Prosumer energy management under controllable
power transactions with the grid
2023 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2023 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe) | 979-8-3503-4743-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE |
Nikolaos S. Kelepouris Dimitrios Kelepouris
Dept.of Electrical and Computer Dept.of Electrical and Computer
Engineering Engineering
University of Western Macedonia University of Western Macedonia
Kozani, Greece Kozani, Greece
n.kelepouris@uowm.gr ece01428@uowm.gr
Georgios C. Christoforidis
Dept.of Electrical and Computer
Engineering
University of Western Macedonia
Kozani, Greece
gchristoforidis@uowm.gr
Abstract—In this paper, a residential Energy Management
System (EMS) for prosumers is presented to schedule optimally
the operation of both the schedulable appliances and the Battery
Energy Storage System (BESS). The target of this model is the
minimization of the electricity cost and the reduction of both the
imported and exported power peaks. Through this approach,
the prosumer causes smoother power flow across the
distribution network (DN), thus avoiding increased power losses
and intense voltage fluctuations. For joint optimal financial and
technical optimization of each prosumer, the EMS aims at the
maximization of financial benefits, applying incline block rates
(IBR) tariffs on both the purchased and selling prices. In this
DOI: 10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEUROPE57605.2023.10194761
way, less profit is yielded to prosumers when the power
transaction with the DN is high, thus this scheme also implies
power peaks reduction. The results of the proposed EMS show
improvement regarding the prosumer’s self-sufficiency and the
daily electricity cost. At the same time benefits the DN in terms
of reduced power losses and improved voltage profile are
depicted. Finally, the effectiveness of this EMS is also verified by
the comparison with four different objective functions.
Keywords— demand side management, distribution network
support, energy management system, prosumer, storage.
I. INTRODUCTION
The rapid installation of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) in
buildings is a central aspect of the REPowerEU plan which is
recently defined by the European Union [1]. However, the
intermittent production of these power units could adversely
affect grid operation by causing voltage violations and reverse
power flow [2]. On the other side, the installation of hybrid
battery energy storage system (BESS) with PVs, and the
application of demand side management (DSM) techniques in
active building management could efficiently balance the
building’s demand and production power. To this direction,
residential energy management systems (EMSs) have been
developed to combine these assets and are expected to play a
critical role in the further penetration of PVs.
Meeting the building’s demand by the on-site production
could reduce the energy traded with the grid, thus facilitating
This paper has been carried out under the project: “Development of New
Innovative Low-Carbon Energy Technologies to Enhance XCELlence in the
Region of Western Macedonia” (MIS 5047197) under the Action
“Reinforcement of the Research and Innovation Infrastructure”, funded by
the Operational Programme “Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship and
Innovation” (NSRF 2014-2020) and co-financed by Greece and the
European Union (European Regional Development Fund).
979-8-3503-4743-2/23/$31.00 ©2023 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Aggelos S. Bouhouras
Dept.of Electrical and Computer
Engineering
University of Western Macedonia
Kozani, Greece
abouhouras@uowm.gr
the PV penetration [3]. To this end, the authors of [4] present
a residential load management to improve the self-sufficiency
of the residence. The optimal daily scheduling of residential
appliances to increase the self-sufficiency of different
households is analyzed in [5]. Although these approaches
provide high self-sufficiency rate (SSR) in the examined
buildings and consequently mitigate the total energy traded
with the grid, they do not ensure the reduction of power traded
peaks and in turn their impact on the grid operation.
Recognizing this risk, the studies in [6]-[8] propose EMSs for
prosumers that are capable of simultaneously increasing the
residence’s SSR and shaving the imported and exported
peaks. Nevertheless, none of the aforementioned approaches
considers the electricity prices and therefore they do not
ensure the improvement in prosumer’s financial benefits.
The latter is the main motivation for prosumers to apply a
residential EMS. For that reason, several studies focus on
EMS aiming at the financial optimization of the residence. In
[9] the authors propose a residential EMS based on a meta-
heuristic algorithm that exploits the price fluctuations to
minimize the electricity bill. The authors in [10] decrease the
prosumer’s electricity cost under flat price. To accomplish this
goal, this study reduces the operation time of non-crucial
appliances when there is no PV production, thus the user
comfort is not affected. An EMS that schedule both the
operation of flexible loads and the BESS to maximize the
financial benefits of the prosumers is presented in [11]. This
EMS enables the BESS to exchange power with the grid, thus
participating in energy trading and taking further advantages
by the price fluctuations. However, the implementation of
these approaches could cause imported and exported power
peaks, thus stressing the grid operation.
In order to improve the prosumer’s financial benefits and
prevent demand peaks, several studies combined the existing
pricing model with incline block rates (IBR) tariffs. In this
way, the purchased price is increased when demand power is
greater than a predefined threshold, acting thus as a penalty
for demand peaks. Specifically, a residential EMS that
incorporates the real-time pricing with IBR to minimize the
electricity cost and reduce the demand peaks is implemented
in [12] using meta-heuristic algorithms. The same pricing
model is also utilized by an EMS model proposed in [13] to
minimize both the electricity cost and prosumer’s discomfort.
Energy arbitrage and electricity bill alleviation is applied by
the EMS described in [14]. This model is formulated as mix
integer linear programming (MILP) approach and
incorporates the IBR tariff to make the EMS applicable under
high consumption. The main disadvantage of these
approaches is that they don’t limit the power extracted to the
grid, thus concerns are raised regarding reverse power flow
issues in networks with high PV penetration. Finally, the
authors in [15] propose an EMS to mitigate the high exported
power by applying an external cost, though this approach does
not ensure the demand peaks reduction.
In this paper, a residential EMS for prosumers is proposed
with the goal to manage the flexibility offered by schedulable
appliances and BESS in order to maximize the prosumer’s
financial benefits and shave the peaks of the power
transactions with the grid. In this way, the prosumer is capable
of supporting the grid operation, handling both the high
grid operation. For this reason, OF2 is developed to minimize
the power transactions with the grid, avoiding high values of
imported and exported power. According to [7], the
mathematical formulation of OF2 is presented in (3):
OF2 =  t ( Pt imp + Pt exp ) (3)
T 2
where Pt exp refers to the power exported to the grid due to the
excess power from the PV production.
In contrast to previous OFs, OF3 aims exclusively at the
minimization of electricity cost, considering both the
purchased and the selling energy. The mathematical
formulation of this approach is presented in (4):
OF3 =  t ( Etimp ⋅ ptp ) −  t ( Etexp ⋅ pts ) (4)
T T

consumption and production power without mitigating its

financial benefits. To achieve that, the EMS applies IBR
tariffs on both the purchased and selling prices, thus it limits
both the imported and exported power. The definition of the
exported power threshold is a crucial factor in the
effectiveness of this EMS. To deal with this issue, a
methodology to determine the proper limit is, also, presented.
The effectiveness of the proposed EMS is compared with
four different approaches which are analyzed in the literature
and aim at the: (a) SSR maximization, (b) minimization of
power transactions with the grid, (c) cost minimization, and
(d) cost minimization and demand peaks shaving. The
comparison is implemented at both prosumer’s and network’s
level. The impact of EMSs on prosumer’s benefit is evaluated
by the resulted SSR and daily electricity cost. On the other
hand, the impact on grid operation is assessed by the daily
voltage profile and grid losses. In order to examine the grid
where Etimp and Etexp denote the amount of energy imported
and exported, respectively. Furthermore ptp and pts are the
purchased and selling electricity prices, respectively.
OF4 is an extension of OF3 that seeks to minimize the
electricity cost and at the same time to shave demand peaks.
For this reason, OF4 combines the existing pricing model with
IBR tariffs, providing a stepwise dependence of the purchase
price on the imported power. The impact of the IBR tariffs
application on the purchase electricity price is illustrated in
Fig. 1.
Price (€)

operation, a distribution network (DN) is examined, assuming

the existence of prosumers on its nodes.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Objective functions
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed EMS, this
analysis implements four additional EMSs’ approaches with
different objective functions (OFs). The first one aims at the Fig. 1. IBR tarrifs for purchase electricity
maximization of building’s SSR as described in (1):
As shown in Fig.1 the purchase price is increased
 ( ( P ⋅ x ) + P ) − 
T L sc bas T
t l l l ,t t t
Pt imp whenever the imported power exceeds a power threshold, thus
SSR = (1) operating as a penalty for demand peaks. Consequently, these
 ( ( P ⋅ x ) + P )
T L sc bas
t l l l ,t t thresholds define the parts of the imported energy that have a
different market value. To this end, the total imported energy
where T is the analysis period, L represents the number of the is divided into K energy packets with the corresponding
schedulable appliances and Pl sc is the consumption power of purchased price, as described in Fig. 2. Furthermore, the
maximum capacity of kth energy packet is calculated by (5):
l schedulable appliance at t time instant. Pl bas is the basic load
power that refers to the aggregated demand power of the non- EkMAX = ( Pkth − Pkth−1 ) ⋅ ∆t (5)
schedulable appliances at t. In addition, Ptimp defines the power
where EkMAX is the maximum energy that could be imported
imported to the residence from the grid. Finally, xl ,t is a
under k energy packet, Pkth−1 and Pkth are the previous and next
binary variable that denotes if l appliance is operating at t or
not. power threshold, respectively. The implementation of OF4 is
presented in (6):
This approach is implemented as MILP formulation. Thus
OF4 =  t , k ( Etimp
, k ⋅ pt , k ) −  t ( Et
T ,K p T exp
(1) is linearized as shown in (2): ⋅ pts ) (6)

OF1 =  t ( ( P ⋅ xl ,t ) + Pl bas −  t Pt imp (2)

)
T L sc T
l l where Etimp
,k and ptp, k are the magnitudes of the imported
energy and the purchase price in energy packet k at t,
The OF1 does not ensure the mitigation of imported and
exported power peaks and consequently does not support the

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
respectively. Additionally, K is the total number of energy
packets for the imported energy.
The power transactions between the prosumer and the grid
are derived from the total consumption considering: (a) both
schedulable and basic loads, and (b) PV output and BESS’s
charging and discharging power. Therefore, the traded power
is calculated as presented in (9):
L
Pt grid = Pt ch − Pt dich + Pt bas +  ( Pl sc ⋅ xl ,t ) − Pt PV (9)
l =1

grid
where Pt is the power transactions with the grid at t, Pt ch
dich
and Pt denote the BESS’s charging and discharging power
PV
at t, respectively. Additionally, Pt is the PV power at t.
The power transactions are separated into imported and
exported power as described by (10)-(12):
Pt grid = Pt imp − Pt exp (10)
Fig. 2. Energy packets for imported energy Pt imp ≤ M ⋅ xtG (11)
Subsequently, OF4 aims at a cost-effective operation
scheduling of residential flexible assets with reduced demand Pt exp ≤ M ⋅ (1 − xtG ) (12)
peaks. Nevertheless, this OF does not consider the reduction G
of exported power peaks and its adverse impact on the grid where M is a large number used to linearize the model and xt
operation. On the contrary, OF5 is developed to minimize the is a binary variable that indicates whether there is imported
daily electricity cost by also considering the reduction of both power or not.
the imported and exported power peaks. To do so, OF5
incorporates the IBR tariffs at both the purchased and selling Algorithm I: Determination of exported power limit
price. Hence, the total exported power is divided into energy 1: Set Pexp = 0 and Pimp = 0 for each prosumer in DN
t t
packets according to the predefined thresholds on exported
2: AC power flow analysis is performed
power as described by Fig. 2 for the imported power.
However, in contrast to the purchased price, the selling price 3: iter= 1
is decreased whenever the exported power exceeds the power 4: while there is no exist overvoltage in DN
threshold. In this way, the prosumer will be rewarded less than 5: Set Pt exp = iter ⋅ a ⋅ C pv for each prosumer in DN
expected for the surplus selling energy to the DN. The 6: AC power flow analysis is performed
integration of IBR tariffs at both purchased and selling prices 7: Set iter= iter+1
formulated as presented in (7): 8: end while
OF5 =  t , k ( Etimp
, k ⋅ pt , k ) −  t , r ( Et , r ⋅ pt , r ) (7)
T ,K p T ,R exp p

2) BESS power:
where Etexp
,r and ptp, r are the magnitudes of the exported In this analysis, the BESS promotes the self-consumption
energy and the selling price in energy packet r at t, and contributes to further exploitation of on-site production.
respectively. Finally, R is the total number of energy packets Thus, the BESS uses exclusively the energy produced by the
for the exported energy. local PV and does not exchange power with the grid. To
ensure that, the BESS power is limited by (13)-(18).
B. Determination of exported power limit home
Specifically, in (13) the power need of the residence ( Pt )
The definition of the exported power threshold is a crucial himp
factor in the effectiveness of the OF5.The core of this approach is determined and is separated to the net demand ( Pt ) and
is to establish the maximum exported power of each residence the PV surplus ( Pt
hexp
) by (14)-(16). In this way, the
in order to protect the smooth operation of the DN and to
minimize the impact on prosumer’s economic benefits. To maximum charging and discharging power of the BESS is
achieve that, this paper proposes an iterative process that constrained by the PV surplus and net demand, respectively.
involves successive power flow analyses, as described in
Pt home = Pt bas +  l ( Pl sc ⋅ xl ,t ) − Pt PV (13)
L
Algorithm I. In this way, the power flow analysis is performed
in a repeated process, increasing the exported power of each
prosumer in DN by (8): Pt home = Pt himp − Pt hexp (14)
Pt exp = iter ⋅ a ⋅ C pv (8) Pt himp ≤ M ⋅ xtH (15)
where iter is the iteration number, Cpv is the installed PV
capacity of each prosumer in kWp and α is a coefficient that
Pt hexp ≤ M ⋅ (1− xtH ) (16)
denotes the percentage of Cpv that is exported.
Pt ch ≤ Pt hexp (17)
C. Constraints
1) Power balance: Pt dich ≤ Pt himp (18)

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 H 4) IBR tariffs:
where xt is a binary variable that indicates whether there is
The IBR tariffs are implemented in OF4 and OF5 as
PV surplus or not.
described in (28)-(31). The scope of these constraints is to
Furthermore, the BESS operation is, also, limited the divide the total imported or exported energy to the
upper charging and discharging thresholds as presented in (19) corresponding energy packets as shown in Fig. 2. It should be
and (20): clarified that (28) and (29) refer to the imported energy and
are applied on both OF4 and OF5 while (30) and (31) refer to
Pt ch ≤ Pmax
ch
(19) the exported energy and are applied only in OF5.

Etimp =  k Et , k (28)
K
Pt dich ≤ Pmax
dich
(20)
ch dich
where Pmax and Pmax are the maximum charging and Etimp imp,max
, k ≤ Ek ⋅ It ,k (29)
discharging power, respectively.
Etexp =  r Et , r (30)
R

Finally, the state-of-charge (SoC) of the BESS is calculated

by (21) and is limited by (22):
Et,rexp ≤ Erexp,max ⋅ Ot ,r (31)
dch −1
Pt ch ⋅ ∆t ⋅ηch Pt ⋅ ∆t ⋅ (ηdch ) imp,max exp,max
SoCt +1 = SoCt + − (21) where Ek and Er are the maximum capacity of kth and
CBESS CBESS th
r energy packet, respectively. It,k and Ot,k are binary variables
SoCmin ≤ SoCt ≤ SoCmax (22) that indicate the type of the active energy packet, respectively.
III. RESULTS
where SoCt is the BESS’s state-of-charge at t. SoCmin and
SoCmax are the lowest and highest permissible limits of the A. Case Study
SoC, respectively. ηch and ηdch denote the charging and The analyzed methodology is applied on 8 different
discharging efficiency, respectively. The capacity of the prosumers. Each prosumer is equipped with a PV rooftop and
BESS is presented as CBESS. a BESS. The PV size of each prosumer is randomly selected
3) Load shifting: ranging between 3-10 kWp. The BESS capacity is defined
The DSM scheme, in this analysis, could shift the under the: 1 kWh BESS capacity/1 kWp PV capacity, ratio.
schedulable appliances by ensuring that: (a) the operation of For the BESS operation, the additional operation
the appliance is maintained and is not interrupted, and (b) the characteristics are assumed (a) the SoC ranges within 20% and
prosumer’s comfort is satisfied. Both constraints are modelled 100%, (b) the maximum charging and discharging power is
as presented in (23)-(27). In more details, each appliance is defined by 1 kW per 1kWh of BESS capacity, (c) the charging
ensured to complete its duty cycle by (23): and discharging efficiency are both equal to 0.849, and (d) the
initial SoC is randomly selected at each prosumer. The PV
Dl =  t xl ,t (23)
T
production is determined by the locally weather conditions as
presented in [16]. In this analysis, the EMSs are evaluated in
where Dl is the duration of l appliance’s operation. a sunny day to handle the high PV production. The
consumption curve of each residence consists of the
The proposed EMS makes sure that the operation of the appliances’ consumption profile provided by the database in
schedulable appliances remains uninterrupted by (24)-(26): [17]. This database provides a variety of different daily
consumption profiles per appliance. The consumption profile

T
t
st ,l = 1 (24) per appliance is randomly selected at each residence, creating
thus different consumption curves for each prosumer. The

T
et ,l = 1 (25) appliances are categorized in schedulable and non-
t
schedulable appliances as presented in [18]. The DN with the
st ,l − et ,l = xt ,l − xt −1,l , ∀t > 1 (26) examined prosumers is presented in Fig.2 [19]. It is worth to
note that the EMSs are optimized by General Algebraic
where st,l and et,l are binary variables equal to 1 when a flexible Modeling System (GAMS) tool using the CPLEX solver [20].
appliance starts and ends its operation, respectively. In Fig. 4 the price fluctuations for a day with high PV
To minimize the impact of the load shifting on prosumer’s production derived by [21] are presented. The blue dotted and
comfort, the schedulable appliance could be shifted within a solid lines present the purchased price with and without the
time range specified by prosumer. Thus, the DSM sets xl,t implementation of IBR tariffs, respectively. The
equal to 0 outside of this time range, as presented in (27): implementation of IBR tariffs increases the purchase price by
a factor 1.4423 as proposed in [18]. In addition, the imported
t < Clstart power threshold is defined by the average demand power of
xl,t = 0, ∀  (27)
t > Cl
end each residence. The red dotted and solid lines depict the
selling price with and without the implementation of IBR
start end
where Cl and Cl are the starting and ending time limit of tariffs, respectively. Here, the selling price with IBR tariff is
decreased by 1.4423.
l appliance’s operation.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Maximum voltage (pu)
Fig. 3. DN layout
Fig. 5. Maximum voltage on DN caused by the increase in exported power
Price (€/ΜWh)

SSR (%)
Fig. 4. Daily electricity prices including the IBR tariffs
Fig. 6. Prosumers’ SSR provided by the implementation of each OF
B. Definition of exported threshold
As described in Algorithm I, the exported power threshold of TABLE I. DAILY ELECTRICITY COST PER OF (€)
each residence is defined by an iterative power flow analysis.
Prosumer No EMS OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5
In each power flow, we assume that the exported power of 1 11.92 6.31 6.16 5.93 6.08 6.07
each prosumer is uniformly increased by 2%. Fig. 5 illustrates 2 12.00 6.69 6.66 6.24 6.22 6.19
the impact of this process on the highest voltage value in the 3 10.67 6.39 6.45 5.99 6.05 6.07
DN. The results in Fig.5 show that each residence could 4 1.14 -0.96 -0.89 -0.97 -0.97 -0.97
5 0.41 -1.00 -0.98 -1.24 -1.24 -1.24
extract 24% of its rated PV power, without causing 6 11.24 4.54 4.48 4.12 4.28 4.18
overvoltage in the DN. 7 1.91 0.71 0.69 0.64 0.67 0.64
8 2.03 0.67 0.62 0.55 0.62 0.58
C. Simmulation results
The impact of the examined OFs is evaluated through the TABLE II. DAILY ENERGY LOSSES PER OF
perspective of both the prosumers and the DN. On the one
No EMS OF1 OF2 OF3 OF4 OF5
hand, the prosumer’s benefit for each OF is assessed at: (a) Losses (kWh) 90.0 12.7 8.9 13.9 11.1 10.0
building’s SSR, and (b) daily electricity cost. On the other
hand, the DN operation is examined with respect to: (a) DN
power losses, and (b) DN voltage profile. Fig. 6 depicts the
prosumers’ SSR resulting from the implementation of each
OF where it is obvious that all OFs significantly increase the
SSR of each prosumer in relation to the case without EMS
with OF1 being the best while OF3, OF4 and OF5, which aim
to optimize the financial benefits, approximate the highest
SSR. This is because the purchased price is always greater
than the selling price.
In terms of the financial assessment, the electricity cost of
prosumers is calculated by the net power curve resulting from
the EMS’s scheduling, ignoring the IBR tariffs. The IBR
tariffs are used in the optimization process to schedule the
operation of schedulable appliances and the BESS, but they
are neglected when determining the electricity cost. In this
way, the electricity cost is calculated using the same pricing
pattern in all ΟFs, making the financial comparison more
direct and fair. Fig. 7. DN voltage profile caused by (a) without EMS, (b) OF1 (c) OF2, (d)
Table I shows the daily electricity cost for each prosumer OF3 (e) OF4 and (f) OF5
per OF. OF1 and OF2 do not consider financial parameters in
their formulation, thus they provide the higher cost compared is low. This is why OF1 presents the lowest performance in
to the other OFs. Also, OF1 does not consider electricity Table I. Despite the additional constraints applied to OF4 and
tariffs, so it is not interested in shifting the operation of OF5, these OFs approximate the most economical solution
flexible appliances at time intervals when the energy charge which is provided by OF3. To examine the impact of each OF

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
on the DN operation, we perform power flow analysis,
assuming that each prosumer exchanges power with the DN
according to the proposed scheduling. The impact of each
proposed scheduling on DN voltage profile is illustrated in
Fig.7. Voltage violation issues are shown in Fig. 7a under no
EMS application. Both SSR maximization (OF1) and
economic optimization (OF3) cannot ensure the mitigation of
power transactions’ peaks and therefore they cause over- and
under-voltage issues as depicted in Figs. 7b and 7d. On the
other hand, the implementation of IBR tariffs for imported
power eliminates the under-voltage, however it does not
alleviate the over-voltage issues. On contrast, OF2 and OF5
eliminate the voltage violations and smooth the DN voltage
profile. In the same way, Table II shows the DN daily energy
losses for the examined OFs where it is shown that OF2 and
OF5 provide the lowest energy losses. The scope of the OF2
is the minimization of the power transactions with the DN.
The ideal case here would be zero power transactions that
would cause the lower loading of the DN. OF5 provides
slightly increased grid losses compared to OF2 under lower
cost for the prosumers though.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this analysis, a residential EMS for prosumers is developed
to schedule the operation of both BESS and schedulable
appliances. The objective of this EMS is the minimization of
the daily electricity cost and the reduction of imported and
exported power peaks. With this approach, the prosumer
optimizes its financial benefits and contributes to the smoother
operation of the DN. The proposed EMS is implemented by
the incorporation of IBR tariffs at both the purchased and
selling prices for imported and exported power, respectively.
To this end, a methodology for the determination of the
exported power threshold is also proposed. The effectiveness
of the proposed EMS is compared with four different
approaches which are presented in the literature and aim at
the: (a) SSR maximization, (b) minimization of power
transactions with the grid, (c) financial optimization, and (d)
electricity cost minimization and demand peaks mitigation.
Each approach is applied on eight prosumers with different
PV and BESS capacities and different consumption profiles
connected to a DN.
The comparison results indicate that the proposed EMS
benefits both the prosumer and DN operation. Specifically, it
increases the prosumer’s SSR, approaching the optimal one.
In contrast to other approaches, this happens without
degrading the financial benefits of the prosumer, fulfilling its
main target, the cost minimization. Regarding the DN
operation, the proposed EMS shaves both the exported and
imported power peaks, thus smoothing the power flow across
the DN. To this end, this EMS improves the DN voltage
profile, preventing the voltage violation issues. Also, it
decreases the DN power losses. Consequently, this work
presents an EMS capable of simultaneously improving the
economic performance of the prosumer and supporting the
operation of the DN.
REFERENCES
[1] European Commission, "COMMUNICATION FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Western Macedonia. Downloaded on September 07,2023 at 11:06:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU
Solar Energy Strategy," Brussels, 2022.
[2] B. Sivaneasan, M. L. Lim, and K. P. Goh, “Overcoming Solar PV
Intermittency using Demand Response Management in Buildings,”
Energy Procedia, vol. 143, pp. 210–215, 2017.
[3] G. G. Pillai, G. A. Putrus, and N. M. Pearsall, “The potential of demand
side management to facilitate PV penetration,” IEEE Innov. Smart Grid
Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia), Bangalore, India, 2013.
[4] L. Barelli, G. Bidini, F. Bonucci, and A. Ottaviano, “Residential micro-
grid load management through artificial neural networks,” J. Energy
Storage, vol. 17, no. April, pp. 287–298, 2018.
[5] J. Widén, "Improved photovoltaic self-consumption with appliance
scheduling in 200 single-family buildings," Applied Energy, 126,
2014, pp. 199-212.
[6] R. A. Narayanankutty, A. Sankar, and K. Sundaramoorthy, “Modeling
and scheduling of residential electric loads for energy self-sufficiency,”
Int. J. Numer. Model. Electron. Networks, Devices Fields, vol. 34, no.
1, pp. 1–25, 2021.
[7] N. S. Kelepouris et al., “Energy management system for mitigating
buildings’ power exchanges with the grid,” 2nd International
Conference on Energy Transition in the Mediterranean Area
(SyNERGY MED), Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 1–6, 2022.
[8] N. S. Kelepouris, A. I. Nousdilis, A. S. Bouhouras, and G. C.
Christoforidis, “Optimal scheduling of prosumer’s battery storage and
flexible loads for distribution network support,” IET Gener. Transm.
Distrib., no. May 2022, pp. 1–18, 2023.
[9] A. Imran et al., “Heuristic-Based Programable Controller for Efficient
Energy Management Under Renewable Energy Sources and Energy
Storage System in Smart Grid,” IEEE Access, 2020.
[10] R. K. Chauhan, K. Chauhan, and A. Q. H. Badar, “Optimization of
electrical energy waste in house using smart appliances management
System-A case study,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 46, no. August 2021, p.
103595, 2022.
[11] S.Bahramara, “Robust Optimization of the Flexibility-constrained
Energy Management Problem for a Smart Home with Rooftop
Photovoltaic and an Energy Storage, ” J. Energy Storage, 36, 2021.
[12] A. Ahmad et al., “An optimized home energy management system with
integrated renewable energy and storage resources,” Energies, vol. 10,
no. 4, pp. 1–35, 2017.
[13] S. Rahim et al., “Exploiting heuristic algorithms to efficiently utilize
energy management controllers with renewable energy sources,”
Energy Build., vol. 129, pp. 452–470, 2016.
[14] M. S. Javadi et al., “Optimal self-scheduling of home energy
management system in the presence of photovoltaic power generation
and batteries,” Energy, vol. 210, 2020.
[15] E. Yao, P. Samadi, V. W. S. Wong, and R. Schober, “Residential
Demand Side Management Under High Penetration of Rooftop
Photovoltaic Units,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1597–
1608, 2016.
[16] T. Huld, R. Müller, and A. Gambardella, “A new solar radiation
database for estimating PV performance in Europe and Africa,” Sol.
Energy, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 1803–1815, 2012.
[17] T. Papadopoulos et al., "High resolution profiles of residential
appliances," IEEE Dataport, 2020.
[18] Ν. S. Kelepouris, A. I. Nousdilis, A. S. Bouhouras, and G. C.
Christoforidis, “Utilizing PV-Battery Systems and Shiftable Loads for
Minimizing Grid Losses and Prosumer Cost: A Comparative
Assessment,” 57th International Universities Power Engineering
Conference (UPEC 2022), pp. 1–6, 2022.
[19] G. C. Kryonidis et al., “A Coordinated Droop Control Strategy for
Overvoltage Mitigation in Active Distribution Networks,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 5260–5270, 2018.
[20] GAMS–a User’s Guide, GAMS Development Corporation, [Online]
Available: https://www.gams.com/latest/docs/UG_MAIN.html.
[21] Central collection and publication of electricity generation,
transportation and consumption data and information for the pan-
European market, ENTSO-E Transparency Platform, May 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://transparency.entsoe.eu/dashboard/show.