2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), Berlin
Impact of High-Penetration PV
on Distribution Feeders
Rossen Tzartzev, Student Member, IEEE, W. Mack Grady, Fellow, IEEE, Jay Patel
Abstract--This paper predicts the effects that high levels of
photovoltaic penetration will have on the voltage magnitude and
power flow on five actual North American feeders. The studies
are based on EPRI test feeders, and simulations are conducted
using EPRI’s OpenDSS computer simulation program. Results
for the five feeders studied, using PV penetration levels of 50% of
total load, show that the voltage flicker due to shadow movement
will be approximately in the range of 0.5% to 2%.
Index Terms--distributed power generation, photovoltaic,
voltage fluctiations.
I. INTRODUCTION
The EPRI study feeders provide precise real-world
electrical models and hourly load data which, when paired
with an experimentally-derived cloud model, was used to
predict the impact that high-penetration PV will have on the
voltage magnitude and power flow in distribution feeders.
Simulations using a 1-second time step were conducted for a
duration of 15 minutes on five different feeders as the cloud
model described in this paper moved over them.
Variation of PV output due to a moving cloud cover is a
topic that has been studied since the mid 1980’s, with papers
written on the rate of power loss due to impeding cloud cover
[1], the effect it has on the real power flow in and out of the
system [2], as well as the ability of the utility to deal with such
power fluctuations [3].
The study presented in [1], [2], deals with a relatively large
sub-transmission and distribution system of the Public Service
Company of Oklahoma (PSO). The study identifies the
forward and reverse power flow problem caused by cloud
fronts impeding on the photovoltaic generation of the system
and it recognizes, but does not address, the possible problem
of voltage flicker. The effects of PV generation on losses and
bus voltages were examined in [4], [5], with [4] concentrating
on single-bus response to shading and power ramp rates on a
small scale, and [5] describing the steady-state system
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by
DOE and Virginia Tech, DE-EE0002062, Program Manager Ms. Holly
Thomas.
Rossen Tzartzev is with The University of Texas at Austin, USA
(e-mail: tzartzev@utexas.edu).
W. Mack Grady is with The University of Texas at Austin, USA
(e-mail: mack@ieee.org).
Jay Patel is with Kansas City Power & Light, USA
(e-mail: Jay.Patel@kcpl.com).
978-1-4673-2597-4/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE
response of a medium voltage distribution network to different
levels of PV penetration.
A more recent publication, [6], reports the effect that PV
generation loss has on a small theoretical power system by
conducting 1-second time step simulations with all PV
generators swinging together, as if they were all
simultaneously covered by one cloud. The study does not take
into account individual cloud shadows and their effects on the
overall PV generation.
Feeder voltage and power losses due to cloud shading were
studied with longer simulation time steps on European feeders
with precise load modeling in [7], which provided a good
comparison point for our results.
II. CLOUD MODEL
A. Photovoltaic Measurements
Typical measurements of the maximum DC power output
of a photovoltaic panel with cloud shadow movement are
shown in Fig. 1 [8]. These results are the basis for the cloud
model that was used in our simulations. Data for Fig. 1 were
obtained using an I-V curve sweeper with a 5-second spacing
between readings.
160
140
120
Panel DC Watts
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fig. 1. Ten Minute Window of PV Max Power Measurements with Cloud
Shadow Movement..
B. The Cloud Model
From Fig. 1, and many similar observations, we propose
that the repeating pattern of circles in Fig. 2 represent moving
shadows due to clouds. When there is no shadow, the clear sky
maximum power for a given time of the day and panel
orientation, PPVMax, is used. When inside the 50-second
diameter, A, the power output of the panel is one-third of
PPVMax. Finally, when inside the 5-second transition ring (C -
A), a linear variation between PPVMax and one-third of PPVMax is
used.
 2

B. Feeder 2

50 sec

5 sec

C A
2 mins

5 to 7 meters
per second

For cloud shadow speed = 5 m/s, A = 250 meters, C = 300 meters

For cloud shadow speed = 7 m/s, A = 350 meters, C = 420 meters
Fig. 2. Repeating Pattern of the Proposed Moving Cloud Shadow Model.

III. FEEDER DESCRIPTION

Fig. 4. Feeder 2 Layout.
Five actual North American distribution feeders were
constructed and simulated using EPRI’s OpenDSS program C. Feeder 3
[9]. The feeders are shown in Figs. 3-7. The substations and
some of the remote buses used to establish the range of
voltage flicker are indicated with circles. Typical feeder
loadings for a summer day for these five feeders are 6.98 MW,
7.87 MW, 8.04 MW, 4.75 MW, and 4.94 MW, respectively.

A. Feeder 1

Fig. 5. Feeder 3 Layout.

Fig. 3. Feeder 1 Layout.

 3

D. Feeder 4 the simulation, and thus the framework for our simulations was
established.
A. Photovoltaic Panels
Photovoltaic sources with power rating equal to 50% of the
local bus load were connected to every load bus in the
distribution feeder model. It was assumed that the PV
inverters produce no reactive power. The output of each
photovoltaic source was independently varied in accordance to
its location in the moving cloud shadow pattern. In the
simulations it was assumed that the inverter can quickly track
the power swings caused by the changes in solar insolation
[10-12]. With all voltage control devices (i.e. switched
capacitors, transformer tap changers, etc) locked, and with the
load levels in a fixed position, any changes in substation
power flow and bus voltages were due entirely to variations in
PV generation.
B. Simulation Approach
The simulation for each feeder proceeded as shown in Fig.
8, where the cloud pattern approaches in 1-second steps,
eventually covering the entire feeder and establishing an
Fig 6. Feeder 4 Layout.
oscillating pattern of voltage and power swings. A load flow
simulation was performed for each 1-second step using Open
E. Feeder 5 DSS.

Heading angle
shown is 165º

y (north)

x (east)

Fig. 8. Cloud Model Applied to Distribution Feeder.

Fig. 7. Feeder 5 Layout. One 15-minute simulation is performed for East-West cloud
movement and another for North-South cloud movement. For
IV. SIMULATION METHODOLOGY both directions of approach, simulations with 5 m/s and 7 m/s
cloud speeds were performed. The flowchart in Fig. 9
One 15-minute period during an average summer afternoon summarizes the simulation approach.
was selected as the basis of the simulation. Bus load real and
reactive power were locked for the 15-minute period, all
voltage regulating functions were switched off, the capacitor
banks were locked to the state they were at the hour chosen for
 4

Fig. 9. Simulation Approach. The clear boxes are implemented in MATLAB, while the shaded ones represent processes completed with the OpenDSS engine.
 5

V. RESULTS
The results are best presented on a feeder-by-feeder basis.
The substation power from the two scenarios (E-W and N-S) is
observed, as well as the impact on bus voltage magnitudes.
Looking at the substation real power plots (e.g., see Fig. 10),
three distinct areas of the graph become obvious: a flat, steady-
state, region, where the photovoltaic generation is unimpeded
by clouds and is at its maximum; a ramp-up region, in which
the cloud model is slowly covering the feeder, causing
additional power to flow through the substation to make up for
the diminished power output of the photovoltaic generators; Fig. 12. Feeder 1 Substation Real Power Flow for N-S Shadow Movement.
and the oscillation region, which occurs when the cloud front
has completely blanketed the feeder. The voltage magnitude
plot is a mirror image to the power flow graph. The voltage
(e.g., see Fig. 11) starts out at its highest magnitude during full
sun, ramps down as the clouds are beginning to cover the
feeder, and by the time the feeder is blanketed over, an
oscillating pattern develops.
A. Feeders 1, 2, 3 and 5
Feeders 1, 2, 3, and 5 are grouped together because of their
similar behavior in the simulations. Compared to Feeder 4, the
loads on Feeders 1, 2, 3, and 5 are more dispersed, resulting in
smaller voltage flicker being predicted by the simulations. Fig. 13. End-of-Feeder 1 Voltage Flicker for N-S Shadow Movement.
Feeder 1 power flow and voltage magnitude graphs (i.e.,
Figs 10-13) in this section are fairly representative of Feeders B. Feeder 4
2, 3, and 5. Average voltage flicker, ∆V, for Feeders 1, 2, 3, Feeder 4 simulations showed the biggest voltage and power
and 5 is 0.5%, with values ranging from 0.1%, close to the swings from the five feeders studied. The loads on this feeder
substations, to as high as 1% toward the ends of the feeders. are close together and relatively far from the substation, as seen
Results for different cases (E-W vs. N-S) and different wind in Fig. 6, resulting in larger voltage swings than the ones seen
speeds (5 m/s vs. 7 m/s) are comparable. on the other four feeders. Average voltage flicker at Feeder 4 is
0.8%, but it increases to approximately 2% toward the end of
the feeder.

Fig. 10. Feeder 1 Substation Real Power Flow for E-W Shadow Movement.

Fig.14. Feeder 4 Substation Real Power Flow for E-W Shadow Movement.

Fig. 11. End-of-Feeder 1 Voltage Flicker for E-W Shadow Movement.

Fig. 15. End-of-Feeder 4 Voltage Flicker for E-W Shadow Movement.


Fig. 16. Feeder 4 Substation Real Power Flow for N-S Shadow Movement.
Fig. 17. End of Feeder 4 Voltage Flicker for N-S Shadow Movement.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Detailed simulations of five EPRI actual test feeders show
that a feeder having 50% PV penetration (as percentage of
total load) will experience voltage flicker due to cloud
shadows, at the end of the feeder, in the range of 0.5% to 2%.
The flicker level depends on distance from the substation and
geographical compactness of loads and the corresponding PV
sources.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge 1. the financial support
provided by DOE and Virginia Tech, “Field Verification of
High Penetration Levels of PV into the Distribution Grid with
Advanced Power Conditioning Systems,” DE-EE0002062,
Program Manager Ms. Holly Thomas, 2. data and technical
support provided by EPRI, and 3. the technical assistance of
Mr. Melvin Schoech of CenterPoint Energy.
6
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] W. T. Jewell, R. Ramakumar, S. R. Hill, “A study of dispersed pho-
tovoltaic generation on the PSO system,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 473–478, Sep. 1988.
[2] W. T. Jewell, T. D. Unruh, “Limits on cloud-induced fluctuation in
photovoltaic generation,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 8–14, Mar. 1990.
[3] S. M. Chalmers, M. M. Hitt, J. T. Undrill, P. M. Anderson, P. L. Vogt,
R. Ingersoll, "The Effect of Photovoltaic Power Generation on Utility
Operation," IEEE Transactions on PAS, vol. PAS-104, no.3, pp. 524-
530, March 1985.
[4] E. C. Kern, E. M. Gulachenski, G. A. Kern, “Cloud effects on
distributed photovoltaic generation: Slow transients at the Gardner,
Massachusetts photovoltaic experiment,” IEEE Trans. Energy Convers.,
vol.4, no. 2, pp. 184–190, Jun. 1989.
[5] N. Srisaen, A. Sangswang, "Effects of PV Grid-Connected System
Location on a Distribution System," IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on
Circuits and Systems, 2006, APCCAS 2006 , pp. 852-855, Dec. 2006.
[6] Y. T. Tan; D. S. Kirschen, "Impact on the Power System of a Large
Penetration of Photovoltaic Generation," Power Engineering Society
General Meeting, pp. 1-8, June 2007.
[7] M. Thomson, D. G. Infield, "Impact of widespread photovoltaics
generation on distribution systems," IET Renewable Power Generation,
pp. 33-40, March 2007.
[8] W. Mack Grady, Leslie Libby, "A Cloud Shadow Model and Tracker
Suitable for Studying the Impact of High-Penetration PV on Power
Systems," IEEE EnergyTech 2012 Conference, Cleveland, OH, May
2012.
[9] R. Dugan, EPRI OpenDSS Simulator, Electric Power Research Institute,
Knoxville, TN.
[10] S. Chun, A. Kwasinski, "Analysis of Classical Root-Finding Methods
Applied to Digital Maximum Power Point Tracking for Sustainable
Photovoltaic Energy Generation," IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol.26, no.12, pp. 3730-3743, Dec. 2011.
[11] Y. T. Tan, D. S. Kirschen, N. Jenkins, "A model of PV generation
suitable for stability analysis," IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, vol.19, no.4, pp. 748- 755, Dec. 2004.
[12] H. Haeberlin, P. Schaerf, "New Procedure for Measuring Dynamic
MPP-Tracking Efficiency at Grid-Connected PV Inverters", 24th EU
PV Conf., Hamburg, Germany, Sept. 2009.
IX. BIOGRAPHIES
Rossen Tzartzev is a graduate student in the department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering at The University of Texas – Austin. He earned a
BSEE (2003) and a MSEE (2007) from The University of Texas – Austin, and
is currently working towards a PhD. His main area of research interest is
distributed generation and its effects on power systems. Rossen Tzartzev also
works at the Hal C. Weaver Power Plant and is a Registered Professional
Engineer in the state of Texas.
W. Mack Grady is a Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering at
U.T. Austin. He received the BSEE from U.T. Arlington, and the MSEE
and PhD from Purdue. Dr. Grady was named Fellow of IEEE in 2000 "for
contributions to the analysis and control of power system harmonics
and electric power quality." He served as chairman of the IEEE-PES
T&D Committee and is a Registered Professional Engineer in Texas.
Jay Patel graduated with a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering from the
Missouri University of Science and Technology (formerly the University of
Missouri - Rolla) in December of 2004. Since 2006 he has been with KCP&L
where he presently serves as a Transmission Operations Engineer. At
KCP&L, he previously worked as a Distribution Planning Engineer where he
led the Electric Vehicle Impact Study and the Green Circuit Initiative. Prior
to KCP&L, he worked as a Distribution Engineer at OG&E.