Exploring the Tradeoffs Between Incentives for Distributed Generation Developers and DNOs

Regulators are aiming to incentivize developers and Distribution Network Operators to connect distributed generation (DG) to improve network environmental performance and efficiency. A key question is whether these incentives will encourage both parties to connect DG. Here, multiobjective optimal power flow is used to simulate how the parties' incentives affect their choice of DG capacity within the limits of the existing network. Using current U.K. incentives as a basis, this paper explores the costs, benefits and tradeoffs associated with DG in terms of connection, losses and, in a simple fashion, network deferral

[1]  A. Conejo,et al.  Transmission Loss Allocation: A Comparison of Different Practical Algorithms , 2002, IEEE Power Engineering Review.

[2]  Mohammed E. El-Hawary,et al.  Electric Power Applications of Fuzzy Systems , 1998 .

[3]  Gareth Harrison,et al.  OPF evaluation of distribution network capacity for the connection of distributed generation , 2005 .

[4]  W. J. Burke,et al.  Trade off methods in system planning , 1988 .

[5]  Y.-T. Hsiao,et al.  Optimisation of capacitor allocation using an interactive trade-off method , 2001 .

[6]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Making Hard Decisions: An Introduction to Decision Analysis , 1997 .

[7]  B. Hobbs,et al.  Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison , 1994 .

[8]  J. Mutale,et al.  Pricing of distribution networks with distributed generation , 2005, 2005 International Conference on Future Power Systems.

[9]  N. S. Rau,et al.  Optimum location of resources in distributed planning , 1994 .

[10]  G.P. Harrison,et al.  Centralized and Distributed Voltage Control: Impact on Distributed Generation Penetration , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[11]  Chi-Keung Woo,et al.  Variations in area- and time-specific marginal capacity costs of electricity distribution , 1998 .

[12]  D. Das.  A fuzzy multiobjective approach for network reconfiguration of distribution systems , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery.

[13]  A. Keane,et al.  Optimal allocation of embedded generation on distribution networks , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[14]  G. Joós,et al.  On the Quantification of the Network Capacity Deferral Value of Distributed Generation , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[15]  Fabrizio Giulio Luca Pilo,et al.  Optimisation of embedded generation sizing and siting by using a double trade-off method , 2005 .

[16]  Robert J. Thomas,et al.  An Internet-based platform for testing generation scheduling auctions , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  Tooraj Jamasb,et al.  Long-term Framework for Electricity Distribution Access Charges , 2005 .

[18]  G. Strbac,et al.  Effect of regulation on distribution companies investment policies in the UK , 2003, 2003 IEEE Bologna Power Tech Conference Proceedings,.

[19]  J.W. Bialek,et al.  Optimal power flow as a tool for fault level-constrained network capacity analysis , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[20]  Yacov Y. Haimes,et al.  Multiobjective Decision Making: Theory and Methodology , 1983 .

[21]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[22]  M. Matos,et al.  Loss allocation in distribution networks with embedded generation , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems.

[23]  A. R. Wallace,et al.  Optimal power flow evaluation of distribution network capacity for the connection of distributed generation , 2005 .

[24]  Benjamin F. Hobbs,et al.  Estimating the flexibility of utility resource plans: an application to natural gas cofiring for SO/sub 2/ control , 1994 .

[25]  C. L. Masters.  Voltage rise: the big issue when connecting embedded generation to long 11 kV overhead lines , 2002 .