D

Distributed Renewable Energy Sources

(DRESs) are increasing rapidly in distribution grids, and
their integration into the electricity system is one of the
most relevant problems facing these networks. The objec-
tive of our project, IntegratinG Renewables in the Euro-
pEaN electricity Grid (IGREENGrid), was to analyze
and select the most promising research and development
(R&D) solutions to this problem. For this purpose, four
research institutions (Institute of Communications and
Computer Systems of the National Technical University
of Athens, Ricerca sul Sistema Energetico, Austrian Insti-
tute of Technology, and Tecnalia) and eight European
utilities studied six large demonstration projects: Eber-
stalzell and Koestendorf (Energie AG Oberösterreich
Netz and Saltzburg AG) in Austria; Proyecto de Redes
Inteligentes del Corredor del HenarE in Spain, known as
PEICE (Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica and Gas Natural
Fenosa); Sperchiada in Greece (Diacheiristis Ellinikou
Diktyou Dianomis elektrikis Energeias); Isernia in Italy
(e-distribuzione); Zukunftsnetze in Germany (Innogy
SE); and Venteea in France (Enedis). IGREENGrid had
a budget of €6.6 million, partially funded by the Euro-
pean Commission, and was in development for almost
four years.
The standard long-term solution to increase the capac-
ity of electricity networks to connect additional genera-
tion is grid reinforcement, but this kind of approach is too
slow and costly to respond effectively to DRESs. Several
alternative solutions are currently under development,

The IGREENGrid
Project Increasing Hosting Capacity
in Distribution Grids

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2017.2662338

Date of publication: 19 April 2017

30 ieee power & energy magazine 1540-7977/17©2017IEEE may/june 2017


including controlling DRES active and reactive power gen-
eration, managing flexible demand, and smart charging of
electric vehicles. These alternatives can be rapidly imple-
mented in a cost-effective way as temporary solutions to
solve local constraints until the tendencies of generation and
consumption growth in the area become clearer. Regarding
continuous local increases, the reinforcement of the network
will take place considering the real necessities appeared, but
if the zone remains stable, smart grid alternatives (such as
By Jesús Varela, Nikos Hatziargyriou, Lisandro J. Puglisi,
Marco Rossi, Andreas Abart, and Benoît Bletterie
may/june 2017 ieee power & energy magazine 31
©istockphoto.com/liulolo
DRES control and energy storage), proposed as temporary,
can be settled a long-term solution.
After classifying the solutions by the problem they solve
and determining which are the most promising for DRES inte-
gration, many elements should be taken into account: problem
relevance, the applicability of each solution to the real grids,
cost, complexity, prerequisites (including skills and tools for
planning and asset management), environmental impact, and
customer acceptance. A list of parameters and key performance
 Hosting capacity is defined as the maximum distributed
generation penetration for which the power system
operates satisfactorily.
indicators to measure the main aspects involved in the
selection process was studied, but finally there is one indi-
cator standing out from all the others: increasing hosting
capacity (HC).
Measuring Hosting Capacity
HC is defined as the maximum distributed generation (DG)
penetration for which the power system operates satisfac-
torily. According to this definition, numerous methods for
estimating HC have been tested in the past. The most recur-
rent solution for an effective HC evaluation is based on opti-
mal power flow (OPF), in which the objective function is
designed to maximize the injection of active power within
the selected limits (typically voltage and loading). However,
OPF-based approaches have a strong limitation: the returned
HC value is often referred to as fixed allocation of one or
more generators on the network. Typically, one DRES unit
is simulated and the HC calculation is repeated for all the
network buses, ­obtaining the results plotted in Figure 1.
From the study of the obtained curves, relevant informa-
tion about the amount of production that can be connected
to the network can be deduced. This method is traditionally
adopted in network planning due to its simplicity. However,
a single generator is often an unrealistic representation of
the DG expansion since it is more dispersed throughout the
distribution network, with no control from grid operators.
In IGREENGrid, a simulation approach is preferred in
which numerous allocations and dimensions of multiple gen-
eration units are considered for each selected network, and
the HC is deduced by comparing the voltage/current limits
40
Voltage HC
Current HC
30 Overall HC
Bus HC (MW)
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Electrical Distance (Ω)
figure 1. The traditional approach for network HC estima-
tion (OPF based).
32 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2017
with the set of resulting levels from simulations (Figure 2).
The returned HC is a series of values describing the realistic
potential of the network for DG integration, including the
dependency between maximum generation and position of
DG units, the best and worst cases of HC, and eventual pres-
ence of network bottlenecks.
The extraction of HC values is computationally demand-
ing due to the necessity of simulating several DG scenarios
(Monte Carlo simulation). The process can be faster when
combined with an OPF-based approach. Once a value of
nominal power is randomly assigned to each simulated DG
unit, the optimization problem can be set up to maximize
production by DRESs while respecting network constraints
but maintaining the initial power proportion among genera-
tors. At this point, when repeating the OPF for several DG
initial power distributions, the returned values of maximum
generation can be summarized by the probabilistic func-
tions, as shown in Figure 3.
Having checked the equivalence of these results with
the ones plotted in Figure 2, it can be concluded that the
proposed probabilistic method is more realistic than the tra-
ditional one (Figure 1) where a single DG unit is normally
considered. According to this, simulating realistic scenarios
(in which the dispersed nature of DG is taken into account)
is a very good basis for studying the distribution network
potential in terms of HC increase in relation to SG technol-
ogy implementation.
Solutions for Increasing
Grid Hosting Capacity
In a first attempt to compare solutions that were installed
in different countries and operating conditions, it was clear
that centralized or even supervised (centrally monitored but
not real-time controlled) solutions are generally more effec-
tive (in terms of HC increase, see Table 1) than decentralized
solutions. The best performing solutions usually include a
coordinated use of an on-load tap changer (OLTC) and other
means, such as static synchronous compensator (STATCOM),
DG-reactive power control, and field measurements. The use
of either a single solution [STATCOM, OLTC, or automatic
voltage regulator (AVR)] or several individual elements working
locally produces inferior results.
14 Since the simulation provides probability functions of
HC, additional information can be extracted from the results.
Table 1 reports, for each solution investigated, how the HC
increase is influenced by the position of the DRES units on
the network (standard deviation of the probability function).
 Maximum Network Voltage (p.u.)

1.1 Voltage HC
14
1.08 12

HC Probability (%)
10
1.06
Voltage Limit
8
1.04
6
1.02 4
2
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 0
Total Nominal Power of Installed DG (MW) 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) Total Nominal Power of Installed DG (MW)
150
(a)
Network Loading (%)

Loading HC
100 14
Loading Limit
12

HC Probability (%)
10
50
8
6
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 4
Total Nominal Power of Installed DG (MW) 2
(b)
0
Single Generator Installed in the Most Remote Bus 0 10 20 30 40 50
DG Uniformly Distributed on the Network Total Nominal Power of Installed DG (MW)
Single Generator Installed in Proximity of the
Primary Substation (b)
Random Position of DG Units

figure 3. HC probabilistic distributions obtained using

figure 2. Simulation results of numerous allocations of DG the combined Monte Carlo- and OPF-based approaches
compared to network (a) voltage and (b) current limits. considering (a) voltage and (b) current limits.

In general, the performance of distributed solutions highly
depends on the position of the DRES units. The performance
of centralized/supervised technologies, however, is almost
the same in all of the scenarios considered.
Another common factor among the best performing solu-
tions is field measurements of a few parameters at well-selected
points in the network. These studies show that approximately
80% of the medium-voltage (MV) feeders present only one
critical node affected by maximum acceptable voltage con-
straints. This means that it is not necessary to deploy an enor-
mous number of sensors to obtain the best results for increasing
HC, but it is important to select the right places to install them.
Identifying a node for measuring normal conditions is much
easier than examining different scenarios of emergency supply
for forced outages or alternative supply under system mainte-
nance conditions. But even for normal conditions, the critical
node might change when additional DG units are installed. In
the analyzed low-voltage (LV) grids, 60% of the feeders present
more than one critical node. Since the number of required sen-
sors is highly dependent on the connection point of the DRESs
along the feeders, this aspect must be studied case by case.
We analyzed two complete distribution grids of different
distribution system operators (DSOs) and identified voltage
violations as the most important problem when increasing the
number of DG units. For the first DSO, 90% of the feeders
were voltage constrained while only 10% were loading con-
strained (Figure 4). The second DSO presented 77% of the
feeders as voltage constrained, with a homogeneous distribu-
tion of DG until current constraints occur.
The horizontal axis of Figure 4 represents the percent-
age loading for the feeders. Most of the feeders are voltage
constrained (blue bars) and present a loading that is well
below the 100% loading limit. The black curve (cumulative
distribution function) shows that for half of the feeders, the
normal loading is below 37%. This means there is a large
reserve (more than 63%) of thermal loading capability.
This loading reserve is obtained at a homogenous DG pen-
etration without applying any SG solution. In general, rural
feeders are voltage constrained, while urban feeders are load-
ing constrained. The global results, however, depend on the
type of feeders. For the second DSO, for instance, the loading
reserve is about 40% for half of the feeders. From this analysis,

may/june 2017 ieee power & energy magazine 33

 OLTCs that use a few local
table 1. The HC increase resulting from applying
field measurements to control
different SG solutions in the studied networks.
the voltage in the feeders (wide-
Centralized SG Solutions area control, WAC) are effec-
HC Increase tive in only 48% of the feeders.
Average Relative standard A centralized solution that com­­
Demo MV centralized voltage control with … Value [%] deviation bines OLTC and DG control
Germany field measurements—OLTC 67.00 0.57 produces good results in only
Spain OLTC + STATCOM control 64.53 0.67
20% of the feeders. In the rest of
cases, as additional generation
Austria field measurements—OLTC + DG reactive 62.99 1.38 is added, many feeders become
power control
thermally con­­strained, and this
Austria field measurements—OLTC control 53.36 1.27 voltage-control solution is inef-
Spain STATCOM control 20.02 0.19 fective. Potentially more expen-
sive solutions like curtailment or
Distributed SG Solutions classical grid reinforcement are
HC increase
applicable everywhere.
Average Relative standard System performance is de­­
Demo MV distributed voltage control with… Value [%] deviation
pendent on many factors. Ex­­
Germany AVR 37.75 2.87 perience shows that a central-
France DG reactive power control (droop Q-V control) 37.13 1.62 ized solution using coordinated
OLTC and DRESs allows for
France DG reactive power control [fixed tan(phi)] 34.81 3.10 the highest amounts of HC.
Italy OLTC + DG reactive power control 29.72 3.53 Co­­­­ordinated operation can be
Greece DG curtailment + DG reactive power control 13.89 2.25
achieved using a d­ istribution
state estimator or an OPF to
Greece DG curtailment 10.83 0.39 es­­tablish the best settings at
each time. On average, the in­­
tro­duction of an OPF triples the
voltage-control solutions appear to be the most appropriate given HC of a VVC system and almost doubles the effectiveness of a
the large proportion of affected feeders. However, it is still nec- WAC and VVC solution.
essary to test the applicability of each solution on real networks. The combined effect of OLTCs used at primary and sec-
In our study, the network selection from different countries ondary substations is also an interesting case. Utilities around
showed that voltage-control solutions based on a local control the world use high-voltage (HV)/MV transformers equipped
of reactive power from the DG inverters (volt-var control, VVC) with OLTC to control voltage levels [Figure 5(a)]. This has
can successfully increase the HC in 60% of the feeders. some limitations when some of the MV feeders have con-
trasting voltage issues. The combined use of OLTC at both
HV/MV and MV/LV transformers can provide much more
flexibility for managing voltages, increasing HC up to 179%
1.0 0.20 in our experiments.
0.8 0.16
An alternative approach is inserting autotransformers in
the middle of the problematic MV lines [Figure 5(b), the
0.6
pdf
cdf

0.12
MV side] to correct these contrasting voltage levels. Then
0.4 0.08 the flexibility can be doubled at the MV level to absorb the
0.2 0.04 LV variations due to generators and loads. When LV lines of
0.0 a certain secondary substation present contrasting voltage
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
levels, introducing autotransformers [Figure 5(b), the LV
% Loading
side] in some LV lines also increases the flexibility of the
whole system. The problem with this and similar ideas is the
figure 4. The probability distribution function (pdf) of
cost of the new elements, but the potential to increase HC
­distribution grids from one Austrian DSO in function of
the loading reserve. The voltage-constrained feeders are and the effectiveness of existing assets is enormous.
in blue, loading-constrained feeders are in red, and both Flexibility can be also obtained from third parties [Figure 5(c)]
voltage- and ­loading-constrained feeders are in magenta. such as generators and consumers. Active demand techniques
The cumulated ­density function (cdf) of these grids in or energy storage installed at customers are some of the pos-
function of the l­oading reserve is shown in black. sibilities to regulate the loads in the lines. In some countries,

34 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2017

 HV HV/MV G G MV/LV G G

MV Grid
+10% LV Grid
+10% Asym 253.0 V
3% 248.4 V 3% LV DG
243.8 V 2% MV DG
239.2 V 2% HV/MV
234.6 V 5% MV Voltage
U 230.0 V Drop at Lines
225.4 V 2% MV/LV Transformer
220.8 V
216.2 V 6% LV Voltage
–10% 6% 211.6 V Drop at Lines
Asy 207.0 V
m
–10%
–15% 5% of Intervals/Week
(a)
MV-Regulation LV-Regulation
HV/MV G Transformer G Transformer
HV MV/LV G G

∑ ∑
+10% +10%

Asym 253.0 V
3% ym 3% LV DG
6% As 12% 248.4 V
2% MV DG
3% 3% 243.8 V
9% 239.2 V 2% HV/MV
234.6 V 5% MV Voltage
U 4% 4% 230.0 V Drop at Lines
8% 225.4 V 2% MV/LV Transformer
220.8 V
9%
–10% As 6% As 15% 216.2 V 6% LV Voltage
ym ym 211.6 V Drop at Lines
–10% 207.0 V

–15% 5% of Intervals/Week
(b)
DG with Curtailment
and VVC
HV HV/MV G G MV/LV G G

Flexible Loads
+10%
+10% m
Asy
253.0 V
248.4 V 3% LV DG
243.8 V 2% MV DG
239.2 V 2% HV/MV
234.6 V 5% MV Voltage
U 230.0 V Drop at Lines
225.4 V 2% MV/LV Transformer
220.8 V
216.2 V 6% LV Voltage
–10% 211.6 V Drop at Lines
–10% 207.0 V
Asy
m
–15% 5% of Intervals/Week
(c)

figure 5. Voltage regulation bands with (a) only OLTC at the primary substation, (b) MV and LV inline autotransformers, and (c)
using flexibility from generators (red and blue) and consumers (clear green). Color bands: yellow and brown indicate raising margins
in LV and MV lines, respectively; dark green and blue indicate voltage drops in LV and MV lines, respectively; margins at the sub-
stations are indicated in white. The asymmetry of loads among phases (asym) requires the preservation of part of the voltage band.

may/june 2017 ieee power & energy magazine 35

 Experience shows that a centralized solution
using coordinated OLTC and DRESs allows for the
highest amounts of hosting capacity.

generation curtailment is allowed under exceptional condi- Transition to Business as Usual

tions. In France, for instance, the use of special contracts to
agree on the limits of curtailment has been tested.
A Case in the Field
HC analysis should be executed case by case. Figure 6 is a
good example of typical grid conditions. As is frequently the
case, some feeders are voltage constrained (F01, F03, F04,
and F07) while others are current constrained (F02, F05, F06,
and F08). When SG solutions are applied, the HC is increased.
Some of the feeders become current constrained (F04), but
others become voltage constrained (F01, F02, and F07).
The increase in HC resulting from voltage-control solu-
tions can vary for different feeders. Figure 6 only shows the
VVC solution applied on a primary substation. However,
fix curtailment could produce a 29% HC increase for these
feeders while the use of OPF could lead to up to a 169% HC
increase. These significantly different results are also due to
the different characteristics of the feeders. Using the VVC
solution (Figure 6), feeder F01 presents an HC increase of
1.5 MW in a line that had originally a capacity of 3 MW. On
the other hand, feeder F03 originally presented only 1 MW,
and the HC increase obtained with VVC is just an extra
0.5 MW. For feeder F04, curtailment or nonfirm connection
contracts could be good strategies to limit the total current in
this line. For feeder F01, other voltage-control applications
could be more effective than the selected one.
8 trolled by the DSO to ensure the quality of service and sys-
7
6 forced to calculate the worst-case scenario to evaluate the
5 grid capacity to reliably host new generation sources. Con-
Asls/VVC
HC (MW)
SG research offers a number of alternative solutions for increas-
ing HC. Solutions have a range of pros and cons in terms of
cost, performance, flexibility, and ease of implementation.
What is needed to replace the current operational methods and
equipment with these new solutions? Which are the drivers of
the transition from R&D ­proposals to business as usual?
Regulatory Aspects
To allow R&D results to become business as usual, utilities
need regulatory changes, but even more importantly they
need stable and predictable regulatory frameworks. Utilities
require consistent regulatory support for large investments
in grid reinforcements and innovative solutions. Frequent
regulatory changes should be avoided, and when changes
are necessary, they should be implemented with total trans-
parency for stakeholders and with consideration for previous
investments not already recovered.
National policy makers should take into account that
DRES grid connection charges and costs are spread over all
consumers’ bills. The repartition of costs, responsibilities, and
functions among the stakeholders should be fair. There are
SG solutions that should become business as usual to foster
DRES integration efficiently. The main ­regulatory updates
needed are discussed next.
Regulation Should Allow the DSOs to
Control Distributed Energy Resources
Distributed energy resources (DERs) should usually be con-
tem reliability without unnecessary grid investments. Given
that DSOs often lack the capacity to control DERs, they are

4 sequently, this leads to conservative limits.

Pilot projects in Eberstalzell and Koestendorf (Austria)
3
studied how residential photovoltaic (PV) generation impacts
2 the LV grid and how these sources can contribute to grid sta-
1 bilization. The largest gains in terms of voltage-band man-
agement have been obtained by implementing a coordinated
0
control, which acts upon a voltage-regulating transformer and
F01
F02
F03
F04
F05
F06
F07
F08

Feeder
figure 6. Feeder screening: the classification of feeders as
voltage constrained (blue) or loading constrained (red) with
the indication of HC and an HC increase for each one of
the feeders of a primary substation.
the solar generators to regulate the active or reactive power
injection. This coordinated control is made possible by power
line communications for getting voltage measurements from
smart meters and remotely parameterizing the solar inverter
controls. This change would affect large amounts of small
devices and may require exploring alternative approaches to

36 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2017

 An alternative approach is inserting autotransformers
in the middle of the problematic MV lines to correct
these contrasting voltage levels.
facilitate implementation (e.g., generator design and use of
­public telecommunication infrastructure).
The tradeoff between grid expansion costs and curtailed
energy costs should be analyzed. To incorporate new DRESs,
it is often more efficient to reduce generation in critical
moments than to reinforce the grid. A fix curtailment for
PV installations, limiting the maximum injection to 70% of
nominal power, can lead to an energy curtailment of between
3 and 7%, which is acceptable, taking into account that it
produces around a 40% HC increase. When applied to wind
farms, a fix curtailment of 70% of nominal power can lead to
higher amounts of energy curtailed (above 10%) and, conse-
quently, a higher economic impact on generators, for similar
results in terms of HC.
In France, a new nonfirm connection contract will allow
the curtailment of production during a few days a year, with
the benefit of a lower connection cost for generators due to
avoided reinforcements.
Regulation for Dres Connections
Should Be Homogenized
An overview of DRES connection procedures reveals rele-
vant differences from country to country. Variations include
connection request processes, maximum acceptable limit
definitions, incentives, and cost attribution. Homogeneous rules
could contribute to the development of widely applicable SG
solutions that could pass more easily from research to busi-
ness as usual.
In Spain, Royal Decree (RD) 413/2014 establishes that
generators with a nominal power of 5 MW or higher must
be connected to a control center [transmission system opera-
tor (TSO) or DSO]. The DSO must have access to real-time
measurements for RESs equal to or higher than 1 MW, with
measurement costs borne by the generator. In Greece, all
MV power plants and around 70% of LV ones can provide
remote measurements, but there is not a general requirement
for the DSO to have real-time measurements. Only measure-
ments from large wind farms are linked to the TSO.
In Italy, DSOs have the obligation to connect DG units
with the fit-and-forget approach; this implies that, in some
cases, generators can be connected only after network re­­
inforcements. Active users pay a standard connection fee,
depending on the power and on the straight distance from the
closest line. Generally, generators up to 100 kW are connected
to the LV level and larger plants (usually up to 10 MW) to
the MV level. In Spain there are no standard connection
costs. Each case should be studied and proposed that the
may/june 2017 ieee power & energy magazine 37
generator pay extension costs. For generators lower than
10  kW, there is no payment for access or the ­connection
study (RD 900/2015).
The Italian Electrotechnical Committee (CEI) has released
the CEI 0-16 and CEI 0-21 standards, which define the tech-
nical rules for the connection of active and passive consum-
ers to the HV, MV, and LV electrical public networks. Some
HV rules were extended to wind and PV plants in distribution
networks to avoid disconnection in case of system perturba-
tions (Annex A.70 of the Italian network code). These stan-
dards also specify that the reactive power capabilities to be
provided by each technology (such as static and synchronous)
and the disconnection of DRES plants greater than or equal to
100 kW for system security after a TSO request (reduction of
distributed generation scheme, known as RIGEDI).
In Spain, the obligation of maintaining connection dur-
ing voltage dips only applies to PV and wind plants larger
than 2 MW. In Greece, the obligation applies only beyond
3 MW. Concerning active voltage control, in Spain, plants
larger than 5 MW are must follow the TSO commands, and
the DSO can only propose actions to the TSO. In Greece, nei-
ther the TSO nor the DSO engages in active voltage control.
Dso Services Should be Fairly Compensated
with an Adequate Remuneration
Investment recovery schemes should be adapted to promote
the use of SG solutions. An SG has the potential to provide
a more sustainable, efficient, and secure electricity supply to
customers. However, the purchase, operation, and mainte-
nance of the new components are difficult to justify in cur-
rent regulatory frameworks. The economic analysis shows
that, frequently, the SG solutions proposed to connect addi-
tional renewable generation are less expensive than the tradi-
tional reinforcement of the grid, but DSOs are not stimulated
to take advantage of these solutions. The costs of grid rein-
forcement costs recouped, but, in general, innovative solu-
tions are not covered by existing regulatory frameworks. In
certain countries, and in particular for SG solutions, capital
expenditures are covered, but operational expenditures are
not, yet. Many SG solutions reduce capital expenditures but
increase operational expenditures.
Incentives for information and communication technology
(ICT) deployment are required, and operation and maintenance
costs should be considered in DSO service remuneration.
Telecommunication solutions for some SG implementations
could be very expensive in sparsely populated areas. Regula-
tors should consider incentives to support the development and
 To allow R&D results to become business as usual,
utilities need regulatory changes, but even more importantly
they need stable and predictable regulatory frameworks.
implementation of new SG projects, including software main-
tenance costs for projects in operation.
Dres Should Have Incentives to
Take Part in Network Operation
DRESs sometimes present an intermittent production profile
and thus are treated differently from conventional generation
units. These differences should be reduced progressively. Some
DRESs can offer flexibility through the provision of reactive
power or by combining storage with generation, but the devel-
opment of these capabilities needs to be incentivized. Customers
deciding to produce energy should accept that their equipment
is part of the grid and should assume an active role in the system.
DRESs can be designed to provide certain services to the
grid, including communications interface and control of reac-
tive power injection or consumption. The final responsibility for
securing network operations will remain in the DSO’s hands,
and the same level of reliability must be maintained after any
DRES SG integration.
Roles and Interactions with New Actors
Should Be Clearly Established
DRESs, new devices [i.e., energy storage systems (ESSs)], and
SGs in general will require new forms of collaboration among
all participants, including consumers, retailers, and DSOs.
Regulations should enable those interrelations. For example,
aggregators might act as intermediaries between DSOs and con-
sumers to manage consumption, following the necessities of the
grid. However, the DSO is responsible for ensuring the adequate
operation of the network, and, although it is not directly control-
ling the loads, it is liable for problems that might arise due to the
aggregator’s difficulties to meet its commitments.
We can find a similar case related to ESSs. In the spirit of
opening the electricity market, the European Commission is
proposing a new market model in which third parties provide
flexibility services to grid operators. In this context, DSOs
would not be, in principle, allowed to own ESSs. Who will
be responsible in case of ESS failure or if the service provider
doesn’t have enough capacity to meet its commitments? There
are solutions for every issue, but the responsibilities of every
stakeholder must be clear and suitable mechanisms to guaran-
tee the security of supply must be established.
Other Factors
Regulation is not the only hindrance to the implementing SG
solutions. To make them business as usual, there is work to
do on standards, operational procedures, and costs.
38 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2017
Lack of Standard SG Components
There are many standards for SG performance, often custom-
ized for each solution, and there exists a large and increasing
base of already deployed DRESs. It will require a huge effort
for the DSOs to manage a power system with a wide vari-
ety of old and new devices with different characteristics and
interfaces. Advances in the standardization of components,
consensus among DSOs requesting similar functions, and
interoperability between products will facilitate integrating
various SG technologies.
New Distribution Network Processes,
Experience, and Formation
Active distribution networks, reverse power flows, and mas-
sive DRESs affect network operation processes and require
redesigning current working procedures. Traditional practices
may no longer be effective.
Higher distribution grid observability is needed, and new
equipment, software systems, and advanced applications have
to be integrated into existing elements. Side effects from new
systems and devices can appear.
As technological complexity increases, the skills and
expertise of personnel needed to operate the new distribution
network will be different. Specialized training for personnel
is essential for integrating SG technologies. The success-
ful implementation of an automatic grid recovery system at
Iberdrola was founded on a special training for dispatchers,
which gave them the capacity to disable the system to recover
control if necessary. When people with the necessary skills
and training test the new systems to verify their efficacy, the
transition is smoother.
Cost, Complexity, Scalability, and Replicability
In general, centralized solutions are more expensive and
more effective than stand-alone ones that work independent
from the rest of the grid to solve DRES-related issues. Utili-
ties usually prefer centralized solutions to maintain the con-
trol and observability of the systems, but decisions about the
most complex and expensive systems are not easily made.
The potential of the solution should be clear and the validity
of the approach for other regions and larger scales should not
offer any doubts about the validity of the solutions we are
trying to apply.
Side effects are not always evident. For example, it has been
confirmed that SG solutions sometimes produce an increase
of grid losses (around 1% in our experiments). In the cases
analyzed, a few SG solutions reduced losses (STATCOM with
a configuration for loss re­­duction
as a secondary objective) while
also reducing quality of service

3 PG(t ) Constraints
Constraint

Time
(voltage closer to the limits). Other

Demand
4 PG(t ) Violated

Losses
Time/Distance
SG solutions such as AVRs in­­

Improve the Quality of

Increase the Energy

creased losses by about 10% in

Voltage Profile
Increase the HC
the simulations.

5 PG((tt )

2 PG(t )
1 PG(t )
Sometimes the complexity of a

Generation
ttii n

Efficiency
Generatio
solution is derived from the type

Supply
or number of agents involved. An

Fraud
OLTC or an OPF can be imple- BN 50160
mented by a DSO on its own, with

Format for Exchange

cost as the main impediment. The

Operation Data
automatic reactive regulation of

Harmonized
Development of

DG, however, requires permis-

Cheap Storage

Costs (Infrastructure and Systems)

sions or agreements with produc-

Allow the Proper Allocation of

ers, which complicates large-scale

Among the Agents

Connection Rules
implementation. In general, pri-

Harmonized
oritizing simple but efficient solu-
Curtailment of
tions will accelerate the evolution DRES
toward the new SG and will help
EV-Charging Optimization

convince more traditional deci-

sion makers.
by DSO/TSO

Control of DRES’ Use of Devices for

Strategy
Voltage Control

To encourage smooth progress, the

most feasible controls should be

Replacement Compared to
Assess the Suitability of a
Monitoring (MV and LV)

Smart Grid Solutions

used in the short term to benefit
Voltage and Load

from the most practical approaches

while allowing for further analysis
Reactive Power at Any Time

and regulatory changes. To pro-

Reactive Power

mote and accelerate DRES inte-

Inverters Providing

gration, several actions should be

considered by prosumers (consum-
ers that also produce electricity),
network operators, network plan-
Advanced Planning Including New
Distribution Network
Observability of the

ners, asset managers, and regula-

Operation Concepts and Tools

figure 7. The IGREENGrid strategy for DRES integration.

Remuneration Framework to
Adapt DSO Cost Recovery/
Improve the

tors (Figure 7).

In many cases, the connection
Foster Innovation

of additional generators requires

Nonfirm Connection

network reinforcements, which

Contracts

can be costly and time-consuming.

Two key constraints are the trans-
Customer-DRES

former capacity at a primary sub-

Interface DSO/

station connected to a significant

amount of generation and the cur-
rent or voltage limits on an exist-
ing feeder. In some cases, network
reinforcement is only necessary for
Management
Operation
Prosumer

a short duration (few tens of hours

Planning
Network

Network

Asset
Side

per year), which poses the question

of the meaningfulness of such rein-
forcements. An alternative could
be using nonfirm connection con-
tracts. The DSO would tolerate the

may/june 2017 ieee power & energy magazine 39

 Distribution network operators require more advanced
planning and asset management tools to deal with
challenges in the near future.
connection of the generator as requested, leading to a violation
of its planning rules but keeping the right to curtail the injec-
tion of the generator for a given number of hours per year to
prevent constraints on the distribution network. This allows the
DRESs to connect to the distribution network while minimizing
its connection costs and time. Consumers, prosumers, or genera-
tors connected to the grid could obtain an advantage from this
contractual flexibility.
Other technologies involving consumers or prosumers
are under development. DG units could contribute to volt-
age control by modifying their reactive power following the
DSO’s instructions. Smart-charging flexibility for electric
vehicles can be used to balance supply and demand, reduc-
ing the need for investment in grid reinforcements. Electric
vehicle charging connection can be incentivized or penal-
ized by the market through price signals. Energy storage
solutions can be used to provide power when conditions are
not favorable and to store power when there is a generation
excess. Until now, economic factors and regulatory issues
have hindered the application of these technologies.
A standard, completely interoperable interface between
DSOs and customers will facilitate active demand manage-
ment and DRES participation in grid operation and reli-
ability, promoting its own integration into the system. The
development of this standard and the interoperability should
be promoted as a basis for the transition to SGs.
Harmonized connection rules are urgently needed to
facilitate a massive integration of DRESs. A uniform and
clear regulatory framework for distribution grid connection,
independent of country or utility, will facilitate the process.
DSOs can contribute to this framework by implementing
solutions for voltage control based on the reactive power
control of DRESs and providing the right balance at TSO/
DSO ­connection nodes.
The observability and control of distribution networks
need to be improved for the future. Variable generation
must be predicted and managed by improving the progno-
sis of consumption and DRES production as well as using
sophisticated algorithms to better estimate and control the
status of the grid (state estimators and OPF-based products).
Distribution network operators require more advanced
planning and asset management tools to deal with chal-
lenges in the near future (probabilistic methods, OPF-based
techniques, ICT infrastructure, and flexibility services and
products). Additionally, the cost recovery framework for
DSOs should be modified to foster innovation. Pioneer-
ing initiatives should receive some revenue during their
40 ieee power & energy magazine may/june 2017
progress to enable the widespread connection of DRESs
using SG solutions. When they become routine solutions,
the costs must be allocated among all the agents (DRES
­generators, DSOs, and TSOs) in a fair way.
Many SG solutions will become business as usual as
soon as the regulatory framework allows it. A balance
between new approaches and traditional reinforcement
will be found depending on technical aspects, the residual
lifespan of assets, persistence and urgency of the problem,
complexity of available solutions, and especially costs and
recoupment. The digitalization and cost-effective decar-
bonization of the modern world makes the transition to
SGs critical.
For Further Reading
M. Sebastián-Viana, et al. (2013). IGREENGrid Project [On-
line]. Available: http://www.igreengrid-fp7.eu/
Commission regulation (EU) 2016/631. (2016, Apr.). Es-
tablishing a network code on requirements for grid con-
nection of generators [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex
.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2016_112
_R_0001
A. Keane, L. F. Ochoa, C. L. T. Borges, G. W. Ault, A.
D. Alarcon-Rodriguez, R. A. F. Currie, F. Pilo, C. Dent, and
G. P. Harrison, “State-of-the-art techniques and challenges
ahead for distributed generation planning and optimization,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1493–1502,
May 2013.
G. P. Harrison and A. R. Wallace, “Optimal power flow
evaluation of distribution network capacity for the connec-
tion of distributed generation,” IET Proc. Generat. Transm.
Distrib., vol. 152, no. 1, pp. 115–122, Jan. 2005.
Biographies
Jesús Varela is with Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica S.A.U.,
Spain.
Nikos Hatziargyriou is with the Hellenic Distribution
Network Operator, Greece.
Lisandro J. Puglisi is with Iberdrola Ingeniería S.A.U.,
Spain.
Marco Rossi is with Ricerca Sul Sistema Energetico, Italy.
Andreas Abart is with Netz Oberösterreich GmbH,
Austria.
Benoît Bletterie is with the Austrian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Austria.
p&e