USE OF NEAR REAL-TIME AND DELAYED SMART

METER DATA FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOAD AND

STATE ESTIMATION
T.C. Xygkis*, G.D. Karlis*, I.K. Siderakis*, G.N. Korres*
*National Technical University of Athens, Greece. gkorres@cs.ntua.gr
Keywords: Advanced Metering Infrastructure, Automated
Meter Reading, Distribution System, Load Estimation, State
Estimation.

Abstract
Distribution system state estimation is essential for real-time
monitoring and control of distribution systems. In recent
years, an increasing number of Automated Meter Reading
(AMR) systems have been installed to provide customer
consumption information. The deployment of smart meters
in low voltage (LV) distribution networks, within the
context of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)
systems, will enhance the electric energy consumption data
storage, processing and analysis capabilities. Because of the
limited number of real-time measurements in distribution
systems, increased smart metering data availability from LV
consumers is necessary to provide load estimates, which can
be treated as pseudo-measurements to guarantee the network
observability and estimate the system states. This paper
presents two distinctive load estimation methods which
utilize near real-time consumption data and short past
consumption data, respectively. The accuracy of estimated
loads is tested with a combined load and state estimation
approach. Numerical results with a distribution system will
show the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms.

Introduction

Load estimation (LE) and load forecasting (LF) are

processes of substantial importance in electric power
utilities. Particularly in distribution networks, their
contribution to system observability, surveillance and
control, is established since their results are treated as
pseudo-measurements and used as input to state estimators
[1]. The operation of a complete and reliable LE/LF method
aimed at distribution networks includes provision of:
x
x
x

accurate short-term load predictions on real time

accurate load estimates for unmeasured points of the
network
errors and uncertainties related to them

In general, terms "estimation" and "forecasting" are used

without discrimination in literature, as mentioned in [2].
However, it is widely accepted that, in case of short or
medium-term load predictions, related procedures are
categorized as LF methods, while LE methods mainly
provide current time load estimates based on any available
real-time load measurements which are acquired from

metering devices of the network and historical data.

Most LF methods adopt statistical techniques or artificial
intelligence algorithms such as regression models (multiple,
auto-regression), time series analysis, neural networks, fuzzy
logic etc [3]. Temperature and other weather conditions
affect their performance dramatically. On the other hand, LE
methods rely on load modeling, based on statistical
processing of historical data, and techniques of allocating
measured loads of selected nodes among unmeasured,
downstream nodes [4]. Class of consumers is the main
parameter which is taken into account.
The key factor to reliable and precise operation of LE/LF
methods is their proper match with the basic features of
actual load data available, that is, their origin and time delay
[5][10]. Smart meters, the main source of actual load
consumptions in contemporary distribution grids, can be
installed in several locations: MV/LV substations, individual
LV consumers etc. Additionally, their time availability is
linked to various delays depending on the metering
infrastructure. Advanced systems support real-time
availability of load measurements from a considerable
number of consumers or nodes, yet, in most cases, load data
transmission from metering points is characterized by time
lags. Usually, the most recent consumption measurements
available are previous days data.
In this paper, two load estimation techniques are deployed,
making use of actual load consumptions with various time
delays: a real-time algorithm, based on near real-time
consumption data, and a one-day ahead load forecasting
model, using only short past consumption data (previous
day, previous week). This selection covers both case
scenarios: highly developed smart metering systems, capable
of supporting real-time data transmission from LV
consumers to a central management system, and moderate
metering systems settled for data transmission with time
delays. Their performance is assessed by using actual load
profiles and temperature data. The impact of estimated loads
(pseudo-measurements) is investigated via a combined
operation of a load and state estimation (SE) procedures.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2,
the proposed combined load and state estimation procedures
are described. In Section 3, the proposed method is
verified through simulations using a 17-bus system, and
Section 4 concludes the paper.

i, i  1, i  2 : load estimation time interval and two previous

time intervals, respectively,

Proposed Load and State Estimation

Method

This section discusses a real-time load estimation method

which uses near real-time information from AMI along with
previous days data. It deploys a simple time series model
[11], given in (1), as well as basic customer class-specific
load curves associated to each consumer type (e.g. domestic,
commercial etc.), to improve the accuracy of individual
customer real-time load estimates.
kWhi ,today

kWhi 1,today
kWhi 1, prevday

kWhi , prevday

(1)

where

i, i  1 : load estimation time interval and previous time

interval, respectively,
today, prevday : day of load estimation and previous day
(weekday or weekend depending on day of estimation),
respectively,

kWh : corresponding electricity consumptions.

The initial load estimate is enhanced by using a classspecific basic load curve which is generated using historical
data and taking into account seasonal and weekly
fluctuations as in (2). This process is called interpolation and
includes the integration of the basic class-specific load curve
trend in individual load estimates.
Pi

kWhi , today
kWhi , basic

Pi , basic

(2)

where

Pi : the final load estimated in power units,

Pi , basic : power value of basic load curve for time interval i ,
kWhi , basic : corresponding electricity consumption based on

basic load curve (integral of Pi , basic over time range of

interval i ).
Data from smart meters to data collection centers are
transmitted every 15 minutes, at best-case scenario. Load
estimates can be hourly, half-hourly or less. Thus,
transmission time delay is a critical issue, which is
thoroughly investigated with regard to its impact on state
estimation performance.
A one day-ahead load forecasting procedure is suggested,
based on a simple autoregressive model [12] given in (3), to
conduct hourly consumption estimation with regard to
individual LV consumers. It uses same hour load
measurements of previous day and same day of previous
week, along with near real-time temperature measurements
and day-specific information.
kWhi

c  a1kWhi , prevday  a2 kWhi , prevweek  a3Ti

 a4Ti 1  a5Ti  2  a6 DLtoday  a7WD  a8WE

where

(3)

today, prevday, prevweek : day of load estimation,

previous day and same day of previous week, respectively,
kWh, T : corresponding electricity consumptions and
temperature,
DL : day length (light amount),

WD (WE) : weekday (weekend) factor (0 or 1).

Parameters a1 ,..., a8 and c are computed using an ordinary
least square estimator, which is applied to a large sample of
actual data, e.g. for a whole year, in order to increase
computation accuracy. It is to be noted that load estimates
are provided in electric energy units, though it is easy to be
converted to power units by using a simple equation similar
to (2).
A brief comparison between the two techniques shows that
they both utilize time series models and are based on actual
consumption data. Day of estimation is divided into time
intervals which load estimates refer to. They both adopt the
discrimination between weekdays, weekends and holiday,
yet, they basically differ in near real-time data use. The realtime algorithm depends on near real-time consumption data,
while the load forecasting procedure uses near real-time
temperature data but only past consumption data. Generating
accurate high resolution class-specific load curves is the key
feature for the proposed real-time algorithm. Accurate
calculation of forecasting parameters a1 ,..., a8 is a
prerequisite for its reliable operation.
This paper focuses on a composite load and state estimation
algorithm, whose main characteristics are simplicity, high
accuracy and easy implementation for online application. In
this direction, the performance of the two proposed
techniques is tested using load profiles of LV consumers and
actual temperature data. Furthermore, the ability of the
distribution system state estimator (DSSE) to estimate the
node voltages of a distribution network is evaluated by using
estimated load values derived from the above two
techniques. The weighted least squares algorithm (WLS) is
used for state estimation solution.
An ordinary WLS state estimator was employed for
estimating the state of the distribution system, which is
assumed to be balanced and represented by the single phase
model. The problem is formulated as in (4).

min J  x 

 z  h  x 

R1  z  h  x  

(4)

where
z : measurement vector,

h   : vector of non-linear functions,

x : true state vector comprising bus voltage magnitudes and
angles,
R : diagonal covariance matrix of measurement errors,
normally distributed with zero mean.

In both cases, it is assumed that smart meters measure the

electric energy consumption of LV consumers. In addition,

active and reactive power generation and voltage
measurements from distributed generators connected to the
network, are also incorporated into the state estimator.

MATLAB [17] on an Intel Duo Core @ 2.2 GHz (4GB

RAM) computer. The DSE algorithm is developed by
modifying and extending the open-source Matpower
package [18].

Figures 1 and 2 illustrate flow charts which display the basic

steps of the combined load and state estimation algorithms.

As mentioned, load estimation methods address to LV load

data. Thus, their evaluation is conducted using LV load
profiles (LPs). For this reason, 9 standard LPs derived from
Irish distribution power system were deployed [15]. They
correspond to 9 consumer categories and were generated
using actual smart meters' data during 2013.

Services Load Profile (LP2)

N orma lize d Powe r

N orma lize d Powe r

Domestic Load Profile (LP1)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

10

15

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

20

Tim e (H our)

0.8
0.6

10

15

20

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

20

Tim e (H our)

Figure 1. Flow chart of combined operation of real-time

load and state estimation algorithms

15

Industrial Load Profile (LP8)

N orma lize d Powe r

N orma lize d Powe r

Commercial Load Profile (LP4)

1

0.4

10

Tim e (H our)

10

15

20

Tim e (H our)

Figure 3. Mean, normalized yearly curves of 4 load profiles

used for evaluation of load estimation methods.
Two ordinary statistical measures are employed to quantify
the difference between estimated and actual values: Relative
Root Mean Square Error (RRMSE) and Mean Absolute
Percentage Error (MAPE), given in (5) and (6), respectively.
n

(P

i , act

RRMSE

 Pi ,est )2

i 1

(5)
2

i , act

i 1

MAPE

1 n Pi , act  Pi ,est
P
ni1
i , act

(6)

where

Pi , act : actual load value of time interval i ,

Figure 2. Flow chart of combined operation of one dayahead forecasting and state estimation algorithms
Both algorithms receive electric energy consumptions as an
input, but provide estimates in terms of electric power as
explained below. In general, smart meters record voltage
and current and calculate instant power via a simple
multiplication. Electric energy consumption over a specific
time period is approximated by integrating average power
over the corresponding time. Consequently, referring to
hourly load estimates, electric energy consumption equals to
average power demand.

Test Results

The proposed LE and LF algorithms are implemented using

Pi , est : estimated load value of time interval i ,

n : number of load values of tested sample.

Initially, the influence of time delay on the performance of

real-time LE algorithm was studied. Three time delay
scenarios were applied to all LPs and the period of tests was
confined in 4 randomly selected weeks, each for one season.
Related results are depicted in Fig. 4. As expected, errors in
load estimates increase regarding all LPs as time delay in
data transmission rises. Near real-time data are available less
frequently and affect the accuracy of load estimates. A
plausible explanation for different percentage rises per LP is
that some LPs, e.g. LP2 and LP9, fluctuate very slightly
regarding their class-specific basic load curve, so, their
actual values are well estimated due to interpolation even if
lags in near real-time data are on the increase.

2-hour delay
4-hour delay
6-hour delay

RRMS error (%)

LP1

LP2

LP3

LP4

LP5
LP6
Load profiles

LP7

LP8

LP9

Figure 4. RRMS errors in estimating 9 LV load profiles

using real-time LE algorithm for various time delays
In the next stage, the two proposed methods were directly
compared regarding their effectiveness in estimating actual
load data from all LPs for the same time period as above.
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate a comparison of the proposed
methods regarding two daily curves associated with LP1
(domestic consumer) and LP6 (commercial consumer). In
addition to actual and estimated load curves, previous day,
same day of previous week and class-specific, basic load
curves are also depicted. It is evident that estimated curves
lie very close to actual ones and further error calculations
are needed in order to decide which is the most precise.
Domestic Load Profile (LP1)

0.9

Commercial Load profle (LP6)

In order to verify the accuracy of the proposed algorithms,

both RRMS and MAP errors were computed for every LP.
Related results are displayed in bar diagrams given in
Figures 7 and 8. Both methods succeed in providing
satisfactory accuracy load estimates linked to errors which
vary between 1% and 8% and differ considerably per
individual LP estimated. More specifically, although use of
near real-time data is superior to use of time delayed,
previous day's data concerning all LPs, it is observed that, in
case of LP1, LP3 and LP4, difference between two methods
is marginal. This fact stems from the nature of these profiles
which are domestic, thus, highly dependent on temperature
conditions. Consequently, since one day-ahead LF method
utilizes real-time temperature data, it shows improved
estimation skills concerning domestic load consumptions
which approximate the accuracy of real-time LE method. In
any other LP case, significant discrepancies are noted which
lie between 0.5% and 2.5%.
In addition, results provided in Figures 7 and 8 suggest that
some LPs, that is, LP5, LP6, LP7, LP8, LP9, are linked to
significantly lower errors.

MAP errors per load profile

7
Use of previous day data
Use of near real-time data
6

MAP error (%)

RRMS errors per load profile for various time delays in data transmission

0.9

0.8

Normalized Power

Normalized Power

0.8
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.6

LP1

LP2

LP3

0.5
0.4

0.2

10

15

20

Time (hour)

previous week
actual
previous day
estimated

10

15

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.7

0.3

0.3

10

15

Time (hour)

20

0.5

0.4

Use of previous day data

Use of near real-time data

0.6

0.4

0.2

RRMS errors per load profile

8

RRMS error (%)

0.9

Normalized Power

Normalized Power

LP9

20

Commercial Load Profle (LP6)

Domestic Load Profile (LP1)

LP8

Time (hour)

Figure 5. Daily load curves estimation based on delayed,

previous day's electricity consumption data (one day ahead
load forecasting)
1

LP7

Figure 7. MAP errors in estimating 9 LV load profiles per

load estimation method.

0.4

0.3

LP4
LP5
LP6
Load profiles

basic
0.2
actual
previous day
estimated

0
5

10

15

20

LP1

LP2

LP3

LP4
LP5
LP6
Load profiles

LP7

LP8

LP9

Time (hour)

Figure 6. Daily load curves estimation based on near real

time electricity consumption data (real time load estimation
method)

Figure 8. RRMS errors in estimating 9 LV load profiles per

load estimation method.

In the final stage of simulations, load estimates produced by

the proposed algorithms are treated as pseudo-measurements
and introduced without any additional variation as input into
a standard WLS state estimator.
The 17-bus distribution system of Figure 9 is used for the
simulation tests. The network consists of 17 buses, 9
overhead lines, 8 transformers, and 5 load buses. Bus 1 is
assumed to be the global reference (infinite) bus, for which
the bus angle is assumed to be zero, while bus 3 supplies the
two feeders. The network is characterized by three voltage
levels: HV (150kV) for buses {1, 2}, MV (15kV) for buses
{3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16}, and LV (0.4 kV) for buses {5, 7,
9, 10, 13, 15, 17}. Two DG units are connected at buses 10
and 13. Buses 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16, are zero
injection buses. Network parameters are obtained from [16].
HV Network
2

1
150/15kV

3
MV Substation

Feeder 1

16

17

14

15

Feeder 2

MV zero injection bus

9

LV Load

12

13

11

10

and, along with load pseudo-measurements, constitute the

full measurement vector of state estimation problem.
The measurement accuracies were set to 1% for the power
flow measurements and 0.2% for the voltage measurement
(with a 95% confidence level). The injection pseudomeasurements were given a relative standard deviation of
5%.
In order to evaluate the performance of the WLS state
estimator and compare the impact of load estimates of each
individual method on its accuracy, statistical measure
Relative Percentage Error (RPE) is used and is computed for
every bus voltage according to (7):
RPE

Moreover, voltage magnitude measurements at generation

buses, i.e. buses 1, 10, 13, along with power flows at the top
of distribution feeders were acquired via a power flow
execution. These measurements are considered as real-time

Vi , act  Vi ,est

i 1

Vi , act

(7)

100%

where
Vi , act : actual voltage magnitude of time interval i ,
Vi , est : estimated voltage magnitude of time interval i .

Allocation of RPEs per bus is illustrated in Figure 10. Each

curve consists of 17 error values and represents variation of
voltage errors per bus regarding an hourly state estimation
process. As expected, load pseudo-measurements generated
by both methods lead to accurate state estimation, since no
error exceeds 0,12% in absolute value. Besides this, it is
obvious that utilization of near real-time data yields better
results as all voltage errors are limited under 0.1% in
absolute value. More conclusive information is given in
Table 1 where mean, absolute values of RPEs per bus are
listed. As observed, all buses are estimated considerably
better in case of use of near real-time data, that is, applying
real-time LE method.
It is worth noticing that errors in voltage magnitude
estimation are remarkably higher concerning buses 6, 7, 8
and 10. Also, the majority of buses served by feeder 2 show
relatively higher errors than those served by feeder 1. This is
due to the fact that feeder 1 includes 3 load buses, thus,
possible inaccuracies in load pseudo-measurements tend to
influence its state vector estimation more than that of feeder
2 which serves 2 load buses.

Figure 9. One-line diagram of the 17-bus distribution test

system

0.15

Daily state estimation per hour

0.15

Use of near real-time data

Voltage RPEs(%)

State estimation is performed concerning a random day of

the year. The procedure is detailed as follows: 9 LPs were
paired by simple summation and one remained unchanged.
Subsequently, 5 generated load profiles were preprocessed
to get average, normalized load curves. In this way, all
curves maintained their daily variation and their peaks were
determined according to nominal power characteristics of
each load bus. Finally, they were randomly distributed over
5 MV/LV load buses of the network, that is, buses 5, 7, 9, 15
and 17. Consequently, each load bus obtained its individual
hourly load curve for a whole day.

24

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

-0.05

-0.05

-0.1

-0.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Bus number

Daily state estimation per hour

Use of previous day data

Voltage RPEs(%)

These profiles come from commercial and service section

and, statistically, show less fluctuations regarding average
daily load curves and more predictable behavior concerning
temperature changes. For example, electric heating, airconditioning and lightning are always in operation during
working hours in case of shops and offices, while, in case of
houses, unpredictable turning on/off is much more frequent
causing appreciable shifts in load consumption. Hence,
commercial and service LPs are estimated on real time and
predicted more precisely than domestic LPs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Bus number

Figure 10. Daily state estimation RPEs per bus using near
real-time and previous day's data, respectively

Table 1. Average absolute bus voltage errors

per data type usage

Previous
day's
data
0.0076

0.0076

0.0065

11

0.0080

0.0065

0.0077

0.0065

12

0.0075

0.0064

0.0075

0.0071

13

0.0072

0.0065

0.0072

0.0067

14

0.0072

0.0067

0.0459

0.0332

15

0.0075

0.0065

0.0408

0.0364

16

0.0076

0.0065

0.0381

0.0348

17

0.0077

0.0065

0.0089

0.0095

Bus
No.

Real-time
data

Bus
No.

0.0065

10

Previous
day's
data
0.0144

Real-time
data

[9]

0.0109

[10]

[11]

[12]

Conclusions

In this paper, two individual techniques for load estimation

in distribution grids were developed and tested: a LE
method which is based on near real-time load measurements
and a LF method which predicts hourly loads on daily basis
using time delayed load measurements. The real-time LE
method was tested for various time delays and showed
decreasing effectiveness as time delays in data transmission
rise. Both methods were found capable of providing accurate
load estimates which are available for utilization from state
estimation algorithms as pseudo-measurements. Additional
simulations confirmed the effectiveness of combined
operation of load and state estimation algorithms.
Future work shall be directed to application of both methods
to more extended distribution networks under the
assumption that more LV consumers' actual load data are
available for more thorough simulations and tests. The
ongoing installation of smart meters creates new challenges
for distribution system estimation due to the wide variety of
time delays, thus, research should be able to produce new
advanced and generalized algorithms applicable to more
complicated cases.

References
[1] Monticelli, A.: "State Estimation in Electric Power Systems:
A Generalized Approach" (Kluwer Academic Publishers,
1999)
[2] Kanchan, A., Singh, K.B.: "Load Modeling, Estimation and
Forecasting" in Proc 45th International Universities Power
Engineering Conference (UPEC) , 2010, pp. 14
[3] Alfares, H.K., Nazeeruddin, M.: "Electric Load Forecasting:
Literature Survey and Classification of Methods" International
Journal of Systems Science, 2002, 33, (1), pp. 2334
[4] Ghosh, ., Lubkeman, D., Downey, M., Jones, R.: Load
Modeling for Distribution Circuit State Estimation" IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, 1997, 12, (2), pp. 999-1005
[5] Farhangi, H.: "The Path of the Smart Grid" IEEE Power &
Energy Journal, 2010, 8, (1), pp. 18-28
[6] N. Lof., M. Pikkarainen, S. Repo and P. Jarventausta,
"Utilizing Smart Meters in LV Network Management", in
Proc. of the CIRED 21st International Conference on
Electricity Distribution, 2011, pp. 69
[7] Abdel-Majeed, A., Braun, M.: "Low Voltage System State
Estimation Using Smart Meters" in Proc. 47th International
Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), 2012,
pp. 16
[8] Huang, Y.-F., Werner, S., Huang, J., Kashyap, N., Gupta, V.:
"State estimation in Electric Power Grids: Meeting New

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]

Challenges Presented by the Requirements of the Future Grid"

IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 2012, 29, pp. 3343
Gngr, V.C., Sahin, D., Kocak, T., Ergt, S., Buccella, C.,
Cecati, C., Hancke, G.P.: "Smart Grid Technologies:
Communication Technologies and Standards" IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 2011, 7, (4), pp.529
539
Hierzinger, R., Albu, M., Van Elburg, H., Scott, A.J., azicki,
A., Penttinen, L., Puente, F., Sle, H.: "European Smart
Metering Landscape Report 2012" SmartRegions Deliverable
2.1, Vienna, 2012
Wang, H., Schulz, N.N.: "A Load Modeling Algorithm for
Distribution System State Estimation" in Proc. of the IEEE
Power Engineering Society Transmission and Distribution
Conference and Exposition, 2001, pp. 102106
Degefa, M.Z., Millar, R.J., Koivisto, M., Humayun, M.,
Lehtonen, M.: "Load Flow Analysis Framework for Active
Distribution Networks Based on Smart Meter Reading
System" Engineering, 2013, 5, pp. 18, Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/eng.2013.510A001
Samarakoon, K., Wu, J., Ekanayake, J., Jenkins, N.: "Use of
Delayed Smart Meter Measurement for Distribution State
Estimation" in Proc. of the IEEE Power and Energy Society
General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1-6
Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sanchez, C.E., Thomas, R.J.:
Matpower: Steady-state operations, planning and analysis
tools for power systems research and education IEEE
Transactions on Power Systems, 2011, 26, (1), pp. 12-19
Derived Load Profiles 2013-Guidance Section-Retail Market
Design Service (Online). Available:
http://www.rmdservice.com/guidance/standard_load_profiles.
htm
Korres, G.N., Manousakis, N.M.: "A State Estimation for
Monitoring Topology Changes in Distribution Networks", in
Proc. of the IEEE Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, 2012, pp. 1-8
Matlab. Version 8.3 (Release 2014a). Natick, MA:
MathWorks, 2014.
Zimmerman, R.D., Murillo-Sanchez,, C.E., Thomas, R.J.:
MATPOWER: Steady-state operations, planning and
analysis tools for power systems research and education,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2011, 26, (1), pp. 1219

Biographies
Themistoklis C. Xygkis received the Diploma in Electrical and Computer
Engineering and the Post Graduate Specialization Diploma in Automation
Systems from National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece, in
2010 and 2011, respectively. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree and
his research interests are state and load estimation, operation of automated
metering systems and meter placement in power distribution networks.
George D. Karlis received the Diploma in Electrical and Computer
Engineering from National Technical University of Athens, Athens,
Greece, in 2014.
Isidoros K. Siderakis is undergraduate student of the School of Electrical
and Computer Engineering of National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece. He is currently pursuing the diploma thesis.
George N. Korres (SM'05) received the Diploma and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical and computer engineering from the National Technical University
of Athens (NTUA), Athens, Greece, in 1984 and 1988, respectively.
Currently he is Professor with the School of Electrical and Computer
Engineering of NTUA. His research interests are in power system state
estimation, power system protection, and industrial automation. Prof.
Korres is a member of CIGRE.