
an approximate cost of $787 billion dollars (which was later revised to 831 billion dollars). This
amount was assigned to different categories. $41.96 billion dollars were assigned to the
Department of Energy (DoE) that has already awarded funds for $35.89 billion dollars and have
already paid $30.57 billion dollars to incentivize the economy and support the plans toward
optimized and more efficient energy (http://energy.gov/recovery-act).
The Department of Energy (DoE) distributed the budgeted monies in the following way, as
shown in the Figure 2.39.
Figure 2.39: DOE recovery awards

The wording used to identify the categories is the one used by DoE. The category where
most money is devoted is the energy efficiency portion, supporting hypothesis H3a. This is a
clear sign of governmental efforts to make efficient use of the currently infrastructure for
generation, transportation and distribution of electricity. The second important category is the
environmental cleanup. This is a posteriori activity that supports the economy while trying to
clean up or reduce the harm already done to the earth. The third category is the modernization of
the grid, which for the authors of this paper is the most important part of the investment. Only
78
14% of the monies are assigned to modernization! It is surprising to see that DoE is spending
almost the same amount for capturing carbon as it is for modernizing the multibillionaire
infrastructure,
According to the Department of Energy: Successes of the Recovery Act, published in
January 2012, DOE invested its funds into the following pillars to ensure Americas long-term
competitiveness:
Increasing energy efficiency;
Restructuring the transportation system;
Doubling renewable generation;
Investing in smart grid infrastructure;
Expanding innovative research;
and Cleaning up our nations legacy nuclear waste
Energy efficiency is achieved through the weatherization of homes of more than 650,000
low-income families nationwide (through December 2011). By doing these retrofits, consumers
have improved the energy efficiency of their homes, saving money on their energy bills.
According to Eisenberg (2010) families have an average savings of $437 per year on their bills
due to this program.
CO2 has been accepted as a real potential condition with serious consequences for human
society. The power and energy industry emit 40% of the global CO2 production, while
transportation follows in importance with 24% (Venayagamoorthy, 2009).Therefore, there is an
increasing interest in the development and production of electric vehicles. Thanks to this effort,
before the ARRA there were only 500 electric vehicles charging stations and the expectation was
for 18,000 by the end of 2012.
79
Doubling the renewable generation of energy has been one of the targets for DoE while
investing the ARRA funds. These funds were used to finance the largest photovoltaic plant of the
world in Agua Caliente, Arizona; the largest wind farm in the world to date is in the state of
Oregon and two of the largest solar thermal projects are in the deserts of Arizona and California.
More than $4 billion in Recovery Act Smart Grid investments have been devoted to
modernizing the electrical grid and building a more stable and secure system that integrates
distributed generation. There have been some forums to discuss how Smart Grid technologies
can potentially transform the way that consumers interact with the grid. In order to obtain the
maximum benefit from it all stakeholders need to understand the process (Gonzalez et al., 2011).
For innovative research, the Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) is
funding projects that the industry is not likely to undertake because of uncertainty. These
projects play a key role to ensure that the US maintains leadership in the next generation of
advanced clean energy technologies. Some of the programs include: e-vehicle batteries, carbon
capture, advanced fuels, grid scale storage, building efficiency, and power electronics.
Carbon capture plays a substantial role in the effort to mitigate carbon emissions, because in the
past 20 years almost three quarters of the emissions have come from burning fossil fuels (Saylor,
2012). There are approximately 15 projects that seek to reduce the cost of capturing carbon from
coal-fired power plants.
The last category is related to the Cold War legacy clean-up of nuclear weapons
programs. Although much has been spent on this cleaning effort, the $6 billion investment is
expected to reduce more than 40% of the total nuclear waste footprint (372 sq. mi).
80
2.6.4
Private Sector
After the great Northeastern blackout of 1965, the US congress challenged the
vulnerability of the energy industry, resulting in the birth of the Electric Power research Institute
(EPRI), an independent, non-profit research center. In 1972, the center was created with a
representation of 90% of the electricity generated in the country. At this place, specialists can
collaborate to help strengthen systems to prevent outages and enhance systems. EPRI is partially
funded by DoE, but it also represents the practitioners and scientists interests in the various areas
under the jurisdiction of energy. 5% of the 90 funds received by EPRI come from the
government, while the rest comes from private investors and companies interested in the nuclear
energy sector. EPRI represents a different approach or view to the energy sector, and has
invested almost 300 million dollars in research project distribution, as shown in Figure 2.40.
Figure 2.40: EPRI funded projects

It is noteworthy that almost half the funds of EPRI are dedicated to researching the
Nuclear Program. This figure supports hypothesis H3b. There is a major interest in developing
and designing new ways of producing nuclear energy. Some of the most important projects
funded by EPRI in the nuclear program are:
81
The Power Delivery and Utilization Program come second in importance. This area
represents the transmission, distribution and consumption of electricity that is becoming the
center of the Smart Grid concept. Transmission has been smart for many years, but distribution
has not been the focus of attention until recently, when smart grids are looking at microgrids,
smart homes, advanced metering infrastructure, and others.
The third topic of importance for EPRI is the generation program. This program focuses
on distributed generation and renewable resources because these subjects are becoming
increasingly popular due to the governments pressure on reducing emissions and improving
efficiency to reverse the environmental damaged already done.
2.6.5
Academic Sector
To include the academic sector perspective in this study, we analyzed peer-reviewed

papers that are listed in Reuters ISI Web of Science and that contain the Smart Grid Distribution
terms. 966 articles were listed for the period from 2008 through 2013.
Most of the papers listed in ISI, and related to Smart Grid Distribution (SGD), are
published by IEEE, representing 69% of the total papers analyzed. These papers focus on how
the different techniques will be implemented; therefore, they focus on practical applications via
case studies as well as lab and field research using various statistical techniques. The majority of
the papers are related to strategy, quality, and supply chain (71% of all papers).
Smart Grid and ICT are closely related because the reality of SGD is accomplished with
the aid of new information and communication technologies. It is not surprising, then, that 95%
of all analyzed papers refer to ICT in some way. Concerns about infrastructure needs follow in
importance because of the current state of the grid, which needs to be revamped or modernized.
82
Figure 2.41: Academics distribution of Literature

The top category of the literature is the distribution automation, or enhancements to
eliminate or reduce dependency on operators with the use of computer and information and
communication systems. In second place, the focus is on system efficiency, stating that by
improving process quality we can overcome the need for more generation, as distribution losses
are reduced. An interesting fact is that strategic papers are being replaced by quality assurance
ones because of the move from concepts and ideas to grounded efforts for improvement.
2.6.6
Methodology
Because the nomenclature used by the three different sectors is different, the first step of
the process is to correlate all of them into a single category that accommodates the different
terms without losing the focus of activities and projects. The second step is to develop a
comparison table for the sectors, while the third step is to statistically test the distributions and
determine if they are similar or dissimilar. The Department of Energy, EPRI and the literature
survey use different categories, so we will focus on the EPRI nomenclature, which is more
83
general than the other two sources. It is important to define what is going to be included in each
category to conduct the gap analysis. As such the following terms are defined as follows:
Power Delivery and Utilization programs include the optimization of the current
infrastructure and process.
Nuclear Program Includes all efforts to further develop the use of nuclear energy. It
does not include the clean-up efforts as they are more related to environmental protection.
This category focuses strictly on new forms of use of nuclear energy.
Generation Programs - Focuses specifically on the increase of energy generation via new
sites, expansion of the current ones or storage means to be used as forms of generation.
Environmental Program Includes all efforts to prevent environment damage, as well as

clean-up already contaminated areas. Wind and solar energy generation are included in
this category as their main purpose is to prevent environmental harm.
Correlating the categories selected for this comparison with the financial reports from
DoE, we can see the following correlation:

Table 2.23: DoE distribution on selected categories
Power Delivery
DoE Categories
Environment Generation Nuclear & Utilization
Total Contribution
Energy Efficiency
11
11
39.29%
Environment cleanup
5
5
17.86%
Modernizing grid
4
4
14.29%
Carbon capture
3
3
10.71%
Transportation
2
2
7.14%
Innovations
2
2
7.14%
Renewables
1
1
3.57%
Total
10
1
0
17
28
100.00%
Contribution
35.71%
3.57% 0.00%
60.71% 100.00%
84
Table 2.24: EPRI distribution on selected categories

EPRI Categories
Environment Generation
Environment Programs
41.95
Generation Programs
51.75
Nuclear Program
Power Delivery &
Utilization Programs
Total
41.95
51.75
Contribution
14.41% 17.77%
Nuclear
Power Delivery
& Utilization
136
136
46.70%
Total Contribution
41.95
14.41%
51.75
17.77%
136
46.70%
61.5
61.5
61.5
291.2
21.12% 100.00%
21.12%
100.00%
Because EPRI nomenclature was selected for the gap analysis, there is a direct correlation
among the categories, as shown in the next table. The categories of academic research listed by
ISI Web of Science are correlated to the 4 categories in the Table 2.25.
Table 2.25: Academic Research distribution by categories
Academic Research
Environment Generation
Automated Meter Reading
Cybersecurity
Demand Response
54
Distributed Generation
219
Distribution Automation
Distribution Network
Efficiency
Electric Vehicles
70
Energy storage
35
Self-healing
User friendly
Vol/VAR
Total
289
89
Contribution
29.9%
9.2%
2.6.7
Nuclear
Power Delivery
& Utilization
55
62
173
75
154
0
0.0%
43
3
23
588
60.9%
Total Contribution
55
5.7%
62
6.4%
54
5.6%
219
22.7%
173
17.9%
75
7.8%
154
15.9%
70
7.2%
35
3.6%
43
4.5%
3
0.3%
23
2.4%
966
100.0%
100.0%
Results
Once the categories have been correlated, we present the complete table with all of the
data:
85
Table 2.26: Comparisons between DoE, EPRI and the Literature Survey
EPRI
DOE
Lit Survey
Power Delivery
& Utilization
Environment Generation Nuclear
14.41%
17.77% 46.70%
21.12%
28.57%
3.57%
0.00%
67.86%
29.92%
9.21%
0.00%
60.87%
Based on this preliminary analysis, we can see a strong correlation between DoE and the
literature surveys focuses. EPRI strongly supports nuclear energy, which is being reduced and
even eliminated worldwide, most notably in Europe. Table 2.27 shows the relations between
these two organizations versus the published literature. Based on the Table 2.27 comparison, the
deltas for DoE vs. Lit survey are much smaller than the deltas for EPRI. To do a statistical
comparison of the data, we ran Pearson correlation analyses that yielded the following results:
Table 2.27: Gap from the average of DoE and EPRI versus Literature survey
Environment Programs
Generation Programs
Nuclear Program
Power Delivery &
Utilization Programs
DOE Vs Lit Survey

EPRI Vs Lit Survey
Average
Delta
Average
Delta
29.24%
0.67% 22.16%
7.76%
6.39%
2.82% 13.49%
4.28%
0.00%
0.00% 23.35%
23.35%
64.36%
3.49%
40.99%
Table 2.28: Correlation results for comparison groups

EPRI DoE
Lit_Surv
EPRI
Pearson Correlation
1 0.537 0.524
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.639 0.649
N
4
3
3
DoE
Pearson Correlation 0.537
1 1.000**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.639
0.01
N
3
3
3
Lit_Surv Pearson Correlation 0.524 1.000**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.649
0.01
N
3
3
3
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
86
19.88%
Based on the Pearson correlation analyses, we discovered that both DoE and the literature
survey do not correlate to EPRI, while the literature survey and DoE correlate significantly at .01
levels, supporting hypotheses H3c.
2.6.8
Gaps Conclusions
The focus of academic research and the funds assigned to DoE from the Recovery plan
follow the same pattern. Utilization takes more than 60% of the efforts, followed by 30% from
environmental activities such as distributed generation, electric vehicles, and other tasks, to
protect the environment through green energy goals. EPRI focuses 40% of its funding on
nuclear energy, which is zero for both DoE and the literature survey, because of the bad rap that
this energy generation has received after the Fukushima accident provoked by the tsunami in
2011. The nature of EPRI has been closely linked to nuclear energy, as they are the outlets used
by the government to further explore this possibility.
Table 2.29: Hypotheses H3 results
2.7
CONCLUSIONS AND GRAPHICAL VIEW
2.7.1 Conclusions
Our conclusions are based on the analysis of 966 peer reviewed papers listed at ISI Web
of Science, from the period ranging from 2008 to 2013 that focused on the Smart Grid and
87
distribution topics. Overall, we observed that there is an increasing trend in the number of
published papers over the past six years. Over 60% of the articles were related to empirical
research, which is not surprising because Smart Grid distribution efforts require a high level of
analysis before its implementation in the field.
The increasing trends in papers suggest that the Smart Grid is not a fad because the trend
has been growing for over six years. Even though the list of conferences papers for 2013 is not
complete, we are projecting a trend upward which can be supported with the journal papers
trend, which is not expected to change more in the following months. Journal papers follow a
model that is based on the number of conference papers, so we can predict the journal papers
based on historical performance and use the regression formula calculated in chapter 5.
Empirical vs. conceptual. 604 of the papers related to Smart Grid distribution are
published by IEEE. They represent 63% of the total papers analyzed. Therefore we expected that
there would be more empirical papers than conceptual ones, because this is mostly an
engineering area of study. The amount is overwhelmingly high compared to conceptual
presentations because of the growing interest on the application of Smart Grid distribution
technologies implemented or to be implemented in the field using already proven practices from
other fields. Empirical papers represent 62.5% of all theory development documents because the
empirical approach is based on using data to support or develop theories.
Case studies vs. archival and laboratory research. The focus on proving the applications
on the field can also be seen as more case studies are used than lab or archival research studies,
because SGD can hardly be simulated under controlled conditions. Thus field work is necessary.
The uniqueness of case studies can be a detriment to the overall implementation, but a conscious
decision making process while selecting the cases can allow authors to further project their
88
findings. Applications are the main purpose of the empirical research and it is evident how the
number of empirical case studies papers focused on applications is 24.5% of all analyzed papers
and 43% of all empirical papers. This shows the importance of practical applications in the Smart
Grid literature of these times.
Methods of analysis. We discovered that the dominant choice of analysis method is
simulation, as it appears in 35% of all analyzed papers. As there are so many expectations in the
field of Smart Grid distribution, simulating the new technologies and theories is an important
tool for success. Many of the papers are still lacking the validation in actual findings, thus
making them incomplete in their effort, but the first steps of contemplating a possible scenario is
accomplished here.
Types of categories. Strategy, quality, and supply chain papers are topics with a positive
trend, and they alone represent 74.5% of all papers. Although strategy and supply chain were
affected by the reduced number of conferences in 2013, they are still trending up. Quality
assurance management is continuously growing. Even with the 2013 drop of conferences, there
are still more papers addressing quality assurance than in 2012. The quality focus of the papers is
based on a popular new definition of the Smart Grid as an effective way of distributing energy,
so efficiency can be related to achieving quality in the technologies. This approach is supported
worldwide.
Taxonomy of the papers purpose. The relationship between Smart Grid and ICT is very
strong, as one of the modern definitions of Smart Grids is the use of information and
communication technologies to transmit and distribute energy. Thus it is not surprising that 97%
of all analyzed papers refer to ICT in some way. Due to the fact that most papers focus on
applications, physical interconnection or infrastructure papers account for 72%. One area that
89
seems to be growing in this subject is the economic studies, representing 53% of all papers,
because they, together with ICT, reinforce the definition of efficient systems to distribute energy
at the optimum cost.
Smart Grid categories. The top category is distributed generation, which includes
worldwide effort to use renewable resources generation and microgrids. Distribution automation
is second, focusing on the enhancements to eliminate or reduce dependency on operators with
the use of computer and information and communication systems. In third place we have system
efficiency effort, as authors are clearly stating that by improving quality of the current process,
we can overcome the need for more generation, as distribution losses are reduced or even
eliminated.
Countries generating literature. The US is the clear leader in all areas showing the
important role that it is taking into the third millennium leading all global efforts toward clean
tech energy. China is a distant second in most categories. We do not foresee them taking a
leadership position anytime in the near future. Italy, Brazil and Canada are also showing strength
in their generation of literature but still far below the US. Chinas approach is to work on
improving quality of some technologies. Italys approach is growing on the generation of
distributed automation papers, and Portugals approach, even though they are # 12 on the list,
focuses upon having a higher content on PHEV with most of the papers coming from the same
group of authors who are focusing on the charging process of electrical vehicles.
It is interesting to see how the strategic papers are being replaced by quality assurance
papers, largely because strategic papers are prevalent among distribution automation, efficiency,
self-healing, and demand responses because these technologies are being strategized towards
implementation. Distributed generation and electric vehicles papers focus on supply chain as
90
more efforts are taken to develop new forms of energy generation. These papers also attempt to
develop a new business model where stakeholders will be generating and consuming energy.
Distribution automation brings forward an opportunity of efficiency by removing
decision making elements that make the process variable, and replaces them with automated
controls which will react the same way consistently and are based on more available and
trustworthy information. As more ICT devices are included in the grids, consumers have access
to real-time information to help them shed loads during peak times, helping to conserve energy.
2.7.2
Graphical View
In order to see the identified technologies in a model, we used the Plan-Do-Check-Act

(PDCA) cycle (Du et al., 2008). The PLAN section was replaced with the supply chain term,
which includes the generation element from EPRI. We also included the Electric Vehicles
category because the future of electricity might include vehicles connections to the grid (V2G).
The DO element in the cycle includes the Information and Communication Technology (ICT),
which is represented mainly by Distribution Automation. The CHECK and ACT sections were
merged into a section that we are going to name Stakeholders Participation; here we need to have
Distribution Networks to communicate the required data with low latency and broad bandwidth;
the other element which is also very important is the participation of all stakeholders, so Demand
Response is added to this part of the cycle. The result of the model shall include two major
concepts: Efficiency and Environment protection, which we then merge into the Green Energy
concept. Placing the results of the literature survey in a graphical manner, we were able to
develop the preliminary model chart that shows the number of papers next to the namethey are
color coded with dark green for the higher and red for the lowest.
91
Figure 2.42: Number of Papers per Technology in the Preliminary Model Graph
With this first look to the model, we see that the most papers are related to supply chain,
mostly in regards to the distributed generation topic. Second in importance is Distribution
Automation, which is the penetration of ICT into the distribution of energy. In third place is
efficiency, which is one of the most targeted efforts for researchers and also for the government
funds.
92
CHAPTER 3: DIFFUSION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND RISKS

3.1 GENERATION AND CONSUMPTION INFORMATION
In the year 2009, according to the World Bank, 74.13% of the worlds population had
access to electricity. The region where this access was most restricted is Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA), where only 32.34% of the population enjoyed this service. Considering Latin America
and the Caribbean (LAC) as another poverty pole region, the database reported that 93.42% of
LAC inhabitants had access to electricity. There was a significant difference between LAC and
SSA, as the situation in LAC is comparatively much better. Using numbers from the 2009
census, we deduced that 38 million people in LAC did not have access to electricity, compared to
562 million people in SSA. Thus there is a need for further expansion of distribution and
generation in the LAC, because the consumption of electricity in this region was 1,890 KWh
(kilowatt hours) per inhabitantcompared against the world average of consumption at 2,713
KWh. There is still a great deal of effort necessary, but the situation in SSA is much worse, as
they only consume 456KWh. Because there are definitively more urgent needs at SAA than
electricity, this paper will focus on LAC and the implementation of new technologies for the
generation and distribution of electricity.
If we focus on the poorest countries, in the year 2000, a little bit over 33% of the
population had the chance of accessing electricity; based on these countries needs companies
were overproducing energy. As a result of this decision, losses in transmission and distribution
averaged 25% of the total production, so that those firms involved in the electricity sector were
operating mostly at significant losses (Kenny & Sreide, 2008).
Another factor affecting the progress in the electricity sector in the LAC was the popular
idea, from the 1960s, that reinforced the state as requiring a monopolistic and preponderant role
93
in everything related to energy provision and distribution. The LAC is now facing serious
challenges, as it is creating competitive markets while modernizing old institutional structures
and national standards and norms (Herrera, 2001). These changes have helped the penetration of
energy generation and distribution in the LAC, with a high percentage of private participation in
this sector. According to the World Bank database, the LAC has received 25.3 billion dollars of
investments from private companies. This influx of capital into developing countries in the LAC
is important for those economies and represents an important push towards technologies that the
public sector could not financein some cases due to money supply and technological
advancement.
3.1.1
Hypotheses H4
Private investors are getting into the energy generation sector and the areas that need
more money are the ones related to macro-generation of electricity, such as large thermoelectric
or wave generating processes. It is our expectation that most of the private capital is coming into
macro-generation plants that government cannot support or fund anymore. Thus our next
hypothesis is:
H4a: The largest private sector global investment is devoted to the generation of energy
Modernization is bringing an ever increasing growth of energy demand while generation
depends on growth by adding more macro-generation sources; therefore if there is not enough
investment to increase capacity or make more efficient the current sources, demand is going to
be higher than generation in the near future. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H4b: The slope of energy consumption is greater than energy generation, thus resulting in an
expected breakdown.
94
Energy efficiency improvement measures, distributed generation, and other measures are
silently coming in, resulting in a reduction of demand pressure for the future. It is our
expectation that by analyzing the past data, we can see that the demand pressure is softening in
the future based on generation additions, improvements and efficiency. If this claim is correct,
we propose that:
H4c: Sensitivity analysis shows that the break-even year is moving forward as efficiency and
other measures kick in
Environmental groups are putting so much pressure on governments to reduce thermal
generation of electricity, as it is one of the processes that are emitting more CO2 into the
atmosphere. Even with this pressure, the electricity generation infrastructure and economical
alternatives are not presenting a clear replacement alternative in the near future. Therefore, we
expect thermal energy to still continue growing in the future; thus we hypothesize that:
H4d: Thermal energy generation will be the source with the highest growth slope in the future.
The worlds population growth and lowering prices of some devices that are becoming
indispensable are forcing an ever increasing growth of household consumption, putting extra
pressure on electricity generation. We expect the slope of consumption of homes to be the one
with the largest slope of growth as more economies are joining the global ICT growth.
Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H4e: Household consumption has the largest slope of all areas
3.1.2
Private Investments on Energy
There has been a concentration of private investment in the energy area of the LAC,
compared to the rest of the world, as can be seen in Figure 2.39 from the World Bank database.
Analyzing the investments in LAC, it is clearly noticeable that Brazil is by far the country where
95
the most private capital has been invested in energy, mostly toward two important projects: The
3.15 GW mega power plant San Antonio Hydro, with an investment of $7 billion USD, and the
3.3 mega power plant Jirau Hydro, with a private investment around $5.5 billion USD. These
plants were financed in 2009, so their completion dropped the private investment in 2010 to
60%. Putting Brazil aside, however, the other countries grew 50% compared to 2009 (Jett, 2011).
Figure 3.1: Private investment in Energys sector around the world

Approximately 80 percent of the investments in LAC countries were in divestiture
projects, that is, governments engaged in privatization and allowed independent power producers
(IPP) to enter into the electricity arena of the country (Jamasb, 2006). Because electricity has to
be transferred from the generation source to the consumer through transmission and distribution
lines, which belong to the utility, IPPs have to pay for the transference of energy from its
generating point to their final consumers (Jia & Yokohama, 2003). Unfortunately, privatization
in past years has become a source closely related to corruption, as public or state owned
companies have traditionally been one of the greater sources of corruptionwherein political
parties were financed and loyal stakeholders were rewarded with certain jobs (Tanzi, 1998).
96
Figure 3.1 shows the investment buckets and geographical areas where they are used. The
investments on generation are well above all others, thus supporting our hypothesis H4a, which
states that generation is the main investment for private capital.
In the 1990s, there was an important participation of private investment in the electricity
sector of more than 75 developing countries; the approximate total amount of private
investments was around $160.7 billion US dollars in 695 projects (Jamasb, 2006). Radulovi
(2009) concludes that future changes in the energy area will have an important impact on a new
economy, an economy of knowledge. With the growth of technology around the world, there is
an important trend of energy demand increase that requires additional infrastructure construction,
network expansions and robustness, security of supply chain across markets, optimum service to
consumers and maximum profits.
Unfortunately, there has been recently a reduction of interest on private investment, and one
of the main issues for this reduction of private funding of the electricity sector has been the issue
of governance. Focusing on the electricity sector in LAC, Jamasb (2006) reported that successful
reforms may improve efficiency and offer lower prices with better quality for electricity services.
But if we implement flawed reforms and inefficient regulation and competition, these issues can
eliminate the benefits of implementing reforms. As energy generation and distribution has been a
natural monopoly, it is necessary to regulate it in order to optimize performance toward
economic efficiency (Kenny & Sreide, 2008).
3.1.3
Sources of Consumption and Generation Statistics
Based on secondary data, available at the United Nations Databank, we discovered that there
is a tremendous consumption growth that is quickly closing the gap of electricity production.
97
Figure 3.2: Evolution of consumption and generation of electricity

Using a linear regression, we calculated the y-axis crossing point and the slope of the line
for our projections. The slope (B1) is larger for consumption than for generation; therefore,
hypothesis H4b is supported. The following statistics back-up our projections for the
consumption and generation activities:
Table 3.1: Consumption and generation regression lines statistics
Consumption
Generation
B0
6.438
10.577
B1
0.600
0.482
Std. Error
0.025
0.019
Beta
t
0.984 23.894
0.985 24.877
Sig.
R-square
0.000
0.968
0.000
0.970
If the trends continue the same, by the year 2025, consumption will be larger than
production, aggravating the supply problem that already exists. Countries with natural resources
could see this as an opportunity to export their electricity, with the caveat of losses in
transmission.
98
Figure 3.3: Projected lines of consumption and generation until 2035

Conducting a sensitivity analysis for consumption and generation, we see that the y-axis
crossing point and the slope have been changing every year. By projecting the lines after 1999,
when we have 10 years data, we calculate the crossing point of the curves to see if the projected
year of 2025 has been the expected breaking point when consumption will overcome generation.
Table 3.2: Sensitivity analysis for the crossing-point year
Year
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Data
points
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Consumption
B0
B1
5.513
0.783
5.658
0.746
5.835
0.706
6.006
0.669
5.967
0.677
6.084
0.655
6.157
0.642
6.205
0.634
6.219
0.632
6.259
0.626
6.391
0.607
6.438
0.601
R
0.96
0.963
0.963
0.963
0.97
0.972
0.975
0.978
0.981
0.983
0.982
0.984
99
Generation
B0
B1
11.500
0.317
11.410
0.339
11.400
0.343
11.350
0.353
11.280
0.367
11.180
0.387
11.050
0.409
10.930
0.430
10.790
0.452
10.690
0.466
10.670
0.468
10.580
0.482
R
0.991
0.988
0.991
0.991
0.991
0.988
0.985
0.983
0.981
0.982
0.984
0.985
Crossing
point
12.87
14.14
15.33
16.93
17.17
18.99
20.96
23.12
25.38
27.73
30.90
34.81
Table 3.2 shows the changes in the curves from 1999 to 2010, including the calculated
crossing point. Table 3.2 shows how the expected crossing point year has been moving up in the
future, as generation lines have been increasing strongly to prevent this deficit. This equilibrium
point shift supports hypothesis H4c. For consumption, we can see that the y-axis crossing point
has been increasing every year, while the slope is slowly decreasing. Based upon these
observations we can infer that consumption is increasing but not as accelerated as expected,
thanks to the energy saving efforts implemented in some countries. R-square has also been
increasing, showing that we are explaining more efficiently the linear behavior of consumption
in time.
Figure 3.4: Evolution of the crossing point from the sensitivity analysis
For generation, the y-axis crossing point has been decreasing every year, while the slope
is increasing; we can thus infer that generation is increasing at a more accelerated rate than
expected. This seems to be the result of increasing generation sources to delay the feared
moment of lack of electricity supply. The R-square has been moving along in, going up and
down, but always predicting consistently an ever increasing generation effort.
100
After 2003 and 2008, there have been major changes in the generation of electricity that
have pushed the crossing point back considerably. The increases moved from 1 year increase per
year to almost 3 years per year now.
Trying to better understand the changes in consumption, we conducted a sensitivity
analysis for the main components of consumption: energy, households, industry and transport.
Table 3.3: Consumptions sensitivity analyses
Year
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Data
points
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
B0
0.278
0.292
0.302
0.311
0.318
0.323
0.328
0.335
0.340
0.347
0.355
0.358
Energy
B1
0.037
0.033
0.031
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.021
R
0.898
0.894
0.898
0.900
0.907
0.915
0.922
0.924
0.929
0.928
0.926
0.931
Households
B1
R
2.485 0.458 0.981
2.559 0.440 0.982
2.641 0.421 0.982
2.710 0.406 0.982
2.780 0.392 0.982
2.843 0.380 0.983
2.888 0.372 0.984
2.930 0.365 0.987
2.959 0.361 0.987
2.992 0.356 0.988
3.036 0.350 0.988
3.057 0.347 0.989
B0
Industry
B1
2.663 0.270
2.714 0.258
2.792 0.240
2.881 0.221
2.763 0.244
2.809 0.236
2.829 0.232
2.825 0.233
2.803 0.236
2.801 0.237
2.878 0.226
2.898 0.223
B0
R
0.867
0.884
0.888
0.886
0.907
0.915
0.926
0.937
0.947
0.955
0.951
0.956
Transport
B1
0.087 0.017
0.094 0.015
0.100 0.014
0.104 0.013
0.107 0.012
0.109 0.012
0.111 0.012
0.114 0.011
0.116 0.011
0.119 0.010
0.123 0.010
0.124 0.010
B0
R
0.798
0.797
0.799
0.806
0.823
0.842
0.853
0.863
0.872
0.876
0.876
0.885
Table 3.3 presents some data that is noteworthy: Energy, household and transportation
consumptions are the main drivers of the path observed for consumption. Industry has been
impacting demand with changes in 2003 and 2008wherein consumption of electricity was
reduced. In other words, industry consumption has been the element slowing down electricity
consumption in the world. Although Industry B0s are similar to the household consumption
ones, the slope (B1) is much greater for household consumption; therefore, we can support
hypothesis H4e that the homes consumption of electricity is the factor with the largest growth.
101
Because generation of electricity can be further divided into 6 main categories (according
to the UN database), we split generation and conducted a linear regression analysis for these 6
elements. The results are shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Generation sources sensitivity analysis
Year
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Data
points
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
20.00
21.00
Thermal
B0 B1
R
7.29 0.21 0.98
7.20 0.23 0.97
7.16 0.24 0.98
7.09 0.25 0.98
7.00 0.27 0.98
6.91 0.29 0.98
6.80 0.31 0.97
6.69 0.33 0.97
6.55 0.35 0.97
6.47 0.36 0.97
6.46 0.36 0.98
6.39 0.37 0.98
B0
2.17
2.19
2.21
2.23
2.24
2.23
2.22
2.20
2.18
2.17
2.15
2.13
Hydro
B1
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
R
0.96
0.96
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.97
0.97
Nuclear
B0 B1
R
1.93 0.06 0.99
1.93 0.06 0.99
1.93 0.06 0.99
1.94 0.06 0.99
1.96 0.05 0.99
1.96 0.05 0.99
1.97 0.05 0.99
1.98 0.05 0.99
2.00 0.05 0.98
2.02 0.05 0.97
2.04 0.04 0.95
2.05 0.04 0.95
B0
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.06
-0.07
Wind
B1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
R
0.91
0.89
0.90
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.87
0.86
0.86
Geothermal
B0 B1
R
0.04 0.00 0.96
0.04 0.00 0.97
0.03 0.00 0.97
0.03 0.00 0.98
0.03 0.00 0.98
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
0.03 0.00 0.99
B0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.01
Solar
B1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
R
0.84
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.92
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.58
Tide/Wave
B0 B1
R
0.00 0.00 0.15
0.00 0.00 0.16
0.00 0.00 0.15
0.00 0.00 0.36
0.00 0.00 0.48
0.00 0.00 0.60
0.00 0.00 0.66
0.00 0.00 0.72
0.00 0.00 0.76
0.00 0.00 0.80
0.00 0.00 0.83
0.00 0.00 0.83
Table 3.4 shows that wind, solar, thermal and tide generation are the main drivers of the
path, where the y-axis crossing point is being reduced every year while the slope is increasing.
The only two sources that do not follow this pattern are nuclear energy and the other sources.
Nuclear energy seems to be slowing down in time, although we know for a fact that following
2011 the amount of nuclear energy will be greatly reduced globally after the directives of some
countries forbidding nuclear generation. Thermal generation is by far the largest contributor, but
the other sources have been steadily generating electricity. Following 2004, however, they have
reversed the trend on both slope and y-axis crossing point.
3.1.4
Global Trends on Energy Use and Availability
The situation might even be more critical because there are other ways that we are making
use of electricity aside from the consumption by industry, transportation, households, and others.
These other uses of electricity are forms of conversion to other energies, station use and station
102
losses, as well as exports of extra capacity. The trends of these uses are also growing, with
conversion acting more aggressively than others. Export is the one activity that has not grown
that much, but it reduces the availability of electricity for citizens.
Table 3.5: Regression statistics for Generation and Imports
Imports
Generation
B0
(15.806)
10.577
B1
54.613
0.482
Std. Error
3.586
0.019
Beta
t
0.961 15.229
0.985 24.877
Sig.
R-square
0.000
0.924
0.000
0.970
Figure 3.5: Other uses of electricity to consider (source: UN data)

In order to cover the shortage of electricity, some countries are turning to importations of
energy, as a way of overcome the obstacles they face in not having enough electricity to meet
current consumption rates. The growth of importations is so small, that in 2031 we expect
importations to represent 1 out of 31.8 billion KWh of produced electricity, which is only 3.2%.
103
Figure 3.6: Importations of electricity and current trend
Figure 3.7: Trend of global use and availability of electricity (source: UN data)
Adding importations to the production of electricity gave us the total amount of
electricity available for all the nations in the world, and adding the consumption, conversion,
losses, and exportations, we can clearly see the prognosis for the short and mid-term future. The
104
following statistics were used to calculate the projection line for available electricity, which
includes gross production plus importations, and use of energywhich includes consumption,
conversion, exports and losses.
Table 3.6: Regression lines for Energy use and availability
Available
Use
B0
(20.963)
(11.218)
B1
1.953
1.417
Std. Error
0.075
0.056
Beta
t
0.986 25.913
0.986 25.35
Sig.
R-square
0.000
0.972
0.000
0.971
Comparing the trends of the available and used electricity, we can see that the electricity
crisis is not something that will come, but is already here. In 2004 both lines crossed, meaning
that there has not been enough electricity for all people on the planet.
Figure 3.8: Projected lines of use and availability of energy (source: UN data)
Conducting a sensitivity analysis for the use and availability lines, we came up with
Table 3.7, which compares the crossing points for both lines beginning in 1999 until 2010. Just
like in the consumption versus generation chart, the use and available energy data follows the
same path. Use of energy is increasing, as the y-axis crossing point is increasing, but the slope is
105
tending downwards, while availability of energy y-axis crossing point is decreasing and the slope
is growing. Based on the UN data, we already have a shortage of electricity supply since the
period of 1997-2003 but it is hard to explain how the use of energy can be above the amount of
available energy, so we are going to dig deeper to discover why.
Table 3.7: Sensitivity analysis for crossing line year for use and available energy
Year
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
3.1.5
Data
point
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Use of Energy
B0
B1
7.158
0.879
7.307
0.842
7.521
0.793
7.699
0.755
7.669
0.761
7.785
0.739
7.842
0.729
7.886
0.722
7.900
0.719
7.944
0.713
8.085
0.693
8.138
0.685
R
0.962
0.966
0.964
0.964
0.972
0.974
0.977
0.98
0.983
0.985
0.984
0.986
Available Energy
B0
B1
12
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
12
0
11
0
11
0
11
0
11
0
11
0
11
0
11
0
R
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
Crossing
point
8.516
9.080
9.671
10.289
10.403
11.029
11.612
12.184
12.764
13.328
13.995
14.690
Global Trends on Generation and Sources
Also using the secondary data available at the UN Database, we were able to analyze the
sources of generation capacities and trends for the near future. Because the unit of measure for
the installed capacity is in KW, a unit of power, and the units for produced electricity is in KWH,
a unit of energy, we used the data to calculate the capacity factors per country per year in order
to make our prognosis.
Thermal energy is the generation process with the largest installed capacity and it is also
the largest generator of electricity in the world, therefore, hypothesis H4d is supported because
we do not expect all this capacity to be uninstalled but rather continue to function.
106
Figure 3.9: Growth of electricity capacity assuming 6870 hours per year (source: UN data)
Figure 3.10: Sources of production of electricity (source: UN data)

Breaking the production of electricity into the major source of generation, we found that
there are some other sources that are not considered in the major categories that the UN database
includes, so we added a group named others.
107
Figure 3.11: Capacity percentage -Production vs. installed capacity (source: UN data)
The capacity has been growing way beyond the needed consumption of energy, but we
are assuming a perfect world where we will have energy generation every hour of the whole year
Table 3.8: Capacity factors
Source
Solar
Nuclear
Thermal
Tide
Wind
Others
Capacity
26%
83%
54%
24%
23%
40%
To understand how low the capacity is, Figure 3.11 shows us the global capacity for
every source of energy, focusing on percentages in the past ten years period. We created this
focus because during the 90s there were some testing and erratic data. The statistics show
stability on most generation sources, except solar energy, that had a trend down that seems to be
bouncing back up, but we will have to see to what degree solar energy recovers. Based on the
capacity factors, we predict growth of installed capacity, based upon its impact on
108
consumption as shown in the prior section. To assess the veracity of the data, we calculated
the capacity per country and the production. We found some interesting facts. Namely, China
does not report any solar capacity and is actually the largest producer. The plan in China for
photovoltaic is so aggressive that it is expected to generate over 1,800 MW by the year 2020,
with a stretch goal of 10,000 MW or more (Shen & Wong, 2009).
3.1.6
Global Sources of Generation Capacity versus Production
The following tables show the comparison of contributions by country for the generation
compared to the production of electricity. It is noteworthy that some data seems incomplete or
inaccurate as available within the United Nations Databases.
Table 3.9: Hydro capacity (KWh)
Hydro
Country
Capacity
Contribution
China
1,699,440
19.5%
United States
884,961
10.2%
Brazil
706,380
8.1%
Canada
657,683
7.5%
Japan
418,167
4.8%
Russian Federation
410,003
4.7%
India
329,621
3.8%
Norway
254,066
2.9%
France
220,875
2.5%
Italy
188,515
2.2%
Spain
164,119
1.9%
Sweden
146,572
1.7%
Turkey
138,680
1.6%
Venezuela(Bolivar. Rep.)
128,089
1.5%
Switzerland
120,187
1.4%
Austria
111,261
1.3%
Mexico
99,321
1.1%
Germany
96,605
1.1%
Argentina
87,994
1.0%
Australia
83,553
1.0%
Others
1772285
20.3%
8,718,378
100.0%
109
Table 3.10: Hydro production (KWh)

Hydro
Country
Production
Contribution
China
722,172
20.5%
Brazil
403,289
11.5%
Canada
351,591
10.0%
United States
286,333
8.1%
Russian Federation
168,397
4.8%
Norway
117,942
3.4%
India
114,486
3.3%
Japan
90,682
2.6%
Venezuela(Bolivar. Rep.)
76,780
2.2%
France
66,825
1.9%
Sweden
66,501
1.9%
Italy
54,406
1.5%
Paraguay
54,065
1.5%
Turkey
51,796
1.5%
Spain
45,488
1.3%
Austria
41,596
1.2%
Colombia
40,624
1.2%
Switzerland
37,825
1.1%
Mexico
37,121
1.1%
Argentina
33,897
1.0%
Others
654,404
18.6%
3,516,219
100.0%
Table 3.11: Nuclear Capacity (KWh)

Nuclear
Country
Capacity
Contribution
United States
886,223
26.5%
France
553,019
16.5%
Japan
428,890
12.8%
Russian Federation
207,980
6.2%
Germany
179,291
5.4%
Korea, Republic of
155,192
4.6%
Ukraine
121,195
3.6%
Canada
110,945
3.3%
China
96,360
2.9%
United Kingdom
95,177
2.8%
Sweden
78,639
2.3%
Spain
65,034
1.9%
Belgium
51,921
1.6%
Other Asia
45,061
1.3%
India
41,873
1.3%
Czech Republic
34,164
1.0%
Switzerland
28,496
0.9%
Bulgaria
24,283
0.7%
Finland
23,652
0.7%
Brazil
17,581
0.5%
Others
103,622
3.1%
3,348,598
100.0%
110
Table 3.12: Nuclear Production (KWh)

Nuclear
Country
Production Contribution
United States
838,931
30.4%
France
428,521
15.5%
Japan
288,230
10.5%
Russian Federation
170,415
6.2%
Korea, Republic of
148,596
5.4%
Germany
140,556
5.1%
Canada
90,659
3.3%
Ukraine
89,152
3.2%
China
73,880
2.7%
United Kingdom
62,140
2.3%
Spain
61,990
2.2%
Sweden
57,828
2.1%
Belgium
47,944
1.7%
Other Asia
41,629
1.5%
Czech Republic
27,998
1.0%
Switzerland
26,339
1.0%
India
26,266
1.0%
Finland
22,800
0.8%
Hungary
15,761
0.6%
Bulgaria
15,249
0.6%
Others
81,405
3.0%
2,756,289
100.0%
Table 3.13: Solar Capacity (KWh)

Solar
Country
Capacity Contribution
Germany
151,723
45.1%
Spain
40,366
12.0%
Japan
31,694
9.4%
Italy
30,397
9.0%
United States
29,547
8.8%
Czech Republic
17,161
5.1%
Belgium
7,919
2.4%
France
7,823
2.3%
Korea, Republic of
5,694
1.7%
Greece
1,770
0.5%
Australia
1,638
0.5%
Lao People's Dem. Rep.
1,542
0.5%
Egypt
1,226
0.4%
Portugal
1,174
0.3%
Switzerland
972
0.3%
Canada
946
0.3%
Austria
832
0.2%
Reunion
782
0.2%
Netherlands
771
0.2%
United Kingdom
675
0.2%
Others
2,036
0.6%
336,688
100.0%
111
Table 3.14: Solar Production (KWh)

Solar
Country
China
34,558
51.3%
Germany
11,682
17.3%
Spain
7,105
10.5%
United States
3,934
5.8%
Japan
3,799
5.6%
Italy
1,906
2.8%
Korea, Republic of
772
1.1%
Czech Republic
616
0.9%
France
564
0.8%
Belgium
560
0.8%
Australia
277
0.4%
Portugal
211
0.3%
Egypt
206
0.3%
Lao People's Dem. Rep.
193
0.3%
Canada
158
0.2%
Greece
158
0.2%
Austria
89
0.1%
Switzerland
83
0.1%
Reunion
76
0.1%
Israel
70
0.1%
Others
374
0.6%
67,391
100.0%
Table 3.15: Thermal Capacity (KWh)

Thermal
Country
Capacity
Contribution
United States
6,975,614
22.6%
France
6,797,760
22.0%
Japan
1,615,510
5.2%
Russian Federation
1,437,674
4.7%
Germany
1,344,003
4.3%
Korea, Republic of
709,201
2.3%
Ukraine
663,167
2.1%
Canada
637,167
2.1%
China
529,332
1.7%
United Kingdom
503,323
1.6%
Sweden
463,172
1.5%
Spain
426,621
1.4%
Belgium
413,744
1.3%
Other Asia
406,236
1.3%
India
395,102
1.3%
Czech Republic
384,908
1.2%
Switzerland
354,780
1.1%
Bulgaria
332,214
1.1%
Finland
308,229
1.0%
Brazil
283,587
0.9%
Others
5,924,787
19.2%
30,906,132
100.0%
112
Table 3.16: Thermal Production (KWh)

Thermal
Country
China
3,331,928
22.5%
United States
3,136,499
21.2%
India
813,787
5.5%
Japan
729,916
4.9%
Russian Federation
698,709
4.7%
Germany
411,569
2.8%
Korea, Republic of
342,851
2.3%
United Kingdom
302,019
2.0%
South Africa
242,358
1.6%
Saudi Arabia
240,067
1.6%
Italy
231,249
1.6%
Australia
223,987
1.5%
Iran(Islamic Rep. of)
223,266
1.5%
Mexico
220,080
1.5%
Other Asia
197,113
1.3%
Indonesia
159,560
1.1%
Canada
155,959
1.1%
Turkey
155,828
1.1%
Thailand
153,953
1.0%
Poland
152,505
1.0%
Others
2,667,005
18.0%
14,790,208
100.0%
Table 3.17: Wind Capacity (KWh)

Wind
Country
Capacity
Contribution
United States
342,814
26.3%
Germany
238,351
18.3%
Spain
181,884
14.0%
China
92,856
7.1%
France
52,201
4.0%
Italy
50,755
3.9%
United Kingdom
47,111
3.6%
Canada
34,803
2.7%
Denmark
33,306
2.6%
Portugal
33,253
2.6%
Japan
20,095
1.5%
Netherlands
19,596
1.5%
Sweden
17,686
1.4%
Australia
16,329
1.3%
Ireland
12,317
0.9%
Turkey
11,563
0.9%
Greece
11,370
0.9%
Poland
9,706
0.7%
Austria
8,559
0.7%
Belgium
7,989
0.6%
Others
59,559
4.6%
1,302,104
100.0%
113
Table 3.18: Wind Production (KWh)

Wind
Country
United States
95,148
29.8%
China
44,622
14.0%
Spain
44,165
13.8%
Germany
37,793
11.8%
United Kingdom
10,183
3.2%
France
9,969
3.1%
Canada
9,557
3.0%
Portugal
9,182
2.9%
Italy
9,126
2.9%
Denmark
7,809
2.4%
Australia
4,798
1.5%
Netherlands
3,993
1.2%
Japan
3,962
1.2%
Sweden
3,502
1.1%
Turkey
2,916
0.9%
Ireland
2,815
0.9%
Greece
2,714
0.8%
Austria
2,064
0.6%
Poland
1,664
0.5%
New Zealand
1,634
0.5%
Others
12,144
3.8%
319,760
100.0%
3.1.7
Diffusion of Renewable Generation
Because the literature review presented the importance of distributed generation, this
dissertation is going to analyze the diffusion of the different sources of generation that use
renewable resources in the US. Table 3.19 shows the breakdown of the generation of electricity.
Table 3.19: Evolution of Sources of Electricity Generation in the US
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Natural
Gas
29.8%
34.5%
37.5%
38.5%
39.2%
39.4%
39.5%
39.3%
39.1%
39.2%
39.5%
Coal
37.0%
34.8%
33.0%
32.5%
32.0%
31.7%
31.4%
31.0%
30.7%
30.5%
30.2%
Nuclear
11.6%
10.9%
10.5%
10.3%
10.2%
10.2%
10.1%
10.0%
9.9%
9.7%
9.6%
Hydro
Hydro
Wood & Other Geo- Other Solar & Other
Petroleum Wind
Conv.
Pump. Stor. Der. Fuels Biomass thermal Gas
PV Sources
9.3%
7.8% 0.5%
2.3%
0.7%
0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
8.8%
6.6% 0.5%
2.3%
0.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
8.3%
6.4% 0.6%
2.2%
0.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
8.1%
6.1% 0.7%
2.2%
0.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
7.9%
6.0% 0.9%
2.2%
0.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
7.9%
5.9% 1.1%
2.2%
0.6%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1%
7.8%
5.6% 1.7%
2.2%
0.7%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
7.7%
5.7% 2.4%
2.2%
0.7%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
7.7%
5.5% 3.3%
2.2%
0.7%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
7.6%
5.4% 3.8%
2.1%
0.7%
0.4% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%
7.5%
4.9% 4.3%
2.1%
0.7%
0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%
114
Table 3.19 clearly shows that most trends are going downwards with the exception of
Natural Gas, Wind, and Solar generations which are consistently trending upwards. Because
gas is not a renewable resource, we are going to conduct Bass diffusion analysis (as detailed in
section 2.6.2) only for the wind and solar electricity generation processes by state in the US
using the data available at the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
3.1.7.1
Wind Generated Electricity in the US
We are seeing Texas as the largest contributor for the electricity generated with wind,
with Iowa following at a distance with more than one third of the Texas generation; but Iowas
growth is important with a much faster diffusion speed than anyone else in the list.
California shows an imitation index of zero, which means that only innovators are
implementing wind energy because the curve shows a flattened curve, as this state has been
generating electricity using wind mills long before anyone else. Therefore, we do not see as a
rapid growth in California as Washington and Minnesota, which will reach maturity much faster.
Table 3.20: Diffusion Indexes for Wind Electricity Generation in the US by States
Wind Energy Cum. Level Maturity Level Innovation

US
(KWh)
(KWh)
Index
USA
120,177
427,082
0.00007
Texas
30,548
45,580
0.00026
Iowa
10,709
19,924
0.00017
California
7,752
98,123
0.00327
Minnesota
6,726
12,463
0.00032
Washington
6,262
10,272
0.00627
Illinois
6,213
9,101
0.00110
Oklahoma
5,605
23,135
0.00491
North Dakota
5,236
6,193
0.00065
Colorado
5,200
6,475
0.00137
Oregon
4,775
6,575
0.00059
115
Imitation
Index
0.3424
0.4873
0.4512
0.3179
0.4102
0.7206
0.2851
0.8862
0.5436
0.5166
Diffusion
Speed
4,711
1,884
2,719
996
65
654
58
1,373
398
869
Table 3.21: t-test for top 10 States using Wind generated Electricity
Test Value = 0
Wind
Cum
M
P
Q
df
Sig.
tailed)
3.611
2.614
2.693
6.057
9
9
9
9
.006
.028
.025
.000
(2- Mean
Difference
8902.68721
23784.20434
.00187
.46315
95% C.I. of the Difference

Lower
Upper
3325.1518
3205.0345
.0003
.2902
14480.2226
44363.3742
.0034
.6361
Doing t-tests for the states cumulative, maturity level, and innovation and diffusion
indexes, we find them to be significantly below 2.8%. The top ten states show that the diffusion
of wind generated energy will reach maturity around the year 2050, when some scholars are
predicting that renewable energy will represent 50% of all electricity in the US (Lehr, 2013).
Figure 3.12: Diffusion of Wind Generation by State
116
3.1.7.2
Solar Generated Electricity in the US
For solar energy, California is undoubtedly the largest contributor with 48.9% of all solar
electricity in the country. California has been a pioneer in renewable resources electricity, so we
are also seeing an imitation index of zero, as well as for wind energy. This means that the curve
is flattened and all the growth is identified as innovator growth that will take much longer to
mature. Nevada is second on order, but its growth is strongly driven by imitation, which means
that it will reach maturity in 2018. New Mexico is a state that, although it is just beginning with
the solar energy experience, presents an imitation factor of 3.02, which means that this factor is
steepening the curve. Thus New Mexico will reach maturity comparatively much faster, in 2015.
Figure 3.13: Diffusion of Solar Generation by State
117
Table 3.22: Diffusion Indexes for Solar Electricity Generation in the US by States
Cum. Level Maturity Level Innovation Imitation

(KWh)
(KWh)
Index
Index
1,817.696 35,876.126
0.0012 0.0177
888.829
986.974
0.0641
291.225
329.745
0.0521 0.6701
127.802
401.676
0.0002 3.0238
125.726
359.213
0.0130 0.9238
104.636
317.011
0.0019 0.8971
83.349
409.752
0.0000 0.8997
68.878
447.292
0.0006 1.1779
28.639
86.987
0.0000 0.4226
23.144
957.176
0.0001 1.0459
17.380
21.606
0.0071 1.3253
Solar
US
California
Nevada
New Mexico
Florida
Colorado
Arizona
New Jersey
Texas
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
Diffusion
Speed
32,097
31,751
5,729
8,644
30,807
28,780
54,652
24,707
3,932
37,694
37,694
For solar generation, the t-tests results are significantly below 10%. The maturity level
and q index are the most significant, at below 5%, which demonstrates that the analysis is correct
and there will be a quick diffusion process for solar energy in the US
Table 3.23: t-test for top 10 States using Solar generated Electricity
Test Value = 0
Solar
Cum
M
P
Q
3.1.8
T
2.117
4.313
1.846
4.131
df
9
9
9
9
Sig.
(2-tailed)
.063
.002
.098
.003
Mean
Difference
175.95814
431.74955
.01390
1.03862
95% C.Il of the Difference

Lower
Upper
-12.0488
363.9651
205.2937
658.2054
-.0031
.0309
.4699
1.6074
Global Prognosis
Coal is one of the major concerns in the world for the emission of CO2 to the
environment, as it contributes to the greenhouse effect the process responsible for global
warming. It is concerning to see the tremendous growth of energy generation with the use of coal
in China, while in the United States coal use is decreasing, as shown in Figure 3.14.
118
Figure 3.14: Energy generation using coal (source: World Bank database)
Looking at the generation of electricity using hydro power, we see China growing
tremendously. China is the number one producer of hydro power and it is still growing strong,
while the other countries have remained in a steady state using these natural resources. We also
see Brazil growing slowly in this area, after the investments referenced in the section 3.1.2.
Figure 3.15: Electricity generated using hydro power (source: World Bank database)
119
Natural gas has been identified as one of the cleanest sources of energy, causing less
harm to the environment; the US is the leader in its implementation. We can see that Russia is
slowly growing in second place but it would take a long time to take the leadership position.
Figure 3.16: Electricity generated with natural gas (source: World Bank database)
Figure 3.17: Electricity generated using nuclear plants (source: World Bank database)
120
Nuclear energy had been steadily growing throughout the world, but following the
Fukushima incident there are some countries that are reversing their efforts toward nuclear
energy until preventive measures can be implemented to prevent disasters.
Figure 3.18: Electricity generated burning oil (source: World Bank database)
Figure 3.19: Global energy generation sources (source: World Bank database)
121
Looking at Figure 3.18, it is evident that the amount of energy produced using oil has
been drastically reduced. Despite this global trend, countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran are
still rapidly increasing this generation processes. Figure 3.19 clearly shows that coal is the largest
source used to generate electricity and will continue to be for a long time, until regulators begin
inhibiting its growth. Natural gas is a strong second place that is growing, but not nearly as fast
as coal. Hydro is clearly third and is also growing, with a big push from China. Nuclear energy
will completely change its trend as more countries are prohibiting its use, and oil is also going
down. Figure 3.20 shows that the leadership on electricity generation will shortly be changed
from the United States to China, as Chinese growth is exponential compared to the US growth.
The potential of the Chinese market has not been fully understood, as the communist
government is investing all necessary capital to electrify the country and allow foreign industries
to be located there, while the nationals have access to utilities that can improve their quality of
life.
Figure 3.20: Worldwide top electricity generation producers

122
Table 3.24: Hypotheses H4 Results
The results of the proposed hypotheses in section 3.1.1 are presented in Table 3.24,
which presents a challenging future for human society as consumption keeps growing and
generation is mostly based on thermal generation that emits large amounts of CO2 to the
atmosphere. Some actions are being taken by consumers, utility companies and governments that
are delaying, but not stopping, the upcoming point where demand will exceed generation.
Unfortunately much of the investment continues to support macro-generation, when one of the
possible solutions (distributed generation) is not being supported as much.
3.2 ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE BACKGROUND

There have been important changes in the electricity sector of many countries. Another
area that has been liberated is the telecommunication sector, beginning in the early 90s. The
market liberalization movements have forced industry and governments to shift from the basic
assessment of production costs to the more complicated measurement of productivity.
Energy and telecommunications are now coming hand in hand with the growth of Smart
123
Grids, placing consumers in a much better position as they can participate in this sector in ways
that in the past used to be monopolistically controlled by utility companies. Most diffusion
studies have been conducted at national levels for ICT technologies, but there is ample room to
conduct studies at regional clusters of nations (Peres et al., 2010). Multi-national diffusion
model-based studies of innovation exist; however, diffusion of ICT, along with electricity
innovations in developing nations, is an area of opportunity according to Peres et al. (2010).
This dissertation has chosen advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) as the Smart grid
Distribution technology to measure SG diffusion in the US, individual states, and available
information on worldwide data. In this dissertation we use Van den Bultes (2004) definition of
diffusion speed as the speed at which new products gets adopted and diffused through the
market. We investigate the relation between speed of diffusion and strong regional clustering,
which can be introduced by physical proximity and other similar aspects of these states due to a
spill-over effect introduced by diffusion in neighboring entities (Mohan Babu & Ganesh,
1997). We are clustering states by geographical location, as has been typically done in the
United States by the Census Bureau:
Table 3.25: Regional Clustering for the US
Midwest
Illinois
Ohio
Indiana
South Dakota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Northeast
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
South
Alabama
Mississippi
Arkansas
North Carolina
Delaware
Oklahoma
District Columbia South Carolina
Florida
Tennese
Georgia
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Louisiana
West Virginia
Maryland
124
West
Alaska
Oregon
Arizona
Utah
California
Washington
Colorado
Wyoming
Hawaii
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
This section of the dissertation seeks to answer the following questions: How does the
speed at which AMI are being adopted and diffused through the United States vary across
regions and states? Using Bass diffusion model, as presented in section 2.6.2, we discuss the
multi-level model for a panel of diffusion time series of smart meters. The Bass model assumes a
population of m potential adopters, where, in the context of citations, we will associate m with
the maturity level or in this case the maximum amount of smart meters to be installed at that
entity. In our context, adopters should be viewed as consumers that have a smart meter installed
on site. It is important to note that if p is zero, the ratio will tend to infinite, so we use log of q/p.
Table 3.26: Ownership of the utility Company
Private Owned
Transmission
Cooperatively
Owned Utility
Investor Owned
Utility
Regional
Transmission
Organization/
Independent
System Operator
Transmission
3.2.1
Government
Owned
Federal Utility
Municipal Power
Agency
Municipally Owned
Utility
State Utility
Political Subdivision
Provider
Curtailment
Service Provider
Retail Power
Marketer
Wholesale Power
Marketer
Hypotheses H5
Van den Bulte (2004) uncovered interesting evidence about diffusion speed in a metaanalysis of diffusion speed research. This study provides product managers and developers
with a useful quantitative tool to measure diffusion for products and regions. The present study
shows that some states and utility companies, who have adopted smart meters later in the game,
have certain advantages because earlier adopters have discovered and already solved set-up
issues. This study includes innovator states and companies that are expected to be early adopters
125
of AMI. For instance, California is expected to be one of the leaders in the implementation of
smart meters. However, it is important to emphasize the number of meters installed in that state,
such that we can see if the diffusion is significant by state or by utility companies ownership.
Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H5a: The diffusion speed q/p of a cluster of geographically closer states will be significantly
greater than those from other regions of the United States.
Libai, Muller & Peres (2005) extended their research questions to explore responsive
budgeting strategies in which firms dynamically allocate their marketing efforts according to
developments in the market. Many other questions are still waiting to be answered and issues
such as regulation (Stremersch & Lemmens, 2009), international competition, and the optimal
marketing mix of growing international markets can be further explored.
H5b: Utility companies ownership is a key factor in the deployment of smart meters in the US.
We expect that states with higher urban concentrations will be the first to have AMI
implemented, as it is much more convenient for the utility companies to have these meters
installed close by so that they can monitor them constantly and provide better feedback to
consumers. If this expectation is correct, the following hypothesis can be supported:
H5c: States with the larger urban concentration will be the first ones to implement AMI.
3.2.2
Implementation Progress
For this study we use secondary data sources from the US 2010 population census to
document the urban concentration indexes for a classification that seems to make sense.
126
3.2.3
Bass Diffusion Model for AMI/AMR
The first step of the process is to calculate the p, q and m diffusion speed using the Bass
model and the differential solution proposed by Boswijk and Franses (equation 4), as shown in
section 2.6.2. Using the Excel Solver software, the curves were approximated to non-linear
distributions, following Bass diffusion model formula. Once the values of these parameters are
obtained, we calculate the ratio imitators/innovators of AMI diffusion for the hypotheses testing.
3.2.3.1
Geographical Clusters of States

Table 3.27: Urban concentration indexes for the US
inhabitants inhabitants
/sq. mile
/ km2
District of Columbia 10,357.0
3,999.0
New Jersey
1,205.0
465.0
Rhode Island
1,016.0
392.0
Massachusetts
852.1
329.0
Connecticut
741.4
286.3
Maryland
606.2
234.1
Delaware
470.7
181.7
New York
415.3
160.3
Florida
360.2
139.1
Pennsylvania
285.3
110.2
California
282.5
109.1
Ohio
244.2
94.3
Illinois
231.9
89.5
Hawaii
216.8
83.7
Virginia
207.3
80.0
North Carolina
200.6
77.5
Indiana
182.5
70.5
Michigan
174.8
67.5
Georgia
172.5
66.6
South Carolina
157.1
60.7
Tennessee
156.6
60.5
New Hampshire
147.0
56.8
Kentucky
110.0
42.5
Wisconsin
105.2
40.6
Louisiana
105.0
40.5
Washington
102.6
39.6
inhabitants inhabitants /
/sq. mile
km2
Texas
98.1
37.9
Alabama
94.7
36.5
Missouri
87.3
33.7
West Virginia
77.1
29.8
Vermont
67.7
26.2
Minnesota
67.1
25.9
Mississippi
63.5
24.5
Arizona
57.1
22.0
Arkansas
56.4
21.8
Oklahoma
55.2
21.3
Iowa
54.8
21.2
Colorado
49.3
19.1
Maine
43.0
16.6
Oregon
40.3
15.6
Kansas
35.1
13.6
Utah
34.3
13.2
Nevada
24.8
9.6
Nebraska
24.0
9.3
Idaho
19.2
7.4
New Mexico
17.2
6.6
South Dakota
10.9
4.2
North Dakota
9.9
3.8
Montana
6.9
2.6
Wyoming
5.9
2.3
Alaska
1.3
0.5
State
State
127
Following the representation, as advocated in Boswijk and Franses (2005), the estimation
of diffusion speeds for the states is first calculated. Using the resulting diffusion speed for each
state, we make the categorization on the clusters included in our sample as geographically
located (West, South, Midwest & Northeast). Accordingly, this distinction is shown in Table
3.28. The clustering was used to observe actual diffusion curves in each case (Figure 3.21).
Looking at the cluster results in Table 3.28; it is evident that the South cluster is the
fastest growing sector, with a much higher diffusion rate (q/p), followed by the west, while the
Midwest and Northeast are well behind. The imitation index (q) flattens the curve so for the
South and West the q-indexes are much higher, meaning that the curves grow up quickly and
flatten, while for the other 2 clusters, the curves slowly grow continuously. This analysis shall
prove the hypothesis H5a about a cluster having higher diffusion speed, being faster than others.
Figure 3.21: Diffusion Speeds of AMI for different states clusters

Probing deeper into the cluster analysis, we can see in Table 3.30 that the GDP averages
of all states included in every cluster are very close. Conducting a t-test for the clusters, the result
128
shows that only the urban concentration of inhabitants per square-mile is not significant
comparing the states in the cluster. We will be cautious about this factor in the analysis.
Table 3.28: Cluster Totals for Diffusion
Cluster
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Cum. Level
(Millions)
5.038
1.328
18.258
20.107
Maturity
(Millions)
23.854
27.550
52.441
36.405
Innovation Imitation
0.0127 0.0467
0.0093 0.0598
0.0044 0.5236
0.0094 0.4629
Diffusion
Rate
3.67
6.45
118.52
49.06
Table 3.30 shows the averages of all the states included in every cluster. Analyzing the
data, we can conclude that the imitation index of the Midwest is the highest one, but in general
the cluster in total is very low for q. Therefore we need to analyze the standard deviations to
study dispersion within the cluster.
Table 3.29: t-test Results for Clusters
Test Value = 0
Maturity Level (m)

Innovation Index (p)
Imitation Index (q)
Population Millions
GDP per capita
Inhabitants per sq. mile
t
16.517
6.307
3.802
25.376
32.625
1.045
df
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sig. (2tailed)
.000
.008
.032
.000
.000
.373
Mean
Difference
2.69793E6
.0067000
.4255000
6.00925
$48,872.750
136.91850
95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference
Lower
Upper
2.1781E6
3.2178E6
.003320
.010080
.069319
.781681
5.2556
6.7629
$44,105.38 $53,640.12
-280.0801
553.9171
Table 3.31 shows that the Midwest imitation index q is the factor with the lowest
standard deviation. Therefore, we can expect to find very different states within each cluster that
bias the average of the states within the cluster. While doing the t-test (Table 3.32) we
discovered that although the GDP averages are equivalent, the standard deviation is not, so we
129
have to be careful while analyzing this factor too. The diffusion indexes and level are equivalent;
therefore we validate the analysis of a higher diffusion rate in the South cluster compared to all
others. The next step is to analyze the geographical clusters moving from four-regions into ninedivisions, to determine if by further selecting closer states we can find differences.
Table 3.30: Average statistics by States Clusters
Average
Maturity Level (m)
Imitation Index (q)
Population (Millions)
GDP per capita
Inhabitant/sq. mile
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
2,833,187
2,623,135
3,051,408
2,283,995
0.0057
0.0093
0.0044
0.0074
0.5853
0.1058
0.5754
0.4355
6.144
5.575
6.618
5.700
$
51,052 $
45,626 $
51,759 $
47,054
530
3.583
5.706
8.385
Table 3.31: Standard Deviation statistics by States Clusters

Standard Deviation
Maturity Level (m)
Imitation Index (q)
GDP per capita
Inhabitant/sq. mile
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
2,717,328
1,996,887
2,908,508
3,769,678
0.0146
0.0106
0.0042
0.0078
0.7223
0.1742
0.5573
0.5063
6.476
4.065
6.482
9.696
$
8,253 $
4,448 $
32,997 $
10,179
435
0.515
0.849
0.506
Table 3.32: Standard Deviation t-test for States Clusters

Test Value = 0
T
Maturity Level
7.813
Innovation Index
4.229
Imitation Index
4.264
Population Millions
5.782
GDP per capita
2.165
Inhabitants per sq. mile 1.006
df
3
3
3
3
3
3
Sig.
(2- Mean
tailed)
Difference
.004
2.84810E6
.024
.0093000
.024
.4900250
.010
6.67975
.119
$13,969.250
.389
109.21750
130
95% Confidence Interval

of the Difference
Lower
Upper
1.6880E6
4.0082E6
.002301
.016299
.124288
.855762
3.0032
10.3563
$-6,568.24 $34,506.74
-236.3777
454.8127
Table 3.33: Diffusion Results by States Division
Division
New England
Mid-Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Cum. Level Maturity Level Innovation

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
1.174
5.348
0.0010
3.864
18.724
0.0133
1.236
22.024
0.0084
0.092
6.059
0.0069
9.865
27.320
0.0024
1.569
9.061
0.0091
6.824
16.060
0.0056
2.889
16.626
0.0089
17.218
19.779
0.0058
Imitation
Index
0.6341
0.1086
0.6007
0.3014
0.5696
0.2886
0.6802
Diffusion
Speed
650.82
12.99
254.69
33.13
102.46
32.27
116.49
Looking at the cluster results in Table 3.33, it is evident that the New England Division is
the fastest growing area, with a much higher diffusion rate (q/p), followed by the South Atlantic,
the Pacific and West South Central. The imitation index (q) flattens the curve, so the Pacific and
West South Central Divisions are the ones with the higher q-indexes, along with New England.
Figure 3.22: Diffusion Curves by Cluster of States by Division
131
The Pacific and West South Central Divisions include the top 2 states on amount of
installed smart meters: California and Texas. In New England, the states of Maine and Vermont
are really diffusing AMI in a short time, so their statistics look very good.
Table 3.34: t-test Results for Divisions
Test Value = 0
Maturity Level (m)

Imitation Index (q)
GDP per capita
Inhabitants per sq. mile
T
5.294
5.186
3.854
5.169
6.721
2.291
df
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sig. (2tailed)
.001
.001
.005
.001
.000
.051
Mean
Difference
3.03358E6
.0070603
.3921979
6.78515
$277,620.889
342.60350

Lower
Upper
1.7122E6
4.3549E6
.003921
.010200
.157540
.626856
3.7584
9.8119
$182,369.88 $372,871.90
-2.2107
687.4177
It is important to notice that the Pacific Division is very close to complete diffusion, with
87%, West South Central follows with 42%, while all others fall below 40% implementation.
The Mid-Atlantic and West North Central have a q-index of zero, representing a lack of
imitation. That is, only innovators are implementing AMI in these Divisions.
Table 3.35: Average statistics by States Clusters
Average
New
England
MidAtlantic
East North West North

Central
Central
South
Atlantic
East South West South

Mountain
Central
Central
Pacific
Maturity Level (m) 1,250,566 5,998,428 4,467,105 1,306,014 3,123,872 1,896,334 4,043,438 1,203,160 4,013,333
0.0011
0.0149
0.0078
0.0103
0.0038
0.0058
0.0043
0.0063
0.0093
Imitation Index (q)
0.8779
0.0000
0.1748
0.0565
0.6745
0.2652
0.6629
0.5235
0.2946
2.400
13.633
9.280
2.929
6.644
4.100
9.075
3.025
9.980
GDP per capita
$ 300,249 $ 159,223 $ 215,253 $ 332,257 $ 544,825 $ 150,798 $ 184,286 $ 348,576 $ 263,121
Inhabitant/sq. mile
478
635.200 187.720
41.292 1,400.962
106.188
78.680
26.812
128.699
The worst cases are New Jersey, New York (Mid-Atlantic), Iowa, Minnesota and the
Dakotas (West North Central Div.) Probing deeper, we can see in Table 3.35 that all variable
132
averages of all divisions are very close. By conducting a t-test; the results show that all the
variables are significant, with urban concentration significant with 5.1%.
Table 3.36: Standard Deviation statistics by States Divisions
New
MidEast North West North
South
East South West South
Mountain
Pacific
England
Atlantic
Central
Central
Atlantic
Central
Central
Maturity Level (m) 1,051,759 2,056,161 1,490,771
985,627 2,846,423
986,584 4,408,064
748,542 5,964,579
0.0026
0.0254
0.0110
0.0111
0.0047
0.0050
0.0030
0.0072
0.0091
Immitation Index (q)
0.7256
0.0000
0.2423
0.0984
0.6866
0.3096
0.3679
0.5464
0.4541
2.263
5.361
3.092
2.075
5.745
2.235
10.703
1.860
15.452
GDP per capita
$ 9,338 $ 6,729 $ 4,695 $ 3,479 $ 44,085 $ 1,445 $ 9,188 $ 10,388 $ 7,677
Inhabitant/sq. mile
440
497.724
55.104
29.476 3,362.766
38.778
26.546
18.788
118.476
Standard Deviation
Table 3.35 shows the averages of all the states included in every division. Analyzing the
data, we can see that the imitation index of the New England is the highest one, followed by the
West South Central and Mountain Divisions. Mountain is heavily pushed by Nevada, which is
doing a quick rollout of AMI. Table 3.36 presents the standard deviation of the statistics from
every Division. It is evident that there is a big spread of the AMI diffusion and general statistics
from the Divisions. Most q-indexes standard deviations are high, with the exceptions of MidAtlantic and West North Central that tend to zero, as there are no imitators but only innovators
implementing AMI in these Divisions.
Table 3.37: Statistics from the Individual States
States Stats
CA
TX
FL
GA
PA
AZ
AL
OR
MI
OK
Maturity Level (m) 14,472,050 10,643,823 9,596,693 3,887,502 6,223,840 2,701,242 2,190,337 1,721,751 4,529,777 1,813,281
0.0013
0.0045
0.0002
0.0006
0.0442
0.0118
0.0118
0.0238
0.0023
0.0068
Immitation Index (q)
1.0643
0.6915
1.0425
1.1883
0.0000
0.5869
0.5869
0.3503
0.4905
0.5029
37.300
25.100
18.800
9.700
12.700
6.400
4.800
3.800
9.900
3.800
GDP per capita
$ 51,914 $ 58,099 $ 40,106 $ 41,711 $ 45,323 $ 40,828 $ 36,333 $ 44,447 $ 37,616 $ 42,237
Inhabitant/sq. mile
283
98.070 360.200
172.500
285.300
57.050
94.650
40.330
174.800
55.220
It is important to note the outlier of urban concentration in DC, where the number of
inhabitants per square mile is 10,357, which biases the statisticsthus making it insignificant for
133
this data. Performing a t-test (Table 3.38), we confirm that the standard deviation for urban
concentration is not significant, so we remain careful in regard to this factor.
Table 3.38: Standard Deviation t-test for States Divisions
Test Value = 0
Maturity Level (m)

Imitation Index (q)
GDP per capita
Inhabitant per sq. mile
T
3.776
3.757
4.601
3.447
2.520
1.408
df
8
8
8
8
8
8
Sig. (2tailed)
.005
.006
.002
.009
.036
.197
Mean
Difference
2.28206E6
.0087781
.3812257
5.42067
$10,780.584
509.68542

Lower
Upper
888,327.1944 3.6758E6
.003390
.014166
.190145
.572307
1.7942
9.0471
$916.38
$20,644.79
-324.9295
1344.3004
Table 3.39: Top 10 States Diffusion Statistics

State
CA
TX
FL
GA
PA
AZ
AL
OR
MI
OK

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
12.101
14.472
0.001
5.692
10.644
0.004
5.882
9.597
0.000
2.460
3.888
0.001
3.863
6.224
0.044
0.862
2.701
0.012
1.491
2.190
0.012
0.833
1.722
0.024
1.090
4.530
0.002
0.804
1.813
0.007
Imitation
Index
1.0643
0.6915
1.0425
1.1883
0.5869
0.5869
0.3503
0.4905
0.5029
Diffusion
Speed
834.77
154.29
5,052.94
1,987.45
49.74
49.74
14.70
209.00
73.69
Some noteworthy comments from Table 3.39 are that Pennsylvania shows growth
following the exponential distribution, because q equals zero, while Florida and Georgia show
minimum innovation indexes with high imitation indexes, such that p equals zero; the diffusion
reduces to the logistic distribution. In other words, Pennsylvania is showing a flat behavior.
Figure 3.23 shows the important growth of AMI in the US thanks to the states of California,
134
Texas, Florida and Georgia. They are expected to reach maturity from 2019 through 2022.
Pennsylvania is continuously growing but it will not reach maturity until around the year 2144.
Figure 3.23: Diffusion curves for the Top Ten States
3.2.3.2
Utility Company Ownership
Looking at the results in Table 3.40, it is evident that the Government Owned utilities are
the ones diffusing AMI faster than the Privately Owned utilities so can support hypothesis H5b
stating that utility company ownership is important for the deployment of smart meters.
Table 3.40: Diffusion Statistics by Company Ownership
Privately Owned
Government Owned
Providers
Transmission
Cumm. Level Maturity Level Innovation Imitation Diffusion

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
Index
Speed
29.494
117.342
0.0034 0.5395 160.93
3.276
17.253
0.0027 0.5177 192.63
0.610
1.790
0.0000 1.5288
0.000
0.003
0.0049 0.0000
-
135
Despite this fact, investors have implemented more than a quarter of the total number of
meters, and the innovation and imitation indexes are higher for the private investors. Because the
injection of ARRA funds in AMI has been substantial; therefore, we see important growth in
government sector utilities. To further prove this point, we are going to separate the 4 categories
into 7 more specific ownerships.
Figure 3.24: Diffusion Speeds of AMI for different states clusters

Table 3.41: Diffusion Statistics for Ownership Categories
Ownership
Private Investors
Cooperatives
Municipalities
Federal Utilities
Political Subdivisions
Power Marketer
State Utility
Curtailment Serv. Prov.
Transmission
Cum. Level Maturity Level Innovation Imitation

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
Index
25.533
105.572
0.0010 0.7446
3.961
11.769
0.0617
1.448
11.015
0.0020 0.4862
0.971
4.164
0.0010 0.7324
0.815
2.277
0.0104 0.4348
0.604
1.784
0.0000 1.5320
0.043
0.491
0.0000 1.2769
0.006
0.006
0.0000 1.9050
0.000
0.003
0.0049
-
136
Diffusion
Speed
757
242
713
42
153,200
125,276
190,505
-
Figure 3.25: Diffusion curves by Utility Company Ownership

We can easily see in Table 3.41 that Cooperatives have an imitation index q equal to
zero, that is, they have no imitators, but only innovators. On the other hand, Power Marketers,
State Utilities, and CSP have p approaching zero; therefore, the distribution is shifting into the
future. We can prove that utilities diffusing more AMI are Federal Utilities, due to ARRA
investments.
3.2.3.3
Urban Concentration Analysis
In Table 3.42, we can see that states with an urban concentration of 501 to 1500
inhabitants per square mile do not have imitators, but only innovators. Among these states are:
Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. States with concentrations
between 251 and 500 are the ones with the highest imitation index the states in this category
137
are California and Florida. Due to the large geographical extension, Texas is in the less than 100
category.
Figure 3.26: Diffusion Speeds for AMI depending on Urban Concentration

Table 3.42: Diffusion Statistics for Urban Concentration
Concentr.
<25
<50
<100
<250
<500
<1500
>10000

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
0.644
9.035
0.010
7.305
9.802
0.008
9.326
25.633
0.008
4.064
46.914
0.008
22.157
38.458
0.007
0.956
11.662
0.000
0.279
0.809
0.002
Imitation
Index
0.240
0.296
0.487
0.195
0.526
1.076
0.652
Diffusion
Speed
24.72
39.14
62.46
23.86
77.10
107,566.68
423.97
We cannot prove hypothesis H5c, that the larger concentration cities are implementing
AMI first, because this factor is not correlated to the diffusion speed, and the DC outlier is
biasing the stats.
138
3.2.4
Hypotheses H5s Results

Table 3.43: Hypotheses H5s Results
3.2.5
Findings and Prognosis for AMI
The diffusion of AMI and thus Smart grid technology is doing fine. There are some states
that are the most important contributors for this implementation, but in general the whole country
is moving in this direction. The economics of this implementation will surely have an impact
because consumers are not willing to pay extra for a device if they do not fully understand the
benefits it will bring to their home. The government has been investing money in AMI diffusion,
such that we can see in the analysis that governmental entities are promoting diffusion faster than
even the private sector. There are some internet sites where people are conducting campaigns to
stop the deployment of smart meters, claiming that these devices are causing birth defects, and
provoking headaches to the people who have these pieces of equipment installed at their homes.
We believe that education is needed to stop this false advertising.
3.3 ELECTRIC VEHICLES BACKGROUND INFORMATION

According to our survey, in chapter seven of this dissertation, the Electric Vehicle is
139
hardly considered by consumers as part of the Smart Grid general concept. They see it as a
necessary investment when the time is right. Consumers seem to be expecting the prices to drop,
and to see how the charging of the vehicle into their homes will have an impact on their monthly
electricity bills. Because there are so few vehicles at this time, their impact on the consumption
of electricity is not noticeable yet (Heuer et al., 2011).
Khattak et al. (2012) consider that the electric vehicle could hold the largest potential
within the smart grid to deliver carbon savings, so the implementation process needs to be
included into the SGD projects. One major area of research is the problem of millions of electric
vehicles charging batteries at the same time while connected to the general grid. This
phenomenon is called V2G (vehicle to grid connection). An aspect that is being explored more
nowadays is the role of the electric vehicle as a consumer of energy, but also as a mobile energy
source (Couillet et al., 2012). This flexibility of the electric vehicles reinforces the modern
concept of prosumers, wherein the consumer also becomes a producer of energy, and sells the
excess to the utility company for a just price.
3.3.1
Implementation Progress
It is important to differentiate between two types of vehicles that are grouped under this
category: Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) and Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV). PHEV is
a vehicle that can operate with either electricity or an alternative energy source. PEV uses only
electricity to operate and is plugged-in to recharge the battery in order to be prepared for further
use. PEVs sales in the US began in 2010, while hybrids have been on the market since 1999.
There are several factors that have been influencing the erratic behavior of the PHEV growth, as
there was an increasing period from 1999 to 2007. But then the trend reversed to decrease until
2011when it reached bottom and began growing again. We are going to analyze some of the
140
factors that may be the major contributors for this behavior.

3.3.2
Hypotheses H6
Based on our consumers experience, we expect that electric vehicle growth is strongly
influenced by the price of gas or oil in general, government incentives, the cost of the vehicle
itself, availability of charging stations, wattage of the battery, and miles to run under a normal
battery charge.
To evaluate these factors we develop the following hypotheses:
H6a. PHEV sales are influenced by the price of gasoline
H6b. PHEV sales are influenced by the governmental incentives to consumers
H6c. PHEV sales are influenced by the cost of the vehicle
H6d. PHEV sales are influenced by the availability of charging stations in the area
H6e. PHEV sales are influenced by the wattage of the battery in the vehicle
H6f. PHEV sales are influenced by the number of miles run in a single battery charge
3.3.3
Deployment of Electric Vehicles in the US
The number of vehicles sold in the US is shown in Figure 3.27. The chart shows both
PEV and PHEV together, although we are going to focus on PHEV for the analysis (as there is a
longer period of time available to come up with conclusions). Figure 3.28 shows the average
price of gasoline in the US. Although there are some statistics per region, we are using the
national average to compare with national sales of PHEVs.
141
Figure 3.27: Electric vehicles produced in the U.S.

Table 3.44: Regression results for gasoline price vs PHEV sales
Conducting a linear regression analysis for the number of PHEVs sold in the US, and the
average price of gasoline in the year, we find an R2 of .873 and a significance of less than 1%.
With these results we can support hypothesis H6a regarding the cost of gasoline correlating to
the number of PHEV units sold in the US. The government has been giving tax credits to
consumers who buy PHEVs in order to promote their diffusion.
142
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13
Figure 3.28: Average Gasoline Prices (Source: eia.gov)

Checking the analysis done by David Diamond (2009), he discovered a weak relationship
between government incentives and PHEVs adoptions. For our research, we looked for federal
tax credits per manufacturer and calculated the average for all vehicles, then, based on the
number of sold units, we tried to find non-linear regressions. The best non-linear regression was
the S-distribution, with an R2 of 0.374 and significance of 8%. Based on these results, we do not
support the hypotheses H6b, as we agree with Diamond that the federal government incentives
do not have a relationship with the number of PHEVs sold. Some companies do not show tax
credit incentives, as shown on Table 3.45, so they were not used for the comparison. The price of
the PHEVs varies based on the vehicles features, so companies like General Motors are pushing
low price PHEVs through Saturn, and big trucks such as the Silverado, Yukon and Tahoe with
higher prices. Porsche is selling sport luxury cars that can be as costly as the Panamera with a
manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of almost 100,000 dollars. In 2007, PHEVs prices
dropped in order to overcome the fall of sales, but the average price still went down for the first
time, and in 2011 the number of sold vehicles was reduced, while the average cost of sold
143
PHEVs went up considerably. Figure 3.29 shows the breakdown of PHEVs by manufacturer and
year. In Figure 3.30 we can also see how, following 2011, the average prices balanced down with
a positive more realistic trend upward.
Table 3.45: Average tax credits vs. PHEVs sold in the US
Company
Ford
Toyota
Nissan
Lexus
GMC
Mercedes
Porsche
Honda
BMW
Hyundai
Kia
Volkswagen
Infiniti
Acura
Mazda
Audi
Chrysler
Tax credit Sold units

$ 2,808
288,264
$ 2,782 1,948,737
$ 2,350
36,947
$ 2,038
230,899
$ 1,874
105,151
$ 1,850
2,529
$ 1,800
4,410
$ 1,625
358,945
$ 1,333
3,227
62,188
24,406
6,575
2,527
2,433
1,229
1,124
46
Figure 3.29: Hybrid vehicles breakdown by brand

144
$32,000
$30,000
$28,000
$26,000
$24,000
$22,000
$20,000
$18,000
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13
Figure 3.30: Number of PHEVs sold versus average price

The number of hybrid vehicles sold in the US in the period from 1999 through 2013
presents a positive trend, as compared to the average price of all sold PHEVs. Because the
amount of expensive hybrid vehicles is small, the averages do not grow that much on a yearly
basis, although there are very expensive PEVs that are sold in smaller amounts. Doing a linear
regression analysis between these two variables we have found a favorable relationship.
Although the R2 is 0.693, we see a significant relationship between the price of the PHEV and
the volume sold. If the demand and offer of PHEVs in the market react as expected, the higher
prices would imply lower the sales, but as in the gasoline vehicles the prices mostly increase on a
yearly basis, seeing increases on PHEVs may have the same impact. Based on the above results,
we can support hypothesis H6c, stating that the price of PHEVs has an impact on their sales.
To discover the relationship between available PHEVs to the number of charging stations, we
have to research the number of stations and number of registered vehicles per statein order to
determine if one has an impact on the other. The more vehicles, the more charging stations, but if
the number of charging stations is limited, sales of PHEVs may be affected negatively.
145
Table 3.46: Regression results for PHEV price vs sales
One noteworthy state from Table 3.47 is New Jersey, which has 120 electrical charging
stations for over 37k PHEVs. That is, there are 312 vehicles per charging station, which is
overcrowded. It is important to note the closeness of New York which could alleviate the load,
but NY has a problem of its own, as the number of vehicles per station there is 206. Another
noteworthy state to analyze is Oregon, which has 384 stations for roughly 14k PHEVs. In other
words, there is a station for every 37 vehicles. The state distances may play a role here, but they
are on the opposite side of the situation in NJ and NY. Therefore these stations are certainly not
being used enough to make it economically feasible. The amount of stations and the number of
registered vehicles make sense in most cases. Conducting a regression analysis, we found a
linear relation with a R2 of 0.906 and significance below 1.3%. With these results we can support
hypothesis H6d, that there is a regression between the number of loading stations and the number
of PHEVs. As the number of PHEVs increases, the number of charging stations will have to
grow accordingly otherwise, it can become a reason for the PHEV and PEV deployment.
146
Table 3.47: Registered PHEVs vs. charging stations per state
CA
TX
FL
WA
OR
NY
IL
AZ
MI
NC
MA
MD
PA
VA
OH
CO
NJ
Stations Reg Veh PHEV/St.

1805 367,075
203.37
633 70,359
111.15
494 73,852
149.50
460 48,430
105.28
384 14,287
37.21
344 70,923
206.17
307 53,816
175.30
287 24,475
85.28
284
5,899
20.77
242 29,070
120.12
234 40,760
174.19
231 36,618
158.52
169 45,642
270.07
168 50,811
302.45
138 20,506
148.59
129 19,981
154.89
120 37,477
312.31
.
Figure 3.31: Plug-in Electric vehicles breakdown in the U.S.
To analyze the battery size and wattage before relating these elements to sales, we need
to categorize based upon the model and company. We can see in Figure 3.31 the distribution of
147
PEVs separated by their manufacturing company. This breakdown is compared to the average
battery size by company in order to test the relationship among sales and battery size
Table 3.48: PEV Sales in 2013, Battery Size and Miles Run in One Charge
Distance in
Battery size
PEV Vehicle Sales in 2013
one charge
(KWh)
(Miles)
Volt
Leaf
Model S*
Prius Plug In
C-Max
Fusion
Focus
RAV4 EV
i
forTwo
Fit EV
Spark
Accord
500E
Panamera SE
ELR
23,094
22,610
18,650
12,088
7,154
6,089
1,738
1,096
1,029
923
569
539
526
405
86
6
16
24
42
4.4
7.6
7.6
23
41.8
16
17.6
20
20
6.7
24
9.4
16.5
40
75
150
15
21
21
76
103
62
68
82
82
13
87
20
35
Researching the battery size for plug-in electric vehicles, we discovered that there are
some hybrids still categorized together with the PEVs, because they can perform as pure electric
vehicleswhile later gasoline will kick in to continue the trip. Using only the PEVs and battery
size measured in kilowatt-hours, we came up with the Table 3.48 wherein we compare the
number of units sold, the wattage of the battery and miles run in one charge. Conducting
numerical analysis we found that there is no correlation between these numbers. Therefore we
cannot support hypothesis H6e, stating that the battery size has an impact on sales of electric
vehicles, or hypothesis H6f that the miles run in a single battery charge have an impact on sales.
148
3.3.4
Findings and Prognosis for Electric Vehicles
There is an important diffusion of electric vehicles in the US, as the manufacturers and
the state and federal governments are addressing some of the major concerns. One of the major
concerns about electric vehicles has been battery durability and reliability. This issue has been
addressed as more plug-in electric cars are being sold now with larger batteries. But there is still
the concern about the cost of the replacement battery and what is going to be done with the old
one. As new and more efficient batteries are being developed, the cost of the PEVs is going
down and new lower price versions are appearing. We are finding that with the ever increasing
cost of gas, the trends of hybrid and plug-in vehicles are going up, but until the cost of gas
becomes prohibitive, the larger proportion of vehicles is not going to be electric.
Table 3.49: Hypotheses H6 Results
Government incentives are not having the expected major effect, although some
publications mention that consumers have been taking all the credits and incentives from the
149
governmental programs. One proposed action for the government in the social media is to
increase the taxes on gas, which would definitively have a major impact on the diffusion of
electric cars. More and more charging stations are being installed throughout the country, with a
growth rate of 30% in 2013 (DoE, 2014).
There is an expectation that this growth is going to become exponential to satisfy the
large demand of electric vehicles; but the battery sizes and miles run with a single battery charge
do not seem to have a big impact on sales, probably due to the fact that batteries are still
evolving.
3.4 CYBER RISKS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
With the growth and dependency of new devices in technology, the functions and
decision-making processes of servers, that include multiple computers within the organization,
have become more and more vulnerable to harm. Companies are spending lots of money to
prevent security breaches in those matrixes of systems that could be going from simple intrusions
to data alteration detectable only after the harm has been done.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2007) define the elements of
security
as:
Identification,
Authentication,
Authorization,
Integrity,
Non-Repudiation,
Confidentiality and Privacy NIST 800-95 (Singhal et al., 2007, p. 22-23). Under this definition,
we consider a security breach as any external, web-based act that infringes security policies,
practices, or procedures that result in the violation of any of the elements of security delineated
by the NIST standard.
President Obama, in February 2013, issued a request to the NIST to develop a framework
for protection against cyber-attacks, which have been identified as one of the most serious threats
to national security. In response to the executive order Improving Critical Infrastructure
150
Cybersecurity (Obama, 2013) the NIST will use a Request for Information (RFI) and ongoing
stakeholder engagement to:
1.
Identify existing cybersecurity standards, guidelines, frameworks, and best practices that are
applicable to increase the security of critical infrastructure sectors and other interested
entities
2.
Specify high-priority gaps for which new or revised standards are needed
3.
Collaboratively develop action plans by which these gaps can be addressed (NIST, 2013).
In the taxonomy of cybersecurity, the terms security and privacy breaches are
overlapping because there are some attacks that compromise the confidentiality of data--such as
credit card information theft, source code, or unauthorized accessbut there are some integritybreaching attacks that compromise the security of the data and information assets, such as
viruses and worms).
With the increase of dependency on Information and Communication Technology (ICT),
the Internet has become a critical tool not only for merchandising and marketing of products and
services, but also to communicate critical information for decision making. Not entering into the
ICT revolution is similar to accepting defeat, because not allowing users to access the systems to
prevent being vulnerable to possible breaches could impede us from tendering services (Bolster
at al. 2010). Some companies claim that in order to have a robust and solid system they are going
to expend prohibitive amounts of money to defend from attacks, even though protecting from
insiders attacks is much more difficult (because unsuspected people within the company have
full access and knowledge about the systems). In a study by Andoh-Baidoo et al. (2010) they
conclude that most breaches come from the outside, but now with Smart Grids, any cyber-attack
will be from the inside as all devices will be interconnected.
151
Looking at the available information about the cleaning or repairing cost after security
breaches, we are not certain that companies are reporting when they are breached, and how much
it is costing them to bring the system back up again and recover credibility. This cost also
includes communication expenditures to the affected customers, and the procurement of counter
and preventive measures to prevent future incidences (Bolster et al. 2010). Damages from
breaches can result in tangible or intangible costs (Cavusoglu et al. 2004) that will be measurable
at the future sales of the company, as reported in their public income statements.
3.4.1
Security Breaches Measures and Research Focus
Once the breaches are announced, the companies have to fix the damage that resulted
from the breach. The damage may result in unexpected losses that will affect the bottom line;
therefore we would expect the market to react accordingly and penalize those breached
companies. For instance, in 2003 the estimated financial losses by firms reporting breaches due
to viruses and other form of worms ranged from $13 billion to $226 billion, the latter figure
includes all attacks (Cashell et al. 2010).
Cashell et al. presented a 2004 Congressional Research Service Report that describes
these security issues in an attempt to assess our readiness as a nation. Much of the equation
needed to analyze the nations readiness depends, as they explain, on the frequency of the
expected attacks, the ability to quantify damages on a precise matter and in the ability to
determine the optimal level of resources to be effective. Studies show that firms lose up to 15%
of their market capitalization where attackers had gained access to confidential customer
records (Cashell et al., 2004; p. 5). The report also provides empirical examples of costs that
could be attributed to security breachesalthough data was considered limited in natureas
well as the underlying incentives companies have not to report these attacks combined with the
152
inability to quantify damages effectively. The impact of a companys financial market, its
reputation, litigation problems, liability issues, internal resistance to admit fault and the
advertisement of security weakness were some of the incentives that the report highlighted as
disincentives to report breaches. In this section we are going to focus on comparing intentional,
vulnerability and false data injection attacks for companies that have announced these breaches.
The events will be separated based on their intentionality and if the fraud was consumed or not.
3.4.2
Types of Cybersecurity Risks
Chen et al. (2012) introduced several intelligent attacks and countermeasures in

communication networks. The authors focus on three main attacks and their countermeasures.
First attack: vulnerability attack, generated by the malfunction of a device. Second attack: data
injection attack, which alters the data in order to manipulate the operations. Finally, the last
attack described is an intentional attack, implemented through denial-of-service attack causing
network disruption. These different attacks are illustrated in the Figure 3.32.
Figure 3.32: Types of Cyber Attacks based on Chen et al. (2012)
153
3.4.3
Hypotheses H7
Based on what we have presented in the literature review and theoretical framework, we
have developed 4 hypotheses. We expect that companies will more likely publicly report they
have been breached if there is vulnerability in their systems and they are addressing how they are
correcting the vulnerabilities. This type of breach may not affect the companys image so long as
they already have a solution to the problem.
H7a: Vulnerability attacks will have the highest number of incidences.
The vulnerability category includes hackers attacks, but it also includes when systems
weaknesses are discovered and involuntarily confidential information is disclosed. Based on
these definitions we expect that most of the vulnerability attacks are going to be due to hacks and
disclosures.
H7b: Vulnerability attacks are mostly due to hack attacks and information involuntary disclosed
Intentional attacks include the theft of mobile or static devices containing confidential
information; this could be considered system vulnerability, but as there is an intentional
participation of another party (thief), we classify it in this category.
H7c: Most intentional attacks affect mobile and stationary devices
False data injection attacks include fraud where the system information is altered or
misused to benefit another person. Being an attack by someone with experience on the specifics
and functions of the system, we expect most of these attacks to be conducted internally.
H7d: Most false data injection incidents come from within the breached company
3.4.4
Methodology
Based on the analyzed security breaches, we selected the period from 2005 to 2013, using
the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Internet database. There are 4,122 breaches listed within the
154
database which are divided into categories as shown in Table 3.50. Whenever a system allows
information to be visible, allows people to access protected data or files, or cannot be protected
from being breached, we are categorizing the event as a Vulnerability Attack and will be
accounted as a device malfunction. When a system is breached via non-allowed (theft or
prohibited) access, it is going to be classified as an Intentional Attack, i.e. a disruption of the
system. When individuals breach the system and use the data for their own benefit, it will be
categorized as a False Data Injection attack that manipulates the system operations.
Table 3.50: Categories of Security Breaches (Source: Privacy Rights Clearinghouse)
Category
Details
Sensitive information posted publicly on a website, mishandled or sent to the wrong
Unintended disclosure DISC
party via email, fax or mail.
Hacking or malware HACK
Electronic entry by an outside party, malware and spyware.
Fraud involving debit and credit cards that is not accomplished via hacking. For
Payment Card Fraud CARD
example, skimming devices at point-of-service terminals.
Someone with legitimate access intentionally breaches information - such as an
Insider
INSD
employee or contractor.
Physical loss
PHYS
Lost, discarded or stolen non-electronic records, such as paper documents
Lost, discarded or stolen laptop, PDA, smartphone, portable memory device, CD,
Portable device
PORT
hard drive, data tape, etc
Lost, discarded or stolen stationary electronic device such as a computer or server
Stationary device
STAT
not designed for mobility.
Unknown or other
UNKN
The victims of breaches are also classified into seven categories, as shown in Table 3.51.
For this study it is important to identify the victimized area, in order to assess frequencies,
timing, types of attacks, and sizes of breaches. An important finding of this study is the most
frequently attacked category, and the most popular type of attack.
The number of reported security breaches has been growing to a level around 600 events
per year for the last four years, as shown in Figure 3.33. Most of the breaches are related to
vulnerability, followed by intentional attacks, and the least of the three are false data injections.
155
Figure 3.33: Number of Breaches per Year

Table 3.51: Breaches Victims Categories
Cat.
BSO
BSF
BSR
EDU
GOV
MED
NGO
Detail
Businesses - Other
Businesses - Financial and Insurance Services
Businesses - Retail/Merchant
Educational Institutions
Government and Military
Healthcare - Medical Providers
Nonprofit Organizations
Figure 3.34: Number of Breaches Victims per Year

156
When we consider the number of affected victims of the attacks, we see an erratic
behavior that has peaked in 2009 and 2011. The number of victims depends very much upon the
type of attack, as there are some unique events that bias the charts very deeply. But in both cases,
the number of vulnerability attacks is larger than the other two, such that we can support H7a. To
have a better idea, we analyzed the number of breaches versus the categories that were attacked.
Figure 3.35: Number of Breaches per Categories and Groups of Victims
Figure 3.36: Number of Breached Victims by Group

Figure 3.35 shows that medical providers are the most often attacked sectors, followed by
157
education and government, but when we analyze the victims, the story is different, as seen in
Figure 3.36; businesses are the sector with the most victims. Other businesses are number one,
followed by retailers and financial. Although the medical sector is the most attacked, the number
of affected people is much smaller, while in the business sector, the number of victims has been
comparatively very large.
Table 3.52: Number of Breaches versus Type of Attack
D
I
V
Total
PORT HACK
DISC
INSD
0.19% 0.00% 1.09% 52.38%
87.63% 0.43% 0.68% 44.05%
12.17% 99.57% 98.22% 3.57%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
PHYS
STAT
2.61% 0.42%
20.24% 95.76%
77.15% 3.81%
100.0% 100.0%
UNKN CARD
Total
17.42% 0.00% 7.54%
12.88% 0.00% 35.78%
69.70% 100.00% 56.67%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
D
I
V
Total
PORT HACK
DISC
INSD
PHYS
STAT UNKN CARD
0.64% 0.00% 2.57% 84.89% 4.18% 0.32% 7.40% 0.00%
61.02% 0.27% 0.34% 15.05% 6.85% 15.32% 1.15% 0.00%
5.35% 39.64% 30.74% 0.77% 16.48% 0.39% 3.94% 2.70%
24.92% 22.56% 17.73% 12.23% 12.11% 5.73% 3.20% 1.53%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 3.53: Number of Victims by Type of Attack versus Breach

HACK PORT
DISC UNKN
D
0.00% 0.69% 0.00% 0.07%
I
0.00% 48.59% 0.00% 15.07%
V
100.0% 50.72% 100.0% 84.87%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
INSD
STAT CARD PHYS
Total
58.97% 1.16% 0.00% 0.54% 1.58%
37.29% 97.27% 0.00% 5.06% 9.97%
3.74% 1.56% 100.0% 94.40% 88.45%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
HACK PORT
DISC UNKN INSD
STAT CARD PHYS
D
0.00% 5.77% 0.02% 0.38% 92.86% 0.88% 0.00% 0.09%
I
0.01% 64.90% 0.00% 13.90% 9.33% 11.73% 0.00% 0.14%
V
71.98% 7.63% 10.53% 8.83% 0.11% 0.02% 0.61% 0.29%
Total 63.66% 13.31% 9.31% 9.20% 2.49% 1.20% 0.54% 0.28%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Analyzing Tables 3.52 and 3.53, we can see that most of the vulnerability attacks fall
under the categories of Hack and Disclosure, having 39.64% and 30.74% of all vulnerability
events; that is, over 70% of these attacks are under these two categories. Looking at the number
of victims, the results are even larger, as they account for 82.5% of all victims breached under
158
these same two categories. Based on this result, we can support hypothesis H7b which states that
most vulnerability attacks fall under the hacks and involuntary disclosure categories.
Table 3.54: Number of Breaches and Victims per State
State
CA
NY
TX
FL
IL
OH
GA
MA
PA
NC
VA
DC
IN
CO
WA
Others
Total
D
31
28
28
46
16
3
14
7
9
5
8
6
6
4
9
91
311
I
210
136
88
68
58
59
59
40
51
41
29
31
31
40
40
494
1,475
V # Breaches Total Victims Victims/Breach

322
563
359,226,263
638,057
193
357
29,865,497
83,657
145
261
265,896,989
1,018,762
117
231
32,493,972
140,667
98
172
10,181,190
59,193
88
150
15,400,271
102,668
64
137
19,258,447
140,573
89
136
103,231,000
759,051
72
132
14,802,295
112,139
74
120
2,459,549
20,496
72
109
2,840,508
26,060
68
105
136,693,912
1,301,847
68
105
2,482,603
23,644
55
99
5,407,745
54,624
43
92
36,552,528
397,310
768
1,353
299,226,313
49,549
2,336
4,122 1,336,019,082
324,119
Almost 76% of all intentional attacks are related to portable and static equipment theft;
therefore we can support hypothesis H7c. And seeing that almost 85% of all false data injection
attacks and almost 93% of the victims are caused by insiders, we can also support hypothesis
H7d. Digging deeper into the attacks, we separate the breaches per state, where the event was
located. Not surprisingly, California is the state with the most attacks, accounting for 14% of all
breaches and 27% of all victims. New York is second in events but tenth on victims, showing
that the breaches in NY are smaller in nature having a ratio of 83,657 victims per breach.
Texas is third in events, but second in victims as the breaches have an index of 1.018 million
victims per breach. DC is number twelve in the list for the number of breaches, but the number
159
of victims is so high, that the ratio is the highest in the list. DC averages 1.3 million victims per
breach. In general, the number of victims per breach of the whole database is 324,119 victims
per breach, so any state having an index much higher than this mean should be analyzed. In the
top-15 list shown in Table 3.54, noteworthy mentions include DC, TX, MA, CA and WA.
Table 3.55: Detail of Victims per Type of Breach
State
CA
TX
DC
NJ
MA
MN
AZ
WA
FL
NY
NV
GA
OH
PA
IL
Others
Total
D
17,237,048
59,039
8,340
12
8,416
25,165
1,916
1,517
1,321,425
12,206
170,776
13,329
44,511
15,810
2,236,830
21,156,340
I
13,819,420
2,903,161
27,106,154
2,029,334
520,142
4,362,355
386,852
678,710
29,263,610
5,329,755
333,772
3,999,724
2,286,185
12,783,192
7,218,451
20,165,709
133,186,526
V
Total Victims Breaches Victims/Breach
328,169,795
359,226,263
563
638,057
262,934,789
265,896,989
261
1,018,762
109,579,418
136,693,912
105
1,301,847
130,546,100
132,575,446
87
1,523,856
102,702,442
103,231,000
136
759,051
40,447,684
44,835,204
75
597,803
42,895,003
43,283,771
64
676,309
35,872,301
36,552,528
92
397,310
1,908,937
32,493,972
231
140,667
24,523,536
29,865,497
357
83,657
24,349,360
24,683,132
34
725,974
15,087,947
19,258,447
137
140,573
13,100,757
15,400,271
150
102,668
1,974,592
14,802,295
132
112,139
10,181,190
172
59,193
2,946,929
44,636,626
67,039,165
1,526
43,931
1,181,676,216 1,336,019,082
4,122
324,119
Comparing the number of breaches to the victimized areas, we see that 34% of all
medical breaches were related to portable devices, while 41.8% and 33% of all business retail
and education breaches were hacks respectively. Not surprisingly, 55.6% of all card frauds were
targeted to retailer and 34.9% to financial businesses. Insider and physical attacks, as well as
mobile and static devices theft were higher for the medical sector. In a way, these results are
showing the vulnerability of the medical sector in regards to mobility of equipment and
information that is critical. Conducting the same analysis now for the amount of breached
victims, the story changes also, as shown in Table 3.57.
160
Table 3.56: Types of Breaches versus Victimized Areas

Type
CARD
DISC
HACK
INSD
PHYS
PORT
STAT
UNKN
Total
Victimized Sector
MED
EDU
GOV
BSF
BSO
BSR
NGO
TOTAL
0.09% 0.14% 0.00% 4.06% 0.75% 7.28% 0.00% 1.53%
12.16% 29.63% 27.48% 14.94% 13.21% 9.36% 8.25% 17.73%
5.39% 33.01% 15.47% 19.19% 37.55% 41.79% 29.90% 22.56%
18.10% 3.23% 10.51% 15.87% 10.00% 13.72% 8.25% 12.23%
17.92% 7.58% 15.17% 10.15% 8.87% 7.48% 10.31% 12.11%
34.64% 17.70% 24.77% 25.83% 22.45% 13.31% 35.05% 24.92%
8.96% 6.74% 3.60% 4.43% 3.96% 3.33% 5.15% 5.73%
2.74% 1.97% 3.00% 5.54% 3.21% 3.74% 3.09% 3.20%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.00%
Type
CARD
DISC
HACK
INSD
PHYS
PORT
STAT
UNKN
Total
Victimized Sector
MED
EDU
GOV
BSF
BSO
BSR
NGO
TOTAL
1.59% 1.59% 0.00% 34.92% 6.35% 55.56% 0.00% 100.0%
18.19% 28.86% 25.03% 11.08% 9.58% 6.16% 1.09% 100.0%
6.34% 25.27% 11.08% 11.18% 21.40% 21.61% 3.12% 100.0%
39.29% 4.56% 13.89% 17.06% 10.52% 13.10% 1.59% 100.0%
39.28% 10.82% 20.24% 11.02% 9.42% 7.21% 2.00% 100.0%
36.90% 12.27% 16.07% 13.63% 11.59% 6.23% 3.31% 100.0%
41.53% 20.34% 10.17% 10.17% 8.90% 6.78% 2.12% 100.0%
22.73% 10.61% 15.15% 22.73% 12.88% 13.64% 2.27% 100.0%
26.54% 17.27% 16.16% 13.15% 12.86% 11.67% 2.35% 100.0%
Table 3.57: Breached Victims versus Victimized Sector

Type
HACK
PORT
DISC
UNKN
INSD
STAT
CARD
PHYS
Totak
Victimized Sector
BSO
BSR
BSF
GOV
MED
EDU
NGO
TOTAL
63.31% 99.14% 68.24% 6.23% 5.69% 56.13% 65.06% 63.66%
1.48% 0.49% 10.59% 72.32% 57.50% 7.90% 14.19% 13.31%
16.46% 0.10% 0.45% 18.01% 5.25% 12.76% 0.05% 9.31%
18.37% 0.01% 6.90% 0.06% 0.68% 17.02% 0.73% 9.20%
0.12% 0.02% 10.59% 0.66% 2.53% 1.32% 19.47% 2.49%
0.24% 0.20% 0.69% 1.07% 25.96% 4.40% 0.41% 1.20%
0.01% 0.04% 2.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.54%
0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 1.64% 2.39% 0.47% 0.10% 0.28%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.00%
Type
HACK
PORT
DISC
UNKN
INSD
STAT
CARD
PHYS
Total
Victimized Sector
BSO
BSR
BSF
GOV
MED
EDU
NGO
TOTAL
40.85% 34.09% 22.27% 1.17% 0.25% 0.97% 0.39% 100.0%
4.57% 0.81% 16.53% 64.74% 12.29% 0.65% 0.41% 100.0%
72.59% 0.24% 1.00% 23.05% 1.61% 1.51% 0.00% 100.0%
82.04% 0.01% 15.59% 0.08% 0.21% 2.04% 0.03% 100.0%
1.92% 0.16% 88.29% 3.14% 2.89% 0.58% 3.00% 100.0%
8.25% 3.62% 11.86% 10.63% 61.49% 4.03% 0.13% 100.0%
0.56% 1.75% 97.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0%
1.47% 0.24% 0.55% 71.07% 24.65% 1.89% 0.14% 100.0%
41.08% 21.89% 20.78% 11.92% 2.85% 1.10% 0.38% 100.0%
161
Considering the victimized sectors, it is eye opening to see that 99% of the retailer breaches,
68% of the financial, 65% of the NGOs, 63% of the other businesses and 56% of education
victims are due to hacks. 97% of all card frauds and 88% of insider attacks were targeted to the
financial sector. 64% of all portable devices breaches happened in the government sector, and
61% of the static equipment thefts took place in the medical areas.
3.4.5
Hypotheses Results
3.4.6
Conclusions
Based on the prior analysis we conclude that California and Texas are the main targets
for these cyber-attacks, which take the form of mining credit card frauds for retailers and
financial institutions; stealing information and devices in the government agencies; attacking
stationary medical equipment, and wrongful use of information done by insiders. Related to
energy distribution, there are no incidents that have been reported, with the exceptions of stolen
data, but no load redistribution as of yet. It is not surprising to discover that CA and TX are the
highest technology states and are also the ones with the most attacks, so we are foreseeing data
injection attacks coming soon.
162
3.5 ADDING ALL DIFFUSIONS TOGETHER

In this chapter, we analyze the diffusion of some technologies under the umbrella
of Smart Grid Distribution to compare them in regards to starting time, rate of adoption
and rate of innovation. It is our expectation that distributed generation, advanced
metering and electric vehicles are growing at high rates, but the risk of cyber-attacks is
also growing, affecting the overall consumer perception of whether to adopt these
technologies.
3.5.1
Distributed Generation Diffusion
Section 3.1.7 contains studies for wind and solar electricity generation diffusion;
the measure of the diffusion is in Billions KWh. Using the Department of Energy yearly
consumption statistic per household of 10,837 kWh, we calculated the number of homes
that can be covered with the generated electricity using wind and solar energy. In 2013
we calculated that 0.85 million homes could be satisfied with the 9.250 billion KWh
generated using solar cells, and the number of households that could be satisfied with the
167.7 billion KWh generated by wind mills is 15.5 million. Conducting Bass diffusion
analysis for the number of homes that technically use solar and wind energy, we found
that the maturity level for solar is around 3.5 million households and 24.5 for wind.
Table 3.59: Diffusion Results for Homes with Solar/Wind Energy
Wind
Solar
DG

(M-homes) (M-homes)
Index
15.472
24.520
0.00007
0.854
3.490
0.00001
16.325
29.707
0.00008
163
Imitation
Index
0.3790
0.3771
0.3555
Diffusion
Speed
5,240
37,711
4,192
Figure 3.37: Diffusion of Wind and Solar Generated Electricity by Households

Figure 3.36 shows that solar energy generation is diffusing slower than wind. Putting
both sources together, the DG curve shows that maturity will be reached by the year 2030, which
is the goal of the governments plan to increase renewable sources energy generation.
3.5.2
Smart Meters Diffusion
Section 3.2.3.1 contains analysis for division and national diffusion of smart meters to
determine if smart meters are being diffused in the United States. For our purposes, we will focus
only on the number of households with smart meters, as the national maturity level is 140 million
households; at this time the approximate number of homes is 160 million homes. Figure 3.38
shows the comparison of diffusion curves for the Census Divisions and it is noticeable that the
West and South are the regions diffusing AMI faster, so they are driving the national curve.
164
Figure 3.38: Smart Meters Diffusion by Census Division and Total US
3.5.3
Electric Vehicles Diffusion
Section 3.3 shows the deployment of both Plug-in Hybrid and Electric Vehicles. The
diffusion curve is hard to predict because there was a period of reduction in sales of hybrid
electric cars when the gas price and the incentives went down. In the past four years, there has
been a renewed effort and the numbers are showing a rapid increase introducing electric
vehicles, even the Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV), which has been dominating the market as of
2010. Adding both types of vehicles we get the total diffusion curve for the US, such that we can
compare electric vehicles with the diffusion of other Smart Grid technologies. It is important to
notice that due to the slowing of sales in the past few years, the curve seems to be reaching
maturity, when in reality; there is still a big market to go after. For this dissertations purposes,
we are going to use the curve with this caveat.
165
3.5
Number of Sold Vehicles (Millions)
3.0
PHEV
2.5
PEV
Both
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
'99
'02
'05
'08
'11
Year
'14
'17
'20
'23
Figure 3.39: Electric Vehicles Diffusion in the US

3.5.4
Cyber Attacks Diffusion
Section 3.4 focuses on the types of cyber-attacks that have occurred in the past nine
years, so we have also conducted Bass diffusion for these attacks in order to see the growth and
determine if its growth has an effect on the implementation of ICT in general. The curve of False
Data Injection (FDI) in Figure 3.40 shows a late appearance and seems to have stabilized as this
issue is not continuously growing anymore. Vulnerability attacks are the most common form of
attack, although they seem to have reached maturity, that is, there is no gradual growth other
than an incidental increase that is driven by special circumstances, like the Target breach from
December 2013 that affected 40 million people. Intentional attacks grew very quickly but now
seem to be stabilizing with the worst events already over.
166
Figure 3.40: Cyber Attacks Diffusion in the US
3.5.5
All the Prior Diffusions Together
Taking into consideration the starting year for every diffusion curve, we categorize
Distributed Generation, Smart Meters (AMI), Electric Vehicles, and Cyber-attacks in the same
chart to compare behaviors and rates.
Table 3.60: Diffusion Comparison of SG Technologies
AMI
EV
DG
Cyber

(Millions)
(Millions)
Index
45.689
140.251
0.0074
2.820
3.291
0.0031
16.325
29.707
0.00008
1,336.019
1,533.237
0.0245
167
Imitation Diffusion
Index
Speed
0.3820
52
0.4424
141
0.3555 4,192
0.5377
22
Figure 3.41: Smart grid Technologies Diffusion Comparison

Distributed Generation is the element of SGD that appeared first in 1990, mostly driven
by California Solar and Wind farms. Electric vehicles appeared second but their growth is much
smaller than the others, because of the decreases in sales in the middle period. Cyber-attacks
grew quickly and affected millions of people, but the counter measures have been effective in
that there are no dramatic increases in attacks and victims. The diffusion that is going on strong
is the one for smart meters, which will reach maturity in the next ten years.
3.5.6
Conclusions
Even though there is risk of cyber-attacks, the diffusion of smart meters, distributed
generation and electric vehicles is alive and well! We predict that Electric Vehicles are going to
recover from the backlash and grow to a much higher maturity level, replacing most vehicles on
the road.
168
CHAPTER 4: ROLE OF CONSUMERS IN THE NEW BUSINESS MODEL

According to a survey conducted by the Harris Interactive Polls (2011), almost two thirds
(61%) of Americans consider themselves knowledgeable about energy issues. This number is
slightly better but not significantly different than the 59% result of Harris 2009 survey. In
regards to specific regions, 67% of the people were knowledgeable on energy issues in the East
and 64% were knowledgeable in the Westboth regions scoring higher than the results from the
Midwest and South. On an individual level, the most knowledgeable people in the poll were
those older than 65, who graded themselves as 65%, although the numbers were also high for
those over 30 years. 75% of men considered themselves knowledgeable about energy, compared
to 47% of women. When asked about sources of energy in general, 77% and 75% of the people
considered that the benefits outweighed risks for the generation of energy using solar and wind
power. 64% and 52% supported natural gas and geothermal generation. However, 42% of the
people had serious concerns about the benefits of nuclear energy, and 38% were concerned about
the drawbacks of coal (Harris-Interactive, 2011).
Following the Tsunami that hit Japan on March 11th 2011, there have been some serious
concerns about the use of nuclear energy in the world. But before this event, when this survey
was conducted, less than half of Americans (42%) said that the benefits outweighed the risks of
nuclear energy, while 21% were not at all sure and 37% said the risks outweigh the benefits. In
regard to these new technologies, mostly represented by the Smart Grid (SG), people were
asked if they were familiar with the term. 56% of the Americans had not heard about smart
grids, while women were more unfamiliar with the term (66%, compared to 46% of men).
169
When people were asked if SGs will increase the use of solar, wind and other renewable
sources, 38% agreed but 55% werent sure. Also, 60% of Americans were not sure if SG will
increase cost of the electricitywhile 24% were afraid that it will do just that (Harris, 2011).
Surveying people on how to optimize the use of energy, 84% of Americans say that they
conserve energy by turning off lights and devices when not in use. 60% of Americans are
changing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs, 60% are using power strips, 56% are
using lower-wattage bulbs, 53% are buying Energy Star appliances, and 51% are reducing hot
water usage (Harris, 2011). All these efforts are worthy examples of energy saving, but is this
the most that we can do as a society?
4.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
For the future technological advancements in the area of energy, the office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability developed a definition of a smart grid that generally refers to a
class of technology people are using to bring utility electricity delivery systems into the 21st
century,
calling
upon
computer-based
remote
control
and
automation
(http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid ).
Figure 4.1: What is the smart grid? (Source: http://www.smartgrid.gov/the_smart_grid)
170
Another definition of Smart Grid technology was developed in 2010. The definition was
proposed during the 1st IEEE/IFIP International Workshop on the Management of the Smart
Grid. This definition mixed both power delivery systems with an ICT layer in such a way that
allows the utility provider and the consumers to monitor and adjust electricity use.
Ghavari and Ghafurian claim that The Smart Grid can be defined as an electric system
that uses information, two-way, cyber-secure communication technologies, and computational
intelligence in an integrated fashion across electricity generation, transmission, substations,
distribution and consumption to achieve a system that is clean, safe, secure, reliable, resilient,
efficient, and sustainable (Gharavi & Ghafurian, 2011, p.918).
According to Gharavi & Ghafurian (2011), SG has the following requirements:
Integration of renewable energy resources to address global climate change
Active customer participation for better energy conservation
Secure communications
Better asset utilization for sustainability
Optimized flow to reduce losses and lower the cost of energy
Integration of electric vehicles to reduce dependence on fuels
Management of distributed generation & energy storage to reduce overall cost
Integration of communication & control to increase safety and operational flexibility
The United States Department of Energy states that SG represents an opportunity to
move into a new era of reliability, availability, and efficiency. These results shall contribute to
the improvement of economic and environmental health. To prepare for this transition, focus
should be on testing, technology improvements, consumer education, development of standards
and regulations, and information sharing between projects (DoE, 2003).
171
The benefits associated with the Smart Grid include:
More efficient transmission of electricity
Quicker restoration of electricity after power disturbances
Reduced operations and management costs, and lower power costs for consumers
Reduced peak demand, which will also help lower electricity rates
Increased integration of large-scale renewable energy systems
Better integration of customer-owner power generation systems
Improved security
To better understand SG, we use a definition which states that SG is an approach to

modernize electrical distribution that would transform the way that a utility interacted with its
customers in order to provide a higher level of service and reliability, put the customer in control
of their energy costs, and to achieve energy conservation and sustainability goals (Sarfi et al,
2010)
Trying to go up on the ladder of abstraction, we wanted to use the term: smart energy.
Researching the term, we discovered that it comes from the philosophy of always using the most
cost effective long-term approach to meeting energy needs, while maintaining the lowest
environmental impact. Unfortunately, the term smart energy was trademarked by Zigbee in
December of 2009, so this term cant be used for purposes not approved by that company.
Some scholars have been relating the smart use of energy with safe environment energy,
in a way that many organizations have been pushing to clean and maintain the environment and
the ecosystem while maintaining ecosystem health. To measure their expectations, we look at an
index that was developed to gather their requirements, the Environmental Performance Index
172
from the American Enterprise Institute and the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
The model for this index is shown in Figure 4.2.
Indicators
Policy Categories
Broad Objectives
Overall Performance
Child Mortality
Indoor Air Pollution
Drinking Water
Environmental
Health
Adequate Sanitation
Urban Particulates
Regional Ozone
Nitrogen Loading
Water Consumption
Wilderness Protection
Ecoregion Protection
Timber Harvest Rate
Agricultural Subsidies
Overfishing
Environmental
Health
Air Quality
Water Resources
Environmental
Performance Index
Biodiversity and
Habitat
Productive Natural
Resources
Ecosystem Vitality
Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy
Sustainable Energy
CO2 per GDP
Figure 4.2: Environmental Performance Index (Esty et al., 2006)

Based on all the above mentioned models and frameworks, we gather the elements and
correlate them to the source using the www.smartgrid.gov site, the Department of Energy
definitions, the Environmental Index, and Garavi and Ghafurians paper. The results are shown
in Table 4.1. Based on the table we can see that the most mentioned concept is renewable
energy followed by secured communications, sustainability, optimized flow and reduced costs.
Using these elements we can define the smart use of energy as: the use of optimized flow of
sustainable energy via secured communications to enhance the use of renewable energy at
reduced costs. To develop a more complete definition, based on peoples perceptions, we
developed a survey to collect the opinions of professionals and further fine-tune the definition.
173
Table 4.1: Elements of smart use of energy

Element
Renewable Energy
Secure Communications
Sustainability
Optimized Flow
Reduced costs
The Smart Grid
Operation Centers
Distribution Intelligence
Plug-in Electric Vehicles
Energy Conservation
Environmental health
Air Quality
The Smart Home
Consumer Engagement
Energy Storage
Safety
Flexibility
Quicker restoration
Reduced peak demand
Private sector integration
Biodiversity & Habitat
Equity
Smartgrid.gov
x
Gharavi &
Ghafurian
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
DoE
x
x
x
x
Environmental
Index
SEDI
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sum
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT

4.3.1
Background Information
There are some road maps that have been developed globally to aid in the implementation
of Smart Grids. Although there are many proposals, the road maps focus on the basic blocks of
technologies of electricity supply: generation, transmission, distribution and consumption. We
are going to analyze in detail some of these models in order to develop our own.
174
Figure 4.3: ENSG Road Map for UK Smart Grid Deployment
4.3.2
United Kingdom Road Map
175
This road map was developed by the Electricity Networks Strategy Group (ENSG),
which is chaired by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DCC), and the Office of Gas
and Electricity Markets (Ofgem). This road map and a high level smart grid vision were
published in December 2009. The ENSG is fully aware of the technical, commercial, industrial
and regulatory impacts of the smart grid, therefore any effort shall consider all these variables as
well as their possible mixes. Their first activities are related to distributed generation and
demand response expansion in the first stage. The second stage is the widespread of
electrification of heating and transportation, as well as distributed generation and storage. The
last stage includes the penetration of the vehicle to grid as an activity to provide electricity to
consumers at home.
The full scale roll out of smart meters was scheduled to begin in 2012 and is to be
completed by 2020, although there have been some delays due to opposition to the deployment
with the excuse of health or financial issues.
The road map outlines a potential smart grid end state with color coded activities
classified as storage and demand response, electricity and heat generation, sensing, control and
integration, and other infrastructure. This seems to be a good and well detailed plan with a goal
of deployment for all these technologies by the year 2050, which can be accessed in the
following link: http:/www.ensg.gov.uk/assets/ensg_routemap_final.pdf.
4.3.3
German E-energy Road Map
The German Federal Minister of Economics and Technology, Rainer Brderle, presented
the following road map to the people of Germany as an E-energy/Smart Grid Road Map,
including many recommendations on how to be balance generation and consumption of energy
in the future.
176
Figure 4.4: The European Unions Smart Grid vision (source: VDE, 2010)
This model includes recommendations as well as concerns about the future of electricity.
The presentation of the model has a large section focusing on developing standards as they move
into critical communications requiring cyber security, bandwidth and latency regulations. The
Deutsche Kommission Elektrotechnik Elektronik (DKE) is an important part of the road map
developing team and is working on the specific technical aspects of the implementation. Nuclear
energy is not included in this road map, although there is some speculation about reconsidering it
back when they feel that is safer than it was before. The model includes 4 major blocks:
Standardization environment, smart meters, in-house automation, global standardization, and
177
integration. Some other countries are working along with Germany on standardization and
integration; examples mentioned in the paper are US, Spain, Austria and Japan.
4.3.4
United States Road Map for Smart Grids
In 2010 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) presented the road
map for developing standards in the eight most critical categories: Demands Response and
Efficiency, Wide-area situational awareness, Energy Storage, Electric Transportation, Advanced
Metering Infrastructure, Distribution Grid Management, Cyber Security and Networks Comm.
Figure 4.5: NIST Smart Grid Framework 1.0

The framework includes 4 major elements: Generation, Transmission, Distribution and
Consumption. Along with these elements, the framework includes the markets, operations and
service providers. Along with the conceptual model there is a regulatory and legal framework
that considers policies and requirements for various actors and applications as well as their
178
interactions. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) adopts regulations at the
federal level, and by state and local levels, there are public utility commissions, so that all of
them govern some of the aspects of the Smart Grid.
4.3.5
China Strong Smart Grid
Figure 4.6: Comparison of China and US/EU Smart Grids (source: Jiandong, 2011)
With the incredible growth of Chinese infrastructure, the implementation of SG is very
important for the rest of the world, as most of the global emissions of CO2 come from China and
are mostly due to the generation of electricity. It is important to emphasize that China is still
considering having large coal-based plants in the future, while the rest of the world is trying to
179
move away from coal and oil burning. Another important difference is the use of renewable
resources to generate electricity because in Europe and America, the focus is on having
distributed generation while China is working on using this energy to be connected to the grid to
supply whoever needs it with controlled prices and a unified power flow control.
4.3.6
Masdar: The Sustainable City
In Saudi Arabia is the city of Masdar which shows the commitment of this country to
build a city that is sustainable in energy while not contaminating the environment. One of the
challenges that our modern society is facing is the migration to cities. Over half the worlds
population is now living at urban concentrations, and these large cities are responsible for more
than 70% of the global CO2 emissions.
Masdar City is not only the commitment of Saudi Arabia to build a sustainable city, but it
is also a beautiful place to live that achieves sustainability in a viable financial manner.
Figure 4.7: Masdar: The Sustainable City (source: http://masdarcity.ae/en/)
180
The energy part of the model is divided into two major blocks: Demand and Supply
Chain. On the demand side, Masdar uses the best energy-efficient techniques along with strict
guidelines for buildings that should consider special insulations, low-energy lighting, windows
with glazing, using natural light as much as possible, and with the installation of smart devices.
On the supply side, the city is fully powered with onsite renewable energy. It is expected that as
the city grows, there will be some offsite renewable energy from several solar projects under
construction; Figure 4.8 shows the strategies to make this a special city on the energy subject.
Figure 4.8 Masdar City Energy (source: http://masdarcity.ae/en/)
181
4.3.7
Texas Smart Grid Investment Model
The Smart Grid Investment Model (SGIM) was developed at Texas A&M University in
2010 to overcome the lack of objective models for this area under the Smart Grid Research
Consortium (SGRC) which transitioned to an independent research and consulting firm in 2011.
SGRC staff works with utility companies to evaluate individual investments, strategies and to
apply the model for vendor evaluations, to track costs and benefits and other evaluations.
Figure 4.9: Texas Smart Grid Investment Model (Source: SGRC)

The Smart Grid Investment Modeling approach follows four steps to evaluate costs and
benefits of investments:
1. Identify each technology and program that fits in the SG purview
2. Identify benefits of each technology or program including savings, efficiency and
reductions in usage over the long term.
3. Identify technology, installation, program and management costs based on
characteristics of the utility and customer
4. Compare benefits and costs to determine investment returns.
182
4.3.8
Ontario Smart Grid Model
Smart Grids use the power of ICT to monitor, control and optimize the use of the electricity
system. The model shows efforts to increase efficiency, reduce blackouts, integrate distributed
renewable generation, and empower consumers to more effectively control their energy use.
Figure 4.10: Ontario Smart Grid (source: http://ieso-public.sharepoint.com)

The key elements of the model are described in a brief statement in the next paragraph:
Demand response provides customers with the ability to respond to price signals
and system conditions using better monitoring, control, and automation processes.
Energy storage varies from rechargeable batteries of electric vehicles to large sites
that compress and release air to generate electricity as needed. IESO and others
are actively exploring ways to take advantage of storage technologies in the
province's power system.
Distribution Automation using controls and sensors to quickly detect and isolate
faults on the grid and restore electricity faster and more efficiently. Utilities use
183
their local distribution networks more efficiently and incorporate small-scale wind
and solar generation onto the lines and into the grid.
Data access is provided by going online to view their consumption data from their
smart meters. This way, consumers better understand their energy usage as well as
new ways to use energy more efficiently.
Smart Energy Networks help to better meet electricity needs and align the
available sources in order to create a more efficient and sustainable system.
Networks bring together a number of disciplines related to the electricity sector.
Smart Homes include new technologies like the Internet or network-connected
smart appliances, energy storage and sophisticated home automation systems.
Around the world, more consumers are choosing distributed generation where
they can produce their own electrical energy, as the costs of renewable resources
generating energy are going down in price. The challenge for the utility
companies of integrating these new sources is supported by the Smart Grid
technologies.
4.3.9
Developing our Own Model
As stated in section 2.7.2, we selected a never ending cycle for continuous improvement,
which was first developed by Dr. Walter Shewhart in the first half of the twentieth century. The
cycle was promoted by Dr. W. Edwards Deming during his historical conferences in Japan. The
Japanese version of the cycle is nowadays known as the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle (Du
et al., 2008). The PLAN section focuses on strategies, instructions and preparation. In our
model, we are going to rename this part of the cycle as the Supply Chain term. This part of the
cycle includes the distributed generation and storage elements as they are part of the preparation
184
for the electricity distribution process. This element is in line with the category listed by EPRI
and all the analyzed models that include a point of focus for renewable resources energy
generation. Although Electric Vehicles are normally related to environmental protection
activities, in our model we are going to put this element in the Supply Chain because most of the
papers in the literature survey are addressing the upcoming possibility, although at this time may
look difficult to achieve, of providing consumers with electricity from the vehicles batteries
while at home, that concept is named vehicle to grid (V2G).
The DO element in the cycle refers to the activity itself conducted by the doer. In our
model we are introducing the main actor: a computer or Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) device. The introduction of ICT is shown in most models discussed before,
but the benefits of this shift are critical because ICT devices can make sound decisions based on
programmed conditions which can be even unnoticeable for humans. Among the elements listed
in the literature survey we consider Distribution Automation the main driver for this element
because it represents the automated decision making process using artificial intelligence.
The CHECK and ACT of the cycle go hand-in-hand, because if we do not provide
accurate information, the reaction might be incorrect. For out model, we are going to use both
elements under a new section that groups them together: Stakeholders Participation. In order to
have accurate information, we need to ensure the existence of proper communication channels to
all stakeholders, not only to the key actors in the process. In this branch of the model, we are
going to place the Distribution Networks that ensure the proper and secure lines of
communication among all participants. The reaction to the provided information is going to
depend on the training, awareness, experience and even audacity of the participants. In this
branch of the model we are placing the Demand Response element of the literature survey. Based
185
on the tariffs, peak hours, flexible pricing or other information, the participants will make
decisions that will have an effect on the performance of the distribution process. Devices could
be programmed to make these decisions, but the consumers shall have the last word about
allowing those devices to work or not. This section also includes cybersecurity concerns because
the more participants in the process, the more vulnerable the system is going to beas more
people will be entering the system. The last part of the model is the output, which is later going
to become the PLAN section, with added knowledge as Dr. Deming stated it. Two outputs are
going to be considered in the model. The first output is going to be the Green Energy element,
which represents environmental friendly energy generation and/or distribution. Although this
element is mentioned continuously throughout the world, its importance is not that evident. The
other element is the one referring to Efficient Energy, which is the result of the optimized use of
resources, resulting also in economic benefits.
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 show the model
represented in blocks and then by element, along with the expected relationships among them.
The purpose of this model is to show the relationship among the elements and so provide a path
for others to follow in the implementation of Smart Grids.
PLAN
DO
CHECK/ACT
RE-PLAN
Supply Chain
ICT
Participation
Green Energy
Distribution
Network
Green
Environment
Demand
Response
Efficient
Energy
Distributed
Generation
Distributed
Storage
Distribution
Automation
Electric
Vehicle
Figure 4.11: Enhanced Model by Blocks related to PDCA Cycle

186
Figure 4.12: Proposed Enhanced Model
4.4 FIRST SURVEY

To gather and analyze information about the model by blocks, we designed a survey to
get simple and uncomplicated answers about what the typical professional knows or expects
from Smart Grids.
The first survey contained eight questions and it was developed as a
preliminary draft to validate the model.
4.4.1
Survey for Smart Energy Perception
We designed an instrument that includes the top elements in the above-mentioned

definition to relate it to the general publics perception. The first three questions are related to
demographics, for we are trying to determine the respondent population profile to identify any
possible trends.
Question One: What is your gender?
187
Question Two: What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Question Three: What is your combined annual household income?
Question Four: Based on the consumers perception, what do they consider being important in
their personal smart use of energy?
The following questions are related to the definition of the smart use of energy so we can
correlate them to the literature review. The elements are: Power outages, use of renewable
generation, lower cost of energy, and zero emission generation.
Question Five: Drop each of the following elements into the bucket where they belong. This
particular exercise required surveyed persons to drop every element in three buckets that
represent: Government responsibility, consumer necessary investment, and consumer change of
habit. In a way, these questions require the interviewees to correlate the element of smart use of
energy to the clusters of infrastructure, equipment and humanware. The question has the
objective of determining if the element is a structural requirement, if it is a tool or equipment
related or if it depends on the consumers and producers. The elements listed are: Smart grid,
hybrid electric vehicle, smart meters, distributed storage, advanced distribution automation,
distributed generation, demand response, micro generation, energy power transmission, selfhealing, community energy storage, and energy power distribution.
Question Six: If we, as society make smart use of energy, categorize the following
requirements in base of their importance. This question focuses on the overall objectives to
achieve with the smart use of energy. By assessing how important every requirement is, the
surveyed provide information about the overall targets for the new technologies. Using a Likert
scale, interviewees are required to assess the following targets: Provide access of energy to all,
lower the cost of energy, protect the environment, use state of the art technology, efficiently
188
distribute energy, store energy, compete for energy distribution, and offer cards for pre-paid
electricity
Question Seven: If you were to choose what the smart use of energy shall achieve for you
in the future, what would be your choices? This question summarizes the three sections of the
SIDE framework and asks the respondents to mention what is the most critical overall objective:
Reduced cost of energy, environmental protection, or participatory technology.
Question Eight: In a maximum of 5 words tell us what "smart energy" means to you. This
is an open question so that the respondents can provide a few words describing what the concept
is for them.
All these questions will definitively help round up a better definition of smart energy use.
And the last question is asking for the highest and lowest energy bills they have paid in the last
year. This question, along with the demographics questions, helps us to identify the socioeconomic status as well as the energy awareness of the interviewees.
4.4.2
Survey Methodology
After designing this survey in Qualtrics, two UTEP professors and an external consultant
provided feedback on the scope and reach of the questions. The selected professors were Dr. Leo
Gemoets and Dr. Jose Ablanedo from the IDS staff, and Dr. Robert Sarfi from the Boreas
Consulting Group. They responded with recommendations on wording and suggested having a
clarification at the beginning for some people not aware of this technology, who will have a hard
time trying to respond with their perceptions.
With their recommendations we decided to focus the questions on consumers so anybody
could respond with a higher level of authority because we all are consumers of energy. The
completed survey was reviewed and approved by all involved parties. After all modifications
189
were completed, the survey was submitted to the UTEP Institutional Review Board (IRB) for
approval before sending the survey out publicly. Our target sample included students and
colleagues from the University of Texas at El Paso, former classmates, members of the PhD
Project, and friends who are using social media. The use of these sources allowed us to expand
beyond the geographical area of El Paso, Texas.
We sent the survey out on June 12th 2012, after we received IRB approval. After a period
of four weeks, we had received 184 completed surveys for analysis.
4.4.3
Data Analysis
4.4.3.1
Gender of Respondents
Figure 4.13: Comparison of 2010 Census results and survey respondents

From the 184 responded surveys, 63% of the respondents were male and 37% female.
This statistic already shows a bias towards gender, as the 2010 Census shows that in the United
States 50.2% of the population are female and 49.8% are males. One possible reason for this bias
is that the selected recipients were not chosen randomly, but taken from contacts lists, and also
the level of familiarity with the concept of electricity by women was reported lower than the
males (Harris-Interactive, 2011).
190
4.4.3.2
Education Level
The educational level was also higher than average because 37% of the survey
respondents hold a master degree and 31% a doctoral degree, and 7% hold a JD or MD. In total,
three quarters of the contacted people who replied, hold a graduate degree, and 16% have at least
a bachelor degree. It is important to note that everyone surveyed had completed high school.
Figure 4.14: Comparison of Educational Level of the Respondents vs. 2010 Census
4.4.3.3
Household Income
In regards to income, the survey, as expected, over-represents people with incomes above
60,000 per year. Although there is representation of lower incomes, they are not to the level of
the 2010 Census.
191
Figure 4.15: Household income comparison of 2010 census and survey respondents
4.4.3.4
What is important for the consumer?
The consumers responded that it is extremely important for them to lower the cost of
energy, while some others considered this area as being not important at all. Renewable and zero
emissions generations peaked at the somewhat important category, but dropped in mentions at
the next two higher levels. The dropping steps are larger for the zero emissions concept than
environmental protection, showing people are more cautious in signaling the importance of
protecting the environment more so than just ensuring zero emissions, which is a way to protect
the environment. The voice of the customer is also loud and clear as respondents mentioned that
power outages are very important.
Table 4.2: Statistics from Question # 4
192
Figure 4.16: Survey smart grid focus importance evaluation

Cronbachs alpha is lower but close to the minimum acceptable reliability coefficient
of 0.70 in most social science research situations. The survey question helps us to identify what
is important for the consumer: lower cost of energy, power outages, renewable and zeroemissions generations.
4.4.3.5
What is everyones role?
Interviewees were asked to categorize the technologies under who is responsible for
implementation: the government, the consumers or if there has to be a customers change of
behavior. In Figure 4.17, the blue color represents the government, whom respondents see as the
responsible party for most aspects of SG. Consumers assume their responsibility for electric
vehicles, micro-generation and jointly with the government procuring smart meters; but they see
that their habits and practices changes have an impact on the self-healing, demand response and
community storage of energy tasks.
193
Figure 4.17: Who is responsible for smart grids technologies?

Further probing these responses, we separated the responses based on which bucket they
chose and analyzed the given ranks. It was interesting to see how the ANOVA analysis was
significant in most of the cases. This proves that the given ranks are related to who the
interviewees assigned the responsibility to.
The first element was the focus of the study: smart grids. Most respondents assigned the
responsibility of smart grids infrastructural investments to the government, as well as advanced
distribution automation, power distribution, distribution generation and distributed storage.
Consumers agreed that electric vehicles, sources of micro generation and smart meters are the
responsibility of consumers who shall pay for these investmentsand behavioral changes are
required for self-healing, demand response and community energy storage. Conducting ANOVA
analyses per bucket for means comparisons, we developed the following table where means for
every bucket are calculated, as well as their standard deviation, the F value and the significance.
Table 4.3: Row and Columns Percentages of Bucket Assignments
194
Responsible for:
Self-healing
Demand response
Community energy storage
Hybrid electric vehicle
Microgeneration
Smart meters
Distributed storage
Distributed generation
Energy power distribution
Energy power transmission
Advanced distribution
automation
Smart grid
Total
7.89%
30.07%
35.80%
8.77%
31.37%
43.83%
65.61%
70.89%
77.99%
79.38%
Buy
equipment
23.68%
19.61%
23.46%
64.91%
41.18%
35.19%
15.92%
12.03%
9.43%
10.63%
Behavior
change
68.42%
50.33%
40.74%
26.32%
27.45%
20.99%
18.47%
17.09%
12.58%
10.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
8.19%
69.87%
20.51%
9.62%
100.00%
8.46%
100.00%
76.40%
49.79%
14.29%
24.47%
9.32%
25.74%
100.00%
100.00%
Behavior
change
21.22%
15.71%
13.47%
9.18%
8.57%
6.94%
5.92%
5.51%
4.08%
3.27%
Total
Gov.
1.27%
4.85%
6.12%
1.58%
5.06%
7.49%
10.86%
11.81%
13.08%
13.40%
Buy
equipment
7.73%
6.44%
8.15%
23.82%
13.52%
12.23%
5.36%
4.08%
3.22%
3.65%
7.98%
8.04%
8.51%
8.98%
8.04%
8.51%
8.25%
8.30%
8.35%
8.40%
11.50%
6.87%
3.06%
12.97%
100.00%
4.94%
100.00%
3.06%
100.00%
Gov.
Total
Electric vehicles and transmission are the only technologies that are not significant on the
means comparisonsmeaning that there is a disparity in perception about ranksothers are
significant and show that consumers agree on importance and who is responsible for their
implementation. Smart grid falls into the government responsibility with a very strong average
ranking of 1.93, which means that those assigning this responsibility consider it to be a top
priority. Electric vehicles are also high on priorities for consumer equipment and habits, although
the ranking is all over the place, showing a non-significant relationship.
Table 4.4: ANOVA analyses for Buckets Ranks
Gov't
Mean Std. Dev.
Smart Grid
1.93
1.74
Electric Vehicle
1.86
1.10
Smart Meters
3.06
1.97
Distributed Storage
3.72
1.98
Distribution Automation 4.42
1.82
Distributed Generation 4.33
2.00
Demand Response
4.22
2.02
Micro Generation
4.44
1.92
Transmission
3.73
1.90
Self Healing
5.00
1.54
Community Storage
3.76
2.39
Distribution
4.05
1.91
Technology
Mean Std. Dev.
2.57
1.44
1.55
1.21
2.30
1.15
3.00
2.04
2.78
1.50
2.89
2.42
2.43
1.14
2.41
1.20
2.94
2.08
2.42
1.13
2.59
1.07
2.73
1.34
195
Habit
Sum of
Mean Std. Dev. Squares
3.67
2.38
43.95
1.76
1.51
2.06
2.53
2.11
19.13
2.90
2.44
21.37
3.47
2.39
71.20
3.37
2.45
46.13
2.19
1.21
124.27
3.12
1.77
112.57
3.69
2.65
9.36
2.39
1.48
74.73
2.35
1.60
66.26
3.30
2.18
29.55
Mean
Square
21.97
1.03
9.57
10.68
35.60
23.07
62.14
56.28
4.68
37.37
33.13
14.77
Sig.
7.02
0.62
3.09
2.47
10.73
5.06
27.97
21.57
1.16
18.71
9.79
4.10
0.001
0.539
0.048
0.088
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.315
0.000
0.000
0.018
4.4.3.6
Importance to Society
Being part of modern society, surveyed people were asked to identify what is most
important for society in terms of SG implementation and benefits; People are conscious of how
extremely important it is to protect the environment and the survey proved it. The social aspect
of providing energy to all was considered very important, as well as the use of state of the art
technology, energy storage and competition of distribution. Use of pre-paid cards is considered
as something not relevant at this time.
Table 4.5: Statistics from Society Responsibilitys Question
Figure 4.18: What is important for the society?

The Cronbachs alpha of this selection, shown in Table 4.4, is deemed acceptable.
Therefore the items have relatively high internal consistency such that the survey questions
196
responses are considered valid. It is important to emphasize that most elements were considered
important, as the categories not at all or very unimportant were seldom used.
4.4.3.7
Important for the individual
Moving to a personal perspective, the surveyed parties were asked to identify what is
significant for them, resulting in a close tie between reduced costs of energy and environmental
protection. Participatory technology was considered somewhat important, but not as important as
the other two (Figure 4.19). Participation in technological advancements was not seen as
important as cost and environment probably because what most people refer to as energy savings
is related to shutting down lights and devices not in use, while technology requiring their
participation is still incipient for most people. This category was supported, although the higher
the importance, the lower the mentions.
4.4.3.8
Interviewees Own Definition
Trying to capture in their own words a definition of SG, we data mined words used by
the respondents. The next table shows the results. The most used words were energy, efficient,
usage, cost, resources, low, environment, friendly, effective, using and natural among others. The
words validate what is important for consumers: efficient and low-cost energy.
Figure 4.19: Personal importance responses

197
Table 4.6: Word mining of individual inputs

Word
Energy
Efficient
usage
Cost
resources
low
environment
Friendly
effective
using
natural
4.4.3.9
Repeats
57
43
40
26
15
14
19
10
10
9
7
Cost of Energy
Because the cost of energy is considered important, we surveyed about the maximum and
minimum electric bill paid in the last year. The range goes from a minimum average of 86 to a
maximum average of 201 dollars a month, so the concept of low cost depends on the area,
consumption and environmental conditions.
Figure 4.20: Range on cost of energy responses
4.4.3.10
Location
198
Table 4.7: Residence States of the Survey Respondents

Texas
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Foreign
Maryland
NorthCarolina
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
NewYork
Ohio
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Illinois
Mississippi
SouthCarolina
Tennessee
38%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
To ensure representation of all regions, we analyzed the residence of the respondent. As

expected, 38% of them were from Texas, 5% were from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and foreign.
Thus most states were represented in the survey.
4.4.4
PLS-SEM Model for the First Survey
We developed a model using all the questions in the survey. There were a total of fifteen
questions that were categorized into supply, technology (ICT), participation, and green energy
(environment). The model is shown in Figure 4.21, as well as the relationships. We expect ICT
to influence the participation and environment, while the participation may have an impact on
cost. Environment is only expected to influence the cost, as many green actions affect the bottom
line of companies.
199
Figure 4.21: Smart Use of Energy Survey Model

Table 4.8: Elements, Questions and Definitions
Element Questions
Definition
ICT
Q3_3 Categorize the requirement of providing access of energy to all
Q3_8 Categorize the requirement of the use of state of the art technology
Q3_9 Categorize the requirement of efficient distribution of energy
Q4_3 Smart use of energy in the future shall bring participatory technology
Supply Q1_3 Important in your personal smart use of energy - Lower cost of energy
Q3_4 Categorize the requirement of lowering the cost of energy
Q3_20 Categorize the requirement of competition for energy distribution
Q4_1 Smart use of energy in the future shall reduce cost of energy
Green E
DR
Q1_2
Important in your personal smart use of energy - Use of renewable generation
Q1_4
Q3_5
Q3_15
Q4_2
Q1_1
Q3_36
Important in your personal smart use of energy - Zero emission generation

Categorize the requirement of protecting the environment
Categorize the requirement of storage of energy
Smart use of energy in the future shall protect the environment
Important in your personal smart use of energy - Power outages
Categorize the requirements of cards for pre-paid electricity
In Figure 4.21 we can see that the model contains four latent variables (LVs), and fifteen
manifest variables (MVs), which are the questions of the survey shown in Table 4.5. The model
200
contains an exogenous latent variable, supply, which is an independent variable affecting the
model. There is an endogenous variable, green energy or environment, which is the dependent
variable and is affected by the cost and participation variables of the model.
Running the Warp PLS 4.0 software, we calculated the convergent validity, or how the
items reflect the particular constructs. Examining the loadings of the manifest variables, shown
in Table 4.8, we see that they are above the recommended threshold of 0.5 at all cases. But not
all cross-loadings were below the desired 0.2 level. To complete the convergent validity, we
analyzed both composite reliability and Cronbachs alpha, which are above the 0.7 desired levels
(with only the exception of the demand response Cronbachs alpha, which is 0.333). We can then
conclude that the items converge towards the latent variable.
Table 4.9: Loading and Cross-loading
Q1_3
Q3_4
Q3_20
Q4_1
Q3_3
Q3_8
Q3_9
Q4_3
Q1_1
Q3_36
Q3_5
Q3_15
Q1_2
Q1_4
Q4_2
ICT
(0.779)
(0.898)
(0.545)
(0.855)
0.026
-0.083
0.133
-0.087
0.096
-0.096
0.046
0.055
-0.108
-0.026
0.034
DR
-0.419
0.045
0.525
0.000
(0.776)
(0.717)
(0.790)
(0.750)
-0.308
0.308
-0.043
0.532
-0.301
-0.305
0.182
Supply
0.109
-0.180
0.296
-0.099
-0.066
0.167
-0.196
0.115
(0.775)
(0.775)
-0.207
0.051
0.165
0.122
-0.105
Green E
0.344
-0.045
-0.243
-0.112
0.237
-0.279
-0.062
0.087
0.106
-0.106
(0.864)
(0.706)
(0.797)
(0.833)
(0.857)
SE
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
Table 4.10: Latent Variables Coefficients
201
P value
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
R-squared
Adj. R-squared
Composite reliab.
Cronbach's alpha
Avg. var. extrac.
Full collin. VIF
Q-squared
Supply
0.175
0.171
0.859
0.775
0.610
1.243
0.176
ICT
0.186
0.181
0.844
0.754
0.576
2.222
0.184
DR
0.154
0.149
0.750
0.333
0.600
1.246
0.154
Green E
0.163
0.158
0.907
0.871
0.662
2.194
0.164
The second part of the models validation is the discriminant validation, wherein we
analyze how the items reflect their construct differently from the relation with others. We
analyzed the latent variables square root of the average variance extracted (AVE), which we
expected to be larger than any correlation among any other pair of constructs. The overall results
of the model are shown in Table 4.10, with an average variance extracted (AVE) values greater
than 0.5, as recommended by Chiang (2013). Table 4.11 shows the p-values for the correlations,
showing a significant correlation below 0.1% at all cases. With these analyses and numbers, we
feel confident about the validity of the model.
Table 4.11: Correlations among I vs. Square root of AVE
Supply
ICT
DR
Green E
Supply
(0.781)
0.398
0.318
0.337
ICT
0.398
(0.759)
0.353
0.722
DR
0.318
0.353
(0.775)
0.395
Green E
0.337
0.722
0.395
(0.813)
Table 4.12: P-Values for Models Correlations

Supply
ICT
DR
Green E
Supply
1.000
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
ICT
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
<0.001
202
DR
<0.001
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
Green E
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.000
Figure 4.22: First PLS Model with Results

The R2s for the models are lower than the acceptable level of 0.6 set by Chiang (2013).
Therefore, even though we have good weights and paths, there are some reservations about the
accuracy of the model. The largest total effect is the one by supply chain on ICT, followed by
Green Energy into supply. ICT is the element with the weakest effect on Participation.
4.4.5
Conclusions and Next Steps
Based on the validation of the model we can confirm that Information Technology exerts
an important influence on green energy (environment) and to a lesser level on demand response.
Supply has a stronger influence on ICT than on demands response, which we expected.
The next step is to conduct a more extensive survey to include more questions and respondents in
order to fine tune the model.
203
4.5 PROPOSED BUSINESS MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION

Based on the literature survey in chapter two, we identified three very important goals for
smart grid: Access for all, environmental protection, and efficiency. These goals are in line with
the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) that established the goal to
achieve universal access to electricity by the year 2030, provide affordable energy by the year
2050, reduce air pollution in compliance with the World Health Organization by 2030, and to
limit the global temperature change to 2o C above the pre-industrial numbers (UN, 2012).
Considering the Smart Grid technologies discussed in the literature review, we are using
seven of them and they are grouped as shown in the following model.
204
4.5.1
New Business Model First Draft
Figure 4.23: Detailed Enhanced Energy Management Business Model
4.5.2
Questions Development, Grouping and Analysis
4.5.2.1
Development of Questions
To determine the level of maturity in the implementation of Smart Grids, Carnegie

Mellon developed a survey in 2009. The survey includes 180 questions, separated into 4 major
sections, as shown in Table 4.10. For our purposes, we considered that the number of questions
was too high for the professional level that we were planning to survey, so we reduced the
number of questions to 55 and separated them into the six main groups of the literature survey
based on Chicco (2012). Because the numbers of questions for social and environmental areas
were less than the other categories, we grouped them into one, so we had five groups with eleven
questions each. Five practitioners questions were added at the end of the survey to capture the
status of maturity of technologies that were not addressed in the survey (shown in Appendix B).
205
Table 4.13: SGMM Surveys Questions

Carnegie Mellon SG
Maturity Model Survey
Strategy, Mgt. & Regulatory
Grid Operations
Technology
Value Chain
Qty.
41
41
57
41
Table 4.14: Our Surveys Questions
Our Survey
Physical
Regulatory
Environmental / Social
Economic
ICT
Extra
4.5.2.2
Qty.
11
11
11
11
11
5
Survey Preparation
All 60 questions were related to the section that they belonged to, as shown in Figure
4.23. Distributed Automation was the area with the most related questions, while distributed
storage had only one question. After adding demographics questions, the survey was completed
and submitted to the UTEP Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval before distributing the
survey publicly. Because this is a technical survey, we were exempted by the IRB and released to
send the survey. Our target included some of the 100 most influential persons in Smart grid
technologies, including college professors with this area of specialty, national laboratories
scientists and utility companys experts. We sent the survey out on July 5th 2014 and fifteen
experts responded immediately within a week. Unfortunately not all questions were answered, so
we re-sent the survey in several occasions until we received more than 30 completed surveys to
use PLS with statistical validity according to Wixom and Watson (2001).
206
4.5.3
Hypotheses H8
The new advancements on energy supply such as the distributed generation and vehicleto-grid (V2G) depend a lot on the progress on distributed storage (Srivastava et al., 2010; Taylor
et al., 2011) because renewable resources generated energy cannot be readily available at all
times, so the same as for the electric vehicles, a battery to store energy is required in order to
dispatch power when needed (Sathyanarayana & Heydt, 2010). Thus our next hypotheses are:
H8a: Electric Vehicles have an important influence on Distributed Storage
H8b: Distributed Generation has an important influence on Distributed Storage
Distributed generation requires the use of energy routers to be used as the foundation of
the system; these routers are part of the distribution automation system (Huang et al., 2011).
Therefore, we are expecting distributed generation to have an impact on the DA systems.
H8c: Distributed Generation has an important influence on Distribution Automation
Once the energy has been generated and efficiently stored, the whole infrastructure needs
to be fully integrated into the distribution automation system (Belkacemi et al., 2011) to deliver
energy as needed and not only at the moments when it is being generated. Mindful of the
importance of efficient storage, we suggest that distributed storage will have an impact on
distribution automation, and it might even handicap the automation process if there is no strong
storage method.
H8d: Distributed Storage has an important influence on Distribution Automation
For a strong and reliable distribution of energy, the need of a network is critical for
success. The network is going to be the way to integrate the behaviors of generators, consumers
207
and prosumers (Gudius et al. 2011). We expect that, in order to achieve distribution,
automation has to be connected to the network; therefore our next hypothesis suggests a strong
impact.
H8e: Distribution Automation has an important and strong influence on Distribution Network
Demand Response (DR) is enabled by the use of distribution automation and Advanced
Metering Infrastructure, so the advanced system automation is going to be primary for the Smart
Grid enabling technologies (Zuliang and So, 2011). Based on this statement, we expect
distribution automation to have a strong influence on demand response, because the more
communication the easier the stakeholders response to any real-time issue. As each node
becomes a point of access, responses to demand in smart grids increase the permeability to
cyber-attacks (Pearson, 2011)
H8f: Distribution Automation exerts an important influence on Demand Response
By networking communication and electricity distribution, we expect that SG will
improve the economics and efficiency of the electricity delivery process. Smart Grids are a
highly-efficient intelligent electricity network allowing two-way communications among
consumers and suppliers with the utilization of IT in the electricity production, transmission,
distribution and consumption process (Moon et al., 2011).
H8g: Distribution Networks have a strong influence on efficiency of SG Distribution
New technologies allow consumers the opportunity of knowing and reacting to the realtime status of energy provision, to make informed and efficient decisions that will surely have an
impact on the environment via reduction of contamination. Stakeholders participation is an
208
important factor in achieving the goals of smart grid energy, because the goals require
environmental protection and efficiency throughout the entire process. By reducing the amount
of electricity generated we may replace all imported electricity with attractive economic
payback, which suggests that we might have a cost effective method to achieve reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions at some industries (Kleme et al., 2012). Attending to our last
hypotheses in this chapter, we tested the effect of demand response on efficiency and
environmental protection.
H8h: Demand Response has an important effect on the model efficiency
H8i: Demand Response has an important effect on the environmental protection
4.5.4
PLS Model for the Second Survey
The PLS model was developed based on Figure 4.24, and then fifty out of sixty questions
were added as MVs to the eight LVs. The model is shown as well as the relationships of all
variables. We expect Distributed Generation and Electric Vehicles to be the supply chain for the
process; therefore they are the independent exogenous variables of the model. The endogenous
dependent variables are going to be the targets of the SGD model: Environment and efficiency
(economics). Distribution Automation, Distribution Networks, and Demand Response are going
to be influencing while being influenced by other factors. The model latent and measurables
variables are shown in Table 4.14. It looks very busy but it provides a good perspective of the
complexity of the model and all the different relationships.
In Figure 4.22 we can see that the model contains eight latent variables (LVs), and fifty
manifest variables (MVs), which are the questions of the survey. The model contains two
209
exogenous latent variables, Prosumer and PHEV/PEV, which are independent variables affecting
the model. There are two endogenous variables, environmental protection and efficiency, which
are the dependent variables and are affected by the independent variables of the model.
Table 4.15: Elements and Questions for the PLS Analysis
Element
Distributed
Generation (DG)
Q#
20
24
36
39
40
Electric Vehicle
(PHEV, PEV)
11
56
Distribution
Automation (DA)
3
4
5
6
8
9
12
13
16
Element
Q#
Distribution Network 10
(DN)
15
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Dist. Storage (DS)
44
Environment
22
33
34
38
Element
Q#
Demand Response 17
(DR)
23
25
27
28
29
35
55
58
Efficiency
26
30
31
32
41
42
43
60
The ten questions that were not used in the model were analyzed and t-tested. It is interesting
that the results show the lowest average for the investment on SG for those parties that did not
receive ARRA funds. The governance model of SG also had an average as low as the previous
question. The highest averages are for those sections cautioning about cyber-security issues,
followed by the question considering SG as important management sensors. The Cronbachs
Alpha for the ten questions was 0.788, which is acceptable.
210
Table 4.16: Means and t-tests for Questions not used in the Model
Test Value = 0
Std.
Std.
N Mean Devia- Error
tion Mean
Smart meters are important grid management sensors
Outage and distribution management systems linked to
substation automation are being explored and evaluated
Pilots of remote AMI/AMR are being conducted or have
been deployed
Grid data is used by an organization's security functions
Security and privacy implications of smart grid are being
investigated
Pilots to support a diverse resource portfolio have been
conducted
A smart grid governance model has been established
Smart grid vision and strategy drive the utility companies'
strategy and direction
There is a widespread adoption of the Smart Grid to
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) nonrecipients
Regulators are pre-funding Smart Grid initiatives
4.5.5
df
Sig. (2- Mean

tailed) Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
32 5.5313 1.21773 .21527 25.695 31
.000
5.53125
5.0922
5.9703
32 5.3125 1.14828 .20299 26.171 31
.000
5.31250
4.8985
5.7265
32 5.2588 1.54435 .27301 19.263 31
.000
5.25879
4.7020
5.8156
32 4.8125 1.30600 .23087 20.845 31
.000
4.81250
4.3416
5.2834
32 5.3750 1.53979 .27220 19.747 31
.000
5.37500
4.8198
5.9302
32 5.1250 1.49731 .26469 19.362 31
.000
5.12500
4.5852
5.6648
32 3.8750 1.56060 .27588 14.046 31
.000
3.87500
3.3123
4.4377
32 4.2188 1.79128 .31666 13.323 31
.000
4.21875
3.5729
4.8646
32 3.8750 1.43122 .25301 15.316 31
.000
3.87500
3.3590
4.3910
32 4.3226 1.71120 .30250 14.289 31
.000
4.32256
3.7056
4.9395
Responders Statistic Analysis
There were 32 responders who completed all the questions, so we used the provided
information from expert sources on this subject to prove the proposed model. This first analysis
is directed towards the analysis of demographics of the responders.
The first demographic question is related to the gender, and because of the technicality
and gender bias of the electrical sector, we received responses from 7 females and 25 males.
Comparing the results by the LVs in the model we find some interesting facts in Table 4.17. The
females response is more optimistic and consistent as their means are always higher, with an
average of 0.91, and also their standard deviations were smaller with an average of 0.59. One
point to consider at this moment is that womens perception of the future technologies is more
positive and consistent than that of males.
211
Table 4.17: Gender Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.)
DS
Eff
DG
DR
DN
Env
DA
PHEV
Avg.
Female
(7)
5.14
5.14
5.15
5.36
5.00
5.71
5.29
5.36
5.27
Male
(25)
3.60
3.76
4.10
4.42
4.10
4.92
4.68
5.09
4.36
Avg.
(32)
3.94
4.07
4.33
4.63
4.30
5.09
4.81
5.15
4.54
Env
PHEV
DG
DR
Eff
DN
DS
DA
Avg.
Female
(7)
0.42
0.48
0.76
0.64
0.91
0.82
1.46
1.02
0.84
Male
(25)
1.27
1.29
1.44
1.29
1.51
1.23
1.63
1.13
1.43
Avg.
(32)
1.18
1.16
1.38
1.23
1.50
1.20
1.70
1.12
1.37
The second demographic question separates the academics from the practitioners so as to
compare their perceptions. Although some are both practitioners and academics, we asked the
respondents to identify as only one. We received responses from 19 academics and 13
practitioners, so we feel confident about the representation of both sectors (Table 4.17). The two
areas with the major differences are related to Distribution Storage and Electric Vehicles, where
academics are more optimistic about storage and electric vehicles, while practitioners are more
optimistic about demand response. In general, academics are more positive than practitioners.
Table 4.18: Occupation Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.)
PHEV
DS
DN
DR
Env
Eff
DA
DG
Avg.
Academic Practitioner
(19)
(13)
5.50
4.63
4.26
3.46
4.50
4.00
4.43
4.91
4.91
5.36
4.19
3.88
4.75
4.90
4.33
4.34
4.61
4.43
Avg.
(32)
5.15
3.94
4.30
4.63
5.09
4.07
4.81
4.33
4.54
DR
DA
DN
DG
Env
DS
Eff
PHEV
Avg.
212
Academic Practitioner
(19)
(13)
1.34
1.05
1.23
0.98
1.09
1.33
1.49
1.27
1.26
1.04
1.63
1.76
1.56
1.44
1.05
1.14
1.38
1.37
Avg.
(32)
1.23
1.12
1.20
1.38
1.18
1.70
1.50
1.16
1.37
The third question is related to the years of experience to identify if the perception of the
younger generations is either more positive or negative than the more mature respondents. The
majority of respondents, as expected, have more than ten years of experience.
Table 4.19: Year of Experience Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.)
0-5
yrs
(3)
Eff
3.50
DN
4.02
DA
4.27
DS
3.33
DR
4.29
Env
5.58
DG
4.07
PHEV 5.17
Avg. 4.28
5-10 10-15 15-25 >25

Avg
yrs
yrs
yrs yrs
(32)
(1)
(7)
(10) (11)
5.71 4.09 4.51 3.65 4.07
5.55 4.74 4.57 3.73 4.30
6.00 4.76 4.76 4.93 4.81
3.94 3.86 4.80 3.36 3.94
5.70 4.51 4.70 4.63 4.63
5.46 4.57 5.32 5.05 5.09
5.00 4.23 4.78 4.00 4.33
5.15 4.86 5.30 5.18 5.15
5.31 4.45 4.84 4.32 4.54
0-5
yrs
(3)
DS
2.31
Env
1.61
DN
1.78
Eff
1.74
DA
0.87
DG
1.81
DR
1.61
PHEV 1.04
Avg. 1.56
5-10 10-15 15-25 >25

Avg
yrs
yrs
yrs yrs
(32)
(1)
(7)
(10) (11)
1.95 1.69 1.36 1.70
1.72 0.83 1.02 1.18
1.06 1.25 0.99 1.20
1.84 1.60 1.13 1.50
1.45 1.34 0.79 1.12
1.62 1.44 1.20 1.38
1.48 1.26 1.13 1.23
1.21 1.42 1.08 1.16
0.64 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.37
There were three rookies with less than five years of experience, only one individual with
more than five and less than ten years, and the rest have more than ten years of experience in this
field (Table 4.19). The most optimistic group is that of professionals, with more than fifteen and
less than twenty-five years. Surprisingly, the less optimistic were consistently the rookies who
have a very low perception regarding distributed storage and efficiency. The group with more
than twenty-five years of experience is the most consistent one in their responses, as their
standard deviation is the smallest in most cases. The senior group seems to be slightly less
optimistic but more consistent.
The fourth question is related to the highest level of education completed. Five
respondents have only a bachelors degree, eleven have a masters and sixteen hold a PhD. Our
expectation was that the highest the education level the more optimistic about these technologies
213
(Table 4.20). The group with bachelors degrees proved to be the most optimistic and consistent
one, followed by the doctors, although their standard deviation was high. Finally, the masters are
the less optimistic, although moderately consistent. The group holding bachelor degrees are very
positive and consistent about the environment, which is a modern theme, while the doctors are
more optimistic about electric vehicles, although not as consistent. The Masters group is
concerned about most subjects but their perception of efficiency distributed storage is really low.
Table 4.20: Education Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.)
Bachelor Master PhD Avg.

(5)
(11) (16) (32)
DR
DA
DG
Env
Eff
PHEV
DS
DN
Avg.
5.50
5.33
5.08
5.85
4.50
4.90
4.20
4.40
4.97
4.05
4.24
4.09
4.88
3.56
4.79
3.63
3.97
4.15
4.75
5.04
4.26
5.00
4.27
5.47
4.06
4.49
4.67
4.63
4.81
4.33
5.09
4.07
5.15
3.94
4.30
4.54
Bachelor Master PhD

(5)
(11) (16)
DG
DR
PHEV
Env
DN
Eff
DA
DS
Avg.
0.77
0.46
0.55
0.72
1.45
1.43
0.86
1.79
1.14
1.05
1.02
1.28
0.99
1.08
1.31
1.05
1.63
1.23
1.68
1.37
1.18
1.36
1.23
1.64
1.13
1.81
1.47
Avg.
(32)
1.38
1.23
1.16
1.18
1.20
1.50
1.12
1.70
1.37
The fifth question is related to the location of the respondent. Sixteen respondents are
from America while eight are from Asia and eight from Europe. Our expectation is that America
will be more optimistic than the rest of the world in regard to Smart Grid technologies, due in no
small part to the implementation of the process (Table 4.21). Surprisingly the most optimistic
and consistent group is the one from Asia, while the least optimistic group is from Europe. The
Asian group has the most optimistic opinion in most categories, except on environment and DA,
where they are lower than the US. On the electric vehicles topic theres an interesting finding as
the European group is the second most optimistic group while the Americans are the ones with
214
the least confidence. We see that in Asia the groups are optimistic and working on implementing
these technologies. Based on the prior analysis, we feel confident that the sample will present a
good representation of the experts perceptions about the maturity level of the Smart Grid
Distribution. There are gender, occupation, educational level, years of experience, and location
representations. Something that we need to emphasize is that there are more males, academics,
PhDs and representatives from America, but this was expected due to the nature of the selected
universe of experts on the field of Smart Grid Distribution and electricity supply in general.
Table 4.21: Location Driven Differences on SG Technology (Means & Std. Dev.)
America
(16)
DS
3.43
Eff
3.91
DG
4.44
DN
4.02
DR
4.85
PHEV
4.76
Env
5.37
DA
4.96
Avg.
4.47
Asia Europe Avg.

(8)
(8) (32)
5.25 3.63 3.94
4.89 3.55 4.07
4.80 3.65 4.33
5.15 4.00 4.30
4.98 3.83 4.63
5.81 5.25 5.15
5.25 4.38 5.09
4.92 4.40 4.81
5.13 4.09 4.54
America
(16)
Env
0.94
DG
1.12
DA
0.87
DN
1.18
PHEV
1.25
DR
1.05
Eff
1.35
DS
1.63
Avg.
1.31
Asia Europe Avg.

(8)
(8) (32)
0.80 1.67 1.18
1.34 1.78 1.38
1.21 1.50 1.12
0.73 1.33 1.20
0.75 1.07 1.16
1.15 1.44 1.23
1.42 1.70 1.50
1.39 1.60 1.70
1.11 1.54 1.37
Table 4.22: Surveys Sample Analysis

0-5 yrs
5-10 yrs
10-15 yrs
15-25 yrs
>25 yrs
Avg
Female Male Academic Practitioner Bachelor Master PhD America Asia Europe
1
2
1
2
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
5
6
1
0
1
6
2
3
2
2
8
8
2
1
4
5
4
3
3
2
9
4
7
3
3
5
8
0
3
1.4
5
3.8
2.6
1
2
3.4
3.2
1.6 1.6
215
4.5.6
PLS Model Results
Running Warp PLS 4.0 software, we calculated the model fit that is shown in Table 4.22,
where all coefficients are acceptable. Examining the loadings of the manifest variables, shown in
Table 4.23, we see that all are above the recommended level of 0.5. But not all cross-loadings
were below the desired 0.2 level. To complete the convergent validity, we analyzed both
composite reliability and Cronbachs alpha in Table 4.27, which are above the 0.7 desired levels
with the only exception of the participation Cronbachs alpha for the electric vehicle PHEV,
which is 0.2 with only two questions. We then conclude that the items converge towards the
latent variable
Table 4.23: Model Fit Results
Model Fit Measure

Average path coefficient
(APC)= 0.547
Average R-squared
(ARS)= 0.566
Average adjusted R-squared
(AARS)= 0.544
Average block VIF
(AVIF)= 1.403
Average full collinearity VIF
(AFVIF)= 4.134
Tenenhaus GoF
(GoF)= 0.629
Sympson's paradox ratio
(SPR)= 0.889
R-squared contribution ratio
(RSCR)= 0.974
Statistical suppression ratio
(SSR)= 1.000
Nonlinear bivariate causality
(NLBCDR)= 1.000
direction ratio
Results
P<0.001
P<0.001
P<0.001
acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.6
acceptable if <= 5, ideally <= 3.6
small >= 0.1, medium >= 0.25, large >= 0.39
acceptable if >= 0.7, ideally = 4
acceptable if >= 0.9, ideally = 4
acceptable if >= 0.10
acceptable if >= 0.10
The second part of the analysis is the discriminant validation, where we analyze how the
items reflect their construct differently from the relation with others. We analyzed the square
root of the average variance extracted (AVE), which we expected to be larger than any
correlation among any other pair of constructs. The results of the model have average variance
extracted (AVE) values greater than 0.5, as recommended by Chiang (2013).
216
Table 4.24: Loading and Cross-loading Results

Q20
Q24
Q36
Q39
Q40
Q44
Q11
Q56
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q60
Q8
Q9
Q12
Q13
Q16
Q10
Q15
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q51
Q52
Q54
Q53
Q17
Q23
Q25
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q55
Q58
Q35
DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
(0.896)
(0.759)
(0.726)
(0.914)
(0.903)
0.000
0.426
-0.426
-0.541
-0.383
-0.058
-0.045
-0.217
0.173
-0.020
0.189
0.763
-0.347
0.377
0.194
-0.252
0.003
0.197
0.519
-0.123
0.042
0.199
-0.483
-0.383
0.541
0.348
-0.143
-0.316
-0.573
-0.021
0.072
0.059
0.007
-0.316
-0.004
0.729
-0.433
0.170
(1.000)
-0.241
0.241
0.225
-0.311
-0.431
-0.531
0.134
0.464
0.410
-0.213
0.225
0.396
-0.266
-0.025
0.039
0.056
0.036
-0.518
0.215
0.105
-0.337
0.249
0.087
-0.109
0.459
-0.190
-0.228
0.053
-0.269
0.048
-0.281
0.488
0.166
0.395
-0.539
0.108
-0.171
0.000
(0.745)
(0.745)
-0.332
0.285
0.204
-0.121
-0.117
-0.030
-0.107
0.016
0.075
-0.310
0.277
0.076
-0.064
0.017
0.156
0.041
-0.090
-0.137
0.265
-0.269
-0.008
0.108
-0.141
0.124
-0.074
0.235
0.005
0.269
-0.414
-0.251
0.108
0.510
0.249
-0.456
-0.275
0.000
-0.025
0.025
(0.574)
(0.837)
(0.772)
(0.634)
(0.796)
(0.781)
(0.797)
(0.813)
(0.792)
0.150
0.463
0.190
0.135
0.031
0.199
-0.447
-0.077
-0.304
-0.146
-0.100
-0.092
0.196
0.127
-0.194
0.223
0.000
0.070
-0.029
-0.698
0.134
-0.060
-0.339
0.023
0.123
0.202
0.000
0.092
-0.092
-0.238
0.097
-0.036
-0.126
0.432
0.002
-0.090
0.014
-0.153
(0.750)
(0.786)
(0.834)
(0.860)
(0.864)
(0.871)
(0.821)
(0.877)
(0.791)
(0.862)
(0.786)
(0.784)
0.292
-0.320
0.126
-0.428
-0.027
-0.431
0.416
0.485
-0.005
0.171
-0.108
-0.125
0.087
-0.066
0.000
-0.354
0.354
-0.616
0.052
-0.237
-0.541
0.254
0.099
0.294
0.572
-0.180
0.409
0.000
-0.269
0.152
-0.583
-0.262
-0.098
-0.040
-0.288
0.550
0.243
0.252
(0.838)
(0.792)
(0.909)
(0.745)
(0.770)
(0.829)
(0.770)
(0.567)
(0.771)
217
Green E Efficienc
-0.379
-0.180
0.502
0.042
0.081
0.000
-0.255
0.255
0.990
-0.028
0.191
0.636
0.093
-0.060
-0.312
-0.668
-0.419
-0.184
-0.527
-0.198
0.009
0.372
-0.255
0.100
0.043
0.033
-0.376
0.509
0.496
-0.220
-0.305
0.134
0.211
0.432
-0.127
-0.070
-0.313
0.194
0.123
0.001
-0.725
0.169
0.288
0.000
0.213
-0.213
0.527
0.163
-0.070
0.218
-0.247
-0.416
0.070
0.207
-0.284
-0.137
0.330
0.093
-0.155
-0.063
-0.050
0.430
-0.198
0.479
-0.397
-0.094
-0.185
-0.995
-0.155
0.082
0.984
0.442
0.571
-0.804
0.204
-0.208
SE
P value
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Table 4.24: Loading and Cross-loading Results (Continuation)

Q22
Q33
Q34
Q38
Q26
Q31
Q32
Q41
Q42
Q43
Q60
Q30
DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
0.232
-0.114
-0.165
0.079
0.251
0.052
-0.449
0.416
0.023
-0.168
-0.313
0.163
-0.477
-0.034
0.422
0.048
-0.287
0.092
0.011
0.096
-0.028
0.102
-0.364
0.362
0.107
-0.024
-0.058
-0.013
0.258
-0.099
0.066
0.069
0.071
-0.168
0.026
-0.241
0.135
-0.392
0.415
-0.119
0.373
0.178
-0.212
-0.257
0.290
-0.136
-0.613
0.299
0.267
0.199
-0.023
-0.437
-0.091
0.024
0.373
0.321
-0.326
-0.115
0.226
-0.401
-0.052
0.163
-0.115
-0.014
-0.173
-0.426
0.172
0.259
-0.435
0.598
0.137
-0.110
Green E Efficienc
(0.776)
(0.918)
(0.857)
(0.846)
-0.183
0.129
0.108
-0.262
-0.035
-0.152
0.473
-0.020
-0.439
0.106
-0.370
0.662
(0.902)
(0.873)
(0.890)
(0.856)
(0.874)
(0.870)
(0.761)
(0.829)
SE
P value
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
0.096
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Table 4.25: Models Path Coefficients

DG
DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
Green E
Efficien
DS
0.459
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
0.531
0.825
0.471
Green E Efficien
0.496
0.493 -0.201
0.706
0.744
P-values show significant correlations, except from DS to DA, which is 0.022 significant,
but with a negative value. With these analyses, we feel confident about the validity of the model.
Table 4.26: Models Path Coefficients p-values
DG
DG
DS
<0.001
PHEV
DA
<0.001
DN
DR
Green E
Efficien
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
<0.001
0.022
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001 <0.001
218
Green E Efficien
Table 4.27: Models Correlations of I vs. Square root of AVEs

DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
Green E
Efficien
DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
(0.843)
0.674
0.427
0.595
0.702
0.682
0.644
0.807
0.674
(1.000)
0.687
0.397
0.624
0.503
0.390
0.770
0.427
0.687
(0.745)
0.292
0.418
0.432
0.411
0.600
0.595
0.397
0.292
(0.760)
0.677
0.737
0.519
0.742
0.702
0.624
0.418
0.677
(0.825)
0.580
0.395
0.779
0.682
0.503
0.432
0.737
0.580
(0.782)
0.768
0.769
Green E Efficien
0.644
0.39
0.411
0.519
0.395
0.768
(0.851)
0.567
0.807
0.770
0.600
0.742
0.779
0.769
0.567
(0.858)
Table 4.28: Models Correlations p-values

DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
Green E
Efficien
DG
DS
PHEV
DA
DN
DR
1.000
<0.001
0.015
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
0.024
<0.001
0.003
0.027
<0.001
0.015
<0.001
1.000
0.104
0.017
0.014
0.019
<0.001
<0.001
0.024
0.104
1.000
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.017
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
0.025
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
0.014
<0.001
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
<0.001
Green E Efficien
<0.001
0.027
0.019
0.002
0.025
<0.001
1.000
<0.001
Figure 4.24: Second PLS Model with Results

219
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.000
Table 4.29: Models Latent Variable coefficients

DG
R-squared
Adj. R-squared
Composite reliab.
Cronbach's alpha
Avg. var. extrac.
Full collin. VIF
Q-squared
DS
0.924
0.896
0.711
4.126
PHEV
DA
0.658
0.202
0.634
0.147
1.000 0.714 0.924
1.000 0.199 0.906
1.000 0.555 0.577
3.785 2.260 3.430
0.662
0.401
DN
DR
0.499
0.482
0.962
0.957
0.680
3.056
0.500
0.553
0.538
0.933
0.918
0.611
4.755
0.565
Green E Efficien
0.680
0.670
0.913
0.871
0.724
3.130
0.680
0.803
0.790
0.957
0.948
0.736
8.528
0.811
Although the R2 for DA, DN and DR came under the 0.6 target, we can support the
model because DR and DN are very close to 0.5, which is still acceptable.
4.5.7
Hypotheses H8s Results

220
4.5.8
Conclusions and Next Steps
The result of the PLS-SEM is that supply exerts a moderate influence on ICT, which is an
important driver for participation. That is, without ICT the consumers participation, hence the
cyber risks, will be minimal. With the participation of stakeholders, it is also possible to reach
the green energy, or Smart Grid environmental friendly energy. As shown in the prior chapters of
this dissertation, the most important elements in the new business model for Smart Grid seem to
be technology (ICT) and participation to achieve the cost (Efficiency), environmental
(conservation) and social (access). Environmental protection has been a flag for years where
scientists and academics have been looking forward to renewable resources, but the main drivers
now seem to be the involvement of consumers to optimize and even generate energy.
4.6 COST OF SMART ENERGY
The new energy management model has an economic component that focuses on the
financial impact for both consumer and producer. The consumer will be impacted by the
electricity tariff, which includes the fees or prices related to the consumed electricity charged in
the bill from the utility company or the provider. The producer will focus on the cost of the
investment, operating and maintenance costs for providing the energy to the end consumer.
The electricity tariff or pricing structure will vary from one country to another and even
from one state to another. The role of the government on regulating prices of electricity and
allowing competition of the supply chain are a big influence on the tariffs. In those jurisdictions
with more than a single authorized electricity provider, there is a possibility that the price or
tariff charged by all competitors is pretty much in line. The price range of electricity has to cover
the expenses of the involved stakeholders, and it also has to comply with any governmental
221
agency regulation.
Some of the most important components of the electricity tariff are the operating and
maintenance costs of the generation sites. Depending on the fuel or renewable resource used to
generate electricity, companies have to pay for the raw materials and/or equipment. Because
some entities regulate electricity tariffs, companies have to periodically report the above
mentioned costs to justify if they pretend to increase the energy price. Another important
component of the tariff is the number of customers being serviced. If the population is spread
throughout the territory, the cost of energy is going to be a little bit higher due to the
transportation cost, while heavily concentrated urban areas shall have a lower cost of electricity.
For any company to remain in business there has to be a certain level of profit for the
investors, therefore the government agencies regulating the prices can provide subsidies to offset
the difference and make this an attractive incentive for stockholders.
The level of consumption of energy is another important factor because in some areas,
there are temperature changes within seasons that will affect energy use, for instance, during hot
summers or cold winters, there is a certain level of expected consumption, but if the weather is
mild, users will consume less power for either heating or cooling their sites. Based on the end
user consumption, some companies have different tariffs for residential, commercial and
industrial customers, which are driven on the historical consumption.
Electricity tariff = f{consumption} + f{generating source} + f{operating costs} +f{maintenance
costs} + f{fuels} + f{deregulation} + f{competition} + f{urban concentration} + f{error}
222
4.6.1
Hypotheses H9
Because the most electricity is used by the commercial and residential sectors, they are
more willing to increase or decrease consumption (Kang & Jia, 2011). Therefore, Smart Grids
are meant to maximize throughput and reduce consumption in the system (Guo et al., 2011). If
the laws of the free market rule in this area without governmental intervention, higher
consumption will lower the price of electricity. We expect that consumption of electricity either
low or high will certainly have an impact on the tariff of electricity.
H9a: The consumption level of electricity in a state has an impact on their electricity tariff.
The generated electricity is not going to have the same cost because some processes use
sources such as wind, photovoltaic, petroleum, nuclear materials, hydro power and others. The
cost shall include the process itself, as well as the maintenance and supplies or fuel used in the
generation process. Nuclear energy has been receiving bad news with the European withdrawal
from the use of nuclear plants to generate electricity. Integrating renewable resources energy
generation at lower costs is one of the greatest challenges (Grbe et al., 2012), so we present the
next hypotheses related to the impact of maintenance, operation and fuels costs related to tariff.
H9b: The Generation Process Cost has an important influence on the electricity Tariff
H9c: The Maintenance Cost has an important influence on the electricity Tariff
H9d: The Used Fuels have an important influence on the electricity Tariff
The government intervention in the electricity utility companies has resulted on the loss
of vertical integrations of those companies that used to control the whole process (Monti et al.,
2010). Deregulation also brings a very healthy competition among distribution utility companies
223
(Solanki et al., 2012). With these contributions among others, we are definitively expecting an
economic impact on the tariffs at those entities that are either regulated or deregulated.
H9e: Deregulation has an important influence on the Electrical Tariff
Another law from the free market is that more competition is going to put pressure on the
prices of goods, so if we have many competitors fighting to capture customer at certain state, we
expect the cost of electricity to fall, or increase if there is a limited number of providers.
H9f: The number of competitors in the electricity supply has an important influence on Tariff
Detroit Edison, a DTE Energy company, implemented smart grids at three sites based on
the classification of rural, semi-urban and densely populated (Asgeirsson, 2010). Depending on
the accessibility of the distribution systems, the maintenance cost is going to increase; therefore
we expect population density to have an important influence on the tariff too.
H9g: The population density has an important influence on Tariff
224
4.6.2
Electricity Consumption
East North Central
Mountain
Pacific Non-Contiguous
West South Central
Sales (Millions MWh)
1,000
900
800
East South Central

New England
South Atlantic
Middle Atlantic
Pacific Contiguous
West North Central
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Figure 4.25: Total Electricity Consumption by Census Division

Figure 4.25 shows the evolution on the consumption of electricity in the different
divisions as grouped by the Census office. It is evident that there is a drop in the last 4 years, as
electricity consumption has dropped in that period. However, the change in rates does not show
the same decrease while looking at the revenue of electricity sales, shown in Figure 4.26.
225
Revenue (Thousand Millions Dlls)
90
East South Central

Mountain
Pacific Contiguous
South Atlantic
West South Central
East North Central

Middle Atlantic
New England
West North Central
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Figure 4.26: Total Electricity Revenue by Census Division

Cents/KWh
30
25
20
East North Central

Middle Atlantic
New England
West North Central
East South Central

Mountain
Pacific Contiguous
South Atlantic
West South Central
15
10
5
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Figure 4.27: Cost of Electricity per Census Division

Using the information available at the Energy Information Administration, we calculate
the tariff of electricity by division and years, which is shown in Figure 4.27. It is evident that
electricity has increased in general, with a most noticeable increment in Hawaii (Pacific N-C).
226
4.6.3
Generation and Costs by Sources
In order to calculate the benefit of some sources of energy generation, we selected the
generation information in the same EIA internet site and calculated the evolution of every
source, as well as the state dependency on that type of energy generation. It is concerning to find
out that some states depend almost entirely on coal, which is the case in Indiana, Kentucky, West
Virginia and Wyoming. All these states generate more than 90% of their electricity using coal.
Vermont depends heavily (73%) on nuclear energy, while the District of Columbia almost
entirely depends on petroleum (94%). Rhode Island is heavily depending on natural gas, with
almost 97% of their energy generation, while Idaho draws 84% of their energy from
hydroelectric conventional.
To compare statistics, we grouped the states into the Census
divisions so that we can reduce those dependencies from certain states. By grouping them into
divisions, none of them showed a dependency higher than 74%.
Table 4.31: Sources of Electricity Generation by Census Division
Division
East North
Central
East South
Central
Middle
Atlantic
Mountain
New England
Pacific
Contiguous
Pacific NonContiguous
South Atlantic
West North
Central
West South
Central
Div. Avg.
Coal Nuclear
Wood+
Solar/
Natural HydroGeoOther
Other
Pumped
Petroleum
Derived Wind
Other
PhotoGas electric
thermal
Biomass
Gases
Storage
Fuels
voltaic
69.63% 22.71% 4.67% 0.76%
0.53%
0.48% 0.44% 0.32% 0.09% 0.51% 0.00% -0.15%
63.42% 18.20% 9.43% 6.33%
0.96%
1.68% 0.00% 0.03% 0.04% 0.07% 0.00% -0.17%
34.87% 33.99% 17.92% 7.35%
4.10%
0.30% 0.32% 1.04% 0.32% 0.23% 0.01% -0.44%
63.59% 8.72% 14.65% 10.55% 0.22% 0.54% 0.20% 1.17% 0.03% 0.12% 0.08% 0.08% 0.04%
14.34% 29.24% 30.74% 6.67% 11.53%
4.03% 0.19% 2.81% 0.94% 0.00% 0.01% -0.49%
3.98% 11.49% 31.27% 43.16%
0.68%
11.44%
53.28% 1.10% 0.23% 0.67% 2.85% 0.73% 0.27% 0.01%
21.42% 8.00%
3.77% 1.56% 2.19% 0.78% 0.11% 0.70% 0.21% 0.11%
51.92% 25.31% 13.78% 2.13%
4.55%
1.42% 0.04% 0.57% 0.46% 0.10% 0.01% -0.30%
73.76% 15.26% 3.06% 3.94%
0.43%
0.21% 2.93% 0.30% 0.08% 0.02% 0.00% 0.02%
38.44% 11.29% 44.24% 1.41%
0.76%
0.97% 1.69% 0.08% 0.24% 0.88% 0.00% -0.02%
42.54% 19.58% 19.12% 9.03%
7.70%
1.80% 1.11% 0.97% 0.88% 0.31% 0.29% 0.03% -0.16%
227
Table 4.32: Sources of Electricity Generation per State

State
Coal
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Avg.
8.97%
53.28%
48.71%
42.03%
1.22%
76.09%
10.45%
0.00%
52.70%
32.76%
58.95%
12.90%
77.99%
0.54%
46.22%
93.24%
70.73%
93.88%
24.19%
24.27%
56.79%
2.64%
61.21%
60.58%
82.47%
31.85%
59.14%
58.15%
89.90%
64.68%
18.05%
13.55%
81.72%
42.58%
14.88%
85.58%
54.09%
6.36%
54.13%
0.00%
36.65%
36.09%
61.03%
37.93%
89.66%
43.54%
Nuclear
23.68%
27.84%
30.65%
16.71%
48.96%
14.30%
26.02%
10.02%
49.19%
20.55%
17.38%
12.42%
27.77%
8.96%
23.50%
25.27%
11.50%
23.72%
31.52%
28.97%
47.70%
49.76%
26.33%
10.29%
0.98%
34.90%
54.76%
26.57%
9.47%
38.08%
73.16%
7.87% 7.07%
67.40% 19.63%
97.52%
94.28%
46.79% 26.59%
Wood+
Natural HydroGeoPetroleum
Derived
Gas electric
thermal
Fuels
57.53% 19.97% 12.69%
0.61%
12.44% 7.46%
0.19%
2.69%
13.32% 6.48%
0.32%
3.17%
18.15% 8.42%
0.09%
0.07%
49.02% 17.65%
1.16% 6.82% 1.88%
17.11% 3.73%
0.07%
0.00%
21.50% 1.51% 12.33%
0.00%
5.56%
94.44%
28.92%
14.64%
35.87% 0.11% 13.12%
1.10%
8.58% 2.98%
0.77%
2.71%
0.00% 0.91% 77.35% 1.76% 0.00%
2.33% 2.11%
0.26%
0.00%
7.97% 84.06%
0.01% 0.16% 4.14%
2.82% 0.08%
0.31%
0.00%
3.05% 0.39%
0.50%
5.11% 0.03%
0.61%
0.89% 3.47%
1.53%
0.18%
49.43% 1.01%
2.73%
2.94%
39.79% 2.52% 17.41%
0.36%
4.15% 4.03%
4.78%
0.37%
28.77% 23.29% 10.33%
21.21%
11.32% 1.38%
0.70%
1.51%
4.41% 1.78%
1.00%
1.20%
3.42% 1.87%
0.31%
0.00%
37.03%
3.51%
3.85%
0.32% 37.59%
1.28%
0.26%
3.73% 4.27%
0.40%
1.48%
0.03% 6.20%
0.17%
1.45% 3.88%
0.09%
14.78% 8.13%
5.15%
4.92%
32.50% 0.04%
1.79%
0.00%
15.34% 0.69%
0.13% 0.00%
44.68% 7.12%
0.38% 4.86% 0.00%
28.59% 19.34%
8.97%
0.37%
2.66% 0.29%
0.55%
0.30%
38.66% 4.21%
0.10%
0.37%
16.80% 71.63%
0.05% 0.02% 1.19%
6.77% 1.22%
1.44%
0.33%
96.81% 0.11%
1.03%
4.67% 2.70%
0.34%
1.73%
1.93% 56.38%
0.21%
1.31% 10.55%
0.31%
0.78%
48.07% 0.36%
0.45%
0.29%
6.83% 2.10%
0.12% 0.55%
11.35% 1.73%
3.47%
2.18%
0.29% 20.04%
0.22%
5.80%
5.77% 76.05%
0.09%
1.15%
5.91% 3.50%
0.88%
1.43%
0.24% 1.50%
0.26%
0.00%
0.95% 2.00%
0.11%
0.01%
16.84% 11.18%
5.87% 2.02% 1.72%
228
Wind
0.13%
0.06%
2.43%
3.02%
0.01%
1.00%
7.04%
2.43%
0.83%
0.52%
2.95%
0.04%
0.08%
0.96%
0.19%
4.06%
0.28%
Other Other
Other
Biomass Gases
0.10%
0.01%
0.07%
0.02%
1.26%
0.09%
3.90%
0.01% 0.00%
0.18% 0.06%
0.00% 0.05%
0.13%
1.12% 0.16%
0.00% 0.04%
0.01% 1.33%
0.04%
0.14% 0.23%
0.37% 0.20%
0.05% -0.20%
0.00% 0.00%
0.45%
1.37%
0.08%
4.48%
0.24%
0.10%
0.33%
0.13%
0.02%
0.04%
0.10%
3.53%
0.93%
2.48%
0.68%
1.33%
0.04%
0.01%
3.20%
0.01%
0.00%
0.43%
0.05%
0.01%
0.00% -0.10%
0.01%
1.14%
3.51%
0.82%
0.18%
0.01%
1.98%
0.05%
0.53%
0.07%
2.62%
2.69%
0.26%
0.01%
5.35%
0.02%
2.18%
0.27%
0.37%
1.50%
0.54%
0.33%
2.26%
1.35%
Solar/
Pumped
PhotoStorage
voltaic
0.10%
0.02%
0.11%
0.90%
1.73%
0.04%
0.00%
1.23%
0.09%
0.05%
0.22%
0.72%
1.64%
0.09%
0.00%
0.06%
0.09%
0.04%
1.08%
0.09%
0.17%
0.60%
0.00%
0.04%
1.35%
0.02%
1.16%
0.01%
0.60%
0.16% 0.05%
2.01% 0.16%
0.00%
1.52%
0.00%
0.75%
0.01%
0.18%
0.01%
0.00%
0.03%
0.04%
0.00%
0.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.35%
0.02%
0.03%
0.17%
0.07%
0.00%
0.33%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.97%
0.32%
0.00%
0.02%
0.26%
0.00%
0.14%
0.25%
0.64% 0.29%
0.01%
0.70%
1.05%
0.33%
1.34%
0.18%
0.36%
0.03%
0.01%
0.23%
0.24%
0.03%
0.00%
0.18%
0.54%
0.00%
0.03%
0.36%
0.01%
0.01%
0.05%
0.23%
0.40%
0.04%
0.03%
0.05%
0.19%
0.11%
0.35%
0.04%
0.10%
0.00%
0.14%
0.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01% -1.41%
0.01%
-0.85%
0.00%
0.08%
0.02%
0.10%
0.07% -0.32%
0.11%
0.28%
0.00% -0.62%
0.00%
-0.18%
0.00%
0.00% -0.34%
0.00%
0.00% -1.00%
0.00% -0.68%
0.00%
0.00% 0.00%
0.00% -1.77%
0.02%
0.00% 0.01%
0.00%
0.04% -0.34%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Table 4.33: Generation Costs for Sources of Electricity
Operation
Maintenance
Fossil Hydro- Gas Turbine and
Year Nuclear
Nuclear
Steam electric
Small Scale
Steam electric
Small Scale
2002 9.00
2.59
3.71
3.26
5.04
2.67
2.62
2.38
2003 9.12
2.74
3.47
3.50
5.23
2.72
2.32
2.26
2004 8.97
3.13
3.83
4.27
5.38
2.96
2.76
2.14
2005 8.26
3.21
3.95
3.69
5.27
2.98
2.73
1.89
2006 9.03
3.57
3.76
3.51
5.69
3.19
2.70
2.16
2007 9.54
3.63
5.44
3.26
5.79
3.37
3.87
2.42
2008 9.89
3.72
5.78
3.77
6.20
3.59
3.89
2.72
2009 10.00
4.23
4.88
3.05
6.34
3.96
3.50
2.58
2010 10.50
4.04
5.33
2.79
6.80
3.99
3.81
2.73
2011 10.89
4.02
5.13
2.81
6.80
3.99
3.74
2.93
2012 11.60
3.73
6.71
2.46
6.80
3.99
4.63
2.76
Year Nuclear
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
4.60
4.60
4.58
4.63
4.85
4.99
5.29
5.35
6.68
7.01
7.08
Fossil
Steam
16.09
17.29
18.21
21.69
23.09
23.88
28.43
32.30
27.73
27.08
24.17
Fuel
Total
Hydro- Gas Turbine and
Nuclear
electric
Small Scale
Steam electric
Small Scale
-31.84
18.65 21.36 6.33
37.47
-43.89
18.95 22.75 5.79
49.66
-45.18
18.93 24.31 6.60
51.59
-55.52
18.15 27.88 6.68
61.10
-53.89
19.57 29.85 6.46
59.56
-58.75
20.32 30.88 9.32
64.43
-64.23
21.37 35.75 9.67
70.72
-51.93
21.69 40.48 8.38
57.55
-43.21
23.98 35.76 9.15
48.74
-38.80
24.70 35.09 8.88
44.54
-30.45
25.48 31.89 11.34
35.67
In order to calculate the materials used, maintenance and operations costs, we developed
the following table that considers these expenses for most sources of electricity generation.
These figures are based on the public information from the Department of Energy. It is important
to note that the gas turbine and small scale include gas turbine, internal combustion,
photovoltaic, and wind plants.
229
The expenses averages are weighted by net generation on mill units per KWh, where a
mill equals 1/1000 of U.S. dollar. The most expensive operating and maintenance costs are from
nuclear energy, ramping up from 14 to 18.4 tenths of a cent per KWh. The fuels are more
expensive for petroleum, natural gas, and wind and solar, although petroleum has been ramping
up while the other turbine resources are stabilizing down. For this research we are going to use
the 2012 figures for the tariffs, which show the gas turbine as the most expensive source of
energy, followed by petroleum and nuclear. By far the cheapest source of energy is the
hydroelectric, as expected because the fuel cost is zero.
4.6.4 Deregulation Status

Originally due to the expenses to run a utility company, private-owned firms controlled
the vertically integrated process of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. This
control persisted until there were some local regulations imposed by cities that in certain ways
were favored certain stakeholders. Based upon this favoritism, state and federal regulations
appeared. In 1978 the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) slowly introduced
competition into the sector, supporting the role of independent power producerswhich was
further promoted in 1992 with the Energy Policy Act (Kim, 2013). By the late 90s the mighty
retail markets were forced into competition with the beginning of state retail deregulations that
allowed consumers to choose their own electricity suppliers. Table 4.34 shows the current status
of deregulation, including some states like California, Nevada and others that cancelled their
deregulations due to their energy crisis, which were considered regulatory more than economic
crisis.
230
Table 4.34: States with Electricity Deregulation Status

States without Deregulation
Alabama
Missouri
Alaska
Nebraska
Colorado North Carolina
Florida North Dakota
Georgia
Oklahoma
Hawaii South Carolina
Idaho
South Dakota
Indiana
Tennessee
Iowa
Utah
Kansas
Vermont
Kentucky Washington
Louisiana West Virginia
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Mississippi
4.6.5
Deregulation Suspended
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Nevada
New Mexico
Virginia
Wyoming
States with Deregulation

Connecticut
Delaware
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusets
Michigan
Montana
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Texas
Washington DC
Competition by State
Considering the utility companies that were reporting revenue in 2013 to the EIA, we
developed the list shown in Table 4.35, where Tennessee is the state with the most competition,
as there are 24 competitors in the state, 11 of which as municipalities and 9 cooperatives. South
Dakota is second in the number of competitors with 7 cooperatives, 6 private and 5
municipalities. It is important to note that the deregulated states have a different behaviour to the
ones with regulations. Table 4.35 shows the differences when we grouped the states by their
deregulation status. Deregulated states show less competition and 71.5% being private
companies. On the contrary, those states that cancelled the deregulation show an average of
above 10 companies with the largest municipal, state and federal government intervention. The
states without deregulation also have a large number of competitors 9.2 average, and the largest
number of municipalities, or cities providing their own electricity, as in the case of Tennessee
231
Table 4.35: Competition by State and Ownership of Utility Companies

Pol.
Inv.
St.
Coop Munic. Fed.
Subdiv.
Own
TN 3
9
11
1
SD 6
7
5
1
1
CA 5
2
4
1
4
NE
2
4
1
7
ND 3
10
1
MN 5
5
2
1
WI 12
1
UT 1
4
5
1
1
1
CO 2
7
2
1
AK 4
6
2
MT 5
5
2
NV 2
5
1
1
1
1
PA 11
AZ 5
2
1
1
2
WY 5
4
1
1
MI 8
1
2
WA 3
1
2
2
3
KY 5
4
1
1
ID
3
5
1
1
NY 8
1
1
NM 3
2
2
1
1
MO 4
2
2
KS 4
1
2
1
OK 3
4
1
OR 3
1
1
1
2
AR 4
4
State
4.6.6
Total
State
24
20
16
14
14
13
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
9
8
8
8
8
8
NC
MS
AL
VA
SC
OH
MA
TX
FL
IN
WV
LA
MD
GA
HI
CT
NH
DE
NJ
IL
VT
IA
RI
ME
DC
Total
Pol.
Inv.
St. Total
Coop Munic. Fed.
Subdiv.
Own
3
3
1
1
8
2
4
1
1
8
1
2
3
1
7
3
3
1 7
4
2
1 7
7
7
5
2
7
5
1
6
5
1
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
1
5
1
2
1
4
3
1
4
2
2
4
3
1
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
198 115
68
23
20
9 433
Urban Concentration
For concentration in the states we are going to use the information in Table 3.27. Because
weather severity is a difficult measure for it is an attribute that can be hardly quantified, we are
going to eliminate it from the equation.
232
Table 4.36: Competition compared to Deregulation Status

States without Deregulation
Inv.
Pol.
State
Coop Munic. Fed.
St. Total
Own
Subdiv.
TN 3
9
11
1
24
SD 6
7
5
1
1
20
NE
2
4
1
7
14
ND 3
10
1
14
MN 5
5
2
1
13
WI 12
1
13
UT 1
4
5
1
1
1
13
CO 2
7
2
1
12
AK 4
6
2
12
WA 3
1
2
2
3
11
KY 5
4
1
1
11
ID
3
5
1
1
10
MO 4
2
2
8
KS 4
1
2
1
8
OK 3
4
1
8
NC 3
3
1
1
8
MS 2
4
1
1
8
AL 1
2
3
1
7
SC 4
2
1
7
DC 1
1
FL 5
1
6
IN
6
6
WV 5
5
LA 5
5
GA 1
2
1
4
HI
3
1
4
VT 1
1
1
3
IA
3
3
3.50 2.96 1.68 0.54 0.43 0.11 9.21
4.6.7
State
CT
DE
IL
ME
MD
MA
MI
MT
NH
NJ
NY
OH
OR
PA
RI
TX
State
AZ
AR
CA
NV
NM
VA
WY
States with Deregulation

Inv.
Pol.
Coop Munic. Fed.
St. Total
Own
Subdiv.
2
2
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
1
1
2
4
1
5
5
2
7
8
1
2
11
5
5
2
12
3
1
4
4
4
8
1
1
10
7
7
3
1
1
1
2
8
11
11
2
1
3
5
1
6
4.56 0.63 0.81 0.19 0.13 0.06 6.38
States that Cancelled the Deregulation
Inv.
Pol.
Coop Munic. Fed.
St. Total
Own
Subdiv.
5
2
1
1
2
11
4
4
8
5
2
4
1
4
16
2
5
1
1
1
1
11
3
2
2
1
1
9
3
3
1
7
5
4
1
1
11
3.86 3.14 1.14 0.71 0.86 0.71 10.43
Methodology
Taking the cost of operation, maintenance and fuels, we multiply the percentages of
energy generation to calculate the cost by the mix. Table 4.37 shows the results where, as
expected, Vermont is the state with the highest operating and maintenance costs, due to their
dependency on nuclear energy. In regards to fuel, the highest cost is for Rhode Island, which
depends on natural gas generation. Using these results we calculated the regression of the tariff
233
for regulated and deregulated states based on the formula at the beginning of the section 4.5.
Table 4.37: Cost per Energy generation Mix by State
State
AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
ID
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
Op
Cost
3.57
5.55
5.82
6.14
4.49
3.59
7.16
3.66
3.22
4.26
5.66
3.45
4.45
5.92
7.54
3.61
5.24
3.81
4.30
4.14
3.82
5.41
5.56
4.64
4.98
Maint
Cost
3.38
4.43
4.52
4.66
3.48
3.77
4.90
3.92
3.49
3.80
4.53
3.67
4.16
4.20
5.31
3.86
4.47
3.99
3.67
3.72
3.03
4.45
4.49
4.27
4.05
Fuel
State
22.79
18.39
17.88
17.94
17.54
24.55
15.52
24.52
25.10
23.03
18.89
22.12
22.48
3.30
15.84
23.74
21.15
23.33
22.79
23.09
12.82
20.13
19.25
21.95
21.50
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
Op
Cost
4.81
6.22
3.86
6.09
7.31
7.15
3.53
3.19
5.96
4.49
3.32
5.64
6.38
2.43
8.03
5.32
6.11
3.79
3.66
6.57
9.86
6.40
5.22
3.76
3.73
Maint
Cost
4.19
4.78
3.98
4.80
4.96
4.90
3.78
3.29
4.44
4.22
3.50
4.18
4.84
2.72
5.45
4.26
4.78
3.58
3.88
4.86
5.93
4.52
4.40
3.99
3.95
Fuel
15.05
17.52
22.85
18.40
13.54
17.15
25.09
24.09
16.49
22.38
25.67
7.56
18.04
29.73
14.24
10.99
17.11
25.25
23.86
17.51
5.44
4.64
19.86
23.81
23.79
Table 4.38: 27 Regulated Entities Regression Results with R2=0.794
234
Table 4.39: Regulated formerly Deregulated Entities Regression Results
Table 4.40: 16 Deregulated Entities Regression Results with R2=0.765
Table 4.39 shows the regression for the 7 states that were formerly deregulated, although
the sample is small, it gives a good idea of a linear match to the regression line shown in Figure
4.29. Table 4.38 shows a good regression for most of the variables of the regulated states with
the only exception of the number of competitors, which is not significant. Table 4.40 for
deregulated states has a good regression, although there are three variables which are not
significant: the number of competitors with a p-value of 0.457 and also population density and
consumption which were below 25% but higher than the ideal 10%. Based on these results, we
can support hypotheses H9a because consumption is significant for regulated states and
moderately significant for deregulated entities. We can also support hypotheses H9b, H9c and
235
H9d because the operating, maintenance and fuel costs are all significant for the entire selected
universe.
Deregulation is important because we separated the three categories for regression and
the results are slightly different, so we can support the hypothesis H9e which stated that
deregulation affects the tariff. In regards to the number of competitors in the state, we are finding
this relation not significant for regulated and deregulated states, although it was significant for
those states that were deregulated and return to regulation. Therefor we cannot support
hypothesis H9f because competition does not seem to be making a difference in tariffs. The last
hypothesis (H9g) is related to population density, so, analyzing the tables below we see that the
beta factor is very small and the relationship is moderately significant for deregulated states, but
it is significant for all other regulated states. Thus we can support this hypothesis with the caveat
of small betas.
Figure 4.28: Regression Predicted Values for the Regulated Entities
236
Figures 4.28, 4.29 and 4.30 show a good correlation between the tariff and the predicted
regression values, although there is more spread for all states. The regression seems to be very
accurate for regulated and formerly regulated states. For the deregulated ones, the regression is
good but competition and population density are not significant.
Figure 4.29: Regression Predicted Values for the Formerly Deregulated Entities
Figure 4.30: Regression Predicted Values for the Deregulated Entities

237
4.6.8
Hypotheses H9 Results
Most of the hypotheses in this section are supported with the exception of the number of
competitors in the utility sector, which presents a non-significant relationship with the electricity
tariff. The deregulation attribute shows that the slope and crossing of the regression lines is
different for each category. Based upon the regression lines, we can support the hypothesis of
deregulation impacting the tariff.
4.6.9
Conclusions
By analyzing the results of the regression we see that regulation plays a very important
role in the establishment of the electricity tariff. The lowest and highest tariffs come from
regulated states, while the majority of all states (70%) have tariffs between five and ten cents,
238
although deregulated states see a higher number of states with tariffs between ten and fifteen
cents.
Table 4.42: Percentages of Tariff vs. Regulation Status
Tariff
<=0.05
<=0.10
<=0.15
>0.15
Total
Reg
Dereg/Reg
11.1%
14.3%
77.8%
71.4%
7.4%
14.3%
3.7%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
Dereg
0.0%
56.3%
43.8%
0.0%
100.0%
Total
8.0%
70.0%
20.0%
2.0%
100.0%
Reg
Dereg/reg
75.0%
25.0%
60.0%
14.3%
20.0%
10.0%
100.0%
0.0%
54.0%
14.0%
Dereg
0.0%
25.7%
70.0%
0.0%
32.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
The failure in California that forced the move to regulation shall be further analyzed
because the tariff at the states under this category exactly follows the developed formula in
section 4.5 of this dissertation. Fuel costs and population density have a negative factor, in such a
way that if they increase the tariff goes down. This issue can be explained as the proximity of
people living close-by lowers that tariff, which makes sense, but the fuel element is difficult to
explain. By observing the types of fuel used mostly at those states that moved away from
deregulation back to regulation, we are seeing that most of them use renewable resources energy
generation that is grouped with the gas turbine and small scales category. The more the
renewable energy, the higher the fuel cost (time availability versus capacity makes the necessary
fuel for turbines expensive), and at the end, this issue results in a reduction of tariff.
For the other regulated states, the ones that have not moved to deregulation at all,
population density and consumption have more effect on tariffs because these are consideration
to the regulating agencies to allow prices increases; interestingly, the cost of fuel does not seem
to have an effect on tariff because the regulation will move these efficiencies or inefficiencies to
the bottom line of the utility company.
239
Deregulated states show a lesser effect in population density, consumption and number of
competitors, due in large part to free market pressure on efficiency of operation, maintenance
and fuel costs mostly. The number of competitors in the supply chain is the smallest as the law of
the strongest and more efficient prevails. The states that moved from deregulation present the
highest number of competitors in average, driven mostly by the sixteen companies in California
and eleven companies in Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming. Regulation puts pressure on their
operations to avoid losing money due to poor performance, but regulation also protects them.
240
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

5.1 GLOBAL POSITION OF SMART GRID DISTRIBUTION LITERATURE
The first research question is directed to understand the current global position of the
topic of Smart Grid Distribution. For this particular question, we conducted an extensive
literature survey that shows that SGD is a growing topic, as seen in the peer-review literature, as
well as open Internet databases. Most of the papers are devoted to empirical applications based
on case studies or lab tests to prove new technologies effects. Journal papers are being dominated
nowadays by Asian sources, while conference papers are growing and have taken the lead in
Europe.
We discovered that Journal papers are mostly driven by the number of conference papers,
so that based on the amount of planned conferences for next year on this subject we can predict
the number of journal papers that will be published.
Most papers on SGD have at least two authors, so this a collaborative subject that is
represented by authors from 61 countries, where the United States represents the majority of
authors, with a remote second place of Chinas researchers. We are seeing a shift from strategy
to quality control which implies that direction has already been provided and now the researchers
are working on further enhancing the current strategies. The different technologies under SGD
are still driving up the literature with emphasis on distributed generation and distribution
automation, which is ICT. No maturity level has been reached by the peer-reviewed literature as
of yet, so we expect the trend to continue growing for more years. SGD is not a fad, so we can
conclude that is here to stay as part of the business literature.
5.2 DIFFUSION MODELS FOR ICT ENHANCED TECHNOLOGIES
Following Bass model to predict the diffusion of ICT technologies, we see that solar and
241
wind generated electricity are the first ones to appear (1990) but solar has the flattest slope and it
is going to take much longer to fully implement in the US. PHEVs seemed to have reached the
maturity because of erratic behaviors being influenced by cost of fuel and battery development.
AMI is the most visible face of SGD and has been successfully implemented at many places, and
based on our prediction we are expecting the full deployment to be almost complete by 2027,
with the exception of solar energy that is dependent on the progress of storage and cost
reductions. Cyber risks haven been analyzed since 2005 and although there has been major
incidents, we do not see them slowing down or affecting the diffusion of SGD. In conclusion, the
implementation of SG is alive and well and expected to reach maturity within the next 30 years.
Figure 5.1: Diffusion of Smart Grid Distribution Technologies in the US
242
5.3 ENHANCED BUSINESS MODEL

An enhanced business model was developed containing four major areas: Supply, ICT,
Participation, and Green Efficient Energy. Conducting two different surveys we are able to
support the model and even add granularity by defining Supply in terms of distributed generation
and electric vehicles with a much needed distributed storage to be further developed. We found
that distributed storage is not seen by the people surveyed as a requirement for a good and
effective use of distribution automation. The reason might be that consumers do not believe yet
on storage which could be a handicap for the use of renewable resources and electric vehicles if
reliable and environmental friendly storage devices are not available.
As expected ICT is the core of the model and it goes along with a much necessary
participation of the stakeholders on the decision making process to optimize the electricity
delivery and consumption. The ICT block contains distribution automation and networks, which
are important for the two way communication and delivery of electricity, as well as the outage
control and self-healing responses. Participation of consumers is also important as they could
become prosumers and sell the excess generated electricity to the utility company or the
independent service providers that will bloom in the near future. The cost of electricity has been
evaluated and we found that overall operating costs are important for the electricity use that will
benefit or affect the bottom line of the company. The liberalization of electricity markets should
continue throughout the country, so that deregulation will have a slight impact on tariff increase,
but will reduce the number of competitors, and the push within utility companies will be to
optimize operations and reduce turbine fuel costs, independently of population density and
consumption. Green efficient energy shall be the result of SG deployment for distribution of
electricity, and all stakeholders will be participants and beneficiaries of these advancements.
243
5.4 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

The original objective for this dissertation was to respond to the question: How can we,
as global society, prepare for the imminent paradigm shift towards distributed generation and
distribution automation with ICT and other technologies, which introduce a new business model
where consumers might also be producers, millions of connections can make our systems
vulnerable, and the economics seem unfeasible?
The answer supported by our research is to continue developing strategies and improving
the quality of already proven strategies on renewable resources energy generation, developing a
more robust distributed storage system, integrate the electric vehicles to the grid for surplus
energy usage, monitor use of electricity and educate consumers on changing habits to be more
energy efficient, promote participation of consumers in the generation of energy, allow a good
flow of information and electricity through the distribution networks, develop smarter
mechanisms for self-healing, distribution automation and cyber-protection.
The key words in our research are distributed, smart and participatory, if all these
concepts are coined in the model; we are going to definitively have cleaner, accessible and
efficient energy.
5.5 NEXT STEPS AND FURTHER RESEARCH
There are some areas to continue watching for shifts in the energy management business
models, these are: literature may move towards more technical than management subjects,
electric vehicle diffusion may grow faster even with the effect of cheaper fuel costs and the
disappearance of government incentives, ARRA money may be used for refurbishing the current
grid moving toward communication and energy networks, cyber-attacks may be more harmful
and affect the diffusion of ICT in energy distribution, China may pass all countries on
244
implementing SGD due to the importance of this area for the government, global research
may be more regional than global, etc.
A larger sample of experts shall be pursued to further validate the model with more
experts responses, and the model may be further expanded to include government intervention
via regulations or liberalization.
This dissertation only includes papers listed at the ISI Web of Science to ensure they are
peer-reviewed and they come from credible sources and publishers. Based on this reasoning,
there are other papers regarding this topic but they are not considered here. So, another next step
from this research should be focused on identifying applications that are being implemented and
compare them to simulation numbers to determine if these actions are effective and if so,
recommend them for future technologies validation prior to implementation. Another
recommended area of further research is the analysis of Smart Grid Transmission papers to
compare the results and determine if they are running in parallel or if transmission was the early
focus that has now moved to distribution
245
REFERENCES
Abdelsalam, A., Sharaf, A. M. (2012). A novel facts compensation scheme for power quality
improvement in wind Smart Grid. In 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering (CCECE) (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/CCECE.2012.6334917
Abdollahy, S., Mammoli, A., Cheng, F., Ellis, A., Johnson, J. (2013). Distributed Compensation
of a Large Intermittent Energy Resource in a Distribution Feeder. In IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497911
Ablakovic, D., Dzafic, I., Kecici, S. (2012). Parallelization of radial three-phase distribution
power flow using GPU. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465854
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of
Innovations. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 586612. doi:10.2307/258919
Acampora, G., Loia, V., Vitiello, A. (2011). Exploiting Timed Automata based Fuzzy
Controllers for voltage regulation in Smart Grids. In IEEE International Conference on
Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011) (pp. 223230). Ieee. doi:10.1109/FUZZY.2011.6007617
Acha, S., van Dam, K. H., Shah, N. (2012). Modelling spatial and temporal agent travel patterns
for optimal charging of electric vehicles in low carbon networks. In IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345579
Adamec, M., Pavlatka, P., & Stary, O. (2011). Costs and Benefits of Smart Grids and
Accumulation in Czech Distribution System. Energy Procedia, 12, 6775.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.011
Agrawal, R., & Thukaram, D. (2013). Identification of Fault Location in Power Distribution
System with Distributed Generation Using Support Vector Machines. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497853
Agrell, P. J., Bogetoft, P., & Mikkers, M. (2013). Smart-grid investments, regulation and
organization. Energy Policy, 52, 656666. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.026
Agsten, M., Ifland, M., Schlegel, S., & Westermann, D. (2011). Utilizing Battery Electric and
Plug-In Hybrids for Smart Grid Operation Techniques. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6038958
Agero, J. R. (2012a). Applying Self-Healing Schemes to Modern Power Distribution Systems.
In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344960
246
Agero, J. R. (2012b). Improving the Efficiency of Power Distribution Systems through

Technical and Non-Technical Losses Reduction. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution
Conference & Exposition (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281652
Ahmed, M. O., & Lampe, L. (2013). Power Line Communications for Low-Voltage Power Grid
Tomography. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 61(12), 51635175.
doi:10.1109/TCOMM.2013.111613.130238
Ahn, M. C., Jang, J. Y., & Ko, T. K. (2013). HTS Wire Consumption Reduction in a Coil With
an Actively Controllable Magnetic Core for a Fault Current Controller. IEEE Transactions
on Applied Superconductivity, 23(3), 120123. doi:10.1109/TASC.2013.2249551
Ahn, M. C., & Ko, T. K. (2011). Proof-of-Concept of a Smart Fault Current Controller With a
Superconducting Coil for the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity,
21(3), 22012204. doi:10.1109/TASC.2010.2091386
Al-agtash, S. (2013). Electricity agents in smart grid markets. Computers in Industry, 64(3),
235241. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2012.10.009
Alam, M. J. E., Muttaqi, K. M., & Sutanto, D. (2013). A SAX-Based Advanced Computational
Tool for Assessment of Clustered Rooftop Solar PV Impacts on LV and MV Networks in
Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 577585.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2223492
Alam, S. M. S., Natarajan, B., & Pahwa, A. (2013). Impact of Correlated Distributed Generation
on Information Aggregation in Smart Grid. In 2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference.
doi:10.1109/GreenTech.2013.32
Al-awami, A., & Sortomme, E. (2013). Coordinating Vehicle-to-Grid Services. In IEEE Power
and Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672502
Albu, M. M., Neurohr, R., Apetrei, D., Silvas, I., & Federenciuc, D. (2010). Monitoring voltage
and frequency in smart distribution grids . A case study on data compression and
accessibility . In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589808
Ali, A., Abdel-akher, M., Ziadi, Z., & Senjyu, T. (2013). Coordinated Charging of Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicle for Voltage Profile Enhancement of Distribution Systems. In
International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems (PEDS) (pp. 399404).
doi:10.1109/PEDS.2013.6527052
Ali, S. Q., Babar, M. S., Maqbool, S. D., & Ammar, E. A. A.-. (2012). Comparative Analysis of
AC DC Microgrids for the Saudi Arabian Distribution System. In IEEE PES Transmission
and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281475
247
Aliprantis, D., Penick, S., Tesfatsion, L., & Zhao, H. (2010). Integrated Retail and Wholesale
Power System Operation with Smart-Grid Functionality. In IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589594
Alonso, M., Amaris, H., & Alvarez-Ortega, C. (2012). Integration of renewable energy sources
in smart grids by means of evolutionary optimization algorithms. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39(5), 55135522. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.069
Alrefifar, S. ali, Mohamed, Y. A. I., & El-fouly, T. H. M. (2013). Optimum Microgrid Design
for Enhancing Reliability. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 15671575).
doi:10.1109/TSG.2013.2259854
Amin, S. M. (2012). Smart grid security, privacy, and resilient architectures: Opportunities and
challenges. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 12). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345767
Amini, M. H., Nabi, B., & Haghifam, M.-R. (2013). Load Management Using Multi-Agent
Systems in Smart Distribution Network. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672180
Amirat, Y., Benbouzid, M., Wang, T., & Turri, S. (2013). Smart Grid Voltage Sag Detection
using Instantaneous Features Extraction. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, IECON (pp. 73947399). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700363
Amoroso, F. a., & Cappuccino, G. (2011). Impact of charging efficiency variations on the
effectiveness of variable-rate-based charging strategies for electric vehicles. Journal of
Power Sources, 196(22), 95749578. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.07.074
Andoh-Baidoo, F. K., Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Osei-Bryson, K.-M. (2010). How Internet
Security Breaches Harm Market Value. IEEE Security & Privacy, 8(1), 3642.
doi:10.1109/MSP.2010.37
Andreotti, A., Carpinelli, G., Mottola, F., & Proto, D. (2012). A review of single-objective
optimization models for plug-in vehicles operation in smart grids part I: Theoretical aspects.
In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345381
Antoniou, D., Tzimas, A., & Rowland, S. M. (2013). DC Utilization of Existing LVAC
Distribution Cables. In 2013 Electrical Insulation Conference (pp. 518522).
doi:10.1109/EIC.2013.6554302
Anwar, A., & Pota, H. R. (2012). Optimum Capacity Allocation of DG Units Based on
Unbalanced Three-phase Optimal Power Flow. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345265
Apetrei, D., Popescu, C., Federenciuc, D., Postolache, P., & Porumb, R. (2012). Unified
Measurements Architecture for DSO Node The Role of Time Series in Smart Grids. In
248
IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC)

(pp. 16). doi:10.1109/I2MTC.2012.6229287
Arabali, A., Ghofrani, M., Etezadi-Amoli, M., Fadali, M. S., & Baghzouz, Y. (2013). GeneticAlgorithm-Based Optimization Approach for Energy Management. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 28(1), 162170. doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2219598
Arajo, M. A., Flauzino, R. A., Batista, O. E., & Moraes, L. A. (2013). Protection of the
distribution lines against lightning overvoltages by surge arrester in the context of
distributed generation and smart grids. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554480
Aravinthan, V., Karimi, B., Namboodiri, V., & Jewell, W. (2011). Wireless Communication for
Smart Grid Applications at Distribution Level Feasibility and Requirements. In IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039716
Arefifar, S. A., Mohamed, Y. A. I., & El-fouly, T. H. M. (2012). Supply-Adequacy-Based
Optimal Construction of Microgrids in Smart Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, 3(3), 14911502. doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2198246
Arefifar, S. A., Mohamed, Y. A. I., & El-fouly, T. H. M. (2013). Comprehensive Operational
Planning Framework for Self-Healing Control Actions in Smart Distribution Grids. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 28(4), 41924200. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2259852
Argiento, R., Faranda, R., Pievatolo, A., & Tironi, E. (2012). Distributed Interruptible Load
Shedding and Micro-Generator Dispatching to Benefit System Operations. IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 27(2), 840848. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2173217
Arnold, D., Sankur, M., & Auslander, D. M. (2013). The Next Generation Enegry Information
Gateway for use in Residential and Commercial Environments. In IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672625
Arritt, R. F., & Dugan, R. C. (2011). Distribution system analysis and the future Smart Grid. In
Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. B21B28). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756725
Arseneau, R., & So, E. (2012). Calibration Services in Support of Smart Grid Applications. In
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345439
Artale, G., Cataliotti, A., Cosentino, V., Cara, D. Di, Fiorelli, R., Russotto, P., & Tin, G. (2013).
Medium Voltage Smart Grid: Experimental Analysis of Secondary Substation Narrow
Band Power Line Communication. In IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement (Vol. 62, pp. 23912398). doi:10.1109/TIM.2013.2270924
249
Arteconi, A., Hewitt, N. J., & Polonara, F. (2013). Domestic demand-side management (DSM):
Role of heat pumps and thermal energy storage (TES) systems. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 51(1-2), 155165. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.09.023
Asad, R., & Kazemi, A. (2012). A Quantitative Analysis of Effects of Transition from AC to DC
System, on Storage and Distribution Systems. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy
Engineering Conference (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307519
Asgeirsson, H. (2010). Distribution automation The foundation for the smart grid at DTE
energy. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589632
Asgeirsson, H. (2011). Status of the Community Energy Storage deployment at DTE Energy. In
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 11). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039875
Ashouri, A., Fux, S. S., Benz, M. J., & Guzzella, L. (2013). Optimal design and operation of
building services using mixed-integer linear programming techniques. Energy, 59, 365376.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.06.053
Asr, N. R., Zhang, Z., & Chow, M. (2013). Consensus-Based Distributed Energy Management
with Real-Time Pricing. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672511
Atzeni, I., Ordez, L. G., Scutari, G., Palomar, D. P., & Fonollosa, J. R. (2013).
Noncooperative and Cooperative Optimization of Distributed Energy Generation and
Storage in the Demand-Side of the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
61(10), 24542472. doi:10.1109/TSP.2013.2248002
Augusto, A., Souza, A. De, Kagan, N., & de Geus, K. (2013). Impact of Distributed Generation
on the Operational Planning of Low Voltage Distribution Networks Using Genetic
Algorithms. In IEEE Online Conference on Green Communications (GreenCom) (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554457
Baek, S., Du, Y., Wang, G., & Bhattacharya, S. (2010). Design considerations of high voltage
and high frequency transformer for solid state transformer application. In IECON 2010 36th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (pp. 421426). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/IECON.2010.5674991
Baetens, R., De Coninck, R., Helsen, L., & Saelens, D. (2010). The Impact of Load Profile on
the Grid-Interaction of Building Integrated Photovoltaic (BIPV) Systems in Low-Energy
Dwellings. Journal of Green Building, 5(4), 137147. doi:10.3992/jgb.5.4.137
Bahramirad, S., Mcclanahan, J., & Khodaei, A. (2013). Application of Real-Time Monitoring in
Efficient Operation of Distributed Static Compensators. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672394
250
Bakken, D. E., Bose, A., Hauser, C. H., Whitehead, D. E., & Zweigle, G. C. (2011). Smart
Generation and Transmission With Coherent, Real-Time Data. Proceedings of the IEEE,
99(6), 928951. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2116110
Balijepalli, V. S. K. M., & Khaparde, S. A. (2013a). Enablement of Consumer-Oriented
Interoperable Systems With Integration of CIM and Green Button Standards. IEEE Systems
Journal, 7(4), 681691. doi:10.1109/JSYST.2013.2254980
Balijepalli, V. S. K. M., & Khaparde, S. A. (2013b). Green Button Standards, Consumer Energy
Usage Information Standardization, and Implementation Experiences in India. In IEEE
ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698787
Ban, D. (2011). A Flow-Based Centrality Measure through Resistance Distances in Smart-Grid
Networks. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference - GLOBECOM 2011 (pp. 15).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2011.6134529
Bank, J. (2012). Development of a distribution level data acquisition system and preliminary
results. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345089
Batista, O. E., Flauzino, R. A., de Moraes, L. A., & de Arajo, M. A. (2013). The Faults
Variability in Distribution Systems with Distributed Generation and Robustness of Smart
Grids. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America
(ISGT LA) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554375
Battaglini, A., Lilliestam, J., Haas, A., & Patt, A. (2009). Development of SuperSmart Grids for
a more efficient utilisation of electricity from renewable sources. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 17(10), 911918. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.006
Battistelli, C. (2013). Generalized Microgrid-to-Smart Grid Interface Models for Vehicle-toGrid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497891
Bavarian, S., Lampe, L., Siew, C., Lancashire, S., & Adeleye, K. (2012). Leveraging the Smart
Metering Infrastructure in Distribution Automation. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012
Symposium (pp. 157162). doi:10.1109/SmartGridComm.2012.6485976
Becker, D. J., & Sonnenberg, B. J. (2011). DC microgrids in buildings and data centers. In IEEE
33rd International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/INTLEC.2011.6099725
Belitz, H., Winter, S., Mller, C., Langhammer, N., Kays, R., Wietfeld, C., & Rehtanz, C.
(2012). Technical and Economic Analysis of Future Smart Grid Applications in the EDeMa Project. In 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT
Europe) (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465663
251
Belkacemi, R., & Feliachi, A. (2010). Multi-Agent Design for Power Distribution System
Reconfiguration Based on the Artificial Immune System Algorithm. IEEE International
Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 34613464. doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5537841
Belkacemi, R., Feliachi, A., Choudhry, M. A., & Saymansky, J. E. (2011). Multi-Agent Systems
Hardware Development and Deployment for Smart Grid Control Applications. In IEEE
Bello, M., Carter-Brown, C., Smit, R., & Davidson, I. E. (2013). Power Planning for renewable
energy grid integration - Case Study of South Africa. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Benachaiba, C., Haidar, A. M. a., Habab, M., & Abdelkhalek, O. (2011). Smart Control of
UPCQ within Microgrid Energy System. In Energy Procedia (Vol. 6, pp. 503512).
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.05.058
Bendtsen, J., Trangbaek, K., & Stoustrup, J. (2010). Hierarchical model predictive control for
resource distribution. In 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (pp. 2468
2473). Ieee. doi:10.1109/CDC.2010.5717038
Benigni, A., Monti, A., & Venugopal, R. (2013). Advancements and challenges of a multiplatform real time simulation lab for power applications. In Conference of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 53585363). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700007
Bernardon, D. P., Pfitscher, L. L., Canha, L. N., Abaide, A. R., Garcia, V. J., Montagner, V. F.,
Ramos, M. (2012). Automatic Reconfiguration of Distribution Networks Using Smart
Grid Concepts. In IEEE/IAS International Conference on Industry Applications
(INDUSCON) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/INDUSCON.2012.6451381
Berrisford, A. J. (2013). A Tale of Two Transformers: An Algorithm for Estimating Distribution
Secondary Electric Parameters Using Smart Meter Data. In 2013 26th IEEE Canadian
Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/CCECE.2013.6567690
Bharata Reddy, M. J., Rajesh, D. V., & Mohanta, D. K. (2013). Robust transmission line fault
classification using wavelet multi-resolution analysis q. Computers and Electrical
Engineering, 39(4), 12191247. doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.02.013
Bhaskara, S. N., & Chowdhury, B. H. (2012). Microgrids A Review of Modeling, Control,
Protection, Simulation and Future Potential. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Bhattarai, S., Ge, L., & Yu, W. (2012). A novel architecture against false data injection attacks in
smart grid. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (pp. 907911). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ICC.2012.6364511
252
Bi, Y. B., Jiang, L., Wang, X. J., & Cui, L. Z. (2013). Mapping of IEC 61850 to Data Distribute
Ser vice for Digital Substation Communication. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Bielchev, I., Naumann, A., Visyashchev, A., Krebs, R., & Styczynski, Z. A. (2012). Modeling
and investigation of communication and protection scenarios for Smart Grid. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 15). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465739
Bilgin, B. E., & Gngr, V. C. (2011). On the Performance of Multi-Channel Wireless Sensor
Networks in Smart Grid Environments. In 20th International Conference on Computer
Communications and Networks (ICCCN) (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ICCCN.2011.6006029
Bilgin, B. E., & Gngr, V. C. (2012). Performance evaluations of ZigBee in different smart grid
environments. Computer Networks, 56(8), 21962205. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2012.03.002
Biswas, S. S., Shariatzadeh, F., Beckstrom, R., & Srivastava, A. K. (2013). Real Time Testing
and Validation of Smart Grid Devices and Algorithms. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Bo, C., Jinli, Z., Lulu, Q. I. U., & Peng, L. I. (2013). Study on the Structural Complexity of
Large Scale Power Grids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672561
Boait, P., Ardestani, B. M., & Snape, J. R. (2013). Accommodating renewable generation
through an aggregator-focused method for inducing demand side response from electricity
consumers. IET Renewable Power Generation, 7(March), 689699. doi:10.1049/ietrpg.2012.0229
Boardman, E. (2010). The role of integrated distribution management systems in Smart Grid
implementations. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589687
Bolster, P.J., Pantalone, C.C., & Trahan, E.A. (2010). Security Breaches and Firm Value.
Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, 5(1), 1-11.
doi:10.2202/1932-9156.1081
Bosselmann, T. (2010). A Paradigm change in energy: the New Electricity Age. In J. L. Santos,
B. Culshaw, J. M. Lpez-Higuera, & W. N. MacPherson (Eds.), Fourth European
Workshop on Optical Fibre Sensors (Vol. 7653, pp. 7653027653024).
doi:10.1117/12.867071
Boswijk, H. P. & Franses, P. H. (2005). The Econometrics of the Bass Diffusion Model, Journal
of Business and Economic Statistics,23(3), 255-268
253
Botea, A., Rintanen, J., & Banerjee, D. (2012). Optimal Reconfiguration for Supply Restoration
With Informed A* Search. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 583593.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2184778
Bou-Harb, E., Fachkha, C., Pourzandi, M., Debbabi, M., & Assi, C. (2013). Communication
Security for Smart Grid Distribution Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine,
(January), 4249. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2013.6400437
Boyd, J. M., & Heydt, G. T. (2013). Stability Analysis of an Energy Managed Smart Distribution
System. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672344
Boyer, J. L., Jalayerian, M., Silverstein, A., & Araji, M. T. (2010). Systems Integration for Cost
Effective Carbon Neutral Buildings: A Masdar Headquarters Case Study. In 4th
International Conference on Energy Sustainability (pp. 10291039).
Bracale, A., Caldon, R., Celli, G., Coppo, M., Dal Canto, D., Langella, R., Turri, R. (2012).
Analysis of the Italian distribution system evolution through reference networks. In IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465702
Bracale, A., Caramia, P., Carpinelli, G., Di Fazio, A. R., & Varilone, P. (2013). A BayesianBased Approach for a Short-Term Steady-State Forecast of a Smart Grid. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(4), 17601771. doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2231441
Bracale, A., Caramia, P., Carpinelli, G., Di Fazzio, A. R., & Ferruzzi, G. (2013). A Bayesian
Method for Short-Term Probabilistic Forecasting of Photovoltaic Generation in Smart Grid
Operation and Control. Energies, 6, 733747. doi:10.3390/en6020733
Brando, G., Dannier, A., Pizzo, A. Del, & Rizzo, R. (2011). Power Electronic Transformer for
Advanced Grid Management in Presence of Distributed Generation. International Review of
Electrical Engineering, 6(7), 30093016.
Brandsttt, C., Brunekreeft, G., & Friedrichsen, N. (2011). Locational Signals to Reduce
Network Investments in Smart Distribution Grids: What Works and What Not? Utilities
Policy, 19(4), 244254. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2011.07.001
Brown, H. E., Suryanarayanan, S., Natarajan, S. A., & Rajopadhye, S. (2012). Improving
Reliability of Islanded Distribution Energy Resources. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
3(4), 20282038. doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2200703
Brown, H., Haughton, D. A., Heydt, G. T., & Suryanarayanan, S. (2010). Some Elements of
Design and Operation of a Smart Distribution System. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484491
254
Brown, J., & Khan, J. Y. (2013). Key performance aspects of an LTE FDD based Smart Grid
communications network. Computer Communications, 36(5), 551561.
doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2012.12.007
Brown, R. E. (2008). Impact of Smart Grid on distribution system design. IEEE Power & Energy
Society General Meeting, 14. doi:10.1109/PES.2008.4596843
Brown, S., Pyke, D., & Steenhof, P. (2010). Electric vehicles: The role and importance of
standards in an emerging market. Energy Policy, 38(7), 37973806.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.059
Bruno, S., Lamonaca, S., La Scala, M., & Stecchi, U. (2012). Integration of optimal
reconfiguration tools in advanced distribution management system. In IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465873
Bruno, S., Lamonaca, S., Rotondo, G., Stecchi, U., & La Scala, M. (2011). Unbalanced ThreePhase Optimal Power Flow for Smart Grids. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
58(10), 45044513. doi:10.1109/TIE.2011.2106099
Buchholz, B. M., Brunner, C., Naumann, A., & Styczynski, A. (2012). Applying IEC Standards
for Communication and Data Management as the Backbone of Smart Distribution. In IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345011
Budka, K. C., Deshpande, J. G., Doumi, T. L., Madden, M., & Mew, T. (2010). Communication
Network Architecture and Design Principles for Smart Grids. Bell Labs Technical Journal,
15(2), 205227. doi:10.1002/bltj
Bull, C. G. (2010). Forging the Smart Grid: From Theory to Practice. In Smart Metering 2010:
Delivering a Smart UK (pp. 111). doi:10.1049/ic.2010.0053
Bushby, S. T., & Holmberg, D. G. (2009). Advancing automated demand-response technology .
ASHRAE Transactions, 115(Doe).
Byun, J., Hong, I., Kang, B., & Park, S. (2011). A Smart Energy Distribution and Management
System for Renewable Energy Distribution and Context-aware Services Based on User
Patterns and Load Forecasting. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics, 57(2), 436
444. doi:10.1109/TCE.2011.5955177
Caeiro, S., Ramos, T. B., & Huisingh, D. (2012). Procedures and criteria to develop and evaluate
household sustainable consumption indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 27, 7291.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.026
Cai, Y., Chow, M., Lu, W., & Li, L. (2010). Statistical Feature From Massive Data in
Distribution Fault Diagnosis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(2), 642648.
doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2009.2036924
255
Caire, R., Snchez, J., & Hadjsaid, N. (2013). Vulnerability Analysis of Coupled Heterogeneous
Critical Infrastructures: a Co-simulation Approach with a Testbed Validation. In 2013 4th
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe) (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695485
Calderaro, V., Hadjicostis, C. N., Piccolo, A., & Siano, P. (2011). Failure Identification in Smart
Grids Based on Petri Net Modeling. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(10),
46134623. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695485
Caldon, R., Coppo, M., Dal Canto, D., Gigliucci, G., Feola, L., Langella, R., Turri, R. (2013).
Application of ATLANTIDE Models to Harmonic Penetration Studies. In 2013 4th IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695243
Camek, A., Hlzl, F., & Bytschkow, D. (2013). Providing Security to a Smart Grid Prosumer
System Based on a Service Oriented Architecture in an Office Environment. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497900
Canale, S., Giorgio, A. Di, Lanna, A., Mercurio, A., Panfili, M., & Pietrabissa, A. (2013).
Optimal Planning and Routing in Medium Voltage PowerLine Communications Networks.
In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 711719).
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2212469
Capodieci, N., Alsina, E. F., & Cabri, G. (2012). A Context-Aware Agent-Based Approach for
Deregulated Energy Market. IEEE 21st International Workshop on Enabling Technologies:
Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 1621. doi:10.1109/WETICE.2012.15
Capuder, T., Peria, I., & krlec, D. (2010). Timeframe for strategy of modernizing Croatian
distribution network SCADA. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589483
Caramanis, M. C., & Foster, J. M. (2011). Uniform and Complex Bids for Demand Response
and Wind Generation Scheduling in Multi-Period Linked Transmission and Distribution
Markets. In 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control
Conference (CDC-ECC) (pp. 43404347).
Cardenas, J. A., Gemoets, L., Ablanedo Rosas, J. H., & Sarfi, R. (2014). A literature survey on
Smart Grid distribution: an analytical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 202
216. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.019
Cardenas, J. A., Gemoets, L., & Sarfi, R. J. (2011). A Taxonomy of Smart Grid Research to
Date: Understanding Who is Creating the Intellectual Capital. In Desicion Science Institute
Annual Conference (pp. 19).
Carlo, C., Mokryani, G., Piccolo, A., & Siano, P. (2010). An Overview on the Smart Grid
Concept. In 36th Annual Conference on IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (pp. 3322
3327). doi:10.1109/IECON.2010.5675310
256
Carlson, N., Asgeirsson, H., Lascu, R., Benaglio, J., & Ennis, M. G. (2009). Application of
cutout type reclosers on distribution lateral circuits A field study. In Power & Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275172
Carpinelli, G., Celli, G., Mocci, S., Mottola, F., Pilo, F., & Proto, D. (2013). Optimal Integration
of Distributed Energy Storage Devices in Smart Grids. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid
(Vol. 4, pp. 985995). doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2231100
Carr, W., Collier, S. E., & See, J. (2008). Real Time Distribution Analysis for Electric Utilities.
In Rural Electric Power Conference. doi:10.1109/REPCON.2008.4520136
Carvalho, R. V. R. De, Vieira, F. H. T., De Arajo, S. G., & Lima, C. R. (2013). A Protection
Coordination Scheme for Smart Grid Based Distribution Systems Using Wavelet Based
Fault Location and Communication Support. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554458
Cashell, B., Jackson, W. D., Jickling, M., & Webel, B. (2004). The Economic Impact of CyberAttacks. In CRS Report for Congress (pp. 145). Retrieved from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32331.pdf
Cataliotti, A., Cosentino, V., Cara, D. Di, Russotto, P., & Tine, G. (2012). On the use of Narrow
Band Power Line as Communication Technology for Medium and Low Voltage Smart
Grids. In IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference
(I2MTC). doi:10.1109/I2MTC.2012.6229503
Cataliotti, A., Russotto, P., Cara, D. Di, Telaretti, E., & Tine, G. (2013). New Measurement
Procedure for Load Flow Evaluation in Medium Voltage Smart Grids. In IEEE
International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC).
doi:10.1109/I2MTC.2013.6555471
Cavalcante, P. L., Franco, J. F., Rider, M. J., Garcia, A. V, Martins, L. L., Malveira, M. R. R.,
Hernandez Junior, L. J. (2013). Advanced Network Reconfiguration System Applied to
CEMIG-D System. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin
America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554426
Cavusoglu, H., Mishra, B., & Raghunathan, S. (2004). The Effect of Internet Security Breach
Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and
Internet Security Developers. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 69104.
Cecati, C., Citro, C., Piccolo, a., & Siano, P. (2011). Smart Operation of Wind Turbines and
Diesel Generators According to Economic Criteria. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, 58(10), 45144525. doi:10.1109/TIE.2011.2106100
elik, F. . (2012). Role of Regulators in Electric Power Markets and Smart Grid Initiatives. In
International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM) (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/EEM.2012.6254673
257
Celli, G., Ghiani, E., Pilo, F., Pisano, G., & Soma, G. G. (2012). Particle Swarm Optimization
for minimizing the burden of electric vehicles in active distribution networks. In IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345458
Celli, G., Ghiani, E., Pilo, F., & Soma, G. G. (2013). Reliability assessment in smart distribution
networks. Electric Power Systems Research, 104, 164175. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2013.07.001
Cepeda, J. C., Ramrez, D. O., & Colom, D. G. (2012). Probabilistic-based Overload Estimation
for real-time Smart Grid Vulnerability Assessment. In Sixth IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution: Latin America Conference and Exposition (T&D-LA) (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/TDC-LA.2012.6319111
Cespedes, R. (2013). Planning the Electrical Energy System 2.0 with Smart Grids. In IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6673065
Cha, S. T., Wu, Q., & stergaard, J. (2012). A Generic Danish Distribution Grid Model for
Smart Grid Technology Testing. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 1
6). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465611
Chakraborty, S., Ito, T., Kanamori, R., & Senjyu, T. (2013). Application of Incentive Based
Scoring Rule Deciding Pricing for Smart Houses. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Chakraborty, S., Kroposki, B., & Kramer, W. (2009). Evaluation of VAR Control and Voltage
Regulation Functionalities in a Single-Phase Utility-Connected Inverter for Distributed
Energy Applications. In IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (Vol. 16, pp.
17531759). doi:10.1109/ECCE.2009.5316568
Chamorro, H. R., & Ramos, G. (2012). A Fuzzy Supervisory Control for Induction Machines
Operating from a DC Microgrid. In IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual Meeting
(IAS) (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/IAS.2012.6374002
Chan, L.-K., & Wu, M.-L. (2002). Quality function deployment: A literature review. European
Journal of Operational Research, 143(3), 463497. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00178-9
Chang, N.-B., Rivera, B. J., & Wanielista, M. P. (2011). Optimal design for water conservation
and energy savings using green roofs in a green building under mixed uncertainties. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 19(11), 11801188. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.008
Chao, C., Ho, Q., & Le-ngoc, T. (2013). Challenges of Power Line Communications for
Advanced Distribution Automation in Smart Grid. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Chatupromwong, P., & Yokoyama, A. (2012). Optimization of Charging Sequence of Plug-in
Electric Vehicles in Smart Grid Considering Users Satisfaction. In IEEE International
258
Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON) (pp. 16).

doi:10.1109/PowerCon.2012.6401323
Cheema, J., Clark, A., Kilimnik, J., Pavlovski, C., Redman, D., & Vu, M. (2010). Intelligent
Rating Systems for the Smart Grid. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering
and Computer Science (Vol. II).
Cheema, J., Clark, A., Kilimnik, J., Pavlovski, C., Redman, D., & Vu, M. (2011). Towards Smart
Grid Dynamic Ratings. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 3, pp. 317).
doi:10.1063/1.3627190
Chen, B., Mashayekh, S., Butler-purry, K. L., & Kundur, D. (2013). Impact of Cyber Attacks on
Transient Stability of Smart Grids with Voltage Support Devices. In IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting. doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672740
Chen, C., Lin, C., Hsieh, S., & Hsieh, W. (2013). Development of Smart Distribution Grid. In
2013 2nd International Symposium on Next-Generation Electronics (ISNE) (pp. 2527).
doi:10.1109/ISNE.2013.6512272
Chen, H., Zheng, W. J., Meng, Q. Z., Zhao, C. Q., Li, Q. D., & Lv, X. J. (2012). A survey of
communication technology in distribution network. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2012.6303150
Chen, P., Cheng, S.-M., & Chen, K.-C. (2012). Smart Attacks in Smart Grid Communication
Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, (August), 2429.
doi:10.1109/MCOM.2012.6257523
Chen, S., Ji, Y., & Tong, L. (2012). Deadline scheduling for large scale charging of electric
vehicles with renewable energy. In IEEE 7th Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal
Processing Workshop (SAM) (pp. 1316). Ieee. doi:10.1109/SAM.2012.6250449
Chen, T. M. (2010). Survey of cyber security issues in smart grids. In The International Society
for Optical Engineering (Vol. 7709, p. 77090D77090D11). doi:10.1117/12.862698
Chen, W., Wang, X., Petersen, J., Tyagi, R., & Black, J. (2013). Optimal Scheduling of Demand
Response Events for Electric Utilities. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(4), 23092319.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2013.2269540
Chen, Y., Xu, Z., & stergaard, J. (2013). Islanding Control Architecture in future smart grid
with both demand and wind turbine control. Electric Power Systems Research, 95, 214224.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2012.10.004
Cheng, X., Cao, R., & Yang, L. (2013). Relay-Aided Amplify-and-Forward Powerline
Communications. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 265272.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2225645
259
Cheng, Y. (2010). Impact of large scale integration of photovoltaic energy source and
optimization in smart grid with minimal energy storage. In IEEE International Symposium
on Industrial Electronics (pp. 33293334). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISIE.2010.5637978
Chertkov, M., Stepanov, M., Pan, F., & Baldick, R. (2011). Exact and efficient algorithm to
discover extreme stochastic events in wind generation over transmission Power Grids. In
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference (pp. 2174
2180). Ieee. doi:10.1109/CDC.2011.6160669
Cheung, H., Hamlyn, A., & Yang, C. (2008). Network security authentication of power system
operations. In Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (pp. 001687
001692). Ieee. doi:10.1109/CCECE.2008.4564831
Chiang, Y.-H. (2013). Using a combined AHP and PLS path modelling on blog site evaluation in
Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 13251333. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.025
Chicco, G. (2010). Challenges for Smart Distribution Systems: Data Representation and
Optimization Objectives. In 12th International Conference on Optimization of Electrical
and Electronic Equipment (pp. 12361244). doi:10.1109/OPTIM.2010.5510505
Cho, H. S., Yamazaki, T., & Hahn, M. (2009). Determining Location of Appliances from Multihop Tree Structures of Power Strip Type Smart Meters. IEEE Transactions on Consumer
Electronics, 55(4), 23142322. doi:10.1109/TCE.2009.5373804
Choe, S., Yoo, J., & Lout, Y. (2013). Cluster-based MAC and Resource Management for
Quasi-Stationary Broadband Power Line Communication Networks. In 2013 IEEE 17th
International Symposium on Power Line Communications and Its Applications (pp. 6468).
Choi, S., Meliopoulos, A. P. S., & Sharma, R. K. (2013). Autonomous State Estimation Based
Diagnostic System in Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
(ISGT). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497877
Chopade, P., & Bikdash, M. (2012a). Analyzing Smart Power Grid and SCADA network
robustness using the Node degree distribution and algebraic connectivity under vulnerability
and WMD attacks. In IEEE Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST) (pp.
365372).
Chopade, P., & Bikdash, M. (2012b). Modeling for survivability of Smart Power Grid when
subject to severe emergencies and vulnerability. 2012 Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon,
16. doi:10.1109/SECon.2012.6196924
Chouhan, S., Ghorbani, J., Inan, H., Feliachi, A., & Choudhry, M. A. (2013). Smart MAS
Restoration for Distribution System with Microgrids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting. doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672945
260
Chowdhury, B., & Pahwa, A. (2011). Should Distribution Systems Engineering be taught at the
Undergraduate Level? In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 2629).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039194
Chowdhury, B., Parkhideh, B., Martin, A., Salami, Z., Enslin, J., Cecchi, V., Maciej, N.
(2013). Enhancing Power and Energy Systems Concepts with Laboratory Experience. In
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672473
Cintuglu, M. H., & Mohammed, O. A. (2013). Islanding Detection in Microgrids. In IEEE
Clark, A., & Pavlovski, C. (2010a). Smart Grid Communications System Blueprint. In AIP
Conference Proceedings (Vol. 494, pp. 494508). doi:10.1063/1.3510573
Clark, A., & Pavlovski, C. J. (2010b). Wireless Networks for the Smart Energy Grid:
Application Aware Networks. In International Multiconference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists (Vol. II).
Clark, M. R., & Hopkinson, K. M. (2013). Towards an Understanding of the Tradeoffs in
Adversary Models of Smart Grid Privacy Protocols. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Collier, S. (2009). Ten Steps to a Smarter Grid. In Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. 07).
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2009.4919420
Cook, B., Gazzano, J., Gunay, Z., Hiller, L., Mahajan, S., Taskan, A., & Vilogorac, S. (2012).
The smart meter and a smarter consumer: quantifying the benefits of smart meter
implementation in the United States. Chemistry Central Journal, 6 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S5.
doi:10.1186/1752-153X-6-S1-S5
Corno, F., & Razzak, F. (2012). Intelligent Energy Optimization for User Intelligible Goals in
Smart Home Environments. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 3, pp. 21282135).
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2214407
Coroam, I., Gavrila, M., Ivanov, O., & Stahie, V. (2012). Meta-heuristic-based Methods for
Multi-objective Non-conflicting Optimization of Distribution Networks Operation. In 2012
International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (pp. 2527).
doi:10.1109/ICEPE.2012.6463916
Corrand, M., Duncan, S. J., & Mavris, D. N. (2013). Incorporating Electrical Distribution
Network Structure into Energy Portfolio Optimization for an Isolated Grid. Procedia
Computer Science, 16, 757766. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.079
261
Coslovich, L., Fanti, M. P., Mani, P., Piccoli, G., & Ukovich, W. (2013). Minimum Loss
Reconfiguration of Electrical Distribution Networks with Quality Requirements. In 2013
American Control Conference (ACC) (pp. 65836588).
Costabeber, A., Erseghe, T., Tenti, P., Tomasin, S., & Mattavelli, P. (2011). Optimization of
Micro-Grid Operation by Dynamic Grid Mapping and Token Ring Control. In 14th
European Conference on Power Electronics and Applications (EPE 2011) (pp. 1 10).
Couillet, R., Perlaza, S. M., Tembine, H., & Debbah, M. (2012). Electrical Vehicles in the Smart
Grid: A Mean Field Game Analysis. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
30(6), 10861096. doi:10.1109/JSAC.2012.120707
Cross, A., & Strickland, D. (2011). Using SPICE for Power System Simulations Keywords
Power system Load Flow Studies. In 14th European Conference on Power Electronics and
Applications (EPE 2011).
Dabic, V., Siew, C., Peralta, J., & Acebedo, D. (2010). BC Hydros Experience on Voltage VAR
Optimization in Distribution System. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference
& Exposition (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484276
Dai, P., Chen, G., Zhou, H., Su, M., & Bao, H. (2012). CO(2) Mitigation Measures of Power
Sector and Its Integrated Optimization in China. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2012, 907685.
doi:10.1100/2012/907685
Daim, T. U., Amer, M., & Brenden, R. (2012). Technology Roadmapping for wind energy: case
of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 2737.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.025
Dam, Q. B., Mohagheghi, S., & Stoupis, J. (2008). Intelligent Demand Response Scheme for
Customer Side Load Management. IEEE Energy 2030 Conference, 17.
doi:10.1109/ENERGY.2008.4781013
Datta Ray, P., Harnoor, R., & Hentea, M. (2010). Smart power grid security: A unified risk
management approach. 44th Annual 2010 IEEE International Carnahan Conference on
Security Technology, 276285. doi:10.1109/CCST.2010.5678681
Davari, M., & Mohamed, Y. A. I. (2013). Robust Multi-Objective Control of VSC-Based DCVotage Power Port in Hybrid AC/DC Multi-Terminal Micro-Grids. In IEEE Transactions
on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 15971612). doi:10.1109/TSG.2013.2249541
Davidson, E. M., Catterson, V. M., & McArthur, S. D. J. (2010). The role of intelligent systems
in delivering the Smart Grid. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
6). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5590034
Daziano, R. a., & Chiew, E. (2012). Electric vehicles rising from the dead: Data needs for
forecasting consumer response toward sustainable energy sources in personal transportation.
Energy Policy, 51, 876894. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.040
262
De Andrade Barreto, G., & Baesso Grimoni, J. A. (2013). Underground Low Voltage Smarter
Grid At CEB. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin
America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554433
De Carvalho, R. V. R., Nielson, R., Lima, C. R., Kopcak, I., Vieira, F. H. T., & de Arajo, S. G.
(2013). Operational Conditions Analyses of Distributed Generation (DG) Connected on
Power Distribution Grid Based on IEEE Std. 1547. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554481
De Maria, L., Bartalesi, D., Serragli, P., & Paladino, D. (2012). Optical Sensors for electrical
elements of a medium voltage distribution network. Smart Sensor Phenomena, Technology,
Networks, and Systems Integration, 8346, 83461R83461R9. doi:10.1117/12.922736
De Oliveira-de Jesus, P. M., Alvarez, M. A., & Yusta, J. M. (2013). Distribution power flow
method based on a real quasi-symmetric matrix. Electric Power Systems Research, 95, 148
159. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2012.08.011
Dehghanian, P., Razi Kazemi, A. A., & Karami, G. (2011). Incorporating Experts Knowledge in
RTU Placement Procedure Using Fuzzy Sets Theory A Practical Approach. In IEEE 33rd
International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) (pp. 110).
Deilami, S., & Masoum, M. A. S. (2013). Optimal Dispatch of LTC and Switched Shunt
Capacitors in Smart Grid with Plug-In Electric Vehicles. In IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting. doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672609
Deng, R., Chen, J., Cao, X., Zhang, Y., Maharjan, S., & Gjessing, S. (2013). SensingPerformance Tradeoff in Cognitive Radio Enabled Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 4(1), 302310. doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2210058
Deng, R., Yang, Z., & Chen, J. (2013). Load Scheduling with Price Uncertainty and Coupling
Constraints. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6673011
Devidas, A. R., & Ramesh, M. V. (2010). Wireless Smart Grid Design for Monitoring and
Optimizing Electric Transmission in India. In Fourth International Conference on Sensor
Technologies and Applications (pp. 637640). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/SENSORCOMM.2010.100
Di Bisceglie, M., Ullo, S. L., & Vaccaro, A. (2012). The role of cooperative information
spreading paradigms for Smart Grid monitoring. 16th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical
Conference, 814817. doi:10.1109/MELCON.2012.6196554
Diamond, D. (2009). The impact of government incentives for hybrid-electric vehicles: Evidence
from US states. Energy Policy, 37(3), 972983. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.094
263
Dianich, B. (2012). Smart Grid Communications: Layers and Players. In IEEE/PES

Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281689
Diao, R., Lu, S., Elizondo, M., Mayhorn, E., Zhang, Y., & Samaan, N. (2012). Electric water
heater modeling and control strategies for demand response. In IEEE Power & Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345632
Dimitrijevic, S., & Rajakovic, N. (2011). An innovative approach for solving the restoration
problem in distribution networks. Electric Power Systems Research, 81(10), 19611972.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2011.06.005
Ding, N., Bsanger, Y., Wurtz, F., & Antoine, G. (2013). Individual Nonparametric Load
Estimation Model for Power Distribution Network Planning. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, 9(3), 15781587. doi:10.1109/TII.2013.2261079
Ding, Y., Nyeng, P., stergaard, J., Trong, M. D., Pineda, S., Kok, K., Grande, O. S. (2012).
Ecogrid EU A Large Scale Smart Grids Demonstration of Real Time Market-based
Integration of Numerous Small DER and DR. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465895
Dong, Y., Cai, Z., Yu, M., & Sturer, M. (2011). Modeling and simulation of the communication
networks in Smart grid. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics (pp. 26582663). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2011.6084073
Dos Santos, T. T., dos Santos, L. L., Farinon, F. G., Homma, R. Z., De Andrade, R. C.,
Khairalla, I. K., & Lemos, F. A. B. (2013). Integrating Heterogenous Applications in
Control Centers based on Smart Grid Concepts. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554471
Dov, V. G., Friedler, F., Huisingh, D., & Kleme, J. J. (2009). Cleaner energy for sustainable
future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(10), 889895. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.02.001
Doyle, R., & Davies, A. R. (2012). Towards sustainable household consumption: exploring a
practice oriented, participatory backcasting approach for sustainable home heating practices
in Ireland. Journal of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.015
Du, H., Zhang, Y., & Song, Y. (2012). Study of Modeling and Scheduling Control of Distributed
Generation and Distribution Automation. In 2012 China International Conference on
Electricity Distribution (pp. 56). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508542
Du, Q.-L., Cao, S.-M., Ba, L.-L., & Cheng, J.-M. (2008). Application of PDCA Cycle in the
Performance Management System. In 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing (pp. 14). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/WiCom.2008.1682
264
Du, W. (2011). Probabilistic Analysis for Capacity Planning in Smart Grid at Residential Low
Voltage Level by Monte-Carlo Method. Procedia Engineering, 23, 804812.
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2585
Du, Y. (2011). Summary on smart grid and its automatic control. In International Conference on
Electronics, Communications and Control (ICECC) (pp. 45484554). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ICECC.2011.6066280
Duarte, D. P., Kagan, N., Gouvea, M. R., Labronici, J., Maia, F. C., Guimaraes, D. S.,
Resende da Silva, J. F. (2013). Brazilian Smart Grid Roadmap- An innovative methodology
for proposition and evaluation of Smart Grid functionalities for highly heterogeneous
distribution networks. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
Latin America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554406
Dufour, C., Arajo, S., & Blanger, J. (2013). A Survey of Smart Grid Research and
Development Involving Real-Time Simulation Technology. In IEEE PES Conference on
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGTLA.2013.6554432
Dugan, R. C., & Mcdermott, T. E. (2011). An Open Source Platform for Collaborating on Smart
Grid Research. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039829
Dukpa, A., & Venkatesh, B. (2010). Smart Reconfiguration using Fuzzy Graphs. In IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589534
Dupont, B., Vingerhoets, P., Tant, P., Vanthournout, K., Cardinaels, W., Rybel, T. De,
Belmans, R. (2012). LINEAR Breakthrough Project: Large-Scale Implementation of Smart
Grid Technologies in Distribution Grids. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
(pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465708
Dykes, K. L., Bean, M., & Cook, J. (2011). System modeling for the large-scale diffusion of
multiple electricity technologies in an urban distribution network. In IEEE Power & Energy
Dzafic, I., & Lecek, N. (2012). Algorithmic approach to data model versioning. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465814
Echternacht, D., Linnemann, C., & Moser, A. (2012). Optimized positioning of measurements in
distribution grids. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465628
Einfalt, A., Zeilinger, F., & Rejc, M. (2013). Active Distribution Management vs. Selective
Automation for Urban Distribution Grids. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe) (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695413
265
Einfalt, A., Zeilinger, F., Schwalbe, R., Bletterie, B., & Kadam, S. (2013). Controlling active
Low Voltage distribution grids with minimum efforts on costs and engineering. In
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 74567461).
doi:Controlling active Low Voltage distribution grids with minimum efforts on costs and
engineering
Eisen, J. B. (2013). Smart Regulation and Federalism for the Smart Grid. Harvard
Environmental Law Review, 1 56.
Eisenberg, J. F. (2010). Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Memorandum
Background Data and Statistics. In ORNL/TM-2010/66 (pp. 124). Retrieved from
http://weatherization.ornl.gov/pdfs/ORNL_TM-2010-66.pdf
Eissa, M. M. (2012). Protection Technique for Complex Distribution Smart Grid Using Wireless
Token Ring Protocol. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(3), 11061118.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2203833
El Ramli, R., Awad, M., & Jabr, R. a. (2011). Ordinal Optimization for Dynamic Network
Reconfiguration. Electric Power Components and Systems, 39(16), 18451857.
doi:10.1080/15325008.2011.615801
Elkhorchani, H., Idoudi, M., & Grayaa, K. (2013). Development of Communication Architecture
for Intelligent Energy Networks. In International Conference on Electrical Engineering and
Software Applications (ICEESA). doi:10.1109/ICEESA.2013.6578424
Ellens, W., Berry, A., & West, S. (2012). A Quantification of the Energy Savings by
Conservation Voltage Reduction. In IEEE International Conference on Power System
Technology (POWERCON) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PowerCon.2012.6401391
Entriken, R., Varaiya, P., Wu, F., Bialek, J., Dent, C., Tuohy, A., & Rajagopal, R. (2012). Risk
Limiting Dispatch. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344589
Eppstein, M. J., Grover, D. K., Marshall, J. S., & Rizzo, D. M. (2011). An agent-based model to
study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3789
3802. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.007
Erol-Kantarci, M., & Mouftah, H. T. (2010). TOU-Aware Energy Management and Wireless
Sensor Networks for Reducing Peak Load in Smart Grids. IEEE 72nd Vehicular
Technology Conference - Fall, 15. doi:10.1109/VETECF.2010.5594388
Erol-Kantarci, M., & Mouftah, H. T. (2011). Management of PHEV Batteries in the Smart Grid:
Towards a Cyber-Physical Power Infrastructure. In 7th International Wireless
Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (pp. 795800). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/IWCMC.2011.5982648
266
Erol-Kantarci, M., Sarker, J. H., & Mouftah, H. T. (2011). Communication-Based Plug-in

Hybrid Electrical Vehicle Load Management in the Smart Grid. In IEEE Symposium on
Computers and Communications (ISCC) (pp. 49). doi:10.1109/ISCC.2011.5983871
Esty, D.C., Srebotnjak, T., & Kim, C.H. (2006). Pilot 2006 Environmental Performance Index.
Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy,1-367. Retrieved from
http://www.yale.edu/epi/2006EPI_Report_Full.pdf
Et-tolba, E. H., Maaroufi, M., & Ouassaid, M. (2013). Demand side management algorithms and
modeling in smart grids. A customers behavior based study. In International Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC). doi:10.1109/IRSEC.2013.6529684
Evans, P. B., Lind, S. L., & Dossey, T. (2010). Validation of High-Definition Electric Power
Delivery Network Simulation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589709
Fadlullah, Z., Fouda, M. M., Kato, N., Takeuchi, A., Iwasaki, N., & Nozaki, Y. (2011). Toward
Intelligent Machine-to-Machine Communications in Smart Grid. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 11(April), 6065. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2011.5741147
Fadlullah, Z., Kato, N., Lu, R., Shen, X., & Nozaki, Y. (2012). Toward secure targeted broadcast
in smart grid. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(5), 150156.
doi:10.1109/MCOM.2012.6194396
Fadlullah, Z. M., M., F. M., Kato, N., Shen, X. S., & Nozaki, Y. (2011). An Early Warning
System against Malicious Activities for Smart Grid Communications. IEEE Network,
(October), 5055. doi:10.1109/MNET.2011.6033036
Falcao, D. M., Taranto, G. N., & Hincapi, C. C. O. (2013). Chronological Simulation of the
Interaction between Intermittent Generation and Distribution Network. In IEEE PES
Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554493
Falcones, S., Ayyanar, R., & Mao, X. (2013). A DC DC Multiport-Converter-Based SolidState Transformer Integrating Distributed Generation and Storage. IEEE Transactions on
Power Electronics, 28(5), 21922203. doi:10.1109/TPEL.2012.2215965
Fan, Z., Kulkarni, P., Gormus, S., Efthymiou, C., Kalogridis, G., Sooriyabandara, M., Chin,
W. H. (2013). Smart Grid Communications: Overview of Research Activities. In IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials (Vol. 15, pp. 2138).
doi:10.1109/SURV.2011.122211.00021
Fang, X., Yang, D., & Xue, G. (2011). Online Strategizing Distributed Renewable Energy
Resource Access in Islanded Microgrids. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2011 (pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2011.6134311
267
Farag, H. E., Abdelaziz, M. M. A., & El-Saadany, E. F. (2012). Incorporating voltage regulator
and load models in unbalanced power flow studies of active distribution systems. In 2012
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344972
Farag, H. E., & El-Saadany, E. F. (2011). Voltage regulation in distribution feeders with high
DG penetration: From traditional to smart. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039262
Farag, H. E., El-saadany, E. F., & Seethapathy, R. (2012). A Two Ways Communication-Based
Distributed Control for Voltage Regulation in Smart Distribution Feeders. IEEE
Farag, H. E., El-Saadany, E. F., & Seethapathy, R. (2013). A Multi-agent Voltage and Reactive
Power Control for Multiple Feeders with Distributed Generation. In IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting (Vol. 0, pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672630
Farag, H. E. Z., & El-saadany, E. F. (2013). A Novel Cooperative Protocol for Distributed
Voltage Control in Active Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
28(2), 16451656. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2012.2221146
Farhoodnea, M., Mohamed, A., Shareef, H., & Zayandehroodi, H. (2012). An enhanced method
for contribution assessment of utility and customer harmonic distortions in radial and
weakly meshed distribution systems. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy
Systems, 43(1), 222229. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.05.013
Farmer, D. M., Ingle, P. B., & Morgan, S. H. (2011). Integrated Volt/VAR Control on Rural
Distribution Systems. In Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. B51B59). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756716
Farooq, H., & Jung, L. T. (2013). Energy, Traffic Load, and Link Quality Aware Ad Hoc
Routing Protocol for Wireless Sensor Network Based Smart Metering Infrastructure.
International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2013.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/597582
Faschang, M., Kupzog, F., Mosshammer, R., & Einfalt, A. (2013). Rapid Control Prototyping
Platform for Networked Smart Grid Systems. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, IECON. doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700500
Felix, A., Kumar Nunna, H. S. V. S., & Dolla, S. (2012). Distribution System Restoration - A
Multi Agent Approach. In IEEE India Conference (INDICON) (pp. 10141019).
doi:10.1109/INDCON.2012.6420765
Feng, X., Peterson, W., Yang, F., Wickramasekara, G. M., & Finney, J. (2010). Implementation
of control center based voltage and var optimization in distribution management system. In
268
IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484275
Feng, X., Yang, F., & Peterson, W. (2012). A Practical Multi-Phase Distribution State
Estimation Solution Incorporating Smart Meter and Sensor Data. In IEEE Power & Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345111
Feng, Z., & Yuexia, Z. (2011). Study on smart grid communications system based on new
generation wireless technology. In International Conference on Electronics,
Communications and Control (ICECC) (pp. 16731678). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ICECC.2011.6066343
Fereidunian, A., Zamani, M. A., Fatah, B., Lesani, H., Lucas, C., Kharazmi, P., & Torabi, H.
(2010). Investigation of performance shaping factors in a practical human-automation
interaction system. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
(pp. 18251831). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5642287
Fernandes, R. S., Silva, I. N., & Oleskovicz, M. (2010). Identification of residential load profile
in the Smart Grid context. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589653
Flueck, A. J., & Nguyen, C. P. (2010). Integrating Renewable and Distributed Resources - IIT
Perfect Power Smart Grid Prototype. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 14). doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589520
Ford, R., Mcculloch, M., & Surrall, S. (2013). Suricatta: A Platform to Model Smart Grid
Technologies in the Distribution System. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Fornasari, L., Cavallini, A., & Montanari, G. C. (2012). ADVANCED CONDITION
MONITORING OF INSULATION SYSTEMS: A BUILDING BLOCK FOR SMARTER
GRIDS. In IEEE International Conference on Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis (pp.
533537).
Fort, A., Mugnaini, M., Rocchi, S., Vignoli, V., & Simoni, E. (2010). Accuracy Evaluation of a
Grid Islanding Impedance Detection System. In IEEE International Instrumentation and
Measurement Technology Conference (pp. 25). doi:10.1109/IMTC.2010.5488652
Foster, J. M., Trevino, G., Kuss, M., & Caramanis, M. C. (2013). Plug-In Electric Vehicle and
Voltage Support for Distributed Solar: Theory and Application. IEEE Systems Journal,
7(4), 881888. doi:10.1109/JSYST.2012.2223534
Frame, D. F., Ault, G. W., & Huang, S. (2012). The Uncertainties of Probabilistic LV Network
Analysis. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344587
269
Freund, D., Raab, A. F., Kster, T., Albayrak, S., & Strunz, K. (2012). Agent-based Integration
of an Electric Car Sharing Fleet into a Smart Distribution Feeder. In IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465889
Fu, Q., Montoya, L. F., Solanki, A., Nasiri, A., Bhavaraju, V., Abdallah, T., & Yu, D. C. (2012).
Microgrid Generation Capacity Design With Renewables and Energy Storage Addressing
Power Quality and Surety. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(4), 20192027.
doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2223245
Fuller, J. C., Schneider, K. P., & Chassin, D. (2011). Analysis of Residential Demand Response
and Double-Auction Markets. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039827
Fung, C. C., Roumani, M. A., & Wong, K. P. (2013). A Proposed Study on Economic Impacts
due to Cyber Attacks in Smart Grid: A Risk Based Assessment. In IEEE Power and Energy
Gabriel, J. D., Wagner, R., Zambenedetti, V. C., Gules, R., Lippmann Jr, L., & Soletti, A.
(2013). Protective Equipment for Distributed Generation with Integration to Smart Grids. In
IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554475
Gadiraju, K. V. R., & Vallem, M. R. (2012). Methods for reducing momentary interruptions in
distribution systems. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345718
Gahzvini, M. A. F., Vale, Z., Morais, H., & Canizes, B. (2012). A Regulatory Framework for
Short-term Stochastic Maintenance Outage Scheduling in Smart Grids. In 2012 3rd IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465759
Galli, S., Scaglione, A., & Wang, Z. (2011). For the Grid and Through the Grid: The Role of
Power Line Communications in the Smart Grid. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(6), 9981027.
doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2109670
Gantz, J. M., Amin, S. M., & Giacomoni, A. M. (2012). Optimal Mix and Placement of Energy
Storage Systems in Power Distribution Networks for Reduced Outage Costs. In Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition (pp. 24472453). doi:10.1109/ECCE.2012.6342550
Ge, S., Wang, L., Liu, H., & Feng, L. (2012). The Impact of Electric Vehicles on the Distribution
Grid. In 2nd International Conference on Electronic & Mechanical Engineering and
Information Technology (pp. 18591865).
Geetha, A., & Jamuna, K. (2013). Smart Metering System. In International Conference on
Information Communication and Embedded Systems (ICICES) (p. 1).
doi:10.1109/ICICES.2013.6508368
270
Gemmell, B., Dorn, J., Retzmann, D., & Soerangr, D. (2008). Prospects of Multilevel VSC
Technologies for Power Transmission. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution
Conference & Exposition (Vol. 1, pp. 116). doi:10.1109/TDC.2008.4517192
Geng, B., Mills, J. K., & Sun, D. (2013). Two-Stage Charging Strategy for Plug-In Electric
Vehicles at the Residential Transformer Level. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(3),
14421452. doi:10.1109/TSG.2013.2246198
Georgievski, I., Degeler, V., Pagani, G. A., Nguyen, T. A., Lazovik, A., & Aiello, M. (2012).
Optimizing Energy Costs for Offices Connected to the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, 3(4), 22732285. doi:10.1109/TSG.2012.2218666
Ghaemi, S., & Schneider, S. (2013). Potential analysis of Residential Demand Response using
GridLAB-D. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 8039
8045). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700477
Gharavi, H., & Ghafurian, R. (2011). Smart Grid: The Electric Energy System of the Future.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(6), 917921. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2124210
Gharavi, H., & Hu, B. (2013). Dynamic Key Refreshment for Smart Grid Mesh Network
Security. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 05).
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497909
Ghazvini, F., Morais, H., & Vale, Z. (2012). Coordination between mid-term maintenance
outage decisions and short-term security-constrained scheduling in smart distribution
systems. Applied Energy, 96, 281291. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.015
Ghofrani, M., Arabali, A., & Etezadi-Amoli, M. (2012). Electric Drive Vehicle to Grid Synergies
with Large Scale Wind Resources. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
16). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345662
Gholian, A., Mohsenian-rad, H., Hua, Y., & Qin, J. (2013). Optimal Industrial Load Control in
Smart Grid: A Case Study for Oil Refineries. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting. doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672710
Ghosh, S., Pipattanasomporn, M., & Rahman, S. (2013). Technology Deployment Status of U.S.
Smart Grid Projects - Electric Distribution Systems. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497867
Gill, H. M. (2010). Smart Grid distribution automation for public power. In IEEE/PES
Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 14). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484298
Girldez, J., Roche, R., Suryanarayanan, S., & Zimmerle, D. (2013). A Linear Programming
Methodology to Quantify the Impact of PHEVs with V2G Capabilities on Distribution
271
Systems. In 2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference (pp. 815).

Giri, J., Parashar, M., Trehern, J., & Madani, V. (2012). The Situation Room: Control Center
Analytics for Enhanced Situational Awareness. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine,
(october), 2439. doi:10.1109/MPE.2012.2205316
Giustina, D. Della, Andersson, L., & Ravera Iglesias, G. J. (2013). Experimental Performance
Characterization of a Meshed Network for the Smart Grid. In 2013 4th IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe) (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695415
Giustina, D. Della, Ferrari, P., Flammini, A., & Rinaldi, S. (2013). Experimental
Characterization of Time Synchronization over a Heterogeneous Network for Smart Grids.
In IEEE International Workshop on Applied Measurements for Power Systems (AMPS) (pp.
16). doi:10.1109/AMPS.2013.6656239
Giustina, D. Della, Ferrari, P., Flammini, A., Rinaldi, S., & Sisinni, E. (2013). Automation of
Distribution Grids With IEC 61850: A First Approach Using Broadband Power Line
Communication. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 62(9), 2372
2383. doi:10.1109/TIM.2013.2270922
Go, W., Choi, S., & Kwak, J. (2013). Privacy Protection Based Secure Transaction Protocol for
Smart Sensor Meter in Smart Grid. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks,
2013. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/829721
Goebel, C., & Vo, M. (2012). Forecasting Driving Behavior to Enable Efficient Grid
Integration of Plug-in Electric Vehicles. In 2012 IEEE Online Conference on Green
Communications (GreenCom) (pp. 7479). doi:10.1109/GreenCom.2012.6519619
Gomez-quiles, C., Gomez-exposito, A., & De la Villa Jaen, A. (2013). State Estimation for
Smart Distribution Substations. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (p.
4799). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672825
Gonalves, S., Morais, H., Sousa, T., & Vale, Z. (2012). Energy Resource Scheduling in a Real
Distribution Network Managed by Several Virtual Power Players. In IEEE/PES
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281674
Gong, Y., & Guzmn, A. (2012a). Advanced Fault Location Solution for Distribution Systems
Using IED Information and the Detailed Feeder Model. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy
Engineering Conference. doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307719
Gong, Y., & Guzmn, A. (2012b). Integrated Fault Location System for Power Distribution
Feeders. In IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp. 19).
doi:10.1109/REPCon.2012.6194570
272
Gonzalez, E., Kish, L. B., Balog, R., & Enjeti, P. (2013). Information theoretically secure ,
enhanced Johnson noise based key distribution over the smart grid with switched filters. In
PLoS ONE (pp. 1 22).
Gonzalez, S., Hoffmann, F., Mills-price, M., Ralph, M., & Ellis, A. (2011). Implementation of
Advanced Inverter Interoperability and Functionality. In 38TH IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference (PVSC) (pp. 13621367).
Grbe, P., Magyar, A., & Hangos, K. M. (2011). Low Voltage Grid Optimization with Power
Injection of Renewable Sources and EV batteries. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 25,
893898.
Grbe, P., Magyar, A., & Hangos, K. M. (2012). Reduction of power losses with smart grids
fueled with renewable sources and applying EV batteries. Journal of Cleaner Production,
34, 125137. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.021
Granell, E., Andrade-morelli, S., Ruiz-snchez, E., & Lloret, J. (2012). Energy Consumption
Study of Network Access Switches to Enhance Energy Distribution. In GC12 Workshop:
Smart Grid Communications: Design for Performance (pp. 14961501).
Green, R. C., Wang, L., & Alam, M. (2011). The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on
distribution networks: A review and outlook. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
15(1), 544553. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.015
Grigoras, G., Cartina, G., Bobric, E.-C., & Rotaru, F. (2010). Evaluation of the performances of
efficient transformers in distribution networks by fuzzy techniques. In 12th International
Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (pp. 12811284). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/OPTIM.2010.5510405
Groot, R. J. W. De, Morren, J., & Slootweg, J. G. (2012). Smart Integration of Distribution
Automation Applications. In 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
Europe (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465700
Gu, W., Wang, F., Wu, Z., & Yuan, X. (2011). Power Quality Management Platform for Smart
Grid. International Review of Electrical Engineering, 6(3), 14091417.
Guan, K., Lee, S., & Choi, M. (2013). Automatic Protection Schemes for Distribution System
with Open and Closed-loop. Journal of Electrical Engineering Technology, 8(5), 969974.
Gudi, N., Wang, L., & Devabhaktuni, V. (2012). A demand side management based simulation
platform incorporating heuristic optimization for management of household appliances.
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 43(1), 185193.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.05.023
Gudius, S., Gvozdas, V., Markeviius, L. A., & Morkvnas, A. (2010). Real Time Monitoring
of the State of Smart Grid. Electronics And Electrical Engineering, 10(106), 5762.
273
Gudius, S., Markevicius, L. a., & Morkvenas, a. (2011). Characteristics of Fault Detection
System for Smart Grid Distribution Network. Electronics And Electrical Engineering,
112(6). doi:10.5755/j01.eee.112.6.461
Guerrero, J. M., Vasquez, J. C., Matas, J., Garca De Vicua, L., & Castilla, M. (2011).
Hierarchical Control of Droop-Controlled AC and DC Microgrids A General Approach
Toward Standardization. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(1), 158172.
Guerrero, J. M., Vsquez, J. C., Savaghebi, M., Hoz, J. De, & Martn, H. (2010). Hierarchical
Control of Power Plants with Microgrid Operation. In Annual Conference on IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (pp. 30063011).
Gngr, V. C., & Korkmaz, M. K. (2012). Wireless Link-Quality Estimation in Smart Grid
Environments. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2012, 110.
doi:10.1155/2012/214068
Gngr, V. C., Lu, B., & Hancke, G. P. (2010). Opportunities and Challenges of Wireless Sensor
Networks in Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 57(10), 35573564.
Gngr, V. C., Sahin, D., Kocak, T., Ergt, S., Buccella, C., Cecati, C., & Hancke, G. P. (2011).
Smart Grid Technologies: Communication Technologies and Standards. IEEE Transactions
on Industrial Informatics, 7(4), 529539.
Guo, L., Li-Ke, G., Bo, C., Hai-Long, H., Yong-Gang, L., Zhi-Gang, X., Tian-Jian, L. (2011).
Design of IEC-61968-Based Distribution Network Information Exchange Interface.
Procedia Engineering, 24, 6977. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2604
Guo, Y., Lin, Y., & Sun, M. (2011). The Impact of Integrating Distributed Generations on the
Losses in the Smart Grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039931
Guo, Y., Pan, M., & Fang, Y. (2012). Optimal Power Management of Residential Customers in
the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 23(9), 15931606.
Gupta, A., & Murarka, P. (2012). A Ubiquitous Sensor Network for Domestic Energy
Monitoring and Energy Consumption Optimization. In 2012 IEEE International Conference
on Green Computing and Communications, Conference on Internet of Things.
doi:10.1109/GreenCom.2012.19
Gupta, P., Bhatia, R. S., & Jain, D. K. (2013). Adaptive Protection Schemes for the Microgrid in
a Smart Grid Scenario: Technical Challenges. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698729
Gupta, S., Verna, R., & Victorino, L. (2006). Empirical Research Published in Porduction and
Operations Management (1992-2005): Trends and Future Research Directions. Production
and Operations Management, 15(3), 432448.
274
Ha, B. N., Lee, S. W., Shin, C. H., Kwon, S. C., Park, S. Y., & Park, M. H. (2009). Development
of intelligent distribution automation system. In Transmission & Distribution Conference &
Exposition: Asia and Pacific (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TD-ASIA.2009.5357003
Hajizadeh, A., Golkar, M. A., & Feliachi, A. (2010). Voltage Control and Active Power
Management of Hybrid Fuel-Cell/Energy-Storage Power Conversion System Under
Unbalanced Voltage Sag Conditions. IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, 25(4),
11951208.
Hakimi, S. M., Moghaddas-Tafreshi, S. M., & Alamuti, M. M. (2013). Smart Heating System
Control Strategy to Enhance Comfort and Increase Renewable Energy Penetration. In IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Energy Systems (IWIES) (pp. 191196).
Halder, T. (2013). A Case File on a Smart Grid. In IEEE International Symposium on Industrial
Electronics (ISIE) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISIE.2013.6563592
Hammoudeh, M. A., Mancilla-David, F., Selman, J. D., & Kazakos, P. P. (2013).
Communication Architectures for Distribution Networks within the Smart Grid Initiative. In
2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference. doi:10.1109/GreenTech.2013.18
Han, L., Wang, S., Wang, D., & Fan, X. (2013). Optimal Planning of Distributed Generations
with the Combination of Genetic Algorithm and Interval Numbers TOPSIS. In IEEE Power
and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 04). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672576
Han, P., Wang, J., Han, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2012). A Novel Coordinative Resident Electric Vehicle
Charging Mechanism. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (pp. 0
3). doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307227
Hanai, M., Kojima, H., Hayakawa, N., & Shinoda, K. (2013). Integration of Asset Management
and Smart Grid with Intelligent Grid Management System. IEEE Transactions on
Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation, 20(6). doi:10.1109/TDEI.2013.6678870
Hanai, M., Shinoda, K., Wakaiki, K., Kojima, H., Hayakaw, N., & Okubo, H. (2012). Optimum
Power Flow Control Based on Power Appaaratus Diagnosis by Intelligent Grid
Mannagement System (IGM MS). In IEEE International Conference on Condition
Monitoring and Diagnosis (pp. 561564).
Hansen, T., Roche, R., Suryanarayanan, S., Siegel, H. J., Zimmerle, D., Young, P. M., &
Maciejewski, A. A. (2012). A Proposed Framework for Heuristic Approaches to Resource
Allocation in the Emerging Smart Grid. In IEEE International Conference on Power System
Technology (POWERCON). doi:10.1109/PowerCon.2012.6401462
Hao, W., & Yuan, Z. (2013). Improvements on Economic Analysis of Coal Transportation and
Power Transmission. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672591
275
Haque, A. U., Nehrir, M. H., & Mandal, P. (2013). Solar PV Power Generation Forecast Using a
Hybrid Intelligent Approach. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
5). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672634
Hardy, T., & Stanton, A. (2013). The Effect of Incomplete Price Signals on A Price-Responsive
Distribution Feeder. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672352
Harris-Interactive. (2011). Most Americans Improving Energy Efficiency at Home. Fewer are
knowledgeable about energy issues and sources of electrical power. The Harris Poll.
Retrieved from
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/727/
ctl/ReadCustom Default/Default.aspx
Hashemi, S., Yang, G., stergaard, J., You, S., & Cha, S. (2013). Storage Application in Smart
Grid with High PV and EV Penetration. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Hashmi, M., Millar, R. J., Lehtonen, M., & Hanninen, S. (2011). Effect of Climate Change on
MV Underground Network Operations in the Future Smart Grid Environment. Electronics
And Electrical Engineering, 115(9). doi:10.5755/j01.eee.115.9.743
Hassan, F., & Crookes, W. (2012). Direct Model Predictive Control for Medium Voltage
Modular Multi-level STATCOM with and without Energy Storage. IEEE
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY (ICIT), 932937.
Hauer, I., Naumann, A., Sttzer, M., & Styczynski, Z. A. (2012). Communication Interface
Requirements during Critical Situations in a Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465753
Haughton, D., & Heydt, G. T. (2010). Smart distribution system design: Automatic
reconfiguration for improved reliability. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589678
Haukedal, E. D., Hoverstad, B. A., Oztiirk, P., & Tidemann, A. (2013). Load-scheduling and
PHEVs in the Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 0
5). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497878
Hayashiya, H., Yoshizumi, H., Suzuki, T., Furukawa, T., Kondoh, T., Kitano, M., Miyagawa,
T. (2011). Necessity and possibility of smart grid technology application on railway power
supply system Keywords. In 14th European Conference on Power Electronics and
Applications (EPE 2011) (pp. 110).
He, H. (2010). Toward a Smart Grid: Integration of computational intelligence into Power Grid.
In The 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/IJCNN.2010.5596724
276
He, G., Sun, Y., Lu, Q., Li, T., LV, H., Yin, W., & Dong, J. (2010). Multi-index and selfapproximate-optimal operation for a smart electrical power grid. IBM Journal of Research
and Development, 54(6), 114.
He, H., & Kusiak, A. (2011). Special Issue on Computational Intelligence in Smart Grid. IEEE
Computational Intelligence Magazine, (August), 20112012.
He, Z., & Liao, Y. (2012). The Design of Analog Acquisition System in Distribution
Automation. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 56).
doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508437
Helal, M., Ahmed, U., Alam, G. R., Kamal, R., & Hong, C. S. (2012). Smart Grid Cooperative
Communication with Smart Relay. Journal of Communications and Networks, 14(6), 640
652.
Hernandez, J., Blanco, A. M., & Luna, L. E. (2012). Design and Installation of a Smart Grid with
Distributed Generation. A Pilot Case in the Colombian Networks. In 38th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) (pp. 565569).
Hernando-gil, I., Ilie, I., & Djokic, S. Z. (2012). Reliability Performance of Smart Grids with
Demand-side Management and Distributed Generation/ Storage Technologies. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465883
Herrera, J. (2001). New Directions for Liberalization and Regulation in Latin America. XII
REPSOL YPF-Harvard Seminar, 8793. Retrieved from
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/whogan/Repsol_Seminars/Repsol_Seminars_Recent/Repsol
_Mallorca_2001.pdf
Heuer, J., Komarnicki, P., & Styczynski, Z. A. (2011). Integration of Electrical Vehicles into the
Smart Grid in the Harz.EE-mobility Research Project. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039147
Heydt, G. T. (2010). Future Renewable Electrical Energy Delivery and Assessment of FREEDM
Systems. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589348
Heydt, G. T., Chowdhury, B. H., Crow, M. L., Haughton, D., Kiefer, B. D., Meng, F., &
Sathyanarayana, B. R. (2012). Pricing and Control in the Next Generation Power
Distribution System. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 907914.
Hidalgo, R., Abbey, C., & Jos, G. (2011). Technical and Economic Assessment of Active
Distribution Network Technologies. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039805
Hidrue, M. K., Parsons, G. R., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. P. (2011). Willingness to pay for
electric vehicles and their attributes. Resource and Energy Economics, 33(3), 686705.
doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.02.002
277
Hill, C. A., Such, M. C., Chen, D., Gonzalez, J., & Grady, W. M. (2012). Battery Energy Storage
for Enabling Integration of Distributed Solar Power Generation. IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, 3(2), 850857.
Holtschneider, T., & Erlich, I. (2012). Modeling Demand Response of Consumers to Incentives
using Fuzzy Systems. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345280
Homchaudhuri, B., & Devabhaktuni, V. (2012). Market Based Approach for Solving Optimal
Power Flow Problem in Smart Grid. In American Control Conference (pp. 30953100).
Homchaudhuri, B., & Kumar, M. (2011). Market Based Allocation of Power in Smart Grid. In
American Control Conference (pp. 32513256).
Hong, Q., Blair, S. M., Catterson, V. M., Dsko, A., Booth, C. D., & Rahman, T. (2013).
Standardization of Power System Protection Settings Using IEC 61850 for Improved
Interoperability. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672816
Hong, T., & Burke, J. J. (2010). Calculating Line Losses in Smart Grid: A New Rule of Thumb.
In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484368
Horsmanheimo, S., Maskey, N., Tuomimki, L., Kokkoniemi-tarkkanen, H., & Savolainen, P.
(2013). Evaluation of Interdependencies between Mobile Communication and Electricity
Distribution Networks in Fault Scenarios. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698771
Hosking, J. R. M., Natarajan, R., Ghosh, S., Subramanian, S., & Zhang, X. (2013). Short-term
forecasting of the daily load curve Smart Grid. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and
Industry, (April). doi:10.1002/asmb.1987
Hu, R. (2012). Channel Access Controlling in Wireless Sensor Network using Smart Grid
System. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 820, 813820.
Hu, Y., Kuh, A., Kavcic, A., & Yang, T. (2011). A Belief Propagation Based Power Distribution
System State Estimator. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, (July 2011), 3646.
Hu, Z., Tan, X., Yang, F., Yang, M., Wen, Q., Shan, B., & Han, X. (2010). Integrated resource
strategic planning: Case study of energy efficiency in the Chinese power sector. Energy
Policy, 38(11), 63916397. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.021
Huang, A. Q., Crow, M. L., Heydt, G. T., Zheng, J. P., & Dale, S. J. (2011). The Future
Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management ( FREEDM ) System: The Energy
Internet. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(1), 133148.
278
Huang, C., Chen, M., Liao, Y., & Lu, C. (2012). DC Microgrid Operation Planning. In
International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA) (pp.
17). doi:10.1109/ICRERA.2012.6477447
Huang, Q., & Hubbard, B. J. (2012). Smart Grid and Electrical Transmission Construction
Course Development. In International Conference on Construction & Real Estate
Management.
Huang, Y., Mao, S., & Nelms, R. M. (2012). Smooth Electric Power Scheduling in Power
Distribution Networks. In GC12 Workshop: Smart Grid Communications: Design for
Performance (pp. 14691473).
Hui-ru, Z., Tian-you, L., Li-wen, F., & Dachang, O. (2012). The Research on Comprehensive
Benefits Evaluation of Smart Grid Self-healing. In 2012 China International Conference on
Electricity Distribution (pp. 56).
Hur, J. (2013). Attribute-Based Secure Data Sharing with Hidden Policies in Smart Grid. In
IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems (Vol. 24, pp. 21712180).
Hussain, S., Gustavsson, R., Saleem, A., & Nordstrom, L. (2012). Service Level Agreement:
Coordination and Monitoring of Actors in Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Hwang, J., Khan, U. A., Shin, W., Seong, J., Lee, J., Kim, Y., & Lee, B. (2013). Validity
Analysis on the Positioning of Superconducting Fault Current Limiter in Neighboring AC
and DC Microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 23(3), 36.
Hwang, T., Choi, M., Kang, S., & Lee, I. (2012). Design of Application-Level Reference Models
for Micro Energy Grid in IT Perspective. In International Conference on Computing and
Networking Technology (ICCNT).
Iacovella, S., Geth, F., Ruelens, F., Leemput, N., Vingerhoets, P., Deconinck, G., & Claessens,
B. (2013). Double-Layered Control Methodology Combining Price Objective and Grid
Constraints. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2013 Symposium (pp. 2530).
Iacovella, S., Lemkens, K., Vingerhoets, P., Geth, F., Deconinck, G., Dhulst, R., &
Vanthournout, K. (2013). Standalone LV Distribution Network Voltage Control
Mechanism. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 7493
7498).
Ilic, D., Karnouskos, S., & Silva, P. G. Da. (2012). Sensing in power distribution networks via
large numbers of smart meters. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 16).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465863
279
Ipakchi, A. (2011). Demand side and Distributed Resource Management A Transactive

Solution. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039272
Islam, M., Mohammadpour, H. A., Stone, P., & Shin, Y.-J. (2013). Time-Frequency Based
Power Quality Analysis of Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generators. In Conference of the
IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 64266431).
Islam, M. S., & Islam, A. (2013). Economic Feasibility Analysis of of Electrical Hybrid Grid in a
City Area. In Proceedings of IEEE Southeastcon (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/SECON.2013.6567497
Islam, S. M., & Giles, T. (2012). Distribution Transformer Life Optimisation in a Smart Feeder
Embedded with Photovoltaic Power Generation. In 7th International Conference on
Electrical and Computer Engineering (pp. 953957).
Islam, S. Z., Mariun, N., Hizam, H., Hanif, M., & Abidin, I. Z. (2012). Communication for
Distributed Renewable Generations (DRGs): A Review on the Penetration to Smart Grids
(SGs). In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (PECon) (pp. 25).
doi:10.1109/PECon.2012.6450339
Jahangiri, P., Wu, D., Li, W., Aliprantis, D. C., & Tesfatsion, L. (2012). Development of an
Agent-Based Distribution Test Feeder with Smart-Grid Functionality. In IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345084
Jalali, M., & Bhattacharya, K. (2013). Frequency Regulation and AGC in Isolated Systems with
DFIG-Based Wind Turbines. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672801
Jamasb, T. (2006). Between the state and market: Electricity sector reform in developing
countries. Utilities Policy, 14(1), 1430. doi:10.1016/j.jup.2004.11.001
Jrventausta, P., Repo, S., Rautiainen, A., & Partanen, J. (2010). Smart grid power system
control in distributed generation environment. Annual Reviews in Control, 34(2), 277286.
doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2010.08.005
Jauch, E. T. (2009a). An Effective , Poor Mans Smart Distribution Volt/Var Management
System. In Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. 08).
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2009.4919422
Jauch, E. T. (2009b). Conservation Biased Distribution Volt/Var/(kW) Management. IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2009, 17. doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275715
Jauch, E. T. (2009c). Volt/var Management An Essential SMART Function. In IEEE/PES
Power Systems Conference and Exposition (pp. 658664).
280
Jauch, E. T. (2010). Implementing SMART GRID Integrated Distribution Volt/var/kW

Management. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 1
5). doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484484
Jauch, E. T. (2011). Possible Effects of Smart Grid Functions on LTC Transformers. IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, 47(2), 10131021.
Jauch, E. T. (2012). Implementing Smart Grid Challenges of Integrating Distribution DG. In
IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition.
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281683
Javadi, A., Geiss, N., Blanchette, H. F., & Al-Haddad, K. (2012). Series Active Conditionners
for Reliable Smart Grid: A Comprehensive Review. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 63206327).
Javadi, S., & Javadi, S. (2010). Steps to Smart Grid Realization. In Proceedings of the 4th
WSEAS International Conference on Computer Engineering and Applications (pp. 223
228).
Javaid, N., Sharif, A., Mahmood, A., Ahmed, S., Qasim, U., & Khan, Z. A. (2012). Monitoring
and Controlling Power using Zigbee Communications. In 2012 Seventh International
Conference on Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and Applications.
doi:10.1109/BWCCA.2012.107
Javed, F., Arshad, N., Wallin, F., Vassileva, I., & Dahlquist, E. (2010). An adaptive optimization
model for power conservation in the smart grid. IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, 15631570. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2010.5642343
Jayantilal, A., & Mccarthy, C. A. (2012). Smarter Fault Location , Isolation , and Service
Restoration using Integrated Distribution Management Systems and Distribution
Automation. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345229
Jett, A. N. (2011). Private activity in Latin America declined sharply but became more dispersed
in 2010. Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, 58(August 2011), 16.
Jia, N. X., & Yokoyama, R. (2003). Profit allocation of independent power producers based on
cooperative Game theory. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems,
25(8), 633641. doi:10.1016/S0142-0615(02)00180-1
Jiandong, W. (2011). China Smart Grid Development Model and Industry Prospect. China
Center for International Economic Exchange, pp. 148. Retrieved from http://esciksp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/China-Smart-Grid-Development-Model-andIndustry-Prospect.pdf
281
Jiang, B., & Fei, Y. (2013). Decentralized Scheduling of PEV On-Street Parking and Charging
for Smart Grid Reactive Power Compensation. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497811
Jiang, Z., Li, F., Qiao, W., Sun, H., Wan, H., Wang, J., Zhang, P. (2009). A Vision of Smart
Transmission Grids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 110).
doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275431
Jing, S., Huang, Q., Wu, J., & Zhen, W. (2013). A Novel Whole-View Test Approach for Onsite
Commissioning in Smart Substation. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(3), 1715
1722.
Kadurek, P., Zipperer, A., Suryanarayanan, S., & Cobben, S. (2013). An application of a
decision-making algorithm for an intelligent distribution substation. 2013 IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting, 15. doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672350
Kahrobaeian, A., & Mohamed, Y. A. I. (2012). Interactive Distributed Generation Interface for
Flexible Micro-Grid Operation in Smart Distribution Systems. In IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid (Vol. 3, pp. 295305).
Kamel, F., & Kist, A. (2010). End-Users Tools Towards an Efficient Electricity Consumption:
the Dynamic Smart Grid. In 3rd Global Conference on Power Control and Optimization
(Vol. 39, pp. 3943). doi:10.1063/1.3459783
Kmpf, E., Ringelstein, J., & Braun, M. (2012). Design of Appropriate ICT Infrastructures for
Smart Grids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344795
Kamto, J., Qian, L., Fuller, J., & Attia, J. (2011). Light-Weight Key Distribution and
Management for Advanced Metering Infrastructure. In IEEE GLOBECOM Workshops (GC
Wkshps) (pp. 12161220). Ieee. doi:10.1109/GLOCOMW.2011.6162375
Kamto, J., Qian, L., Fuller, J., Attia, J., & Qian, Y. (2012). Key Distribution and Management
for Power Aggregation and Accountability in Advance Metering Infrastructure. In IEEE
SmartGridComm 2012 Symposium (pp. 360365).
Kanchev, H., Lu, D., Colas, F., Lazarov, V., & Francois, B. (2011). Energy Management and
Operational Planning of a Microgrid With a PV-Based Active Generator for Smart Grid
Applications. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(10), 45834592.
Kang, C., & Jia, W. (2011). Transition of Tariff Structure and Distribution Pricing in China. In
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039547
Kang, J., Duncan, S. J., & Mavris, D. N. (2013). Real-time Scheduling Techniques for Electric
Vehicle Charging in Support of Frequency Regulation. Procedia Computer Science, 16,
767775. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.080
282
Kansal, P., & Bose, A. (2013). Bandwidth and Latency Requirements for Smart Transmission
Grid Applications. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672081
Karady, G. G., Rogers, A., & Iyengar, V. (2013). Feasibility of Fast Pilot Protection for MultiLoad Distribution Systems. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672340
Kato, Y., & Hamagami, T. (2012). Genetic algorithm sampling the solution space selectively
depending on difficulty of power distribution network restoration. Electronics and
Communications in Japan, 95(2), 1624. doi:10.1002/ecj.10389
Kaygusuz, A., Keles, C., Alagoz, B. B., & Karabiber, A. (2013). Renewable energy integration
for smart sites. Energy & Buildings, 64, 456462. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.031
Kazemi, S., Lehtonen, M., & Fotuhi-firuzabad, M. (2012). Impacts of Fault Diagnosis Schemes
on Distribution System Reliability. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 720727.
Kenny, C., & Sreide, T. (2008). Grand Corruption in Utilities. In World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper # 4805 (pp. 124). Retrieved from http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/12/30/000158349_
20081230224204/Rendered/PDF/WPS4805.pdf
Kesraoui, M., & Chaib, A. (2013). Design of a smart grid for an isolated village supplied with
renewable energies. In 2013 Eight International Conference and Exhibition on Ecological
Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER).
Khan, U. a., Seong, J. K., Lee, S. H., Lim, S. H., & Lee, B. W. (2011). Feasibility Analysis of the
Positioning of Superconducting Fault Current Limiters for the Smart Grid Application
Using Simulink and SimPowerSystem. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity,
21(3), 21652169. doi:10.1109/TASC.2010.2089591
Khattabi, M., Kieling, A., & Ringelstein, J. (2011). A novel agent based system architecture for
smart grids including market and grid aspects. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039421
Khattak, A. R., Mahmud, S. A., & Khan, G. M. (2012). The Power to Deliver. IEEE Power and
Energy Magazine, (august), 5664.
Khayyam, H., Ranjbarzadeh, H., & Marano, V. (2012). Intelligent control of vehicle to grid
power. Journal of Power Sources, 201, 19. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2011.11.010
Kiani, A., & Annaswamy, A. (2010). The effect of a smart meter on congestion and stability in a
power market. In 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) (pp. 194199).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/CDC.2010.5717141
283
Kilic, N., & Gungor, V. C. (2013). Analysis of low power wireless links in smart grid
environments. Computer Networks, 57(5), 11921203. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2012.12.009
Kim, J., Cho, S., & Shin, H. (2013). Advanced Power Distribution System Configuration for
Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 353358.
Kim, K., Yoon, T., Byeon, G., Jung, H., Kim, H., & Jang, G. (2012). Power Demand and Power
Quality Analysis of EV Charging Station using BESS in MicroGrid. In 2012 IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conference (pp. 9961001).
Kirkham, H. (2009). Current measurement methods for the smart grid. In IEEE Power & Energy
Kizilkale, A. C., Mannor, S., & Caines, P. E. (2012). Large Scale Real-time Bidding in the Smart
Grid: A Mean Field Framework. In 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp.
36803687).
Klaassen, E. A. M., Asare-bediako, B., Kling, W. L., & Balkema, A. J. (2013). Application of
Smart Grid Technologies in Developing Areas. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Klaassen, E. A. M. E., Veldman, E., Slootweg, J. G. H., & Kling, W. L. (2013). Energy Efficient
Residential Areas through Smart Grids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Kleimaier, M., Brissette, Y., Abbey, C., & Jos, G. (2013). Load Design for a 25 kV Distribution
Test Line. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672954
Klein, K. M., Springer, P. L., & Black, W. Z. (2010). Real-Time Ampacity and Ground
Clearance Software for Integration Into Smart Grid Technology. IEEE Transactions on
Power Delivery, 25(3), 17681777. doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2010.2044896
Klein, K. M., Springer, P. L., & Black, W. Z. (2011). Real-time ampacity and ground clearance
software for integration into smart grid technology. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Kleinberg, M., Miu, K., & Chiang, H.-D. (2009). Service restoration of power distribution
systems incorporating load curtailment. In IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and
Systems (pp. 17091712). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISCAS.2009.5118104
Kleme, J. J., Varbanov, P. S., & Huisingh, D. (2012). Recent cleaner production advances in
process monitoring and optimisation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 34, 18.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.026
284
Klimenko, V. V., Tereshin, A. G., & Mikushina, O. V. (2009). Global energy and climate of the
planet in the XXI century in the context of historical trends. Russian Journal of General
Chemistry, 79(11), 24692476. Retrieved from
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=22202792
Knauss, J.-P. H., Warren, C., & Kearns, D. (2012). An Innovative Approach to Smart
Automation Testing at National Grid. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution
Conference & Exposition (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281507
Kobayashi, H., & Kurihara, I. (2009). Research and Development of Grid Integration of
Distributed Generation in Japan. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (Vol.
18, pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275494
Khler, J., Schade, W., Leduc, G., Wiesenthal, T., Schade, B., & Espinoza, L. T. (2012). Leaving
fossil fuels behind? An innovation system analysis of low carbon cars. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 111. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.09.042
Kolenc, M., Papi, I., & Blai, B. (2012). Minimization of Losses in Smart Grids Using
Coordinated Voltage Control. Energies, 5(12), 37683787. doi:10.3390/en5103768
Kondo, D. V, Almeida, C. F. M., Kagan, H., Cunha, A. P., Gouvea, M. R., Felber, L. A.,
Nascimento, J. A. O. (2013). A Methodology for Reclosers Allocation in Distribution
Networks. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America
(ISGT LA). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554408
Kong, C., Yu, S., & Sun, Y. (2011). Application of Chemical Storage in Smart Grid and
Analysis on Loss Reduction. Advanced Materials Research, 236-238, 872875.
Konig, J., Franke, U., & Nordstrom, L. (2010). Probabilistic Availability Analysis of Control and
Automation Systems for Active Distribution Networks. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Koroneos, C. J., & Nanaki, E. a. (2012). Life cycle environmental impact assessment of a solar
water heater. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 154161.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.001
Kuh, A., Ji, C., & Wei, Y. (2012). Stochastic Queuing Models for Distributed PV Energy. In
Asia-Pacific Signal & Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference
(APSIPA ASC) (pp. 16).
Kulmala, A., Mutanen, A., Koto, A., Repo, S., & Jrventausta, P. (2012). Demonstrating
Coordinated Voltage Control in a Real Distribution Network. In IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465607
Kulshrestha, P., Wang, L., Chow, M., & Lukic, S. (2009). Intelligent Energy Management
System Simulator for PHEVs at Municipal Parking Deck in a Smart Grid Environment. In
285
Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C., Bente, I., Vieweg, J., & von Helden, J. (2011). Interoperable Device
Identification in Smart-Grid Environments. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Kuntze, N., Rudolph, C., Cupelli, M., Liu, J., & Monti, A. (2010). Trust infrastructures for future
energy networks. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589609
Kurohane, K., Senjyu, T., Uehara, A., Yona, A., Funabashi, T., & Kim, C.-H. (2010). A hybrid
smart AC/DC power system. In 5th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and
Applications (pp. 764769). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICIEA.2010.5516936
Kurohane, K., Senjyu, T., Yona, A., Urasaki, N., Muhando, E. B., & Funabashi, T. (2010). A
High Quality Power Supply System with DC Smart Grid. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Kursawe, K., Danezis, G., & Kohlweiss, M. (2011). Privacy-friendly Aggregation for the Smartgrid. In Privacy Enhancing Technologies (pp. 175191).
Kwasinski, a., Vicini, R., Micheloud, O., & Kumar, H. (2012). Transformer and home energy
management systems to lessen electrical vehicle impact on the grid. IET Generation,
Transmission & Distribution, 6(12), 12021208. doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2012.0286
Labeeuw, W., & Deconinck, G. (2012). Customer Sampling in a Smart Grid Pilot. In IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344926
Lai, L. L., Chan, S. W., Lee, P. K., & Lai, C. S. (2011). Challenges to implementing distributed
generation in area electric power system. In IEEE International Conference on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 797801). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2011.6083750
Lamberti, F., Dong, C., Calderaro, V., & Ochoa, L. F. (2013). Estimating the Load Response to
Voltage Changes at UK Primary Substations. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Lamedica, R., Santini, E., & Romito, D. Z. (2012). An innovative proposal for electrical loads
shedding in conditions of limitation of the power availability. In IEEE Power & Energy
Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345428
Lampley, G. C. (2010a). Distribution Automation at Progress Energy Carolinas. In IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (Vol. 27602, pp. 14). doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5588152
Lampley, G. C. (2010b). Volt/VAR Control at Progress Energy Carolinas Past, Present and
Future. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (Vol. 6996, pp. 13).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5588157
286
Larsen, G. K. H., van Foreest, N. D., & Scherpen, J. M. A. (2013). Distributed Control of the
Power Supply-Demand Balance. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(2), 828836.
Lasseter, R. H. (2011). Smart Distribution: Coupled Microgrids. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(6),
10741082. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2114630
Lauby, M. G. (2010). Reliability Considerations for Application of Smart Grid Technologies. In
Lauby, M. G. (2011). Reliability Considerations from the Integration of Smart Grid Devices and
Systems. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039411
Laverty, D. M., Morrow, D. J., Best, R., & Crossley, P. A. (2010). Telecommunications for
Smart Grid: Backhaul solutions for the Distribution Network. In IEEE Power & Energy
Laverty, D. M., Vanfretti, L., Khatib, I. Al, Applegreen, V. K., Best, R. J., & Morrow, D. J.
(2013). The OpenPMU Project: Challenges and Perspectives. In IEEE Power and Energy
Law, Y. W., Alpcan, T., Lee, V. C.-S., Lo, A., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2012). Demand
response architectures and load management algorithms for energy-efficient power grids: a
survey. In 2012 Seventh International Conference on Knowledge, Information and
Creativity Support Systems. doi:10.1109/KICSS.2012.45
Lazar, F., Huon, G., & Uyttersprot, L. (2012). Flexible grids protection schemes in ELIA vision:
From traditional to intelligent ones. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
19). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344896
Lee, D.-S., Kim, S.-N., Choi, Y.-C., Baek, B.-S., & Hur, J.-S. (2012). Development of wind
power stabilization system using BESS and STATCOM. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465781
Lee, J., & Park, G. (2013). Power Load Distribution for Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks
in Smart Grid Buildings. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2013.
doi:10.1155/2013/372982
Lee, S., Ahn, S., Park, J., Heo, J., Kim, D., Park, J., Yoon, Y. T. (2012). South Korean Power
Distribution System-based Operation , Market Structure and Regulation Strategies under
Distributed Generation and Smart Grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 17). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344796
Lee, S., Yang, M., Kim, K., Yoon, Y. T., & Moon, S. (2013a). Northeast Asia Power System
Interconnection and Smart Grid Operation Strategies in South Korea. In IEEE Power and
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672240
287
Lee, S., Yang, M., Kim, K., Yoon, Y. T., & Moon, S. (2013b). Smart-Grid based Substation
Testing Simulator Design for the South Korean Power Distribution System. In IEEE Power
Lee, S., Yoon, Y. T., & Moon, S. (2013). Smart Grid Based Nuclear Load-following Operation
Strategies in the South Korean Power System. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Lehr, R. L. (2013). New Utility Business Models: Utility and Regulatory Models for the Modern
Era. The Electricity Journal, 26(8), 3553. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2013.09.004
Lendk, I., Erdeljan, A., & Rudas, I. (2013). Algorithm for adaptive Smart Grid visualization. In
IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom)
(pp. 802807).
Lendk, I. I., Erdeljan, A. M., & Popovi, D. S. (2011). Algorithm for cataloging topologies in
the Common Information Model (CIM). Computers & Mathematics with Applications,
61(3), 715721. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2010.12.021
Li, B., Chen, W., & Ge, Y. (2012). Release System of Real-Time-Price Oriented to Smart
Meters. Energy Procedia, 17, 818824. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.02.175
Li, G., & Zheng, G. (2012). Self-Reconfiguration Architecture for Distribution Automation
System Based on Cyber-Physical. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307381
Li, H., Ge, S., & Liu, H. (2012). Analysis of the Effect of Distributed Generation on Power Grid.
In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (pp. 15). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307248
Li, H., Li, F., Xu, Y., Rizy, D. T., & Adhikari, S. (2013). Autonomous and Adaptive Voltage
Control Using Multiple Distributed Energy Resources. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 28(2), 718730.
Li, H., Li, F., Xu, Y., Rizy, D. T., & Kueck, J. D. (2008). Interaction of Multiple Distributed
Energy Resources in Voltage Regulation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Li, L., Liu, L., Yang, C., & Li, Z. (2012). The Comprehensive Evaluation of Smart Distribution
Grid Based on Cloud Model. Energy Procedia, 17, 96102.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.02.069
Li, M., & Luh, P. B. (2013). A Decentralized Framework of Unit Commitment for Future Power
Markets. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672790
288
Li, P., Yu, H., Wang, C., Ding, C., Sun, C., Zeng, Q., Huang, X. (2013). State-space Model
Generation of Distribution Net works for Model Order Reduction Application. In IEEE
Li, Q., & Xiao, X. (2013). EV Charging and Its Applications in Active Distribution Systems. In
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497821
Li, S., & Zhang, D. (2013). A Comparison Study of Demand Response using Optimal and
Heuristic Algorithms. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 913).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672246
Li, Y. P., Volut, S., & He, C. (2012). Standardization of Relays and Protection in Smart Grid. In
IEEE International Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON) (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PowerCon.2012.6401431
Li, Y., & Wolfs, P. (2011). Statistical discriminant analysis of high voltage feeders in Western
Australia distribution networks. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
8). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039148
Li, Y., & Wolfs, P. (2012). Statistical identification of prototypical low voltage distribution
feeders in Western Australia. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 18.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345028
Li, Z., & Liang, Q. (2013). Performance Analysis of Multiuser Selection Scheme in Dynamic
Home Area Networks for Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 1320.
Li, Z., Sun, H., Guo, Q., Wang, Y., & Zhang, B. (2012). GPF-based Method for Evaluating EVs
Free Charging Impacts in Distribution System. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Li, Z., Yang, F., & Ishchenko, D. (2012). The standardization of distribution grid communication
networks. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 18.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345482
Li, Z., Yang, F., Mohagheghi, S., Wang, Z., Tournier, J. C., & Wang, Y. (2013). Toward smart
distribution management by integrating advanced metering infrastructure. Electric Power
Systems Research, 105, 5156. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2013.07.008
Li, Z., Zheng, J., Yang, F., Dagnino, A., Zindler, M., & Fox, C. (2013). Unif ied AMI
Information Models to Support Diversified Smart Grid Systems and Applications. In IEEE
Liang, Y., Tam, K., & Broadwater, R. (2010). Load Calibration and Model Validation
Methodologies for Power Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems,
25(3), 13931401.
289
Liao, H., Li, D., Yu, W., Huang, Y., & Zao, Z. (2012). Power Supply & Storage Capability Index
of Smart Grid and Its Application. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity
Distribution (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508707
Libai, B., Muller, E., & Peres, R. (2005). The role of seeding in multi-market entry. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 375393. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.004
Lin, C., Yang, C., & Shyua, J. Z. (2013). A comparison of innovation policy in the smart grid
industry across the pacific: China and the USA. Energy Policy, 57, 119132.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.028
Lin, J. (2011). Issues and Challenges in Smart-Grid Market Operation and Simulation. In IEEE
Lin, Y., Sun, M., & Hou, Y. (2012). A novel automatic voltage control architecture based on the
infrastructures in the smart grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
8). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344620
Lin, Y., You, Y., Liu, D., & Qu, Y. (2012). Current Situation Analysis and Development
Strategies for Distribution Automation of Guangdong Grid. In 5th International Conference
on Electricity Distribution (pp. 56).
Lindsey, K. E. (2010). Practical aspects of using line sensors in the field. In IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589557
Ling, L., Tan, X., Yu, K., Zhiyong, B., Shi, C., & Haifeng, W. (2013). Multi-hop Aided Wireless
Data Collection Based on Flow Priority. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
(ISGT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497836
Liu, H., & Ge, S. (2013). Optimization of TOU Price of Electricity Based on Electric Vehicle
Orderly Charge. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672410
Liu, H., Yu, K., Chen, S., Yun, C., Wang, H., & Bu, Z. (2012). Pre-scheduling and Sub-band
Hopping in Smart Grid. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Workshop (pp. 698703).
Liu, J., Bi, T., Niu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2012). The utilization of large-scale renewable powers with
high security and efficiency in smart grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345334
Liu, J., Li, X., Chen, X., Zhen, Y., & Zeng, L. (2011). Applications of Internet Things on Smart
Grid in China. In 12th Annual Meeting of China Association for Science and Technology on
Information and Communication Technology and Smart Grid (pp. 1317).
Liu, J., Zhang, W., Zhou, R., & Zhong, J. (2012). Impacts of Distributed Renewable Energy
Generations on Smart Grid Operation and Dispatch. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344997
290
Liu, M., McNamara, P., & McLoone, S. (2013). Fair Charging Strategies for EVs Connected to a
Low- Voltage Distribution Network. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Liu, Q., Lin, D., Wang, J., & Dang, N. (2012). Construction of Electric Data Acquiring Network
Integrating Several Communication Methods. In 2012 Fourth International Conference on
Multimedia Information Networking and Security. doi:10.1109/MINES.2012.89
Liu, S., Chen, B., Kundur, D., Zourntos, T., & Butler-purry, K. (2013). Progressive Switching
Attacks for Instigating Cascading Failures in Smart Grid. In IEEE Power and Energy
Liu, W.-H. E. (2010). Analytics and information integration for smart grid applications. In IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589898
Liu, X. (2010a). Combined Heat and Power Dispatch with Wind Power: A Stochastic Model and
Solutions. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589287
Liu, X. (2010b). Impact of Beta Distributed Wind Power on Emission Mitigation Dispatch. In
Liu, X., & Xu, W. (2010). Minimum Emission Dispatch Constrained by Stochastic Wind Power
Availability and Cost. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 25(3), 17051713.
Liu, X., Xu, W., & Huang, C. (2010). Economic Load Dispatch with Stochastic Wind Power:
Model and Solutions. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition
(pp. 17). doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484550
Liu, Z., Wierman, A., Chen, Y., Razon, B., & Chen, N. (2013). Data center demand response:
Avoiding the coincident peak via workload shifting and local generation. Performance
Evaluation, 70(10), 770791. doi:10.1016/j.peva.2013.08.014
Lo, C., & Ansari, N. (2012). The Progressive Smart Grid System from Both Power and
Communications Aspects. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 14(3), 799821.
Lo, C., & Ansari, N. (2013). Decentralized Controls and Communications for Autonomous
Distribution Networks in Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 6677.
Lo, C.-H., & Ansari, N. (2012). Alleviating Solar Energy Congestion in the Distribution Grid via
Smart Metering Communications. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems,
23(9), 16071620.
Lo, W., & Chen, S. (2011). Advanced Metering the Signal Activity of Combined Signal in
Sparse Data Condition. In IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement
Technology Conference (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/IMTC.2011.5944113
291
Lf, A., Repo, S., Pikkarainen, M., Lu, S., & Ph, T. (2013). Low Voltage Network Monitoring
in RTDS Environment. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe
(ISGT Europe) (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695459
Logenthiran, T., & Srinivasan, D. (2012). Multi-agent system for the operation of an integrated
microgrid. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 4(1), 013116.
doi:10.1063/1.3683528
Loia, V., & Vaccaro, A. (2011). A Decentralized Architecture for Voltage Regulation in Smart
Grids. In IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (pp. 16791684).
Loia, V., Vaccaro, A., & Vaisakh, K. (2013). A Self-Organizing Architecture Based on
Cooperative Fuzzy Agents for Smart Grid Voltage Control. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, 9(3), 14151422.
Loisel, R., Pasaoglu, G., & Thiel, C. (2013). Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles in
Germany by 2030: An analysis of grid-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-grid concepts. Energy
Policy, 65, 432443. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.029
Long, X., Dong, M., Xu, W., & Li, Y. (2013). Online Monitoring of Substation Grounding Grid
Conditions Using Touch and Step Voltage Sensors. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting (pp. 761769). doi:10.1109/TSG.2011.2175456
Lopes, F. V, Santos, W. C., Fernandes Jr., D., Neves, W. L. A., Brito, N. S. D., & Souza, B. A.
(2013). A Transient Based Approach to Diagnose High Impedance Faults on Smart
Distribution Networks. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554450
Lopez, J., Alcaraz, C., & Roman, R. (2013). Smart control of operational threats in control
substations. Computers & Security, 38, 1427. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2013.03.013
Loporto, J. M. (2012). Application of Self-Healing Technologies on Power Distribution Systems:
PHIs Automatic Sectionalizing & Restoration Systems. In IEEE PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) (pp. 13). doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281566
Lovelady, D., Yang, B., Natti, S., Mueller, H., & Tao, L. (2013). A Scenario Driven Reliability
Assessment Approach for Microgrids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672937
Lu, N., Du, P., Greitzer, F. L., Guo, X., Hohimer, R. E., & Pomiak, Y. G. (2012). A multi-layer,
data-driven advanced reasoning tool for intelligent data mining and analysis for smart grids.
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 17. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345180
Lu, N., Du, P., Guo, X., & Greitzer, F. L. (2012). Smart Meter Data Analysis. In IEEE PES
Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition (T&D) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281612
292
Lu, N., Du, P., Paulson, P., Greitzer, F. L., Guo, X., & Hadley, M. (2011). The development of a
smart distribution grid testbed for integrated information management systems. In
Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2011.5759156
Lu, X., Wang, W., & Ma, J. (2012). Authentication and Integrity in the Smart Grid: An
Empirical Study in Substation Automation Systems. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks, 2012, 113. doi:10.1155/2012/175262
Luan, W., Sharp, D., & LaRoy, S. (2013). Data Traffic Analysis of Utility Smart Metering
Network. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672750
Luitel, B., & Venyagamoorthy, G. K. (2013). Neural Networks In RSCAD for Intelligent RealTime Power System Applications. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672929
Lun, L. (2012). Recovery of Distribution Network Based on Optimization and Artificial
Intelligent. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (pp. 14). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307655
Luo, F. J., Dong, Z., Chen, Y. Y., Meng, K., Chen, G., Tian, H., & Wong, K. P. (2013). A Novel
Short-Term Dispatch Scheme for Wind Farm with Battery Energy Storage System. In IEEE
Luszcz, J., & Smolenski, R. (2012). Voltage Harmonic Distortion Measurement Issue in SmartGrid Distribution System. In 2012 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Electromagnetic
Compatibility (APEMC) (pp. 841844).
Ma, C., Moesch, G., Cabaret, B., & Tobias, J. (2012). Innovative MV Switchgear for Todays
Applications. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508711
Macdougall, P., Roossien, B., Warmer, C., & Kok, K. (2013). Quantifying Flexibility for Smart
Grid Services. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672817
Madani, S. S., Abbaspour, A., Beiraghi, M., Dehkordi, P. Z., & Ranjbar, A. mohammad. (2012).
Islanding Detection for PV and DFIG Using Decision Tree and AdaBoost Algorithm. In
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465818
Madani, V., & King, R. L. (2010). Roadmaps for Deployment of Advanced Warning Systems to
Improve Overall Grid Reliability: Setting the Stage. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
293
Madureira, A., Gouveia, C., Moreira, C., Seca, L., & Lopes, J. P. (2013). Coordinated
Management of Distributed Energy Resources in Electrical Distribution Systems. In IEEE
PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 1
8). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554446
Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1990). New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A
Review and Directions for Research. Journal of Marketing, 54(1).
Mahdizadeh Zagar, S. H., & Yaghmaee, M. H. (2013). An Efficient Privacy Preserving Scheme
of High Frequency Reports for Secure Smart Grid Communications. In 3rd International
Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (pp. 368373).
doi:10.1109/ICCKE.2013.6682824
Mahmood, A., Aamir, M., & Anis, M. I. (2008). Design and implementation of AMR Smart Grid
System. IEEE Canada Electric Power Conference, 16. doi:10.1109/EPC.2008.4763340
Maier, M. (2012). Survivability techniques for NG-PONs and FiWi access networks. In 2012
IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) (pp. 62146219). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ICC.2012.6364982
Maier, M. (2013). Reliable Fiber-Wireless Access Networks: Less an End than a Means to an
End. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 119130.
Mak, S. T. (2009). A Synergistic Approach to Implement Demand Response, Asset Management
and Service Reliability Using Smart Metering, AMI and MDM Systems. In IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting (Vol. 18, pp. 14). doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275280
Mak, S. T. (2010). Sensor data output requirements for Smart Grid applications. In IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589580
Maknouninejad, A., Lin, W., & Qu, Z. (2013). Optimum Design and Analysis of the Cooperative
Control, Applied to the Distributed Generators Control in Smart Grids. In IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497840
Malik, A. S., & Bouzguenda, M. (2013). Effects of smart grid technologies on capacity and
energy savings - A case study of Oman. Energy, 54, 365371.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.03.025
Mamo, X., Mallet, S., Coste, T., & Grenard, S. (2009). Distribution automation: the cornerstone
for Smart Grid development strategy. In Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
6). doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275540
Manfren, M. (2012). Multi-commodity network flow models for dynamic energy management
Mathematical formulation. Energy Procedia, 14, 13801385.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1105
294
Markovic, D. S., Zivkovic, D., Branovic, I., Popovic, R., & Cvetkovic, D. (2013). Smart power
grid and cloud computing. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 566577.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.068
Markushevich, N. (2011a). Cross-cutting aspects of Smart Distribution Grid applications. In
IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039041
Markushevich, N. (2011b). The benefits and challenges of the Integrated Volt/Var Optimization
in the smart grid environment. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 18.
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039253
Markushevich, N., & Chan, E. (2009). Integrated Voltage, Var Control and demand response in
distribution systems. In IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition (pp. 14).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/PSCE.2009.4840256
Marques, M. de C., Tome, S. M. C., Silva, E. P., Silva, J. A., & Baldissin, D. S. (2013).
Estimates and analysis of investment in information and communication technologies for
the deployment of Smart Grid in Brazil. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid
Marrn, L., Osorio, X., Llano, A., Arzuaga, A., & Sendin, A. (2013). Low Voltage Feeder
Identification for Smart Grids with Standard Narrowband PLC Smart Meters. In 2013 IEEE
7th International Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2013) (pp.
120125). doi:10.1109/ISPLC.2013.6525836
Martin, K. E. (2013). Synchrophasor Standards and Guides for the Smart Grid. In IEEE Power
Martinez, V. J., & Rudnick, H. (2013). Active Participation of Demand Through a Secondary
Ancillary Services Market in a Smart Grid Environment. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
4(4), 19962005.
Masoum, M. A. S., Deilami, S., & Islam, S. (2010). Mitigation of Harmonics in Smart Grids
With High Penetration of Plug-In Electric Vehicles. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Masuta, T., & Yokoyama, A. (2012). Supplementary Load Frequency Control by Use of a
Number of Both Electric Vehicles and. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(3), 12531262.
Mcbee, K. D., & Simes, M. G. (2012). Utilizing a Smart Grid Monitoring System to Improve
Voltage Quality of Customers. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 738743.
Mcbride, A. J., & Mcgee, A. R. (2012). Assessing Smart Grid Security. Bell Labs Technical
Journal, 17(3), 87104. doi:10.1002/bltj
295
McCann, R., Le, A. T., & Traore, D. (2008). Stochastic Sliding Mode Arbitration for Energy
Management in Smart Building Systems. IEEE Industry Applications Society Annual
Meeting, 14. doi:10.1109/08IAS.2008.8
McCarthy, C. A. (2012). Multiple Layers of Intelligence for Complete Distribution Grid
Response and Control. In IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Exposition (T&D) (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281460
McGrail, A. J. (2012). Asset management: Data and decisions. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281691
Mcgranaghan, M., Dollen, D. Von, Myrda, P., & Gunther, E. (2008). Utility Experience with
Developing a Smart Grid Roadmap. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PES.2008.4596927
Mckinnon, A. D., Thompson, S. R., Doroshchuk, R. A., Fink, G. A., & Fulp, E. W. (2013). BioInspired Cyber Security for Smart Grid Deployments. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Mcmorran, A. W., Stewart, E. M., Shand, C. M., Rudd, S. E., & Taylor, G. A. (2012).
Addressing the Challenge of Data Interoperability for Off-Line Analysis of Distribution
Networks in the Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Meckler, M., & Shah, A. J. (2009). Use of Thermodynamics, Engineering Economics and
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Evaluating Climate Change Decisions. In ASME 2009
International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition (pp. 2734).
Mehrizi-sani, A., & Iravani, R. (2013). Constrained Potential Function Based Control of
Microgrids for Improved Dynamic Performance. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting (p. 1). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672070
Mei, S., & Chen, L. (2012). Research focuses and advance technologies of smart grid in recent
years. Chinese Science Bulletin, 57(22), 28792886. doi:10.1007/s11434-012-5261-5
Mekic, F., Wang, Z., Donde, V., Yang, F., & Stoupis, J. (2009). Distributed Automation for
Back-Feed Network Power Restoration. In 62nd Annual Conference for Protective Relay
Engineers (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/CPRE.2009.4982499
Mekkanen, M., Virrankoski, R., Elmusrati, M., & Antila, E. (2013). Reliability Evaluation and
Comparison for Next- Generation Substation Function Based on IEC 61850 Using Monte
Carlo Simulation. In International Conference on Communications, Signal Processing, and
their Applications (ICCSPA) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ICCSPA.2013.6487306
Mello, A. P., Bernardon, D. P., Pfitscher, L. L., Sperandio, M., Toller, B. B., & Ramos, M.
(2013). Intelligent System for Multivariables Reconfiguration of Distribution Networks. In
296
IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA)
(pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554380
Melo, J. D., Carreno, E. M., & Padilha-Feltrin, A. (2012). A Multi-Agent System with a
Percolation Approach to Simulate the Driving Pattern of Plug-In Electric Vehicles. In
IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281613
Meng, F., & Chowdhury, B. H. (2012). Economics of Grid-Tied Customer-Owned Photovoltaic
Power Generation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344709
Merwin, B., Cibulka, L., Cole, J., & Miller, L. (2009). New Electric Transmission Technologies
for Renewable Integration. In 3rd International Conference of Energy Sustainability (pp.
509519).
Mets, K., Reinhilde, D., & Develder, C. (2012). Comparison of Intelligent Charging Algorithms
for Electric Vehicles to Reduce Peak Load and Demand Variability in a Distribution Grid.
Journal of Communications and Networks, 14(6), 672681.
Miao, X., & Chen, X. (2012). Cyber Security Infrastructure of Smart Grid Communication
System. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508410
Miao, X., Chen, X., Ma, X., Liu, G., Feng, H., & Song, X. (2012). Comparing Smart Grid
Technology Standards Roadmap of The IEC , NIST and SGCC. In 2012 China
International Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508435
Miceli, R. (2013). Energy Management and Smart Grids. Energies, 22622290.
doi:10.3390/en6042262
Michiorri, A., Girard, R., Kariniotakis, G., Leboss, C., & Albou, S. (2012). A Local Energy
Management System for Solar Integration and Improved Security of Supply: the Nice Grid
Project. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465667
Mihalache, L., Suresh, S., Xue, Y., & Manjrekar, M. (2011). Modeling of a small distribution
grid with intermittent energy resources using MATLAB/SIMULINK. In IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6038989
Mihet-popa, L., & Bindner, H. (2013). Simulation Models developed for Voltage Control in a
Distribution Network using Energy Storage Systems for PV Penetration. In Conference of
the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 74877492).
297
Mihet-Popa, L., Han, X., Bindner, H., Pihl-Andersen, J., & Mehmedalic, J. (2013). Grid
Modeling , Analysis and Simulation of Different Scenarios for a Smart Low-Voltage
Distribution Grid. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe
Milbradt, R. G., Canha, L. N., Pereira, P. R., Abaide, A. da R., Garcia, L. D., & Schmaedecke, S.
M. (2012). Real-Time Evaluation of Voltage Control in Distribution Systems Using Remote
Measurements and Smart Meters. In International Conference on the European Energy
Market (EEM) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/EEM.2012.6254748
Miller, L. E., Schoene, J., Kunte, R., & Morris, G. Y. (2013). Smart Grid Opportunities in
Islanding Detection. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672727
Miller, M. T., Johns, M. B., Sortomme, E., & Venkata, S. S. (2012). Advanced integration of
distributed energy resources. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 12).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345573
Mion do Nascimento, R., Oening, A. P., Marcilio, D. C., Aoki, A. R., Rocha Jnior, E. D. P., &
Schiochet, J. M. (2012). Outliers Detection and Filling Algorithms for Smart Metering
Centers. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281659
Mishra, A., Irwin, D., Shenoy, P., Kurose, J., & Zhu, T. (2013). GreenCharge: Managing
Renewable Energy in Smart Buildings. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, 31(7), 12811293.
Misra, S., Venkata Krishna, K. P., Saritha, V., & Obaidat, M. S. (2013). Learning Automata as a
Utility for Power Management in Smart Grids. IEEE Communications Magazine, (January),
98104.
Mitchell, R., & Chen, I. (2013). Behavior-Rule Based Intrusion Detection Systems for Safety
Critical Smart Grid Applications. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 1254
1263).
Monik, J., Humar, J., & emva, A. (2013). A non-conventional instrument transformer.
Measurement, 46, 41144120. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.011
Moghbel, M., Masoum, M. A. S., & Shahnia, F. (2013). Coordinated Charging of PEVs in
Unbalanced Residential Network Based on Worst Node Voltage Profile. In IEEE Power
Mohagheghi, S. (2010). A fuzzy cognitive map for data integrity assessment in a IEC 61850
based substation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5588058
298
Mohagheghi, S. (2012). Communication Services and Data Model for Demand Response. In
2012 IEEE Online Conference on Green Communications (GreenCom) (pp. 8085).
Mohagheghi, S., Mousavi, M., Stoupis, J., & Wang, Z. (2009). Modeling distribution automation
system components using IEC 61850. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275841
Mohagheghi, S., Yang, F., & Falahati, B. (2011). Impact of Demand Response on Distribution
System Reliability. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039365
Mohamad, H., Dahlan, N. N., Abu Bakar, A. H., Ping, H. W., & Mokhlis, H. (2013). Islanding
Control Strategy for A Distribution Network. In 2013 IEEE 7th International Power
Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2013) (pp. 472477).
Mohamed, A., & Mohammed, O. (2013). Real-time energy management scheme for hybrid
renewable energy systems in smart grid applications. Electric Power Systems Research, 96,
133143. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2012.10.015
Mohammad, R., Kalam, A., & Akella, R. (2013). A Cost-Effective Early Warning System for
Improving the Reliability of Power Systems. In Reliability and Maintainability Symposium
(RAMS) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/RAMS.2013.6517731
Mohammed, O. A., Nayeem, M. A., & Kaviani, A. K. (2010). A Laboratory Based Microgrid
and Distributed Generation Infrastructure for Studying Connectivity Issues to Operational
Power Systems. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589693
Mohan Babu, G. N., & Ganesh, L. S. (1997). Dynamics of firm-level technological capabilities
in an LDC-a conceptual model. In Innovation in Technology Management. The Key to
Global Leadership. (pp. 341344). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PICMET.1997.653402
Mohn, T. (2012). Campus microgrids: Opportunities and challenges. In IEEE Power & Energy
Mojdehi, M. N., & Ghosh, P. K. (2012). Distributed Generations Scheduling in Micro-Grid
Considering CO2 Emission Cost. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
16). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345509
Mokhtari, G., Nourbakhsh, G., Zare, F., & Ghosh, A. (2013). Overvoltage prevention in LV
smart grid using customer resources coordination. Energy & Buildings, 61, 387395.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.015
Monti, A., & Ponci, F. (2010). Power Grids of the Future: Why Smart Means Complex.
Complexity in Engineering, 711. doi:10.1109/COMPENG.2010.44
299
Monti, A., Ponci, F., Benigni, A., & Liu, J. (2010). Distributed intelligence for smart grid
control. International School on Nonsinusoidal Currents and Compensation, 4658.
doi:10.1109/ISNCC.2010.5524469
Moon, G., Kong, S., Joo, S., Ryu, H.-S., & Kim, T.-H. (2013). Stochastic Integrated Generation
and Transmission Planning Incorporating Electric Vehicle Deployment. Journal of
Electrical Engineering Technology, 8(1), 110.
Moon, H. H., Lee, J. J., Choi, S. Y., Cha, J. S., Kang, J. M., Kim, J. T., & Shin, M. C. (2011). A
study using a Monte Carlo method of the optimal configuration of a distribution network in
terms of power loss sensing. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 11(8), 782334.
doi:10.3390/s110807823
Moongilan, D. (2012). Corona Noise Considerations for Smart Grid Wireless Communication
and Control Network Planning. In IEEE International Symposium on Electromagnetic
Compatibility (pp. 357362).
Moraes, E. E. C., Mesquita, S. J. De, Leo, R. P. S., Neto, M. B. M., da Silva, K. Q., Correa, R.
M. C., Leite, F. R. (2012). The Application of D-STATCOM in Smart Distribution Grid
with Wind Power Plants. In IEEE/IAS International Conference on Industry Applications
(INDUSCON) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/INDUSCON.2012.6453881
Morais, H., Sousa, T., Faria, P., & Vale, Z. (2013). Reactive Power Management Strategies in
Future Smart Grids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672332
Morais, H., Vale, Z., Faria, P., & Ramos, S. (2013). Defining Electricity Tariffs Using the
Knowledge About the Consumers Profiles in ELECON Project. In IEEE PES Conference
on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554488
Morais, H., Vale, Z., Pinto, T., Gomes, L., Fernandes, F., Oliveira, P., & Ramos, C. (2013).
Multi-Agent Based Smart Grid Management and Simulation: Situation Awareness and
Learning in a Test Bed with Simulated and Real Installations and Players. In IEEE Power
Morales Paredes, H. K., Costabeber, A., & Tenti, P. (2010). Application of Conservative Power
Theory to cooperative control of distributed compensators in smart grids. In International
School on Nonsinusoidal Currents and Compensation (pp. 190196). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISNCC.2010.5524488
Morandi, A., Imparato, S., Grasso, G., Berta, S., Martini, L., Bocchi, M., Ribani, P. L. (2010).
Design of a DC Resistive SFCL for Application to the 20 kV Distribution System. IEEE
Transactions on Applied Superconductivity, 20(3), 11221126.
300
Moreno-Garcia, I. M., Moreno-Munoz, A., Domingo-Perez, F., Pallares-Lopez, V., Real-Calvo,

R. J., & Gonzalez-de-la-Rosa, J. J. (2012). Intelligent Electronic Device for Smart Grid:
Statistical approach applied to event detection. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Moreno-Muoz, A., De la Rosa, J. J. G., Lpez, M. A., & Gil de Castro, A. R. (2010). Grid
interconnection of renewable energy sources: Spanish legislation. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 14(2), 104109. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2010.03.003
Moreno-Muoz, A., Pallars-lpez, V., Jos, J., De, G., Real-calvo, R., & Gonzlez-redondo, M.
(2013). Embedding Synchronized Measurement Technology for Smart Grid Development.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 9(1), 5261.
Morsi, W. G., & El-Hawary, M. E. (2011). On the application of wavelet transform for
symmetrical components computations in the presence of stationary and non-stationary
power quality disturbances. Electric Power Systems Research, 81(7), 13731380.
doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2011.02.003
Mosshammer, R., Kupzog, F., Faschang, M., & Stifter, M. (2013). Loose Coupling Architecture
for Co-Simulation of Heterogeneous Components. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 75707575). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700394
Mozina, C. J. (2012). Impact of Smart Grids and Green Power Generation on Distribution
Systems. In IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp. 10791090).
doi:10.1109/TIA.2013.2253292
Mukhopadhyay, S., Soonee, S. K., & Joshi, R. (2011). Plant Operation and Control within Smart
Grid Concept: Indian Approach. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
4). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039385
Mukhopadhyay, S., Soonee, S. K., Joshi, R., & Rajput, A. K. (2012). On the Progress of
Renewable Energy Integration into Smart Grids in India. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Mukhopadhyay, S., Soonee, S. K., Singh, B., & Sehgal, Y. K. (2013). Opportunities and
Problems of Smart Grids with Large Penetration of Renewable Energy - Indian Perspective.
In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672434
Muller, S. C., Georg, H., Rehtanz, C., & Wietfeld, C. (2012). Hybrid Simulation of Power
Systems and ICT for Real-Time Applications. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Muoz, E., Capn-Garca, E., Lanez, J. M., Espua, A., & Puigjaner, L. (2012). Considering
environmental assessment in an ontological framework for enterprise sustainability. Journal
of Cleaner Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.032
301
Murthy, N., & Bojanczyk, K. (2013). Linkages in Energy Policy and Technology: Grid-Scale
Renewables Integration at High Penetration Levels Requires Sustained and Corrective
Policy Support. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672374
Mutule, A., Obushevs, A., Lvov, A., Bacher, R., Sauvain, H., Remund, J., Engen, A. J.
(2013). Efficient identification of opportunities for Distributed Generation based on Smart
Grid Technology. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe
Nagata, T., Ueda, Y., & Utatani, M. (2012). A multi-agent approach to smart grid energy
management. 2012 10th International Power & Energy Conference (IPEC), 327331.
doi:10.1109/ASSCC.2012.6523287
Nair, N.-K. C., & Zhang, L. (2009). SmartGrid: Future networks for New Zealand power
systems incorporating distributed generation. Energy Policy, 37(9), 34183427.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.025
Najjar, M. B., Ghoulam, E., & Fares, H. (2012). Mini Renewable Hybrid Distributed Power
Plants for Lebanon. Energy Procedia, 18, 612621. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.05.074
Nakanishi, S., & Sasaki, W. (2011). A novel approach to smart grid technology for electrical
power transmission lines by a self-organized optical network node based on optical
bistability. Optical Metro Networks and Short-Haul Systems III, 7959, 79590P79590P9.
doi:10.1117/12.874574
Narayan, V., Martnez del Sol, A., Mier Garcia, J. J., & Becerril, G. (2010). Arteche Algorithms
and their Application in the estimation of states in smart grid. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Narayanaswamy, B., Garg, V. K., & Jayram, T. S. (2012). Prediction based storage management
in the smart grid. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Symposium (pp. 498503).
Narimani, H., & Mohsenian-rad, H. (2013). Autonomous Demand Response in Heterogeneous
Smart Grid Topologies. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497812
Nassar, M., Gulati, K., Mortazavi, Y., & Evans, B. L. (2011). Statistical Modeling of
Asynchronous Impulsive Noise in Powerline Communication Networks. In IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference - GLOBECOM 2011 (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2011.6134477
Nassor, T. S., Ziadi, Z., Yona, A., Senjyu, T., & Abdel-akher, M. (2012). Comprehensive
analysis of DC Smart Grid Operation. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Power
and Energy (PECon) (pp. 880885). doi:10.1109/PECon.2012.6450341
302
Naveen, G., Kumar B, P., & Sudheer, M. L. (2013). Demand Side Load Leveling Using
Distributed Micro Energy and Storage Systems with the Establishment of Micro Grids. In
IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698745
Neaimeh, M., Wardle, R., & Taylor, P. (2013). Integrating Smart Meter and Electric Vehicle
Charging Data to Predict Distribution Network Impacts. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe) (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695238
Nedi, N., & venda, G. (2013). Workflow Management System for DMS. Information
Technology and Control, 42(4), 373385.
Nejad, M. F., Saberian, A., Hizam, H., Amran, M., Radzi, M., & Abidin, M. Z. (2013).
Application of Smart Power Grid in Developing Countries. In 2013 IEEE 7th International
Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2013) (pp. 427431).
Ng, E. J., & El-shatshat, R. A. (2010). Multi-Microgrid Control Systems (MMCS). In IEEE
Nguyen, C. P., & Flueck, A. J. (2012). Agent Based Restoration With Distributed Energy
Storage Support in Smart Grids. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 3, pp. 1029
1038).
Nguyen, P. H., Kling, W. L., & Ribeiro, P. F. (2013). A Game Theory Strategy to Integrate
Distributed Agent-Based Functions in Smart Grids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1),
568576.
Niemi, R., & Lund, P. D. (2012). Alternative ways for voltage control in smart grids with
distributed electricity generation. International Journal of Energy Research, 36(June 2011),
10321043. doi:10.1002/er
Nieves, J. C., Espinoza, A., Penya, Y. K., Ortega de Mues, M., & Pea, A. (2013). Intelligence
distribution for data processing in smart grids: A semantic approach. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(8), 18411853.
doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2013.03.016
Ninagawa, C., Yoshida, H., Kondo, S., & Otake, H. (2013). Data Transmission of IEEE1888
Communication for Wide-area Real-time Smart Grid Applications. In International
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conference (IRSEC) (pp. 509514).
doi:10.1109/IRSEC.2013.6529702
Niyato, D., & Wang, P. (2012). Cooperative Transmission for Meter Data Collection in Smart
Grid. IEEE Communications Magazine, (April), 9097.
303
Niyato, D., Wang, P., Han, Z., & Hossain, E. (2011). Impact of packet loss on power demand
estimation and power supply cost in smart grid. In IEEE Wireless Communications and
Networking Conference (pp. 20242029). Ieee. doi:10.1109/WCNC.2011.5779440
Niyato, D., Wang, P., & Hossain, E. (2012). Reliability Analysis and Redundancy Design of
Smart Grid Wireless Communications Systems for Demand Side Management. IEEE
Wireless Communications, (June), 3846.
OConnell, A., Flynn, D., Richardson, P., & Keane, A. (2012). Controlled Charging of Electric
Vehicles in Residential Distribution Networks. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Obama, B. (2013). Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The White House Executive
Order. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/executiveorder-improving-critical-infrastructure-cybersecurity
Obusev, a., Lvov, A., & Mutule, A. (2012). Estimation of small scale HPP affect on distribution
network reliability under market conditions. In Electric Power Quality and Supply
Reliability (pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PQ.2012.6256216
Ochoa, L. F., & Harrison, G. P. (2010). Using AC Optimal Power Flow for DG planning and
optimisation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589482
Ochoa, L. F., & Harrison, G. P. (2011). Minimizing Energy Losses: Optimal Accommodation
and Smart Operation of Renewable Distributed Generation. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 26(1), 198205. doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2049036
Ochoa, L. F., Keane, A., & Harrison, G. P. (2011). Minimizing the Reactive Support for
Distributed Generation: Enhanced Passive Operation and Smart Distribution Networks.
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26(4), 21342142.
doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2011.2122346
Ochoa, L., Keane, A., & Harrison, G. (2012). Minimizing the reactive support for distributed
generation: Enhanced passive operation and smart distribution networks. IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting, 11. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6343923
Ogita, Y., & Mori, H. (2012). Parallel Dual Tabu Search for Capacitor Placement in Smart Grids.
Procedia Computer Science, 12, 307313. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.09.076
Ortega-vazquez, M., Bouffard, F., & Silva, V. (2013). Electric Vehicle Aggregator/System
Operator Coordination for Charging Scheduling and Services Procurement. In IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672209
304
Ott, A. L. (2012). Evolution of conventional, renewable and alternative resources in PJM market
operations. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345066
Oualmakran, Y., Melendez, J., & Herraiz, S. (2012). Self-healing for smart grids: Problem
formulation and considerations. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 1
6). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465856
Ouda, M., Nigim, K., & Reiser, H. (2012). Compact wide band antenna for smart grid
application. 25th IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering
(CCECE), 14. doi:10.1109/CCECE.2012.6335033
Outeirio, F. J. B., Domingo-perez, F., Gil-de-Castro, A. del R., zFlores Arias, J., & Morenomunoz, A. (2012). In-Building Lighting Management System with Wireless
Communications. In IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE) (pp.
8385).
Overman, T. M., & Sackman, R. W. (2010). High Assurance Smart Grid: Smart Grid Control
Systems Communications Architecture. In 2010 First IEEE International Conference on
Smart Grid Communications (pp. 1924). Ieee. doi:10.1109/SMARTGRID.2010.5622007
Overman, T. M., Sackman, R. W., Davis, T. L., & Cohen, B. S. (2011). High-Assurance Smart
Grid: A Three-Part Model for Smart Grid Control Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(6),
10461062. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2112310
Oviedo, R. J. M., Fan, Z., Gormus, S., Kulkarni, P., & Kaleshi, D. (2012). Residential energy
demand management in smart grids. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference
& Exposition (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281573
Oyetoyan, T. D., Conradi, R., & Soarez Cruzes, D. (2013). A Comparison of Different Defect
Measures to Identify Defect-Prone Components. In 23rd International Workshop on
Software Measurement (IWSM). doi:10.1109/IWSM-Mensura.2013.34
Pachanapan, P., Anaya-lara, O., Dyko, A., & Lo, K. L. (2012). Adaptive Zone Identification for
Voltage Level Control in Distribution Networks With DG. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 3(4), 15941602.
Padhy, N. P., Bhakar, R., & Nagendran, M. (2011). Smart Reference Networks. In IEEE Power
Padhy, N. P., Bhakar, R., Nagendran, M., & Kumar, A. (2012). Dynamic Network Pricing Based
on Smart Reference Networks. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
8). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345374
305
Pakonen, P., Vehmasvaara, S., Pikkarainen, M., Siddiqui, B. a., & Verho, P. (2012). Experiences
on narrowband powerline communication of automated meter reading systems in Finland.
Electric Power Quality and Supply Reliability, 16. doi:10.1109/PQ.2012.6256242
Panchadcharam, S., Taylor, G. A., Pisica, I., & Irving, M. R. (2012). Modeling and Analysis of
Noise in Power Line Communication for Smart Metering. In IEEE Power and Energy
Pandey, S. K., Mohanty, S. R., Kishor, N., & Catalo, J. P. S. (2013). An Advanced LMI-BasedLQR Design for Load Frequency Control of an Autonomous Hybrid Generation System. In
Technological Innovations for the Internet Things (pp. 371381).
Pang, C., Dutta, P., & Kezunovic, M. (2012). BEVs / PHEVs as Dispersed Energy Storage for
V2B Uses in the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(1), 473482.
Pang, G., Kesidis, G., & Konstantopoulos, T. (2012). Avoiding Overages by Deferred Aggregate
Demand for PEV Charging on the Smart Grid. In IEEE International Conference on
Communications (pp. 33223327).
Papadopoulos, T. L. A., Kaloudas, C. G., & Chrysochos, Andreas Papagiannis, G. K. (2013).
Application of Narrowband Power-Line Communication in Medium-Voltage Smart
Distribution Grids. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(2), 981988.
Parikh, P. A., & Nielsen, T. D. (2009). Transforming Traditional Geographic Information
System to Support Smart Distribution Systems. In Power Systems Conference and
Exposition (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/PSCE.2009.4839979
Parikh, P. P., Kanabar, M. G., & Sidhu, S. (2010). Opportunities and Challenges of Wireless
Communication Technologies for Smart Grid Applications. In IEEE Power & Energy
Parikh, P. P., Sidhu, T. S., & Shami, A. (2013). A Comprehensive Investigation of Wireless
LAN for IEC 61850 Based Smart Distribution Substation Applications. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 9(3), 14661476.
Park, J. H., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2013). Security Weakness in the Smart Grid Key Distribution
Scheme Proposed by Xia and Wang. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(3), 16131614.
Park, K., Kim, J., & Lee, D. (2012). Applying the DC Distribution System Constructed
Commercial Buildings. In International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and
Applications (ICRERA) (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/ICRERA.2012.6477372
Parker, D. M., & Mccollough, N. D. (2011). Medium-Voltage Sensors for the Smart Grid:
Lessons Learned. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039775
306
Parsonnet, B. (2012). The Role of Permanent Load Shift Technologies for Addressing Climate
Change. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 12).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281635
Patel, U., & Jayaram, S. H. (2012). Impact of Poor Power Quality on Stress Grading System of
Cable Termination. In Conference on Electrical Insulation and Dielectric Phenomena
(CEIDP) (pp. 463466).
Pathak, S. (2013). Decentralized self healing solution for Distribution Grid Automation: A must
need of Indian Distribution Utilities. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGTAsia.2013.6698710
Paudyal, S., & Caizares, C. A. (2011). Optimal Operation of Distribution Feeders in Smart
Grids. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(10), 44954503.
Pearson, I. L. G. (2011). Smart grid cyber security for Europe. Energy Policy, 39(9), 52115218.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.05.043
Peng, L., & Yan, G.-S. (2011). Clean Energy Grid-Connected Technology Based on Smart Grid.
Energy Procedia, 12, 213218. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.030
Peres, L. A. P., Pessanha, J. F. M., Serra, J. V., Particelli, F. D. M. F., & Caldas, A. C. I. (2011).
Analysis of the Use of Electric Vehicles by Electric Utility Companies Fleet in Brazil. IEEE
Latin America Transactions, 9(7), 10321039. doi:10.1109/TLA.2011.6129699
Peres, R., Muller, E., & Mahajan, V. (2010). Innovation diffusion and new product growth
models: A critical review and research directions. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 27(2), 91106. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.12.012
Prez-romero, M., Gallardo-lozano, J., Romero-cadaval, E., & Guerrero-Martinez, M.-A.
(2013). Optimized Energy Consumption Management for Residential Applications
Controlled by a Local Energy Management Unit. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Pernick, R., Wilder, C., 2007. Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment
Opportunity. Harper Business.
Pernick, R., Wilder, C., 2012. Clean Tech Nation: How the US can lead in the new global
economy. Harper Business.
Peterson, M., & Singh, B. N. (2010). Smart grid technologies for reactive power compensation in
motor start applications. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference &
Exposition (pp. 16). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484470
Petinrin, J. O., & Shaaban, M. (2012). Smart Power Grid: Technologies and Applications. In
2012 IEEE International Conference on Power and Energy (pp. 892897).
doi:10.1109/PECon.2012.6450343
307
Petri, D., Fontanelli, D., Macii, D., & Belega, D. (2013). A DFT-based Synchrophasor,
Frequency and ROCOF Estimation Algorithm. In IEEE International Workshop on Applied
Measurements for Power Systems (AMPS) (Vol. 2011, pp. 8590).
doi:10.1109/AMPS.2013.6656231
Pfitscher, L. L., Bernardon, D. P., Canha, L. N., Montagner, V. F., Abaide, A. R., & Saldanha, J.
J. A. (2013). A methodology for real time analysis of parallelism of distribution networks.
Electric Power Systems Research, 105, 18. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2013.07.003
Pfitscher, L. L., Bernardon, D. P., Canha, L. N., Montagner, V. F., Garcia, V. J., & Abaide, A. R.
(2013). Intelligent system for automatic reconfiguration of distribution network in real time.
Electric Power Systems Research, 97, 8492. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2012.12.007
Pinomaa, A., Ahola, J., Kosonen, A., & Nuutinen, P. (2013). Noise Analysis of a Power-Line
Communication Channel in an LVDC Smart Grid Concept. In 2013 IEEE 7th International
Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2013) (pp. 4146).
doi:10.1109/ISPLC.2013.6525822
Pinto Faria, R. A. (2012). Wireless Sensor Network for electrical Secondary Substations. 9th
European Radar Conference, 602605.
Pipattanasomporn, M., Feroze, H., & Rahman, S. (2009). Multi-agent systems in a distributed
smart grid: Design and implementation. In IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and
Exposition (pp. 18). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PSCE.2009.4840087
Pires, I. A., Cardoso Filho, B. de J., & de Oliveira, J. C. S. V. R. based on Q.-S. W. to A. S.-G.
R. B. de J. C. F. J. C. de O. (2010). A Series Voltage Regulator based on Quasi-Sinusoidal
Waveform to Achieve Smart- Grid Requirements. In IEEE Industry Applications Society
Annual Meeting (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/IAS.2010.5615309
Podmore, R., & Robinson, M. R. (2011). CIM Graphic Exchange Standard for Smart Grid
Applications. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039264
Pogaru, S. S., Miller, M. Z., Duncan, S. J., & Mavris, D. N. (2013). Investigating the Impacts of
Modeling Variables- A Case Study with Smart Grid Demand Response. Procedia Computer
Science, 16, 440448. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.01.046
Poh, A., Ling, A., Sugihara, K., & Mukaidono, M. (2012). Utilities Need Much Better Functional
Safeguards. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Workshop (pp. 680685).
Ponzi, L. J., & Koening, M. (2002). Knowledge management another management fad.
Information Research, 8(1). Retrieved from http://www.informationr.net/ir/81/paper145.html
308
Posada, C. J., Ramirez, J. M., & Correa, R. E. (2012). Modeling and simulation of a solid state
transformer for distribution systems. IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 16.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345168
Pourmousavi, S. A., & Nehrir, M. H. (2012). Real-Time Central Demand Response for Primary
Frequency Regulation in Microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(4), 19881996.
Price, J. E., & Sanders, H. (2013). Concepts for a Wholesale Grid State Indicator to Enable Price
Responsive Demand. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672349
Prostejovsky, A., Merdan, M., Schitter, G., & Dimeas, A. (2013). Demonstration of a MultiAgent-Based Control System for Active Electric Power Distribution Grids. In IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Energy Systems (IWIES) (pp. 7681).
doi:10.1109/IWIES.2013.6698565
Prudhvi, P. (2011). A complete copper optimization technique using BB-BC in a smart home for
a smarter grid and a comparison with GA. In 24th Canadian Conference on Electrical and
Computer Engineering(CCECE) (pp. 000069000072). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/CCECE.2011.6030410
Pudjianto, D., Djapic, P., Aunedi, M., Gan, C. K., Strbac, G., & Huang, S. (2013). Smart control
for minimizing distribution network reinforcement cost due to electrification. Energy
Policy, 52, 7684. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.021
Purvins, A., & Sumner, M. (2013). Optimal management of stationary lithium-ion battery system
in electricity distribution grids. Journal of Power Sources, 242, 742755.
doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.05.097
Purvins, A., Wilkening, H., Fulli, G., Tzimas, E., Celli, G., Mocci, S., Tedde, S. (2011). A
European supergrid for renewable energy: local impacts and far-reaching challenges.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(17-18), 19091916. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.003
Qian, C., Luo, Z., Tian, X., Wang, X., & Guizani, M. (2012). Cognitive Transmission based on
Data Priority Classification in WSNs for Smart Grid. In IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM) (pp. 51665171).
Qianjun, Y., Guichu, W. U., Fenqun, Y., & Hongyan, X. U. (2011). Design and Applications of
Intelligent Low Voltage Distribution System Based on ZigBee. In International Conference
on Electronics , Communications and Control (Vol. 2010, pp. 791794).
Qiao, W., Sharma, A., Hudgins, J. L., Jones, E. G., & Rilett, L. (2011). Wind/solar hybrid
generation-based roadway microgrids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 17). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039884
309
Quang, D. N., See, O. H., Nga, D. V., Chee, L. L., Xuen, C. Y., Karuppiah, S. A. L., & Mohd
Siam, M. F. (2012). Customized Ping Tool for Smart Grid Communication Network
Testing. In 2012 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science Applications
and Technologies (pp. 223227). doi:10.1109/ACSAT.2012.87
Rabe, S., Komarnicki, P., Styczynski, Z. A., Gurbiel, M., Blumschein, J., Kereit, M., & Voropai,
N. (2012). Automated Test Procedures for Accuracy Verification of Phasor Measurement
Units. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344836
Radakovi, M., Obitko, M., & Mak, V. (2011). Dynamic explicitly specified behaviors in
distributed agent-based industrial solutions. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(6),
26012621. doi:10.1007/s10845-011-0593-6
Radulovi, D. (2009). Energy Economy Liberalization. In 7th International Conference
Economic Integration, Competition and Cooperation (pp. 110).
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2236735
Radzi, N. H., Bansal, R. C., Dong, Z. Y., Hassan, M. Y., & Wong, K. P. (2013). An efficient
distribution factors enhanced transmission pricing method for Australian NEM transmission
charging scheme. Renewable Energy, 53, 319328. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.12.013
Rafiei, S., & Bakhshai, A. (2012). A Review on Energy Efficiency Optimization in Smart Grid.
In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 59165919).
Rahman, A., & Mohsenian-rad, H. (2013). False Data Injection Attacks Against Nonlinear State
Estimation in Smart Power Grids. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672638
Rahman, M. M., & Mto, A. (2011). Technologies required for efficient operation of a smart
meter network. In 6th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications (pp.
809814). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICIEA.2011.5975697
Ramachandran, B., Srivastava, S. K., & Cartes, D. A. (2012). Decentralized Congestion
Management in Stochastic Electric Power Markets with PHEV Penetration. In IEEE Power
& Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344924
Ramaswamy, P. C., & Deconinck, G. (2012). Smart Grid Reconfiguration Using Simple Genetic
Algorithm and NSGA-II. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465615
Ramchurn, S. D., Vytelingum, P., Rogers, A., & Jennings, Nicholas, R. (2012). Putting the
Smarts into the Smart Grid: a Grand challenge for artificial intelligence. Communications
of the ACM, 55(4), 8696.
310
Ran, B., Negeri, E., Baken, N., & Campfens, F. (2013). Last-Mile Communication Time
Requirements of the Smart Grid. In Sustainable Internet and ICT for Sustainability
(SustainIT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/SustainIT.2013.6685207
Rao, K. U., Bhat, S. H., Ganeshprasad, G. G., Jayaprakash, G., & Pillappa, S. N. (2013). A
Novel Grading Scheme for Loads to Optimize Load Shedding Using Genetic Algorithm in a
Smart Grid Environment. In IEEE Innovative Smart Grid Technologies - Asia 2013 (pp. 1
6). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698742
Rao, N. M., Narayanan, R., Vasudevamurthy, B. R., & Das, S. K. (2013). Performance
Requirements of Present-Day Distribution Transformers for Smart Grid. In IEEE ISGT Asia
2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698769
Ravindran, V., & Aravinthan, V. (2013). Feeder Level Power loss Reduction through Reactive
Power Control with Presence of Distributed Generation. In IEEE Power and Energy Society
Reed, G. F., & Stanchina, W. E. (2010). Smart grid education models for modern electric power
system engineering curriculum. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
5). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589617
Reidl, R. L. (2010). The Smart Grid will be designed with multiple distribution paths. Civil
Engineering, (April), 6063.
Rekola, J., Virtanen, A., Jokipii, J., & Tuusa, H. (2012). Comparison of Converter Losses in an L
VDC Distribution. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp.
12401245).
Ren, W., Ma, L., & Ren, Y. (2013). Perturbation-Based Schemes with Ultra-Lightweight
Computation to Protect User Privacy in Smart Grid. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks, 2013, 18. doi:10.1155/2013/230140
Rengaraju, P., Lung, C.-H., & Srinivasan, A. (2012). Communication requirements and analysis
of distribution networks using WiMAX technology for smart grids. In 8th International
Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 666670).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/IWCMC.2012.6314284
Ribeiro, P., Polinder, H., & Verkerk, M. J. (2012). Philosophical considerations on the design of
smart grids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 13). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344925
Ritter, S., Rttinger, H., Bretschneider, P., & Westermann, D. (2011). New Approaches for
Smart Grid Requirements: Grid Protection and Optimization of Distribution Grid Operation.
In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6038930
311
Roberts, B. P. (2010). Deploying Battery Energy Storage in the Utility Distribution Grid. In
Roberts, B. P., & Sandberg, C. (2011). The Role of Energy Storage in Development of Smart
Grids. Proceedings of the IEEE, 99(6), 11391144. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2011.2116752
Rodriguez-Calvo, A., Fras, P., Reneses, J., & Mateo, C. (2012). Optimal Degree of Smart
Transformer Substations in Distribution Networks for Reliability Improvement. In IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465733
Rohjans, S., Danekas, C., & Uslar, M. (2012). Requirements for Smart Grid ICT-architectures.
In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465617
Rohjans, S., Uslar, M., & Juergen Appelrath, H. (2010). OPC UA and CIM: Semantics for the
smart grid. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 18).
Ieee. doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484299
Rojas-cessa, R., Xu, Y., & Grebel, H. (2013). Management of a Smart Grid with ControlledDelivery of Discrete Power Levels. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2013 Symposium (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/SmartGridComm.2013.6687924
Rmer, B., Reichhart, P., Kranz, J., & Picot, A. (2012). The role of smart metering and
decentralized electricity storage for smart grids: The importance of positive externalities.
Energy Policy, 50, 486495. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.047
Romero, A. A., Samudio, C., Zini, H., & Ratt, G. (2012). Modeling Uncertainties in the
Harmonic Distortion Calculation in Power Systems, due to Wind Farms. In IEEE
International Symposium on Alternative Energies and Energy Quality (SIFAE) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/SIFAE.2012.6478904
Romero Agero, J. (2012). Special Section on Applications of Smart Grid Technologies on
Power Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 3053.
Romero Gordon, J. M., Meyer, J., & Schegner, P. (2011). Design Aspects for large PQ
Monitoring Systems in future Smart Grids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Rosenfield, M. G. (2010). The smart grid and key research technical challenges. In Symposium
on VLSI Technology (pp. 38). Ieee. doi:10.1109/VLSIT.2010.5556140
Ross, K. J., Hopkinson, K. M., & Pachter, M. (2013). Using a Distributed Agent-Based
Communication Enabled Special Protection System to Enhance Smart Grid Security. In
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 12161224).
312
Rostron, J. R., & Moore, D. L. (2012). Fault Sensing for Rapid Restoration of Tapped
Transmission Lines. In IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and
Roth, D. P. (2011). Implementing Fast Configurable Bolt-On Self-Healing Technology for
Distribution Management Systems. In IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp.
19). doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756713
Roth, D. P. (2012). Maximizing Protection Coordination with Self-Healing Technology. In IEEE
Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp. 112). doi:10.1109/REPCon.2012.6194568
Rui, H., Arnold, M., & Wellssow, W. H. (2012). Synthetic medium voltage grids for the
assessment of Smart Grid techniques. 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), 18. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465639
Ruj, S., & Nayak, A. (2013). A Decentralized Security Framework for Data Aggregation and
Access Control in Smart Grids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 196205.
Rutherford, M. J., & Yousefzadeh, V. (2011). The impact of Electric Vehicle battery charging on
distribution transformers. In Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics
Conference and Exposition (APEC) (pp. 396400). Ieee. doi:10.1109/APEC.2011.5744627
Sagiroglu, S., Ozbilen, A., & Colak, I. (2012). Vulnerabilities and Measures on Smart Grid
Application in Renewable Energy. In International Conference on Renewable Energy
Research and Applications (ICRERA) (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/ICRERA.2012.6477421
Sahraei-Ardakani, M., & Blumsack, S. A. (2013). Marginal Value of FACTS Devices in
Transmission-Constrained Electricity Markets. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Saint, B. (2009). Rural Distribution System Planning using Smart Grid Technologies. In Rural
Electric Power Conference (pp. 38). doi:10.1109/REPCON.2009.4919421
Saklani, A. M., Kumar Nunna, H. S. V. S., & Doolla, S. (2012). Intelligent Demand Response
Approach in Smart Distribution Systems: A Review. In IEEE India Conference (INDICON)
(pp. 10571062).
Saleem, A., Heussen, K., & Lind, M. (2009). Agent Services for Situation Aware Control of
Power Systems With Distributed Generation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Salehi, V., Mehr, P., Mohammed, A., Mazloomzadeh, A., & Mohammed, O. (2013a).
Laboratory-Based Smart Power System , Part I: Design and System Development. In IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672643
313
Salehi, V., Mehr, P., Mohammed, A., Mazloomzadeh, A., & Mohammed, O. (2013b).
Laboratory-Based Smart Power System, Part II: Control, Monitoring, and Protection. In
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672647
Salvadori, F., Gehrke, C. S., Oliveira, A. C. De, Campos, M. De, & Sausen, P. S. (2013). Smart
Grid Infrastructure Using a Hybrid Network Architecture. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 4(3), 16301639.
Samarakoon, K., Ekanayake, J., & Jenkins, N. (2013). Reporting Available Demand Response.
In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid (Vol. 4, pp. 18421851).
Samarakoon, K., Wu, J., Ekanayake, J., & Jenkins, N. (2011). Use of Delayed Smart Meter
Measurements for Distribution State Estimation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (Vol. 15, pp. 16). doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039384
Snchez-Ayala, G., Agero, J. R., Elizondo, D., & Lelic, M. (Dino). (2013). Current Trends on
Applications of PMUs in Distribution Systems. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Santos, G., Pinto, T., Vale, Z., Morais, H., & Praa, I. (2013). MASCEM Restructuring:
Ontologies For Scenarios Generation in Power Systems Simulators. In IEEE Power and
Sanz, A., Garcia-Nicolas, J. I., Estopin, P., & Miguel, S. (2009). PRIME from the definition to
a SoC solution. In IEEE International Symposium on Power Line Communications and its
Applications (pp. 347352).
Sanz, A., Piero, P. J., Miguel, S., & Garcia, J. I. (2013). Real Problems Solving in PRIME
Networks by Means of Simulation. In 2013 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Power
Line Communications and Its Applications (pp. 285290).
Sanz, A., Piero, P. J., Miguel, S., & Garcia-Nicolas, J. I. (2012). Distributed Event-Driven
Simulation Environment for Smart Metering Protocols Evaluation. In IEEE
Sarfi, R. J., Tao, M. K., & Gemoets, L. (2010). Making the Smart Grid Work for Community
Energy Delivery Lessons Learned From Experiences in Realizing Conservation and
Sustainability Goals. In 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government
Research (pp. 200208).
Sarfi, R. J., Tao, M. K., Lyon, J. B., & Simmins, J. J. (2012). Data quality as it relates to asset
management. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 1
5). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281418
314
Sathyanarayana, B. R., & Heydt, G. T. (2010). A roadmap for distribution energy management
via multiobjective optimization. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 1
8). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589509
Sathyanarayana, B. R., & Heydt, G. T. (2013). Sensitivity-Based Pricing and Optimal Storage
Utilization in Distribution Systems. IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(2), 1073
1082.
Sauter, T., & Lobashov, M. (2011). End-to-End Communication Architecture for Smart Grids.
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 58(4), 12181228.
Savi, D. A., Bicik, J., Morley, M. S., Duncan, A., Kapelan, Z., Djordjevi, S., & Keedwell, E.
C. (2013). Intelligent Urban Water Infrastructure Management. Journal of the Indian
Institute of Science, 93.
Saylor, A. (2012). Carbon Capture Innovation: Making an IMPACCT on Coal. Energy.gov.
Feb.16, 2012 (http://energy.gov/articles/carbon-capture-innovation-making-impacct-coal-0)
Schneider, K. P., Chassin, D., Chen, Y., & Fuller, J. C. (2009). Distribution Power Flow for
Smart Grid Technologies. In IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition (pp. 1
7). doi:10.1109/PSCE.2009.4840078
Schneider, K. P., Chen, Y., Engle, D., & Chassin, D. (2009). A Taxonomy of North American
Radial Distribution Feeders. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275900
Schneider, K. P., & Fuller, J. C. (2010a). Detailed End Use Load Modeling for Distribution
System Analysis. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5588151
Schneider, K. P., & Fuller, J. C. (2010b). Voltage Control Devices on the IEEE 8500 Node Test
Feeder. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484225
Schneider, K. P., Fuller, J. C., & Chassin, D. (2011). Evaluating Conservation Voltage
Reduction: An Application of GridLAB-D: an Open Source Software Package. In IEEE
Schneider, K. P., Fuller, J. C., & Chassin, D. P. (2011). Multi-State Load Models for Distribution
System Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 26(4), 24252433.
Sechilariu, M., Wang, B., & Locment, F. (2013a). Building Integrated Photovoltaic System With
Energy Storage and Smart Grid Communication. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, 60(4), 16071618.
315
Sechilariu, M., Wang, B., & Locment, F. (2013b). Building-integrated microgrid: Advanced
local energy management for forthcoming smart power grid communication. Energy &
Buildings, 59, 236243. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.039
Sedghi, H., & Jonckheere, E. (2013). Statistical Structure Learning of Smart Grid for Detection
of False Data Injection. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672176
See, J., Latham, S., Shirek, G., & Carr, W. (2011). Report on real-time grid analysis pilots. In
Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. B41B47). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756715
Selga, J. M., Zaballos, A., & Navarro, J. (2013). Solutions to the Computer Networking
Challenges of the Distribution Smart Grid. IEEE Communications Letters, 17(3), 588591.
Senke, N., Otani, T., Yusa, H., Ohba, E., Okuno, Y., Inoue, S., & Arai, Y. (2012). Application of
the IEC 61850 to Communication in Distribution Automation and Building Energy
Management Systems. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Symposium (pp. 454459).
Seo, D., Lee, H., & Perrig, A. (2011). Secure and Efficient Capability-Based Power Management
in the Smart Grid. In IEEE Ninth International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed
Processing with Applications Workshops (pp. 119126). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ISPAW.2011.36
Sexauer, J., Javanbakht, P., & Mohagheghi, S. (2013). Phasor Measurement Units for the
Distribution Grid: Necessity and Benefits. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Shabani, H., Ahmed, M. M., Khan, S., Hameed, S. A., & Habaebi, M. H. (2013). Smart
Zigbee/IEEE802.15.4 MAC for Wireless Sensor Multi-Hop Mesh Networks. In 2013 IEEE
7th International Power Engineering and Optimization Conference (PEOCO2013) (Vol.
14, pp. 282287).
Shafiei, E., Thorkelsson, H., sgeirsson, E. I., Davidsdottir, B., Raberto, M., & Stefansson, H.
(2012). An agent-based modeling approach to predict the evolution of market share of
electric vehicles: A case study from Iceland. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
79(9), 16381653. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.05.011
Shahin, M. A. (2013). Smart Grid Self-healing Implementation for Underground Distribution
Networks. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698702
Shahsavari, A., Fereidunian, A., & Lesani, H. (2013). A Healer Reinforcement Approach to
Smart Grid Self-Healing by Redundancy Improvement. In Conference on Electrical Power
Distribution Networks (EPDC) (pp. 19).
Shao, S., Zhang, T., Pipattanasomporn, M., & Rahman, S. (2010). Impact of TOU Rates on
Distribution Load Shapes in a Smart Grid with PHEV Penetration. In IEEE/PES
316

doi:10.1109/TDC.2010.5484336
Sharma, I., & Bhattacharya, K. (2013). Optimal Sizing of Battery Energy Storage Systems in
Unbalanced Distribution Feeders. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society,
IECON (Vol. 1, pp. 21332138). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6699461
She, X., Burgos, R., Wang, G., Wang, F., & Huang, A. Q. (2012). Review of Solid State
Transformer in the Distribution System: From Components to Field Application. In Energy
Conversion Congress and Exposition (pp. 40774084).
She, X., & Huang, A. (2013). Solid State Transformer in the Future Smart Electrical System. In
IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672768
Shebl, G. B. (2010). DSM Economic Marginal Demand Bidding. In IEEE Power & Energy
Shen, R., & Wong, J. (2009). China solar set to be 5 times 2020 target. Reuters.com, p. 1.
Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/05/us-china-solaridUSTRE5440ZU20090505
Shihu, S. (2011). Multi-sensor Remote Sensing Technologies in Water System Management.
Procedia Environmental Sciences, 10, 152157. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2011.09.027
Shim, J. W., Nam, T., Kim, S., & Hur, K. (2013). On the Reclose Operation of Superconducting
Fault Current Controller for Smart Power Grid With Increasing DG. IEEE Transactions on
Applied Superconductivity, 23(3), 36. doi:10.1109/TASC.2012.2235115
Shirek, G., Lassiter, B., Carr, W., & Kersting, W. H. (2010). Modeling secondary services in
engineering and mapping. In IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp. A2A2
10). Ieee. doi:10.1109/REPCON.2010.5476212
Shuaib Silva, H., Neto, A., Cerqueira, E., Dantas, F., Barros, H., & Almeida, E. (2013).
Advanced Communication System for Rich and Green Smart Grid Networking. In IEEE
PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 1
4). doi:10.1109/ISGT-LA.2013.6554413
Silva, M., Morais, H., & Vale, Z. (2012). An integrated approach for distributed energy resource
short-term scheduling in smart grids considering realistic power system simulation. Energy
Conversion and Management, 64, 273288. doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2012.04.021
Silva, M., Morais, H., & Vale, Z. A. (2011). Distribution Network Short Term Scheduling in
Smart Grid Context. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6038900
317
Silva, M., Morais, H., Vale, Z., & Faria, P. (2012). Short-term Scheduling Considering Fiveminute and Hour-ahead Energy Resource Management. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Silvester, S., Beella, S. K., van Timmeren, A., Bauer, P., Quist, J., & van Dijk, S. (2012).
Exploring design scenarios for large-scale implementation of electric vehicles; the
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol case. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.053
Sim, H. J., & Harris, D. L. (2011). Current practices on power transformer monitoring and
controls for smart grid applications. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039201
Singhal, A., Winograd, T., & Scarfone, K. (2007). Guide to Secure Web Services
Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Anoop Singhal.
NIST Special Publication, 95(800-95). Retrieved from
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-95/SP800-95.pdf
Singh, A., Bapat, J., & Das, D. (2013a). Distributed Health Monitoring System for Control in
Smart Grid Network. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGTAsia.2013.6698765
Singh, A., Bapat, J., & Das, D. (2013b). Two Tier Communication Architecture for Smart Meter.
In International Conference on Broadband, Wireless Computing, Communication and
Applications (BWCCA) (pp. 12). doi:10.1109/COMSNETS.2013.6465590
Singh, M. (2013). Protection Coordination in Grid Connected & Islanded Modes of Micro-Grid
Operations. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT-Asia.2013.6698772
Singh, M., Kumar, P., & Kar, I. (2012). Implementation of Vehicle to Grid Infrastructure Using
Fuzzy Logic Controller. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(1), 565577.
Sinha, A., Neogi, S., Lahiri, R. N., Chowdhury, S., Chowdhury, S. P., & Chakraborty, N. (2011).
Smart grid initiative for power distribution utility in India. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Slayton, R. (2013). Efficient , Secure Green: Digital Utopianism and the Challenge of Making
the Electrical Grid Smart Efficient , Secure Green: Digital Utopianism and the
Challenge of Making the Electrical Grid Smart . Information & Culture, 48(4), 448478.
doi:10.7560/IC48403
Slootweg, J. G., Crdova, C. E. P. J., Portela, C. M., & Morren, J. (2011). Smart Grids Intelligence for Sustainable Electrical Power Systems. In IEEE 33rd International
Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC) (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/INTLEC.2011.6099880
318
Slootweg, H. (2009). Smart Grids- The Future or Fantasy? In Smart Metering 2009: Making it
happen (pp. 121).
Smallwood, C., & Wennermark, J. (2009). The Benefits of Distribution Automation to a Rural
Electric Cooperative. In Rural Electric Power Conference (pp. 58).
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2009.4919423
So, E. (2010). The Role of an NMI in Providing Support to the Electrical Power Industry in the
Era of Smart Grid. In Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (p. 307).
doi:10.1109/CPEM.2010.5544856
Soares, J., Canizes, B., Lobo, C., Vale, Z., & Morais, H. (2012). Electric Vehicle Scenario
Simulator Tool for Smart Grid Operators. Energies, 5(6), 18811899.
doi:10.3390/en5061881
Soares, J., Morais, H., & Vale, Z. (2012). Particle Swarm Optimization Based Approaches to
Vehicle-to-Grid Scheduling. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345358
Soares, J., Ramos, S., Vale, Z., Morais, H., & Faria, P. (2012). Data Mining Techniques
Contributions to Support Electrical Vehicle Demand Response. In IEEE/PES Transmission
& Distribution Conference & Exposition (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281444
Solanki, J., Venkatesan, N., & Solanki, S. K. (2012). Coordination of Demand Response and
Volt/Var Control Algorithm using Multi Agent System. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
Soliman Qudaih, Y., & Mitani, Y. (2011). Power Distribution System Planning for Smart Grid
Applications using ANN. Energy Procedia, 12, 39. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.003
Son, S., Kim, J., Lee, S., Park, S., & Chung, B. (2013). SGSim: A Unified Smart Grid Simulator.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672582
Son, S.-Y., & Chung, B.-J. (2009). A Korean Smart Grid architecture design for a field test based
on power IT. In Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition: Asia and Pacific
(pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TD-ASIA.2009.5356842
Song, I., Yun, S., Kwon, S., & Kwak, N. (2013). Design of Smart Distribution Management
System for Obtaining Real-Time Security Analysis and Predictive Operation in Korea.
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 375382.
Soroush, M., & Chmielewski, D. J. (2013). Process systems opportunities in power generation ,
storage and distribution. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 51, 8695.
doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2012.06.027
319
Sousa, T., Morais, H., Soares, J., & Vale, Z. (2012). Day-ahead resource scheduling in smart
grids considering Vehicle-to-Grid and network constraints. Applied Energy, 96, 183193.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.053
Sousa, T., Morais, H., Vale, Z., Faria, P., & Soares, J. (2012). Intelligent Energy Resource
Management Considering Vehicle-to-Grid: A Simulated Annealing Approach. IEEE
Sousa, T., Pinto, T., Morais, H., & Vale, Z. (2012). Intelligent Electric Vehicle Heuristic for
Energy Resource Management using Simulated Annealing. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465762
Souza Fernandes, R. A., da Silva, I. N., & Oleskovicz, M. (2013). Load Profile Identification
Interface for Consumer Online Monitoring Purposes in Smart Grids. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Informatics, 9(3), 15071517.
Spangenberg, J. H. (2010). The growth discourse, growth policy and sustainable development:
two thought experiments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 561566.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.07.007
Sparacino, A. R., Reed, G. F., Kerestes, R. J., Grainger, B. M., & Smith, Z. T. (2012). Survey of
Battery Energy Storage Systems and Modeling Techniques. In IEEE Power and Energy
Spataru, C., & Barrett, M. (2012). The Smart Super-European Grid: Balancing Demand and
Suppy. In 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465852
Spitsa, V., Ran, X., Salcedo, R., Martinez, J. F., Uosef, R. E., Len, F. De, Zabar, Z. (2012).
On the Transient Behavior of Large-Scale Distribution Networks During Automatic Feeder
Recon fi guration. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 887896.
Spitsa, V., Salcedo, R., Ran, X., Martinez, J. F., Uosef, R. E., Len, F. De, Zabar, Z. (2012).
Three Phase Time Domain Simulation of Very Large Distribution Networks. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 27(2), 677687.
Srinivasan, S., & Kotta, U. (2013). A Layered Architecture for Control Functionality
Implementation In Smart Grids. In IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing
and Control (ICNSC) (pp. 100105).
Srinivasan, S., Kumar, R., & Vain, J. (2013). Integration of IEC 61850 and OPC UA for Smart
Grid Automation. In IEEE ISGT Asia 2013 (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGTAsia.2013.6698789
320
Srivastava, A. K., Annabathina, B., & Kamalasadan, S. (2010). The Challenges and Policy
Options for Integrating Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle into the Electric Grid. The
Electricity Journal, 23(3), 8391. doi:10.1016/j.tej.2010.03.004
Stanovich, M. J., Leonard, I., Srivastava, S. K., Steurer, M., Roth, T. P., Jackson, S., &
McMillin, B. M. (2013). Development of a Smart-Grid Cyber-Physical Systems Testbed. In
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497874
Steffel, S. J., Caroselli, P. R., Dinkel, A. M., Liu, J. Q., Sackey, R. N., & Vadhar, N. R. (2012).
Integrating Solar Generation on the Electric Distribution Grid. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 3(2), 878886.
Steinhilber, S., Wells, P., & Thankappan, S. (2013). Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the
barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 60, 531539. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.076
Stepanov, V. S., Suslov, K. V, Chebotnyagin, L. M., Moskalenko, N. S., & Styczynski, Z. A.
(2012). The Market Approach of Demand Management in the Power System. In 2012 3rd
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465747
Stifter, M., Widl, E., Andrn, F., Elsheikh, A., Strasser, T., & Palensky, P. (2013). CoSimulation of Components, Controls and Power Systems based on Open Source Software.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672388
Storey, H. L. (2011). Implementing an integrated centralized model-based distribution
management system. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 12). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6038994
Strasser, T., Stifter, M., Andren, F., Castro, D. B. De, & Hribernik, W. (2011). Applying Open
Standards and Open Source Software for Smart Grid Applications: Simulation of
Distributed Intelligent Control of Power Systems. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Stremersch, S., & Lemmens, A. (2009). Sales Growth of New Pharmaceuticals across the Globe:
the Role of Regulatory Regimes. Marketing Science, 28(4), 690-708.
doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0440
Strezoski, V., Popovic, D., Bekut, D., & Svenda, G. (2012). DMS - basis for increasing of green
distributed generation penetration in distribution networks. Thermal Science, 16(suppl. 1),
189203. doi:10.2298/TSCI120119071S
Strobbe, M., Verschueren, T., Melis, S., Verslype, D., Mets, K., Turck, F. De, & Develder, C.
(2013). Design of a Management Infrastructure for Smart Grid Pilot Data Processing and
Analysis. In IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM
2013) (pp. 547553).
321
Su, W., & Chow, M. (2012a). Performance Evaluation of an EDA-Based Large-Scale Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(1), 308315.
Su, W., & Chow, M.-Y. (2012b). Computational intelligence-based energy management for a
large-scale PHEV/PEV enabled municipal parking deck. Applied Energy, 96, 171182.
doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.088
Su, W., & Huang, A. Q. (2013). Proposing a Electricity Market Framework for the Energy
Internet. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672224
Subban, P. P., & Awodele, K. O. (2013). Reliability Impact of Different Smart Grid Techniques
on a Power Distribution System. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 18).
Sui, H., & Lee, W.-J. (2011). An AMI based measurement and control system in smart
distribution grid. In IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Technical Conference
(pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/ICPS.2011.5890876
Sullivan, M. J., Mercurio, M. G., Schellenberg, J. A., & Eto, J. H. (2010). How to Estimate the
Value of Service Reliability Improvements. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 15).
Sun, A. X., Phan, D. T., & Ghosh, S. (2013). Fully Decentralized AC Optimal Power Flow
Algorithms. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting.
Sun, H., Zhang, B., Wu, W., & Guo, Q. (2012). Family of Energy Management System for
Smart Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 15).
Sun, Q., Li, Z., Yang, J., & Luo, Y. (2010). Load distribution model and voltage static profile of
Smart Grid. Journal of Central South University of Technology, 17, 824829.
doi:10.1007/s11771
Sun, Q., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., & Ma, D. (2013). Power Distribution Self-Healing System Based
on Intuitionistic Uncertainty-Rough Sets. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences,
184(1), 177184.
Sun, W. Q., Wang, C. M., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Flexible Analysis and Control Methods in Smart
Grids. Elektronika Ir Electrotechnika, 4144.
Sun, X., Huang, Q., Hou, Y., Jiang, L., & Pong, P. W. T. (2013). Noncontact Operation-State
Monitoring Technology Based on Magnetic-Field Sensing for Overhead. In IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery (Vol. 28, pp. 21452153).
322
Sun, Z. (2013). Design and Implementation of Optical Fiber Communication System for Field
Area Networks of Smart Grid. In International Conference on Computer, Networks and
Communication Engineering (ICCNCE) (pp. 658661).
Sutar, C., Verma, K. S., Pandey, A. S., & Singh, S. P. (2012). Wide Area Measurement and
Control using Phasor Measurement unit in Smart Grid. In 2012 International Conference on
Power, Control and Embedded Systems (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ICPCES.2012.6508076
Tabari, M., & Yazdani, A. (2013). A DC Distribution System for Power System Integration of
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672772
Tada, Y., Chiang, H. D., Li, H., Ishibashi, A., & Serizawa, Y. (2013). A Hierarchical WAMPAC
System: Demonstration and Evaluation. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672543
Takemoto, N., & Nagata, T. (2012). A Power System Drawing Assistance System by Using
Ruby/Tk. Energy Procedia, 14, 732737. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.12.1003
Tan, C., Yu, K., Chen, S., Su, H., Wang, H., & Bu, Z. (2012). A Novel Mechanism of Channel
Allocation for Power Distribution In Smart Grid. In 2012 China International Conference
on Electricity Distribution (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508661
Tan, O., Gndz, D., & Poor, H. V. (2012). Smart Meter Privacy in the Presence of Energy
Harvesting and Storage Devices. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Workshop (pp. 664669).
Tan, O., Gndz, D., & Poor, H. V. (2013). Increasing Smart Meter Privacy Through Energy
Harvesting and Storage Devices. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
31(7), 13311341.
Tan, Y. K., Huynh, T. P., & Wang, Z. (2013). Smart Personal Sensor Network Control for
Energy Saving in DC Grid Powered LED Lighting System. IEEE Transactions on Smart
Grid, 4(2), 669676.
Tanaka, K., Yoza, A., Ogimi, K., Yona, A., Senjyu, T., Funabashi, T., & Kim, C.-H. (2012).
Optimal operation of DC smart house system by controllable loads based on smart grid
topology. Renewable Energy, 39(1), 132139. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.026
Tang, N., & Zhang, D.-J. (2011). Application of a Load Forecasting Model Based on Improved
Grey Neural Network in the Smart Grid. Energy Procedia, 12, 180184.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.025
Tanzi, V. (1998). Corruption Around the World. IMF Staff Papers, 45(4), 559594.
323
Taylor, G. A., Axon, C. J., & Irving, M. R. (2013). Scalable High Performance Information and
Communications Technology for Smart Distribution Network Operation. In IEEE Power &
Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345531
Taylor, J., Smith, J. W., & Dugan, R. (2011). Distribution modeling requirements for integration
of PV, PEV, and storage in a smart grid environment. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Tehrani, N. H., Shrestha, G. B., & Wang, P. (2013). Vehicle-to-Grid Service Potential with Price
Based PEV Charging/Discharging. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting
(pp. 15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672157
Tekiner-Mogulkoc, H., Coit, D. W., & Felder, F. A. (2012). Electric power system generation
expansion plans considering the impact of Smart Grid technologies. International Journal
of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 42(1), 229239. doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.04.014
Teng, J.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Chen, C.-F., & Liu, Y.-H. (2008). Optimal capacitor control for
unbalanced distribution systems with distributed generations. IEEE International
Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies, 755760.
doi:10.1109/ICSET.2008.4747107
Tenti, P., Caldognetto, T., Costabeber, A., & Mattavelli, P. (2013). Microgrids operation based
on Master-Slave Cooperative Control. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics
Society, IECON (pp. 76237628). doi:10.1109/IECON.2013.6700403
Tenti, P., Paredes, H. K. M., Marafo, F. P., & Mattavelli, P. (2011). Accountability in Smart
Microgrids Based on Conservative Power Theory. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation
and Measurement, 60(9), 30583069.
Tenti, P., Trombetti, D., Costabeber, A., & Mattavelli, P. (2010). Distribution loss minimization
by token ring control of power electronic interfaces in residential micro-grids. In IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (pp. 23772381). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/ISIE.2010.5637489
Therrien, F., Kocar, I., & Jatskevich, J. (2013). A Unified Distribution System State Estimator
Using the Concept of Augmented Matrices. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, 28(3),
33903400.
Thoma, C., Cui, T., & Franchetti, F. (2013). Privacy Preserving Smart Metering System Based
Retail Level Electricity Market. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672616
Thomas, P. R., Walker, T. J., & McCarthy, C. A. (2012). Demonstration of Community Energy
Storage Fleet for Load Leveling, Reactive Power Compensation, and Reliability
Improvement. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345524
324
Toliyat, A., Kwasinski, A., & Uriarte, F. M. (2012). Effects of high penetration levels of
residential photovoltaic generation: Observations from Field Data. In International
Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/ICRERA.2012.6477269
Tomic, S. D. (2013). A Study of the Impact of Load Forecasting Errors on Trading and
Balancing in a Microgrid. In 2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference.
Ton, D. T., Wang, W. M., & Wang, W. P. (2011). Smart Grid R&D by the U.S. Department of
Energy to Optimize Distribution Grid Operations. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Toups, T. N., & Czarnecki, L. S. (2013). Development of Economic Incentives For Harmonic
and Asymmetry Reduction Based on the Concept of Working Power. In IEEE International
Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC) (pp. 10341039).
doi:10.1109/I2MTC.2013.6555572
Trangbaek, K., & Bendtsen, J. (2012). Exact constraint aggregation with applications to smart
grids and resource distribution. In 51st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (pp.
41814186).
Trangbaek, K., Mette, P., Bendtsen, J., & Stoustrup, J. (2011). Exact Power Constraints in Smart
Grid Control. In 50th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control
Conference (CDC-ECC) (pp. 69076912).
Trencher, G. P., Yarime, M., & Kharrazi, A. (2012). Co-creating sustainability: Cross-sector
university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner
Production. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047
Tuna, G., Gungor, V. C., & Gulez, K. (2013). Wireless Sensor Networks for Smart Grid
Applications: A Case Study on Link Reliability and Node Lifetime Evaluations in Power
Distribution Systems. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2013, 112.
doi:10.1155/2013/796248
Turner, S. (2011a). High-Speed Communication-Assisted Tripping and Sectionalizing for
Distribution Systems. In IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference (REPC) (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756719
Turner, S. (2011b). High-Speed Communication-Assisted Tripping and Sectionalizing for
Distribution Systems. In IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition
(pp. 16). doi:10.1109/REPCON.2011.5756719
Ukil, A., Braendle, H., & Krippner, P. (2012). Distributed Temperature Sensing: Review of
Technology and Applications. IEEE Sensors Journal, 12(5), 885892.
325
Ukil, A., Deck, B., & Shah, V. H. (2011). Current-Only Directional Overcurrent Relay. IEEE
Sensors Journal, 11(6), 14031404.
Ukil, A., Deck, B., & Shah, V. H. (2012). Current-Only Directional Overcurrent Protection for
Distribution Automation: Challenges and Solutions. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid,
3(4), 16871694.
Uluski, R. W. (2010). VVC in the Smart Grid era. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
US DoE. (2003). GRID 2030 A National Vision for Electricitys Second 100 Years. In United
States Department of Energy (pp. 144). Retrieved from
http://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20050608125055-grid-2030.pdf
Uslar, M., Andren, F., Mahnke, W., Rohjans, S., Stifter, M., & Strasser, T. (2012). Hybrid
Grids: ICT-based Integration of Electric Power and Gas Grids A Standards Perspective. In
IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465653
Uslar, M., Rohjans, S., & Specht, M. (2012). Technical Requirements for DER Integration
Architectures. Energy Procedia, 20, 281290. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.03.028
Vaccaro, A., Velotto, G., & Zobaa, A. F. (2011). A Decentralized and Cooperative Architecture
for Optimal Voltage Regulation in Smart Grids. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, 58(10), 45934602.
Vale, Z. A., Morais, H., Faria, P., Soares, J., & Sousa, T. (2011). LMP Based Bid Formation for
Virtual Power Players Operating in Smart Grids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Vale, Z., Morais, H., Faria, P., & Ramos, C. (2013). Distribution system operation supported by
contextual energy resource management based on intelligent SCADA. Renewable Energy,
52, 143153. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.019
Vallejo, A., Zaballos, A., Selga, J., & Dalmau, J. (2012). Next-generation QoS control
architectures for distribution smart grid communication networks. IEEE Communications
Magazine, 50(5), 128134. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2012.6194393
Valsamma, K. M. (2012). Smart Grid as a Desideratum in the Energy Landscape: Key Aspects
and Challenges. In IEEE International Conference on Engineering Education (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/AICERA.2012.6306708
Van den Bulte, C. (2004) Multigeneration innovation diffusion and intergeneration time: A
cautionary note. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 357360
Vancu, M. F., Soeiro, T., Mhlethaler, J., Kolar, J. W., & Aggelert, D. (2012). Comparative
Evaluation of Bidirectional Buck-Type PFC Converter Systems for Interfacing Residential
326
DC Distribution Systems to the Smart Grid. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial

Electronics Society, IECON (Vol. 2, pp. 51535160).
Vanfretti, L., Hertem, D. Van, Nordstrom, L., & Gjerde, J. O. (2011). A Smart Transmission
Grid for Europe: Research Challenges in Developing Grid Enabling Technologies. In IEEE
Vargas, A., & Samper, M. E. (2012). Real-Time Monitoring and Economic Dispatch of Smart
Distribution Grids: High Performance Algorithms for DMS Applications. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 866877.
Vaz, E., & Shakshuki, E. (2012). Storage-based Smart Grid Communication Framework. In
World Congress on Sustainable Technologies (pp. 3743).
VDE (2009). The German Roadmap E-energy/Smart Grid. German Commission for Electrical,
Electronic Information Technologies of DIN and VDE. Retrieved from
https://www.smartgrid.gov/sites/default/files/doc/files/The_German_Roadmap_EEnergy_S
mart_Grid_201012.pdf
Veleva, S., & Davcev, D. (2012). Implementation Perspectives of Wireless Sensor and Actuator
Networks in Smart Grid. Advanced Materials Research, 433-440, 67376741.
Venayagamoorthy, G. K. (2009). Potentials and Promises of Computational Intelligence for
Smart Grids. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2009.5275224
Villefrance, R., Brandt, J., Eriksen, P., & Jrgensen, H. B. (2013). Smart Grid Business Case for
Private Homes. In 2013 4th IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT
Europe) (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2013.6695487
Vokony, I., & Dan, A. (2009). Examination of Smart Grids in Island Operation. In IEEE
Bucharest Power Tech Conference (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/PTC.2009.5281923
Vukmirovic, S., Erdeljan, A., Lendak, I., & Capko, D. (2012). Unifying the Common
Information Model ( CIM ). lectrotechn. et nerg, (Cim), 301310.
Vukojevic, A., Frey, P., & Smith, M. (2013). Making a Smart Grid Case: Fault Circuit
Indicators. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672436
Vyatkin, V., & Zhabelova, G. (2010). Towards Intelligent Smart Grid Devices IEC 61850
Interoperability and IEC 61499 Open Control Architecture. In IEEE/PES Transmission &
327
Wade, N. S., Taylor, P. C., Lang, P. D., & Jones, P. R. (2010). Evaluating the benefits of an
electrical energy storage system in a future smart grid. Energy Policy, 38(11), 71807188.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.045
Wakefield, M. P. (2011). Smart Distribution System Research in EPRIs Smart Grid
Demonstration Initiative. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PES.2011.6039386
Walsh, A., & Fallon, T. (2011). ESB Networks Smart Grid Demonstration Pilot. In IEEE Power
Wang, B., Sechilariu, M., & Locment, F. (2013). Intelligent DC Microgrid with Smart Grid
Communications: Control Strategy Consideration and Design. In IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting (p. 1). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672112
Wang, C., Yu, H., Li, P., Ding, C., Sun, C., Guo, X., Yu, Z. (2013). Krylov Subspace Based
Model Reduction Method for Transient Simulation of Active Distribution Grid. In IEEE
Wang, G., Xu, Z., Wen, F., & Wong, K. P. (2013). Traffic-Constrained Multiobjective Planning
of Electric-Vehicle Charging Stations. In IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery (Vol. 28,
pp. 23632372).
Wang, K., Kong, X., Zhao, S., & Wang, L. (2012). A Heuristic Method for Optimal Placement
and Monitoring of Renewable Energy DG. In 2012 China International Conference on
Wang, P., Huang, J. Y., Ding, Y., Loh, P., & Goel, L. (2010). Demand Side Load Management
of Smart Grids using intelligent trading/Metering/ Billing System. In IEEE Power & Energy
Wang, P., Rao, L., Liu, X., & Qi, Y. (2012). D-Pro: Dynamic Data Center Operations With
Demand-Responsive Electricity Prices in Smart Grid. In IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid
(Vol. 3, pp. 17431754).
Wang, S., Yang, H., Zuo, S., & Xu, W. (2010). Optimal Dispatch of Power System with
Stochastic Wind Generation. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 37-38, 783786.
Wang, W., Xu, Y., & Khanna, M. (2011). A survey on the communication architectures in smart
grid. Computer Networks, 55(15), 36043629. doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2011.07.010
Wang, X., Zhang, P., Wang, Z., Dinavahi, V., Chang, G., Martinez, J. A., Mehrizi-sani, A.
(2013). Interfacing Issues in Multiagent Simulation for Smart Grid Applications. IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 28(3), 19181927.
328
Wang, Y., Wang, S., & Zhang, N. (2013). A Novel Wind Speed Forecasting Method Based on
Ensemble Mode Decomposition and GA-BP Neural Network. In IEEE Power and Energy
Wang, Y., Zheng, Y., Liu, H., Dai, S., Zhang, H., Guan, X., Zhao, L. (2011). A Novel
Approach for Design of DC HTS Cable. IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity,
21(3), 10421045.
Wang, Z., Paranjape, R., Sadanand, A., & Chen, Z. (2013). Residential Demand Response: An
Overview of Recent Simulation and Modeling Applications. In 2013 26th IEEE Canadian
Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/CCECE.2013.6567828
Wannasut, C., & Hongesombut, K. (2013). Evaluation of the Requirements for Battery Energy
Storage System to Postpone the Investment of Distribution System. In International
Conference on Electrical Engineering/ Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and
Information Technology (ECTI-CON) (pp. 20132016).
doi:10.1109/ECTICon.2013.6559555
Warzoha, R., Fleischer, A., Bird, S. D., Mahesh, G., & Sundaram, A. (2009). Design of a Passive
Cooling System for a Solid-State 15kV/100kVA Intelligent Universal Transformer. In
ASME 2009 InterPACK Conference (pp. 945951).
Webberley, A., & Gao, D. W. (2013). Study of Artificial Neural Network Based Short Term
Load Forecasting. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 14).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6673036
Weber, J. A., Wenzhong-Gao, D., & Zhai, J. Z. (2013). Case Study: Small-Scale Hybrid
Integrated Renewable Energy System ( HI-RES ) Emergency Mobile Backup Power
Generation Station. In 2013 IEEE Green Technologies Conference.
Weckx, S., Driesen, J., & Dhulst, R. (2013). Optimal Real-Time Pricing for Unbalanced
Distribution Grids with Network Constraints. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Wei, J., & Kundur, D. (2013). A Multi-Flock Approach to Rapid Dynamic Generator Coherency
Identification. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672614
Wei, X., Yu-hui, Z., & Jie-lin, Z. (2009). Energy-efficient distribution in smart grid. In
International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply (pp. 16). Ieee.
doi:10.1109/SUPERGEN.2009.5348223
329
Wei, Z., Guochu, S., Zhigang, G., & Yihong, H. (2012). Survivability Analysis of Ethernet
Passive Optical Network Applied in Strong Smart Grid. Energy Procedia, 16, 17761784.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2012.01.274
Weiller, C. (2011). Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle impacts on hourly electricity demand in the
United States. Energy Policy, 39(6), 37663778. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.005
Weise, N. (2013). DQ Current Control of a Bidirectional, Isolated, Single-Stage AC-DC
Converter for Vehicle-to-Grid Applications. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Wencong, S., Wang, J., Zhang, K., & Chow, M. (2012). Framework for Investigating the Impact
of PHEV Charging on Power Distribution System and Transportation Network. In
Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON (pp. 47354740).
Widergren, S., Levinson, A., Mater, J., & Drummond, R. (2010). Smart Grid Interoperability
Maturity Model. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PES.2010.5589785
Wijaya, T. K., Papaioannou, T. G., Liu, X., & Aberer, K. (2013). Effective Consumption
Scheduling for Demand-Side Management in the Smart Grid using Non-Uniform
Participation Rate. In Sustainable Internet and ICT for Sustainability (SustainIT) (pp. 18).
doi:10.1109/SustainIT.2013.6685188
Wilhite, R. (2012). Smart grid adoption answers found in a strong business case. IEEE Power
and Energy Magazine, 101102.
Williams, T., Wang, D., Crawford, C., & Djilali, N. (2013). Integrating renewable energy using a
smart distribution system: Potential of self-regulating demand response. Renewable Energy,
52, 4656. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.10.013
Wissner, M. (2011). The Smart Grid A saucerful of secrets? Applied Energy, 88(7), 2509
2518. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.01.042
Wojszczyk, B. (2012). Progress in Smart Grid Deployments. Global Examples & Lessons
Learned. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (p. 1).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6345268
Wu, J., & Guan, X. (2013). Coordinated Multi-Microgrids Optimal Control Algorithm for Smart
Distribution. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(4), 21742181.
Wu, Y., Cheung, L., Lui, K., & Pong, P. W. T. (2012). Efficient Communication of Sensors
Monitoring Overhead Transmission Lines. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(3), 1130
1136.
330
Xia, J., & Wang, Y. (2012). Secure Key Distribution for the Smart Grid. IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, 3(3), 14371443.
Xiang, M., Liu, W., & Bai, Q. (2012). Trust-based Geographical Routing For Smart Grid
Communication Networks. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Workshop (pp. 704709).
Xiao, J., Gu, W., Li, F., Zhou, C., & Yu, J. (2013). Total Supply Capability (TSC): a approach to
formulate security and efficiency of distribution systems. In IEEE Power and Energy
Xiao, J., Gu, W., Wang, C., & Li, F. (2012). Distribution system security region: definition,
model and security assessment. IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution, 6(10), 1029.
doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2011.0767
Xiao, J. U. N., Gu, W., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2012). Distribution Systems Security Region
(DSSR) for Smart Grid. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity Distribution
(pp. 14). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508587
Xiao, J., Zhang, T., Wang, C., Zhang, P., Wang, X., & Yuan, S. (2013). TSC-Based Planning A
New Method to Exploit Asset Efficiency of Distribution Systems. In IEEE Power and
Xu, Y., & Singh, C. (2012). Multi-Objective Design of Energy Storage in Distribution Systems
Based on Modified Particle Swarm Optimization. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Yamane, A., Belanger, J., Ise, T., Iyoda, I., Aizono, T., & Dufour, C. (2011). A Smart
Distribution Grid Laboratory. In IECON 2011 - 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (pp. 37083712). Ieee. doi:10.1109/IECON.2011.6119912
Yan, H., Yaonan, T., & Yigang, H. (2012). Earctive Power Compensation Research of
Distribution System Based on the Matrix Converter. In 2012 China International
Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508610
Yan, J., Govindarasu, M., Liu, C., & Vaidya, U. (2013). A PMU-based Risk Assessment
Framework for Power Control Systems. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Yan, Y., Qian, Y., & Hu, R. Q. (2012). A secure and efficient scheme for machine-to-machine
communications in smart grid. IEEE International Conference on Communications, 167
172. doi:10.1109/ICC.2012.6364258
Yan, Y., Qian, Y., & Sharif, H. (2011). A Secure Data Aggregation and Dispatch Scheme for
Home Area Networks in Smart Grid. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2011 (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/GLOCOM.2011.6133655
331
Yang, C., Yan, J., & Vyatkin, V. (2013). Towards Implementation of Plug-and-Play and
Distributed HMI for the FREEDM System with IEC. In Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Yang, D., Gu, C., Dong, Z., Jirutitijaroen, P., Chen, N., & Walsh, W. M. (2013). Solar irradiance
forecasting using spatial-temporal covariance structures and time-forward kriging.
Renewable Energy, 60, 235245. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.05.030
Yang, Y., & Roy, S. (2012). PMU Deployment for Optimal State Estimation Performance. In
GC12 Workshop: Smart Grid Communications: Design for Performance (pp. 14641468).
Yang, Y., & Roy, S. (2013). PMU Placement for Optimal Three-Phase State Estimation
Performance. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2013 Symposium (pp. 342347).
Yan-mei, L., & Jing-min, W. (2011). A new short-term load forecasting model of smart
distribution grid. International Conference on Management Science & Engineering 18th
Annual Conference Proceedings, 10531059. doi:10.1109/ICMSE.2011.6070087
Yaxian, Z., Xian, Z., Jian, G., Bike, X. U. E., & Haihua, C. (2012). Energy Resources
Optimization Model In Large-scale Based On Aggregate Node. In Conference on Power &
Energy IPEC, 2012 (Vol. 1, pp. 279283).
Yi, P., Zhu, T., Lin, G., Jiang, X., Li, G., Si, L., & Begovic, M. M. (2013). Energy Scheduling
and Allocation in Electric Vehicle Energy Distribution Networks. In IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497886
Yinger, R. J. (2012). Self-Healing Circuits at Southern California Edison. In IEEE/PES
doi:10.1109/TDC.2012.6281472
Yinger, R. J., Venkata, S. S., & Centeno, V. A. (2012). Southern California Edison s Advanced
Distribution Protection Demonstrations. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 3(2), 1012
1019.
Yokoyama, A., Akagi, H., Hayashi, Y., Ogimoto, K., & Ishii, H. (2012). A national project on
Optimal Control and demonstration of the Japanese smart grid for massive integration of
photovoltaic systems. IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, 17.
doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465885
Yokoyama, R., Hida, Y., Koyanagi, K., & Iba, K. (2011). The Role of Battery Systems and
Expandable Distribution Networks for Smarter Grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society
Yoo, B.-K., Yang, S.-H., Yang, H.-S., Kim, W.-Y., Jeong, Y.-S., Han, B.-M., & Jang, K.-S.
(2011). Communication Architecture of the IEC 61850-based Micro Grid System. Journal
of Electrical Engineering and Technology, 6(5), 605612. doi:10.5370/JEET.2011.6.5.605
332
Yoza, A., Howlader, A. M., Uchida, K., Yona, A., & Senjyu, T. (2013). Optimal Scheduling
Method of Controllable Loads in Smart House Considering Forecast Error. In International
Conference on Power Electronics and Drive Systems (PEDS) (pp. 8489).
Yu, J., Gu, W., & Wu, Z. (2012). Intelligent PHEV Charging and Discharging Strategy in Smart
Grid. In 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Advanced Computational
Intelligence (pp. 11071112).
Yu, N.-C., Kim, J.-T., Seon, Y.-S., Yeo, S.-U., & Jung, J.-H. (2009). Power IT test-bed system
for smart grid. In Transmission & Distribution Conference & Exposition: Asia and Pacific
(pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/TD-ASIA.2009.5356843
Yuan, X., Qian, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, Y., & Yan, M. (2012). Discussion on the development trend
of smart grid and its key technology. In 2012 China International Conference on Electricity
Distribution (pp. 18). doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508533
Yujun, L., Qingshan, X., Kai, C., & Xiaohui, X. (2013). Prospective Analysis of Distribution
Network Reconstruction on Electric Vehicles access to Demonstration District. Elektronika
Ir Electrotechnika, (1), 1318.
Yunusov, T., Holderbaum, W., & Potter, B. (2011). Sub-agent elements for control methods in
multi-agent energy management system. In IEEE 33rd International Telecommunications
Energy Conference (INTELEC) (pp. 17). doi:10.1109/INTLEC.2011.6099780
Zaballos, A., Vernet, D., & Selga, J. M. (2013). A Genetic QoS-Aware Routing Protocol for the
Smart Electricity Networks. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 2013.
doi:10.1155/2013/135056
Zambenedetti, V. C., Gabriel, J. D., Wagner, R., Heck, G. C., Lippmann Jr., L., de Araujo, D. F.,
Macedo, O. A. C. (2013). Communication Solution for Implementing Smart Grid
Environment in the Distribution Network. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies Latin America (ISGT LA) (pp. 15). doi:10.1109/ISGTLA.2013.6554478
Zavoda, F., Lemire, R., Abbey, C., & Brissette, Y. (2013). Universal Controller for Smart Grid.
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672622
Zeadally, S., Khan Pathan, A., Alcaraz, C., & Badra, M. (2013). Towards Privacy Protection in
Smart Grid. In Wireless Personal Communication (pp. 2350). doi:10.1007/s11277-0120939-1
Zhabelova, G., & Vyatkin, V. (2012). Multiagent Smart Grid Automation Architecture Based on
IEC 61850 / 61499 Intelligent Logical Nodes. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
59(5), 23512362.
333
Zhang, J., Fan, H., Tang, W., Wang, M., Cheng, H., & Yao, L. (2013). Planning for Distributed
Wind Generation Under Active Management Mode. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ELECTRICAL POWER AND ENERGY SYSTEMS, 47, 140146.
doi:10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.10.024
Zhang, L., Liu, X., Zhou, Y., & Xu, D. (2013). A Novel Routing Algorithm for Power Line
Communication over a Low-voltage Distribution Network in a Smart Grid. Energies, (Lv),
14211438. doi:10.3390/en6031421
Zhang, M., Xin, H., Lu, Z., Gan, D., & Seuss, J. (2013). A Real-time Power Allocation
Algorithm for Dispersed Energy Storages and Its Communication Network Design. In IEEE
Zhang, Q. F., Luo, X., Bertagnolli, D., Maslennikov, S., & Nubile, B. (2013). PMU Data
Validation at ISO New England. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672947
Zhang, T., Lin, W., Wang, Y., Deng, S., Shi, C., & Chen, L. (2010). The design of information
security protection framework to support Smart Grid. In 2010 International Conference on
Power System Technology (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/POWERCON.2010.5666681
Zhang, W., Lian, J., Chang, C., Kalsi, K., & Sun, Y. (2012). Reduced-Order Modeling of
Aggregated Thermostatic Loads With Demand Response. In 51st IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control (pp. 55925597).
Zhang, X., Bie, Z., & Li, G. (2011). Reliability Assessment of Distribution Networks with
Distributed Generations using Monte Carlo Method. Energy Procedia, 12, 278286.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.10.038
Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2012). Wide-Area SCADA System with Distributed Security Framework.
Journal of Communications and Networks, 14(6), 597605.
Zhang, Y., & Dougal, R. A. (2012). State of the Art of Fault Current Limiters and Their
Applications in Smart Grid. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 16).
doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344649
Zhang, Y., Ma, M., Zhan, J., & Zhao, Y. (2012). Research on Renewable Energy Power Based
Microgrid Technology. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference (pp. 1
4). Ieee. doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6306891
Zhang, Y., Sun, W., & Wang, L. (2013). Placement of Primary-Secondary Trust Nodes in Smart
Grid Communication Network. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp.
15). doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672468
Zhang, Y., Wang, L., & Sun, W. (2013). A Preliminary Study of Power System Reliability
Evaluation Considering Cyber Attack Effects. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General
334
Zhang, Z., & Chow, M. (2011). Incremental Cost Consensus Algorithm in a Smart Grid
Environment. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 17).
doi:10.1109/NAPS.2011.6025103
Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Chow, M. (2013). Distributed Energy Management under Smart Grid
Plug-and-Play Operations. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672509
Zhao, B., Song, Q., Liu, W., & Xiao, Y. (2013). Next-Generation Multi-Functional Modular
Intelligent UPS System for Smart Grid. In IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
(Vol. 60, pp. 36023618).
Zhen, L., Weihua, S., Xi, W., & Ciwei, G. (2012). Plan and Practice of Smart Power
Consumption in Shanghai Urban Area. In 2012 China International Conference on
Zheng, L., Lu, N., & Cai, L. (2013). Reliable Wireless Communication Networks for Demand
Response Control. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 4(1), 133140.
Zheng, W., Yu, N., Chen, J., Li, C., & Huang, J. (2012). Implementation of IOC and Its
Application in Distribution System Operation and Maintenance Management. In 2012
China International Conference on Electricity Distribution (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/CICED.2012.6508585
Zheng, Y., Liu, T., Shen, B., & Zhao, J. (2013). Study of the Techniques and development
Strategy for a Concentrated Type Distribution Automation. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (ISGT) (pp. 14). doi:10.1109/ISGT.2013.6497899
Zhong, Q., Lin, L., Zhang, Y., & Wu, Z. (2012). Study on the control strategies and dynamic
performance of DC distribution network. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting (pp. 15). Ieee. doi:10.1109/PESGM.2012.6343944
Zhou, J., Hu, R. Q., Zhang, X., & Qian, Y. (2012). Price and Output Control in a Community
Power Network with Renewable Generations. In IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 Symposium
(pp. 576580).
Zhou, T., Kang, C., Chen, X., & Wu, J. X. (2012). Evaluating Low-Carbon Effects of Demand
Response from Smart Distribution Grid. In IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies
(pp. 16). doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465796
Zhu, H., Li, Y., Wang, P., Li, Z., & Chu, Z. (2012). Design of Power Electronic Transformer
Based on Modular Multilevel Converter. In Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference (pp. 14). Ieee. doi:10.1109/APPEEC.2012.6307252
Zhu, K., Deo, S., Al-hammouri, A. T., Honeth, N., Chenine, M., Babazadeh, D., & Nordstrm,
L. (2013). Test Platform for Synchrophasor Based Wide-Area Monitoring and Control
335
Applications. In IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting (pp. 15).
doi:10.1109/PESMG.2013.6672308
Zhu, Q., Han, Z., & Bas, T. (2012). A Differential Game Approach to Distributed Demand Side
Management in Smart Grid. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (pp.
33453350).
Zhu, Z., Lambotharan, S., Chin, W. H., & Fan, Z. (2012). Overview of Demand Management in
Smart Grid and Enabling Wireless Communication Technologies. IEEE Wireless
Communications, (June), 4856.
Zidan, A., & El-Saadany, E. F. (2011). Service Restoration in Balanced and Unbalanced
Distribution Systems with High DG Penetration. In IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Zidan, A., Farag, H. E., & El-Saadany, E. F. (2011). Network Reconfiguration in Balanced and
Unbalanced Distribution Systems with High DG Penetration. In IEEE Power & Energy
Zio, E., & Sansavini, G. (2013). Vulnerability of Smart Grids With Variable Generation and
Consumption: A System of Systems Perspective. In IEEE Transactions on Systems, Mans
and Cybernetics: Systems (Vol. 43, pp. 477487).
Zorrilla, P. B., Canha, L. N., Milbradt, R. G., Abaide, A. R., Pereira, P. R., & Schmaedecke, S.
M. (2013). Methodologies for the Development of a Central Control System in a Smart Grid
Environment based in Free Softwares. In IEEE PES Conference on Innovative Smart Grid
Zuliang, L., & So, E. (2010). A Proposal for Verifying the Performance Specifications of Certain
Functions of Smart Meters in Distribution Power Line Networks. In Conference on
Precision Electromagnetic Measurements (pp. 271272).
336
APPENDIX
Survey Questions
What is your gender?
Female
Male
What word better describes who you are?
Academic
Practitioner
How many years of experience do you have in the following areas?
0-5 years
5-10 years
10-15 years
15-25 years
More than 25
years
Academic
Practitioner
Please indicate the highest level of education completed.

High School or equivalent
College Graduate (4 year)
Master's Degree (MS)
Doctoral Degree (PhD)
Where are you located?
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Oceania (Australia, New Zealand, etc.)
Europe
USA
Canada
Mexico
Central America
South America
Middle East
West Indies
337
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree nor

Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Physical Level
These questions relate to devices and interconnections to exchange different types of energy
Automated control and resource optimization

schemes consider and support regional and/or
national grid optimization.
Smart meters are important grid management

sensors.
Pilots of remote AMI/AMR are being

conducted or have been deployed.
There is automatic outage detection at the

substation level.
Outage and distribution management systems

linked to substation automation are being
explored and evaluated.
Safety and security (physical and cyber)

requirements are considered.
There is outage detection and proactive

notification at the circuit level
There is automatic outage detection at the

premise or device level.
An integrated resource plan is in place and

includes new targeted resources and
technologies
Energy resources (including Volt/VAR, DG,

and DR) are dispatchable and tradable.
The electric vehicles are also part of the smart

grid distribution effort.
338
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Regulatory Level
These questions relate to applying rules and incentive/penalty mechanisms to enhance quality,
avoid excessive prices and ensure access rights and consumer protection
Pilots to support a diverse resource portfolio

have been conducted.
Operational data from smart grid deployments

is being used to optimize processes across the
utility companies' organizations.
There is automated decision-making within

protection schemes that is based on wide-area
monitoring.
Grid data is used by an organization's security

functions.
Security and privacy implications of smart grid

are being investigated.
Data flows end to end from customer to

generation.
The enterprise information infrastructure can

automatically identify, mitigate, and recover
from cyber incidents.
The use of advanced distributed intelligence

and analytical capabilities are enabled through
smart grid technology.
The value chain has been redefined based on

its smart grid capabilities.
A smart grid governance model has been

established.
The use of Smart Grid aids on the reduction of

pollution.
339
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Social/ Environmental Level

Questions are related to the customers willingness to participate in the energy system
exploitation exercising preferred choices technologies
Customers can manage their end-to-end

energy supply and usage levels.
Plug-and-play, customer-based generation is

supported.
Residential customers have on-demand access

to daily usage data.
Demand response and/or remote load control

is available to residential customers.
Residential customers participate in demand

response and/or utility-managed remote load
control programs.
Automatic response to pricing signals for

devices within the customer's premise is
supported.
Support is provided for energy management

systems for residential customer.
Visibility and potential control of customers'

large-demand appliances to balance demand
and supply is available.
All customer products and services have

built-in standards based on security and
privacy controls.
Customer education on how to use smart grid

services to curtail peak usage is provided.
Smart Grid supports the use of renewable

resources to reduce environmental
contamination.
340
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree nor

Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Economic Level
These questions deal with markets, tariff systems, and contract provisions
Smart grid strategy capitalizes on smart grid as a

foundation for the introduction of new services and
product offerings.
Smart grid business activities provide sufficient

financial resources to enable continued investment
in smart grid sustainment and expansion.
New business model opportunities emerge as a

result of smart grid capabilities and are
implemented.
Smart grid vision and strategy drive the utility

companies' strategy and direction.
There is support and funding for conducting proofof-concept projects to evaluate feasibility and
alignment.
There is a strategy for creating and managing a

diverse resource portfolio
The value chain has been redefined based on its

smart grid capabilities.
Smart grid is a core competency throughout the

utility companies' organizations.
Resources are adequately dispatchable and

controllable so that the organization can take
advantage of granular market options
Smart grid strategy is shared and revised

collaboratively by utility companies with external
stakeholders
Energy storage options and the capabilities needed

to support them are identified
341
Somewhat Disagree
Neither Agree nor

Disagree
Somewhat Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Grid operations planning is now fact-based using

grid data made available by smart grid capabilities.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Information & Communication Technology (ICT) Level

These questions deal with data management, communications and control
System-wide, analytics-based, and automated grid

decision making is in place at utility companies.
Security management and monitoring processes

are deployed to protect the interactions with an
expanded portfolio of value chain partners.
Business processes are optimized by leveraging

the enterprise IT architecture.
There is a data communications strategy for the

grid.
Tactical IT investments are aligned to an enterprise

IT architecture within a LOB.
Systems adhere to an enterprise IT architectural

framework for smart grid.
Smart grid-specific technology has been

implemented to improve cross-LOB performance.
A detailed data communication strategy and

corresponding tactics that cross functions and
LOBs are in place.
Changes to the enterprise IT architecture that

enable smart grid are being deployed.
Distribution automation and line control/sensors

are a cornerstone to the Smart Grid.
342
Practitioners' extra questions.
Somewhat
Disagree
Neither Agree nor

Disagree
Strongly Agree
Don't know
There is a widespread adoption of the

Smart Grid to American Recovery &
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) nonrecipients.
Commercial and industrial customers

are accepting the Smart Grid.
Regulators are pre-funding Smart Grid

initiatives.
Smart Grid initiatives are justified with

hard money business cases.
343
Agree
Disagree
Electrical vehicle batteries can become a

source of stored energy for a house.
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Disagree
Feel free to select the last column if you do not know
VITA
Dr. Jesus A. Cardenas is a management consultant for his own firm and adjunct faculty of
the College of Business from the University of Texas at El Paso. He wrote his dissertation based
on the development of a new business model for the deployment of Smart Energy distribution.
Jesus Cardenas holds a Bachelor Degree in Electrical Engineering (BSEE) from the
University of Texas at El Paso (1983), a Master in Business Administration (MBA) with a
specialty on Border Industries Planning from the Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua (1987), a
Master Degree on Industrial Engineering from the University of Texas at El Paso (1998), and a
Doctorate on International Business from the University of Texas at El Paso (2014).
Dr. Cardenas has extensive experience in manufacturing process as he spent 25 years
working for different manufacturing companies in the border cities of Juarez, Mexico and El
Paso, Texas.
Most of his professional career has been centered on quality assurance where he had
management roles for corporations such as General Instruments, General Electric, Chrysler
Motors, Emerson Electric, Scientific Atlanta, Harman International, Plexus Electronic Assembly
and Epic Technologies. He had the quality assurance role in most companies where the
manufactured goods ranged from switching power supplies, to automotive wiring harnesses,
thermocouples, thermostats, temperature controls, relays, solenoids, cable set tops (analog and
digital), amplifiers, automotive speakers, cell phones, alarm systems, X-ray printing machines,
among others.
From his manufacturing experiences, Jesus Cardenas leading role was key on the
companies achieving the Emerson President Award in 1996 as the best plant, the Emerson
Chairman Award as the best division in 1995, Chrysler Pentastar Award in 2003, and the
344
Volkswagen Preferred Supplier Award in 2010. He was also instrumental on the initial
certification of these sites on ISO 9001; QS9000, ISO13485, ISO14000 and 21 CFR Part 820
FDA.
Dr. Cardenas has been teaching the following courses for the Accounting and
Information Systems Department of the College of Business at the University of Texas at El
Paso:
Business Data Communications
Advanced Business Applications (Business Intelligence)
Management Information Systems
Business Systems Analysis and Design

He was also an on-line instructor for the University of Phoenix during the period of 2008-
2010 for the Strategic Planning MBA course; and he has been an instructor of the MBA School
of the Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua since 1987, teaching Organizational Theory,
Quality Audits, Total Quality Management and New Business Development.
Jesus Cardenas has been certified in several professional areas of his career, being a
Certified Six Sigma Black Belt, Certified Quality Manager, Certified Quality Engineer, Certified
Quality Auditor and Certified Quality Technician by the American Society for Quality (ASQ);
he is a certified college instructor by the University of Texas at El Paso and a certified lead
assessor by Stat-A-Matrix.
Dr. Cardenas has presented some of his work at international and national forums such as
the Southwest Regional Quality Conference sponsored by the Federal Executive Board in
Albuquerque, NM in September 1992; The Tenth International Conference of the Israeli Society
for Quality in Jerusalem in November 1994; The Fifth Quality World Congress on Total Quality
345
sponsored by the Board of Directors at New Delhi, India in February 1995; and the First
Customer Service Congress at Tyson Corners, Virginia in October 1997; Decision Science
Institute Annual Meeting (2011, 2012 and 2013); and the Americas Conference on Information
Systems Annual Meeting (2012).
Dr. Jesus Cardenas has authored and presented the following peer-reviewed papers at
conferences related to the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) area:
A Taxonomy of Smart Grid Research to Date: Understanding Who is Creating the

Worldwide Intellectual Capital at the Decision Science Institute Annual Meeting held at
Boston, MA in November 2011.
ICT Diffusion at Developing Countries: The Role of Governance Types and Mechanisms
at the Americas Conference on Information Systems Annual Meeting held at Seattle,
Washington in August 2012.
The Economic Impact of Security Breaches on Publicly Traded Corporations: An Empirical

Investigation at the Americas Conference on Information Systems Annual Meeting held at
Seattle, Washington in August 2012.
A Model to Develop Smart Energy Infrastructure in Latin America at the Decision Science
Institute Annual Meeting held at San Francisco, California in November 2012.
Just-in-Time Teaching as Innovative Instruction Tool: an Empirical Study at the Decision

Science Institute Annual Meeting held at San Francisco, California in November 2012.
Where is the action in Smart Grid Distribution? Word mining of published research for the
Decision Science Institute Annual Meeting held at Baltimore, Maryland in November 2013.
346
Knowledge Management Literature Trends: An ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar
Research for the Decision Science Institute Annual Meeting held at Baltimore, Maryland in
November 2013.
Dr. Cardenas authored a paper that has been already published:
Cardenas, J.A., Gemoets, L., Ablanedo-Rosas, J.H., Sarfi, R., A Literature Survey on Smart
Grid Distribution: An Analytical Approach, Journal of Cleaner Production. ISI Impact Factor:
2012: 3.398, ISI 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.587 (March 2014).
Permanent address:
11512 Bobby Fuller Dr.

El Paso, TX 79936
347

Smart Grid

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart Grid

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SMART GRIDS: A PARADIGM SHIFT ON ENERGY GENERATION AND

DISTRIBUTION WITH THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW ENERGY

JESUS ALVARO CARDENAS

Leopoldo A. Gemoets, D.Sc., Chair

Robert J. Sarfi. Ph.D.

Bess Sirmon-Taylor, Ph.D.

SMART GRIDS: A PARADIGM SHIFT ON ENERGY GENERATION AND

JESUS ALVARO CARDENAS, BSEE, MBA, MSIE

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

UMI Number: 3623383

All rights reserved

2.4.3.7 Smart Grid Technologies ...............................................................44

3.1.7 Diffusion of Renewable Generation ...........................................................114

CHAPTER 4: ROLE OF CONSUMERS IN THE NEW BUSINESS MODEL ...................169

4.5.2.2 Survey Preparation .......................................................................206

Table 3.16: Thermal Production (KWh) ..................................................................................... 113

Table 4.2: Statistics from Question # 4 ....................................................................................... 192

Figure 4.8 Masdar City Energy (source: http://masdarcity.ae/en/) ............................................. 181

Understand the global position of Smart Grid based on peer-reviewed publications

1.6 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS DISSERTATION

The perspectives of government, practitioners and academics on regards to Smart Grids

CHAPTER 2: COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH IN SMART GRID

Demand Response (DR) to manage consumption responding to supply conditions

Electric Vehicle (EV)/ Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)

Community Energy Storage (CES) presenting an alternative to store energy at suburbs

Distributed Storage (DS) as a smart way to reserve the available energy

Distributed Generation (DG) looking for a better way to generate decentralized

2.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Smart Grid Concept Defined

Self-healing systems are desirable to prevent dependence on human intervention at critical

Figure 2.1: SWOT Analysis

Google Scholar Research Results

Figure 2.2: Log trend line of SG articles

Figure 2.3: Selected articles by categories

Figure 2.4: Growth of SG by discipline

Figure 2.5: Time series for SG technologies (Cardenas et al., 2011)

Figure 2.6: SG technologies per country

Figure 2.7: SG technologies by state

Figure 2.8: Normalized articles mentions of technology per state

Preliminary Conclusions of Google Research

Table 2.1: Results of Hypotheses H1

2.4 LITERATURE SURVEY USING ISI WEB OF SCIENCE

Classification by Research Categories

Components of the classification

Figure 2.9: Distribution of Research Papers

Classification by Research Focus

Figure 2.10: Primary purpose of papers

Figure 2.11: Analyzed papers by research purpose

Classification by Data Collection Method

Figure 2.12: Research by collection approach

Figure 2.13: Papers by data collection categories & time

Classification by Data Analysis Technique

Figure 2.14: Data analysis techniques used

Figure 2.15: Data analysis techniques evolution in time

Figure 2.16: Distribution of papers by category

Figure 2.17: Number of papers by type in time

Taxonomy of Papers Purpose

Figure 2.18: Categories of papers by topics

Figure 2.19: Categories by time

Smart Grid Technologies

Figure 2.20: Distribution of SGD technologies

Figure 2.21: Trend of SGD technologies in time

Figure 2.22: Distribution of papers by country