Smart Application of Energy Management Systems

for Distribution Network Reliability Enhancement

Mike Brian Ndawula, Pengfei Zhao and Ignacio Hernando-Gil
Centre for Sustainable Power Distribution
University of Bath, Bath, UK
M.B.Ndawula@bath.ac.uk, P.Zhao@bath.ac.uk, I.Hernando.Gil@bath.ac.uk

Abstract—This paper presents a reliability-based approach
for the design and deployment of an energy management system
(EMS) by using ‘smart’ applications, such as energy storage (ES),
to control battery power output in residential dwellings, and thus
improve distribution-network reliability performance. The state
of charge (SOC) of the battery system is designed based on time-
varying electricity tariff, load demand and solar photovoltaic
(PV) generation data to investigate a realistic test-case scenario.
Additionally, a typical MV/LV urban distribution system is fully
modelled and scripted to investigate the potential benefits that
‘smart’ interventions can offer to customers’ quality of power
supply. In this research, Monte-Carlo simulation method is
further developed to include the time-variation of electricity
demand profiles and failure rates of network components.
Accordingly, the reliability-based effects from SOC variation in
batteries are compared with an uncontrolled microgeneration
(MG) scenario, by using different PV penetration levels to justify
the value of control. The benefits are assessed through standard
reliability indices measuring frequency and duration of power
interruptions and most importantly, the energy not supplied to
customers during sustained interruptions.
Keywords—battery state of charge; demand profile; local PV
systems; energy storage; energy management system; monte carlo
simulation; reliability performance.
I. INTRODUCTION
key performance indicators used to assess EMS tools, as they
will require improvements in energy efficiency to be
commensurate with those in reliability performance [4]. High
reliability performance is desirable by various electricity
network stakeholders including distribution network operators
(DNOs), end-customers and regulatory bodies. It is quantified
using standard indices measuring the frequency and duration of
interruptions as well as energy not supplied (ENS) during
sustained interruptions. This research builds on research [5, 6]
where each customer is supplied with energy from ES per
system fault to alleviate effects of network interruptions. This
paper improves the ES design by utilising an EMS to capture
more accurately the ES state of charge (SOC) and hence power
output. Thus, this research quantifies the value of control by a
comparison between the use of uncontrolled microgeneration
(MG) using PV and the proposed EMS-controlled ES.
II. DEPLOYMENT IN AN URBAN MV/LV NETWORK
Use of aggregation techniques in network design reduces
the complexity and computational time associated with
modelling of very detailed networks [7]. The detailed LV
network shown in Fig. 1 e.g. is aggregated into its electrical
and reliability equivalents and used as part of a typical MV/LV
urban distribution network in the UK (metropolitan areas).
190 customers
PMAX AV.= 2.27kW/customer Total Load MAX AV.= 431.3kW (at 1p.u.)

L
An energy management system (EMS) is an instrument for U18 (6 cust.)
E 90m
the systematic acquisition of energy relevant data and C D E L U19
27m 26m 53m
implementation of actions that are geared towards increments D 82m
(4 cust.)

in energy efficiency [1]. Informed investments, planning and E

40m
E
17m
operational measures, all serve to enhance the effectiveness of L L (15 cust.)
U14
(15 cust.)
U15
U16
EMS tools in achieving energy management. Rapid increase in 11kV 0.4kV
D
(8 cust.)
D
U17
(8 cust.) L E L
urbanisation and proliferation of various demand types ranging 15m 80m 85m
L
from electric vehicles (EVs) to internet of things (IoT) (9 cust.)
U9
E 32m
U10
(6 cust.)
applications have been predicted in future ‘smart grids’ [2]. L E
53m
E
12m
The ensuing energy challenges, utilising solutions such as 500kVA
(12 cust.) (6 cust.)
E 41m
U11
Transformer
energy storage (ES), must be designed to efficiently and L
U4
L
U7 E 70m L (6 cust.)
ZT=2.04 + j9.28 A A B C D E
effectively control energy use for continued technological (p.u. on 100MVA) 32m 90m 41m 35m 33m 17m
advancements and overall societal development. One of such E 73m E 67m E 93m E 68m E 40m

challenges is the stochastic behaviour of distributed energy E

24m
E
52m L
L L

resources (DERs), which affects among others, energy L

L L U8
(12 cust.) U12 U13
(12 cust.)
efficiency and power quality. In distribution networks, U5
U3 (14 cust.)
U6
(9 cust.) L
(9 cust.)

deployments of ES are common to various load sector types (12 cust.)

E 36m
U1
(15 cust.)
often using batteries storing either solar photovoltaic (PV) or D
78.6m E 85m
wind energy [3]. EMS tools must therefore be utilised to L U2
streamline the functionality of ES and ensure energy efficiency. * L type line length = 30m (12 cust.)

However, future networks will add another dimension to the

Fig. 1. Urban generic LV distribution network model [7].

978-1-5386-5186-5/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE

 The urban MV/LV network (shown in Fig. 2) is modelled, PV panels [12]. A DC/DC buck converter steps down the
scripted and fully controlled through Python with PSS/E voltage to 24 V, which is the rating of the battery bank,
software package. This system considers a comprehensive consisting of four 12 V batteries and connected to supply a
approach with all reliability aspects associated with total of 200 Amps. The common coupling 24 V DC bus is
DERs/customers from the MV to LV supply. The network linked with the converter, battery bank and inverter. Power
operates with 6 identical trunk feeders each supplying 8 bulk can be stepped up and transferred from the DC bus to the
supply points (BSPs) – for a total of 48 BSPs with a total inverter with shape conversion. The inverter is also connected
demand of 9120 residential customers. Full details of network to a single-phase on the mains supply to allow for energy
design can be found in [5]. An integrated approach to reliability
exchange and bi-directional energy trading [10].
assessment using Monte Carlo simulation techniques, enhanced
by the inclusion of time-varying demand profiles and power
components’ failure rates, is adopted for this research [6]. B. System Operation
Fig. 4a) presents the SOC and resultant power output curve
TOTAL: 9120 customers
(48 transf. x 190 customers/transf.)
Radial
LV Distribution for the ES system. For a typical day, system operation may be
(PMAX AV.= 2.27kW/customer)
0.4kV
(underground cable)
0.4kV described as follows: the initial SOC is assumed 40% at 00:30
Total Load MAX AV.= 20.7 MW
L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8
hours. It remains at this level essentially until 05:00, when PV
L – Load Supply Point
500kVA 500kVA
generation begins and starts charging the battery by 7:00.
11kV
Reflection Centre Between 7:00 and 11:00, the battery remains at approximately
Grid
33kV
1
P P P P Q Q Q Q Q
*2 *3 100% SOC. It then starts discharging due to increased load
Supply
System
15MVA
2
375m 375m
*2
375m 375m 375m 375m 375m 375m 150m
To another demand (11:00-15:00) and charges up again during a period of
relatively low tariff (15:00-18:30). Evening peak demand is
Primary
3 Substation
*3
Cable ‘0’ Underground
543MVA
Source Zsys 15MVA 4
*4
cable loop
arrangement
met, in part, by discharging the battery up to 22:00 where the
ZSYS =0.0269 + j0.1822
5
*5
x8
11/0.4 kV EMS takes advantage of the low rate late-night tariffs and load
(p.u. on 100MVA) 6
*6
Transformers

*4 *5 *6
demand to charge the battery. Fig. 4b) shows the power output
ZT=0.06 + j1
(p.u. on 100MVA) - negative values correspond to charging whilst positive values
~ 3km
indicate discharge [10]. System operation is assumed ideal
Fig. 2. Urban generic MV/LV distribution network model [5, 8]. without any unexpected failures and ES apparatus is not
damaged by large upstream network faults.
III. MODELLING OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 100

An EMS is modelled to capture more accurately the SOC

and the available power output of the ES. SOC characteristic 90

behaviour is modelled based on electricity tariff during grid

State of charge (% )

80
supply, solar irradiation and load demand [9]. The temporal
variation of these quantities is designed to correlate strongly 70
with SOC variation. This design utilises residential demand
and tariff data as well as summer PV generation data [10]. The 60
SOC limits are set to 40 and 100% to prevent overheating and
ensure long battery lifetime [11]. 50

A. System Configuration 40
00:30 03:30 06:30 09:30 12:30 15:30 18:30 21:30
This EMS (schematic shown in Fig. 3) is based on a real Time

microgrid system tested in the smart grid laboratory at the a) State of charge
University of Bath, UK [10]. The PV system, with 3.67 kW 1
maximum power and 444 V rated voltage, is composed of 12 0.8

0.6

0.4
Power output (p.u)

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
00:30 03:30 06:30 09:30 12:30 15:30 18:30 21:30
Time

b) Power output
Fig. 4. Battery SOC and power output for a typical summer day.
Fig. 3. Single-phase EMS configuration [10].
 IV. IMPACT OF VARIABLE PV PENETRATION V. NETWORK RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE
Given the integration of MG into conventional distribution Assessing different EMS designs for the control of ES
networks, future systems will see different penetrations of e.g. requires a systematic representation of reliability performance
PV systems, based on unpredictable rates of both spatial and results to demonstrate the expected benefits that accompany the
temporal variations [13, 14]. Using a scenario where MG is not deployment and efficient use of these technologies. Outcomes
controlled, this paper quantifies how different PV penetrations of the research show that EMS-controlled ES provides overall
in the same network, when modelled on the same base, impact benefits in terms of reduction in ENS as depicted in Table I
on reliability. The first step of this analysis is to carry out a (per feeder) and Table II (overall network). In addition to ENS,
reliability performance study on the test urban MV/LV network standard indices are assessed in Table II to quantify the value
(Fig. 2) without any DER-integration or ‘smart’ schemes. This of the proposed utilisation of this technology.
forms the base case scenario against which the viability of
proposed solutions can be assessed and established. Each of the TABLE II. NETWORK RELIABILITY PERFORMANCE
six main trunk feeders of the test network is then modelled SAIFI MAIFI
SAIDI ENS
with a different PV penetration level as summarised in Table I Scenario (interruptions * (interruptions *
(hours/c/y)
*
(kWh/c/y)
*
/c/y) /c/y)
– varying from 100% penetration in feeder 1 to 10% in feeder
Base Case 0.157 - 0.208 - 0.550 - 146 -
6. The PV models are adopted from related work in [5] where
realistic most-probable (rather than average) solar PV output PV 0.153 2.6% 0.212 -2.0% 0.454 17.5% 122 16.6%

profiles were obtained using raw hourly data from recordings ES 0.045 71.5% 0.218 -4.4% 0.310 43.7% 93 36.4%
made in 2015 by the National Thermal Power Corporation * Reduction from Base Case; (c/y = customer/year)
Limited in India on 110-kilowatt peak (kWp) rooftop PV
systems. These realistic models offer increased accuracy as A. Frequency of Network Outages
they account for the clouding effect caused by temporal The frequency of long (LI) and short (SI) interruptions is
variability in solar irradiation and unpredictable cloud measured using standard system-based reliability indices SAIFI
movements. This essentially avoids overestimation of PV and MAIFI respectively [17]. It is evident from Table II that
benefits, as is commonplace when ‘idealised’ PV output control of MG using EMS-controlled ES has the capacity to
models are used. offer a significantly higher reduction (71.5%) in the frequency
of sustained interruptions than uncontrolled PV (2.6%).
TABLE I. ENS REDUCTION PER MV TRUNK FEEDER However, the results also reveal that the momentary
Base Case PV Penetration EMS-controlled ES interruptions are increased in both proposed scenarios – PV
Feeder ENS
Circuit (kWh/customer PV Percentage ENS Reduction from ENS Reduction from (2.0%) and ES (4.4%). Since an increase in MAIFI can
/year)
Penetration Base Case Base Case introduce problems such as voltage flicker, sags and harmonics
1 151 100% 32.5% 34.8% that can affect power quality (PQ) [18], the results support the
2 136 75% 24.5% 34.8% necessity of development of better control techniques to ensure
3 150 50% 16.8% 39.2% ES performs better than the uncontrolled PV implementation.
4 149 40% 13.9% 36.8% Notably, the effectiveness of ES will be dependent on the
5 153 25% 8.2% 33.7% methods of connection to the main grid and the quality of
6 139 10% 3.4% 39.5%
power electronics used. Given the requirement to understand
Average ENS Reduction from Base Case 16.6% 36.4%
the behaviour of the network to enable use of better planning
As expected, higher PV penetration culminates in higher and operational tools, this research also presents the probability
improvements in reliability as demonstrated by the higher (PDF) and cumulative (CDF) density functions. This is a major
reductions in ENS from the base case. However, it is found that first step in the quantification of the associated risk and reward
implementation of EMS-controlled ES offers more reductions [19] of adopting smart interventions such as EMS-controlled
in ENS – not only per feeder circuit but also on the overall ES. Fig. 5 shows the PDF of SAIFI for all three scenarios to
average network performance (36.4% compared to only 16.6% illustrate further the value of MG control through ES.
in the PV penetration case). Furthermore, the results show that 0.8
even a 100% penetration of PV on feeder 1 (32.5% reduction)
does not offer more benefits than intelligently deployed ES for 0.7
Base case (0.157 Avg)
the same feeder (34.8% reduction). This is an important result 0.6
Probability (PDF)

as it compounds the importance of how efficient ES operation PV (0.153 Avg)

0.5
through intelligently designed EMS can directly translate into
improved reliability performance [15]. Reductions in ENS are 0.4
ES (0.045 Avg)
vital as they have not only commercial but also technical- 0.3
operation implications [16]. Stakeholders such as DNOs can
strongly benefit from implementation of ES, e.g. given the 0.2
assurance that it will reduce duration of sustained interruptions 0.1
and therefore ENS. This will increase customer satisfaction,
0
revenues and bolster reputation. This also means that the 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
usually exorbitant capital expenditure on network
SAIFI (interruptions/customer/year)
reinforcement can be deferred to encourage and support
development of more efficient energy management techniques. Fig. 5. Impact on frequency of sustained interruptions.
 It is clear from Fig. 5 that ES significantly increases the Fig. 7 shows the CDF for SAIDI in the network, and
probability of ‘zero’ LI, whilst PV offers almost no depicts an improvement in the probability, especially of having
improvement to the base case. This is because the energy lower-duration interruptions when PV is used, and even more
stored is utilised as a corrective action when network faults pronounced with the implementation of ES.
happen in the ES scenario, whilst in PV no control measures 1
are implemented. The PDF for the frequency of SI is also
assessed in Fig. 6, showing that there is little to no degradation 0.9
from the base case MAIFI. This shows that the methodology is
able to account for both SI and LI, and still produce accurate
0.8
results corresponding to expected outcomes. The fact that both

Probability (CDF)
scenarios do not significantly affect average MAIFI values is
0.7 Base case (0.550h Avg)
proven using the PDF curve in Fig. 6. Furthermore, both Figs.
5 and 6 show a sharp increase in probability value at 1
0.6 PV (0.454h Avg)
interruption/customer/year, which is due to faults affecting all
supplied customers, e.g. at the primary substation (33/11 kV
0.5 ES (0.310h Avg)
transformer) the indices are computed for the total number of
customers, culminating in 1 interruption/load point/year [8].
0.4
0.45
0.4
0.3
0.35 Base case (0.208 Avg) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Probability (PDF)

0.3 SAIDI (hours/customer/year)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5
Fig. 6. Impact on frequency of momentary interruptions.
B. Duration of Network Outages
An assessment of SAIDI in Table II reveals that ES
performs approximately 2.5 times as good as uncontrolled PV
– reducing SAIDI by 43.7% compared to only 17.5% in the PV
case. This is especially important to stakeholders such as
DNOs, who must ensure their networks do not have
excessively long sustained interruptions, as this will lead to
payment of penalties based on e.g. SQS regulation in the UK,
imposed by the regulator for both residential and commercial
customers [20]. Conversely, reward schemes are also available
to DNOs for exceeding reliability performance targets [21].
400
Feeder 1
Average ENS (kWh/customer/year)
PV (0.212 Avg)
Fig. 7. Impact on duration of sustained interruptions.
ES (0.218 Avg)
C. Assessment of Energy Not Supplied
In addition to overall average values presented in Tables I
and II, Fig. 8 shows the average ENS per load point (separated
by feeder) of the test network shown in Fig. 2. It also confirms,
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 as expected, that the variation of ENS directly corresponds to
MAIFI (interruptions/customer/year) that from the duration of interruptions. This is shown on the
secondary axis of Fig. 8 where average interruption duration
for each scenario is depicted. The ES has an overall better
performance for both indices than the PV, with only a few load
points markedly going off this trend. For example, at load
supply points 3 and 6 (feeder 1), 11 and 14 (feeder 2) and 19
(feeder 3). PV unexpectedly performs better in terms of both
ENS reductions and duration of interruptions. This can be
explained by the variability of the base-case network reliability,
coupled with the coincidence of solar irradiance patterns and
network faults, leading to the use of uncontrolled PV out-
performing ES. However, this occurrence in only 5 out of the
48 load points in the test network, suggests that ES is still the
more pragmatic overall solution.
1.2
Feeder 2 Feeder 3 Feeder 4 Feeder 5 Feeder 6
Average interruption duration (hours)

350
1
Base Case
300
PV
0.8
250
ES
200 0.6

150
0.4
100

0.2
50

0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Load Supply Points
Fig. 8. Average ENS and duration of interruptions.
 An analysis of the ENS PDF (Fig. 9) confirms the
additional benefits of EMS-controlled ES, especially in
increasing the probability of having interruptions less than 0.4
MWh/year for each customer. Given that ENS beyond this
value is significantly unlikely in all scenarios, ES demonstrates
its value in enhancing reliability. The PDF offers ‘more’
information than simply average values as it ‘describes’ the
nature of reductions to ENS when either technology is applied.
It further compounds the benefits of ES over uncontrolled PV
and justifies future capital expenditure into wide-scale
commercialisation of the technology geared towards more
efficient designs and deployments. Future ‘smart grid’
networks will require ES deployments to improve such
reliability indicators to the satisfaction of both operational and
economic expectations.
0.8
0.7
0.6
Base case (0.146 Avg)
Probability (PDF)
0.5
0.4
PV (0.122 Avg)
0.3 ES (0.093 Avg)
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
ENS (MWh/customer/year)
Fig. 9. Probability impact on ENS.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FURTHER WORK
This paper introduces the relevance and envisaged benefits
from the application of energy management systems (EMS) to
enhance system reliability through ‘smart’ applications such as
energy storage (ES). The preliminary results prove that control
of microgeneration systems using intelligent systems can
significantly reduce duration and frequency of sustained
interruptions, as well as energy not supplied to customers. In
addition, details of the test network design and configuration,
EMS model design, functionality and operation, as well as
reliability assessment techniques have been thoroughly
discussed. Accordingly, a careful analysis of the results reveals
that whilst varying SOC capacity of storage devices such as
batteries may prove somewhat cumbersome, EMS-controlled
ES can significantly improve reliability more than uncontrolled
PV implementation. Through greater reductions in frequency
and duration of sustained interruptions, as well as the
subsequent ENS, ES proves to be a more pragmatic solution to
addressing the inherent stochastic behaviour of DERs and its
impact on the reliability performance of distribution networks.
Probability distributions of the reliability indices are also
provided to offer more insight into the benefits of ES and
ultimately provide a means of addressing EMS design to
enhance reliability by assessing pros and cons of the
technology. This will prove essential in forming core planning
and ‘smart grid’ operational services for various groups of
stakeholders such as DNOs, regulators and end-customers.
Further work by the authors will disaggregate standard
reliability indices into component-based contributions, to
further propose reliability enhancement solutions such as
targeted replacement or preventive maintenance, which are
cognisant of pre-existing network infrastructure.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Fiedler and P. M. Mircea, "Energy management systems according
to the ISO 50001 standard 2014; Challenges and benefits," in 2012
International Conference on Applied and Theoretical Electricity
(ICATE), 2012, pp. 1-4.
[2] W. Ejaz, M. Naeem, A. Shahid, A. Anpalagan, and M. Jo, "Efficient
Energy Management for the Internet of Things in Smart Cities," IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 84-91, 2017.
[3] S. Saeed, S. K. A. Shezan, M. I. Arbab, and S. Rana, "Battery
monitoring system for the smart grid applications," in 2017
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference (AUPEC),
2017, pp. 1-5.
[4] I. Hernando-Gil, I. S. Ilie, and S. Z. Djokic, "Reliability performance of
smart grids with demand-side management and distributed
generation/storage technologies," in 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative
Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), 2012, pp. 1-8.
[5] M. B. Ndawula, S. Djokic, and I. Hernando-Gil, "Impact of the
Stochastic Behaviour of Distributed Energy Resources on MV/LV
Network Reliability," submitted to the 18th IEEE International
Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering, Italy, 2018.
[6] I. Hernando-Gil, B. Hayes, A. Collin, and S. Djokić, "Distribution
network equivalents for reliability analysis. Part 2: Storage and
demand-side resources," in IEEE PES ISGT Europe 2013, pp. 1-5.
[7] I. Hernando-Gil, B. Hayes, A. Collin, and S. Djokić, "Distribution
network equivalents for reliability analysis. Part 1: Aggregation
methodology," in IEEE PES ISGT Europe 2013, 2013, pp. 1-5.
[8] I. Hernando-Gil, I. S. Ilie, and S. Z. Djokic, "Reliability planning of
2 2.2 2.4
active distribution systems incorporating regulator requirements and
network-reliability equivalents," IET Generation, Transmission &
Distribution, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 93-106, 2016.
[9] W. Shi, X. Xie, C. C. Chu, and R. Gadh, "Distributed Optimal Energy
Management in Microgrids," IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 6,
no. 3, pp. 1137-1146, 2015.
[10] P. Zhao, H. Wu, and I. Hernando-Gil, "Optimal Energy Operation and
Scalability Assessment of Microgrids for Residential Services,"
submitted to the 18th IEEE International Conference on Environment
and Electrical Engineering, Palermo, Italy, 2018.
[11] C. Lili, M. Longhua, and L. Zhong, "Analysis of the operating
characteristics of a PV-Diesel-BESS microgrid system," Power System
Protection and Control, vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 86-91, 16th Jun 2015.
[12] TrinaSolar. TSM_PD14 Datasheet B [Online]. Available:
www.trinasolar.com
[13] "High penetration of PV systems into the distribution grid," in "Solar
Energy Technologies Program," U.S. Department of Energy, 2009.
[14] B. Mather and R. Neal, "Integrating high penetrations of PV into
Southern California: Year 2 project update," in 2012 38th IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 2012, pp. 000737-000741.
[15] I. Hernando-Gil, I. S. Ilie, A. J. Collin, J. L. Acosta, and S. Z. Djokic,
"Impact of DG and energy storage on distribution network reliability: A
comparative analysis," in 2012 IEEE International Energy Conference
and Exhibition (ENERGYCON), 2012, pp. 605-611.
[16] D. Cheng, B. A. Mather, R. Seguin, J. Hambrick, and R. P. Broadwater,
"Photovoltaic (PV) Impact Assessment for Very High Penetration
Levels," IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016.
[17] "IEEE Guide for Electric Power Distribution Reliability Indices," IEEE
Std 1366-2003 (Revision of IEEE Std 1366-1998), pp. 1-50, 2004.
[18] T. E. McDermott and R. C. Dugan, "Distributed generation impact on
reliability and power quality indices," in 2002 Rural Electric Power
Conference. Papers Presented at the 46th Annual Conference (Cat. No.
02CH37360), 2002, pp. D3-D3_7.
[19] F. S. Gazijahani and J. Salehi, "Stochastic multi-objective framework
for optimal dynamic planning of interconnected microgrids," IET
Renewable Power Generation, vol. 11, no. 14, pp. 1749-1759, 2017.
[20] "Engineering Recommendation P2-6, Security of Supply," Energy
Networks Association (ENA), 2005.
[21] OFGEM, "RIIO-ED1 Annual Report," 2015-16.