The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Earth and Mineral Sciences

ECONOMIC MODELING OF THE ENERGY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM FOR A BATTERY-SOLAR BUILDING-INTEGRATED

MICROGRID: A COMPARISON BETWEEN LEAD-ACID AND

LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SYSTEMS

A Thesis in

Energy and Mineral Engineering

by

Egbadon Udegbe

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Master of Science

August, 2014
The thesis of Egbadon Udegbe was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Seth Blumsack
Associate Professor of Energy Policy and Economics
Thesis Co-Adviser

David Riley
Associate Professor of Architectural Engineering
Thesis Co-Adviser

Mort Webster
Associate Professor of Energy and Mineral Engineering

Luis F. Ayala H.
Associate Professor of Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering
Associate Department Head for Graduate Education

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.

ii
 ABSTRACT

The present-day commercial building sector is characterized by high expenditure on electricity as

a source of energy, and an accompanying increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover,

traditional backup infrastructure aimed at promoting power quality and surety for business

operations fail to maximize cost and operational efficiency, while offering limited ancillary

benefits related to revenue generation, environmental footprint, and grid stability. These

challenges have the potential to be addressed through the integration of grid-interactive storage

and solar photovoltaic (PV) on-site generation with the building electrical systems.

This research focuses on modeling the energy management system (EMS) for a commercial

building microgrid capable of performing peak-shaving and providing backup reserve power,

while participating in the PJM frequency regulation market. This has been achieved by defining

the operational framework and control strategy for the EMS, by utilizing system data and

information from the ongoing Building 7R microgrid development at the GridSTAR Center in

the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Based on these, a MATLAB model has been developed to simulate

annual energy transfers between the building, the local utility and PJM.

Using the EMS model simulation results, a methodology has been developed to assess the

economical tradeoffs between various operational modes, and also technological choice between

lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries. These have been analyzed by considering market revenues

and backup cost mitigation provided by the building-integrated microgrid. Within the proposed

framework, it has been determined that lead-acid systems provide more peak-shaving revenues

and building demand curtailment, while a comparable lithium-ion system yields more annual

revenues. Overall, allocation of battery capacity away from frequency regulation operation has

been observed to reduce total revenues, under all conditions.

iii
Table of Contents

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….vii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….viii

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 U.S. commercial buildings and electricity consumption ..................................................................... 1
1.2 Auxiliary power systems in commercial buildings .............................................................................. 4
1.3 Problem definition and research objectives ..................................................................................... 10
1.4 Thesis organization ........................................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Solar photovoltaic systems in commercial buildings ........................................................................ 12
2.2 Microgrid systems ............................................................................................................................. 16
2.3 Battery systems for microgrid applications ...................................................................................... 21
2.4 Microgrid energy management systems and modeling ................................................................... 24
Chapter 3: Model Formulation ............................................................................................................. 28
3.1 System description ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.2 EMS model operational framework .................................................................................................. 31
3.3 EMS control strategy ......................................................................................................................... 34
3.4 EMS simulation model ...................................................................................................................... 38
3.4.1 Peak-shaving optimization ......................................................................................................... 39
3.4.2 Output calculations .................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 4: EMS Model Input Data and Component Sizing ................................................................... 47
4.1 Building energy demand profile........................................................................................................ 47
4.2 Energy price information .................................................................................................................. 51
4.3 Frequency regulation pricing and usage characterization ................................................................ 53
4.4 Battery technology sizing and specifications .................................................................................... 56
4.5 PV system production ....................................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Outage cost characterization ............................................................................................................ 61
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 63
5.1 Daily energy simulations ................................................................................................................... 63

iv
 5.2 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to capacity allocation between peak-shaving and regulation .......... 73
5.3 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to overall capacity allocation ............................................................ 76
5.4 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to overall capacity allocation and blackout costs ............................. 80
Chapter 6: Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 87
6.1 Summary of work .............................................................................................................................. 87
6.2 Key findings ....................................................................................................................................... 87
6.3 Recommendations for future study .................................................................................................. 89
Appendix A: 7R eQuest Model Parameters and Assumptions ................................................................ 90
Appendix B: Lithium-ion battery specifications ...................................................................................... 98
Appendix C: MATLAB code for lead-acid battery sizing optimization ................................................... 100
Appendix D: TRYNSYS PV generation model ......................................................................................... 101
Appendix E: MATLAB code for peak-shaving optimization and EMS model......................................... 105
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………120

v
List of Figures

Figure 1-1: U.S. electricity retail sales by end-use sector [2] ........................................................................ 1
Figure 1-2: CO2 emissions from energy consumption in the commercial [5] ............................................... 3
Figure 1-3: Estimated interruption costs by customer class (2002 CPI-weighted dollars) [8]...................... 5
Figure 1-4: Classification of prevalent emergency standby systems ............................................................ 7
Figure 1-5: NOx and PM10 emission factors from diesel generators relative to other sources [12] ............. 9
Figure 2-1: Annual trends in U.S. PV installation capacity and average system price [15] ........................ 13
Figure 2-2: Key features of microgrid systems [22] .................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-3: Example of microgrid topologies according to scale [22]......................................................... 19
Figure 2-4: Storage system operational uses [30] ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 2-5: Technoeconomic comparison between storage technologies [33] ......................................... 23
Figure 2-6: Hierarchical control framework of microgrid EMS [34]............................................................ 24
Figure 3-1: 7R microgrid system electrical characteristics ......................................................................... 28
Figure 3-2: Functionality of Building 7R microgrid EMS (based on [47]). ................................................... 31
Figure 3-3: Battery capacity allocation approach ....................................................................................... 33
Figure 3-4: Summary of EMS operational framework ................................................................................ 34
Figure 3-5: Overall EMS control strategy. (1) Peak-shaving optimization; (2) PV recycling; (3) Operational
mode decision ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 3-6: EMS model overview ................................................................................................................ 38
Figure 4-1: Typical building energy demand profiles for different day types duing representative days in
Winter, Spring, Summer, and Spring .......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-2: Average, minimum and maximum possible building demand (based on Table 4-2(a)) ........... 51
Figure 4-3: Average energy price and average price differential ............................................................... 52
Figure 4-4: Dispatch-to-contract ratio characterization ............................................................................. 55
Figure 4-5: Illustration of lead-acid array sizing problem ........................................................................... 58
Figure 4-6: TRNSYS PV simulation model.................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5-1: Example simulated battery energy flows for one-day period, using lithium-ion ..................... 65
Figure 5-2: Simulation results for days representing Spring, Summer and Fall seasons (li-ion) ................ 68
Figure 5-3: EMS simulation results for select days (lead-acid) ................................................................... 72
Figure 5-4: Sensitivity of revenues to battery capacity allocation by battery technology ......................... 74
Figure 5-5: Comparison between lead-acid and lithium-ion revenues ...................................................... 76
Figure 5-6: Market revenues from allocating lithium-ion system in various ratios.................................... 78
Figure 5-7:Market revenues from allocating lead-acid system capacity in various ratios ......................... 79
Figure 5-8: Total system revenues on a low-demand day (lithium-ion system)......................................... 81
Figure 5-9: Total system revenues on an average- to high-demand day (lithium-ion system) .................. 82
Figure 5-10: Total system revenues on a low-demand day (lead-acid system).......................................... 83
Figure 5-11: Total system revenues on an average-demand day (lead-acid system) ................................ 84
Figure 5-12: Total system revenues on a high-demand day (lead-acid system) ........................................ 85

vi
List of Tables

Table 1-1: Types of commercial buildings and their electricity consumption profiles [4]............................ 2
Table 1-2: Estimated cost-per-event of power interruptions by duration and consideration [9] ................ 5
Table 1-3: Auxiliary power systems for representative high-sensitivity commercial classes [10] ............... 8
Table 2-1: Benefits of PV systems in buildings [18] .................................................................................... 14
Table 2-2: Major microgrid system components [25] ................................................................................ 18
Table 2-3: Comparison between major cell battery chemistries [31] ........................................................ 22
Table 4-1: Modeled occupancy and usage schedules within Building 7R .................................................. 47
Table 4-2: Summary of Building 7R energy demand................................................................................... 50
Table 4-3: Price data summary ................................................................................................................... 52
Table 4-4: Qualitative comparison between lead-acid and lithium-ion systems [31] [32] [56] ................. 56
Table 4-5: EMS model battery specifications ............................................................................................. 59
Table 4-6: Key technical characteristics of PV modules in 7R microgrid (STC) [59].................................... 60
Table 4-7: Avoided outage cost for varying backup reserve allocation on different day types ................. 62
Table 5-1: Example energy flows for one-day simulation, using li-ion battery (Orange=battery charge;
Purple=battery discharge) .......................................................................................................................... 64
Table 5-2: Example simulation results using lead-acid battery (Orange=battery charge; Purple=battery
discharge) .................................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 5-3: Total revenues for various ratios of peak-shaving (PS) and frequency regulation (FR) ............ 73
Table 5-4: Percent change in system revenues resulting from utilization of lead-acid over lithium-ion
system ......................................................................................................................................................... 75

vii
Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank Dr. Riley for his support throughout this project, and for

surrounding me with the resources to immerse myself in this research area. Thank you also to Dr.

Blumsack for providing invaluable insight, and for helping me sculpt my ideas into useful work.

Secondly, I extend my gratitude to the GridSTAR industry partners and facilitators, who

shared their expertise and provided information that went into this work. Thank you to Dan

Cohee from PDE and Don Bradley from SolarGridStorage.

Finally, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my family for their unwavering

support throughout my educational career. Specifically, I thank my parents, Joe and Bola

Udegbe, for providing a support structure and motivating me to push the limits. I am eternally

grateful.

I would also like to acknowledge Luke Witmer for helping me with the PV simulation

model piece of this study. I greatly appreciate your assistance.

Thank you to many others who directly or indirectly contributed to this study.

viii
Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 U.S. commercial buildings and electricity consumption

Commercial buildings play a significant role in the U.S. energy market. The commercial sector

obtains 79% of its overall energy consumption from electricity [1]. This represents a drastic

increase over time, with the commercial sector deriving only 54% of its energy from electricity

40 years ago [1]. Specifically, the 2013 commercial sector electricity consumption amounted to

approximately 1.34 million kilowatt-hours (kWh), which made up 36.3% of national electricity

retail sales and $137.8 trillion in revenues [2]. Figure 1-1 below displays the share of the

commercial sector in the electricity market, relative to other consumer classes.

Figure 1-1: U.S. electricity retail sales by end-use sector [2]

There currently exists a wide variety of commercial buildings, based on application and principal

business activities. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), the classification

encompasses “all buildings in which at least half of the floorspace is not used for residential,

1
industrial, or agricultural purposes…,” including “building types that might not traditionally be

considered ‘commercial,’ such as schools, correctional institutions, and buildings used for

religious worship” [3]. Based on the most recent EIA Commercial Buildings Energy

Consumption Survey (CBECS), different categories of commercial buildings and their respective

electricity consumption profiles are shown in Table 1-1 below.

Principal Business Number of Floorspace Floorspace Total Total

Activity Buildings (million per Building Electricity Electricity
(thousands) square (thousand Consumption Expenditure
feet) square feet) (million kWh) (million $)
Education 384 9,871 25.7 109 8,111
Food Sales 221 1,237 5.6 61 4,627
Food Services 297 1,654 5.6 63 5,176
Health Care 129 3,163 24.6 73 4,882
Inpatient 8 1,905 241.4 52 3,198
Outpatient 121 1,258 10.4 20 1,684
Lodging 142 5,096 35.8 69 5,288
Mercantile 657 11,192 17.0 215 18,883
Retail (Other Than Mall) 443 4,317 9.7 62 5,132
Enclosed and Strip Malls 213 6,875 32.2 153 13,751
Office 824 12,208 14.8 211 17,050
Public Assembly 274 3,935 14.4 49 3,943
Public Order and Safety 71 1,090 15.5 17 1,216
Religious Worship 370 3,754 10.1 18 1,628
Service 601 3,982 6.6 44 3,485
Warehouse and Storage 464 9,425 20.3 72 5,034
Other 76 1,729 22.7 39 3,049
Vacant 106 1,846 17.3 4 412

Table 1-1: Types of commercial buildings and their electricity consumption profiles [4]
As is apparent in the above information, office buildings represent the majority of commercial

electricity consumption, with computers, dedicated servers, printers and photocopiers accounting

for most of this usage. In fact, the onset of these technologies from 1979 is concurrent with the

increased consumption of electricity in the commercial sector [3].

2
The commercial sector’s increasing dependence on electricity as an energy source means that it

has a strong bearing on the U.S. aggregate emissions output, especially since 40% of electricity

is generated from coal and 29% comes from natural gas [1]. Figure 1-2 below displays the

growing influence of commercial electric power consumption on carbon dioxide (CO2)

emissions, compared to other emissions sources.

Figure 1-2: CO2 emissions from energy consumption in the commercial [5]

The EIA predicts a 19% increase in commercial electricity consumption, compared to 13% and

17% in the residential and industrial sectors. Based on the 2009 U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) estimate of 1,216 lb of CO2 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated,

and a corresponding social cost of $35 per ton on CO2, an annual social cost of $28 billion is

imposed by the U.S. commercial sector [1]. These statistics signal the necessity for alternate

means to meet the energy requirements of commercial buildings, especially since the EPA has

established a goal of 25% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 from Scope 1 and Scope 2

sources, which encompass electricity generation [6].

3
The Pennsylvania State University Sustainability Institute has thus proposed the development of

the Building 7R commercial building microgrid at the GridSTAR Center in the Philadelphia

Navy Yard, with the aim of fostering research and improved understanding of energy

consumption and cost-saving mechanisms in the commercial building sector. The 7R system is a

25,600 square-foot classroom building structure, which is intended to feature photovoltaic (PV)

solar and battery storage integration, coupled with tactical utilization of multiport inverter

topologies and control mechanisms to optimize system efficiency and provide backup power to

critical loads. System information and usage data from this building will form the framework for

this thesis study.

1.2 Auxiliary power systems in commercial buildings

The frequency, voltage stability, and reliability of electrical power demanded by the commercial

sector may not always be guaranteed in practice, due to power supply disturbances beyond the

control of the utility supplier. Weather factors such as lightening, wind, rain, ice storms, storms,

hurricanes, and floods, are common causes of these power failures. In addition, factors related to

supply power system operation and reliability may result in supply disturbances. For example, in

lines experiencing excessive current, supply interruptions are created when overcurrent and

short-circuit current protective devices (such as fuses and circuit-breakers) are removed to clear

faults [7].

Power interruptions and power quality events represent significant costs to the commercial

sector, and various studies have been conducted to quantify these costs in monetary and energy

terms. On the basis of duration, frequency and customer class, [8] consolidates data and

quantifies the economic cost of reliability events in the U.S in 2001. Momentary interruptions are

found to constitute 67% of overall costs, relative to 33% incurred from sustained interruptions.

4
As displayed in Figure 1-3 below, the commercial sector bears the lion share of these outage

reliability costs, compared to other customer classes.

Figure 1-3: Estimated interruption costs by customer class (2002 CPI-weighted dollars) [8]

Based on 2002 survey data collected by the MidAmerican Energy Company and focused on

commercial, industrial, and organizational/institutional customers, the cost of power outages for

a variety of durations have been estimated [9]. This survey takes into account frequency,

duration and cost or inconvenience factors associated with outages. Table 1-2 below summarizes

the results of this survey in terms of average costs per event, per annual kWh and per demand

kW for commercial customers.

Duration of Average cost per Average costs per annual Average cost per kW
interruption interruption event ($) kWh interruption ($) demand ($)
1 min 379 0.00206 9.03
20 min 744 0.00705 30.87
1h 1,002 0.00875 37.52
4h 2,299 0.02766 121.15
8h 4,188 0.05146 225.41
Table 1-2: Estimated cost-per-event of power interruptions by duration and consideration [9]

5
To varying levels, commercial buildings are unable to tolerate power interruptions and unreliable

power quality, and therefore require supplementary power supply infrastructure. The type and

size of these systems depends of the level and nature of need, as determined by the business

operations performed in the buildings. These supplementary power systems may take the form of

standby and/or emergency backup power. Standby systems provide power after the detection of a

power outage or disturbance, with the possibility of short interruptions to load supply. On the

other hand, emergency systems provide more seamless supply to sensitive loads during loss of

ordinary power. They are typically intended to provide power for shorter durations, in order to

buffer supply before ordinary power returns or the standby system begins operation [10].

The level of need for emergency and standby power systems also differs among commercial

buildings. On this basis, they may be categorized as follows [7]:

 Mandatory installations to meet federal, state, county, and municipal regulations. These

regulations are stipulated by the National Electrical Code (NEC), the National Fire Protection

Associate (NFPA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) [7].

 Maintenance of human safety during power failure

 Decreased economic losses due to fewer and shorter power failures

Based on nature of need, commercial buildings typically employ emergency and backup power

system for two major reasons: (1) to preserve health and personal safety, and (2) to avoid

interruptions in critical processes, which cost time and money to restore [10].

There are different types of emergency and standby supply solutions typically deployed in

commercial buildings. In [7], these systems are classified into generator and stored energy

6
systems. The chart in Figure 1-4 below represents the major classes of prevalent emergency

standby systems.

Emergency
and Backup
Power Systems

Generator Stored energy

systems systems

Mechanically
Engine-driven Turbine-driven Battery
stored energy
generators generators systems
systems

Figure 1-4: Classification of prevalent emergency standby systems

The above factors contribute to an elevated demand for auxiliary power systems in some

particular classes of commercial buildings. The case-study performed in [10] compares the needs

and requirements for four main sensitive commercial customer classes: generating stations and

substations, hospitals, voice and data communication centers, and data centers. Table 1-3 below

displays representative installations for each class, including the critical loads and implemented

backup solutions.

7
 System Backup System Power
Installation Critical loads
voltage Emergency Standby rating
Generator station 100 V dc 12 hr - 5 kW Lighting, motors, PLC,
and substation battery protective relays
Hospital 10 and 0.4 kV 0.5 hr UPS Diesel 1.9 kW Life safety and life
ac generator support loads
Voice and data -48V dc and 4 hr battery Diesel 150 kW Switchboards and
communication 230 V ac generator computer loads
center
Data center 400 V ac 0.7 hr UPS Diesel 160 kW Server, fire alarms and
generator for protection
critical loads
Table 1-3: Auxiliary power systems for representative high-sensitivity commercial classes [10]

Diesel generators have traditionally served as the prevailing option for backup generator

applications [7] [9] [11] [12] [13]. This is also visible in the representative commercial building

installations shown in Table 1-3. In 2001, there were an estimated 350,000 stationary diesel

generators in the U.S., totaling more than 125 gigawatts (GW) [12]. The key factors that make

these systems favorable are technological maturity, relatively low cost, availability and

flexibility, and improved reliability and safety [13].

The predominance of diesel generators in commercial emergency and backup applications has

brought about concerns regarding pollutants given off as byproducts of their combustion process.

In particular, they are documented to emit significant levels of particulate matter (PM) and

nitrogen oxides (NOx), as well as carbon-monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) [11] [12] [13],

which are hazardous to health and/or environmentally harmful. As displayed in Figure 1-5

below, the PM and NOx and emissions from diesel generators are higher than all other

generation sources, with NOx rates up to 200 times higher than combined cycle natural gas

turbines [12]. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that most commercial-scale

implementations are located closer to populated areas [11] [12] and their emissions are usually

vented at ground level, as opposed to tall smokestacks [12].

8
Figure 1-5: NOx and PM10 emission factors from diesel generators relative to other sources [12]

Due to these high emission rates, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced

regulations to reduce emissions from diesel-powered non-road equipment. This increases the

design complexity of the systems [13] [14], and thus has the potential to increase their cost.

9
1.3 Problem definition and research objectives

Commercial buildings typically attempt to meet their supplementary energy requirements

through investments in traditional backup infrastructure, which typically take the form of

standby generators with battery UPS backup systems for critical loads. These systems fail to

maximize cost and operational efficiency, while offering limited ancillary benefits related to

revenue generation, environmental footprint, and contribution to grid stability.

These challenges have the potential to be addressed through the implementation of solar

photovoltaic (PV)-battery integrated microgrid architectures, which feature:

 Localized renewable electricity production to mitigate electricity costs

 Backup battery reserve for critical loads, in the event of power outages

 Control mechanisms designed to optimize system efficiency, costs, and longevity

 Alternate revenue streams through participation in grid-integrated energy and ancillary

service markets

Despite these advantages, the diverse nature of commercial building applications leads to

varying microgrid operational objectives and consequent disparities in their design and

configuration. Thus, there is currently limited information on the technological and economic

tradeoffs inherent in the use of various battery chemistries in different operational modes. This

has led to ambiguity in assessing the operational and economic viability of these systems as

alternatives to traditional implementations.

Therefore, the goal of this research is to characterize the economic and technological tradeoffs

associated with the utilization of a PV-battery commercial building microgrid for selected

operational objectives and functional modes, as well as the impact of battery chemistry on
10
system revenues. This will be achieved by defining the control framework and developing a

simulation model to represent the functionality of a commercial building microgrid energy

management system, based on input data from ongoing microgrid development projects at

GridSTAR Center in the Philadelphia Navy Yard.

1.4 Thesis organization

This chapter introduces the pertinent energy problem in commercial buildings summarizes the

objectives of this thesis. Chapter 2 will include literature review of the current microgrid

landscape, including challenges, current work and research opportunities. Chapter 3 will provide

details of the proposed model formulation. Chapter 4 will describe the data inputs and

components featuring in the proposed model. Chapter 5 will display and discuss the model

simulation results. Finally, Chapter 6 will summarize the conclusions from this research.

11
Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Solar photovoltaic systems in commercial buildings

The global solar photovoltaic (PV) market has experienced prodigious growth in recent years, in

attempt to meet growing electricity demand and curb emissions from fossil fuel consumption.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), 4,751 MW of PV capacity was

installed in the U.S. in 2013, representing a 41% increase from 2012 and 29% of all new

electricity generation capacity [15]. As at the end of 2013, the cumulative solar electricity

capacity is 13,000 MW, with about 6,000 MW of PV forecasted to come online in 2014 [15].

This increase in solar implementation has been accompanied by a steady decline in system cost,

with an average PV installed system price of $2.59/W at the end of 2013 [15]. This reflects a

15% drop from 2012 and 60% since 2011 [15]. The annual trends in PV installed capacity and

system price are displayed in Figure 2-1 below.

12
 Figure 2-1: Annual trends in U.S. PV installation capacity and average system price [15]

In particular, PV systems are increasingly being implemented in the U.S. building sector. As

visible in Figure 2-1, non-residential systems sector (commercial, government, school and non-

profit installations) accounted for 1,112 MW (23.4%) of installed capacity in 2013, representing

a 33.8% increase from 2011. These PV systems are either grid-connected or off-grid, and

typically take the form of (1) ground-mounted; (2) roof-mounted; (3) shade structure; or (4)

building-integrated PV (BIPV) arrays, with capacities between 10 kW and 100 kW [16].

PV system integration with commercial buildings is important in the context of the current

energy market, which is characterized by high dependency on electricity and increasing concerns

over greenhouse gas emissions. In general, PV systems have the advantages of zero greenhouse

13
or toxic gases, reclamation of degraded land, reduction of transmission lines from electric grids,

improvement of quality of water resources, increase in regional/national energy dependence,

diversification and security of energy supply, and acceleration of rural electrification [17].

Specifically considering buildings, PV systems are utilized to perform the following functions

[18]:

 Reduction of building peak electrical demand and utility bills

 Replacement of building envelope materials, such as roof, glazing (windows and

skylights) and wall components, by means of BIPV systems

 Operation of heating, ventilating and air-conditioning (HVAC) and lighting systems

 Operation of “active” (electrochromic) windows, air movement systems (fans) and fluid

movement systems (pumps)

Table 2-1 below summarizes some benefits for various types of PV systems in buildings.

Table 2-1: Benefits of PV systems in buildings [18]

14
Despite these advantages, the penetration rate experienced by PV systems has been hindered by a

number of drawbacks, as discussed by [19]:

(1) High average capital-cost with long recovery periods

(2) Production costs are non-competitive with fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE), solar electricity lifetime prices must drop to $0.06/kWh in order to be

competitive with other non-renewables [20].

(3) Low system efficiency limits overall productivity

(4) Intermittencies associated with solar radiation leads to unstable production and difficulty

in integrating with distribution networks

On a global scale, government legislature has been directed at offsetting the cost of PV and other

renewable systems, with the main objective of limiting the environmental impact of the energy

sector, reducing fossil fuel dependence and fostering industrial development [17]. In particular,

the U.S. attempts to lower these system costs through a set of subsidies and incentives.

Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have been set by U.S. states, prescribing a proportion of

energy production to be derived from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, geothermal and

biomass. As of 2011, 28 states have adopted this mechanism, with the majority employing a

system of renewable energy credits (RECs) and solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) to

promote utility compliance [17] [21]. Federal investment tax credits (ITC) offer 30% subsidies

and accelerated depreciation schedules for commercial installations [21]. In addition, states and

utilities offer various rebates for PV systems [21].

Third-party ownership is the predominant business model for solar installations in the non-

residential and utility sectors, in which a power purchase agreement (PPA) stipulates that the

15
third-party owns the system and the consumer makes regular payments to this owner. The PV

system is located on the consumer’s facility, where they utilize the generated power. This

arrangement is aimed at deferring the sizable upfront cost associated with PV system deployment

[21].

2.2 Microgrid systems

The frequency and magnitude of recent blackouts in the U.S. highlighted the vulnerability of the

grid to failure resulting from natural disasters and unpredictable phenomena. The need for

greater reliability and resilience of power infrastructure is heightened by changes in customer

needs, additional stress resulting from liberalized electricity markets, and increased dependence

on technological services [22].

Distributed energy resources (DERs) have emerged as a means to improve grid reliability, curb

emissions and provide service differentiation [22] [23]. DERs take the form of small medium

and low voltage (MV and LV) generation sources both in utility networks and downstream of the

meter, such as reciprocating generators, gas turbines, microturbines, fuel cells, combined heat

and power (CHP) systems, electricity storage, as well as renewables like PV, wind turbines and

biogas systems [23].

The degree to which DER interconnection can provide the above benefits may however be

limited. Firstly, the intermittency of renewable resources often leads to power fluctuations with

resulting negative impacts on grid power quality [22]. Secondly, in the event of grid shutdown,

DERs would be unable to deliver power while their output is required [22]. Thirdly, operation

and control of a huge number of DERs may prove a significant challenge [23]. In addition, the

16
prevailing contingency management mechanism involves load-shedding, and disconnection of

high-voltage lines, which leads to loss of generation stations [22].

Microgrid systems offer potential solutions to the above drawbacks of DERs. IEEE Std 1547.4-

2011 defines microgrids as electric power systems (EPS) that: (1) have distributed resources and

load, (2) have the ability to disconnect from and parallel with the area EPS, (3) include the local

EPS and may include portions of the area EPS, and (4) are intentionally planned [24].

Technically speaking, they may also be defined as low-voltage distribution networks located

downstream of a distribution substation through a point of common coupling (PCC), which

consist of distributed generators, distributed energy storage and controllable loads, and are

capable of operating in both grid-connected and islanded (autonomous) modes [25]. Based on

[22], the following chart summarizes the key features of microgrid systems.
Microgrid System

Co-location of loads and DERs to promote

efficient energy supply and delivery

Secure and reliable supply configurations and

service differentiation based on user
technological preference and power quality
requirements

Energy delivery structure which supports

autonomous operation during power outages

Figure 2-2: Key features of microgrid systems [22]

The above features contribute to provide the following benefits, as characterized by [24]:

 Improve reliability by providing power to the islanded portion of the EPS during an

outage or disturbance in the greater EPS

17
  Relieve area EPS overload by allowing intentional islanding of individual systems

 Isolate individual system from area EPS power quality issues such as voltage distortion,

voltage sag, flicker and lightening transients.

 Resolve power quality issues by reducing total harmonic distortions at the loads

 Allow for maintenance on the area EPS by islanding individual systems

Although microgrids vary in technology and application, they are typically made up of a

particular set of components. As characterized by [25], the major components featuring in

microgrid systems are (1) distributed generators (DG), (2) distributed energy storage (DES), (3)

controllable loads, (4) critical loads, and (5) point of common coupling (PCC) [25]. Table 2-2

summarizes key functionalities and examples of the above major microgrid components.

Table 2-2: Major microgrid system components [25]

Microgrid architectures may be classified by application, ownership structure and type of loads

[22]. On the basis of grid-integration, microgrids may be grid-connected or act as an isolated grid

in remote microgrid architectures. This thesis research focuses on grid-connected systems, which

can be further categorized according to scale: (1) utility microgrids (2) commercial/industrial

18
microgrids (3) residential microgrids. Figure 2-3 below displays an example of microgrid

topologies encompassing all three scales.

Figure 2-3: Example of microgrid topologies according to scale [22]

Utility microgrids are located on a portion or the entirety of distribution substation feeders

managed by distributed network operators (DNO), and are aimed at meeting load growth and

managing congestion on these feeder and medium-voltage sub-transmission networks. Planned

islanding for prescheduled maintenance is a feature of these systems [22].

Commercial/industrial microgrids offer solutions for users with critical/sensitive loads, in

order to limit the influence of the main grid on power quality and reliability. As shown in Figure

2-3, these microgrids may be deployed to serve single or multiple facilities, each with load

classification and service differentiation mechanisms aimed at defining power quality and

19
reliability requirements of the loads. These systems may experience unplanned islanding during

outages/interruptions, or planned islanding in response to energy prices [22]. Commercial

microgrid systems will form the focus of this thesis research. Specifically, the term building-

integrated microgrid (BIMG) has been used to refer to buildings with decentralized and

cooperative architectures for local power flow balance between loads and renewable power

generation, with provisions for storage and smart-grid interactivity [26].

Residential microgrids may also be deployed to serve small residential customers. They offer

convenient and reliable supply which is customized to the customer’s demand [22].

There have been increased efforts to develop and study microgrid systems on a global scale.

Overviews of microgrid research and testbeds in various economies are presented in [23], [27]

and [28]. These development efforts are mostly concentrated in the European Union (EU)

countries, North America and Asia. Representative testbeds in the EU include, the “Microgrids

Project” in Kythnos Island, Greece, the ISET microgrid in Germany, and the “More Microgrids

Project” in Mannheim–Wallstadt, Germany. In North America, the Consortium for Electric

Reliability Technology Solutions (CERTS) is the most-quoted microgrid testbed. In Asia, Japan

leads the research and development efforts, with most projects funded by the New Energy and

Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). The overall regional differences in

these development efforts are highlighted in [27]. North American countries are generally

focused on exploring the power supply reliability benefits of microgrid systems, with a

prevalence of autonomous control for maintaining voltage and frequency. On the other hand,

European and Asian efforts display a greater emphasis on renewable energy utilization, in

addition to power quality and reliability. While Asian systems are predominantly centrally

controlled, European systems are observed to be either centrally controlled or agent-based.

20
2.3 Battery systems for microgrid applications

Energy storage systems are essential in microgrid applications, where they are utilized to

mitigate intermittency in renewable energy sources, improve microgrid stability and perform

ancillary services to the grid [29]. Figure 2-4 below summarizes operational uses for storage

systems based on grid location and duration.

Figure 2-4: Storage system operational uses [30]

Battery storage systems, categorized either as cell or flow batteries, are the most frequently

utilized storage applications [31]. Flow batteries, which are typically more desirable in large-

scale projects, store their electrolytes in separate tanks and moved into electrochemical cells

using pumps, while cell batteries store their electrolytes in the same location as the chemical

reaction [31]. This thesis research focuses on the application of cell batteries in small- to

medium-scale commercial microgrid systems. Other types of energy storage systems in power

21
system applications include compressed air energy storage (CAES), pumped hydro storage

(PHS), hydrogen fuel cells, flywheels, supercapacitors, and superconducting magnetic energy

storage (SMES) [31].

There are various cell battery technologies with varying levels of suitability for microgrid

applications. The leading cell battery chemistries on the market are lead acid, lithium ion (Li-

ion), sodium sulfur (NaS), and nickel cadmium (Ni-Cd) [31] [32]. Table 2-3 below summarizes

the general technical, economic and performance attributes of these technologies.

Attribute Lead Acid Li-ion NaS Ni-Cd

Depth of
75% 80% 100% 100%
Discharge
High and auxiliary
Cost Low Very high heating steams High
needed
Lifespan (Cycles) 1000 3000 2500 3000
Efficiency 72-78% 100% 89% 72-78%
Self-discharge Average Negligible Negligible High
Maturity Mature Immature Mature Mature

Table 2-3: Comparison between major cell battery chemistries [31]

The pros and cons of these technologies for power system applications are compared in [32].

Among the above battery chemistries, lead acid batteries are the oldest and most mature

technologies, while Li-ion, NaS and Ni-Cd are favorable due to their high energy density. Li-ion

is considered to hold the greatest potential for future development and optimization, since they

possess the highest energy density and storage efficiency close to 100%, despite their key

drawbacks of high cost and detrimental effects of deep discharging. On the other hand, lead-acid

and Ni-Cd batteries can supply good pulsed power at lower costs, although they are large,

contain toxic heavy metals, and suffer from severe self-discharge. While NaS batteries are

relatively small and light, they require constant heat input to maintain molten states of
22
electrolytes. Figure 2-5 below displays comparisons between these cell batteries and other

energy storage systems, based on technical performance and capital costs.

Figure 2-5: Technoeconomic comparison between storage technologies [33]

23
2.4 Microgrid energy management systems and modeling

The role energy management system (EMS) is to allocate power output from distributed

generation, economically serve the loads, and orchestrate transitions between interconnected and

islanded operational modes [25]. This operation typically utilizes three hierarchical levels of

control: (1) the distribution network (DNO) and market operator (MO), (2) the microgrid central

controller (MGCC), and (3) the local controllers (LC) [25] [28] [34]. The MGCC acts as an

interface between the greater grid (DNO and MO) and the microgrid LCs, which control the

individual components of the microgrid (such as DG, storage, loads and protection equipment)

[28]. Figure 2-6 illustrates this hierarchical control framework.

Figure 2-6: Hierarchical control framework of microgrid EMS (PCC-point of common coupling;
MGCC-microgrid central controller; SD-separation device; CB-circuit breaker; GC-DG
controller; ES-storage device; LC-local controller) [34]

24
Based on the EMS decision-making process, system control may be considered centralized or

decentralized. In the centralized case, the MGCC manages the system with emphasis on market

prices, while decentralized control responds to the revenue- and performance- maximizing

operation of the LCs [28].

Widespread microgrid research efforts have been directed at EMS modeling with the aim of

gaining insight into technical and economic considerations surrounding microgrid

implementation. The roles performed by the EMS necessarily involve economic and technical

optimization, in order to ensure that desired system integrity and performance are achieved with

minimal costs/maximal profits [31]. An overview of common optimization techniques utilized in

battery-integrated distributed generation applications is presented in [31]. This paper discusses

examples of models utilizing graphical construction, probabilistic, deterministic, genetic

algorithm and artificial neural network (ANN) techniques.

Certain tools have been built specifically for microgrid EMS modeling. The Distributed Energy

Resources Customer Adoption Model (DER-CAM) has been developed at Berkeley Lab since

2000. DER-CAM takes in load profile, price, system cost, and system technical data, and

minimizes the cost of operating DG and CHP systems. Model outputs include optimal capacities

and running schedules of DG and CHP systems, and total cost of supplying electric and heat

loads [35]. As an example, this modeling tool is utilized in [36], which is concerned with the

cost-minimizing technological combination between a reciprocating engine, absorption cooler,

solar thermal collector, electrical storage, and thermal storage system to meet both electrical and

thermal loads of a California hotel, for four separate system operational objectives. The results of

this optimization are the best combination of these technologies, in terms of operating capacity

and schedule, as well as final operating costs and carbon emissions.

25
Existing microgrid EMS research has focused on modeling various aspects of the microgrid

system. Certain building-integrated microgrid EMS models take into account all building system

loads. For example, [37] explores the ability of a building microgrid to promote energy

efficiency by proposing a scheduling optimization problem to minimize electricity and natural

gas costs in a building with electric, thermal, HVAC, as well as electric vehicle (EV) loads, in

the presence of utility, CHP, fuel cell, PV, wind, and battery inputs. On the other hand, some

studies are focused on modeling the performance of specific generation and storage components

of the system. In [38], a microgrid EMS model is proposed for optimal dispatch of PV energy

and controllable loads, based on forecasted PV production and load in a system with embedded

storage units and a microturbine system. [39] presents equivalent electrical and models for wind-

battery integrated system concerned with output smoothing. [40] analyzes the economic value

associated with load levelling, control power and peak-shaving applications for four different

battery types. In addition, [41] applies a battery degradation model is in assessing the economic

feasibility of an EV participating in frequency regulation ancillary services.

There are a number of different modeling objectives implemented in different microgrid EMS

studies. Cost minimization in serving loads is a common feature of these EMS models, as earlier

discussed in [36]. The dual objective of profit maximization has also been frequently explored.

These profits may be derived from sales to the energy market as in [42], which develops a day-

ahead optimization for a microgrid consisting of wind, microturbine, PV, fuel, electrolyzer, H2

storage, reformer, boiler, and electrical and thermal load systems. On the other hand, [43]

proposes a profit-maximization optimal bidding solution for a system participating in the

ancillary services market (spinning reserve), in addition to the energy market.

26
Another branch of microgrid EMS research focuses on optimal size of the individual system

components, as earlier discussed in [36] where the optimal capacity and combination of various

DG sources is determined for different operational objectives. In [44] also, the optimal energy

storage system size is determined for a microgrid with PV, wind and microturbine DGs in a

mixed linear integer unit commitment formulation for both islanded and grid-tied mode, which is

solved using AMPL. Aside this, some studies are primarily concerned with maximizing the

performance of microgrid subsystems. For example, [45] and [46] both propose models to

optimize the lifetime of energy storage systems.

The above studies have failed to emphasize and concisely depict the technological and economic

tradeoffs between alternate uses of commercial building-integrated microgrid systems,

particularly as sources of revenue from portfolios of ancillary service and energy markets. This

issue is exacerbated by the presence of multiple system objectives, components, and parameters

across various implementations. In order to make a more compelling case for these systems,

further studies are required to quantify these tradeoffs, as well as their relationship to the degree

of potential blackout mitigation offered by the commercial building microgrids.

27
Chapter 3: Model Formulation

The purpose of this research is to characterize the economic tradeoffs associated with the use of a

commercial building-integrated microgrid system in specific operational objectives and

functional modes, given specific battery system technologies.

Based on system data and specifications from the Building 7R commercial microgrid

development at the GridSTAR Center in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, an operational strategy has

been developed to characterize the operation of the energy management system.

3.1 System description

Figure 3-1: 7R microgrid system electrical characteristics

28
The system architecture of the microgrid to be modelled is motivated by the Building 7R

development at GridSTAR Center in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Philadelphia, PA. Figure 3-1

above depicts the basic electrical features of the system.

The major system features are as follows:

(1) DC inputs: The 7R system accepts DC inputs from the PV distributed generation

component and the battery storage system.

The DC input section consists of load-break DC contactors to separate the battery from

the DC/DC converter as well as a DC pre-charge circuit to protect against power surges

to internal components during start-up.

(2) Bidirectional inverter: The system features a bidirectional insulated gate bipolar

transistor (IGBT) inverter module.

The AC output of the inverter is connected to a three-phase AC filter. This filter is

comprised of a second-order LC filter made from a reactor and a filter capacitor.

The output of the filter is then put through an AC contactor to separate the filter and

inverter from the grid. In the event that the inverter needs to be bypassed (grid to load)

for maintenance or emergency reasons, there is also an AC bypass switch.

The scope of this thesis does not include a characterization of the inverter power

electronics. Thus, the developed model assumes lossless inverter operation and perfect

quality of the output waveform.

(3) AC Output: This portion of the system contains a 480V AC 3-phase grid interconnection

and AC load connections.

The grid interconnection serves as the PCC with the greater distribution system, through

which the microgrid interacts with the energy and ancillary service markets.

29
 The AC load connection serves all the building electrical loads, including special

designation for the data servers, which make up the critical loads.

Also included are voltage sensing potential transformers (PT) and current sensing current

transformers (CT), which are used for voltage, current, power, and power factor controls

and monitoring. These sensors also detect grid restart and are used to synchronize the

system to the grid for reconnection. This section also contains an isolating transformer as

well as chokes for output filtering

(4) DC Loads: The DC load section consists of three DC outputs with rated nominal voltage

of 500-700VDC and maximum voltage of 460-715VDC. The loads served include a rapid

charge EV charging unit, a DC grid classroom facility, and a DC mini split air

conditioner.

(5) Energy Management System: The microgrid EMS encompasses the site control, power

electronics control and battery management system, as well as the building automation

system (BAS). The EMS is responsible for controlling transitions between grid-

connected and islanding operation, grid communications for ancillary services, battery

cycling operation, and BAS controllable loads such as lighting and temperature systems.

As indicated in Figure 3-1, the EMS model in this study is primarily concerned the

functions related to orchestrating energy flows between the PV system, batteries, utility,

regional transmission organization (RTO) and the building loads. This functionality is

depicted in Figure 3-2 below.

The EMS model does not include electrical circuit-level characterizations of the

distribution systems, protection devices and power electronics.

30
 Figure 3-2: Functionality of Building 7R microgrid EMS (based on [47]).

3.2 EMS model operational framework

As shown in Figure 3-2, based on the framework developed in [47], the building has two

contracts A and B. Contract A reflects the agreement for electricity demand and net metering

payments with PECO, which is the utility local to the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Contract B

reflects the agreement with the PJM RTO for ancillary services. In orchestrating energy flow

between the utility, RTO, battery, PV system and loads, the central objective of the EMS is to

maximize revenues from building energy demand curtailment, while providing ancillary

market participation and backup reserve capacity, subject to battery performance limitations.

This is achieved by means of the following strategies:

31
(1) Minimization of building energy demand purchases

This involves the following EMS functions:

 Maximization of local PV generation: The output PV generation is primarily utilized in

meeting the building load demands. Any excess PV is recycled based on control logic

discussed later in this chapter.

 Peak-shaving operational mode: This operational mode involves the mitigation of

energy bills by successive charging and discharging of the battery during the lowest cost

(off-peak) and highest cost (on-peak) periods of the day, respectively. This involves the

formulation of an optimization problem for the battery cycling operation on a daily basis,

which will be developed later in this chapter.

(2) Ancillary service (A/S) market participation

It is assumed that the 7R microgrid is located within the PJM RTO region, in which

frequency regulation has been determined to be the most profitable A/S [48]. The EMS

meets this second objective by means of the frequency regulation operational mode.

Frequency regulation (or simply “regulation”) is defined by PJM as the “capability of a

specific resource within the appropriate telecommunications, control and response capability

to increase or decrease its output in response to a regulating control signal to control or

frequency deviations” on the greater distribution network [49].

The EMS offers the battery capacity to the PJM market as a dynamic regulation (Reg-D)

resource, which is a designation for fast-cycling resources [50]. This battery capacity

accrues revenue when it is utilized by PJM as a power source or sink in the event of

32
 instantaneous grid power undersupply or oversupply, during the bid period. The bidding

mechanism employed by the EMS will be discussed in subsequent sections.

(3) System constraint compliance

The EMS aims to fulfil both of the above operational objective subject to user-defined

minimum stored battery backup capacity, battery performance limitations, and RTO

regulations. To this effect, a battery capacity allocation approach has been adopted

towards providing the above-defined functionalities. In other words, the usable battery

capacity is partitioned between (1) peak-shaving operational mode, (2) frequency regulation

operational mode, and (3) backup battery reserve. This is depicted in Figure 3-3 below.

Figure 3-3: Battery capacity allocation approach

The usable battery capacity is defined by the maximum and minimum state of charge limits,

as determined by the implemented battery technology. Figure 3-4 below summarizes the

framework employed by the EMS in meeting the central system operational objective.

33
 Maximize Local PV
Minimize Building Generation
Energy Demand
Purchases Peak-Shaving
Operational Mode

Microgrid EMS: Ancillary Service Frequency Regulation

Maximize Revenues Market Participation Operational Mode

Satisfy System Battery Capacity

Constraints Allocation Approach

Figure 3-4: Summary of EMS operational framework

3.3 EMS control strategy

This section presents the proposed control strategy for the Building 7R EMS model, based on the

input information to be discussed in the following chapter. As earlier stated, the operational logic

presented in this research focuses on the functions of the microgrid EMS relating to the transfer

of energy between the PV system, batteries, utility, RTO and the building loads. The model does

not include circuit-level characterizations of the distribution systems, protection devices and

power electronics. The thermal and electrochemical behavior of the battery systems are not

considered in this analysis, with the assumptions of limited impact of disparities in performance

between cells on the larger array, as well as periodic equalization charging and uniform

temperature control [51].

34
Figure 3-5: Overall EMS control strategy. (1) Peak-shaving optimization; (2) PV recycling; (3) Operational mode decision

35
Figure 3-5 above displays the overall control strategy implemented by the EMS model. At a high

level, it is primarily focused on addressing the following operational factors:

 Building load-serving mechanism

 PV energy utilization and recycling

 Battery charge/discharge decision-making

 Basis for grid interactivity

Based on the entailments of the peak-shaving operational mode, in which the EMS attempts to

offset building electricity costs by capitalizing on hourly fluctuations in energy price, the control

framework is evaluated in 24-hour intervals. Thus, as shown in Figure 3-5 below, the first and

last portions of the control algorithm define the conditions for resetting EMS control operations

on a daily basis.

The data inputs discussed in section 3.3 and the control framework in Figure 3-5 above are based

on a deterministic approach, which means the EMS makes decisions with the assumption of

perfect knowledge of pertinent variables. Thus, at the start of each day, building demand,

electricity prices, PV production and frequency regulation data are compiled for the 24-hour

duration. With the aid of this information, the major decisions carried out by the EMS are as

follows:

(1) Peak-shaving optimization: The first priority of the EMS is to determine the optimal

hours each day to allocate battery capacity towards peak-shaving operation. This decision

is made based on predefined battery capacity allocation, battery operational limits, hourly

energy prices, building demand and PV production.

This optimization problem is presented in detail later in this chapter.

36
(2) PV energy recycling: In line with the objective of maximally utilizing local PV

generation, the EMS directs all PV output towards the building loads. On an hourly basis,

any excess PV production over demand is sent to the battery, after which the balance is

sold to the grid. This is depicted in the loop 2 in Figure 3-5.

This operation assumes the presence of a net-metering agreement with the utility, in

which a market exists for excess PV at prices equal to the hourly LMP.

(3) Determination of operational mode: With information on optimal peak-shaving hours and

PV energy flows available, the EMS proceeds to make decisions on the operational mode

in effect each hour, which impacts the load-serving mechanism employed and nature of

grid interaction. This functionality is depicted in the loop 3 in Figure 3-5 above.

As shown, the EMS charges or discharges the battery if the pertinent hourly period has

been optimally designated for peak-shaving. After discharging the battery to the loads,

any excess demand is purchased from the utility grid.

Note that within the battery capacity allocation framework discussed in section 3.2, it has

been assumed that the battery does not simultaneously provide peak-shaving and

frequency regulation functionality. Due to the unpredictable nature of frequency

regulation cycling demands, as a function of RTO grid requirements, this approach is

necessary in order to guarantee conformance with the predefined allocations and battery

operational limits. Thus, in hours where the battery does not provide peak-shaving, the

EMS bids the predefined battery allocation for frequency regulation into the PJM market.

When the system participates in regulation services, the building energy demand is

obtained from utility purchases.

37
3.4 EMS simulation model

This section presents the simulation model developed to carry out the functions described in

this chapter. It accepts hourly inputs of building demand, electricity prices, regulation market

data, PV production, user settings, and battery parameters, and outputs hourly demand utility

purchases, battery energy in-flow and out-flow, and market revenues. This analysis is

performed on a daily basis for the duration of one year. Figure 3-6 below depicts an overview

of the model operation

Figure 3-6: EMS model overview

As discussed in section 3.4, the decision-making performed by the system involves three key

processes: peak-shaving optimization, PV energy recycling and determination of operational

mode. MATLAB has thus been selected as the microgrid EMS simulation tool due to the

availability of optimization tools and provisions for conditional programming to aid

38
implementation of the outlined logical decision-making process, in addition to compatibility

features with Excel spreadsheets for easy import and export of relevant data sets.

3.4.1 Peak-shaving optimization

The peak-shaving optimization problem has been formulated as a linear maximization of net

revenues obtained by the system from mitigated energy cost, ancillary market participation and

excess PV sales, in the midst of building demand purchases. As shown in Figure 3-5 above, this

optimization is calculated by the EMS on a daily basis, for the duration of one operational year.

This optimization problem has been developed, as follows:

INPUT PARAMETERS

Hourly electricity price ($/kWh)

Hourly building demand (kWh)
Hourly unmet demand after PV utilization (kWh)
Battery maximum continuous discharge power (kW)
Hourly PV energy output (kWh)
Frequency regulation allocation (%)
Total peak-shaving allocation (%)
Rated battery storage capacity (kWh)
Rated minimum battery state of charge (%)
Rated maximum battery state of charge (%)
Maximum specified battery charge rate (%h-1)
Maximum specified battery discharge rate (%h-1)
Battery roundtrip efficiency (%)
Reserve capacity for backup (%)
Excess PV energy over demand (kWh)

39
DECISION VARIABLES

Hourly energy consumption from utility (kWh)

Hourly excess PV energy sold to the grid (kWh)
Hourly amount of battery charge from excess PV (kWh)
Hourly battery discharge due to peak-shaving (on-peak) (kWh)
Hourly battery charge amount from utility towards peak-shaving
(off-peak) (kWh)

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION

The first two terms in the objective function describe the outflow and inflow of energy from the

battery in response to hourly price fluctuations. On a daily basis, the optimization aims to

maximize the difference between mitigated on-peak costs and purchased off-peak energy. The

second term represents purchases to serve building demand, which is minimized by the function.

The third term shows the revenue from excess PV recycling, which is made up of the avoided

cost from charging the battery with solar and excess net metering PV sales.

The constraints to the peak-shaving optimization model are as follows:

(1) ∑ ( )

40
 This ensures that the daily quantity stored in the battery towards peak-shaving, which

includes utility purchases and excess PV, equals the total capacity allocated towards

peak-shaving. This is scaled by the battery state-of-charge range and maximum constant

charge rate.

(2) ∑ ( )

This sets the total battery intake from PV and utility purchases equal to the total energy

discharged during peak hours, scaled by the battery efficiency. Therefore, the peak-

shaving allocation is always satisfied. It also includes an embedded assumption that the

battery discharges and charges at approximately the same constant rates.

(3)

This guarantees that the building demand is served at every given hour, either through

utility purchases or battery discharge.

(4) ( )

This ensures that the hourly capacity charged to the battery does not exceed its

operational limits, as defined by the state-of-charge range, charging efficiency, and

maximum charge rate. Thus, the maximum energy stored during off-peak periods is the

total peak-shaving allocation, scaled by these battery operational limits, with a minimum

possible value of zero.

(5) ( )

This performs the same function as constraint (4) above in the case of battery discharge.

The maximum battery discharge in on-peak hours is given by the total peak-shaving

allocation, scaled by the battery state-of-charge, charge rate, and efficiency limits. The

minimum allowable value is also zero.

41
 (6)

This ensures that the system never purchases more than the building electricity demand

in any given hour. The variable also cannot attain a value less than zero.

(7)

This sets an upper limit on the amount of excess PV transferred to the battery, based on

its charging efficiency.

(8) ∑ ( ) ∑

This ensures that the sum of battery charge from solar (scaled by efficiency) and sold

energy equals the total excess in the system.

(9)

In line with the control framework discussed in section 3.3, this imposes the condition

that hourly sold PV energy is not more than excess PV in the system. The

variable also cannot attain a value less than zero.

(10) ∑ ∑

This ensures that the total quantity discharged from the battery from the start of the day

to any hour does not exceed the stored energy available in the battery from all

sources.

The above linear optimization problem is solved in 24-hour increments for the duration of a year,

using the linprog function in MATLAB. The simulation code developed to consolidate input and

output data, solve the optimization problem, implement the operational logic described in section

3.3, and calculate model outputs is available in Appendix E.

42
Note that this optimization formulation does not include a state-of-charge control variable within

the objective function. This is because such a variable would lead to inconsistency in the

objective function, since maintaining all components of in terms of revenue would entail the

introduction of a degradation cost factor, which is beyond the scope of this research. However,

due to programming limitations imposed by the linprog function, the hourly battery state-of-

charge cannot be regulated by the optimization solver, since it does not feature in the objective

function. Therefore, the following three-pronged approach has been adopted in order to ensure

compliance of battery state-of-charge with predefined allocation (see Figure 3-3) and operation

limits:

 Daily peak-shaving allocation net-zero: The battery energy allocation towards peak-

shaving is completely charged and discharged every day. This is implemented in

constraints (1) and (2)

 Regulated discharge time: The system can only discharge what is available in the battery

at any given hour, as captured by constraint (10).

 Weekday peak-shaving operation: Hourly price fluctuations associated with on- and off-

peak demand periods in PJM typically do not occur on weekends and holidays [49]. Also,

as shown in Figure 3-5(c), building demand on these weekends and holidays is

significantly less than weekdays. For these reasons, it has been assumed that peak-

shaving operation takes place only on weekdays. Therefore on weekends, the system

participates strictly on the regulation market and sells excess PV to the grid.

Also note that regulation revenue does not feature in the objective function because market

prices and required regulation quantity are considered external to the optimization problem, since

43
they are based on regulation market information, predefined regulation allocation and dispatch-

to-contract ratio data.

3.4.2 Output calculations

The above optimization problem yields hourly quantities of the following EMS energy flows:

 On-peak battery discharge

 Off-peak battery charge

 Utility demand purchases

 Total battery charging from PV

 Net metering sales of excess PV

Conditional programming has been utilized in determining when the system participates on the

frequency regulation market, as discussed in section 3.4 (see Appendix E). Based on all of the

above information, the EMS model yields outputs based on the following calculations:

(1) Peak-shaving revenue

This represents the total building electricity cost mitigation derived from dedicating

battery capacity toward peak-shaving. It is calculated as the difference between averted

utility purchases from on-peak discharge as well as PV charging, and the cost of off-peak

charging:

∑ [ ( ) ]

As shown, battery efficiency loss impacts peak-shaving revenues by increasing the

amount of purchased off-peak energy required to meet the allocation. It also reduces the

44
 amount of effective charge from solar and on-peak discharge, both of which have been

accounted for in constraints (5) and (7).

(2) Frequency regulation revenue

As discussed in section 3.5, the EMS bids the battery’s capacity into the regulation

market based on the calculated optimal periods for peak-shaving and corresponding

energy flows. During each of these hours, the system receives a capacity payment based

on the regulation market capacity clearing price ( ), in addition to a performance

payment corresponding to the dispatched capacity ( ), both of which are measured

in $/kWh. The dispatch-to-contract ratio ( ) characterization discussed in 3.3.3 has

been applied in determining these performance payments, as shown below:

Note that this model assumes an hourly net-zero of battery charge and discharge in

response to the signal from the RTO. In PJM training documents on ancillary services

[52], it is stated that fast regulation (Reg-D) resources (which include battery systems)

are “short term balanced to a zero state” by the system operator. This notion is also

supported by [41] and [48]. Assuming that the regulation energy flows are adjusted for

efficiency, inverter and transmission losses, this means that is approximately

evenly allocated between regulation-up and regulation-down movement. Therefore, for

each given frequency regulation battery allocation, the EMS model leaves half of the

capacity open to allow for energy intake. For example, if the battery is partitioned in a

0.3:0.4:0.3 ratio for peak-shaving, frequency regulation and emergency backup

respectively, 20% of the battery is reserved for energy absorption.

45
(3) Battery state-of-charge (SOC)

The value of percent SOC ( ) has been calculated hourly as the ratio of the battery’s

net energy transfer to its energy capacity, both of which are measured in kWh, i.e.:

( ) ( ( ) )

where represents the percent SOC in the preceding hour.

The SOC at the start of the year has been initialized to the sum of the minimum

operational limit, and the backup, frequency regulation, as shown below:

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

where represents the initial percent SOC.

As earlier noted, half of the frequency allocation is left open to allow for energy intake.

The bottom term is included in this equation to account for the possibility that the first

hour is an optimal period for off-peak charge.

46
Chapter 4: EMS Model Input Data and Component Sizing

This chapter describes the input data and sizing criteria that have featured in the characterization

of the Building 7R microgrid EMS operation, based on the framework describe in Chapter 3

above.

4.1 Building energy demand profile

The EMS model will utilize a simulated demand profile, as modeled by the Building 7R

architects, Kieran Timberlake. The model is developed using the DOE eQUEST analysis tool

and DOE Typical Meteorological Year 2 (TMY2) weather information for Philadelphia. The

total building area is assumed to be a two-story 25,600 square-feet (ft2) expanse. The output of

the model is the total electrical end-use demand (kWh) on an hourly basis for the duration of one

year, assuming day types and holidays from the year 2013.

The system is modeled as a classroom building with four occupancy and usage schedules. These

schedules are summarized in Table 4-1 below

Weekdays Weekends and

MWF TR holidays
Servers All day All day All day
Office/admit and first
8am-5pm 8am-5pm -
floor training areas
Tiered lecture halls 8am-12pm 1pm-5pm -
Classroom and tech
8am-5pm 8am-5pm -
classrooms

Table 4-1: Modeled occupancy and usage schedules within Building 7R

Due to these usage patterns, the daily peak demands vary according to day type. These variations

are displayed for representative days in each of the four seasons in Figure 4-1(a)-(c) below.

47
(a) Building electricity demand on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays

(b) Building electricity demand on Tuesdays and Thursdays

48
 (c) Building electricity demand on weekends and holidays

Figure 4-1: Typical building energy demand profiles for different day types duing representative
days in Winter, Spring, Summer, and Spring

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays (MWF), these peaks typically occur around mid-

morning, while they occur in the afternoon on Tuesdays and Thursdays (TR). In both cases,

demand is highest in July (summer). Weekends and holidays are characterized by low demand

and no identifiable peak demand patterns. The full details of the assumptions and data inputs

utilized in the building eQUEST model are available in Appendix A.

The hourly output building energy demand data has been catalogued for the whole year, with the

maximum, minimum and average demand has calculated for each hour. These results are shown

in Table 4-2(a)-(b) below.

49
 End of Average Min Max
hour (kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
1 11.24 5.15 28.58
2 11.14 5.15 28.55 Annual Demand Statistics
3 11.08 5.15 28.41 Min (kWh) 3.27
4 10.94 5.15 28.41
5 10.95 5.15 28.39 Max (kWh) 119.28
6 10.50 5.15 28.39 Average (kWh) 26.70
7 25.18 4.40 63.72
Total (kWh) 233921.58
8 40.99 4.21 105.25
9 48.71 3.27 115.89
(b) Annual building demand statistics
10 49.24 3.43 113.57
11 47.93 3.43 114.26
12 41.14 3.43 105.97
13 41.56 3.43 110.34
14 45.24 3.43 116.61
15 45.82 3.43 118.01
16 46.05 3.43 119.28
17 31.60 3.43 81.46
18 21.04 3.99 55.05
19 18.01 4.21 37.52
20 18.23 4.21 37.81
21 18.77 4.58 38.28
22 13.19 5.14 39.17
23 11.24 5.19 20.35
24 11.10 5.19 21.14
Total 640.88 102.69 1584.41
(a) Hourly building demand statistics

Table 4-2: Summary of Building 7R energy demand

Based on these results, the building would demand a total of 640.9 kWh on the average day, with

minimum and maximum possible demands of 102.7 kWh and 1584.4 kWh respectively. Figure

4-2 displays the hourly demand on these days. The relatively flat demand on the low demand day

is due to the fact that these periods of minimum demand correspond to weekends and holidays.

50
Figure 4-2: Average, minimum and maximum possible building demand (based on Table 4-2(a))

The average hourly demand is 26.7 kWh, while the minimum and maximum energy required on

any hour during the year are 3.3 kWh and 119.3 kWh respectively. The total building demand in

one year of operation is about 234 gigawatt-hours (GWh).

4.2 Energy price information

The EMS model derives hourly energy price information from 2013 PJM day-ahead locational

marginal pricing (LMP) data for the PECO region, in which the GridSTAR Center is located

[53]. This represents the hourly market clearing marginal price for this region, based on day-

ahead bids from suppliers [49].

The use of this data is based on the assumption that the 7R system faces the hourly LMP, instead

of fixed rates available from electricity retailers. In this way, the EMS is able to take full

51
advantage of hourly price fluctuations and optimally utilize battery capacity towards energy cost

mitigation. Table 4-3 and Figure 4-3 below display monthly energy input price characteristics.

Avg
Avg Price
Month Price Diff
(c/kWh)
(c/kWh)
Jan 3.67 2.48
Feb 3.45 1.77
Mar 3.89 2.29
Apr 3.92 2.52
May 3.83 2.64
Jun 3.80 3.12
Jul 4.88 6.75
Aug 3.55 3.28
Sep 3.56 3.14
Oct 3.47 2.15
Nov 3.63 2.79
Dec 4.02 2.94

Table 4-3: Price data summary

Figure 4-3: Average energy price and average price differential

52
The first column in Table 4-3 displays the average hourly cost of electricity in cents per kilowatt-

hours (c/kWh). The second column shows the monthly average price differential, which captures

the daily price fluctuations as the average of the difference between the daily maximum and

minimum for each month, i.e.

( )

The price differential characterization is important in determining periods of highest potential

energy cost savings. As visible in Figure 4-3, the highest price differentials occur during the

summer months of June to September, with a peak value of about 6.75 c/kWh in July, which also

coincides with the month of highest average electricity price.

4.3 Frequency regulation pricing and usage characterization

In the PJM ancillary services market, settlements from frequency regulation resources come in

two-part payments [54]:

(1) Regulation capability: This is a capacity payment that represents the resource owner’s

cost to reserve the battery for regulation.

(2) Regulation performance: This portion captures the resource owner’s price to provide

regulation movement, either in the form of energy inflow or outflow from the battery.

This payment represents the absolute sum of energy inflow and outflow experienced by

the system.

PJM receives bids from resource owners in the day-ahead market, with the option of updating

resource availability up to one hour ahead. These bids are used in the calculating the hourly

regulation market capability clearing price (RMCCP) and performance clearing price (RMPCP)

53
for economical dispatch, both in dollars per megawatt-hour ($/MWh). Historical regulation

market price information is available from PJM [55].

The EMS model utilizes 2013 hourly RMCCP and RMPCP data in determining frequency

regulation revenue. For various ratios of frequency regulation battery capacity allocation,

capacity payments have been evaluated using RMCCP. However, subject to the results of

economic dispatch, the actual battery capacity called upon by the system operator (i.e. mileage)

is typically significantly less than the capacity made available.

The SolarGridStorage frequency regulation battery system at the GridSTAR Center has

providing mileage data for this analysis. The system features a 250kW/125kWh battery system

with full capacity dedicated to frequency regulation services. Data from this system has been

utilized in characterizing the dispatch-to-contract ratio, which describes the ratio of hourly

battery mileage incurred to capacity made available. This data provides the net sum of energy

flow at 15-minute intervals for the whole of March, 2014 (with the exception of 47 unavailable

data points between March 7 and March 9, representing 1.58% of the total data set). It has been

assumed that the hourly mileage is represented by the data field referring to the net sum of grid

demand at each interval. This total hourly mileage has been divided by the system capacity

(125kWh) to yield an hourly characterization of the dispatch-to-contract ratio, i.e.

Note that the dispatch-to-contract ratios for unavailable data points have been assumed to be the

mean of the remaining data set. The histogram in Figure 4-4 below represents the resulting

distribution of the dispatch-to-contract ratio characterization, which is approximately normally

54
distributed around the mean. The average value is a ratio of 25.1% of dispatched capacity to bid

capacity, with minimum and maximum values of 2.8% and 42.4% respectively. The standard

deviation of the distribution is about 4.9%.

Dispatch-to-contract ratio data distribution

120

Min: 0.028
Max: 0.424
100 Mean: 0.251
SD: 0.049

80
Number of hours

60

40

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Dispatch-to-contract ratio

Figure 4-4: Dispatch-to-contract ratio characterization

Due to unavailability of complete additional monthly data at the time of this analysis, the

dispatch-to-contract ratio characterization derived from March, 2014 has been applied for all

other months in the EMS model, with the assumption of negligible month-to-month variations in

the framework for regulation market bidding and clearing. Also, the performance score assigned

by PJM to regulation resources based on their degree of responsiveness to the regulation signal is

not considered in this analysis.

55
4.4 Battery technology sizing and specifications

The battery storage component of the building 7R microgrid model will play an essential role in

fulfilling the system objective of revenue maximization through energy cost mitigation and

ancillary service market participation. With this in mind, performance of lead-acid and lithium-

ion battery chemistries will be compared within the framework of this analysis. As shown in

Table 4-4, these technologies provide reasonable contrasts in maturity, performance, physical

characteristics and cost. Lead-acid systems represent the established technology for hybrid

renewable power systems due to their low cost and technological maturity [31] [32] [56], with a

number of drawbacks related to performance limits and environmental consideration. Lithium-

ion systems on the other hand represent the emerging technology in the industry [32] [56], with

superior performance capabilities and physical characteristics, in spite of high cost and relative

immaturity. Table 4-4 below qualitatively compares the pros and cons of both battery

chemistries.

Pros Cons
Lead-acid Most mature technology. Relatively low energy density,
Low cost. efficiency depth of discharge, and
Established manufacturing base. cycle life. High toxicity and
temperature sensitivity.
Lithium-ion High efficiency and energy density, High cost.
and cycle life. Small weight and size. Relatively immature, with high
Low toxicity and maintenance manufacturing complexity.
requirements.

Table 4-4: Qualitative comparison between lead-acid and lithium-ion systems [31] [32] [56]

In sizing the battery systems for the EMS model, PJM regulations for ancillary market

participation served as the primary consideration. According to [54], generation and demand

56
resources must be able to provide a minimum of 0.1 MW (i.e. 100kW) of regulation capability

for market eligibility. Based on this, both battery systems in the model have been sized for

maximum continuous discharge ratings of 100kW.

In the lithium-ion case, available pre-packaged specifications for 100 kW/107.74 kWh system

have been utilized in the EMS model. The array contains two rows and five columns of Kokam

KBM255 2P lithium polymer battery modules. The relevant specifications for this system are

listed in Appendix B.

In the case of the lead-acid system, a suitable battery configuration must be determined to meet

the 100 kW criteria, based on manufacturer model catalogs. Performance specification catalogs

for the Enersys PowerSafe SBS valve regulated lead acid (VRLA) battery series provide nominal

capacity, nominal voltage and constant power discharge rates for a range of battery models (see

[57]). The SBS 190F model has been selected, since it displays the highest nominal capacity and

discharge rates among available 12V battery modules.

The sizing exercise for this lead acid system involves selecting the minimum number of modules

to provide an approximate constant discharge rate of 100 kW, in a discrete

configuration, with aggregate nominal voltage within acceptable range of typical inverter DC

inputs. For the purpose of this analysis, a DC input range of 280-600V has been selected, based

on the specifications for a 100kW Princeton Power DRI-100 inverter [58]. Figure 4-5 below

illustrates this lead-acid sizing problem.

57
 Figure 4-5: Illustration of lead-acid array sizing problem

In order to ascertain the minimum number of cells and array size to achieve the desired output, a

simple mixed-integer nonlinear genetic algorithm optimization has been developed in MATLAB,

as follows (see Appendix C for code):

Where

58
The results of this optimization model are integer numbers of battery module rows and columns

which minimize the number of cells required to achieve an output voltage between 280 and 600

V, as well as a constant discharge rates no greater than 0.5% above 100 kW. This analysis yields

an optimal array size of 37 columns, 5 rows, 444 V and 100.34 kW. This yields a nominal

capacity of 950 Ah, and thus an energy capacity of approximately (444 V)*(950 Ah) = 421.8

kWh1, which is about four times larger than the lithium-ion case with similar constant discharge

rate.

The key specifications to feature in the EMS model for this battery system, as well as the

lithium-ion system, are displayed in Table 4-5 below. Note that the expected efficiency at the

specified C-rates are not typically included in manufacturer datasheets. Thus these values are

obtained from [56], with the assumption that the battery systems under study display similar

efficiency at these C-rates. Also, C-rate of C/4 has been used in the lead-acid case due unfeasibly

low efficiencies associated with typical systems at the 1C rate used in the lithium-ion case.

Specification Lithium-ion Lead-acid

Maximum constant charge/discharge2 100 kW 100.34 kW

Energy capacity 107.74 kWh 421.8 kWh

Nominal voltage 518 -581 V 444 V

Efficiency [56] 92% 80%

C-rate [56] 1C C/4

Depth-of-discharge [56] 80% 50%

Table 4-5: EMS model battery specifications

1
This derivation of kWh energy capacity as the product of Ah capacity and nominal output voltage assumes that
the nominal voltage stays relatively constant throughout discharge
2
In the lead-acid case, it is assumed that the maximum charge and discharge rates are equal

59
4.5 PV system production

The Building 7R microgrid system features an on-site 12.48 kW Isofoton ISF-260

monocrystalline PV array. For the purpose of this analysis, this PV system is assumed to have

been sized externally based on the building loads. Table 4-6 below, summarizes the key technical

characteristics of the PV modules, assuming standard testing conditions (Irradiance-1.000 W/m²;

cell temperature-25° C; air mass-1.5).

Rated Power Open circuit Short circuit Max power Max power Efficiency
voltage current point voltage point current
260 W 38.1 V 8.98 A 31.1 V 8.36 A 15.7%

Table 4-6: Key technical characteristics of PV modules in 7R microgrid (STC) [59]

The EMS model makes use of simulated PV output based on the technical specifications of the

PV system in Table 4-6 above, as well as Typical Meteorological Year Type 2 (TMY2) data

available from the DOE, which also served as weather input for the eQUEST load profile model

in 3.3.1. These are fed into the TRNSYS model displayed in Figure 4-6 below, which outputs

expected PV production on an hourly basis for the duration of the year. The model details and

assumptions are available in Appendix D.

Figure 4-6: TRNSYS PV simulation model

60
4.6 Outage cost characterization

In order to attach a monetary value to the functionality of the microgrid relating to battery

backup reserve, a characterization of the degree of power outage costs has been developed, based

on the above discussed building demand and battery specifications.

In [8], a comprehensive end-use framework for quantifying the cost of power interruptions and

power quality events to U.S. electricity consumers has been developed, which takes into account

number of customers by class and region, duration and frequency of annual reliability events,

costs and vulnerability of customers to these events. This analysis has derived SAIDI (System

Average Interruption Duration Index) and SAIFI (System Average Interruption Frequency

Index) values of 106 minutes (54 minute standard deviation) and 1.2 (0.5 standard deviation).

This means that on average, U.S. customers will face 1.2 106-minute reliability events every

year. Based on this information, the EMS model in this thesis research has assumed equal-

duration power interruptions lasting .

Table 4-2(a) above displays the building energy profile for low, average and high demand days

during the year. Considering this data, the 2.12-hour periods of highest demand have been

determined to be about 11.0 kWh, 103.1 kWh, and 250.1 kWh on low, average and high demand

days respectively. These values represent potential energy losses experienced by the building in

the event of power interruptions.

Thirdly, [60] presents data on interruption costs for residential and commercial/industrial (C&I)

customer groups, based on twenty-four studies conducted by eight electric utilities between 1989

and 2002. This report has determined the cost per peak kW for small to medium C&I customers

61
to be $40 for 1-hour3 durations. Adjusted to 2013 CPI (in uniformity with other data inputs) and

from when the report was released in 2003, the EMS model in this thesis study assumes a cost

per kWh of $50.64 due to power reliability events.

The above information has been combined with the energy capacity and efficiency of each

battery system discussed earlier in this chapter. Altogether, Table 4-7 below represents costs

avoided by the building in the event of power outages by allocating varying proportions of the

lithium-ion and lead-acid systems towards backup reserve.

Lithium-ion system Lead-acid system

Backup
Low Avg High Low Avg High
%
demand demand demand demand demand demand
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 $401.56 $401.56 $401.56 $556.06 $854.40 $854.40
20 $556.06 $803.12 $803.12 $556.06 $1,708.80 $1,708.80
30 $556.06 $1,204.67 $1,204.67 $556.06 $2,563.19 $2,563.19
40 $556.06 $1,606.23 $1,606.23 $556.06 $3,417.59 $3,417.59
50 $556.06 $2,007.79 $2,007.79 $556.06 $4,271.99 $4,271.99
60 $556.06 $2,409.35 $2,409.35 $556.06 $5,126.39 $5,126.39
70 $556.06 $2,810.91 $2,810.91 $556.06 $5,220.36 $5,980.79
80 $556.06 $3,212.47 $3,212.47 $556.06 $5,220.36 $6,835.18
90 $556.06 $3,614.02 $3,614.02 $556.06 $5,220.36 $7,689.58
92 $556.06 $3,694.34 $3,694.34 $556.06 $5,220.36 $7,860.46
94 $556.06 $3,774.65 $3,774.65 $556.06 $5,220.36 $8,031.34
96 $556.06 $3,854.96 $3,854.96 $556.06 $5,220.36 $8,202.22
98 $556.06 $3,935.27 $3,935.27 $556.06 $5,220.36 $8,373.10
100 $556.06 $4,015.58 $4,015.58 $556.06 $5,220.36 $8,543.98

Table 4-7: Avoided outage cost for varying backup reserve allocation on different day types

During average- to high-demand days, the lead acid system has higher potential for blackout cost

mitigation, due to higher energy capacity required to produce the same maximum power

discharge as the lithium-ion system.

3
1-hour duration has been assumed, since the next highest duration available in the [60] data is 4 hours. Also, this
value provides a conservative estimate to the SAIDI value of 106 minutes.

62
Chapter 5: Results and Analysis

This section presents the results of the Building 7R simulation, based on the model discussed in

Chapter 3. Daily battery energy flows, utility purchases, and revenues from peak shaving are

presented. Also presented are sensitivity analyses with respect to relative allocation percentages

between peak-shaving, frequency regulation and backup power, as they impact overall system

revenue.

5.1 Daily energy simulations

In order to evaluate the daily building energy consumption profile, the battery backup allocation

has momentarily been constrained to be zero. This means that the EMS can dedicate the entire

usable capacity toward peak-shaving and frequency regulation operation. Also, for this initial set

of simulations, the battery has been allocated in a 50%:50% ratio between backup, peak-shaving

and regulation respectively. In the lithium-ion case, this corresponds to a SOC ratio of 0%: 40%:

40% (assuming 80% depth of discharge) an energy ratio of 0 kWh: 43.10 kWh: 43.10 kWh.

Table 5-1 below represents the one-day EMS simulation for November 18, using the lithium-ion

battery specifications. Columns to the left of the indicated demarcation are model inputs, while

those to the right display model results and output calculations. The highlighted cells show hours

in which the battery is charged from off-peak utility purchases and excess PV (orange) or

discharged to the loads (purple). During all other periods of the day, the battery is bidding into

the frequency regulation market, as reflected by the corresponding non-zero regulation revenue

values.

63
 4

(c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (%) ($) ($)
1 2.40 0.50 0.18 11.17 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.22
2 2.23 0.32 0.43 9.87 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.17
3 2.11 0.31 0.11 0.00 5.43 0.00 42.95 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 -0.99 0.00
4 2.12 1.21 0.11 9.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.49
5 2.27 1.79 0.09 9.37 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.72
6 2.65 0.08 0.05 11.48 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.04
7 3.57 0.61 0.37 10.57 5.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.28
8 3.31 2.11 0.22 9.98 8.23 1.28 0.00 0.00 6.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.87
9 3.36 1.65 0.31 8.34 11.18 2.80 0.00 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.68
10 3.45 1.86 0.30 7.46 10.42 6.18 0.00 0.00 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.77
11 3.58 1.41 0.27 9.98 10.26 8.76 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.59
12 3.53 1.91 0.44 12.31 10.42 9.65 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 69.87 0.00 0.82
13 3.48 2.25 0.36 0.00 10.89 11.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.15 70.00 0.00 0.00
14 3.40 2.15 0.40 9.53 10.59 9.42 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.90
15 3.26 3.58 0.26 10.96 10.28 6.81 0.00 0.00 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 1.46
16 3.23 1.15 0.26 11.24 10.28 4.41 0.00 0.00 5.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.49
17 3.81 1.11 0.44 0.00 10.43 2.17 0.00 6.28 1.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.67 0.24 0.00
18 5.29 1.22 0.25 0.00 11.45 0.97 0.00 10.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.10 0.55 0.00
19 4.54 1.46 0.27 0.00 7.77 0.00 0.00 7.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.26 0.35 0.00
20 4.44 2.47 0.30 0.00 7.46 0.00 0.00 7.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.74 0.33 0.00
21 4.30 1.90 0.19 0.00 7.67 0.00 0.00 7.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.33 0.00
22 3.58 1.83 0.45 8.54 8.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.77
23 2.40 0.50 0.18 14.76 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.91
24 2.23 0.32 0.43 9.59 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.74
TOTAL 199.26 63.49 42.95 39.65 96.28 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.83 10.91
Table 5-1: Example energy flows for one-day simulation, using li-ion battery (Orange=battery charge; Purple=battery discharge)

represents the hourly absolute sum of regulation- up and down battery usage, and is given by ( )
4

64
 Figure 5-1: Example simulated battery energy flows for one-day period, using lithium-ion

Figure 5-1 above depicts the energy purchases and resultant battery cycling operation for the

output in Table 5-1 above. As shown, the optimal off-peak charging hour is between 2am and

3am, when electricity price is at its lowest point during the day. On this particular day, the EMS

meets 99.6% of its peak-shaving allocation from utility purchases and the small remainder from

excess PV. This predominance of off-peak utility purchases over excess PV charging is

representative of results from most other days throughout the year. This is due to the size of the

PV system relative to the building loads, as well as efficiency losses associated with battery

charging.

65
On the other hand, the battery is discharged to the loads during periods of peak price. From

Table 5-1, the highest cost period of this day is between 5pm and 6pm. However, since the

concurrent building loads are not sufficient to fully utilize the stored energy, the rest of this peak-

shaving capacity is successively distributed between the next highest cost periods, until the

allocation has been completely exhausted. Note that the amount discharged (39.36 kWh) is less

than the available capacity from off-peak and PV charging (43.10 kWh), again as a result of

performance limitations of the battery.

The battery SOC begins and ends at 30%, which reflects the sum of the minimum allowable

SOC (10%) and 20% for frequency regulation services (with half of the capacity left open for

“regulation-up”). As discussed in Chapter 3, this daily cycling behavior is due to the control

strategies involving complete utilization of peak-shaving allocation and hourly net-zero from

frequency regulation participation. The battery SOC peaks out at 70%, which reflects the sum of

the 10% minimum SOC, 20% “regulation-down” allowance and 40% peak-shaving allocation.

This battery SOC operating range is repeated each day throughout the year, since the relative

allocation ratios remain fixed.

The revenues from peak-shaving and frequency regulation have been calculated for this day, as

discussed in section 3.4.2. As shown, the net peak-shaving revenue for the given capacity

allocation of the lithium-ion battery under study significantly less than regulation revenue, since

it accounts for 7.6% of total system revenue on this day (neglecting avoided costs from PV

charging). This is proportion is typical of most other days, as will be discussed later in this

chapter.

66
Overall, in line with the microgrid operational objective of minimizing building energy demand

purchases, the combination of peak-shaving and local PV utilization has led to a 28.3% reduction

in building demand utility purchases.

Figure 5-2(a)-(c) below show the simulation results for three other days, with each set

representing the other three seasons. The first point of note is that the demand on each of these

days is significantly higher than in the previous example. This means that while the optimal off-

peak charging periods are relatively similar, higher hourly demands in the on-peak discharging

periods utilize more of the stored capacity. Therefore, discharging occurs over a shorter period,

leaving more time for the system to bid into the regulation market. For this reason, the regulation

revenue is greater on each of the example days in Figure 5-2.

(a)

67
 (b)

(c)

Figure 5-2: Simulation results for days representing Spring, Summer and Fall seasons (li-ion)

68
Apart from this, the major similarities between all the days are the uniform cycling range

exhibited by the battery and the daily net-zero capacity utilization.

The same battery allocation ratios and system configurations have been simulated using

specifications for the lead-acid battery system, as shown in Table 5-2 below. Also, Figure 5-3(a)-

(c) below shows the simulation results for this battery system for the same days discussed above

in Figure 5-2. From the discussion in section 3.3.4, the lead-acid system chosen for this analysis

requires about 3.9 times the lithium-ion energy storage capacity to produce roughly the same

power output. This means that for the same model inputs, the lead-acid battery buys more off-

peak energy and dissipates it over a longer period. This greatly reduces the proportion of the day

in which the battery can participate in frequency regulation, leading to diminished regulation

revenues in three of the four days under study. However, the peak-shaving revenue increases on

days of higher demand in June and September, when the demand is high enough to justify the

battery capacity of the lead-acid battery. Nevertheless, in the no-backup case considered in this

initial analysis, the use of a lithium-ion system generally leads to higher daily system revenue

than a lead-acid system with approximately equal power discharge capabilities (neglecting

avoided costs from PV charging).

Note also that in the lead-acid case, the battery cycles over a smaller range (42.5-67.5%), which

reflects the earlier discussed low depth of discharge associated with similar systems.

69
 (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) (%) ($) ($)
1 2.40 0.50 0.18 7.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0.14
2 2.23 0.32 0.43 6.19 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0.11
3 2.11 0.31 0.11 0.00 5.43 0.00 105.33 0.00 137.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.47 -2.78 0.00
4 2.12 1.21 0.11 5.64 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.47 0.00 0.31
5 2.27 1.79 0.09 5.88 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.47 0.00 0.45
6 2.65 0.08 0.05 7.20 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.47 0.00 0.02
7 3.57 0.61 0.37 0.00 5.02 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.98 0.18 0.00
8 3.31 2.11 0.22 0.00 8.23 1.28 0.00 6.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.92 0.23 0.00
9 3.36 1.65 0.31 0.00 11.18 2.80 0.00 8.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.44 0.28 0.00
10 3.45 1.86 0.30 0.00 10.42 6.18 0.00 4.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.18 0.15 0.00
11 3.58 1.41 0.27 0.00 10.26 8.76 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.74 0.05 0.00
12 3.53 1.91 0.44 0.00 10.42 9.65 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.51 0.03 0.00
13 3.48 2.25 0.36 0.00 10.89 11.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.15 59.54 0.00 0.00
14 3.40 2.15 0.40 0.00 10.59 9.42 0.00 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59.19 0.04 0.00
15 3.26 3.58 0.26 0.00 10.28 6.81 0.00 3.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.16 0.11 0.00
16 3.23 1.15 0.26 0.00 10.28 4.41 0.00 2.99 2.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.28 0.10 0.00
17 3.81 1.11 0.44 0.00 10.43 2.17 0.00 8.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.83 0.31 0.00
18 5.29 1.22 0.25 0.00 11.45 0.97 0.00 10.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.72 0.55 0.00
19 4.54 1.46 0.27 0.00 7.77 0.00 0.00 7.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.42 0.35 0.00
20 4.44 2.47 0.30 0.00 7.46 0.00 0.00 7.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.21 0.33 0.00
21 4.30 1.90 0.19 0.00 7.67 0.00 0.00 7.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.94 0.33 0.00
22 3.58 1.83 0.45 0.00 8.23 0.00 0.00 8.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.29 0.00
23 3.01 0.50 0.18 9.25 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0.57
24 2.85 0.32 0.43 6.01 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.50 0.00 0.46
TOTAL 199.26 63.49 105.33 84.36 183.23 0.14 0.00 0.15 0.57 2.06
Table 5-2: Example simulation results using lead-acid battery (Orange=battery charge; Purple=battery discharge)

70
(a)

(b)

71
 (c)

(d)
Figure 5-3: EMS simulation results for select days (lead-acid)

72
5.2 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to capacity allocation between peak-shaving and

regulation

This section presents the results of EMS simulation for aggregate revenues obtained utilization

of the 7R microgrid in peak-shaving and frequency regulation operational modes, for the

duration of one year. This has been achieved by again assuming zero allocation towards backup

and dedicating the usable capacity toward peak-shaving and regulation.

The sensitivity of the total system revenue to the relative allocation ratio between peak-shaving

and frequency regulation has been studied for one year of operation. This has been achieved by

varying the ratio of usable battery capacity between these two operational modes and calculating

resulting individual and total revenues, using MATLAB (see Appendix E). These results are

displayed and compared between lithium-ion and lead-acid battery systems in Table 5-3 and

Figure 5-4(a)-(b) below.

Lithium-ion Lead-acid
PS Rev FR Rev Total Rev PS Rev FR Rev Total Rev
PS% FR %
($) ($) ($) ($) ($) ($)
100 0 514.02 0.00 514.02 524.81 0.00 524.81
90 10 468.09 1496.80 1964.89 493.74 848.88 1342.62
80 20 421.18 3022.50 3443.68 462.63 1724.40 2187.03
70 30 373.12 4575.50 4948.62 421.28 2663.40 3084.68
60 40 324.35 6163.70 6488.05 375.32 3625.70 4001.02
50 50 273.92 7828.40 8102.32 324.65 4620.30 4944.95
40 60 222.22 9448.20 9670.42 270.67 5661.90 5932.57
30 70 168.79 11178.00 11346.79 212.19 6727.50 6939.69
20 80 113.76 12919.00 13032.76 148.20 7895.70 8043.90
10 90 57.34 14668.00 14725.34 77.19 9109.90 9187.09
8 92 45.88 14996.00 15041.88 62.26 9331.60 9393.86
6 94 34.41 15324.00 15358.41 47.00 9600.70 9647.70
4 96 22.94 15643.00 15665.94 31.34 9820.50 9851.84
2 98 11.48 15978.00 15989.48 15.68 10028.00 10043.68
0 100 0.00 17560.00 17560.00 0.00 11013.00 11013.00

Table 5-3: Total revenues for various ratios of peak-shaving (PS) and frequency regulation (FR)

73
 (a)

(b)
Figure 5-4: Sensitivity of revenues to battery capacity allocation by battery technology

74
The above results both show that peak-shaving operation contributes relatively little to total

yearly system revenues obtained by both types of battery systems. The lead-acid system displays

slightly higher peak-shaving revenues than the lithium-ion system, due to the former’s higher

energy capacity for comparable power output. However, while the use of the lead-acid system

leads to overall decrease in utility demand purchases, it results in a disproportionate decrease in

regulation revenue, and consequently overall system revenues. Table 5-4 and Figure 5-5 below

display the percent changes in revenue resulting from the use of the lead-acid over the lithium-

ion system. As shown, the lead-acid system provides more peak-saving revenue for each

allocation ratio, although with negative percent-changes to regulation and total system revenues

in all but the 100% peak-shaving case.

∆PS Rev ∆FR Rev ∆Tot Rev

% PS % FR
(%) (%) (%)
100 0 2.1 0.0 2.1
90 10 5.5 -56.8 -31.7
80 20 9.8 -49.9 -36.5
70 30 12.9 -46.2 -37.7
60 40 15.7 -44.1 -38.3
50 50 18.5 -43.0 -39.0
40 60 21.8 -41.5 -38.7
30 70 25.7 -40.7 -38.8
20 80 30.3 -39.4 -38.3
10 90 34.6 -38.1 -37.6
8 92 35.7 -38.0 -37.5
6 94 36.6 -37.5 -37.2
4 96 36.6 -37.3 -37.1
2 98 36.6 -37.3 -37.2
0 100 0.0 -37.3 -37.3

Table 5-4: Percent change in system revenues resulting from utilization of lead-acid over
lithium-ion system

75
 Figure 5-5: Comparison between lead-acid and lithium-ion revenues

5.3 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to overall capacity allocation

This section presents the simulated revenues obtained by the 7R microgrid system based on the

proportion of battery capacity allocated toward emergency backup reserve, in addition to peak-

shaving and frequency regulation operation. Both of the previous analyses in this chapter have

held backup reserve capacity allocation to zero, thus representing the highest market revenues 5

obtainable by the system.

These results have been obtained by carrying out a three-variable sensitivity analysis, which has

been achieved by successively increasing battery backup allocation and determining revenues

from partitioning the remaining battery capacity in varying ratios between peak-shaving and

5
These market revenues are assumed to neglect avoided costs from possible blackout events, as a function of
backup reserve allocation.

76
frequency regulation, using MATLAB (see code in Appendix E). This has been evaluated for

225 different permutations of relative allocations for each battery type.

Figure 5-6(a)-(b) and Figure 5-7(a)-(b) display the results of this sensitivity analysis for each

battery system. In 5-6(a) and 5-7(a), the results have been presented as contour maps of revenues

of yearly system revenues, with each line representing relative allocation ratios that yield the

same revenues between peak-shaving, frequency regulation and backup reserve. The horizontal

axes show the proportion of battery capacity dedicated to backup reserve, while the vertical axis

displays the proportion of remaining capacity used for frequency regulation6.

Lithium-ion Market Revenues

100
Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lithium-ion iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

6
The proportion of battery capacity used for peak-shaving operation is therefore the 100% minus each value on
the vertical axis

77
 4
x 10

2
Total Market Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)

(b) Market revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation

Figure 5-6: Market revenues from allocating lithium-ion system in various ratios

Lead-acid Market Revenues

100
Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lead-acid iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

78
 4
x 10

2
Total Market Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)
(b) Market revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation

Figure 5-7:Market revenues from allocating lead-acid system capacity in various ratios

For example, based on Figure 5-6(a), allocating 20% of the lithium-ion system’s capacity toward

backup reserve and sharing the remainder in a 40-60% ratio between frequency regulation and

peak-shaving would yield approximately the same revenue as 60% backup, 80% regulation and

20% peak-shaving.

Figure 5-6(b) and5-7(b) display three-dimensional representations of their respective contour

characterizations. Notice that the outer edge of each chart (zero-backup scenario) resembles the

curves derived in Figure 5-4(a)-(b).

Overall, the curves shown in Figure 5-6 and Figure 5-7 are similar in shape and display

approximately coinciding iso-revenue relationships between various allocation ratios, although

the lithium-ion system is able to obtain higher market revenues for the same ratios of lead-acid

allocation.

79
5.4 Sensitivity of yearly revenues to overall capacity allocation and blackout costs

The results discussed so far in this chapter only account for market revenues in the assessing the

monetary performance of the system under various conditions. In this section, the above revenue

characterization has been expanded to include avoided costs from potential blackouts and power

reliability events. This has been achieved by adding above derived market revenues to the values

of avoided costs for low, average and high-demand days, as determined in section 4.6. The

impact of these avoided costs on overall system revenues are displayed in Figure 5-8 to Figure 5-

12 below.

Lithium-ion Total Revenues (Low demand case)

100
Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)

(a) Lithium-ion iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

80
 4
x 10

2
Total System Revenue ($)
1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)

(b) Total revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation

Figure 5-8: Total system revenues on a low-demand day (lithium-ion system)

81
 Lithium-ion Total Revenues (Average/high demand cases)
100

Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lithium-ion iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

4
x 10

2
Total System Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)

(b) Total revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation

Figure 5-9: Total system revenues on an average- to high-demand day (lithium-ion system)

82
 Lead-acid Total Revenues (Low demand case)
100

Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lead-acid iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

4
x 10
Total System Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)
(b) Total revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation
Figure 5-10: Total system revenues on a low-demand day (lead-acid system)

83
 Lead-acid Total Revenues (Average demand case)
100

Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lead-acid iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

4
x 10
Total System Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)
(b) Total revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation
Figure 5-11: Total system revenues on an average-demand day (lead-acid system)

84
 Lead-acid Total Revenues (High demand case)
100

Regulation Relative Allocation (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Battery Backup (%)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Revenue ($)
(a) Lead-acid iso-revenue characterization for different battery capacity allocation ratios

4
x 10
Total System Revenue ($)

1.5

0.5

0
100
80 100
60 80
40 60
40
20 20
0 0
Rel. Regulation(%) Battery Backup (%)
.
(b) Total revenues distribution based on battery capacity allocation
Figure 5-12: Total system revenues on a high-demand day (lead-acid system)

85
In the case of the lithium-ion system, the inclusion of avoided blackout costs has limited effects

on overall system revenues on low-demand days, as shown in Figure 5-7. On average to high-

demand days7, while system revenues are relatively higher, the revenue distribution in Figure 5-8

still shows increasing system revenues with less backup reserve and more frequency regulation

allocation.

On the other hand, due to much greater energy capacity for the same level of power output as the

lithium-ion system as well as lower frequency regulation revenues, the lead-acid system is more

significantly impacted by the inclusion of avoided blackout costs in the revenue calculation,

especially during average and high-demand days. As shown in Figure 5-10, in the event of a

power reliability event on a day of average demand during the year, total annual system revenues

increase as both regulation and backup allocation increase, until a backup allocation of about 60-

70%. In the high-demand day shown in Figure 5-11, total annual system revenues continue to

increase past 60% in the directions of increasing backup allocation, although the highest

revenues still occur when the battery is completely dedicated toward frequency regulation.

Notice that in all lithium-ion and lead-acid cases, 100% peak-shaving allocation leads to the least

amount of revenues. This is because representing backup revenue as avoided blackout costs

means that 100% peak-shaving yields less revenues than 100% backup battery allocation. This is

based on the assumption that the kWh battery backup allocation has a linear relationship to

avoided blackout costs, i.e. each additional unit of allocated backup capacity yields the same

incremental amount in potential blackout cost savings.

7
Note that the total usable lithium-ion battery capacity is less than the potential energy losses calculated for both
average and high-demand days in section 3.3.5. Avoided cost for the lithium ion system is the same during average
and low demand days.

86
Chapter 6: Conclusions

6.1 Summary of work

The purpose of this research was to characterize the technological and economic tradeoffs

associated with the operation of a PV-battery commercial building microgrid system, based on

system specifications, electricity demand information, weather data, as well as energy and

ancillary market prices faced by the 7R Building microgrid at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. This

has been achieved by defining the control strategy required for the microgrid EMS to meet the

set objective of maximizing net revenues from building energy demand purchases and ancillary

market participation, while storing emergency backup capacity. Thus, the system has been

constrained to only provide peak-shaving, frequency regulation and backup reserve functionality.

These operational modes have been consolidated by means of the battery capacity allocation

approach, in which the usable battery capacity is partitioned between the modes in predefined

ratios. On this basis, the overall system revenues have been simulated and compared between a

lithium-ion and lead-acid battery system.

6.2 Key findings

The results of thesis research have yielded information on the degree to which battery capacity

allocation between peak-shaving, frequency regulation and emergency backup impact overall

revenues accrued by the microgrid system over the course of one year. This is has been

determined with reference to the influence of technology selection between lithium-ion and lead-

acid systems.

87
Firstly, for a fixed ratio of battery capacity allocation considered on a daily basis, peak-shaving

revenues have been found to be significantly less than frequency regulation revenues for the

demand profile and market prices faced by the microgrid system under study. Also lithium-ion

yields significantly higher daily system revenues than the lead-acid system with comparable

continuous discharge power capabilities. Extending to one year of operation, the lithium-ion

system has been determined to yield more market revenues than the lead-acid system, for the

same fixed allocation ratio. While lead-acid provides more peak-shaving revenue and demand

purchase reduction than lithium-ion due to larger energy capacity, this increase is accompanied

by a greater decrease in frequency regulation revenues, and thus overall market revenue.

Secondly, the revenues obtained by the building microgrid have been determined for varying

capacity allocation ratios between peak-shaving, frequency regulation and emergency backup.

Without considering avoided costs from potential blackout mitigation, the highest revenues

achievable by the system occur in the case of 100% allocation towards frequency regulation for

both lithium-ion and lead-acid systems, with revenues dropping steeply in all directions away

from this condition. The introduction of avoided blackout cost has little impact on this outcome

in the lithium-ion case, with the optimum allocation clearly pointing to 100% frequency

regulation in all scenarios of building demand magnitude. This suggests that under the proposed

operational framework, the potential energy and revenue losses from blackouts do not justify the

allocation of the lithium-ion system for backup and peak-shaving functionality. On the other

hand, the revenue map of the lead-acid system changes drastically with the inclusion of avoided

blackout costs. Specifically, results suggest that overall system revenues occurring on average to

high demand days increase both in the direction of increasing backup and frequency regulation

allocations (with a limit of 60-70% on an average day). However, the maximum overall revenues

88
still occur at maximum frequency regulation allocation in the lead-acid case. Therefore, under

the proposed framework, the objective of overall system revenue maximization means that

allocation of capacity away from frequency regulation reduces revenues obtained by a

commercial building microgrid implementing both lithium-ion and lead-acid systems.

6.3 Recommendations for future study

Based on the foundation of this research, opportunities exist for future research to foster

improved understanding of the economic and technological tradeoffs involved in the design and

implementation of commercial building microgrid systems. These include:

 Characterization of yearly battery degradation resulting from the proposed operational

framework and associated impact on battery cycle life

 Assessment of economic performance of the system for larger portfolios of demand

response and ancillary service functionalities

 Assessment of the impact of avoided blackout costs on system revenues, by considering

non-linear cost-per-kWh characterizations associated with different building types and

load classes

 Proof and analysis of proposed EMS model using the Building 7R microgrid in the

Philadelphia Navy Yard

89
Appendix A: 7R eQuest Model Parameters and Assumptions

Analysis Tool: eQUEST (DOE 2.2 Engine) v3.64

Weather File: DOE 2.2 TMY2 weather file for Philadelphia, PA
ASHRAE Climate Zone: 4A
Energy Modeling Standard: ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G Performance Rating Method
Ventilation Standard: ASHRAE 62.1-2007
Building Area (as simulated with DOE 2.2): appx. 25,050 conditioned ft²
Number of Floors: 2 above grade
New Construction: 100%
Principal Heating Source: Ground Source Water to Air Heat Pumps
Principal Cooling Source: Ground Source Water to Air Heat Pumps

Modeled Conditioned Code Gross Building

Space Type
Area (ft²) Area (ft²)
Floor 1 13,839 14,600
Floor 2 11,211 11,000
Total 25,050 25,600

South (top) and North (bottom) Perspective Views of Energy Model

90
Opaque Building Envelope Constructions Baseline Case Proposed Case Baseline
Proposed
Space- Assembly Assembly Roof
Model Input New / Roof
Conditioning U-factor/ U-factor/ Reflectivity
Parameter Existing Description Description Reflectivity
Category C-factor/ C-factor/ Modeled as
Modeled
F-factor F-factor 0.3?
Green Roof assembly with Soil Layer
(6 – 8")
TPO roof membrane
Roof R-20 insulation entirely above
New Nonresidential U-0.048 Glas-mat gypsum coverboard U-0.025 Yes 0.30
Constructions deck with a U-factor of 0.048
Tapered polyisocyanurate Insulation
(R-30 min)
Steel Deck & roof Structure
Brick veneer
2" air space
steel-framed with R-13 cavity and 4" rigid XPS insulation board (R-20)
New Nonresidential R-7.5 continuous insulation with a U-0.064 Air barrier U-0.05
U-factor of 0.064 Sheathing board
Above-Grade Cold-formed metal framing
Exterior Wall Gypsum board finish
Constructions Metal panel cladding on metal cont. Z-
furring
steel-framed with R-13 cavity and
4" XPS rigid insulation board (R-20)
New Nonresidential R-7.5 continuous insulation with a U-0.064 U-0.05
Sheathing board
U-factor of 0.064
Cold-formed metal framing
Gypsum board finish
6" Concrete slab (Unheated)
ASHRAE 90.1-2007 Appendix G
Slab-On-Grade 2" perimeter rigid XPS insulation
New Nonresidential Slab on grade construction F-0.73 F-0.58
Floors board under slabs extending 4 ft.
Unheated slab
horizontally in from perimeter.

N/A

Orientation
(%) (ft2)

North 5,884

740
South
11,307
3,076

91
The table below lists maximum occupancy, the average peak connected power density (Watts/ft²) of the ambient
lighting (including task lights), decorative lighting, and the average peak equipment load (Watts/ft²) for all zones
throughout the building.

Space by Space Method

Baseline Case Proposed Case
Design LPD
Modeled LPD (Excluding Table
Total Area
(Excluding Section Section G3.2 Modeled
Table 9.6.1 Space Type of Space Automatic Lighting Controls
2
9.6.2 Additional 9.6.2 Power LPD Daylighting Controls
Type (ft ) and Space Types
Lighting) Additional Adjust- (W/ft2)
(W/ft2) Lighting) ment
(W/ft2)
Office-Enclosed 1,130 1.10 0.60 occupancy sensors 10% 0.54
Classroom/Lecture/Training 10,692 1.40 1.00 occupancy sensors 10% 0.90 Daylighting Controls
Lobby 2,829 1.30 0.60 0.60
Restrooms 1,102 0.90 1.40 1.40
Electrical/Mechanical 2,382 1.50 0.50 0.50
Corridor/Transition 6,829 0.50 0.50 0.50
Active Storage 86 0.80 0.80 0.80
Total 25,050 1.12 0.77 0.72

Space by Space Equipment Power Densities

Equipment
Total Area Baseline
Power
Space Type of Space Equipment Included in Power Density Modeled
Density
Type Identically?
(W/ft2)
Office-Enclosed 1,130 1.50 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Classroom/Lecture/Training 10,692 3.50 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Lobby 2,829 0.50 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Restrooms 1,102 0.50 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Electrical/Mechanical 2,382 1.30 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Corridor/Transition 6,829 0.00 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes
Active Storage 86 0.00 2005 California ACM Manual (Title24) Yes

Total 25,050 1.76 Total Power Modeled Using Space-by-Space Method (kW): 44.2

Other Process Equipment

Energy Baseline
Equipment Type Energy
Demand Modeling Parameters Modeled
(Change/Add Labels as Necessary) Source
(kW) Identically?
Elevators/Escalators Electricity 10 Calculated from specifications Yes

Total 10 Total Power for Other Process Equipment (kW): 10.0

Maximum Building Occupancy for Energy Model: 488* people.

*diversity from schedules not included in this number

92
The modeling assumptions for the maximum occupancy and area per person in the building were estimated based on
the email communication with the design team in Construction Administration (CA) Phase. Peak lighting and equipment
loads were diversified by estimating an electric usage pattern for the building based on scheduling assumptions. The
tables below list occupancy, lighting and equipment schedules assumed for the individual usage type for the building.
The owner and the design team should review the schedules and provide feedback based on their expected use of the
building.

Annual Schedule:
Two semester schedule with Thanksgiving and winter breaks.

Unoccupied weeks:
Thanksgiving Recess: November 17 thru November 25
Winter Recess: December 22 thru January 8

Schedule Type 1 – Servers

Hour Occupancy Lighting Misc. Equipment
From To Weekday Sunday Weekday Sunday Weekday Sunday
12:00 AM 1:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1:00 AM 2:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2:00 AM 3:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3:00 AM 4:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4:00 AM 5:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5:00 AM 6:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
7:00 AM 8:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
9:00 AM 10:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
11:00 AM 12:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
12:00 PM 1:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1:00 PM 2:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2:00 PM 3:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
3:00 PM 4:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4:00 PM 5:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
5:00 PM 6:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
6:00 PM 7:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
7:00 PM 8:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
8:00 PM 9:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
9:00 PM 10:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
10:00 PM 11:00 PM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
11:00 PM 12:00 AM 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

93
 Hour Occupancy Lighting Misc. Equipment
From To Weekday Sunday Weekday Sunday Weekday Sunday
12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
1:00 AM 2:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
2:00 AM 3:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
5:00 AM 6:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
7:00 AM 8:00 AM 25% 0% 25% 2% 25% 6%
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 90% 0% 90% 2% 45% 6%
9:00 AM 10:00 AM 88% 0% 88% 2% 45% 6%
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 75% 0% 75% 2% 45% 6%
11:00 AM 12:00 PM 54% 0% 54% 2% 45% 6%
12:00 PM 1:00 PM 54% 0% 54% 2% 45% 6%
1:00 PM 2:00 PM 75% 0% 75% 2% 45% 6%
2:00 PM 3:00 PM 88% 0% 88% 2% 45% 6%
3:00 PM 4:00 PM 90% 0% 90% 2% 45% 6%
4:00 PM 5:00 PM 89% 0% 89% 2% 45% 6%
5:00 PM 6:00 PM 5% 0% 5% 2% 6% 6%
6:00 PM 7:00 PM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
9:00 PM 10:00 PM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
10:00 PM 11:00 PM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%
11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0% 0% 2% 2% 6% 6%

Schedule Type 3 – Tiered lecture hall

Hour Occupancy Lighting Misc. Equipment

From To Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekday Weeken Weekday Weekday Weekend
MWF TR MWF TR d MWF TR
12:00 AM 1:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
1:00 AM 2:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
2:00 AM 3:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
3:00 AM 4:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
4:00 AM 5:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
5:00 AM 6:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
6:00 AM 7:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
7:00 AM 8:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 90% 0% 0% 90% 2% 2% 50% 6% 6%
9:00 AM 10:00 AM 90% 0% 0% 90% 2% 2% 50% 6% 6%
10:00 AM 11:00 AM 90% 0% 0% 90% 2% 2% 50% 6% 6%
11:00 AM 12:00 PM 90% 0% 0% 90% 2% 2% 50% 6% 6%
12:00 PM 1:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
1:00 PM 2:00 PM 0% 90% 0% 2% 90% 2% 6% 50% 6%
2:00 PM 3:00 PM 0% 90% 0% 2% 90% 2% 6% 50% 6%
3:00 PM 4:00 PM 0% 90% 0% 2% 90% 2% 6% 50% 6%
4:00 PM 5:00 PM 0% 90% 0% 2% 90% 2% 6% 50% 6%
5:00 PM 6:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
6:00 PM 7:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
7:00 PM 8:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
8:00 PM 9:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
9:00 PM 10:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
10:00 PM 11:00 PM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%
11:00 PM 12:00 AM 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 6% 6% 6%

94
Basic Zone Parameters
Minimum Flow Ratio: 30% (Minimum allowable supply air flow rate for VAV system)
Minimum Design Flow: 0.4 cfm/ft²

Design Conditions
Space (AHU) Winter temp °F Summer temp °F High RH% Low RH%

Occupied: 70 Occupied: 70
General Areas Unoccupied Wk day: 60 Unoccupied Wk day: 60 55% n/a
Holiday: 50 Holiday: 50
Occupied: 67 Occupied: 78
Corridor / Stairs Unoccupied Wk Day: 55 Unoccupied Wk Day: 80 55% n/a
Holiday: 55 Holiday: 80

Description of the Proposed Building and Baseline Building System Parameters

Proposed HVAC System Type(s)

System Description Spaces Modeled
AHU -1 Large Auditorium
AC-1 Elevator machine room
AC-2 Server room
Radiant floor Vestibule
Cabinet unit heaters Mechanical spaces
ERV units Heat recovery unit for all heat pump zone exhaust
Ground source heat pumps Office, classrooms, Corridor, restrooms, Lobby

Baseline HVAC System Type(s)

Table G3.1.1A System Type G3.1.1 Exception
Model Input Parameter Spaces Modeled
(or Semiconditioned System Description) (or Semiconditioned Capacity and Area)

Primary HVAC System System 6 - Packaged VAV with PFP Boxes All spaces except server room
Other HVAC System(s) System 4 - PSZ-HP Server room Server room
System 10 - Heating and Ventilation Heating only spaces Mechanical rooms

95
 Model Input Parameter Baseline Case Units Proposed Case Units

Closed loop Vertical system, 6 inch

Type of Geothermal system N/A
diamter 20 feet apart, 350 feet deep

Soil Conductivity (if Btu/h-ft-

N/A 0.85
applicable) F
Geothermal source design
N/A 55 °F
temperature - summer
Geothermal source design
N/A 55 °F
temperature - winter
Geoexchange loop design
fluid supply temperature - N/A 85 °F
cooling
Geoexchange loop design
Geothermal Loop

fluid supply temperature - N/A 30 °F

heating
Geoexchange loop - operating
N/A Fixed
temperature
Water to air heat pumps connected
Geothermal energy transfer
N/A with geothermal as source and sink for
effect
winter and summer respectiverly
Geothermal Loop Pumping
N/A Primary-only
Configuration
Number of Geothermal Loop
N/A 1 #
Pumps
Geothermal Loop Pump Variable Primary with Variable Speed
N/A
Control Drives
Geothermal Pump Power N/A 41.5 W/gpm
Geothermal Loop Flow N/A 210 gpm
Geothermal Air-side Efficiency eQuest default curves for ground
N/A
curves source heat pumps are used

1 High efficiency loop to loop

Number and Type of Boilers N/A
geothermal heat pump

Total Boiler Capacity N/A 199 MBH

Boiler Efficiency N/A 3.5 COP

Hot Water or Steam (HHW)
°F 125 °F
Supply Temp

HHW HT °F 10 °F

HHW Temp Reset Parameters Fixed

Hot Water / Steam

HHW Loop Configuration Primary-only

Number of Primary HHW

# 1 #
Pumps
Primary HHW Pump Power W/gpm 12.5 W/gpm

Primary HHW Pump Flow gpm 71.5 gpm

Primary HHW Pump Control N/A Variable speed

Number of Secondary HHW

N/A # N/A #
Pumps
Secondary HHW Pump Power N/A N/A
Secondary HHW Pump Flow N/A N/A gpm

Secondary HHW Pump Control N/A N/A

96
 Service Water Heaters
Model Input Parameter Baseline Case Proposed Case
System Type & Fuel Electric hot water boiler Electric hot water boiler
Input Rating (kW, MBH, etc.) 10 MBH 10 MBH
Efficiency (EF, SL, %, etc.) 1.02 EIR 1.02 EIR
Storage Volume (gal) 20 20
Storage Temperature (°F) 120 120
Peak Hot Water Demand (gpm) 0.75 gpm 0.75 gpm
Condenser heat recovery N/A N/A

*Hot water perimeter heating provided by electric heat pumps is modeled as electrical perimeter heat due to eQUEST’s inability to
couple WSHPs to baseboard radiators.

Electricity (PECO)

Charge Type Summer

Monthly Charge $ 16.41

Demand Rate $ 4.96 / kW

Usage Charge $ 0.1108 / kWh

97
Appendix B: Lithium-ion battery specifications
1. Product Information

1.1. Kokam Standard Rack – Indoor type (KRI)

Kokam’s standard rack is built using Kokam’s standard

modules. The system can incorporate different inverters
to enhance the stability in supplying lectricity in various
applications such as households, office buildings,
hospitals, data servers, telecommunication repeaters,
and military installations. Standardized rack system can
be connected in serial and parallel to build up energy
capacity of hundreds of kWh.

KRI Technical Specification

Row/Column Unit 2R/5C Series Connection
Total Embedded Capacity kWh 107.74
Rated Capacity (@ 0.5C & 25°C) kWh 101.27
Continuous Charge Power kW 100
Continuous Discharge Power kW 100
Voltage Range V 518 ~ 581
ȄFor more information, please refer to the rack specification sheet in the Appendix.

1.2. Kokam Battery Module (KBM)

Battery modules are designed with high heat dissipation
capability and improved maintenance features including
the ability to replace individual cells as a unit. The safety
and reliability of each module is guaranteed with the
Kokam Battery Management System (BMS). These
modules will be UL listed.
KBM255 2P Specification
Model Unit K M255 2P
Embedded Capacity Per Module kWh 5.38
Voltage Range V 51.8~ 58.1

1.3. Superior Lithium Polymer Cell

Kokam’s Superior Lithium Polymer Battery (SLPB) has

proven its exceptional characteristics which include its
outstanding power, energy density, cycle life and safety.
These cells are UL 1642 certified.

SLPB Cell
Model Unit SLPB90255255H
Capacity Ah 52
Voltage Range V .0 ~ 4.2

98
G
SLPB
G 52Ah HIGH POWER
SUPERIOR

LITHIUM POLYMER BATTERY

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SLPB90255255H

Kokam’s patented manufacturing process produces

cells for applications that require:
y Excellent energy density(140 – 200Wh/kg)
y Excellent power-to-energy balance
y High cycle life
y Longer battery life
y Low impedance and heat generation for improved safety
y Light weight

Electrical Characteristics
Items Specification Remarks
Advantages of SLPB Rated Capacity 52Ah
Charge@0.2C, 23±3ଇ
Discharge@0.2C, 23±3ଇ

Lower Cost/Consistent Energy Density 153Wh/kg

(1)
Quality/Greater Reliability Energy Density 291Wh/L
Impedance Max. 0.70m AC @1kHz
Innovative SLPB manufacturing Weight Max. 1,260g
(A)
technology: simple and fast Width 268mm Unfolded
Cell Dimension
manufacturing process with Length(B) 265mm Except for tab length
[Maximum]
(C)
Z-Folding technology Thickness 9.3mm 0.5kgf/፜, 3.7±0.1V
Average 3.7V
Voltage Lower limited 2.7V
Upper Limited 4.2V
HIGH EXCELLENT LONGER HIGH
POWER SATETY LIFE ENERGY Charge Cont. 156A (3C) @23±3ଇ
Current
Cont. 416A (8C) @23±3ଇ
[ Maximum] Discharge
Peak 780A (15C) <10sec , > SOC 50%
Applications Cycles @1C/1C, 80% DOD or 3.4~4.1V
up to 4,000
y Transportation to 80% of Capacity (@23±3ଇ)
- Fully electric vehicles Certification UL, UL Japan(S-Mark)
(1) Volume calculated excluding tabs.
- Plug-in electric vehicles
y Military Common Specifications
y Aviation
0 ~ 10ଇ < 0.3C Pre-charging range
y UPS Charging Temperature(2) 10 ~ 35ଇ < 3C Rapid charging range
y Industrial Machinery 35 ~ 45ଇ < 1C Charging range
y Marine Discharging Temperature(3) -10 ~ 55ଇ
y Grid Storage -20 ~ 25ଇ 1year
@60±25% R.H.
Storage Temperature 25 ~ 40ଇ 3months
y Telecom SOC 50 ±5%
40 ~ 60ଇ < 1week
(2) 0ଇ or 45ଇ: Charge Protection Temperature (Shut down required)
(3) -10ଇ or 55ଇ: Discharge Protection Temperature (Shut down required)
Appendix C: MATLAB code for lead-acid battery sizing
optimization

%The purpose of this program is to find the optimal array size: row*col of
%a lead acid battery bank capable of putting out 100kW, based on the
%Enersys PowerSafe SB190 battery specs:
%Max C/4 power per cell, for discharge to 1.75V= 90.4W
%Number of cells/module=6
%Voltage per battery pack=12V
%The program makes use of a genetic mixed-integer optimization, as follows:
% min x1*x2 where x1=row, x2=col
% s.t. 100k <= x1*x2*90.4*6 <= 100.5k
% 280 <= x2*12 <= 600 to ensure the voltage is in reasonable
% dc input range of typical inverter

lb=[2,280/12];
ub=[10,600/12];

[x,fval]=ga(@objfcn,2,[],[],[],[],lb,ub,@confun,[1 2]);

% @objfun
%This program defines the objective function for the lead-acid ga
%optimization.
%Note: This should be saved under a separate m-file and run through the
%main optimization program

function f= objfcn(x)
f= x(1)*x(2);
end

% @confun
%This program defines the conditional function for the lead-acid ga
%optimization
%Note: This should be saved under a separate m-file and run through the
%main optimization program

function [c, ceq] = confun(x)

c=[90.4*6*x(1)*x(2)-100500; -90.4*6*x(1)*x(2)+100000];
ceq=[];
end

100
Appendix D: TRYNSYS PV generation model
TRNSYS Simulation Studio Screenshot

Type 109: Data Reader and Radiation Processor

Parameters

 Sky model (Perez model) Citation: Perez, R., Stewart, R., Seals, R., Guertin, T., "The Development
and Verification of The Perez Diffuse Radiation Model", Sandia Report SAND88-7030, (Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87185, USA) October, 1988.
 Tracking Mode (Fixed surface)

Inputs

101
Outputs

102
Type 94a – PV Component

Parameters

Module short-circuit current at reference conditions 8.98 amperes

Module open-circuit voltage at reference conditions 38.1 V
Reference temperature 298 K
Reference insolation 1000 W/m^2
Module voltage at max power point and reference conditions 31.1 V
Module current at max power point and reference conditions 8.36 amperes
Temperature coefficient of Isc at (ref. cond) .00431 any
Temperature coefficient of Voc (ref. cond.) -0.1273 any
Number of cells wired in series 60 -
Number of modules in series 1 -
Number of modules in parallel 1 -
Module temperature at NOCT 318 K
Ambient temperature at NOCT 293 K
Insolation at NOCT 800 W/m^2
Module area 1.657 m^2
tau-alpha product for normal incidence 0.95 -
Semiconductor bandgap 1.12 any
Slope of IV curve at Isc 0 any
Module series resistance -1 any
Inputs

103
Outputs

104
Appendix E: MATLAB code for peak-shaving optimization and
EMS model
%battoptimize.m
%This program runs the monthly baseline peak-shaving optimization.
%It receives the following inputs:
%res_ratio--> Battery capacity reserve allocation
%reg_ratio--> Battery capacity frequency regulation allocation
%ps_ratio--> Battery capacity peak-shaving allocation
%month_name--> String referring to the name of the month
%total_days--> Total number of days in the month
%first_cell--> First cell corresponding to the month in the spreadsheet
%containing all input data
%results_file-->String name of file in which the results will be stored

%Note: This should be saved under a separate m-file and run through the
%main optimization program (i.e. test_run.m below)

function battoptimize(res_ratio,reg_ratio,ps_ratio,month_name,...
total_days,first_cell,results_file)

% Import month data

month_data=csvread('year_data.csv',first_cell-1,0,[first_cell-1,...
0,(first_cell-1)+24*total_days-1,7]);

for day= 1:total_days

%% Read all data from excel spreadsheet

h=1:24';
p_utility=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,2);
D=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,3);
q_pv=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,4);
p_rmc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,5);
p_rmp=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,6);
day_type=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,7);
dc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,8);

%Battery specifications

%The current values represent lead-acid specs.

%These are replaced with lithium-ion specs when running lithium-ion
%simulations

%Lead acid specs

eff=0.8; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 0.25C
soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge
soc_min=0.3; %Min state-of-charge
Q_batt=421.8; %Total useable battery capacity
B=100.344; %Maximum battery power output
r_dis=0.25*Q_batt; %Max hourly battery discharge

%Lithium-ion specs

%This area should be uncommented when running the li-ion simulation

105
% eff=0.92; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 1C
% soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge
% soc_min=0.1; %Min state-of-charge
% Q_batt=107.74; %Total useable battery capacity
% B=100; %Maximum battery power output
% r_dis=1*Q_batt; %C-rate of 1C is assumed, thus max charge rate
%is 100%/hour

FR=(soc_max-soc_min)*reg_ratio; %Frequency regulation battery allocation

PS=(soc_max-soc_min)*ps_ratio; %Peak shaving battery allocation
R=(soc_max-soc_min)*res_ratio; %Backup reserve capacity allocation

%Hourly battery charging from excess pv

for i=[1:24]
if q_pv(i) > D(i);
q_excess(i,1)= q_pv(i)-D(i);
else
q_excess(i,1)=0;
end
end

%Define variable for unmet demand, ie D_unmet

%This variable is necessary, because due to a non-zero number of
%incidents of excess PV over demand, there may be -ve (D-q_pv)
%values, which will force the lower limits of q_utility and/or q_psd
%to be violated

for i=1:24
if D(i)-q_pv(i)>0
D_unmet(i,1)= D(i)-q_pv(i);
else
D_unmet(i,1)=0;
end
end

first=(day-1)*24+1;
last=(day-1)*24+24;
if day_type < 6 %During weekdays
%% Optimization model

% min sum(q_psc*p_utility - q_psd*p_utility + q_utility*p_utility

% -p_utility*q_pvc-p_utility*q_sold)
% s.t. sum(q_psc+q_pvc)= Q_batt*PS
% sum(eff*q_psc-q_psd+eff*q_pvc)=0
% 0 <= q_psc(i) <= Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis
% 0 <= q_psd(i) <= Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis
% q_utility= D-q_pv-q_psd ie q_psd(i)+q_utility() = D(i)-q_pv(i)
% 0 <= q_utility <= D_unmet
% 0 <= q_pvc(i) <= eff*q_excess(i)
% (1/eff)*q_pvc(i) + q_sold(i) = q_excess(i)
% 0 <= q_sold(i) <= q_excess(i)
% q_psd(h)-sum(q_psc+qpvc)<=0

106
%% Objective function

f= [p_utility(1:24); -1*p_utility(1:24); p_utility(1:24);

-1*p_utility(1:24); -1*p_utility(1:24)];

%% Equality constraints

%sum(q_psc+q_pvc)= Q_batt*PS

Aeq=[ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) ones(1,24) zeros(1,24)];

beq=[PS*Q_batt];

%sum(eff*q_psc-q_psd+eff*q_pvc)=0
Aeq(2,:)=[eff*ones(1,24) -1*ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) eff*ones(1,24)...
zeros(1,24)];
beq(2,1)=0;

%Populate Aeq and beq arrays for q_psd+q_utility = D-q_pv contraint

Aeq(3,:)= [zeros(1,24) 1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) zeros(1,24)...

zeros(1,24)];
Aeq(26,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,24)...
zeros(1,24)];

for i=2:23
Aeq(i+2,:)=[zeros(1,24) zeros(1,i-1) 1 zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,i-1)...
1 zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24)];
end

for i=1:24
beq(i+2,1)=D_unmet(i);
end

%(1/eff)*q_pvc + q_sold = q_excess

Aeq(27,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) (1/eff)

zeros(1,23)...
1 zeros(1,23)];
Aeq(50,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,23)
(1/eff)...
zeros(1,23) 1];

%Populate Aeq and beq arrays for (1/eff)*q_pvc+q_sold=q_excess

contraint

for i=2:23
Aeq(i+26,:)=[zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,i-1)...
1/eff zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,i-1) 1 zeros(1,24-i)];
end

for i=1:24
beq(i+26,1)=q_excess(i);
end

107
 %% Inequality constraints

A(1,:)=[-1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) zeros(1,24) -1 zeros(1,23)

zeros(1,24)];
A(24,:)=[-1*ones(1,24) ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) -1*ones(1,24) zeros(1,24)];

%Populate A for q_psd(h)-sum(q_psc+qpvc)<=0 constraint

for i=2:23
A(i,:)=[-1*ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i) ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i)...
zeros(1,24) -1*ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,24)];
end

b=zeros(24,1);

%% Upper/lower bound constraint

ub= [Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis*ones(24,1); Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis*ones(24,1);...

D_unmet; eff*q_excess; q_excess];

lb= [zeros(24,1);zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1)];

%% Linprog

x=linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub);

%% Battery level

q_batt(1)= Q_batt*(soc_min + R + 0.5*FR)+ x(1)+ x(73)-x(25);

soc(1)= 100*(soc_min + R + 0.5*FR)+ (100/Q_batt)*(+x(1)+ x(73)-x(25));
%Initialize stored battery energy to the sum of reserve
%backup allocation and regulation-up allocation. Also accounts
%for the case where there is charge/discharge in the first hour

%In kWh
for i=[2:24]
q_batt(i,1)=q_batt(i-1)+x(i)+ x(i+72)-x(i+24)/eff;
end

%In percent charge

for i=[2:24]
soc(i,1)=soc(i-1)+(100/Q_batt)*(+x(i)+ x(i+72)-x(i+24)/eff);
end

%% Catalog results

%Populate results matrix

results(first:last,1)=h;
results(first:last,2)=p_utility;
results(first:last,3)=D;
results(first:last,4)=q_pv;

108
 for i=1:5
for j=1:24
x_matrix(j,i)=x(j+(i-1)*24,1);
end
end

results(first:last,5)=x_matrix(:,1);
results(first:last,6)=x_matrix(:,2);
results(first:last,7)=x_matrix(:,3);
results(first:last,8)=x_matrix(:,4);
results(first:last,9)=x_matrix(:,5);
results(first:last,10)=q_excess;
results(first:last,11)=q_batt;
results(first:last,12)=soc;

%Regulation quantity and revenue

for i=1:24
if results(first+i-1,5)<1e-5 && results(first+i-1,6)<1e-5...
&& results(first+i-1,8)<1e-5
q_reg(i,:)= dc(i)*FR*B;
reg_rev(i,:)= FR*B*p_rmc(i)+ dc(i)*FR*B*p_rmp(i);
else
q_reg(i,:)=0;
reg_rev(i,:)=0;
end

end

results(first:last,13)=p_rmc;
results(first:last,14)=p_rmp;
results(first:last,15)=q_reg;

%Peak-shaving revenue

for i=1:24
ps_rev(i,:)=x(24+i)*p_utility(i)+x(72+i)*p_utility(i)...
-x(i)*p_utility(i)*(1/eff);
end

results(first:last,16)=ps_rev;
results(first:last,17)=reg_rev;

%Warning flag
for i=1:24
if results(i,5)>=0.00001 && results(i,6)>=0.00001 ||...
results(i,6)>=0.00001 && results(i,8)>=0.00001
day_text=sprintf('%d',day);
disp(['WARNING!!! MUTUTAL CHARGE/DISCHARGE-', ...
month_name, day_text]);
end
end

else %During weekends and holidays

%Populate results matrix

109
 results(first:last,1)=h;
results(first:last,2)=p_utility;
results(first:last,3)=D;
results(first:last,4)=q_pv;
results(first:last,5)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,6)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,7)=D_unmet;
results(first:last,8)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,9)=q_excess;
results(first:last,10)=q_excess;
results(first:last,11)=(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);
results(first:last,12)=(100/Q_batt)*(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);

%Regulation quantity and revenue

for i=1:24
q_reg(i,:)= dc(i)*FR*B;
reg_rev(i,:)= FR*B*p_rmc(i)+ dc(i)*FR*B*p_rmp(i);
end

results(first:last,13)=p_rmc;
results(first:last,14)=p_rmp;
results(first:last,15)=q_reg;

%Peak-shaving revenue

for i=1:24
ps_rev(i,:)=0;
end

results(first:last,16)=ps_rev;
results(first:last,17)=reg_rev;

end

end

csvwrite(results_file,results,0,0);

end

110
%battoptimize_ps100.m
%This program runs the monthly peak-shaving optimization with special
%instructions for the case of 100% peak-shaving allocation
%It receives the following inputs:
%res_ratio--> Battery capacity reserve allocation
%reg_ratio--> Battery capacity frequency regulation allocation (i.e. 0)
%ps_ratio--> Battery capacity peak-shaving allocation
%month_name--> String referring to the name of the month
%total_days--> Total number of days in the month
%first_cell--> First cell corresponding to the month in the spreadsheet
%containing all input data
%results_file-->String name of file in which the results will be stored

%Note: This should be saved under a separate m-file and run through the
%main optimization program (i.e. test_run.m below)

function battoptimize_ps100(res_ratio,reg_ratio,ps_ratio,month_name,...
total_days,first_cell,results_file)

% Import month data

month_data=csvread('year_data.csv',first_cell-1,0,[first_cell-1,...
0,(first_cell-1)+24*total_days-1,7]);

for day= 1:total_days

%% Read all data from excel spreadsheet

h=1:24';
p_utility=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,2);
D=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,3);
q_pv=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,4);
p_rmc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,5);
p_rmp=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,6);
day_type=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,7);
dc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,8);

%Battery specifications

%The current values represent lead-acid specs.

%These are replaced with lithium-ion specs when running lithium-ion
%simulations

%Lead acid specs

eff=0.8; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 0.25C
soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge
soc_min=0.3; %Min state-of-charge
Q_batt=421.8; %Total useable battery capacity
B=100.344; %Maximum battery power output
r_dis=0.25*Q_batt; %Max hourly battery discharge

%Lithium-ion specs

%This area should be uncommented when running the li-ion simulation

% eff=0.92; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 1C

% soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge

111
% soc_min=0.1; %Min state-of-charge
% Q_batt=107.74; %Total useable battery capacity
% B=100; %Maximum battery power output
% r_dis=1*Q_batt; %C-rate of 1C is assumed, thus max charge rate
%is 100%/hour

FR=(soc_max-soc_min)*reg_ratio; %Frequency regulation battery allocation

PS=(soc_max-soc_min)*ps_ratio; %Peak shaving battery allocation
R=(soc_max-soc_min)*res_ratio; %Backup reserve capacity allocation

%Hourly battery charging from excess pv

for i=[1:24]
if q_pv(i) > D(i);
q_excess(i,1)= q_pv(i)-D(i);
else
q_excess(i,1)=0;
end
end

%Define variable for unmet demand, ie D_unmet

%This variable is necessary, because due to a non-zero number of
%incidents of excess PV over demand, there may be -ve (D-q_pv)
%values, which will force the lower limits of q_utility and/or q_psd
%to be violated

for i=1:24
if D(i)-q_pv(i)>0
D_unmet(i,1)= D(i)-q_pv(i);
else
D_unmet(i,1)=0;
end
end

first=(day-1)*24+1;
last=(day-1)*24+24;
if day_type < 6 %During weekdays
%% Optimization model

% min sum(q_psc*p_utility - q_psd*p_utility + q_utility*p_utility

% -p_utility*q_pvc-p_utility*q_sold)
% s.t. sum(q_psc+q_pvc)= Q_batt*PS
% sum(eff*q_psc-q_psd+eff*q_pvc)=0
% 0 <= q_psc(i) <= Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis
% 0 <= q_psd(i) <= Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis
% q_utility= D-q_pv-q_psd ie q_psd(i)+q_utility() = D(i)-q_pv(i)
% 0 <= q_utility <= D_unmet
% 0 <= q_pvc(i) <= eff*q_excess(i)
% (1/eff)*q_pvc(i) + q_sold(i) = q_excess(i)
% 0 <= q_sold(i) <= q_excess(i)
% q_psd(h)-sum(q_psc+qpvc)<=0

%% Objective function

112
 f= [p_utility(1:24); -1*p_utility(1:24); p_utility(1:24);
-1*p_utility(1:24); -1*p_utility(1:24)];

%% Equality constraints

%sum(q_psc+q_pvc)= Q_batt*PS

Aeq=[ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) ones(1,24) zeros(1,24)];

beq=[PS*Q_batt];

%sum(eff*q_psc-q_psd+eff*q_pvc)=0
Aeq(2,:)=[eff*ones(1,24) -1*ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) eff*ones(1,24)...
zeros(1,24)];
beq(2,1)=0;

%Populate Aeq and beq arrays for q_psd+q_utility = D-q_pv contraint

Aeq(3,:)= [zeros(1,24) 1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) zeros(1,24)...

zeros(1,24)];
Aeq(26,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,24)...
zeros(1,24)];

for i=2:23
Aeq(i+2,:)=[zeros(1,24) zeros(1,i-1) 1 zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,i-1)...
1 zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24)];
end

for i=1:24
beq(i+2,1)=D_unmet(i);
end

%(1/eff)*q_pvc + q_sold = q_excess

Aeq(27,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) (1/eff)...

zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23)];
Aeq(50,:)= [zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,23)...
(1/eff) zeros(1,23) 1];

%Populate Aeq and beq arrays for (1/eff)*q_pvc+q_sold=q_excess

contraint

for i=2:23
Aeq(i+26,:)=[zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,24) zeros(1,i-1)...
1/eff zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,i-1) 1 zeros(1,24-i)];
end

for i=1:24
beq(i+26,1)=q_excess(i);
end

%% Inequality constraints

A(1,:)=[-1 zeros(1,23) 1 zeros(1,23) zeros(1,24) -1 zeros(1,23)...

113
 zeros(1,24)];
A(24,:)=[-1*ones(1,24) ones(1,24) zeros(1,24) -1*ones(1,24)...
zeros(1,24)];

%Populate A for q_psd(h)-sum(q_psc+qpvc)<=0 constraint

for i=2:23
A(i,:)=[-1*ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i) ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i)...
zeros(1,24) -1*ones(1,i) zeros(1,24-i) zeros(1,24)];
end

b=zeros(24,1);

%% Upper/lower bound constraint

ub= [Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis*ones(24,1); Q_batt*PS*eff*r_dis*ones(24,1);...

D_unmet; eff*q_excess; q_excess];

lb= [zeros(24,1);zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1); zeros(24,1)];

%% Linprog

x=linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub);

%% Battery level

q_batt(1)= Q_batt*(soc_min + R + 0.5*FR)+ x(1)+ x(73)-x(25);

soc(1)= 100*(soc_min + R + 0.5*FR)+ (100/Q_batt)*(+x(1)+ x(73)-x(25));
%Initialize stored battery energy to the sum of reserve
%backup allocation and regulation-up allocation. Also accounts
%for the case where there is charge/discharge in the first hour

%In kWh
for i=[2:24]
q_batt(i,1)=q_batt(i-1)+x(i)+ x(i+72)-x(i+24)/eff;
end

%In percent charge

for i=[2:24]
soc(i,1)=soc(i-1)+(100/Q_batt)*(+x(i)+ x(i+72)-x(i+24)/eff);
end

%% Catalog results

%Populate results matrix

results(first:last,1)=h;
results(first:last,2)=p_utility;
results(first:last,3)=D;
results(first:last,4)=q_pv;

for i=1:5
for j=1:24
x_matrix(j,i)=x(j+(i-1)*24,1);

114
 end
end

results(first:last,5)=x_matrix(:,1);
results(first:last,6)=x_matrix(:,2);
results(first:last,7)=x_matrix(:,3);
results(first:last,8)=x_matrix(:,4);
results(first:last,9)=x_matrix(:,5);
results(first:last,10)=q_excess;
results(first:last,11)=q_batt;
results(first:last,12)=soc;

%Regulation quantity and revenue

for i=1:24
q_reg(i,:)=0;
reg_rev(i,:)=0;
end

results(first:last,13)=p_rmc;
results(first:last,14)=p_rmp;
results(first:last,15)=q_reg;

%Peak-shaving revenue

for i=1:24
ps_rev(i,:)=x(24+i)*p_utility(i)+x(72+i)*p_utility(i)...
-x(i)*p_utility(i)*(1/eff);
end

results(first:last,16)=ps_rev;
results(first:last,17)=reg_rev;

%Warning flag
for i=1:24
if results(i,5)>=0.00001 && results(i,6)>=0.00001 ||...
results(i,6)>=0.00001 && results(i,8)>=0.00001
day_text=sprintf('%d',day);
disp(['WARNING!!! MUTUTAL CHARGE/DISCHARGE-',...
month_name, day_text]);
end
end

else %During weekends and holidays

%Populate results matrix

results(first:last,1)=h;
results(first:last,2)=p_utility;
results(first:last,3)=D;
results(first:last,4)=q_pv;
results(first:last,5)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,6)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,7)=D_unmet;
results(first:last,8)=zeros(24,1);

115
 results(first:last,9)=q_excess;
results(first:last,10)=q_excess;
results(first:last,11)=(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);
results(first:last,12)=(100/Q_batt)*(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);

%Regulation quantity and revenue

for i=1:24
q_reg(i,:)= 0;
reg_rev(i,:)= 0;
end

results(first:last,13)=p_rmc;
results(first:last,14)=p_rmp;
results(first:last,15)=q_reg;

%Peak-shaving revenue

for i=1:24
ps_rev(i,:)=0;
end

results(first:last,16)=ps_rev;
results(first:last,17)=reg_rev;

end

end

csvwrite(results_file,results,0,0);

end

116
%battoptimize_fr100.m
%This program runs the monthly peak-shaving optimization with special
%instructions for the case of 100% frequency regulation allocation
%It receives the following inputs:
%res_ratio--> Battery capacity reserve allocation
%reg_ratio--> Battery capacity frequency regulation allocation
%ps_ratio--> Battery capacity peak-shaving allocation (i.e. 0)
%month_name--> String referring to the name of the month
%total_days--> Total number of days in the month
%first_cell--> First cell corresponding to the month in the spreadsheet
%containing all input data
%results_file-->String name of file in which the results will be stored

%Note: This should be saved under a separate m-file and run through the
%main optimization program (i.e. test_run.m below)

function battoptimize_fr100(res_ratio,reg_ratio,ps_ratio,month_name,...
total_days,first_cell,results_file)

% Import month data

month_data=csvread('year_data.csv',first_cell-1,0,[first_cell-1,...
0,(first_cell-1)+24*total_days-1,7]);

for day= 1:total_days

%% Read all data from excel spreadsheet

h=1:24';
p_utility=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,2);
D=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,3);
q_pv=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,4);
p_rmc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,5);
p_rmp=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,6);
day_type=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,7);
dc=month_data((day-1)*24+1:(day-1)*24+24,8);

%Battery specifications

%The current values represent lead-acid specs.

%These are replaced with lithium-ion specs when running lithium-ion
%simulations

%Lead acid specs

eff=0.8; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 0.25C
soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge
soc_min=0.3; %Min state-of-charge
Q_batt=421.8; %Total useable battery capacity
B=100.344; %Maximum battery power output
r_dis=0.25*Q_batt; %Max hourly battery discharge

%Lithium-ion specs

%This area should be uncommented when running the li-ion simulation

% eff=0.92; %Battery round-trip efficiency @ 1C

% soc_max=0.8; %Max state-of-charge

117
% soc_min=0.1; %Min state-of-charge
% Q_batt=107.74; %Total useable battery capacity
% B=100; %Maximum battery power output
% r_dis=1*Q_batt; %C-rate of 1C is assumed, thus max charge rate
%is 100%/hour

FR=(soc_max-soc_min)*reg_ratio; %Frequency regulation battery

allocation
PS=(soc_max-soc_min)*ps_ratio; %Peak shaving battery allocation
R=(soc_max-soc_min)*res_ratio; %Backup reserve capacity allocation

%Hourly battery charging from excess pv

for i=[1:24]
if q_pv(i) > D(i);
q_excess(i,1)= q_pv(i)-D(i);
else
q_excess(i,1)=0;
end
end

%Define variable for unmet demand, ie D_unmet

%This variable is necessary, because due to a non-zero number of
%incidents of excess PV over demand, there may be -ve (D-q_pv)
%values, which will force the lower limits of q_utility and/or q_psd
%to be violated

for i=1:24
if D(i)-q_pv(i)>0
D_unmet(i,1)= D(i)-q_pv(i);
else
D_unmet(i,1)=0;
end
end

first=(day-1)*24+1;
last=(day-1)*24+24;

%Populate results matrix

results(first:last,1)=h;
results(first:last,2)=p_utility;
results(first:last,3)=D;
results(first:last,4)=q_pv;
results(first:last,5)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,6)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,7)=D_unmet;
results(first:last,8)=zeros(24,1);
results(first:last,9)=q_excess;
results(first:last,10)=q_excess;
results(first:last,11)=(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);
results(first:last,12)=(100/Q_batt)*(soc_min+R+0.5*FR)*Q_batt*ones(24,1);

118
 %Regulation quantity and revenue

for i=1:24
q_reg(i,:)= dc(i)*FR*B;
reg_rev(i,:)= FR*B*p_rmc(i)+ dc(i)*FR*B*p_rmp(i);
end

results(first:last,13)=p_rmc;
results(first:last,14)=p_rmp;
results(first:last,15)=q_reg;

%Peak-shaving revenue

for i=1:24
ps_rev(i,:)=0;
end

results(first:last,16)=ps_rev;
results(first:last,17)=reg_rev;

end

csvwrite(results_file,results,0,0);

end

119
Bibliography

[1] M. E. Kahn, N. Kok and J. M. Quigley, "Carbon emissions from the commercial building sector: The
role of climate, quality, and incentives," Jornal of Public Economics, vol. 113, pp. 1-12, 2014.

[2] U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Electrical Power Monthly," 2014.

[3] "Use of Energy in the United States Explained: Energy Use in Commercial Buildings," U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 27 July 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=us_energy_commercial#tab1.

[4] U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey," 2003.

[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Monthly Energy Review," 2014.

[6] U.S. Envinronmental Protection Agency, "EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions," 5 November
2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/ghg/index.htm.

[7] IEEE Recommended Practice for Emergency and Standby Power Systems for Industrial and
Commercial Applications, IEEE Std 446-1995, 1995.

[8] K. H. LaCommare and J. H. Eto, "Understanding the Cost of Power Interruptions to U.S. Electricity
Consumers," Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, 2004.

[9] IEEE Recommended Practice for the Design of Reliable Industrial and Commercial Power Systems,
IEEE Std 493-2007, 2007.

[10] D. Salomonsson and L. Soder, "Comparison of Different Solutions for Emergency and Standby
Power Systems for Commercial Consumers," in Telecommunications Energy Conference, 2006.
INTELEC '06. 28th Annual International, 2006.

[11] S. D. Shah, D. R. Cocker III, K. C. Johnson, J. M. Lee, B. L. Soriano and J. W. Miller, "Emissions of
regulated pollutants from in-use diesel back-up generators," Atmospheric Environment, vol. 40, no.
22, pp. 4199-4209, 2006.

[12] Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), "Stationary Diesel Engines in
the Northeast: An Initial Assessment of the Regional Population, Control Technology Options and
Air Quality Policy Issues," 2003.

[13] J. W. Herzog, "Current and near-term emission control strategies for diesel powered generator

120
 sets," in INTELEC. 24th Annual International, 2002.

[14] S. K. Siu and J. Lopopolo , "Compatibility, Sizing, and Design Considerations for Generators and UPSs
in Tiers I, II, III, and IV Topologies," Industry Applications, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 47, no. 6, pp.
2324-2329, 2011.

[15] Solar Energy Industries Association, "Solar Market Insight Report 2013 Year in Review," 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2013-
year-review.

[16] R. Wills, J. Milke, S. Royle and K. Steranka, "Commercial Roof-Mounted Photovoltaic System
Installation Best Practices Review and All Hazard Assessment," The Fire Protection Research
Foundation, 2014.

[17] K. H. Solangi, M. R. Islam, N. A. Rahim and H. Fayaz, "A review on global solar energy policy,"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 4, p. Pages 2149–2163, 2011.

[18] S. J. Hayter and R. L. Martin, "Photovoltaics for Buildings – Cutting-Edge PV," National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, 1998.

[19] F. Cucchiella and I. D'Adamo, "Estimation of the energetic and environmental impacts of a roof-
mounted building-integrated photovoltaic systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
vol. 16, no. 7, p. 5245–5259, September 2012.

[20] Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, "SunShot Initiative: About," U.S. Department of
Energy, [Online]. Available: http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/about.

[21] L. Sherwood, "U.S. Solar Market Trends 2012," Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. , 2013.

[22] J. Driesen and F. Katiraei, "Design for distributed energy resources," Power and Energy Magazine,
IEEE, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 30-40, May-June 2008.

[23] N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, R. Iravani and C. Marnay, "Microgrids," Power and Energy Magazine,
IEEE , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 78-94, 2007.

[24] IEEE Guide for Design, Operation, and Integration of Distributed Resource Island Systems with
Electric Power Systems, IEEE Std 1547.4-2011, 2011.

[25] W. Su and J. Wang, "Energy Management Systems in Microgrid Operations," The Electricity Journal,
vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 45-60, 2012.

[26] M. Sechilariu, B. Wang and F. Locment, "Building-integrated microgrid: Advanced local energy
management for forthcoming smart power grid communication," Energy and Buildings, vol. 59, p.

121
 236–243, 2013.

[27] S. Bhaskara and B. Chowdhury, "Microgrids—A review of modeling, control, protection, simulation
and future potential," in Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2012 IEEE, 2012.

[28] T. Ustun, C. Ozansoy and A. Zayegh, "Recent developments in microgrids and example cases around
the world—A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 4030-4041,
2011.

[29] D. Tran and A. Khambadkone, "Energy Management for Lifetime Extension of Energy Storage
System in Micro-Grid Applications," Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1289-
1296, 2013.

[30] J. Rittershausen and M. McDonagh, "Moving Energy Storage from Concept to Reality: Southern
California Edison’s Approach to Evaluating Energy Storage," Southern California Edison, 2011.

[31] G. Coppez, S. Chowdhury and S. P. Chowdhury, "Review of battery storage optimisation in

Distributed Generation," in Power Electronics, Drives and Energy Systems (PEDES) & 2010 Power
India, 2010 Joint International Conference on, 2010.

[32] K. C. Divya and J. Østergaard, "Battery energy storage technology for power systems—An
overview," Electric Power Systems Research, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 511-520, 2009.

[33] Electricity Storage Association, [Online]. Available: electricitystorage.org.

[34] A. K. Basu, S. P. Chowdhury, S. Chowdhury and S. Paul, "Microgrids: Energy management by

strategic deployment of DERs—A comprehensive survey," Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 4348–4356, 2011.

[35] "DER-CAM," Mircogrids at Berkeley Lab, [Online]. Available: http://der.lbl.gov/der-cam.

[36] C. Marnay, G. Venkataramanan, M. Stadler, A. S. Siddiqui, R. Firestone and B. Chandran, "Optimal

Technology Selection and Operation of Commercial-Building Microgrids," Power Systems, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 975-982, 2008.

[37] X. Guan, Z. Xu and Q. Jia, "Energy-Efficient Buildings Facilitated by Microgrid," Smart Grid, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 243-252, 2010.

[38] H. Kanchev, D. Lu, F. Colas, V. Lazarov and B. Francois, "Energy Management and Operational
Planning of a Microgrid With a PV-Based Active Generator for Smart Grid Applications," Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 4583-4592, 2011.

[39] S. Grillo, M. Marinelli, S. Massucco, F. Silvestro, D. Di Rosa, I. Fastelli and G. Gigliucci, "Generation

122
 and battery modelling and integrated control strategies for a better acceptance of intermittent
renewable energy sources in the electric distribution system," in CIRED Workshop, Lyon, 2010.

[40] A. Oudalov, D. Chartouni, C. Ohler and G. Linhofer, "Value Analysis of Battery Energy Storage
Applications in Power Systems," in Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2006. PSCE '06. 2006
IEEE PES, 2006.

[41] S. Han, S. Han and K. Sezaki, "Economic assessment on V2G frequency regulation regarding the
battery degradation," in Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2012 IEEE PES, 2012.

[42] A. Bagherian and S. Tafreshi, "A developed energy management system for a microgrid in the
competitive electricity market," in PowerTech, 2009 IEEE Bucharest, 2009.

[43] E. Mashhour and S. M. Moghaddas-Tafreshi, "Bidding Strategy of Virtual Power Plant for
Participating in Energy and Spinning Reserve Markets—Part I: Problem Formulation," Power
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 949-956, 2011.

[44] S. X. Chen , H. B. Gooi and M. Q. Wang, "Sizing of Energy Storage for Microgrids," Smart Grid, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 142-151, 2012.

[45] S. A. Pourmousavi, R. K. Sharma and B. Asghari, "A framework for real-time power management of
a grid-tied microgrid to extend battery lifetime and reduce cost of energy," in Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT), 2012 IEEE PES, 2012.

[46] D. Tran and A. M. Khambadkon, "Energy Management for Lifetime Extension of Energy Storage
System in Micro-Grid Applications," Smart Grid, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1289-1296,
2013.

[47] S. Beer, T. Gomez, D. Dallinger, I. Momber, C. Marnay, M. Stadler and J. Lai, "An Economic Analysis
of Used Electric Vehicle Batteries Integrated Into Commercial Building Microgrids," Smart Grid, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 517-525, 2012.

[48] W. Kempton , V. Uto, K. Huber, K. Komara, S. Letendre, S. Baker, D. Brunner and N. Pearre, "A Test
of Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) for Energy Storage and Frequency Regulation in the PJM System," Center
for Carbon-free Power Integration. University of Delaware, 2008.

[49] PJM, "PJM Manual 35: Definitions and Acronyms," 11 April 2014. [Online]. Available:
https://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m35.ashx.

[50] PJM, "PJM Manual 12: Balancing Operations," 1 December 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m12.ashx.

[51] S. Drouilhet and B. L. Johnson, "A Battery Life Prediction Method for Hybrid Power Applications,"

123
 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 1997.

[52] PJM State & Member Training Department, "Training Materials: Generation 301-Ancillary Services,"
June 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/training/core-curriculum/ip-gen-
301/gen-301-ancillary-services.ashx.

[53] PJM, "Monthly Locational Marginal Pricing," [Online]. Available: http://pjm.com/markets-and-

operations/energy/real-time/monthlylmp.aspx.

[54] PJM, "PJM Manual 11: Energy & Ancillary Services Market Operation," 7 March 2014. [Online].
Available: http://www.pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m11.ashx.

[55] PJM, "PJM Regulation Zone Preliminary Billing Data," [Online]. Available: http://pjm.com/markets-
and-operations/market-settlements/preliminary-billing-reports/pjm-reg-data.aspx.

[56] G. Albright, J. Edie and S. Al-Hallaj, "A Comparison of Lead Acid to Lithium-ion in Stationary Storage
Applications," AllCell Technologies LLC, 2012.

[57] EnerSys, "PowerSafe SBS Batteries: Performance Specs," 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.enersys.com/PowerSafe_SBS_Batteries.aspx?langType=1033. [Accessed 7 July 2014].

[58] "Demand Response Inverter (4 Port) — DRI-100," Princeton Power Systems, [Online]. Available:
http://www.princetonpower.com/DRI-100.html.

[59] Isofoton, "Monocrystalline module ISF-260," [Online]. Available:

http://www.isofoton.com/sites/default/files/260_usa_.pdf. [Accessed 7 July 2014].

[60] L. Lawton, M. Sullivan, K. Van Liere, A. Katz and J. Eto, "A Framework and Review of Customer
Outage Costs: Integration and Analysis of Electric Utility Outage Cost Surveys," Ernest Orlando
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2003.

[61] J. M. Gurrero, L. G. de Vicuna and J. Uceda, "Uninterruptible power supply systems provide
protection," Industrial Electronics Magazine, IEEE, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 28-38, 2007.

[62] C. C. Grant, "Fire Fighter Safety and Emergency Response for Solar Power Systems," The Fire
Protection Research Foundation, 2010.

[63] "CPI Inflation Calculator," U.S. Bereau of Labor Statistics, [Online]. Available: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl.

124