Voltage Reduction Effect in Active Distribution Networks

Nokhum Markushevich

Voltage reduction is a common component of load reduction measures in many utilities [1]. In
this case, the load reduction is typically executed by reducing voltage either at the disitribuiton
busses of the Transmission-to-Distribution substations, or at individual feeder heads. The size of
the voltage reduction and the expected load reduction is predefined in the utilities opearating
manuals, see e.g., [2] - [3]. These numbers are based on voltage tests periodically performed by
the utilities, e.g., once a year for a critical season. It implies that under the conditions of the
“passive” disitribution networks, the load sensitivity to voltage reduction is approximately the
same during an extensive time interval.

The situation can significantly change with the high penetration of Distributed Energy Resources
(DER), especially, when they are equiped with smart inverters. These components and other
active elements in the disitribution systems constitute the Active Disitributin Networks.

An analysis of the possible effects of voltage reduction at the buses of Active Distribution
Networks is presented below based on a simple example diagram illustrated in Figure 1.

PCC
Microgrid
T/G

G G G

Figure 1. Example Diagram

This illustrative circuit consists of a single distribution feeder with uniformly distributed
conventional load (without embedded DERs) in the upstream portion of the feeder and a
microgrid connected to the end of the feeder. The microgrid includes load and DERs that
balance the load, when they inject 100% of their real power capacity. The DERs are connected to
the secondary buses of the distribution transformers. The rated power factors of the DERs are
assumed 0.9. The DERs are equipped with smart inverters limited by the Amps. The active load-
to-voltage sensitivity (LTV-P factor) of the natural nodal load is assumed 1% of load change per
1% of voltage change. The reactive load sensitivity to voltage is assumed a second power
polynomial with an approximately LTV-Q factors equal 3.5% near the nominal voltage.

The following volt/var control setups [4] for the smart inverters are considered in the analysis:
 Initial reactive power injection equals 50% (Qinit=0.5pu) of the inverters’ reactive power
limits (Qlim), the real power injection equals 100% (P=1pu), and the voltage override
starts beyond 99% and 1.01% of nominal voltage at the DER terminals (the power quality
(PQ) objective). See Figure 2.
 Qinit=0, P=1pu, and PQ objective. See Figure 3
 Qinit=0.5Qlim, P=0.2pu, and PQ objective. See Figure 4
 Qinit=0, P=0.2pu, and PQ objective. See Figure 5
 Qinit=Qlim, P=0.2pu, and Qmax objective with voltage override beyond 0.95 and 1.05 of
nominal voltage. See Figure 6
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
DER kvars, p.u.

0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Voltage at DER terminals, p.u.

DER3_limited by DER capability DER2_limited DER1_limited

Figure 2. DER Volt-var control for PQ mode. DER P=1pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
DER kvars, p.u.

0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12

-0.05

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

-0.25
Voltage at DER terminals, p.u.

DER3_limited by DER capability DER2_limited DER1_limited

Figure 3. DER Volt-var control for PQ mode. DER P=1pu. Qinit=0.

 0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

DER kvars, p.u.

0
0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Voltage at DER terminals, p.u.

DER3_limited by DER capability DER2_limited DER1_limited

Figure 4. DER Volt-var control for PQ mode. DER P=0.2pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
DER kvars, p.u.

0
0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Voltage at DER terminals, p.u.

DER3_limited by DER capability DER2_limited DER1_limited

Figure 5. DER Volt-var control for PQ mode. DER P=0.2pu. Qinit=0

 0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

DER kvars, p.u.

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.88 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12
-0.05

-0.1
Voltage at DER terminals, p.u.

DER3_limited by DER capability DER2_limited DER1_limited

Figure 6. DER Volt-var control for Qmax mode. DER P=0.2pu. Qinit=1pu of Qlim

The operating conditions of the sample circuit were simulated within an 8% range of the bus
voltage for different volt/var control setups of the DERs. It was like an imitation of a test of
voltage reduction from 110% through 102% of the nominal bus voltage

Based on these simulations, dependencies of the total natural (not the net) load of the circuit
(including losses) and of the microgrid load on the bus voltage were derived1. The dependencies
were presented as a linear regression equation within the entire range of the bus voltage change.
The slope regression coefficient represents the extrapolated approximation of the LTV-P factor
that applies to the entire range of the bus voltage (see Figure 7, Figure 12, Figure 17, Figure 18,
and Figure 20 for the total load dependencies and Figure 9, Figure 14, Figure 19, and Figure 22
for the microgrid load dependencies). As seen in the figures, the extrapolated LTV-P factors are
significantly different for different setups of the DER volt/var control functions and the circuit
parameters. Firstly, all of them are smaller than one (1%kW/1%Volt), which is the LTV-P factor
assumed for the individual natural loads. The extrapolated factors range from 0.52 through 0.95
for the total load, and from 0.14 through 0.99 for the microgrid load. However, because the
actual load-to-voltage dependencies are non-linear, the actual LTV-P factors for smaller bus
voltage intervals differ from the overall regression factor. The interval LTV-P factors for 1%
changes of the bus voltages are presented in the same figures. These differences in the overall
extrapolated factors are mostly due to the different abilities of the DERs to compensate the
secondary nodal voltages in the microgrid for the voltage changes at the substation bus (see
Figure 11, Figure 16, and Figure 24). The differences in the interval LTV-P factors are also due
to the non-monotonic nature of the DER volt/var curves.

1
The methodology for separating the natural load from the net load at the substation bus is beyond the scope of
this article.
The differences in actual load reduction versus the expected load reduction based on the overall
LTV-P factor for different ranges of voltage reduction from different initial voltages are
presented in Figure 8, Figure 13, and Figure 21 for the total load and in Figure 10, Figure 15, and
Figure 23 for the microgrid load. As seen in the figures, the differences range from -41% of the
expected load reduction through +50% for the total load, and may exceed 100% for the
microgrid loads.

Note that Figure 18 and Figure 19 present the operating conditions for an underground circuit,
while the rest of the illustrations are for overhead circuits. As seen in the figures, the LTV-P
factors in the UG case are different from the LTV-P factors in the OH cases for the same DER
volt/var control setups.

A summary of all operational parameters included in the examples is presented in Table 1.

1.05 1.2
1.04 P = 0.7542V + 0.2054
R² = 0.9914
1.03
1
1.02
1.01
Average (interpolated) LTV-P with VVC
1 0.8
Active load, p.u.

0.99
0.98

LTV-P
0.6
0.97
0.96
0.95 0.4
0.94
0.93
0.2
0.92
0.91
0.9 0
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source voltage, p.u.

Relative P-natural LTV-P Linear (Relative P-natural)

Figure 7. Total real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=1pu, OH-primary. Qinit=0.5Qlim.
 40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

Error in load reduction, % of expected

10.0%

load reduction
0.0%
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11

-10.0%

-20.0%

-30.0%

-40.0%

-50.0%
Initial source voltage, p.u.

VoltRed=1% VoltRed=2% VoltRed=3% VoltRed=4% VoltRed=5%

Figure 8. Difference in total load load reductions vs expected reduction for PQ mode, DER-P=1pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim. OH primary
circuit

1.050 1.2000
1.1500
1.1000
1.040 1.0500
1.0000
0.9500
1.030 0.9000
P = 0.5369V + 0.4301 0.8500
0.8000
Real load at PCC, pu of V=1.05

1.020 R² = 0.9227 0.7500

0.7000
0.6500
1.010 0.6000

LTV-P at PCC
0.5500
1.000 0.5000
0.4500
0.4000
0.990 0.3500
0.3000
0.2500
0.980 0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
0.970 0.0500
0.0000
-0.0500
0.960 -0.1000
-0.1500
-0.2000
0.950 -0.2500
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source V, pu

Microgrid P(Vpcc) Interval LTV-P Linear (Microgrid P(Vpcc))

Figure 9. Microgrid real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=1pu, OH-primary. Qinit=0.5Qlim.
 150.00%

100.00%

Error in load reduction, % of expectedl

50.00%

load reduction
0.00%
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11

-50.00%

-100.00%

-150.00%
Starting source voltage, p.u.

Volt _reduction_step=2% Volt _reduction_step=3% Volt _reduction_step=4%

Volt _reduction_step=5% Volt_reduction_step=1

Figure 10. Difference in microgrid load reductions vs expected reduction for PQ mode, DER-P=1pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim.

1.050

1.040

1.030
Secondary Nodal Voltages, p.u.

1.020

1.010

1.000

0.990

0.980

0.970

0.960

0.950
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Voltage at the source, p.u.

CVR_Objective_synny CVR_objective_Synny CVR_Objective_sunny

Figure 11. Secondary voltages in the microgrid for PQ mode, DER-P=1pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim
 1.04 1
P = 0.5965V + 0.3762
1.03 R² = 0.9913
0.9
1.02
1.01 0.8

1 0.7
0.99

Active load, p.u.

0.6
0.98 Average (interpolated) LTV-P with VVC

LTV-P
0.97 0.5
0.96
0.4
0.95
0.94 0.3

0.93 0.2
0.92
0.1
0.91
0.9 0
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source voltage, p.u.

Relative P-natural LTV-P Linear (Relative P-natural)

Figure 12. Total real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu, OH-primary. Qinit=0.5Qlim

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%
Error in load reduction, % of expected

20.0%

10.0%
load reduction

0.0%
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
-10.0%

-20.0%

-30.0%

-40.0%

-50.0%
Initial source voltage, p.u.

VoltRed=1% VoltRed=2% VoltRed=3% VoltRed=4% VoltRed=5%

Figure 13. Difference in total load reductions vs expected reduction for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim.
 1.050 0.8500
0.8000
0.7500
1.040 0.7000
0.6500
1.030 0.6000
0.5500
0.5000

Real load at PCC, pu of V=1.05

1.020 0.4500
P = 0.1396V + 0.8591 0.4000
R² = 0.538 0.3500
1.010 0.3000

LTV-P at PCC
0.2500
0.2000
1.000
0.1500
0.1000
0.990 0.0500
0.0000
-0.0500
0.980 -0.1000
-0.1500
-0.2000
0.970 -0.2500
-0.3000
0.960 -0.3500
-0.4000
-0.4500
0.950 -0.5000
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source V, pu

Microgrid P(Vpcc) Interval LTV-P Linear (Microgrid P(Vpcc))

Figure 14. Microgrid real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu, OH-primary. Qinit=0.5Qlim.

500.00%

400.00%

300.00%
Error in load reduction, % of expectedl

200.00%

100.00%
load reduction

0.00%
1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
-100.00%

-200.00%

-300.00%

-400.00%

-500.00%
Starting source voltage, p.u.

Volt _reduction_step=2% Volt _reduction_step=3% Volt _reduction_step=4%

Volt _reduction_step=5% Volt-reduction_step=1%

Figure 15. Difference in microgrid load reductions vs expected reduction for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim.
 1.050

1.040

1.030

1.020

Secondary Nodal Voltages, p.u.

1.010

1.000

0.990

0.980

0.970

0.960

0.950
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Voltage at the source, p.u.

Figure 16. Secondary voltages in the microgrid for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0.5Qlim

1.04 1
1.03 P = 0.516V + 0.459
R² = 0.9821 0.9
1.02
1.01 0.8

1 0.7
0.99
Active load, p.u.

0.6
0.98 Average (interpolated) LTV-P with VVC

LTV-P
0.97 0.5
0.96
0.4
0.95
0.94 0.3

0.93 0.2
0.92
0.1
0.91
0.9 0
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source voltage, p.u.

Relative P-natural LTV-P Linear (Relative P-natural)

Figure 17. Total real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu, OH-primary. Qinit=0
 1.05 1.2
1.04 P = 0.699V + 0.2668
1.03 R² = 0.9973
1
1.02
1.01
1 0.8

Active load, p.u.

0.99
Average (interpolated) LTV-P with VVC
0.98

LTV-P
0.6
0.97
0.96
0.95 0.4
0.94
0.93
0.2
0.92
0.91
0.9 0
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source voltage, p.u.

Relative P-natural LTV-P Linear (Relative P-natural)

Figure 18. Total real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu, Qinit=0. UG-primary

1.050 0.7500
0.7000
1.040 0.6500
0.6000
1.030
0.5500
0.5000
Real load at PCC, pu of V=1.05

1.020
P = 0.3003V + 0.6869
R² = 0.8906 0.4500
1.010 0.4000

LTV-P at PCC
0.3500
1.000
0.3000
0.990 0.2500
0.2000
0.980 0.1500
0.1000
0.970
0.0500

0.960 0.0000
-0.0500
0.950 -0.1000
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source V, pu

Microgrid P(Vpcc) Interval LTV-P Linear (Microgrid P(Vpcc))

Figure 19. Microgrid real load LTV for PQ mode, DER-P=0.2pu, Qinit=0. UG-primary
 1.05 1
P= 0.8345V + 0.1234
1.04
R² = 0.9971 0.9
1.03
1.02 Average (interpolated) LTV-P with VVC 0.8
1.01
0.7
1

Active load, p.u.

0.99 0.6
0.98

LTV-P
0.5
0.97
0.96 0.4
0.95
0.3
0.94
0.93 0.2
0.92
0.1
0.91
0.9 0
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source voltage, p.u.

Relative P-natural LTV-P Linear (Relative P-natural)

Figure 20. Total real load LTV for Qmax mode, DER-P=0.2pu, Qinit=0. OH-primary

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Error in load reduction, % of expected

-5.0%

-10.0%
load reduction

-15.0%

-20.0%

-25.0%

-30.0%

-35.0%

-40.0%
Initial source voltage, p.u.

VoltRed=1% VoltRed=2% VoltRed=3% VoltRed=4% VoltRed=5%

Figure 21. Difference in total load reductions vs expected reduction for Qmax mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0. OH primary.
 1.050 0.9000
0.8500
1.040 0.8000
y = 0.7196x + 0.2438
R² = 0.9846 0.7500
1.030
0.7000
0.6500

Real load at PCC, pu of V=1.05

1.020
0.6000
1.010 0.5500

LTV-P at PCC
0.5000
1.000 0.4500
0.4000
0.990 0.3500
0.3000
0.980
0.2500
0.2000
0.970
0.1500
0.960 0.1000
0.0500
0.950 0.0000
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Source V, pu

Microgrid P(Vpcc) Interval LTV-P Linear (Microgrid P(Vpcc))

Figure 22. Microgrid real load and LTV for Qmax mode, DER-P=0.2pu, Qinit=0. OH-primary

40.00%

20.00%
Error in load reduction, % of expected

0.00%
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
load reduction

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

-80.00%

-100.00%
Starting source voltage, p.u.

Volt _reduction_step=2% Volt _reduction_step=3% Volt _reduction_step=4%

Volt _reduction_step=5% Volt_reduction_step= 1%

Figure 23. Difference in microgrid load reductions vs expected reduction for Qmax mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0. OH primary.
 1.060

1.050

1.040

1.030

Secondary Nodal Voltages, p.u.

1.020

1.010

1.000

0.990

0.980

0.970

0.960

0.950

0.940
1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.1 1.11
Voltage at the source, p.u.

CVR_Objective_synny CVR_objective_Synny CVR_Objective_sunny

Figure 24. Secondary voltages in the microgrid for Qmax mode, DER-P=0.2pu. Qinit=0. OH primary

Table 1. Comparison of effects of voltage reduction for different operating conditions of DERs

Parameter LTV Primary DER Qinitial Range of Range of error in load

regression circuit participation, Secondary reduction expectations
factor pu voltages, pu within voltage change from
1% through 5%, % of
expected reduction
Total real load 0.754 OH 1 0.5 -41 - +31
Microgrid real 0.54 OH 1 0.5 -126 - +105
load
Secondary OH 1 0.5 0.97 – 1.01
voltages in the
microgrid
Total real load 0.6 OH 0.2 0.5 -40 -+43
Microgrid real 0.14 OH 0.2 0.5 -389 - +444
External real OH 0.2 0.5 -15 - +20
load
Secondary OH 0.2 0.5 0.99 – 1.01
voltages in the
microgrid
Total real load 0.52 OH 0.2 0 -26 -+50
Secondary OH 0.2 0 0.99 – 1.0
voltages in the
microgrid
Total real load 0.7 UG 0.2 0 -16 - +12.5
LTV
Microgrid real 0.3 UG 0.2 0
-127 - +112
load
External real 0.87 UG 0.2 0 -2 - + 10
load
Secondary UG 0.2 0 1.0 – 1.02
voltages in the
microgrid
Total real load 0.95 OH 1 1 0 - +14
LTV
 Parameter LTV Primary DER Qinitial Range of Range of error in load
regression circuit participation, Secondary reduction expectations
factor pu voltages, pu within voltage change from
1% through 5%, % of
expected reduction
Microgrid real 0.99 OH 1 1 -3 - +4
load
Secondary OH 1 1 0.96 -1.05
voltages in the
microgrid
Total real load 0.83 OH 0.2 1 -35 - +5
LTV
Microgrid real 0.72 OH 0.2 1 -85 - +20
load
Secondary OH 0.2 1 1.0 -1.05
voltages in the
microgrid

Conclusions.

1. The LTV-P factors for Active Distribution Networks depend on a large number of
variables, including the different objectives and setups of the DER volt/var function,
ranges and starting levels of voltage reduction, actual injections of DER real power,
topology and parameters of the distribution circuits, etc.
2. Performing voltage reduction tests that can be applicable to different operating conditions
of an Active Distribution Network for an extensive period will be a very challenging task.
3. If voltage reduction tests for a number of generalized “typical” operating conditions
could be accomplished, the errors in the estimation of the load reduction might still be
significant due to the variations of the actual operating conditions and the circumstances
of the required voltage reduction.
4. It is worth considering a methodology for voltage reduction test aimed at determining the
natural load dependency on voltage without the impact of DERs that can be attributed to
the nodal loads and using these dependencies in near-real time modeling of the operating
conditions of the Active Distribution Networks. The models should also include the
individual models of the performance of major DERs, groups of DER, microgrids, and
other significant prosumers [5]-[8].
5. In order to perform such modeling and subsequently the voltage control, adequate
information exchange between the major actors in the Active Distribution Network and
Distribution Management Systems (DMS), as well as between DMS and the transmission
Energy Management System (EMS) should be provided [5]-[11].

References.
1. NERC Reliability Standards for the Bulk Electric Systems of North America. Available:
http://www.nerc.com/comm/OC/Documents/Reliability_Standards_Complete_Set.pdf
2. PJM Manual 13 Emergency Operations Revision: 62. Available:
http://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m13.ashx
3. NYISO Emergency Operations Manual. Available:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/webdocs/markets_operations/documents/Manuals_and_Gui
des/Manuals/Operations/em_op_mnl.pdf
4. Common Functions for Smart Inverters, Version 3. Available:
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=00000000300200
2233
5. Coordination of Volt/var control in Connected Mode under Normal Operating
Conditions, Use Case Description.
Available: http://smartgrid.epri.com/Repository/Repository.aspx/
6. Update aggregated at PCC real and reactive load-to-voltage dependencies, Use Case
Description. Available: http://smartgrid.epri.com/Repository/Repository.aspx/
7. Updates of capability curves of the microgrid’s DERs, Use Case Description.
Available: http://smartgrid.epri.com/Repository/Repository.aspx/
8. Updating information on microgrid dispatchable load, Use Case Description.
Available: http://smartgrid.epri.com/Repository/Repository.aspx/
9. Nokhum Markushevich,”New Aspects of IVVO in Active Distribution Networks,”
Presented at IEEE PES 2012 T and D conference
10. Nokhum Markushevich, Cross-cutting Aspects of Smart Distribution Grid Applications,
Presented at IEEE PES GM 2011, Detroit. Available from IEEE Explore.
11. Development of Transmission Bus Load Model (TBLM),
Available: http://collaborate.nist.gov/twiki-
sggrid/pub/SmartGrid/TnD/TBLMUseCase_V14-03-13-13-posted.pdf