2017 7th International Conference on Power Systems (ICPS)
College of Engineering Pune, India. Dec 21-23, 2017
Reducing Distribution Losses using Distributed
End-user Reactive Power Support
Gajula Jyothi∗ , Charan Teja S† Student Member , IEEE , Pradeep Kumar Yemula∗∗ Member , IEEE
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Kandi, Hyderabad, India
Email: ∗ ee14mtech11028@iith.ac.in, † ee14resch01005@iith.ac.in, ∗∗ ypradeep@iith.ac.in
Abstract—Distribution losses are one of the major concern for
India. According to central electricity authority(CEA) executive
summary report May 2017 transmission and distribution losses
accounts for about 22%. These losses can be reduced by im-
proving power factor via local reactive power supply. In order
to address the above issue this paper proposes a method for
distributed reactive power support using end user equipment.
The main contribution of this paper is to find the optimal bus
location for reactive power injection considering the availability.
A sensitivity matrix for power loss with reactive power injection
is built for finding the optimal bus location subject to the
availability of reactive power support at that location. In order
to demonstrate the proposed solution approach, a IEEE 33 bus
radial distribution system is taken. Results of the case study
are obtained by using MATLAB programming and the same
are presented. Obtained results show about 30% of reduction in
losses and improvement in the voltage profile.
Index Terms—Reactive power support, Distribution loss reduc-
tion, Voltage profile
I. I NTRODUCTION
Reactive power in a power system is an important parameter
since its unbalance between supply and demand may cause
voltage instability, some times even black out of the system
[1]. In an electrical system, overheating of generators, motors
and other loads are caused due to losses and poor voltage
profile. Proper reactive power support will help in reduction
of losses and improvement of voltage profile. Some type of
loads which include motor, electro-magnetic loads require
reactive power for their operation. For such type of loads
supply of reactive power locally will improve the power factor.
Traditionally reactive power support is provided at substation
level and for industries at their local level using capacitor
banks, static var compensator etc. But when the reactive power
support is provided at substation level, reactive power need to
travel for long distances. This results in high consumption of
reactive power by distribution lines. One of the better solution
for reactive power support is to use the end user equipment
like inverter, Electric vehicles etc. Also this is a cost effective
method as we can use smart devices installed at consumer
side. With coordination of consumer to supply this reactive
power, correction of voltage can be done at distribution side
in radial system. To inject the reactive power from consumers
into the system, we need best bus location. But best bus
location depends on amount of reactive power available at bus,
amount of load, distance from the source. As these parameters
change with time, it is difficult to have a single solution every
time. So, the proposed method helps in finding the optimal
978-1-5386-1789-2/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 720
location every-time when the load or other parameter changes
accordingly.
II. R ELATED W ORK
There are many control actions available to address the
problem of reactive power supply. But most of them are costly
or not practical. Most of the control methods are available at
transmission level and substation level. At the transmission
level actions such as switching of transmission lines [2], using
flexible Ac transmission system (FACTS) devices like static
synchronous compensator (STATCOM), A static VAR com-
pensator (SVC) and unified power flow controller (or UPFC)
which are electrical devices for providing fast-acting reactive
power compensation on high-voltage electricity transmission
networks [3]–[6]. At sub station level synchronous condensers
and shunt capacitors are used.
As technology is developing we are able to use more
resources to provide control actions. We are able to make a
more comprehensive reactive power control that goes all the
way from the transmission system level to the end-user in
smart grids, [1] Sefa et al. [7] and Dominguez-Garcia et al.
[8] proposed some control techniques for providing reactive
power support. Rogers et al. [9] suggested the idea of using
end-user reactive-power capable devices to address low voltage
problems at the transmission system level. These mitigating
controls of using end-user reactive-power-capable devices are
made available via smart grid technologies. These methods can
be used in the system to maintain a healthy voltage profile.
Reactive power resources include inverters on solar panels,
electric vehicles, uninterrupted power supply systems, inverter-
based home appliances, lighting, and many other distributed
sources [10], [11]. The power buffer concept proposed in [10],
[12], [13] allows the power electronics to take advantage of
isolation, and presents a desired behavior to the grid. In the
context of the above papers, the desired behavior is to provide
reactive power injection as needed. Residential-level devices
can be called upon to correct voltage violations in their local
area by using secure authenticated messaging to coordinate
the control. Rogers et al. [9], [14] just considered the reactive
power resources of end-users at transmission system level.
In these papers, the control action is centralized and can-
didate bus placement is done only by use of sensitivity
analysis. But, they do not consider the fact that end user’s
reactive power sources change whenever they are on or off.
Aquino-Lugo et al. [15] explained little about the distribution
systems, they do not explain about the process of acquiring
the sensitivity matrix and reactive support grouping in the
distribution systems. Also, distributed energy resources of end-
users have important role in modern systems, it is better to
consider other resources such as distributed generation (DG)
and storage with reactive power resources. It is worth noting
that there are conventional reactive power control devices such
as voltage regulators that cannot be eliminated from the future
systems, so they should be also considered. Yu et al. [16] used
distributed voltage control to improve voltage profile, but it
does not consider end-user devices as well as constant voltage
DGs in their work. As mentioned in above papers, the so called
central control manages systems in an integrated form and
improves voltage problem better than other control actions.
But, the communication burden of this is very high that makes
it unaccepted in future smart grids. Moreover, the control
systems will be out of use if control center is broken. On the
other hand, in the distributed voltage control, the system is
decomposed into some sub-systems that are independent and
have no communication links between them. Communication
burden in this control is low and is suitable for future smart
grids. But, generally voltage mitigation’s quality in this control
action is lower than the centralized control system.
In this method, Sensitivity matrix is calculated based on
real time and variable data. It can be calculated for both
Power variation and voltage variation in the system for change
in injected reactive power amount. Based on this sensitivity
analysis we can find the behavior of the system for external
reactive power injection [6]. This method can be used for
distribution system, for selection of bus location using end
users as reactive support. In this method time to availability of
reactive power from consumers can be checked and accessible
reactive power can be used to select the bus location to inject
that reactive power.
III. S ELECTION OF B EST B US LOCATION
In radial distribution system, there will be many number of
loads. In these loads some may support reactive power like
smart devices and some may not. Those smart devices may
be available at different locations which come under different
bus. This availability may differ from bus to bus and time
to time. For each hour it is required to inject reactive power
collected from sources at one bus. Based on load variation,
amount of reactive power supplied by each bus at each hour
varies with respect to sensitivities of buses for reactive power
injection. Selection of bus is considered such that reactive
power injection has high impact on voltage variations and
reduction in power loss. This optimal bus location is decided
by formulating an objective function.
In the given system, to check the effect of reactive power
injection from loads and its effects parameters like voltage
variation at the load, voltage drop in the line, losses reduction
in the system are considered. Sensitivity matrix provides the
information about the voltage changes at each bus because
of reactive power injection at any bus along with the power
loss information. If improving the voltage profile at time t is
721
the objective then sensitivity matrix corresponding to voltage
needs to be considered. Similarly if reducing power loss is the
objective then sensitivity matrix corresponding to power loss
to be considered.
A. Sensitivity Matrix of Voltage
It is the ratio of change in voltage at each bus in the system
to the amount of reactive power injected at a particular bus
in the system at given time instant. Change in the voltage is
obtained by comparing with base case. [6].
S v(j,i) = ∂V(j,i) /∂Qi (1)
where:
j indicates bus number.
i indicates bus number where reactive power is injected.
∂Qi is amount of reactive power injected at ith bus.
∂Vi,j is change in voltage at bus j, with injection of Q at
ith bus.
Sv (j, i) is sensitivity of voltage at bus j w.r.to Qi when Q
is injected at ith bus.
B. Sensitivity Matrix of Power Loss
It is the ratio of change in power loss in the system to the
amount of reactive power injected in the system. Change in
power loss is calculated by comparing with base case power
loss of the system. Using this maximum reduction in power
loss is calculated, which is used for finding optimal location
for injection of reactive power support.
S L(i, t) = ∂p loss(t)/∂Q (2)
where:
i indicates bus number.
t i indicates time in hours.
∂Q is amount of reactive power injected at ith bus.
∂ploss(t) is reduction in power loss compared to base case
power loss at time t,with injection of Q at ith bus.
SL(i,t) is sensitivity vector of power loss at time t w.r.to Qi
when Q is injected at ith bus.
C. Selection of Best Bus Location
Reactive power injection into the system effects voltage and
power loss in the system. Change in these two parameters or
any one can be taken into consideration to decide best bus
location. Using sensitivity matrix of voltage, find bus with
maximum change in voltage and select that bus as best bus
to inject the reactive power into the system. Using sensitivity
matrix of power loss maximum reduction in power loss is
found and it is used for selection of optimal bus for injection
of reactive power. In this paper, since the objective is to reduce
the losses sensitivity matrix corresponding to power loss is
considered for best bus location. In this study maximum real
power loss reduction is considered as objective function.
Fig.1 shows the flowchart of the proposed method for
distributed end user reactive power support. Base case load
flow provides real power loss using the branch data and bus
data as the inputs. Sensitivity matrix is formed as explained

Start
Input Daily Load curve data at all buses
Running base case load flow
bus number b =1
load flow with injecting Q at bus b
Compare with base case load flow
b=b+1 Finding Sensitivity
Yes Is b<= number
t=t+1 of buses
No
Optimum bus location at t
Yes
Is time t<=24
No
Finding Schedule of Q injection
End
Fig. 1. Flow chart of the method
above by comparing the base case load flow. From the obtained
sensitivity matrix optimal bus location is found and reactive
power is injected at that bus to observe the reduced losses.
IV. CASE STUDY:IEEE 33 BUS RADIAL
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
The proposed method is applied to IEEE 33 bus radial
network shown in fig.2. It has 33 buses and 37 branches. IEEE
standard 33 bus radial test system data [17] is considered in
which total generation is 3715 kW, total reactive power 2300
kVA. The system line and load data is taken as main input
to the MATLAB program of proposed method to know the
system structure and load distribution. Case Study of proposed
method has been done by programming in MATLAB. For
solving this case study base values taken as 100 MVA, 12.6
kV.
A daily load curve shown in fig.3 is obtained by using
the data in [18]. Using the load curve and load variation
percentages a load variation calculator is used for creating
some randomness in the data. So, this data is used as input
load data to power flow for analysis.
 1) Maximum Reduction in active Power loss
 
Random β(max,t) , β(min,t)
Lt = Ltb ∗ 1 +
100
where:
ϮϯϮϰϮϱ
ϮϲϮϳϮϴϮϵϯϬϯϭϯϮϯϯ
ϭϮϯϰϱϲϳϴϵϭϬϭϭϭϮϭϯϭϰϭϱϭϲϭϳϭϴ
ϭϵϮϬϮϭϮϮ
Fig. 2. Single line Diagram of IEEE 33 bus distribution network
Fig. 3. Daily Load Curve Example
Lt is Load at time t, load may be the real power (P) or
Reactive power (Q).
Ltb is Base load.
β(min,t) is Minimum percentage variation w.r.to base load
at time t.
β(max,t) is Maximum percentage variation w.r.to base load
at time t.
Random(β(max,t) , β(min,t) ) is a random function that gen-
erates value between two values β( max, t),β( min, t).
Load distribution for 33 buses is done by considering the
standard IEEE 33 bus system radial load data [17]. Fig.4 shows
the load distribution among 33 buses. Proposed method is
implemented in MATLAB programming and is tested for the
following cases.
Case 1:Optimal Bus Location with Injection of Q at Each
Bus Individually,at Constant Load Assumption made here is
load is constant for 24 hours and Reactive sources are available
at each and every bus with same capacity assuming that
capacity as Q=0.01 p.u i.e., 1 MVAr. Fig.5 shows the reduction
in losses when reactive power injection is considered at all
buses.
From the results it is observed that
(P(loss,max) )=56.8 kW.
(3) 2) Maximum reduction obtained by injecting 1 MVAR at
bus 30
3) Optimum Bus Location =30.
722

600
Load on bus P(kW))
400
200
0
0 5
600
Load on bus Q(kVAr)
400
200
0
0 5
220
200
Reduction in Active power loss in kw
180
160
140
120
100
0 5
Fig. 5. Reduction in active power loss(kW) at each bus for case1:
From the above results it is observed that reactive power
injection will effect power loss in the system. For the same
amount of reactive power injected at all buses, loss varies from
bus to bus. The power loss may increase with reactive power
injection as distance from the source changes. For example at
bus 22 it is observed that more power loss compared other
buses since it is end bus of branches.
Case 2 :Finding Optimal Bus Location where Q is Available
at Few Buses only at Constant Load: Assumption made
here is load is constant for 24 hours and reactive sources
are available at few buses with same capacity assuming that
capacity as Q=0.01 p.u i.e., 1 MVAr. This Q injected at each
bus individually. Q amount will be given as input to program.
Taking reactive sources are available at buses 6,13,23,31. On
execution of the program we get results as shown in fig.6.
From the results it is observed that
1) Maximum Reduction in active Power loss
(P(loss,max) )=54.0 kW.
2) Maximum reduction in active power loss obtained by
Load on the IEEE 33 bus System
10 15 20 25 30 35
Bus Number
Fig. 6. Reduction in active power loss(kW) at each bus for case2
10 15 20 25 30 35
Bus Number
Fig. 4. load distribution
Ploss with Q injection
Ploss in base case
Fig. 7. Reduction in active power loss(kW) at each bus for case3
injecting 1 MVAR at bus loation 31
Best Bus Location is bus number 30 3) Optimum Bus Location =31.
Case 3 :Finding Best Combination of Bus Locations when
Q is available at Few Buses with Constant Load: Assumption
10 15 20
bus number where Q is injected
25 30 35 made here is load is constant for 24 hours and reactive sources
are available at few buses (assuming number buses where Q is
available is m) with same capacity. Injection of reactive power
into the system from more than one location is considered.
Those number of locations(taking as n and m<n) may vary.
In this case many number of combinations of buses are
obtained, reactive power injected from the buses of particular
combination at a time. After finding and comparing the effect
of all combinations, best combination can be found. Taking
reactive sources are available at buses 6,13,23,31, Q=0.01 and
number of locations to inject reactive =2. With these inputs
the following fig.7 shows the variation of power loss with
combination of buses.
From the results it is observed that
1) Maximum Reduction in active Power loss
(P(loss,max) )=61.6 kW.
2) Maximum reduction in active power loss obtained by
injecting 1 MVAR for combination 6,31.
3) Best combination of bus locations = 6,31.
Case 4 :Optimal Bus Location with Injection of Q at Each
Bus Individually at Varying Load: Assumption made here is
load is varying for 24 hours and reactive sources are available
at each and every bus with same capacity assuming that
capacity as Q=0.01 p.u i.e., 1 MVAr. Load variation calculator
723
 TABLE I TABLE II
O PTIMAL B US L OCATION FOR 24 HOURS FOR CASE 4 O PTIMAL B US L OCATION FOR 24 HOURS FOR CASE 5

Hour Best Bus Location Reduction in Power Loss(kW) Hour Best Bus Location Reduction in Power Loss(kW)
1 30 83.31 1 31 81.66
2 30 86.94 2 31 85.37
3 30 83.16 3 31 81.46
4 30 81.13 4 31 79.32
5 30 83.49 5 31 81.77
6 30 84.80 6 31 83.20
7 30 93.45 7 31 92.27
8 30 90.94 8 31 89.59
9 30 105.99 9 31 105.44
10 30 110.95 10 31 110.59
11 30 115.75 11 31 115.68
12 30 114.66 12 31 114.62
13 30 110.16 13 31 109.75
14 30 102.89 14 31 102.16
15 30 106.91 15 31 106.26
16 30 111.03 16 31 110.72
17 30 115.56 17 31 115.46
18 31 83.31 18 31 121.42
19 31 86.94 19 31 122.23
20 30 83.16 20 31 110.70
21 30 81.13 21 31 99.60
22 30 83.49 22 31 91.47
23 30 84.80 23 31 84.39
24 30 93.45 24 31 81.78

TABLE III
is used here. On execution of above program the best bus O PTIMAL B US L OCATION FOR 24 HOURS FOR CASE 6
location at each hour for given load and given amount of Hour Best Combination of Bus Locations)
reactive power as shown in table I. 1 6,31
From the results it is observed that as load changing at each 2 6,31
3 6,31
hour, for the given reactive power support, loss in the system 4 6,31
and best bus location are varying. 5 6,31
Case 5 :Finding Optimal Bus Location when Q is Available 6 6,31
7 13,31
at Few Buses with Varying Load: Assumption made here is 8 6,31
load is varying for 24 hours and reactive sources are available 9 6,31
at few buses with same capacity assuming that capacity as 10 13,31
11 13,31
Q=0.01 p.u i.e., 1 MVAr. Taking reactive sources are available 12 13,31
at buses 6,13,23,31. On execution of above program the best 13 13,31
bus location at each hour for given load and given amount of 14 13,31
15 13,31
reactive power as shown in table II. 16 13,31
From the results it is observe that as load changing at each 17 13,31
18 13,31
hour, for the given reactive power support and given load, 19 13,31
among the bus locations 6,13,23,31, the best bus location is 20 13,31
31. 21 13,31
22 13,31
Case 6 :Finding Best Combination of Bus Locations when Q 23 6,31
is Available at Few Buses at Varying Load: Assumption made 24 6,31
here is load is varying for 24 hours and Reactive sources are
available at few buses (assuming number buses where Q is
available is m) with same capacity assuming that capacity. in table III.
Injection of reactive power into the system can be from more From the results it is observed that as load changing at each
than one location. Those number of location(taking as n and hour, for the given reactive power support, loss in the system
m<n) may vary. In this case many number of combinations of and best combination of bus locations are varying.
buses are considered, reactive power injected from the buses
with particular combination at a time. Taking reactive sources V. C ONCLUSION
are available at buses 6,13,23,31, Q=0.01 and number of Reactive Power plays an important role in maintaining
locations to inject reactive =2. On execution of above program stability of power system. Difference in supply and demand,
the obtained combinations of best bus location at each hour reactive power in the system will cause voltage fluctuations.
for given load and given amount of reactive power as shown To decrease these voltage fluctuations and power loss in the

724
system reactive power sources are required to be installed at
distribution location. For this prosumer technology is used
where reactive power is injected using end user equipment.
Coordinating with consumers, using consumers smart devices
which have capability of providing reactive power support
as sources, reactive power is injected into the system. These
sources may be available at all buses or few buses in particular
system. For all the cases of availability of sources, one or
more buses must be chosen at each time to inject the reactive
power from consumer end into the system. Using the proposed
method best bus location is chosen from the buses where
reactive sources are available so that power loss in the system
reduces. Even if load varies on the system, best bus location for
scheduling of reactive power from consumers into the system
can be find out. Further improvements in the method can be
done by considering variable reactive sources and variable
amount of reactive power. Mathematical modeling of reactive
sources can be considered for more practical insight of the
method.
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Recio, “The utilization of power converters in consumer products for
distributed reactive power support,” 2012.
[2] K. W. Hedman, R. P. O’Neill, E. B. Fisher, and S. S. Oren, “Optimal
transmission switching with contingency analysis,” IEEE Transactions
on Power Systems, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1577–1586, 2009.
[3] A. Mazi, B. Wollenberg, and M. Hesse, “Corrective control of power
system flows by line and bus-bar switching,” IEEE Transactions on
Power Systems, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 258–264, 1986.
[4] K. Ma and J. Mutale, “Risk and reliability worth assessment of power
systems under corrective control,” in North American Power Symposium
(NAPS), 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6.
[5] W. Shao and V. Vittal, “Lp-based opf for corrective facts control to
relieve overloads and voltage violations,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1832–1839, 2006.
[6] A. Abessi, V. Vahidinasab, and M. S. Ghazizadeh, “Centralized support
distributed voltage control by using end-users as reactive power support,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 178–188, 2016.
725
[7] I. Sefa, N. Altin, and S. Ozdemir, “An implementation of grid interactive
inverter with reactive power support capability for renewable energy
sources,” in Power Engineering, Energy and Electrical Drives (POW-
ERENG), 2011 International Conference on. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[8] A. D. Domı́nguez-Garcı́a, C. N. Hadjicostis, P. T. Krein, and S. T.
Cady, “Small inverter-interfaced distributed energy resources for reactive
power support,” in Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposi-
tion (APEC), 2011 Twenty-Sixth Annual IEEE. IEEE, 2011, pp. 1616–
1621.
[9] K. M. Rogers, R. Klump, H. Khurana, A. A. Aquino-Lugo, and T. J.
Overbye, “An authenticated control framework for distributed voltage
support on the smart grid,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 1,
no. 1, pp. 40–47, 2010.
[10] D. L. Logue and P. T. Krein, “Utility distributed reactive power control
using correlation techniques,” in Applied Power Electronics Conference
and Exposition, 2001. APEC 2001. Sixteenth Annual IEEE, vol. 2.
IEEE, 2001, pp. 1294–1300.
[11] M. Begović, A. Pregelj, A. Rohatgi, and D. Novosel, “Impact of
renewable distributed generation on power systems,” in Proceedings of
the 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2001, pp.
2001–2008.
[12] D. Logue and P. T. Krein, “The power buffer concept for utility load
decoupling,” in Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2000. PESC
00. 2000 IEEE 31st Annual, vol. 2. IEEE, 2000, pp. 973–978.
[13] W. W. Weaver and P. T. Krein, “Mitigation of power system collapse
through active dynamic buffers,” in Power Electronics Specialists Con-
ference, 2004. PESC 04. 2004 IEEE 35th Annual, vol. 2. IEEE, 2004,
pp. 1080–1084.
[14] K. M. Rogers, R. Klump, H. Khurana, and T. J. Overbye, “Smart-
grid-enabled load and distributed generation as a reactive resource,” in
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2010. IEEE, 2010, pp.
1–8.
[15] A. A. Aquino-Lugo, R. Klump, and T. J. Overbye, “A control framework
for the smart grid for voltage support using agent-based technologies,”
IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 173–180, 2011.
[16] L. Yu, D. Czarkowski, and F. De León, “Optimal distributed voltage
regulation for secondary networks with dgs,” IEEE Transactions on
Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 959–967, 2012.
[17] R. D. Zimmerman, C. E. Murillo-Sánchez, and R. J. Thomas, “Mat-
power: Steady-state operations, planning, and analysis tools for power
systems research and education,” IEEE Transactions on power systems,
vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 12–19, 2011.
[18] S. Charan Teja and Y. Pradeep Kumar, “Energy management of grid
connected rooftop solar system with battery storage,” in Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT-Asia), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 2016,
pp. 1195–1200.