CIRED

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

Turin, 6-9 June 2005

BENEFITS OF ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION NETWORK IN THE UK

Sbastien GRENARD Danny PUDJIANTO
Goran STRBAC
The University of Manchester - UK
S.Grenard@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk; Danny.Pudjianto@manchester.ac.uk; G.Strbac@manchester.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION
The UK Government is working towards ambitious targets on
renewable generation and CHP. Depending on the load
factor assumed, this will require the installation of significant
generation capacity, in the order of 10 GW by 2010.
Significant proportion of this generation is expected to be
connected to distribution networks (i.e. at voltages of 132 kV
and below). However, under the present conditions the
owners and operators of the distribution networks, the
Distribution System Operators (DSOs) anticipate that they
can integrate only a much more limited capacity of
distributed generation (DG) without a major reinforcement.
Recently, significant amount of work was carried out to
analyse and demonstrate the benefits that can be derived
from changing the operation philosophy of distribution
networks from passive to active. The emphasis was on the
design of control strategies of active distribution systems that
would enhance the ability of the existing networks to
accommodate additional distributed generation, and reduce
the demand for reinforcements. Hence there is a need to
understand the impact of various active management control
strategies on the overall operation and investment
performance of the entire distribution network. This kind of
analysis will be essential for DSOs in order to take the most
cost effective strategic decisions to optimally integrate DG in
their networks.

direction of these network power flows. Even if there may be

a multitude of technical considerations associated with the
connection of increased levels of DG, the main technical
barriers are [1]:

Voltage management and thermal rating issues in

rural networks

System fault level issues in urban networks

In line with these technical constraints, we consider the
reinforcement costs associated with the upgrade costs of
network circuits and substations, and the replacement cost of
switchboards.
The impact of voltage rise effect on the maximum DG
capacity that can be connected to a distribution system is
illustrated using a simple 11kV network below. The network
is composed of two feeders, one with DG and load and the
other one with a single load lumped at the end. The 11 kV
network is supplied from 33/11kV on load tap changing
transformers (OLTC) as shown in Figure 1.
V
OLTC

R1+jX1

PL1 QL1

V1

PG
QG

33kV

R2+jX2

11kV

V2

This paper presents a methodology for quantifying the value

of various active distribution network management for
various DG development scenarios, in the context of the UK
distribution system. First the main network issues related to
the connection of DG are discussed, and how they could be
resolved by using active management. Indicative results
quantifying the benefits of active management in the entire
UK distribution network are then presented.
NETWORK
ISSUES
PENETRATION OF DG

RAISED

BY

LARGE

Distribution networks are currently designed primarily to take

the bulk energy from the transmission network and distribute
it to various demand customers. As such they are intended to
deal with unidirectional power flow from high voltage levels
down to lower voltage levels. However, when distributed
generation connects to the network, the power flow becomes
more complex leading to different technical constraints.
Whilst some network issues related to the introduction of DG
are not dependant on the direction of the power flow, other
network difficulties are triggered by the magnitude and
CIRED2005
Session No 4

PL2, QL2

Figure 1 11kV distribution network module

In the case presented in Figure 1, the voltages at busbar 1 (V1)
and busbar 2 (V2) can be approximately calculated in the per
unit system as follows:
V1V+R1(PG-PL1)+X1(QG-QL1)

(1)

V2V- R2PL2-X2QL2

(2)

The size of generation that can be accommodated ( PGmax )

without reinforcing the network and assuming operation under
unity power factor (QG-QL1=0), is thus limited by the
maximum voltage V1max , as shown below in per unit:
PGmax

V 1max V
R1

(3)

If a generation capacity larger than PGmax requires a

connection, the basic solution chosen under passive
management to overcome voltage rise and thermal constraints

CIRED

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

is to upgrade the existing circuit in order to decrease its

impedance. This approach is based on the assumption that no
actions can be taken to control the voltage rise. This is known
as passive distribution network management philosophy,
sometimes called fit and forget (F&F) philosophy.
Similarly, in urban systems, connecting generation will
increase the fault level and this may trigger reinforcement of
circuit breakers. However, an increased amount of DG could
be connected at lower cost if the approach to network
operation was changed from passive to active management. In
the UK this shift in operation philosophy will be encouraged
by the implementation of the commercial framework in the
2005-2010 distribution price control review [2], through the
IFI (Innovation Funding Incentive) and RPZ (Registered
Power Zones). Under these novel regulatory schemes, the
use of novel approaches is being encouraged, and this will
include the development of cost-effective solutions for
connecting distributed generators.

Managing the voltage rise effect by generation curtailment

If the expected amount of energy curtailment is relatively low,
it may be beneficial to curtail generation instead of upgrading
the distribution feeder whenever voltage V1 would rise above
the statutory limit V1max .
Managing the voltage rise effect by reactive compensation
Absorbing reactive power during the condition of high
generation output and low demand can be beneficial in
reducing voltage rise, as discussed in [3].
Managing the voltage rise effect using coordinated voltage
rise control. Control of voltage V1 and V2 by regulating
voltage V, using the OLTC, can considerably increase the
capacity of distributed generation that can be installed without
triggering reinforcement costs.
Optimisation of various voltage control related active
management strategic decisions
The optimisation task when applying voltage management in
this study is to minimise the cost of generation curtailment in
order to mitigate voltage and thermal violation limits for each
hourly individual settlement period independently as stated
mathematically in equations (6) to (12). However if the
annual energy curtailed for any DG is more than 0.5% of the
expected energy delivered then the decision is to reinforce the
corresponding feeder, in order to decrease the amount of
energy curtailed as explained in the flowchart of Figure 2.

cur , V
PGi

CIRED2005
Session No 4

i =1

NBus

inj
ij

(V , ) = 0

(7)

(V , ) = 0

(8)

( Pijinj (V , )) 2 + (Q ijinj (V , )) 2 S ijmax

(9)

PGisch PGicur PLi

j =1
j i

sch
cur
Q Gi
Q Gi
Q Li

NBus

inj
ij

j =1
j i

V i min V i V i max
PGimin
min
Q Gi

PGisch
sch
Q Gi

i = 1.. Nbus

PGicur
cur
Q Gi

(10)
PGimax
max
Q Gi

(11)
(12)

Where
P Li , Q Li : Active and reactive load at node i, at time t

node i, at time t.

Area voltage and flow control achieved by means of a

coordinated voltage control and/or by dispatching/curtailing
distributed generation output are used in this model to
overcome voltage rise and thermal problems [3].

Ng

Subject to:

cur
cur : Active and reactive generation curtailment at
PGi
, Q Gi

ACTIVE MANAGEMENT

cur
Minimise = ep i PGi

Turin, 6-9 June 2005

(6)

sch
: Maximum active and reactive generation of the
PGisch , Q Gi

DG at node i, at time t.
Pijinj , Qijinj

: Active and reactive power flow from node i to bus

j, at time t
epi : Price of generation curtailment for generator i at time t.
V : Voltage at the substation low voltage busbar at time t.
Vi : Voltage at node i, at time t.
S ijmax : Maximum load flow in branch ij.

Vi min , Vi max : Statutory voltage limits at node i.

The non-linear problem formulated above is linearised and
solved using linear programming method. The objective
function (6) is to minimise the total cost of generation
curtailment. Nodal power balance equations are represented
by equations (7) and (8). The optimisation is carried out
taking into account circuit thermal constraint (9) and network
voltage limits (10). The maximum amount of active and
reactive generation curtailed will be limited by the capacity of
DG connected (11 and 12). The model allows the reactive
power output to be dependent or independent from the active
power output.
Fault level management
In urban systems, the increasing fault levels rendered by DG
may trigger requirement to reinforce protection scheme. The
cost of this reinforcement could be significant since it requires
the installation of costly switchgears with high rupturing
capacities that may impact the feasibility of DG projects. A
balance must therefore be struck between the benefits of
connecting increased capacity of DG and the cost of
necessary switchgear reinforcements, in case of passive
management philosophy. Alternatively, it may be beneficial to
reduce the fault level by using other measures, such as
application of fault current limiters or reconfiguring busbar
arrangements to reduce the fault level. The method used in

CIRED

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

this study is to split substations busbars [4]. In Figure 1, fault

level management would use the 11kV bus section circuit
breaker. By splitting the network in this way, the impedance
between the 33kV and 11kV systems doubles, reducing the
fault current coming from the upper voltage levels.

Turin, 6-9 June 2005

distribution network. Once the generation and demand are

mapped into the generic distribution network- the net active
and reactive power flows for each hour of the year in each
circuit and each transformer of the GSP model can be
calculated.
400kV or
275kV

Start

132kV

For t=1 to 8760

33kV

Calculation of
flows, and voltages

11k
11kV

Optimisation of OLTC and

DG curtailed

0.4kV

Load

0.4kV

Figure 3 Generic distribution network model

For all DGs: is

8760

curt
PGi (t ) <0.5% of
energy delivered by DGi?
t =1

No

Reinforce
corresponding
feeders

For fault level studies, the model assumes that all machines
symmetrical fault contribution is equivalent to five times the
rating of the generator. Moreover, contribution to the lower
voltage levels from DG connected at higher voltage levels is
not considered on the basis that it would be significantly
lower due to the relatively high impedances of transformers at
the lower voltage levels.

Yes
End

Figure 2 Problem flowchart

BENEFITS OF ACTIVE MANAGEMENT IN UKs
DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
The assessment of the reinforcement costs associated with the
connection of DG in the UK distribution networks requires
the development of a generic distribution system that captures
a variety of features of the distribution network in the UK.
Representative distribution model
The basic topology and design philosophy of the distribution
network in the UK is similar in each company area. This
enables therefore the adoption of a common modelling
approach, on a Grid Supply Point (GSP) basis, as described in
Figure 3.
Radial representative distribution modules are developed to
model different voltage levels of the distribution network. The
modelling methodology captures the principal characteristics
of an average GSP network in the UK in terms of circuit
lengths, number and electrical characteristics of lines at
various voltage levels, and number and electrical
characteristics of typical transformers. Hourly and seasonal
demand profiles taking into account various types of
customers are used to model the load connected to the
CIRED2005
Session No 4

For simplification, it is assumed in this study that the

contribution to the 132kV system fault level from generators
connected at 33kV is one third (33%) of the contribution to
fault level at 33kV. Also the contribution to the 33kV system
fault level from generators connected at 11kV is three
quarters (75%) of the contribution to fault level at 11kV [5].
Where the fault level contribution passes up through more
than one voltage level, it is appropriately attenuated.
Presentation of case studies
Driven by the need of using renewable energy sources due to
environmental concern, it can be foreseen that penetration of
DG in the UK distribution network will increase. However,
the views on the UK picture of DG capacity, and DG location
in the future are not yet clear. For that reason, four different
penetrations of DG in the UK distribution network were
studied: 2.5GW; 5GW; 7.5GW and 10GW. It is expected that
these high penetrations of DG will lead to technical problems
especially when DG is connected to a weak distribution
network such as 11kV rural networks. Therefore, for each of
the penetrations chosen above, four different allocation
scenarios were investigated:

DG connected over 50% of GSPs and 2/3 of the 11kV

feeders (L)
DG connected over 50% of GSPs and 1/3 of the 11kV
feeders (LM)
DG connected over 25% of GSPs and 2/3 of the 11kV
feeders (HM)

CIRED

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

DG connected over 25% of GSPs and 1/3 of the 11kV

feeders (H)
For each scenario, active management is applied in each
11kV module of the GSP model, and DGs are assumed to
have a flat output at unity power factor.

Turin, 6-9 June 2005

in the rural system could be saved by applying active

management for an installed capacity of 5GW, while this
figure varies between 15% and 40 % for a DG penetration of
10GW.

Benefits in urban areas

Implementation of generation curtailment necessitates the
installation of voltage measurement schemes at the generator
point of connection [3]. A reliable communication link
between the terminal of the DG and the DSO centre is also
required. Moreover, in a co-ordinated area-based voltage
control, measurements and communication are also required
between a 33/11kV substation and the DSO centre. In this
study we assume that the cost of implementing active
management is not dependent on the level of DG penetration.
The model allows that different levels of costs are assumed
for implementing active management in rural and urban areas.

Average system fault levels are assumed at each voltage level;

350MVA at 11kV and 1,000MVA at 33kV, and two different
fault level headrooms available at each voltage level are
examined. The headroom is used to determine how much DG
can be added to various parts of the distribution networks
before switchgear fault ratings are exceeded. The two
following cases are investigated:

0% headroom; in this case the introduction of DG at

11kV requires the upgrade of the switchgear in the
33/11kV substation for passive management.

10% headroom; in this case the introduction of DG at

11kV requires the upgrade of the switchgear in the
33/11kV substation only if its contribution to fault level
is superior to 10% of the switchgear rating for passive
management.

Benefits of active management of voltage in rural areas

Table 1 compares for different penetration scenarios of DG in
a UK-like distribution network the ranges of incremental
reinforcements costs for passive (P) with all the costs
associated with active management (A) described above: cost
of implementing active management (CoI) and incremental
cost (IC) of reinforcement if required.

Table 2 provides the range of full cost of upgrading

switchboards in all the penetrations scenarios of DG in urban
systems. For the active management, the cost of implementing
an actively managed network (CoI) is described as well as the
cost of replacing switchboards (RC). Similarly to rural
systems, the benefits of active management can be clearly
identified in Table 2. For example, for low DG penetration,
more than half of reinforcement costs could be saved by
applying active management. However, these benefits
decrease for high penetration density of DG in urban
networks.

A penetration of 2.5GW can be accommodated in the rural

network without triggering any reinforcement cost. For higher
penetration of DG, the figures clearly show the reduction in
upgrade costs required when active management is applied.
For any scenario, implementing active management would
minimise the economic impact of DG on distribution network
costs. For example, up to 50% of the cost of connecting DG

TABLE 1 Incremental cost of upgrading feeders and substations in rural systems (in M) for passive (P) and active (A)
management and cost of implementing active management (CoI)
L
LM
HM
H
Scenario
DG capacity
P
A
P
A
P
A
P
A
IC
IC CoI
IC
IC CoI
IC
IC CoI
IC
IC CoI

2.5GW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5GW
0
0
126
0
80
126
0
80
238
84
40
7.5GW
100
0
80
295
43
80
291
42
80
359
253 40
10GW
243
0
160
482
169 80
468
159 80
562
376 40
TABLE 2 Reinforcement cost of switchboards (RC) for two different headrooms for passive (P) and active (A)
management in urban system (in M) and cost of implementing (CoI) active management
Scenario
DG
Headcapacity
room

0%
2.5GW
10%
0%
5GW
10%
0%
7.5GW
10%
0%
10GW
10%
CIRED2005
Session No 4

LM

HM

P
RC

A
RC CoI

P
RC

A
RC CoI

796
0
796
0
796
0
796
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

398
0
398
0
398
398
398
398

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

320
320
80
80

160
160
160
160

P
RC

RC

398
0
398
0
1227
1227
1227
1227

0
0
0
0
431
431
431
431

H
A
CoI
160
160
160
160

P
RC
398
0
398
398
415
415
1012
1012

A
RC
0
0
0
0
415
415
1012
1012

CoI
80
80
80
80

CIRED

18th International Conference on Electricity Distribution

Turin, 6-9 June 2005

CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

This paper described a novel approach to modelling

distribution networks aimed at evaluating the
reinforcement costs associated with the integration of DG
in the medium voltage (MV) networks. This model was
used to estimate the benefits of active network controls in
the entire UK distribution network for different
penetrations scenarios of DG at 11kV. It was concluded
that changing the operation philosophy of distribution
network from passive to active could enhance the ability of
the existing UK distribution networks to accommodate
additional distributed generation, and reduce the demand
for reinforcements.

[1] N. Jenkins, et al., 2000, Embedded Generation, The

Institute of Electrical Engineering, London.
[2] Ofgem, November 2004, Electricity Distribution
Price Control Review. Final proposals,
www.ofgem.gov.uk
[3] Liew, S., Strbac, G., Maximising penetration of
wind generation in existing distribution networks,
IEE Proceedings on Generation, Transmission and
Distribution, Vol 149, No. 3, pp 256-262, May 2002.
[4] Wu, X., Mutale, J., Jenkins, N., and Strbac, G.,
January 2003, An investigation of Network Splitting
for Fault Level Reduction, Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, Working Paper 25
[5] ILEX and UMIST (G. Strbac), October 2002
Quantifying the System Costs of Additional
Renewables in 2020, a report to the DTI.

CIRED2005
Session No 4