Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference- AUPEC2016

A Comprehensive Community Energy Storage

Planning Strategy based on a Cost-Benefit Analysis
Junainah Sardi1,2, N. Mithulananthan1, Duong Quoc Hung3
1
School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
2
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia
3
School of Engineering, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
j.sardi@uq.edu.au, mithulan@itee.uq.edu.au, hung.duong@deakin.edu.au

Abstract— Energy Storage (ES) has been seen as a crucial
element in active distribution networks. It facilitates a high
penetration level of intermittent renewable energy in power
systems thus provide several technical and economic benefits to
the utility and consumer. However, given a high capital cost
associated with ES, it is crucial to develop an effective planning
strategy to avail the maximum benefit. This paper proposes a
methodology to determine the optimal location and capacity of
Community Energy Storage (CES) units by considering all their
possible benefits and costs. The benefits are obtained from
energy arbitrage, peaking power generation, energy losses
reduction, Transmission and Distribution (T&D) system
upgrade deferral, CO2 emission reduction and VAr support,
while the costs include CES’s capital, replacement and
Operational and Maintenance (O&M) costs. A comprehensive
cost-benefit analysis is conducted to identify the optimal Net
Present Value (NPV), Discounted Payback Period (DPP) and
Benefit Cost ratio (BCR) of CES investment starting at current
year, year 2025 and 2035. Numerical results show that the
proposed strategy is able to specify the optimal location and size
of CES unit for maximizing the NPV. Some interesting findings
are also discussed in the paper.
Index Terms—Community Energy Storage (CES), distributed
generation, CES planning, cost-benefit analysis, photovoltaic.
I. INTRODUCTION
Energy Storage (ES) system has become a crucial element
in smart distribution networks due to massive deployment of
intermittent Renewable Energy Sources (RES). Among them,
community level Distributed Photovoltaic (DPV) is the
fastest-growing power generation system owing to its
technology advancement, investment cost reduction and
environmental benefits [1]. Thus, the impact of intermittent
PV output power is being more severe at the community
level. Community Energy Storage (CES) is capable of
solving a number of operational problems due to the
intermittent characteristic of PV output while providing
numerous other benefits such as ancillary services, peak load
reduction and reliability improvement to the grid [2]. In order
to optimize these benefits, it is crucial to develop a planning
strategy that includes the determination of the optimal
location, size and operational characteristic of CES.
Numerous studies on ES planning in distribution networks
have been reported considering different techniques and
objectives. For example, the authors in [3] applied an
analytical approach to find the optimal size of ES that can
solve voltage fluctuation problems and minimize annual
costs. Heuristic approaches such as Genetic Algorithm (GA)
with Simulated Annealing [4], a hybrid of GA and AC
Optimal Power Flow [5], and Fuzzy Particle Swarm
Optimization [6] were also used to determine the optimal
location and capacity of ES considering different objectives.
In addition, the authors in [7] proposed a numerical approach
to allocate and size ES for minimizing the cost through
accommodating all spilled wind energy and reducing network
losses. This survey reveals that most of the existing works on
ES planning and cost-benefit analyses consider only one or
few benefits of ES. In addition, a research in [8] concluded
that deployment of ES is presently still uneconomic as the
overall ES installation cost is higher than the total profit
obtained from its deployment. It is expected that if all its
benefits and cost reduction in the future are considered, ES
will be a profitable solution [9]. This paper proposes a
methodology to determine the optimal site and capacity of
CES by considering all possible benefits obtained from CES.
The benefit includes energy arbitrage, peaking power
generation, energy losses reduction, T&D system upgrade
deferral, CO2 emission reduction and VAr support. In
addition, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is conducted
to identify the optimal Net Present Value (NPV), Discounted
Payback Period (DPP) and Benefit Cost ratio (BCR) of CES
investment for three scenarios that are CES deployment
starting at current year, year 2025 and 2035.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
presents CES benefits. Section III discusses a methodology
for CES planning. Section IV presents numerical results.
Finally, Section V concludes the paper by highlighting the
major conclusions and contribution of the work.
II. CES BENEFITS
This study considers the CES capability to shave the peak
load by storing energy during the off-peak period and
releasing the stored energy back to the grid during the peak
period. This application can make the demand profile flatten

978-1-5090-1405-7/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE

and improve the load factor. However, the economic
feasibility of the application should be justified by
considering all associated investment cost and benefits.
Possible benefits that can be achieved from shifting the load
demand using CES are listed as follows:
• Peaking power generation - gas combustion turbine plant
cost reduction due to the unleashed power from CES,
during the peak load period for generating the same
amount of peaking power [10], [11].
• Energy arbitrage - the benefit from buying energy at a low
price during the off-peak period and selling the energy
stored back at a high price at the peak period [12].
• Energy loss reduction - CES discharging some energy to
the grid that may result in reductions in peak demand and
subsequent energy losses [12].
• T&D system upgrade deferral – CES is used to serve a
peak demand so that the T&D system upgrades can be
delayed [12].
• Reduction in CO2 emission- electricity demand shifting
by CES can reduce the CO2 emissions from coal-fired
power plants [13].
• Reactive power (VAR) support- that is used to maintain
the voltage levels on the distribution system. [14].
In order to capture all of these benefits in CES planning
strategy, an optimization technique as presented in the next
section is utilized.
III. METHODOLOGY
The aim of the planning problem is to optimally site and
size CES units in a system with distributed PV units based on
maximizing the total NPV obtained from CES deployment
over a specified planning horizon. In this optimization
problem, the inputs are test system data, the probabilistic
model of PV and costs associated with CES units while the
decision variables are the optimal location and capacity of
CES units in kWh. Genetic Algorithm (GA) in the MATLAB
optimization toolbox is used for solving the planning problem
due to its simplicity and capability in handling integer
variables and robustness. Figure 1 briefly illustrates the
proposed methodology adopted in this paper. GA first
generates an initial population for the optimization problem.
Based on this initial population, real and reactive powers
dispatched by CES (i.e., PCES and QCES, respectively) are
determined using iterative and analytical methods. Using
these computed PCES and QCES, the rated power and energy of
CES (i.e., PCESR and ECESR, respectively) and CES’s inverter
size (SCESR) are next calculated. Finally, the objective function
is evaluated until the desired stopping criteria are met. These
steps are further detailed in the next subsections.
A. Load and PV Modelling
The load model is assumed to follow the historical hourly
residential load data obtained in [15]. One day of the load
curve is picked from every season (i.e., winter, spring,
summer and autumn) in a year to represent every day in that
particular season. PV generation is modelled by first
computing the probabilistic distribution of solar irradiance
based on the historical data using the Beta probability
distribution function (PDF) [16], [17]. In this model, there are
96 time segments (i.e. 24 time segments for each season) in a
year where each has their own PDF of solar irradiance. The
continuous PDF of each hour is then divided into 20 states to
incorporate the PV output power as multistate variables in the
planning problem formulation. Finally, the same approaches
of modelling the combination of PV generation and load, and
calculating the energy losses and demand in [16] are adopted
in this work.
Figure 1 Flowchart of the proposed methodology.
B. CES Operational Characteristic
A CES unit is assumed to be connected to an AC system
via bidirectional DC/AC converters that can be operated in all
four quadrants [18]. PCES at a specific bus and time is
dispatched with the aim of flattening the substation power
profile as much as possible based on a given population of
CES capacity (MCES) by the GA. Therefore, a “Load
Following” control method is developed in MATLAB
environment. The control strategy is able to charge CES
during the off-peak period and to discharge it during the peak
period. Moreover, itis considered that the energy remaining in
the CES at the beginning of the day is equal to that at the end
of the day [19]. Specifically, the control mechanism will
charge the battery if the overall downstream power is below
the charge threshold, Pcha and discharge if the total
downstream power is above the discharge threshold, Pdis.
These thresholds are determined using an iterative method as
shown in Figure 2. Thus, the power and energy variations of
CES located at bus i and time t (i.e., PCESi,t and ECESi,t
respectively) can be expressed as (1) and (2). It is noted that
several indices ware used throughout this paper. They are
system bus indices, i and j; time in hour, t; combined
generation-load state, s; and year in the planning horizon, n.
 (PDt − Pdis ) ∈ PDt ≥ Pdis

PCESi ,t = (PDt − Pcha ) ∈ PDt ≤ Pcha (1)
0 ∈ P < P < P
 cha Dt dis
E CESi ,t = E CESi ,t −1 − PCESi ,t Δt (2)
The positive PCES in (1) and (2) represents the discharged
power while its negative value is the power charged to the
CES unit, and PDt is the substation real demand power.
 ΔVk ,s ,t + dV cor ,k , s ,t
QCESj,s ,t = (7)
K Qkj,s ,t
QCESj,t = max QCESj,s,t ( ) (8)

C. Problem Formulation
This planning problem is formulated as a nonlinear mixed
integer problem that has an objective function of maximizing
the NPV obtained from CES deployment as follows:

Fobj = PG + AB + LR + TDB + REC − CCES − OM (8)

Figure 2 Iterative method for determining the charge and discharge thresholds
of CES. Nyr
APG ∗ LCT
On the other hand, QCES is determined with an objective of
PG =  (1 + IR' )
n =1
n
(9)
bringing the voltage magnitude at every node within its
acceptable limit. The rationale behind the proposed method is 96
that there is a linearity and load independency of the
relationship between the reactive power injection (Qj) and Nyr
90 ×  (P CES ,t × Δt × E price,t )
voltage change ( Δ Vi ) as estimated in (3), where KQij is the
AB =  n =1
t =1
(1 + IR' ) n
(10)

scalar value relating Δ Vi and Qj [20].

ΔVi = K Qij × Q j (3) 96  20  
KQij is obtained by injecting Qtest to bus j while no additional
90 ×    (P loss 0,s ,t − Ploss,s ,t ) × ρ s ,t  × Δt × E price,t 


Nyr
 s =1 

t =1
active and reactive powers are injected to other buses. Power LR = (11)
n =1 (1 + IR')n
flow is then run at every state to calculate the change in
voltage at bus i (∆Vtesti,). Finally, KQij is computed using Tyr
CT & D * fr *UP
K Qij, s ,t =
ΔVtesti , s ,t
(4)
TDB =  (1 + IR ' ) n
(12)
Qtest n =1

The proposed approach begins by observing the system Nyr

2.6 × CS × CCO 2
operating voltage (V) at every state and time after CES
dispatched its active power. The worst bus (i.e. bus that has
REC = 
n =1 (1 + IR')n
(13)
the highest voltage violation from the upper or lower voltage
limit) at every state, is identified. Assuming that the worst bus
C CES = C P × S CESR + (C E + C R ) × E CESR (14)
at state s and time t is bus k. Given the lower and upper limits
of voltages are Vlow and Vup respectively, the desired voltage
Nyr
magnitude changes at bus k can be computed as: C M × PCESR
 (Vk , s ,t − Vlow ) ∈ Vk ,s ,t < Vlow
OM = 
n =1 (1 + IR')n
(15)

ΔVk , s ,t =  (V k , s ,t − Vup ) ∈ Vk , s ,t > Vup (5)
0 ∈ Vlow > Vk ,s ,t > Vup IR − F
 where IR' = (16)
1+ F
From (3), the reactive power dispatched by CES before
considering the correction in ∆V (∆Vcor) (QCES0j,s,t) needed to
achieve ΔVk ,s ,t is expressed as:
(
CS = 90 × E dis × C ps − E cha × C ch / 907.185 ) (17)

ΔVk ,s,t
QCES 0 j,s,t = (6) max  PCESi
2 2 
,t + Q CESi ,t 
K Qkj,s,t S CESR =   (18)
In order to cater for the worst condition, the highest QCES0 η
computed over all states at time t is chosen as QCES0 during
time t. It is noted that a CES location and the worst bus may M 
E CESR = (1 + κ ) ×  CESi + (1 − γ ) × M CESi  (19)
not be at the same point. Moreover, the reactive power is not  η 
efficiently travel to far places due to its I2X losses. Therefore,
the calculated QCES0 in (6) may not be sufficient to bring the [
C R = FR × (1 + IR' )− r + (1 + IR ')−2 r + (1 + IR ')−3r +  ] (20)
operating voltage within the acceptable limit. Due to this
reason, ∆Vcor is introduced. This value is determined as in (5) max(PCESi,t )
except that Vk,s,t is the operating voltage after the system is PCESR = (21)
η
being subjected to the computed QCES0 in (6). Then, QCES can
be calculated as follows:
in which PG, AB, LR, TDB and REC are the NPV benefits
from the CES’s peaking power generation, energy arbitrage,
energy losses reduction, T&D system upgrade deferral and a
reduction in CO2 emission, respectively. In contrast, the
investment cost of CES includes the capital CES cost (CCES)
and the operation and maintenance costs (OM). IR’, IR and F
are the effective interest, interest and inflation rate
respectively; APG is the annual average peaking power
generation from CES; LCT is the unit levelized annual cost of
gas combustion turbine; Eprice,t is the market energy price;
Ploss,s,t and Ploss0,s,t are the power losses for the system with
and without CES deployment, respectively; ρ is the
probability of the combined load-generation state.
It is assumed that the T&D upgrade needs to be
implemented at year 1 of the planning horizon due to the load
growth in the network. Therefore, CES is deployed at year 1
to delay the upgrade, where Tyr in (13) is the last year in the
planning horizon that the T&D upgrade project can be
deferred. CT&D is the average investment cost for each
additional MW of distribution assets; fr is the fixed charge
rate for converting the investment cost to annuitized cost and
UP is the T&D upgrade capacity; CS is the coal savings from
using CES in ton; CCO2 is the cost of reducing CO2 emission;
Edis and Echa are the total amount of energy discharged and
charged by CES in kWh, respectively; Cps and Cch are
respectively the standard coal consumption rate of power
supply of the generation plants for peak shaving and routine
period; CP, CE and CR are respectively the capital power
conversion system (PCS), energy and replacement cost of
CES. N is the total number of buses; FR is a future value of
replacement costs; r is the replacement period in year that is
determined by dividing the maximum number of battery
charge/discharge cycles by the number of operating cycles
per year and CM is the annual operation and maintenance cost
of the CES [17], [21].
Another benefit from the CES deployment is VAr support
(RSB). RSB is not included in the objective function as it
may cause the optimization to select the variable decision that
result in the highest reactive power dispatched in order to
obtain the maximum objective value function. This scenario
may not be desirable from the power utility point of view.
Therefore, this benefit will be added to the objective function
after the optimization process is completed. RSB can be
calculated as:
96  20  
Nyr
90 ×    Q × ρ s ,t  × Δt × C kVAR 
CESi ,s ,t  
 s =1 

t =1
RSB =
n =1 (1 + IR')n
In which CkVAR is the reactive power payment [14]. The
objective function in (8) is maximized subjected to several
constraints, which are power flow balance that considers the
real and reactive power dispatched by CES and the feeder
capacity limit. In addition, the constraint related to the
capacity of CES as presented in (23) is also included [17].
(PCESi,t )2 + (QCESi,t )2 ≤ (SCESR ×η )2
In addition to NPV, the values of DPP and BCR from the
CES investment were also presented. DPP represents the
number of years it takes to break even from undertaking the
initial expenditure. DPP also takes into account the time
value of money which yields more realistic view of the
project profitability. Meanwhile, BCR is a ratio that is
identified as the relationship between the cost and benefit of
the proposed project [22]. It is used in this work due to the
different optimal investment costs and benefits computed for
different CES configurations. By evaluating the DPP and
BCR, the project profitability can be compared thoroughly.
DPP and BCR are expressed as follows:
DCCFT
DPP = T + (24)
DCFT +1
CFn
DCFn = ∈ 0 ≤ n ≤ Nyr (25)
(1 + IR ' )n
PG + AB + LR + TDB + REC + RSB
BCR = (26)
C CES + OM
where T is the last period with a negative discounted
cumulative cash flow, DCCF; DCCFT is the DCCF at the end
of the period T; DCFT+1 is the discounted cash flow during
the period after T and CFt is the actual cash flow [23].
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
The proposed methodology was tested on a 33-bus radial
distribution system [24] with a total load of 3.715 MW and
2.3 MVAR, and an annual energy demand value of 15.45
GWh. DPV units are placed at all buses that are connected to
the loads in the system to represent the rooftop solar PV. The
total annual PV penetration, NPV in the system is 28.62%,
which can be estimated as follows:
N PV = E PV / E L × 100 (27)
where EPV and EL are respectively the annual energy
produced by PV and required by the load. The mean and
standard deviation of solar irradiance data for three years are
obtained from [16]. Lithium-ion battery is considered the
choice of technology for CES due to its maturity for small-
scale grid-connected applications and high efficiency. The
maximum cycle in life for this battery is 4000 [25].
Electricity prices are obtained from [26] in which a day of
electricity price from every season is selected to represent the
electricity price for all the days in that particular season.
Table I lists all the costs associated with CES and economic
(22) parameters used in the optimization. This work considers
three different planning scenarios: CES deployments starting
at current year (Scenario 1), year 2025 (Scenario 2) and 2035
(Scenario 3). These scenarios are simulated to investigate the
potential of CES investment in present and later years. It is
assumed that the PV penetration in the system is fixed for all
the scenarios to reduce complexity. The planning horizon is
set to be 20 years. All GA parameters are in default values
(23) except for stall time limit and tolfun which are set to 6000
and 0.001 respectively.
 Table II depicts the result from the proposed planning upgrade cannot be deferred by CES at year 17 for this
strategy. It can be seen that the optimal site of CES is bus 8 specified case. As the benefit contribution from the T&D
for Scenario 1 and bus 7 for Scenarios 2 and 3. It is also upgrade deferral is the largest, its absence caused a
found that as the cost of CES reduced in later years, the significant reduction in the total profit obtained. Meanwhile,
optimal CES penetration increased from 9.27% (3979 kWh) for the other two scenarios, this phenomenon occurs later
in Scenario 1 to 13.55% (5817 kWh) and 22.09% (9482 than the first scenario which is at year 19. This is due to the
kWh) in Scenarios 2 and 3, respectively. A similar trend was higher ECESR deployed for the latter scenarios that provides
found for the optimal values of PCESR and SCESR. This reveals more capability for CES to defer the T&D system upgrade.
that the CES cost reduction in later years allows more CES to
be penetrated in the system. A higher CES penetration level TABLE II. DETAILED RESULTS
may result in a higher benefit and total profit obtained from Scenario 1 2 3
CES deployment. This are reflected by higher values of the Optimal Location (Bus) 8 7 7
total profit and BCR, and also a faster DPP value for CES Optimal Capacity (kWh) 3979 5817 9482
Optimal Size (kW) 1002 1306 1818
deployment begins at later years than that at present as shown Optimal Inverter rating (kVA) 1518 2047 2547
in Table II. For instance, the total revenue recorded for CES Capital Cost (Mil) 4.9091 4.2388 4.2945
deployment start at 2025 and 2035 are about 4.7 Mil and 5.9 NPV O&M Cost (Mil) 0.1367 0.1781 0.2479
Mil, which correspond to 56.71% and 95.12% increments NPV Peaking Generation (Mil) 1.1445 1.4251 2.1628
NPV Arbitrage Benefit (Mil) 0.2911 0.4545 0.7738
respectively, than that starts now. A similar trend was also
NPV Energy Losses Reduction (Mil) 0.0708 0.1022 0.1413
found for the BCR value. Particularly, deferring T&D system NPV T&D upgrade deferal benefit (Mil) 6.3456 6.8527 6.8527
upgrade contributed the highest profit from CES deployment. NPV Reduction in CO2 Emission (Mil) 0.1976 0.2889 0.4709
This is due to the high cost of T&D system upgrade and the NPV VAR support (Mil) 0.0052 0.0090 0.0120
lower annual peak demand growth assumed in this work. Objective Function (Mil) 3.0038 4.7064 5.8591
Total Profit (Mil) 3.0090 4.7155 5.8711
Conversely, VAr support recorded the lowest benefit as in Discounted Payback Period (year) 6.12 4.66 4.37
this case study, only a small amount of VAr is needed for Benefit to Cost ratio 1.60 2.07 2.29
voltage profile improvement. Overall, it is revealed from
Table II that there is a promising economic profit from CES 1
No CES CES
0.9
deployment as its cost becomes lower in later years. 0.8
Daily Load Factor

0.7
TABLE I. ECONOMIC PARAMETERS 0.6
0.5
Value Parameter (unit) Value 0.4
Parameter (unit) 0.3
Current 2025 2035 Cps (kg/kWh) [13] 0.48
0.2
CE($/kWh) [25] 543 280 180 Cch (kg/kWh) [13] 0.27
0.1
CP($/kVA) [25] 813 580 510 CkVAR (cents/kVArh) [27] 0.1063 0
CM($(kW) [25] 10 CT&D (Mil $/MW) [9] 2 Winter Spring Summer Autumn
IR (%) [17] 5 fr [9] 0.13
Figure 3 Daily load factor improvement for Scenario 3.
F (%) [17] 1 UP (kW) 2000
LCT($/kW) [28] 162 CCO2 ($/ton) [29] 22.4
η [25] 0.9 κ [13] 0.1 6
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
γ [25] 0.9 Annual demand growth (%)[26] 1.3 5
Discounted Cumulative Cash Flow (Mil)

Note: All values of the costs is in AU dollars.

4

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the daily load factor 3

improvements for Scenario 3 and the DCCF for all scenarios 2

from the proposed planning strategy, respectively. It is 1
revealed from Figure 3 that CES deployment based on 0
proposed planning strategy was able to improve the daily load -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

factor for all the seasons as high as 99% from the base case -2
load factor. For example, the daily load factor during winter -3
for the system with CES is 0.9, which is almost twice than -4
that without CES at 0.453. An increase in the daily load Year in the planning horizon

factor indicates that the demand profile of the system with Figure 4 DCCF of CES investment for current, 2025 and 2035 periods.
CES is more flat than that without CES. On the other hand, it
To validate the proposed method in determining the
can be observed from Figure 4 that the DCCF for all
operational characteristic of CES to improve the voltage
scenarios decreased at year 11 due to the CES replacement
profile, the operating voltage distribution for a day in four
cost. Additionally, it is found that at year 17 and above,
different seasons in Scenario 1 is recorded in Figure 5. It is
DCCF for Scenario 1 had a slower increment than that at the
assumed that the upper and lower voltage limits are 1.06 and
earlier years. This is due to the fact that no benefit is obtained
0.94 p.u, respectively. Figure 5 reveals that the operation of
from the T&D system upgrade deferral as CES capacity
CES units with optimal power factor (PF) dispatch can
installed in the system no longer meets the peak demand
significantly improve the voltage profile when compared to
increment in that particular year. This also means that the
that with unity PF operation. Although dispatching active
power only by CES may also improve the voltage profile, it is
not sufficient to bring all the operating voltages within the
desired limit. In order to bring all the voltages within its
limits using a unity PF CES, more active power dispatched is
needed. This may lead to a significant increase in the CES
investment cost. Therefore, as far as the voltage constraint is
concerned, CES deployment with optimal PF dispatch could
be more profitable than that with unity PF operation.
Figure 5 Distribution of the system operating voltage for Scenario 1.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a methodology to identify the
optimal site and size of CES by considering all its possible
benefits. The benefits are obtained from energy arbitrage,
peaking power generation, energy losses reduction, T&D
system upgrade deferral, a reduction in CO2 emission and
VAr support. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis is
conducted to specify the optimal NPV, DPP and BCR of CES
investment for three scenarios that are CES deployment
starting at current year, year 2025 and 2035. Moreover, the
probabilistic distribution of PV output is considered for
representing PV uncertainties. The findings reveal that the
proposed strategy is able to identify the optimal location and
size of CES for maximizing the profit. It is also found that the
DPP and BCR values for CES allocation starting at current
year are 6.12 and 1.6, respectively. In addition, the numerical
results show that there is a promising economic profit from
CES deployment as the cost of CES becomes lower in later
years. The results also demonstrated that the deferring T&D
system upgrade is the highest benefits contributed by CES,
followed by the peaking generation and energy arbitrage.
Finally, the operation of CES with optimal PF dispatch can
significantly improve voltage profiles.
REFERENCES
[1] B. Mountain and P. Szuster, “Solar, solar everywhere: opportunities
and challenges for australia’s rooftop PV systems,” IEEE power
energy Mag., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 53–60, Aug. 2015.
[2] B. A. Nourai and C. Schafer, “Changing the Electricity Game,” IEEE
Power & Energy Magazine, pp. 42–47, August 2009.
[3] Dunn B, Kamath H, Tarascon J-M. Electrical energy storage for the
grid: a battery of choices. Science 2011;334:928–35.
[4] Hoffman MG, Sadovsky A, Kintner-Meyer MC et al. Analysis tools
for sizing and placement of energy storage in grid applications: a
literature review. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 2010.
[5] Yuan. G, “Improving grid reliability through integration of distributed
PV and ES ”,IEEE innovative smart grid tech. ISGT 2012, p.1–2.
[6] Y. Zheng, Z. Y. Dong, F. J. Luo,K.Meng, J. Qiu, and K. P.Wong,
“Optimal allocation of energy storage system for risk mitigation of
DISCOs with high renewable penetrations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 212–220, 2014.
[7] J. Taylor, J. W. Smith, and R. Dugan, “Distribution modeling
requirements for integration of PV, PEV, and storage in a smart grid
environment,”IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., pp.1–6, Jul. 2011.
[8] Y. Yang, H. Li, A. Aichhorn, J. Zheng, and M.Greenleaf, “Sizing
strategy of distributed battery storage system with high penetration of
photovoltaic for voltage regulation and peak load shaving,” IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 982–991, Mar. 2014.
[9] Abeygunawardana, A., Ledwich, G. “Estimating benefits of energy
storage for aggregate storage applications in electricity distribution
networks in Queensland”, IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., pp. 1–
5, July 2013.
[10] Y. Yang; N.Yang, and H. Li, "Cost-benefit study of dispersed battery
storage to increase penetration of photovoltaic systems on distribution
feeders," IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meet., pp. 1-5, July 2014.
[11] N. Jayasekara, M. A. S. Masoum, P. J. Wolfs, “Optimal Operation of
Distributed Energy Storage Systems to Improve Distribution Network
Load and Generation Hosting Capability,” IEEE Trans. Sustainable
Energy, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 250–261, 2015.
[12] J. Eyer, Electric Utility Transmission and Distribution Upgrade
Deferral Benefits From Modular Electricity Storage Sandia National
Laboratories, Tech. Rep. SAND2009-4070, Jun. 2009.
[13] X. Yan, X. Zhang, H. Chen, Y. Xu, and C. Tan, “Techno-economic
and social analysis of energy storage for commercial buildings,”
Energy Convers. Manag., vol. 78, pp. 125–136, 2014.
[14] D. Rastler, “Benefit analysis of ES: Case study with Sacramento
Municipal Utility District,” EPRI, Tech. Rep. 1023591, 2011.
[15] Xcel Energy Data Archive. [Online]. Available: https://www.
xcelenergy.com /staticfiles/xe/Corporate/Corporate PDFs/AppendixD-
Hourly_Load_Profiles.pdf.
[16] D. Q. Hung, N. Mithulananthan, and K. Y. Lee, “Determining PV
penetration for distribution systems with time-varying load models,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3048–3057. Apr. 2014.
[17] A. Awad, “Novel planning and market models for energy storage
systems in smart grids,” Phd Thesis, 2014.
[18] A. F. Crossland, D. Jones, and N. S. Wade, “Planning the location and
rating of distributed energy storage in LV networks using a genetic
algorithm with simulated annealing,” Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst., vol. 59, pp. 103–110, Jul. 2014.
[19] S. Shao, F. Jahanbakhsh, J. R. Agüero, and L. Xu, “Integration of
PEVs and PV-DG in Power Distribution Systems using Distributed
Energy Storage – Dynamic Analyses,” IEEE PES Innovative Smart
Grid Tech. (ISGT), pp. 1–6, 2013.
[20] J. Yaghoobi, N. Mithulananthan, and T. K. Saha, “Effect of PV power
injection in unbalanced distribution systems,” in Australasian
Universities Power Eng. Conf., AUPEC 2014, pp. 1–6.
[21] Y. M. Atwa, “Distribution System Planning and Reliability
Assessment under High DG Penetration,” Phd Thesis, 2010.
[22] Investopedia, [Online], Available: http://www.investopedia.com
/terms/ d.asp.
[23] EasyCalculation.com., [Online], Available: https://www.Easycalcu
lation.com/budget/learn.php.
[24] N. Acharya, P. Mahat, and N. Mithulananthan, "An analytical
approach for DG allocation in primary distribution network," Int. J.
Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 28, pp. 669-678, Dec. 2006.
[25] Brinsmead TS, Graham P, Hayward J, Ratnam EL, Reedman L. Future
energy storage trends: an assessment of the economic viability,
potential uptake and impacts of electrical energy storage on the NEM
2015-2035, CSIRO, Australia. Report No. EP155039; 2015.
[26] Australian energy Market Operator (AEMO), [Online]. Available:
http://www.aemo.com.au/.
[27] V. Kekatos, G. Wang, A. J. Conejo, and G. B. Giannakis, “Stochastic
Reactive Power Management in Microgrids with Renewables,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 3386–3395, 2015.
[28] K. Spees, S. a Newell, J. P. Pfeifenberger, and C. H. M. Hill, “Cost of
New Entry Estimates For Combustion-Turbine and Combined-Cycle
Plants in PJM,” PJM Group, 2011.
[29] EconWeekly, (2016) [Online]. Available: http://www.econweekly.
com/2007/09/on-cost-of-reducing-co2-emissions.html.