IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO.
3, AUGUST 2011
Photovoltaic Generation Penetration
Limits in Radial Distribution Systems
Rafael Amaral Shayani, Student Member, IEEE, and Marco Aurélio Gonçalves de Oliveira, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Photovoltaic generating units connected to distribu-
tion 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 op-
eration. 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 lim-
iting factor when installing DG. This paper presents and discusses
studies proving that conductor ampacity and voltage rises are lim-
iting 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 simplified radial dis-
tribution system model, and the amount of distributed generation
that may be installed was obtained. Mathematic formulae were de-
veloped to determine the amount of distributed generation for ex-
isting utility systems.
Index Terms—Dispersed storage and generation, photovoltaic
power systems, power distribution, power distribution planning,
solar power generation, voltage control.
NOMENCLATURE
Distributed generation.
Power factor.
Active power in the line (positive when flowing
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 CAPES—Coor-
denação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil. Paper no.
TPWRS-00419-2010.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brazil (e-mail: shayani@ene.unb.br; mago@ene.unb.br).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRS.2010.2077656
0885-8950/$26.00 © 2010 IEEE
1625
Steady-state voltage lower limit.
Voltage of substation bar.
Steady-state voltage upper limit.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE worldwide market for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems
has increased significantly 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 sys-
tems, 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 gen-
eration 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 re-
gion. DG systems are also characterized as: 1) connected di-
rectly 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 efficiency, diversification of en-
ergy sources, availability of modular generating plants, ease of
finding 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 conven-
tional 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 significantly increases the quantity of DG in-
teracting with the grid. The need for greater supervision and
control by the system operator also becomes mandatory, rep-
resenting a major technical obstacle to DG large-scale deploy-
ment. For large-scale PVDG applications, the effect on distri-
bution system voltages is certainly amongst the issues which
should be studied in more depth, to provide methods for evalu-
ating 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
1626
system. However, PVDG dispatch techniques need to be clearly
defined, so that they may be applied when Smart Grid becomes
fully operational. Planning studies must take high PVDG pene-
tration levels into consideration, so that impacts on the distribu-
tion network may be analyzed and control techniques defined.
The present paper outlines a theoretical framework regarding
PVDG penetration limits in radial distribution systems, fo-
cusing 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 flow of power from load bus bars to the substa-
tion provokes an impact on the feeder voltage profile, increasing
bus voltages [5]–[15]. This is usually pointed out as a major con-
cern regarding DG penetration. However, another important as-
pect 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 define 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 cen-
tralized 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 oppo-
site flow of power from the load bus bars towards the substa-
tion provokes the voltage to rise along the feeder. The limit to
the PVDG power injection is identified when the upper voltage
limit is attained. The voltage rise in the low voltage circuits (i.e.,
secondary of transformers) can also be significant, 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. How-
ever, this option would require measures to compensate losses
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, AUGUST 2011
in customers’ revenue, since the generation installed at the end
of the line would have higher power limitations than those con-
nected 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. How-
ever, 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 ac-
tively participate in voltage control by adjusting active and
reactive power production [12]. The existence of a communi-
cations system interconnecting customers and utility may help
to control voltage in worst-case scenarios [15].
There are several ways to increase PVDG penetration in dis-
tribution systems from a voltage rise perspective [5]. For ex-
ample, one way of accommodating more DG is to reduce the
series impedance of the line. To do this, it is necessary to re-
inforce the feeder, either by increasing the number of conduc-
tors 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 modification of steady-state voltage limits also affects
DG penetration limits in distribution systems. The concern re-
lated 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 con-
duction 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 co-
incidence 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 distribu-
tion 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
configurations were analyzed, with regard to substation voltage
and different load conditions. The simulations were performed
in Matlab® with the power flow program MatPower [16].
SHAYANI AND DE OLIVEIRA: PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION PENETRATION LIMITS IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 1627

Fig. 1. Simplified 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 infinite bus. The line is 2.85 km
long; this length was defined 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 , In the base case, without PVDG, the load consumes
produced by the PVDG , and supplied through the line
. amount of PVDG until it supplies all the active power of the
In order to simplify load flow 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 repre-
sent the typical situation of products readily available on the
market; and 8) the steady-state lower and upper voltage limits
are and , respectively.
A. Rated Load
Initially, the rated load configuration is considered, dimen-
sioned so as to use the entire conductor capacity. Since a single
4/0 AWG aluminum conductor feeder supports 314 A in steady-
state operation, the maximum power conducted is 7.5 MVA.
This value is adopted as the power base for per unit (pu) calcu-
lations. Considering a 0.92 lagging power factor, the reference
for the Brazilian electric power system, the load is modeled with
and . sure the load is always supplied within the adequate voltage
With the voltage at the substation fixed at , limits. In this regard, six base cases were developed, each corre-
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
Fig. 2. Voltage at the load bus and line current as a function of P at rated
load.
locally, and the surplus is injected into the grid. The PVDG gen-
eration is increased until the upper voltage limit is reached (i.e.,
) at the load bus (Fig. 2).
and . By increasing 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 flows 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 ob-
served that the upper limit of the voltage at the load bus (i.e.,
) is reached for (i.e.,
and ) flowing 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 ca-
pacity. The amount of PVDG was limited by the voltage rise,
since the line would be capable of conducting more power to-
wards 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 first 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 en-
sponding 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
TABLE I
PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT CONSIDERING THE UPPER
VOLTAGE LIMIT CRITERION (VALUES IN pu)
Fig. 3. Voltage at the load bus and line current as a function of P at rated
load.
at the load bus (Table I). Although Table I includes line cur-
rents, this criterion was not considered in the analysis. Shaded
cells in Table I indicate the limiting criterion, where the interac-
tive process of increasing PVDG production is stopped
. drop caused by the reactive component flowing towards the
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
first reached in each case. Negative values indicate that
power flows 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
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, AUGUST 2011
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)
by the load . In fact, when is twice
, the apparent power flowing 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 flow in opposite directions, since
the voltage rise caused by the active component of the current
flowing towards the substation is partially offset by the voltage
load.
C. Effects of the Load Condition
In the following simulations, the substation voltage was set
to , since it allows larger amounts of PVDG
than . This value provides a better regulation,
allowing the voltage to drop during heavy load (0.95 pu), and to
rise during high PVDG generation periods (1.05 pu). This sym-
metric 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
considering , ten new cases were set up, in order to
assess how the amount of load affects the voltage at the load
bus and, consequently, influences 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 in-
dicate the limiting criterion, where the interactive process of in-
creasing PVDG production is stopped .
As the load is reduced in the situation with no PVDG gener-
ation, lower currents flow 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
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 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
flowing 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 sur-
passed, 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 ana-
lyzed (Table IV). Shaded cells in Table IV indicate the limiting
criterion, where the interactive process of increasing PVDG pro-
duction is stopped . THE PENETRATION LIMIT OF PVDG
With the amount of PVDG restricted by the conductor am-
pacity, it may be noted that the PVDG system to be installed
will have the capacity to supply the load locally, and also to ex-
port the surplus by using the available current carrying capacity
of the line during lower than rated load periods. With the reduc-
tion 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 influence 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 consid-
ering 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
1629
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)
to the limit provoked the line overload in
all situations simulated. Lower power factors allowed greater
values, since the reactive current always flows 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 flows 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 flows in the line towards the load may
also flow towards the substation, when the load is locally sup-
plied 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 rel-
evant, since the power factor of loads is usually greater than or
corrected to values above 0.8.
IV. RULES OF THUMB TO DETERMINE
The simulations carried out allow practical rules to be ob-
tained that may be applied when load flow 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 ob-
tained, allowing to determine the amount of PVDG that can
be installed without provoking line overloads. The amount of
PVDG must be sufficient 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 tribution feeder without resorting to computer simulations. For

SUMMARY FOR PVDG MAXIMUM AMOUNT
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.

TABLE VIII
P VALUES: COMPARISON BETWEEN 1) SIMULATIONS
AND 2) EQUATION (1) (VALUES IN PU)
B. Voltage Rise
The simulations showed that the upper voltage limit was re-
strictive 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.
When , maximum current flows from the substation to-
wards the load bus, provoking a voltage drop in the line. When
PV generation is at its maximum , the cur-
rent is also at a maximum, but flows 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 approx-
imately 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 al-

lowed for voltage drops (i.e., with null PVDG) needs to be avail-
able for voltage rises (i.e., with maximum PVDG). As a rule
of thumb, if the voltage at the substation is adjusted to a value
halfway between the upper and the lower
voltage limits, the voltage rise criterion will not be reached be-
fore 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
confirm that and are approximately equal,
where power of the load, in pu. with the voltage drop slightly higher than the voltage rise. The
A comparison between the values obtained with simu- values are not exactly the same because the load was modeled
lations and those calculated by (1) indicates that the error is less as constant power, and thus, the current varied with the voltage
than 3% for the main cases (Table VIII). This error is caused at the load bus. From Table VIII, one can see that the voltage
by different load models adopted in simulations (i.e., constant rise is for rated load and . In order
power) and in (1) (i.e., constant current). PF values less than 0.5 not to reach the voltage criteria, it is necessary that the voltage
are not shown because the corresponding active power is too at the substation be . For all other conditions,
small to affect the system. it can be noted that all voltage rises are lower than the voltage
With the help of this mathematical formula, one can deter- drops, indicating that could be even greater than 1.000 pu
mine the amount of PVDG that can be installed in a radial dis- [i.e., as would be calculated by (3)].
SHAYANI AND DE OLIVEIRA: PHOTOVOLTAIC GENERATION PENETRATION LIMITS IN RADIAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
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 gen-
eration 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 be-
tween 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
adjusted to 1.00 pu and the load have a inductive.
Two useful equations were obtained allowing to determine the
amount of PVDG a radial feeder can accommodate without re-
sorting to computer simulations.
REFERENCES
[1] Photovoltaic power systems programme, Trends in Photovoltaic Appli-
cations—Survey Report of Selected IEA Countries Between 1992 and
2008, International Energy Agency, 2009, IEA-PVPS T1-18:2009.
[2] M. M. Severino, “Avaliação Técnico-Econômica de um Sistema
Híbrido de Geração Distribuída Para Atendimento a Comunidades
Isoladas da Amazônia, PPGENE.TD 027/08,” Ph.D. dissertation,
Dept. Elect. Eng., Univ. Brasília, Brasília, Brazil, 2008.
[3] N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, D. Kirschen, and G. Strbac, Em-
bedded Generation, Power and Energy Series 31. London, U.K.: Inst.
Elect. Eng., 2000.
[4] PVUPSCALE—PV in Urban Policies—Strategic and Comprehensive
Approach for Long-Term Expansion, WP4—Deliverable 4.1: State-of-
the-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] PVUPSCALE—PV in Urban Policies—Strategic and Comprehensive
Approach for Long-Term Expansion. WP4—Deliverable 4.4: Recom-
mendations for Utilities, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www.pvup-
scale.org.
[6] J. Bebic, Power System Planning: Emerging Practices Suitable
for Evaluating the Impact of High-Penetration Photovoltaics, Na-
tional Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008. [Online]. Available:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/rsi.html.
1631
[7] PVUPSCALE—PV in Urban Policies—Strategic and Comprehensive
Approach for Long-Term Expansion, WP4—Deliverable 4.2: Utilities
Experience and Perception of PV Distributed Generation, 2007. [On-
line]. Available: http://www.pvupscale.org.
[8] C. Whitaker, J. Newmiller, M. Ropp, and B. Norris, Renewable Sys-
tems 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 Elec-
tric 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 Simula-
tion Tools, Sandia Rep. SAND2008-0945 P, Sandia National Labora-
tories, 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 Na-
tional Laboratories, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.en-
ergy.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 Lab-
oratory, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/
solar_america/rsi.html.
[16] R. Zimmerman and C. Murillo-Sánchez, MATPOWER-A MATLAB
Power System Simulation Package—User’s Manual. Version 3.2,
2007. [Online]. Available: http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower.
Rafael Anaral Shayani (S’06) was born in São
Paulo, Brazil, on March 25, 1976. He received the
Bachelor of Electrical Engineering degree from the
Polytechnical School of the University of São Paulo,
São Paulo, Brazil, in 1998 and the M.Sc. degree from
the University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil, in 2006.
He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the
University of Brasília, doing research in photovoltaic
solar energy.
His professional experience includes the Univer-
sity of Brasília, where he teaches a course on energy
conversion, the Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, where he works as a
consultant in the Prospective Study on Photovoltaic Energy, and Johnson Con-
trols, where he supervised electric power and air conditioning systems. His areas
of interest include renewable energy sources, power quality, and energy effi-
ciency.
Mr. Shayani received an award at the 8th Brazilian Energy Congress in 1999,
presenting a comparison on overall costs between energy production from hy-
droelectric power plants and from natural gas plants.
Marco Aurélio Gonçalves de Oliveira
(M’91–SM’98) was born on December 20, 1958, in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He received the Bachelor of
Electrical Engineering degree from the University of
Brasília, Brasília, 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 Di-
vision of Eletronorte (Brazil) where he was involved
with load flow, stability, and electromagnetic tran-
sient 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 efficiency. He has published over 50 papers in those
fields.
Dr. de Oliveira was Chair of the IEEE Brasilia Section and IEEE Brazil
Council.