IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO.

3, AUGUST 2011

1625

Photovoltaic Generation Penetration Limits in Radial Distribution Systems

Rafael Amaral Shayani, Student Member, IEEE, and Marco Aurlio Gonalves de Oliveira, Senior Member, IEEE
AbstractPhotovoltaic generating units connected to distribution systems represent a type of distributed generation (DG) that has been experiencing increased growth in recent years. Higher DG penetration levels may be interesting from many different points of view, but raise important issues about distribution system operation. Therefore, new techniques are needed to determine the maximum amount of DG that may be installed without requiring major changes in the existing electric power system. According to the literature, voltage rises at load bus bars are a serious limiting factor when installing DG. This paper presents and discusses studies proving that conductor ampacity and voltage rises are limiting factors that manifest themselves under different conditions. The present study highlights situations in which line overloads are more restrictive than voltage rises. Variation in substation voltage, load, and its power factor were simulated in a simplied radial distribution system model, and the amount of distributed generation that may be installed was obtained. Mathematic formulae were developed to determine the amount of distributed generation for existing utility systems. Index TermsDispersed storage and generation, photovoltaic power systems, power distribution, power distribution planning, solar power generation, voltage control.

Steady-state voltage lower limit. Voltage of substation bar. Steady-state voltage upper limit. I. INTRODUCTION HE worldwide market for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems has increased signicantly in the last ten years. By the end of 2008, the number of PV systems installed throughout the world surpassed 13 GW. Of this total, 6% were standalone systems, 33% were grid-connected centralized systems, and 61% were grid-connected distributed generation [1]. In 2008 alone, 5.56 GW of photovoltaic systems were installed, representing an increase of 150% over the previous period [1]. Distributed generation (DG) is the generic name given to a power generation which differs from centralized forms of generation because it takes place in locations where a conventional power plant would not be installed, thus contributing to increase the geographic distribution of power generation in a given region. DG systems are also characterized as: 1) connected directly to a distribution system; 2) connected on the demand side at any given point of the electric system; 3) supplying energy to an electrically isolated installation; or 4) directly connected to the transmission system, provided it is not considered part of the centralized generation [2]. There are several policy drivers encouraging DG, such as gas emission reductions, energy efciency, diversication of energy sources, availability of modular generating plants, ease of nding sites for smaller generators, and shorter construction times and lower capital costs of smaller plants [3]. However, the rapid growth of photovoltaic distributed generation (PVDG) has raised concerns in the electrical sector. One example is the lack of storage capacity in grid connected PV systems. In this case, PV power is not as easily dispatched as other conventional sources (e.g., hydro or thermal plants), for the output power depends on the solar irradiance. The installation of PV systems in thousands of residential rooftops raises additional concerns, since it signicantly increases the quantity of DG interacting with the grid. The need for greater supervision and control by the system operator also becomes mandatory, representing a major technical obstacle to DG large-scale deployment. For large-scale PVDG applications, the effect on distribution system voltages is certainly amongst the issues which should be studied in more depth, to provide methods for evaluating the maximum or optimal penetration level [4]. One way of controlling DG production is based on the Smart Grid concept. A fast and reliable communications system must be installed throughout the entire feeder, interacting with DG units in order to enable the centralized control of the entire

NOMENCLATURE Distributed generation. Power factor. Active power in the line (positive when owing from substation towards the load). Active power of load. Active power of PVDG. Photovoltaic distributed generation. Reactive power in the line. Reactive power of load. Reactive power of PVDG. Apparent power of load. Voltage of load bus.
Manuscript received May 27, 2010; revised August 03, 2010; accepted September 07, 2010. Date of publication October 07, 2010; date of current version July 22, 2011. This work was supported in part by CAPESCoordenao de Aperfeioamento de Pessoal de Nvel Superior, Brazil. Paper no. TPWRS-00419-2010. The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Braslia, Braslia, DF, Brazil (e-mail: shayani@ene.unb.br; mago@ene.unb.br). Color versions of one or more of the gures in this paper are available online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2077656

0885-8950/$26.00 2010 IEEE

1626

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, AUGUST 2011

system. However, PVDG dispatch techniques need to be clearly dened, so that they may be applied when Smart Grid becomes fully operational. Planning studies must take high PVDG penetration levels into consideration, so that impacts on the distribution network may be analyzed and control techniques dened. The present paper outlines a theoretical framework regarding PVDG penetration limits in radial distribution systems, focusing on voltage rises and conductor ampacity. It presents and discusses studies proving that conductor ampacity and voltage rises are limiting factors that manifest themselves under different conditions. Simulations were carried out on a generic two-bus distribution system model and the maximum amount of PVDG that may be accommodated considering each of the criteria was determined. Depending on the load and the power factor (PF), the substation voltage was adjusted in order to analyze the impact on the amount of PVDG. Lastly, some concluding remarks are made regarding situations in which certain criteria are more restrictive. II. DISTRIBUTED GENERATION PENETRATION CONSTRAINT FACTORS A consensus is yet to be reached regarding DG penetration limits in distribution systems. Various limits are found in the bibliography, ranging from 5% to up to 100% of the load [7], [8]. The reverse ow of power from load bus bars to the substation provokes an impact on the feeder voltage prole, increasing bus voltages [5][15]. This is usually pointed out as a major concern regarding DG penetration. However, another important aspect must be considered in determining the PVDG penetration in a distribution feeder: the actual line and transformer current carrying capacity [5], [6]. IEEE Std. 1547-2003 IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power Systems establishes criteria and requirements for some relevant aspects, such as the DG shall not cause the voltage to go outside steady-state limits. However, this standard does not dene the maximum DG capacity that may be interconnected to a single point of common coupling or connected to a given feeder [9]. It is considered that two basic steady-state operation criteria must always be met, regardless of whether generation is centralized or distributed: 1) voltage must remain within certain limits, typically between 0.95 and 1.05 pu; and 2) lines and transformers must not be submitted to overloads. When these criteria are met, it is possible to determine the amount of PVDG that may be injected into a distribution system. A. PVDG Penetration Limits From a Voltage Rise Perspective PVDG penetration must consider admissible voltage limits, which depends, among other factors, on line impedance [7]. Due to voltage regulators (e.g., transformer on-load tap changer), the voltage at the substation is kept constant; thus, the opposite ow of power from the load bus bars towards the substation provokes the voltage to rise along the feeder. The limit to the PVDG power injection is identied when the upper voltage limit is attained. The voltage rise in the low voltage circuits (i.e., secondary of transformers) can also be signicant, and should be included in the analyses [11], [15]. One way of limiting voltage rises is by reducing the power injected by PVDG when voltage reaches the upper limit. However, this option would require measures to compensate losses

in customers revenue, since the generation installed at the end of the line would have higher power limitations than those connected nearer to the substation [5]. Voltage may also be reduced by controlling the reactive power. The PVDG power factor may be controlled by the power electronic devices of the converter, regulating voltage while active power is being supplied. However, in certain situations, losses in the network may be high [5]. On the other hand, with greater DG penetration, PVDG systems may prove to be an interesting voltage regulation tool, acting in cooperation with other more usual means (e.g., voltage regulators, shunt capacitors, and transformer on-load tap changers). A large portion of PVDG generation may actively participate in voltage control by adjusting active and reactive power production [12]. The existence of a communications system interconnecting customers and utility may help to control voltage in worst-case scenarios [15]. There are several ways to increase PVDG penetration in distribution systems from a voltage rise perspective [5]. For example, one way of accommodating more DG is to reduce the series impedance of the line. To do this, it is necessary to reinforce the feeder, either by increasing the number of conductors per phase or by substituting the conductors with others of greater cross-sections. This solution reduces voltage drops and losses, but the associated cost is quite prohibitive. Besides, this increases short circuit currents, affecting protection devices and the interruption capacity of circuit breakers accordingly [8]. The modication of steady-state voltage limits also affects DG penetration limits in distribution systems. The concern related to voltage rises is aggravated when generation is located near the end of the line, since the impedance seen from the DG to the substation is greater. The amount of PVDG that may be installed in a feeder is not an absolute number, since it depends on the location of sources along the line sections [5]. B. PVDG Penetration Limits From a Conductor Ampacity Perspective Power injected by the DG must not surpass the current conduction capacity of lines and transformers. Feeders supplying consumer units should not have their cross-sections reduced, as prescribed by technical norms that consider the coincidence factor, to avoid restrictions to the DG power injection capacity [5]. Generally, the dimensioning of low-voltage lines uses a coincidence factor, since the load individual maximum demands do not occur at the same time. However, the coincidence factor for PVDG generation is much greater, since an entire distribution feeder may be exposed to the same irradiance, therefore enabling all PVDG systems to reach maximum output power simultaneously. This may limit PVDG penetration, and some authors state that the installed peak capacity must be lower than the coincident load [6]. III. PVDG PENETRATION LIMITS Simulations were carried out to determine the maximum amount of PVDG that may be installed in a distribution system, considering both voltage rise and line capacity criteria. Several congurations were analyzed, with regard to substation voltage and different load conditions. The simulations were performed in Matlab with the power ow program MatPower [16].

SHAYANI AND DE OLIVEIRA: PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION PENETRATION LIMITS IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

1627

Fig. 1. Simplied distribution system model for simulations.

A generic 13.8-kV, triphase, symmetric, balanced radial line is considered, comprised of an aluminum conductor with , , cross section 4/0 AWG ( ). The substation that supplies energy to this line is modeled as an innite bus. The line is 2.85 km long; this length was dened in order to allow a 5% voltage drop under rated conditions. The active power at the load bus , corresponds to that which is consumed by the load produced by the PVDG , and supplied through the line . In order to simplify load ow calculations, the entire load is concentrated at the end of the line and step-down transformers are not represented (Fig. 1). Besides, the following assumptions have been made: 1) line is modeled only by its series impedance. Shunt capacitances may be neglected, since the line is short; 2) the line may be loaded up to its rated capacity; 3) the substation voltage is taken as reference and is kept constant, since there normally exist voltage regulators, such as on-load tap changer; 4) no capacitor banks nor any other voltage control devices are used throughout the line; 5) PV generation is modeled as a constant power injection [10], [15]; 6) the load is modeled as constant power; 7) PV systems operate with a unity power factor, i.e., they generate only active power, in order to represent the typical situation of products readily available on the market; and 8) the steady-state lower and upper voltage limits are and , respectively.

Fig. 2. Voltage at the load bus and line current as a function of load.

at rated

A. Rated Load Initially, the rated load conguration is considered, dimensioned so as to use the entire conductor capacity. Since a single 4/0 AWG aluminum conductor feeder supports 314 A in steadystate operation, the maximum power conducted is 7.5 MVA. This value is adopted as the power base for per unit (pu) calculations. Considering a 0.92 lagging power factor, the reference for the Brazilian electric power system, the load is modeled with and . With the voltage at the substation xed at , the voltage at the load bus is , considering rated load and null PVDG production. The amount of PVDG is then incremented in the load bus. Since the PV system injects only active power, the active component of the load is thus supplied

locally, and the surplus is injected into the grid. The PVDG generation is increased until the upper voltage limit is reached (i.e., ) at the load bus (Fig. 2). In the base case, without PVDG, the load consumes and . By increasing the amount of PVDG until it supplies all the active power of the load (i.e., ), the voltage at the load bus rises to . In this situation, the voltage at the load bus is lower than that at the substation , since the reactive power of the load continues to be supplied through the line. As only reactive power ows through the line, the substation is supplying the equivalent to a load with a null power factor (not considering the active losses in the line). It thus becomes clear that the amount of PVDG may be greater than the maximum value of the load, for no limit was reached yet. By further increasing the amount of PVDG, it may be observed that the upper limit of the voltage at the load bus (i.e., ) is reached for (i.e., and ) owing from the load bus towards the substation. In this situation, the amount of PVDG corresponds to 160% of the load active power, but the current at the line represents only 64.6% of its rated capacity. The amount of PVDG was limited by the voltage rise, since the line would be capable of conducting more power towards the substation. However, the load could be damaged with steady-state voltage above the limit. B. Effects of Changing the Substation Voltage Since previous simulations demonstrated that the rst limit reached is at the load bus, one way of increasing the amount of PVDG is to reduce the voltage at the substation (i.e., reference bus). However, the voltage at the substation must ensure the load is always supplied within the adequate voltage limits. In this regard, six base cases were developed, each corresponding to a different voltage value at the substation, ranging from 1.050 pu to 1.000 pu. Then, based on each base case (i.e., without PVDG), simulations were carried out increasing the power injected by PVDG until the upper voltage limit is reached

1628

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, AUGUST 2011

TABLE I PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT CONSIDERING THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT CRITERION (VALUES IN pu)

TABLE II PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT CONSIDERING BOTH THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT AND THE CONDUCTOR AMPACITY CRITERIA (VALUES IN pu)

TABLE III PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT AS A FUNCTION OF THE LOAD CONDITION CONSIDERING THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT CRITERION (VALUES IN pu)

Fig. 3. Voltage at the load bus and line current as a function of load.

at rated

at the load bus (Table I). Although Table I includes line currents, this criterion was not considered in the analysis. Shaded cells in Table I indicate the limiting criterion, where the interactive process of increasing PVDG production is stopped . The simulations showed that with , up to 1.81 pu of PVDG may be installed at the feeder. This represents an increase of 22% in PVDG over the amount in the previous case, with only a 0.010 pu reduction in the voltage at the substation. For lower values of , greater amounts of PVDG could be injected, without surpassing the upper limit of the voltage at the load bus. However, for values lower than 1.038 pu, the current in the line surpasses its rated value, characterizing an overload at conductors. Fig. 3 presents the variation in the modules of voltage and of line current as a function of , for . It may be noted that, considering only the voltage limit, the current reaches 221% of the conductor ampacity. Restricted by both criteria (i.e., voltage rise and conductor ampacity), a of is obtained, as opposed to . With this result, a second set of simulations was carried out, based on the same base cases. The amount of PVDG was increased until either the upper voltage or the line current limit was reached (Table II). Shaded cells in Table II indicate which criterion was rst reached in each case. Negative values indicate that power ows from the load bus towards the substation. For substation voltages ranging between 1.030 pu and 1.000 pu, it may be noted that the amount of active power injected in the system is approximately equal to the amount consumed

by the load . In fact, when is twice , the apparent power owing through the line is the same as in the base case (with null PVDG), and thus, there is no line overload. However, voltage rises more slowly when the active and reactive power ow in opposite directions, since the voltage rise caused by the active component of the current owing towards the substation is partially offset by the voltage drop caused by the reactive component owing towards the load. C. Effects of the Load Condition In the following simulations, the substation voltage was set to , since it allows larger amounts of PVDG . This value provides a better regulation, than allowing the voltage to drop during heavy load (0.95 pu), and to rise during high PVDG generation periods (1.05 pu). This symmetric regulation provides a better assessment of the behavior of the voltage and current as a function of the amount of PVDG. Maintaining the reference bus voltage at and , ten new cases were set up, in order to considering assess how the amount of load affects the voltage at the load bus and, consequently, inuences the PVDG penetration limit. Simulations were carried out for load conditions varying from 100% to 10% of the rated value, covering light, medium, and heavy load conditions (Table III). Shaded cells in Table III indicate the limiting criterion, where the interactive process of increasing PVDG production is stopped . As the load is reduced in the situation with no PVDG generation, lower currents ow through the line, with lower voltage drops, which bring the voltage at the load bus closer to its upper limit. For example, at rated load, the voltage is , and at 10% of the rated load, the voltage is .

SHAYANI AND DE OLIVEIRA: PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION PENETRATION LIMITS IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

1629

TABLE IV PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT AS A FUNCTION OF THE LOAD CONDITION CONSIDERING BOTH THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT AND THE CONDUCTOR AMPACITY CRITERIA (VALUES IN pu)

TABLE VI PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT AS A FUNCTION OF THE LOAD POWER FACTOR CONSIDERING BOTH THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT AND CONDUCTOR AMPACITY CRITERIA (VALUES IN pu)

TABLE V PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT AS A FUNCTION OF THE LOAD POWER FACTOR CONSIDERING THE UPPER VOLTAGE LIMIT CRITERION (VALUES IN pu)

Therefore, in this last situation, even a small amount of power owing from the load bus towards the substation makes the voltage to rapidly reach the upper limit. However, it may be noted that for all load conditions, the conductor ampacity is surpassed, prohibiting the installation of the PVDG amount that would be allowed solely by the voltage rise criterion. Thus, the current conduction capacity criterion must necessarily be analyzed (Table IV). Shaded cells in Table IV indicate the limiting criterion, where the interactive process of increasing PVDG production is stopped . With the amount of PVDG restricted by the conductor ampacity, it may be noted that the PVDG system to be installed will have the capacity to supply the load locally, and also to export the surplus by using the available current carrying capacity of the line during lower than rated load periods. With the reduction in load, the amount of PVDG is also reduced, but with the guarantee that at least may be installed, even in an extreme no-load situation. D. Effects of the Load Power Factor In order to assess the inuence of the load power factor, a new set of ten base cases was simulated considering rated load with lagging power factor varying from 1.0 to 0.1. Simulations were carried out and the amount of PVDG was determined considering both the voltage rise (Table V) and the conductor ampacity (Table VI) criteria. If one considers only the voltage rise criterion (Table V), the amount of PVDG that increases the voltage at the load bus up

provoked the line overload in to the limit all situations simulated. Lower power factors allowed greater values, since the reactive current always ows from the substation towards the load, provoking a voltage drop in the line. This voltage drop partially offsets the voltage rise caused by the active current, which in these situations ows from the load , towards the substation. For example, at , while at , . If the amount of PVDG that does not surpass the conductor ampacity is considered (Table VI), it may be perceived that is approximately twice , for power factors varying between 1.0 and 0.5. This results from the fact that the same amount of current that ows in the line towards the load may also ow towards the substation, when the load is locally supplied by the PVDG. For very low power factors (less than 0.5), the amount of active power becomes too small to affect the line current. For example, with a (Table VI), the line is already overloaded in the base case and the amount of active power injected by the PVDG is too small to reduce it to rated current. However, these situations are not relevant, since the power factor of loads is usually greater than or corrected to values above 0.8. IV. RULES OF THUMB TO DETERMINE THE PENETRATION LIMIT OF PVDG The simulations carried out allow practical rules to be obtained that may be applied when load ow planning studies are used to determine the maximum amount of PVDG that may be injected in distribution systems. Table VII presents a summary for the studied cases. A. Conductor Ampacity From the simulations where PVDG penetration was limited by conductor ampacity, a mathematical formula can be obtained, allowing to determine the amount of PVDG that can be installed without provoking line overloads. The amount of PVDG must be sufcient to supply active power to the load, export an equal quantity to the system, and also compensate for any differences at the line if the consumed load is below the rated value (1): (1)

1630

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, AUGUST 2011

TABLE VII SUMMARY FOR PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT

tribution feeder without resorting to computer simulations. For distribution system planning studies, the use of an equation is easier and more practical than simulations. Moreover, as was shown, it presents results with comparable accuracy. A nontrivial conclusion obtained from (1) and Table VIII is the possibility of installing PVDG with capacity greater than 1.0 pu, a fact that was not registered in the bibliography consulted in this study. With rated load and unity power factor, up to 2.0 pu of PVDG may be installed without exceeding conductor ampacity, provided that the voltage at the load bus does not surpass the upper limit. This situation can be handled by a rule of thumb presented below. B. Voltage Rise The simulations showed that the upper voltage limit was restrictive only for substation voltage (Table II). With (Tables IV and VI), the conductor ampacity limit proved to be more restrictive than the voltage rise limit at the load bus, regardless of the load condition or its power factor. Consider as an example the situation of rated load and unity PF. , maximum current ows from the substation toWhen wards the load bus, provoking a voltage drop in the line. When PV generation is at its maximum , the current is also at a maximum, but ows from the load bus towards the substation. In this case, the voltage drop was , and the voltage rise was . Assuming the same current amplitude, same line parameters, and same voltage at substation , the voltage drop for null PVDG and the voltage rise for maximum PVDG have approximately the same value (i.e., the voltage drop is slightly higher than the voltage rise): (2) It thus may be concluded that the same range of values allowed for voltage drops (i.e., with null PVDG) needs to be available for voltage rises (i.e., with maximum PVDG). As a rule of thumb, if the voltage at the substation is adjusted to a value and the lower halfway between the upper voltage limits, the voltage rise criterion will not be reached before the conductor ampacity criterion. Therefore, an adequate value for the voltage at the substation would be (3) From the simulations, the voltage drop and voltage rise were determined for several different conditions (Table IX). Results and are approximately equal, conrm that with the voltage drop slightly higher than the voltage rise. The values are not exactly the same because the load was modeled as constant power, and thus, the current varied with the voltage at the load bus. From Table VIII, one can see that the voltage rise is for rated load and . In order not to reach the voltage criteria, it is necessary that the voltage at the substation be . For all other conditions, it can be noted that all voltage rises are lower than the voltage drops, indicating that could be even greater than 1.000 pu [i.e., as would be calculated by (3)].

TABLE VIII VALUES: COMPARISON BETWEEN 1) SIMULATIONS AND 2) EQUATION (1) (VALUES IN PU)

where power of the load, in pu. A comparison between the values obtained with simulations and those calculated by (1) indicates that the error is less than 3% for the main cases (Table VIII). This error is caused by different load models adopted in simulations (i.e., constant power) and in (1) (i.e., constant current). PF values less than 0.5 are not shown because the corresponding active power is too small to affect the system. With the help of this mathematical formula, one can determine the amount of PVDG that can be installed in a radial dis-

SHAYANI AND DE OLIVEIRA: PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION PENETRATION LIMITS IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

1631

TABLE IX VOLTAGE DROP AND VOLTAGE RISE COMPARISON (VALUES IN pu)

V. CONCLUSIONS The installation of large amounts of PVDG provokes impacts when installed in existing utility systems. When distributed generation is greater than the load and the surplus power is injected in the feeder, a voltage rise takes place at the load bus, with a possible overload at the feeder. It was determined in this study that when voltage at the substation is adjusted to a maximum value (1.05 pu), the voltage rise criterion tends to be the most restrictive in limiting the amount of PVDG that may be installed. By reducing the voltage at the substation to a value halfway between the upper and lower limits of the proper voltage (in this case 1.00 pu), the voltage rise is no longer a limiting factor, and the limit is then imposed by the conductor ampacity. Through computational simulations, it was proven that it is possible to install PVDG values between 1.00 pu and 2.00 pu (of rated load) and maintain adequate voltage and current conditions in the utility system, provided that the voltage at the substation is inductive. adjusted to 1.00 pu and the load have a Two useful equations were obtained allowing to determine the amount of PVDG a radial feeder can accommodate without resorting to computer simulations. REFERENCES
[1] Photovoltaic power systems programme, Trends in Photovoltaic ApplicationsSurvey Report of Selected IEA Countries Between 1992 and 2008, International Energy Agency, 2009, IEA-PVPS T1-18:2009. [2] M. M. Severino, Avaliao Tcnico-Econmica de um Sistema Hbrido de Gerao Distribuda Para Atendimento a Comunidades Isoladas da Amaznia, PPGENE.TD 027/08, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ. Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, 2008. [3] N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, D. Kirschen, and G. Strbac, Embedded Generation, Power and Energy Series 31. London, U.K.: Inst. Elect. Eng., 2000. [4] PVUPSCALEPV in Urban PoliciesStrategic and Comprehensive Approach for Long-Term Expansion, WP4Deliverable 4.1: State-ofthe-Art on Dispersed PV Power Generation: Publications Review on the Impacts of PV Distributed Generation and Electricity Networks, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.pvupscale.org. [5] PVUPSCALEPV in Urban PoliciesStrategic and Comprehensive Approach for Long-Term Expansion. WP4Deliverable 4.4: Recommendations for Utilities, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.pvupscale.org. [6] J. Bebic, Power System Planning: Emerging Practices Suitable for Evaluating the Impact of High-Penetration Photovoltaics, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/rsi.html.

[7] PVUPSCALEPV in Urban PoliciesStrategic and Comprehensive Approach for Long-Term Expansion, WP4Deliverable 4.2: Utilities Experience and Perception of PV Distributed Generation, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.pvupscale.org. [8] C. Whitaker, J. Newmiller, M. Ropp, and B. Norris, Renewable Systems Interconnection Study: Distributed Photovoltaic Systems Design and Technology Requirements, Sandia Rep. SAND2008-0946 P, Sandia National Laboratories,, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/rsi.html. [9] IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources With Electric Power Systems, IEEE Std. 1547-2003, Jul. 2003. [10] T. Ortmeyer, R. Dugan, D. Crudele, T. Key, and P. Barker, Renewable Systems Interconnection Study: Utility Models, Analysis, and Simulation Tools, Sandia Rep. SAND2008-0945 P, Sandia National Laboratories, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/ solar_america/rsi.html. [11] R. Tonkoski and L. Lopes, Voltage regulation in radial distribution feeders with high penetration of photovoltaic, in Proc. IEEE Energy 2030, Atlanta, GA, 2008. [12] M. Mcgranaghan, T. Ortmeyer, D. Crudele, T. Key, J. Smith, and P. Barker, Renewable Systems Interconnecyion Study: Advanced Grid Planning and Operations Sandia Rep. SAND2008-0944 P, Sandia National Laboratories, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/rsi.html. [13] IEEE Recommended Practice for Utility Interface of Photovoltaic (PV) Systems, IEEE Std. 929-2000, Jan. 2000. [14] Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme, Overcoming PV Grid Issues in the Urban Areas, International Energy Agency, 2009, IEA-PVPS T10-06-2009, IEA PVPS Task 10, Activity 3.3. [15] E. Liu and J. Bebic, Distribution System Voltage Performance Analysis for High-Penetration Photovoltaics, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/ solar_america/rsi.html. [16] R. Zimmerman and C. Murillo-Snchez, MATPOWER-A MATLAB Power System Simulation PackageUsers Manual. Version 3.2, 2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower. Rafael Anaral Shayani (S06) was born in So Paulo, Brazil, on March 25, 1976. He received the Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from the Polytechnical School of the University of So Paulo, So Paulo, Brazil, in 1998 and the M.Sc. degree from the University of Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, in 2006. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the University of Braslia, doing research in photovoltaic solar energy. His professional experience includes the University of Braslia, where he teaches a course on energy conversion, the Centro de Gesto e Estudos Estratgicos, where he works as a consultant in the Prospective Study on Photovoltaic Energy, and Johnson Controls, where he supervised electric power and air conditioning systems. His areas of interest include renewable energy sources, power quality, and energy efciency. Mr. Shayani received an award at the 8th Brazilian Energy Congress in 1999, presenting a comparison on overall costs between energy production from hydroelectric power plants and from natural gas plants.

Marco Aurlio Gonalves de Oliveira (M91SM98) was born on December 20, 1958, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He received the Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Braslia, Braslia, Brazil, in 1982 and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Paris, Paris, France, in 1989 and 1994, respectively. From 1982 to 1988, he was with the Operation Division of Eletronorte (Brazil) where he was involved with load ow, stability, and electromagnetic transient studies. He joined the University of Brasilia in 1994, where he was the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering from 2006 to 2010. His research interests include power electronics, power quality, renewables, and energy efciency. He has published over 50 papers in those elds. Dr. de Oliveira was Chair of the IEEE Brasilia Section and IEEE Brazil Council.