Received: 1 November 2022 Revised: 1 February 2023 Accepted: 14 February 2023 The Journal of Engineering

DOI: 10.1049/tje2.12243

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of energy losses in power distribution systems with

individual prosumers and energy communities

Illia Diahovchenko1,2 Lubov Petrichenko3

1
Electric Power Engineering Department, Sumy
State University, Sumy, Ukraine
2
Institute for Research in Technology, ICAI,
Comillas Pontifical University, Madrid, Spain
3
Faculty of Electrical and Environmental
Engineering, Institute of Power Engineering, Riga
Technical University, Riga, Latvia
Correspondence
Illia Diahovchenko, Electric Power Engineering
Department, Sumy State University, 40007 Sumy,
Ukraine.
Email: i.diahovchenko@etech.sumdu.edu.ua
Lubov Petrichenko, Faculty of Electrical and
Environmental Engineering, Institute of Power
Engineering, Riga Technical University, LV-1048
Riga, Latvia.
Email: lubova.petricenko@rtu.lv
Abstract
Achieving the energy transition target will require the extensive engagement of consumers
and the private sector in investment and operation of renewable-based power systems. Sup-
port of individual prosumers and proliferation of energy communities are efficient ways
to implement this engagement. To facilitate smooth integration of prosumers with pho-
tovoltaic (PV) installations, while satisfying effective operation of the power distribution
system (PDS), it is important to fundamentally assess energy losses for different grid devel-
opment scenarios. In this paper, the energy losses are compared for two alternatives: (a)
when prosumers with PV installations act as individual grid users, and (b) when prosumers
become participants of a solar energy community. To achieve this goal, modeling of loads,
prosumers’ behavior and PV generation was performed. Furthermore, it has been analyzed
how the physical topology of the distribution network can be harmonized with the underly-
ing bidirectional power flows for each alternative, while complying with system constraints.
The IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder was employed to capture the performance of the PDS
and to estimate the energy loss with various penetration levels of prosumers. The results
indicate that reduction of energy losses is only possible until a certain PV penetration level,
after which additional PV capacities cause increase in energy losses and complicate the
PDS’s operation. Lower energy losses were supervised for the cases with dispersed PV
generation, compared to the cases focused on energy communities. This means that the
PDS demonstrates better tolerance to evenly distributed prosumers, rather than to single
sources of a larger scale installed in one node. The outputs of this study will help the energy
planners and utilities in improving performance of the PDS in terms of loss minimization
and loadability maximization.

JEL CLASSIFICATION
Renewable power engineering

1 INTRODUCTION Global electricity demand is projected to keep increasing, and

This study is an extended version of the preliminary conference
report presented in RTUCON 2021 [1]. Compared to [1], the
case study has been substantially extended, the modelling accu-
racy has been improved, the simulation has been performed for
real load and PV generation profiles, using utility data and mete-
orological annual weather data, and operationally feasible levels
of PV penetration for individual prosumers with PV installa-
tions and for prosumers who join a medium-scale solar energy
community have been defined.
power generation is shifting from traditional and limited energy
sources (e.g. coal, gas) to renewable energy sources (RESs) [2].
With rapid adoption of distributed energy resources (DERs)
and advancements in control and communications, small-scale
electricity consumers are becoming prosumers, that is, individu-
als, institutions, or small businesses that both produce, consume
energy and, optionally, store and share energy with other grid
users [3, 4]. This means that proactive consumers can partici-
pate in a peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading, facilitating energy
exchange between each other or within energy communities

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Engineering published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Institution of Engineering and Technology.

J. Eng. 2023;2023:e12243. wileyonlinelibrary.com/iet-joe 1 of 14

https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12243

2 of 14
(EComs). An ECom is defined as an entity of local prosumers
that is involved in energy production, distribution and usage
[3], and can provide the local community with environmental,
economic and social benefits.
A summary on the perspectives and progress in prosumer
communities and relationships is presented in [3, 4]. Given their
orientation towards environmentally friendly PDSs, prosumers
can help to reduce the cost of energy, increase and maintain the
sustainable share of RESs [5]. However, along with the efficient
utilization of clean energy, distributed generation owned by pro-
sumers can worsen the operational stability of the PDS [5] (e.g.
by violating the hard constraints imposed by the distribution
system operators for ensuring reliability and operability of the
power system) and cause high power/energy losses.
Therefore, the prosumers’ behavior is critical for long-term
efficiency, sustainability, economic and resiliency performance
of the smart grid [6, 7]. If coordinated properly, the prosumers
can bring significant benefits for PDSs in terms of reducing
peak demand [8], lowering investment and operational costs
and subtracting traditional energy sources with environmentally
friendly RESs [9]. On the other hand an excessive penetra-
tion of DERs may invoke overvoltage and thermal overloading,
cause power quality and system protection problems [10–12].
Therefore, attention to the prosumers management is on the
agenda, and there are multiple research papers dedicated to
the problems related to the increasing penetration of DERs.
Of particular interest are the problems of voltage and capac-
ity constraints violation and of the power and energy losses
minimization in such networks [12–27].
The paper [13] presents a method based on sensitivity analy-
sis to assess the impact of energy transactions on the PDS and to
guarantee that these transactions do not violate the constraints.
In [14] it is concluded that a size, a location and a number of
DERs are essential in terms of impact on the voltage profile of
a distribution network. The simulation results from [15] demon-
strate how ignorance of the network constraints can disturb the
bus voltage limits and compromise security and reliability of the
PDS. While energy exchange between sellers and buyers via P2P
trading could compromise the node voltages and overload the
network capacity, it inevitably incurs power losses as well [16].
A graph-based loss allocation approach to harmonize the phys-
ical attributes of the low voltage distribution grid is proposed
and tested in [16]. An approach to determine optimal capacity
and place of location of PV generation in a radial PDS with
respect to power losses is presented in [17]. The authors of
[18] investigated the effect of the rooftop PV systems on volt-
age unbalances and energy losses in a real distribution network
of housing estate in Thailand, concluding that bigger PV gen-
eration capacities can be tolerated in phases with higher load
density. A scheme to reduce power losses by means of optimal
power routing and effective dispatching is presented in [19]. The
authors of [20] examined the impact of the local energy trading
on the power losses in a large grid-connected PDS and con-
cluded that flexible power dispatch of prosumers has a small
effect for loss reduction. Several approaches for an optimal
placement of distributed generation, considering minimization
of power/energy losses and voltage stability, are presented in
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
[21]. The work [22] proposes a P2P energy sharing framework
that takes into consideration the dynamic network structure
and assists with minimization of power losses. An energy trad-
ing scheme to maximize the social welfare and to achieve
the balance between supply and demand in the market, while
considering power losses and utilization fees for the third-party-
owned network, was designed in [23]. The authors of [24] aim
to minimize power losses and improve voltage profile of a PDS
using different types of distributed generation. The article [25]
presents an approach to determine an optimal generation mix,
while assuring voltage stability and minimal power losses. The
results of the study [26] show that regional installation of a solar
power station can reduce power losses, and that EComs can be
attractive for home users in case of the studied region in Turkey.
And the simulations conducted in [27] demonstrate that the
appropriate growth of PV generation may decrease the power
losses in the PDS, while an excessive growth may increase that.
Although the aforementioned articles deeply studied the
prospects and challenges associated with the integration of
RESs and increasing number of proactive consumers, not much
attention has been paid to the differentiation between the
impacts of small-scale local prosumers and medium-capacity
EComs on the operation of the PDS. To better address this
problem, two scenarios of the PDS development are elaborated
and compared in this study: (a) when consumers become indi-
vidual prosumers with low-power (i.e. of several kW) rooftop
PV installations; (b) when consumers join a medium-scale (i.e.
up to several MW) ECom by owning a share in it. The first type
of proactive consumers is hereinafter referred as distributed
prosumers (DPs), and the second type as energy community
prosumers (EComPs).
The comparison is aimed at energy losses assessment and
understanding of the PV penetration levels, which a PDS can
tolerate for DP-focused and EComP-focused scenarios. The
approach for energy losses assessment is based on the prelim-
inary results and baseline scenarios presented in our previous
related works [1, 28]. However, novel case studies have been
considered for grid development strategies focused on prolif-
eration on DPs and EComPs, to determine the overall energy
losses. The obtained results provide understanding of how
prosumers of different size can affect the operation of the
distribution networks.
Also, the results of energy loss assessment should rely on
a simple and accurate power flow solution method. However,
the energy loss estimations, based on the “exact loss formula”
[14] and the algebraic techniques, which use resistance of per
unit length of the power lines [16, 18, 19, 24, 27] or complex
impedance of the power line [20] might be not enough accurate
and quick for branched power systems. Therefore, a convenient
numeric method was selected for this work.
The main contributions of this study are as listed.
∙ The operation of a typical distribution test feeder is simulated
with various levels of PV penetration, using hourly time steps.
∙ Numerous case studies are considered for grid development
strategies focused on proliferation on DPs and EComPs, to
determine the overall energy losses.

DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
FIGURE 1 Power exchange in the PDS with proactive consumers: (a) individual prosumers with PV installations; (b) prosumers are the members of an ECom.
PDER is the power output from the DERs (partially consumed and partially fed to the PDS); PLoad is the active load of a prosumer
∙ Analysis of how the physical topology of the distribution net-
work with multiple individual prosumers and EComs can be
harmonized with the underlying bidirectional power flows,
while satisfying system constraints, is performed.
∙ Simulations with a single solar ECom are conducted to exam-
ine the relationship between maximum PV penetration and
distance from the ECom to the feeder’s source.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 intro-
duces the methodology for energy loss assessment, based on
the adopted modelling approach. Section 3 describes numerical
case studies pertaining to the augmentation of individual pro-
sumers with rooftop PV and energy communities, based on a
typical distribution feeder. Section 4 provides a discussion of
the obtained results, estimates acceptable levels of PV penetra-
tion, and highlights the value of modelling of the unbalanced
conditions at the distribution level with regard to energy losses.
Finally, conclusions are drawn.
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT,
METHODOLOGY AND MODELLING
USED FOR THE STUDY
2.1 The essence of the problem
To analyze the energy losses in the PDS with individual resi-
dential prosumers and a solar energy community, it is necessary
to grasp the difference between the nature of power flows for
both cases. Interaction of DPs and EComPs with the central-
ized electricity system in terms of power exchange is depicted
in Figure 1. Individual DPs independently invest in and oper-
ate their own PV arrays and purchase/feedback electric energy
directly from/to the utility grid. In case of the EComPs, they
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3 of 14
all have a share in medium-capacity solar power plant. Elec-
tric energy generated within the ECom can be freely shared
between all the members to meet demand at a specific hour or
to charge any of the batteries. The prosumer community also
has the option to exchange (buy and sell) electricity with the
centralized PDS.
To determine the impact of individual DPs and EComPs on
the overall energy losses, it is further considered that whenever
a prosumer has its own generation in a PDS, it meets up most
of its demand internally, and if there is any surplus of energy,
it is sold to the grid or to the P2P market. Similarly, an ECom
would use some of the generated energy to cover its own needs,
and the excessive energy would be sold. It is also assumed that
the prosumers do not have any flexibility of power dispatch
(i.e. no controllable loads or local energy storage technologies
available). While this assumption allows to simplify modelling, it
should not impact the results of the overall losses calculations,
since the physical process of power injection to the PDS are
the same for P2P and feed-in-tariff systems. The results of [20]
confirm that the difference between total P2P and non-P2P net-
work losses is insignificant for large-sized PDSs, supporting the
validity of the made assumption.
2.2 Modelling of the loads, prosumers’
behaviour and PV generation
For this study utility data from an automatic energy metering
system were collected, covering the whole year of electricity
consumption for different consumers. The obtained yearly load
profiles represent consumption patterns of typical domestic
dwellings and private houses in Latvia. The Latvian power sys-
tem is currently experiencing a rapid growth in PV applications,
mainly due to the supportive policies of the European Union
 20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 of 14 DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO

and the net energy metering scheme [1]. To this extent, the Lat- injection at node k; Qk sp is the scheduled reactive power injec-
vian distribution network is a suitable test bed for capturing the tion at node k; Gik is the real portion of the admittance between
influence of DERs and prosumer-support initiatives on energy nodes i and k; Bik is the imaginary portion of the admittance
losses. between node i and k; Vrk is the real component of voltage at
The solar irradiation data and the ambient temperature data node k; Vmk is the imaginary component of voltage at node k.
were extracted from the Photovoltaic Geographical Informa- It should be noted that the signs of the power injections cor-
tion System (PVGIS) [29] for the geographical location of Riga respond to the directions of the power flows and, therefore,
city (latitude: 56◦ 57’, longitude: 24◦ 04’) as an example. It is depend on whether a prosumer at each node imports energy
assumed that the slope of the PV modules (i.e. the angle with from or injects it to the PDS. More specifically, the following
the horizontal plane) is 41◦ for a fixed (non-solar) mounting conventionality is used in this work: power (either real or reac-
type, the azimuth is 1◦ , the approximate system losses is 14% tive) is signed positive if it is consumed at a node. And vice versa,
for small-scale rooftop PV installations and 10% for larger PV power is signed negative if it is injected at a node.
arrays of ECom [29]. The crystalline silicon photoelectric tech- The combined current injection mismatches of load flow
nology is considered. The PV electric output is estimated in formulation can be determined from
accordance with [30]. [ ] [ ]
The supplied energy by the photovoltaic power generation ΔVrk −1
ΔImk
= −J , (5)
system is represented by multiplying the electrical power output, ΔVmk ΔIrk
PDER , with the operating time t: ⎡ 𝛿ΔImk 𝛿Imk ⎤
⎢ 𝛿V 𝛿Vmk ⎥
∑ J =⎢ ⎥
n rk
(6)
EPV = PDER ⋅ t . (1) ⎢ 𝛿ΔIrk 𝛿ΔIrk ⎥
t =1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 𝛿Vrk 𝛿Vmk ⎦
The penetration level KPVpen is defined as the ratio of the Afterwards, the Backward-Forward Sweep (BFS) method is
installed PV to the peak load active power consumption in a used to check the convergence of results.
distribution grid: One of the challenges to proliferation of DPs and EComPs
∑ is ensuring that network’s constraints are satisfied during the
P installed energy exchange. At each step of the modelling the PDS must
KPVpen = ∑ PVrated . (2) meet operational constraints, such as power balance, bus volt-
PLoad
age limits and branch current capacity limits. In this work the
demand values change in hourly steps. To simulate different
operating states of the PDS, power flow should be recalculated
2.3 Power flow calculation and constrains for all the snapshots of load demand values. The constraints are
determined as follows.
The operation of the PDS with local prosumers and ECom Voltage limits constraints:
is studied using a time series analysis. A practical test sys-
| min | | |
tem with unbalanced load profile is taken and the three-phase |Vi | ≤ |Vi | ≤ |Vi max | . (7)
| | | |
current injection (TCIM) method, which is a modification of
the Newton-Raphson (NR) method, is chosen for power flow Branch capacity constraints:
calculation and analysis. This is one of the primary power
| | | max |
flow solution methods, which exploits the current injection at |I fi | ≤ |I fi |
| | | |
each node through rectangular coordinates, providing a faster . (8)
| max |
solution with a smaller number of iterations [3]. The method |Iri | ≤ |Iri |
| |
requires only one guess, and its formulation is rather simple,
which eases the process of applying and programming it. The Distributed generation real power constraints [7]:
NR power flow model comprises a set of equations, defining
the current injection from the load into the given network [31]:
min
PiDER ≤ PiDER ≤ PiDER
max
. (9)

sp sp
Pk Vrk + Qk Vmk ∑
n Power balance constraints at the node i are represented
ΔIrk = − (Gki Vri − Bki Vmi ) = 0, (3) through power injections:
Vrk2 + Vmk
2
i=1
in j
sp sp
Pk Vmk − Qk Vrk ∑
n Pi = Piload − PiDER ,
ΔImk = − (Gki Vmi − Bki Vri ) = 0, (4) in j
Vrk2 + Vmk
2
i=1 Qi = Qiload . (10)

where ΔIrk is the real current injection at bus k; ΔImk is the reac- In Equations (7)–(10) Vi is the voltage in the i-th node, Ifi is
tive current injection at bus k; Pk sp is the scheduled real power the forward flow capacity of the i-th branch of the PDS; Iri is

DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
FIGURE 2 Single-line diagram of the IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder with different levels of prosumers’ penetration
the reverse flow capacity of the i-th branch of the PDS; PiDER
is the available real power capacity of the i-th injected DER (i.e.
PV installations of prosumers and ECom); Pi inj and Qi inj are the
real and reactive power injections at the node i; Pi load and Qi load
are the real and reactive power consumption at the node i. The
superscripts min and max represent the maximum and minimum
allowable limits of the corresponding values. It is accepted in
this work that voltage deviations should not exceed ±0.1 p.u.
violation threshold [32].
3 CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION AND
RESULTS
3.1 Object under study
The IEEE 123 Node Test Feeder [33] was used to estimate the
energy losses and to determine the upper limit for adequate PV
injection. In this study, it is assumed that all the unbalanced
loads are household loads. The PV capacities were scattered
through the PDS evenly, as it can happen in a real-life network,
while trying to maintain the initial load ratio for each phase and
between phases. The sites of the PV injections are user-defined.
11 different yearly load profiles, which represent consumption
patterns of typical residential consumers in Latvia, were deter-
mined according to Section 2.2 and employed. The available 85
loads were split into 11 groups in such a way, that the different
load profiles are equally spread within the IEEE 123 bus sys-
tem. A single-line diagram of the system under study is shown
in Figure 2.
A commonly used rule of thumb in the Latvia allows dis-
tributed PV systems with peak powers up to 100% of the peak
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5 of 14
load on a feeder (or line section) to be installed. However, the
majority of the Latvian rural networks are underloaded, and
the distribution lines have a sufficient reserve for higher cur-
rent flows [6]. Therefore, the limits of the installed PV power
for an individual consumer can be further extended. In this
study the installed PV capacity is considered at the levels of
5, 7.5 and 10 kW for an individual prosumer. The invertors’
power factor is assumed to be 1, which implies only active
energy output from distributed generation. In the case of an
ECom, each consumer owns a share of a solar power plant,
which is 5, 7.5 or 10 kW, depending on the modelled case.
In such a way, equal opportunities are considered to evaluate
and compare the options of prosumers with rooftop PV panels
and ECom. It should be noted that a single node of the PDS
can host several consumers, and, therefore, their cumulative
active energy output can be higher than the above mentioned
values.
3.2 Operational scenarios
Given the high number of consumers in the PDS, they cannot
simultaneously become prosumers and deploy PV genera-
tion. Therefore, it is considered that the solar-type DERs are
allocated in four stages:
∙ 30% of the consumers are DPs with rooftop PV (cor-
responding nodes are marked with the yellow diamonds,
Figure 2);
∙ 50% of the consumers are DPs with rooftop PV (added
nodes are marked with the red stars, Figure 2);

6 of 14
∙ 70% of the consumers are DPs with rooftop PV (added
nodes are marked with the blue triangles, Figure 2);
∙ 100% of the consumers are DPs with rooftop PV.
The depicted groups of DERs are not mutually exclusive,
for example, for the third named stage the prosumers owning
rooftop PV are present in all nodes marked with diamonds, stars
and triangles, but not in the black nodes or non-load nodes.
ECom was set in the node 160, and identical proportions of PV
penetration were considered step by step (i.e. the share of the
EComPs in the network was gradually considered to be 30%,
50%, 70% and 100%). Further, the nodes 108, 149 and 152 will
be considered for hosting a solar energy community. These spe-
cific nodes were selected to compare different variants of the
energy community’s allocation within the PDS: near the tail of
the feeder, near the head of the feeder, in the middle of the
feeder, but closer to its head.
Next, three different scenarios were applied to each of the
aforementioned stages of the PV generation deployment. The
first scenario is referred as “self-consumption-focused”, when
a DP has rooftop PV panels, and their capacity equals to the
corresponding load (i.e. power consumption of the prosumer).
Under this scenario the primary objective of the prosumers is to
cover their own power demand by means of alternative energy
resources. The second and the third scenarios are referred as
“generation-focused”, when a DP has rooftop PV panels, and
their capacity is 1.5 times and 2 time greater than the corre-
sponding load, respectively. These scenarios are conditionally
focused on P2P trading, that is, on using electric energy from
PV panels for generation and selling to the grid or to the com-
munity. Similarly, three additional scenarios were created for
EComs: the “self-consumption-focused” scenario, where the
total capacity of the PV panels owned by an EComP is equal
to the rated power demand of the EComP, and the “generation-
focused” scenarios, where the total capacity of the PV panels in
the ownership of an EComP is 1.5 times or 2 times as big as the
rated load of the EComP. These subcases are aimed to estimate
how different allocation of distributed generation units affects
the power flow and the energy losses. The nodes for the ECom
deployment were chosen with regard to the distribution lines
capacity [33] and basic principles of optimal DERs placement
[25, 34].
In such a way, 37 different cases were obtained to compare
performance of prosumers vs. ECom in terms of energy losses.
The descriptions of the elaborated cases are given in Table 1.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results of energy losses assessment
A model for simulation of the modified IEEE 123 Node Test
Feeder was created with the GridLAB-D coding structures. Sim-
ulations were run in hourly time steps over a one year period,
with 11 load profiles based on utility data, and meteorologi-
cal annual weather data [29]. The power flow calculations for
the considered PDS were performed in GridLAB-D software,
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
employing the TCIM NR and BFS methods, according to Sec-
tion 2.3. Both methods demonstrated good convergence, and
difference in their outputs did not exceed 0.1%. Yearly energy
consumption of the network’s consumers is 11577.9 MWh.
Four voltage regulators available between the nodes 149 and
150; 9 and 14; 25 and 26; 160 and 67 (see Figure 2) were
set to automatically adjust their tap positions to maintain the
appropriate voltage levels.
The results of the active, reactive and total energy losses cal-
culations, energy consumption and generation from PV arrays
of local prosumers and ECom are given in Table 2. The share
of energy losses related to the total energy demand is shown in
the last column in percent.
Most of the cases are operationally feasible, that is, their
power flows converged successfully, and none of the established
constraints were violated. The exceptions were the cases 30, 33,
34, 36. For these cases the reverse power flows caused by the
high PV penetration were significant, which lead to the voltage
deviations beyond the ±0.1 p.u. threshold during pick genera-
tion hours. Also, some branches were overloaded 1.1–1.3 times
during pick generation hours. Additional infrastructural invest-
ments are required to make the PDS operation under the cases
30, 33, 34, 36 feasible, which will be discussed in the following
paragraphs.
The charts of yearly active energy losses for the cases 1–21,
25, 29, and 33 with DPs and EComPs (the ECom is installed
in the node 160) are shown in Figure 3a, and the correspond-
ing energy output of the installed PV arrays is demonstrated
in Figure 3b. As it can be seen, for the “self-consumption”
cases (i.e. when the installed power of PV equals the rated load
consumption of the corresponding consumer), with increase
of DERs penetration energy losses are constantly decreasing.
Although, this trend is steeper for DPs: at the 100% PV pen-
etration level prosumers with rooftop PV panels (case 4) allow
to decrease energy losses by 0.96%, compared to the base case,
while the EComPs of the same capacity (case 8) contribute to
the decrease in energy losses by 0.69% only.
For the “generation-focused” cases the situation is different.
For the cases with DPs, when the installed power of PV is 150%
of the rated load consumption of the corresponding consumer
(i.e. cases 9–12), the reduction in energy losses is more signif-
icant. At the 100% penetration level (case 12) the reduction in
energy losses is 1.04%, compared to the base case. However,
for the corresponding cases with EComPs (i.e. cases 13–16)
improvement in terms of energy losses reduction is supervised
until the PV penetration level reaches 58%. If moving from this
point to the right along the x-axis, it can be observed how the
trend line changes its direction, and the energy losses begin to
increase.
The trend lines of the “generation-focused” cases with higher
installed power of PV, which is 200%, express similar, but better
expressed behavior. For the DP-oriented cases (i.e. cases 17–
20) the energy losses decrease until the PV penetration is below
64%. Further the energy losses become higher, and at the pen-
etration level of 100% (case 20) the reduction in energy losses
is 0.88%, compared to the base case. In such a way, the case 20
is seen as outperformed by the cases 4 and 12. If one looks at
 20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO 7 of 14

TABLE 1 Description and installed PV capacities per phase for the studied cases.

Installed PV power by phase (kW)

Case ID Description Phase A Phase B Phase C

Base case No PV units are deployed through the network 0 0 0

1 30% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 425 265 340
equal to the rated power of corresponding loads (1030 kW)
2 50% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 720 450 590
equal to the rated power of corresponding loads (1760 kW)
3 70% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 1000 635 835
equal to the rated power of corresponding loads (2470 kW)
4 100% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 1420 915 1155
equal to the rated power of corresponding loads (3490 kW)
5 Solar ECom is deployed, and its installed power is 30% of the total rated power of loads 425 265 340
(1030 kW)
6 Solar ECom is deployed, and its installed power is 50% of the total rated power of loads 720 450 590
(1760 kW)
7 Solar ECom is deployed, and its installed power is 70% of the total rated power of loads 1000 635 835
(2470 kW)
8 Solar ECom is deployed, and its installed power is 100% of the total rated power of loads 1420 915 1155
(3490 kW)
9 30% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 637.5 397.5 510
150% of the rated power of corresponding loads (1545 kW)
10 50% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 1080 675 885
150% of the rated power of corresponding loads (2640 kW)
11 70% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 1050 952.5 1252.5
150% of the rated power of corresponding loads (3705 kW)
12 100% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 2130 1372.5 1732.5
150% of the rated power of corresponding loads (5235 kW)
13 30% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 637.5 397.5 510
150% of the rated power of the installed loads (1545 kW)
14 50% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 1080 675 885
150% of the rated power of the installed load (2640 kW)
15 70% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 1050 952.5 1252.5
150% of the rated power of the installed load (3705 kW)
16 100% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 2130 1372.5 1732.5
150% of the rated power of the installed load (5235 kW)
17 30% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 840 530 680
200% of the rated power of corresponding loads (2060 kW)
18 50% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 1440 900 1180
200% of the rated power of corresponding loads (3520 kW)
19 70% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 2000 1270 1670
200% of the rated power of corresponding loads (4940 kW)
20 100% prosumers are DPs with rooftop PV installations; installed power of PV panels is 2840 1830 2310
200% of the rated power of corresponding loads (6980 kW)
21-24 30% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 840 530 680
200% of the rated power of the installed load (2060 kW). The ECom is subsequently
located in the nodes 160, 108, 149, and 152.
25-28 50% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 1440 900 1180
200% of the rated power of the installed load (3520 kW). The ECom is subsequently
located in the nodes 160, 108, 149, and 152.
29-32 70% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 2000 1270 1670
200% of the rated power of the installed load (4940 kW). The ECom is subsequently
located in the nodes 160, 108, 149, and 152.
33-36 100% of the prosumers are participants of a solar ECom, and each has a share equal to 2840 1830 2310
200% of the rated power of the installed load (6980 kW). The ECom is subsequently
located in the nodes 160, 108, 149, and 152.
 20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 of 14 DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO

TABLE 2 Results of the calculation of energy losses.

Energy generation from PV installations

of the prosumers and ECOM
Location of the Active energy Active energy
Case ID ECom (node) losses (MWh) In MWh In % losses (%)

Base case – 645.14 0.00 0.00 5.57

1 – 595.92 1142.46 9.87 5.15
2 – 570.53 1952.16 16.86 4.93
3 – 551.47 2739.67 23.66 4.76
4 – 533.18 3871.04 33.43 4.61
5 160 597.90 1195.59 10.33 5.16
6 160 577.05 2042.95 17.65 4.98
7 160 566.33 2867.10 24.76 4.89
8 160 565.17 4051.09 34.99 4.88
9 – 576.93 1713.68 14.80 4.98
10 – 548.67 2886.64 24.93 4.74
11 – 532.30 4067.92 35.14 4.60
12 – 524.65 5764.96 49.79 4.53
13 160 582.01 1793.39 15.49 5.03
14 160 565.02 3064.43 26.47 4.88
15 160 568.05 4300.65 37.15 4.91
16 160 602.07 6076.63 52.48 5.20
17 – 561.60 2284.91 19.74 4.85
18 – 533.56 3904.31 33.72 4.61
19 – 527.28 5479.35 47.33 4.55
20 – 543.41 7742.07 66.87 4.69
21 160 571.11 2391.19 20.65 4.93
22 108 581.45 2391.19 20.65 5.02
23 149 645.14 2391.19 20.65 5.57
24 152 595.53 2391.19 20.65 5.14
25 160 566.46 4085.91 35.29 4.89
26 108 609.55 4085.91 35.29 5.26
27 149 645.14 4085.91 35.29 5.57
28 152 579.74 4085.91 35.29 5.01
29 160 593.86 5734.20 49.53 5.13
30 108 686.91 5734.20 49.53 5.93
31 149 645.14 5734.20 49.53 5.57
32 152 577.77 5734.20 49.53 4.99
33 160 684.19 8102.17 69.98 5.91
34 108 883.90 8102.17 69.98 7.63
35 149 645.14 8102.17 69.98 5.57
36 152 594.74 8102.17 69.98 5.14

the corresponding trend line for EComPs, it can be seen that
the energy losses stop to decrease after 40% PV penetration
already. At the penetration level of 100% (case 33) the energy
losses even increase by 0.34%, compared to the base case.
The situations with the energy losses trends changing their
directions to the opposite (i.e. when energy losses begin to
increase) can be explained by the fact that when energy gener-
ation prevails over consumption, additional losses occur in the
PDS due to energy transfer to the main grid. This pattern takes
place for the scenarios with DPs as well as with EComPs. But
for DP-oriented scenarios a higher PV penetration threshold is
needed to observe the increase in energy losses with additional

DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
FIGURE 3 Operation of the PDS for different cases, prosumers vs. ECom: (a) yearly active energy losses, ECom installed in the node 160; (b) energy output of
the installed PV arrays
DERs deployed. This means that the PDS is more tolerant of
evenly distributed DPs, compared to a sole medium-capacity
ECom.
From the charts in Figure 3a it can be concluded that reduc-
tion in energy losses is nonlinear, and its pace slows down with
the increasing PV penetration. For instance, for the case 16
energy losses are bigger than for the case 8, which means that
the huge enough solar ECom can negatively affect energy losses
in a PDS.
The simulated energy output of the PV panels (see Figure 3b)
changes linearly, proportionally to the installed capacity of the
rooftop PV panels and solar ECom. The trend lines for the
energy output of ECom lay slightly higher on the plane of the
dependence, which can be explained by lower system intercon-
nection losses (including inverters, efficiency rates): 10% for
ECom vs. 14% for small-scale rooftop PV, as it was pointed
out in Section 2.2.
Further, let us compare different variants for ECom alloca-
tion. Four nodes were considered for ECom placement: (1) at
the feeder’s head—node 149 (cases 23, 27, 31, 35); (2) in the
middle of the feeder—node 152 (cases 24, 28, 32, 36), node 160
(cases 21, 25, 29, 33); (3) at the feeder’s tail—node 108 (cases
22, 26, 30, 34). Due to the large capacity of DERs there are
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
9 of 14
significant power flows from the points of PV installation to the
system. In some cases, these reverse power flows cause voltage
deviations beyond the ±0.1 p.u. threshold and overloading of
the distribution lines during pick generation hours. In particular,
the constraints were violated in cases 30, 33, 34, and 36. There-
fore, PV generation curtailment or additional infrastructural
reinforcements are required for feasible operation of the PDS
in these regimes. For example, installation of battery energy
storage systems in the nodes with ECom can be employed. In
this study curtailment of the excessive generation is considered
as a measure.
Let us perform the feasibility assessment for the hourly inter-
val which starts on 15 April, 12:00:00 PM, when the highest level
of PV generation was supervised:
∙ 6788.86 kWh for prosumers with roof-PV, which is
5528.16 kWh higher than the hourly consumption of the
PDS;
∙ 7104.62 kWh for the ECom, which is 5843.92 kWh higher
than the hourly consumption of the PDS.
When generation exceeds consumption, the surplus of
energy is to be transmitted to the mains, curtailed or stored [35].
 20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 of 14 DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO

TABLE 3 Feasibility assessment of the cases, when the installed power of PV is 200% of the consumer’s load.

Constraint limits
ECom Constraints Curtailed power (per
Case ID node satisfied? Voltage Current phase and total)

20 N/A Yes ≤10% within -

29 160 Yes ≤10% within -
30 108 No >10% over -
30 with BESS 108 Yes ≤10% within A: 160 kW
33 160 No >10% over -
33 with BESS 160 Yes ≤10% within A: 740 kW
C: 150 kW
Tot: 890 kW
34 108 No >10% over -
34 with BESS 108 Yes ≤10% within A: 1000 kW
B: 110 kW
C: 280 kW
Tot: 1390 kW
35 149 Yes ≤5% within -
36 152 No ≤10% over -
36 with BESS 152 Yes ≤10% within A: 85 kW

FIGURE 4 Voltage profiles of the PDS for the case 33 before (blue curve) and after (range curve) the excessive PV curtailment (the numbers of the nodes in
x-axis are in accordance with Figure 1)

Feasibility assessment of the critical cases (i.e. those where the
power flow constraints were violated) before and after curtail-
ment are presented in Table 3. Constraints check for some other
cases with high PV generation are also demonstrated for com-
parison. Only the cases with all the constraints satisfied can be
further considered.
Voltage profiles for the case 33 before (blue curve) and after
(orange curve) the curtailment measures are shown in Figure 4.
The initial PDS does not satisfy the established constraints: dis-
tribution lines are overloaded and the voltage deviation at some
nods exceeds 11%. After the curtailment is executed for the
phases A and C (as per Table 3), voltage remains within the
±10% threshold for each node.
The charts of the yearly active energy losses for the feasi-
ble operational cases with different locations of the ECom are
shown in Figure 5. These simulations provide an opportunity to
examine the relationship between a tolerable size of an ECom
and remoteness of the node with an ECom from the feeder’s
system bus. Almost no changes of energy losses can be super-
vised for the ECom at the node 149 due to its proximity to
the system bus. For other locations the success of energy losses
reduction is highly dependent on the PV penetration level. If
there are up to 40% of prosumers, who hold a share in the
ECom, then the ECom should be allocated in the node 160 for
minimal energy losses. For higher levels of PV penetration, it
is desirable to locate ECom not too far from the feeder’s head.
For example, the cases with the ECom in the node 152 advance
at the PV penetration levels of 70% and 100% (i.e. cases 32
and 36, respectively). On the contrary, the cases with the ECom
at the feeder’s tale demonstrate “mediocre” performance below

DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
FIGURE 5 Yearly active energy losses, ECom installed in the node
160/108/149/152, the installed PV power is 200% of the consumer’s rated
load
the 60% PV penetration threshold, and the worst performance
anywhere further.
As a result, there is a definite tendency of decreasing ECom
tolerance with distance: the closer the ECom node to the sys-
tem’s bus, the higher capacity of ECom can be feasible, and wise
versa.
4.2 At a glance preliminary assessment of
operationally acceptable levels of PV
penetration
Multi-step modelling of the PDS operation can be compu-
tationally expensive and time consuming, especially at high
discretization levels. While the duration of calculations might be
not critical for planning decisions and future predictions, mod-
elling of multiple scenarios would require substantial amount
of time and effort, especially when a network under study is
big enough (e.g. several hundred of nodes). Therefore, some
at a glance “loss maps” can be useful for PDS development
strategies aimed at minimization of energy losses or keeping
them within certain limits. Examples of the “loss maps” rep-
resented in a form of surface plots for prosumer-focused and
ECom-focused deployment of PV generation for the 123-node
PDS (see Figure 2) are shown in Figure 6. These surface plots
epitomize dependences of energy losses from PV penetration
and from the installed capacity of PV units related to the rated
loading of the consumers. Such plots can be created for each
particular PDS, using interpolation and extrapolation of the
simulation results of several cases (i.e. cases with different pro-
portions of PV penetration and installed capacity of PV units).
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11 of 14
Note, that the value of the energy losses is sensitive to the dis-
tribution of prosumers across the PDS and to the location of
the ECom. The plots in Figure 6 reflect the situation when the
prosumers are roughly evenly dissipated across the feeder, and
the ECom is placed in the node 160.
An optimal penetration of prosumers with rooftop PV panels
can be determined from Figure 6a,c. Deep blue regions corre-
spond to the lowest energy losses possible, while orange and
yellow regions outline the scenarios with high energy losses.
Figure 6a reflects the relation between the PV penetration and
the installed power of rooftop PV related to the power con-
sumption. The corresponding Figure 6c reflects the dependence
of energy losses from the PV penetration and level and installed
power of rooftop PV installations. It is recommended that the
two-dimensional Figure 6a is used to determine the desired
installed capacity of individual photovoltaic power stations for
different PV penetration scenarios. Next, the value of energy
losses can be estimated from the three-dimensional Figure 6c.
For example, if the installed power of PV units of a DP is 120%
of its rated load, then minimal energy losses, which is about
530 MWh, will be at 100% PV penetration; and the lower the
PV penetration, the higher would be the energy losses. Simi-
larly, from Figures 6b and 6d, one can assess an optimal capacity
of an EComP. Figure 6b demonstrates the relation between the
PV penetration and the installed power of ECom related to the
power consumption. And Figure 6d depicts the dependence of
energy losses on the named two variables. For example, if an
EComP owns a share in the solar ECom, which is 120% of
the prosumer’s own load, then the minimal energy losses (about
560 MWh) will be at 80% PV penetration. In such a way, sys-
tem planners can preliminarily estimate how the quantity of
prosumers and the size of an ECom can affect the energy losses.
One issue that limits the deployment of DERs is that the
voltage profile is expected to change and can reach unaccept-
able values at high solar PV penetration. Moreover, significant
aggregations of PV units may cause branch currents to exceed
conductor and protection limitations. The examples of such sit-
uations were demonstrated in Section 4.1. Therefore, for the
studied example the peak power of PV for DPs and EComPs
over 200% of the prosumer’s load is operationally risky.
It should be noted that values of maximum PV penetration
highly depend on the feeder’s configuration and location of the
ECom. Some estimations demonstrate that the maximum pen-
etration of PV units can be over 500% of peak load and even
higher [34]. However, some other effects can limit physical PV
penetration. In particular, if a substation transformer is present
in the PDS, it can be overloaded by reverse power flows, and its
thermal ratings can be exceeded [36], while the overhead and
underground lines are within their conductor and protection
limitations, and the voltage is within the acceptable range. In
such a way, transformer’s power rating may become a limiting
factor for cases with large capacity of PV installations owned by
the prosumers. The phenomenon of reverse power flows funda-
mentally changes the design and management of PDSs, as they
need to be designed for peak generation in addition to peak load
[37, 38].

12 of 14
FIGURE 6 Surface plots of energy losses in the 123-node PDS vs. PV penetration and PV size: (a) and (c) for prosumer-focused PV deployment; (b) and (d)
for ECom-focused PV deployment (an ECom is in the node 160)
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this study two scenarios of the power distribution system
development are elaborated and compared: (a) when consumers
become distributed prosumers with low-power rooftop PV
installations (i.e. with the installed PV of several kW); (b) when
consumers become prosumers by taking membership in a solar
energy community, which is a single-node medium-capacity
source (i.e. up to several MW). The comparison is aimed to care-
fully estimate energy losses and provide system planners and
engineers with an insight about preferable scenarios for distri-
bution network’s development. The case studies were carried
out on a typical distribution feeder that is experiencing rapid
growth of prosumers. The simulations were performed for real
load and PV generation profiles, using utility data and meteo-
rological annual weather data, and operationally feasible levels
of PV penetration for distributed prosumers (DPs) and energy
community prosumers (EComPs) were determined.
For all the considered scenarios improvements in terms of
energy losses reduction can be supervised until the PV pene-
tration reaches a particular threshold. Thus, the trend lines of
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
energy losses reduction in distribution networks with prosumers
are nonlinear, and their steepness reduces with the increase in
PV penetration. At certain points, when the penetration of DPs
or EComPs reaches critical values, the trend lines change their
declining character to the opposite, and with further growth
of PV penetration the energy losses increase. For instance, for
the case when 100% of the prosumers are DPs, and each has a
share equal to 200% of the rated power of the installed load, this
“turning point” is at 64% PV penetration. For the similar case,
but with EComPs, this point is already at 40% PV penetration.
This can be explained by the physical nature of the PDS oper-
ation: when energy generation prevails over consumption, the
excessive energy is transferred to the main grid, which causes
additional transmission losses.
In general, cases with EComs are characterized by higher PV
generation output, which is due to lower system interconnection
losses (including inverters, efficiency rates), compared to the
scattered small-scale rooftop PV installations. However, DP-
focused cases contribute to more effective operation of the PDS
in terms of energy losses, compared to EComP-focused cases.
For example, for the DP-focused cases, when 30%, 50%, 70%,

DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
and 100% of all consumers are DPs, and the installed power of
PV panels is equal to the rated power of corresponding loads,
the active energy losses constitute 5.15%, 4.93%, 4.76%, and
4.61%, respectively. For the similar EComP-focused cases these
values are higher—5.16%, 4.98%, 4.89%, and 4.88%, respec-
tively. This means that the PDS is most tolerant to evenly
distributed prosumers, rather than to single sources of a larger
scale installed in one node.
The maximum PV penetration values highly depend on the
feeder’s structure and location of the generation sources. For
PDS development strategies aimed at minimization of energy
losses or keeping them within certain limits some “loss maps”
can be used for at a glance estimation. The “loss maps” are
surface plots, which epitomize dependences of energy losses
from PV penetration and from the installed capacity of PV units
related to the rated loading of the consumers.
As a rule, the closer the node with a DER to the feeder’s
head, the higher capacity of this DER would be feasible, and
wise versa, the closer a DER to the feeder’s tale, the lower capac-
ity of this DER would be tolerable by the PDS. For instance, the
cases with the ECom in the node 152 advance at the PV pene-
tration levels of 70% and 100%, while the cases with the ECom
in the node 108 demonstrate the highest energy losses with the
PV penetration over 60%.
The results of this study will help the energy planners and
utilities in improving performance of the PDS in terms of
loss minimization and loadability maximization. In the future
research the uncertainty in load and renewable energy sources
without violating power system operational constraints will be
considered.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Illia Diahovchenko: Conceptualization; Data curation; For-
mal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Software; Validation;
Visualization; Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing.
Lubov Petrichenko: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal
analysis; Investigation; Resources; Writing - review & editing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available
from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Illia Diahovchenko https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8575-8280
REFERENCES
1. Diahovchenko, I., Petrichenko, L., Sauhats, A.: Energy losses in power
distribution systems: PV roof prosumers vs. energy communities. In:
2021 IEEE 62nd International Scientific Conference on Power and
Electrical Engineering of Riga Technical University (RTUCON), pp. 1–
5. IEEE, Piscataway (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/RTUCON53541.
2021.9711684
2. IEA: World Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis. https://www.iea.org/
reports/world-energy-outlook-2021. Accessed 22 October 2022
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13 of 14
3. Diahovchenko, I., Petrichenko, L.: Comparative Analysis of Power
Distribution Systems with Individual Prosumers Owing Photovoltaic
Installations and Solar Energy Communities in Terms of Profitability and
Hosting Capacity. Energies 15(23), 8837 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/
en15238837
4. Moroni, S., Antoniucci, V., Bisello, A.: Local energy communities and
distributed generation: Contrasting perspectives, and inevitable policy
trade-offs, beyond the apparent global consensus. Sustain. 11(12), 3493
(2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10023493
5. Tushar, W., Saha, T.K., Yuen, C., Smith, D., Poor, H.V.: Peer-to-Peer Trad-
ing in Electricity Networks: An Overview. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 11(4),
3185–3200 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2020.2969657
6. Petrichenko, L., Sauhats, A., Diahovchenko, I., Segeda, I.: Economic Via-
bility of Energy Communities versus Distributed Prosumers. Sustainability
14(8), 4634 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084634
7. Diahovchenko, I.M., Kandaperumal, G., Srivastava, A.K., Maslova, Z.I.,
Lebedka, S.M.: Resiliency-driven strategies for power distribution system
development. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 197, 107327 (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.epsr.2021.107327
8. Zhang, C., Wu, J., Zhou, Y., Cheng, M., Long, C.: Peer-to-Peer energy trad-
ing in a Microgrid. Appl. Energy 220, 1–12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.010
9. González-Romera, E., et al.: Advantages of minimizing energy exchange
instead of energy cost in prosumer microgrids. Energies 12(4), 719 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12040719
10. Ismael, S.M., Abdel Aleem, S.H.E., Abdelaziz, A.Y., Zobaa, A.F.: State-
of-the-art of hosting capacity in modern power systems with distributed
generation. Renew. Energy 130, 1002–1020 (2019). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.renene.2018.07.008
11. Shevchenko, S., Danylchenko, D., Potryvai, A., Minakova, K., Dryvetskyi,
S.: Finding software ways to reduce the error for the solar power plant sim-
ulation model. In: 2022 IEEE 16th International Conference on Advanced
Trends in Radioelectronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engi-
neering (TCSET). IEEE, Piscataway (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/
TCSET55632.2022.9766844
12. Volokhin, V.V., Diahovchenko, I.M., Derevyanko, B.V.: Electric energy
accounting and power quality in electric networks with photovoltaic power
stations. In: 2017 IEEE International Young Scientists Forum on Applied
Physics and Engineering, YSF 2017. IEEE, Piscataway (2017). https://
doi.org/10.1109/YSF.2017.8126588
13. Guerrero, J., Chapman, A.C., Verbic, G.: Decentralized P2P Energy Trad-
ing under Network Constraints in a Low-Voltage Network. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 10(5), 5163–5173 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2018.
2878445
14. Khan, Z.W., Khan, S.: Analyzing the impacts of distributed generation
on power losses and voltage profile. In: 2015 International Conference
on Emerging Technologies (ICET). IEEE, Piscataway (2016). https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICET.2015.7389182
15. Azim, M.I., Pourmousavi, S.A., Tushar, W., Saha, T.K.: Feasibility study of
financial P2P energy trading in a grid-tied power network. In: 2019 IEEE
Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM). IEEE, Piscataway
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/PESGM40551.2019.8973809
16. Nikolaidis, A., Charalambous, C.A., Mancarella, P.: A graph-based loss
allocation framework for transactive energy markets in unbalanced radial
distribution networks. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 34, 4109–4118 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2832164
17. Setiawan, A., Qashtalani, H., Pranadi, A.D., Ali, F.C., Setiawan, E.A.:
Determination of optimal PV locations and capacity in radial distribu-
tion system to reduce power losses. Energy Procedia 156, 384–390 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.108
18. Charoenwattana, R., Sangpanich, U.: Analysis of voltage unbalance and
energy loss in residential low voltage distribution systems with rooftop
photovoltaic systems. E3S Web Conf. 190, 000333 (2020). https://doi.
org/10.1051/e3sconf/202019000033
19. Xu, Y., Sun, H., Gu, W.: A novel discounted min-consensus algorithm
for optimal electrical power trading in grid-connected DC microgrids.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 66, 8474–8484 (2019). https://doi.org/10.
1109/TIE.2019.2891445

14 of 14
20. Azim, M.I., Tushar, W., Saha, T.K.: Investigating the impact of P2P trad-
ing on power losses in grid-connected networks with prosumers. Appl.
Energy 263, 114687 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.
114687
21. Sultana, U., Khairuddin, A.B., Aman, M.M., Mokhtar, A.S., Zareen, N.: A
review of optimum DG placement based on minimization of power losses
and voltage stability enhancement of distribution system. Renewable Sus-
tainable Energy Rev. 63, 363–378 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
2016.05.056
22. Chen, L., Liu, N., Li, C., Zhang, S., Yan, X.: Peer-to-peer energy shar-
ing with dynamic network structures. Appl. Energy 291, 116831 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116831
23. Paudel, A., Sampath, L.P.M.I., Yang, J., Gooi, H.B.: Peer-to-Peer Energy
Trading in Smart Grid Considering Power Losses and Network Fees.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 11, 4727–4737 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSG.2020.2997956
24. Werkie, Y.G., Kefale, H.A., Aberie, H., Bahir, K., Khan, K.: Optimal
allocation of multiple distributed generation units in power distribution
networks for voltage profile improvement and power losses minimiza-
tion. Cogent Eng. 9(1), (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2022.
2091668
25. Diahovchenko, I., Viacheslav, Z.: Optimal composition of alternative
energy sources to minimize power losses and maximize profits in dis-
tribution power network. In: 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference
on Energy Smart Systems (ESS), pp. 247–252. IEEE, Piscataway (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1109/ESS50319.2020.9160259
26. Hamzaoğlu, A., Erduman, A., Alçı, M.: Reduction of distribution system
losses using solar energy cooperativity by home user. Ain Shams Eng. J. 12,
3737–3745 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.02.040
27. Han, R., Wang, Q., Wang, T., Zheng, Y., Guan, S.: Research on power loss
of distribution network with photovoltaic access. J. Eng. 2017, 2257–2260
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1049/joe.2017.0732
28. Petrichenko, L., Sauhats, A., Diahovchenko, I.: An economic comparison
of planning decisions aimed at stimulation of photovoltaic roof prosumers
vs. energy communities. In: 2021 IEEE 62nd International Scientific Con-
ference on Power and Electrical Engineering of Riga Technical University
(RTUCON), pp. 1–6. IEEE, Piscataway (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/
RTUCON53541.2021.9711681
29. Photovoltaic Geographical Information System (PVGIS). European
Commission Joint Research Centre (2022)
30. Diahovchenko, I., Petrichenko, L., Borzenkov, I., Kolcun, M.: Application
of photovoltaic panels in electric vehicles to enhance the range. Heliyon
8(12), e12425 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12425
20513305, 2023, 3, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/tje2.12243 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
DIAHOVCHENKO and PETRICHENKO
31. Garcia, P.A.N., Pereira, J.L.R., Carneiro, S., Da Costa, V.M.: Three-phase
power flow calculations using the current injection method. IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 15, 508–514 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1109/59.867133
32. Diahovchenko, I., Sushchenko, N., Shulumei, A., Strokin, O.: Influence of
supply voltage and frequency variations on the electrical equipment and
power consumption in LV and MV distribution networks. Energetika 65,
4246 (2019). https://doi.org/10.6001/energetika.v65i4.4246
33. Kersting, W.H.: Radial distribution test feeders. In: 2001 IEEE Power
Engineering Society Winter Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat.
No.01CH37194), pp. 908–912. IEEE, Piscataway (2001). https://doi.org/
10.1109/PESW.2001.916993
34. Hoke, A., Butler, R., Hambrick, J., Kroposki, B.: Steady-state analysis of
maximum photovoltaic penetration levels on typical distribution feeders.
IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 4, 350–357 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSTE.2012.2225115
35. Fedorchuk, S., Ivakhnov, A., Bulhakov, O., Danylchenko, D.: Optimization
of storage systems according to the criterion of minimizing the cost of elec-
tricity for balancing renewable energy sources. In: 2020 IEEE KhPI Week
on Advanced Technology (KhPIWeek), pp. 519–525. IEEE, Piscataway
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/KhPIWeek51551.2020.9250155
36. Diahovchenko, I., et al.: Mitigation of transformers’ loss of life in
power distribution networks with high penetration of electric vehicles.
Results Eng. 15, 100592 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.
2022.100592
37. Damsgaard, N., Papaefthymiou, G., Grave, K., Helbrink, J., Giordano, V.,
Gentili, P.: Study on the effective integration of demand energy recourses
for providing flexibility to the electricity system. Final report to The
European Commission (2015)
38. Kulapin, O., Ivakhnov, A., Danylchenko, D., et al.: Prospects of using pro-
sumers to analyze the potential of demand management. In: 2022 IEEE
3rd KhPI Week on Advanced Technology (KhPIWeek). IEEE, Piscataway
(2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/KhPIWeek57572.2022.9916321
How to cite this article: Diahovchenko, I.,
Petrichenko, L.: Assessment of energy losses in power
distribution systems with individual prosumers and
energy communities. J. Eng. 2023, e12243 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12243