This paper shows that the smart loads (SLs) could be effective in mitigating voltage problems caused by photovoltaic (PV) generation and electric vehicle (EV) charging in low-voltage (LV) distribution networks. Limitations of the previously reported SL configuration with only series reactive compensator (SLQ) (one converter) is highlighted in this paper. To overcome these limitations, an additional shunt converter is used in back-to-back (B2B) configuration to support the active power exchanged by the series converter, which increases the flexibility of the SL without requiring any energy storage. Simulation results on a typical U.K. LV distribution network are presented to compare the effectiveness of an SL with B2B converters (SLBCs) against an SLQ in tackling under- and over-voltage problems caused by EV or PV. It is shown that SLBCs can regulate the main voltage more effectively than SLQs especially under overvoltage condition. Although two converters are required for each SLBC, it is shown that the apparent power capacity of each converter is required to be significantly less than that of an equivalent SLQ

Abstract-The concept of 'Electric Spring (ES)' has beenproposed recently as an effective means of distributed voltage control. The idea is to regulate the voltage across the 'critical loads' while allowing the 'non-critical' impedance-type loads (e.g. water heaters) to vary their power consumption and thus contribute to demand-side response. In this paper a comparison is made between distributed voltage control using ES against the traditional single point control with STATCOM. For a given range of supply voltage variation, the total reactive capacity required for each option to produce the desired voltage regulation at the point of connection is compared. A simple case study with a single ES and STATCOM is presented first to show that the ES and STATCOM require comparable reactive power to achieve similar voltage regulation. Comparison between a STATCOM and ES is further substantiated through similar case studies on the IEEE 13-bus test feeder system and also on a part of the distribution network in Sha Lo Wan Bay, Hong Kong. In both cases, it turns out that a group of ESs achieves better total voltage regulation than STATCOM with less overall reactive power capacity. Dependence of the ES capability on proportion of critical and non-critical load is also shown.

Frequency-dependent loads inherently contribute to primary frequency response. This paper describes additional contribution to primary frequency control based on voltagedependent noncritical (NC) loads that can tolerate a wide variation of supply voltage. By using a series of reactive compensators to decouple the NC load from the mains to form a smart load (SL), the voltage, and hence the active power of the NC load, can be controlled to regulate the mains frequency. The scope of this paper focuses primarily on reactive compensators for which only the magnitude of the injected voltage could be controlled while maintaining the quadrature relationship between the current and voltage. New control guidelines are suggested. The effectiveness of the SLs in improving mains frequency regulation without considering frequency-dependent loads and with little relaxation in mains voltage tolerance is demonstrated in a case study on the IEEE 37 bus test distribution network. Sensitivity analysis is included to show the effectiveness and limitations of SLs for varying load power factors, proportion of SLs, and system strengths.Index Terms-Demand response (DR), demand-side management (DSM), electric spring (ES), primary frequency control, reactive compensator, smart load (SL), voltage control.

Increasing use of distributed generation (DG), mainly roof-top photovoltaic (PV) panels and electric vehicle (EV) charging would cause over-and under-voltage problems generally at the remote sections of the low-voltage (LV) distribution feeders. As these voltage problems are sustained for a few hours, power electronic compensators (PECs) with input voltage control, i.e. electric springs cannot be used due to the unavailability of non-critical loads that can be subjected to non-rated voltages for a long duration of time. However, PECs in output voltage control mode could be used to inject a controllable series voltage either somewhere on the feeder (mid-feeder compensation, MFC) or between the feeder and each customer (point-ofload compensation, PoLC) both of which are effective in tackling the voltage problem without disrupting PV power output and EV charging. In this study, a comparison between the MFC and PoLC option is presented in terms of their voltage control capability, required compensator capacity, network losses, PV throughput, and demand response capability. The criteria for selection of the optimal location of these compensators are also discussed. Stochastic demand profile for different types of residential customers in the UK and a typical European LV network is used for the case study.

Highlights• The paper presents MATLAB model of a microgrid formed by renewable-energy sources.• Different protection relays, used in a microgrid, are modelled in MATLAB/Simulink.• Conventional protection techniques are analysed for microgrids' application.• Conventional protection schemes do not work correctly in a microgrid.• A protection scheme has been designed that works satisfactorily in microgrids. Abstract -System parameters of a microgrid change in its two

No abstract

Abstract-Primary frequency control using smart loads with reactive only compensation (SLQ) has been shown in the past. In this paper, further improvement in frequency regulation is shown using smart loads with a back-to-back converter (SLBC) arrangement. This introduces additional flexibility and thereby, allows independent and wider control over active and reactive power consumption of the smart load. The improvement in frequency regulation with SLBCs is compared against SLQs through two separate case studies on 4-generator, 2-area test system and also the 39-bus New-England test system. A future scenario with reduced system inertia is considered for both case studies. Unlike previous exercises involving smart loads, in this study a detailed representation is used for both the multi-machine transmission system and the distribution networks down to the medium voltage (MV) level where the smart loads (SLBC/SLQ) are connected. This avoids the inaccuracies associated with load aggregation or use of system equivalents wherein the network constraints, spatial voltage variations etc. are not captured properly.

The increasing use of distributed generation like rooftop solar panels and charging of large fleets of electric vehicles will result in over-and under-voltage problems in the low voltage (LV) distribution networks. Distributed electric springs have been proposed as an effective way of controlling these voltage problems. However, when multiple distributed electric springs are activated in a system, each electric spring tries to correct the local voltage problem. As a result, two groups of electric springs located in two different sections of the same radial network can be competing against each other at any given time. In the past, droop control has been suggested as a solution to avoid this conflict. This paper highlights the problem with simple drop control of electric springs in a radial distribution network and presents coordination between electric springs as an alternative. A comparison between the droop control and the coordinated droop control option is presented in terms of their voltage control capability, and required compensator capacity. It is established by means of a case study on a typical European LV network with stochastic demand profile for different types of residential customers.