Abstract this paper presents a review of technologies,
methodologies and operational approaches aimed at improving the efficiency of power distribution systems, with emphasis in the accurate estimation and reduction of technical and non-technical power and energy losses. From a losses evaluation viewpoint this includes efficiently using data supplied by utility information systems, and utilizing computational feeder models and advanced modeling and simulation software for accurately calculating technical and non-technical losses. From a technical losses reduction perspective this includes the implementation of smart grid approaches such as Volt-VAr Optimization (VVO), distribution state estimation, automatic feeder reconfiguration, meshed distribution feeder operation, and Distributed Energy Resources (DER) among others. From a non-technical losses reduction standpoint this includes the utilization of Advanced Metering Infrastructures (AMI) and metering and fraud deterrence and detection technologies such as prepaid and tamper-proof electricity meters, macro-meters (communal metering), remote connection and disconnection systems, inspection and monitoring programs, data collection and calculation improvement, etc. A summary of international experiences, as well as conclusions and recommendations regarding the effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages of these approaches is presented and discussed.
Index Terms-- distribution systems, smart grid, technical losses, non-technical losses I. INTRODUCTION OSS analysis and reduction are important and well-known areas of power distribution system engineering and key elements for efficient system operation. Traditionally, total distribution energy losses have been estimated by means of energy balances that consist of subtracting the total energy consumed (metered and billed) by customers from the total energy generated or delivered to distribution substations and feeders. Since total energy losses account for technical and non-technical (commercial) losses, then further analysis is required to estimate them individually. Usually, technical losses are estimated by using approximate methods and assumptions. Specifically, by calculating active power losses at peak load conditions (through computational models and recorded load data), then applying a loss factor to estimate average power losses and finally multiplying average
J. Romero Agero (julio@quanta-technology.com) is with Quanta Technology, Raleigh, NC losses by time (hours), to obtain monthly or annual energy losses. Then technical losses are subtracted from total losses to obtain non-technical losses. The level of complexity of these calculations depends on the methodology used for estimating power losses at peak and loss factors as well as on the distribution system characteristics and components included in the analysis. For instance, calculating loss factors requires comprehensive studies that may also have to take into account the influence of non-technical losses, particularly when these are high [1]. Furthermore, losses on low-voltage secondary systems (secondary lines and service drops) sometimes are not included in this estimation or approximate values are used instead. Depending on the estimation accuracy it can be argued that such practice may be acceptable for systems with a few and short service drops directly off distribution transformers (such as the case of many modern North- American distribution systems), but it is certainly not a recommended practice for systems with long secondary lines and numerous customers (such as the case of common low voltage distribution systems in other regions of the world). In some of those systems, the literature reports energy losses ranging between 2.33% and 3.35% [2]-[4], which certainly deserve consideration 1 . Similarly, although power losses at peak are estimated by using computational models, if the distribution transformers are not modeled in detail to include load and no-load losses, then the estimation will not be accurate. During the last decade, the rapid evolution and wide adoption of information systems, distribution analysis tools, computational models and more recently the emergence of smart grid technologies have given utilities access to the data and tools required for improving these analyses and the possibility of increasing the efficiency (e.g., reducing losses, optimizing voltage profiles, etc) of power distribution systems. For instance, a more accurate calculation of system losses is now possible, since power flow data and computational models of feeders are generally available. This allows implementing batch processes for calculating, for instance, 8760-hour power losses, and obtaining an accurate computation of annual energy losses that do not rely on using estimated loss factors.
1 Interestingly, [4] reports that 91.8% of energy losses are localized on secondary lines and 8.2% on service drops. Improving the Efficiency of Power Distribution Systems through Technical and Non-Technical Losses Reduction Julio Romero Agero, Senior Member, IEEE L 978-1-4673-1935-5/12/$31.00 2012 IEEE 2 Although distribution system energy losses in industrialized countries are generally within acceptable limits, there is room for further improvement, particularly via smart grid technologies. In many developing countries, on the other side, this is still a critical issue that requires continuous and competent monitoring and control and drives large investments in both, conventional and smart grid solutions. For instance, Table I and Table II, which show the results of an international survey on T&D energy losses carried out by the World Bank in 2000 for over 100 countries [5]. Here values over 30% are considered as high losses. Similarly, Table III and Table IV show the losses breakdown and total energy losses (including non-technical) for a utility system in a developing country. These results show that technical losses are significant; however, for this specific case non-technical (commercial) losses represent the majority of system losses. Interestingly, non-technical losses are not an exclusive problem of developing countries. For instance, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the International Utilities Revenue Protection Association, the US electric utility industry loses more than $6 billion annually to electricity theft, while in India it reaches $4.5 billion [6], [7].
TABLE I. T&D LOSSES, 2000 [5] T&D losses (%) Number of countries Percent 4-10 34 33.3 11-15 25 24.5 16-20 15 14.7 21-53 28 27.5 Total 102 100
TABLE II. T&D LOSSES BY REGION, 1980 AND 2000 [5] Region Countries T&D losses (%) Change (%) 1980 2000 Western Europe 17 7.71 7.56 -0.15 Eastern Europe 24 9.68 18.18 8.50 Middle East, North Africa 11 11.18 19.63 8.45 Africa 11 14.60 19.95 5.35 North America 3 9.67 9.38 -0.29 South America 9 13.00 17.23 4.23 Central America, Caribbean 9 15.50 21.68 6.18 South Asia 5 25.20 27.55 2.35 Southeast Asia 7 12.14 13.32 1.18 East Asia, Australasia 6 8.67 7.65 -1.02 Total 102 11.69 16.22 4.54
TABLE III. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TECHNICAL LOSSES (ENERGY) Breakdown % Load No Load Total Transf (substation) 0.01 0.19 0.19 MV lines 1.69 0.00 1.69 Transf (distribution) 0.77 0.50 1.27 LV lines 7.42 0.00 7.42 Total 9.88 0.69 10.57
TABLE IV. TOTAL SYSTEM ENERGY LOSSES (%) Distribution (technical) 10.57 Transmission (technical) 2.00 System total (technical) 12.57 System total (non-technical) 21.64 System total (technical & non-technical) 34.21
It is worth noting that the monetary savings due to loss reduction include not only energy saved but also released system capacity that can defer capacity expansion investments. The international experience on the subject has shown that in utilities with high loss level, $1 invested on loss reduction leads to savings ranging from $10 to $15 [8], [9]. The following sections present a review of conventional and smart grid approaches for reduction of technical and non- technical losses that are currently being used by the industry around the world. Furthermore, methodologies that have potential for utilization are also reviewed. Finally, conclusions and recommendations are summarized. II. REDUCTION OF TECHNICAL LOSSES This section presents a list of conventional and smart grid approaches for losses reduction. The methods for reducing losses at the distribution level are numerous, e.g., capacitor placement, reconductoring, voltage upgrade, transformer load monitoring, and reconfiguration, among others. Table V offers insight into the benefit/cost ratio associated with various loss reduction measures [10], [11]. From Table V, it becomes apparent that both distribution transformer load management and reconfiguration offer the highest benefit/cost ratio as they are implemented with a minimal expenditure, however, it is important to highlight that the actual ratios are very system dependent.
TABLE V. Benefit/cost ratios for various loss reduction measures Measure Benefit/cost ratio Reactive compensation 2 to 8 Reconductoring 0.6 to 7 Voltage upgrading 1.5 to 3 Transformer load management 1 to 15 Reconfiguration up to 13 A. Reactive compensation Distribution system load losses are a function of the square of the current. Therefore, a way to bring down technical losses is to decrease the absolute value of the line current by reducing its reactive component, i.e., improving the power factor [12]. This can be accomplished by installing fixed and switched capacitor banks; this procedure is commonly known as reactive compensation. Since capacitors can decrease reactive power demand by supplying VArs locally, line currents are reduced from capacitor bank locations all the way back to generation equipment, leading to the following economic benefits [10]:
a. Released generation capacity b. Released transmission capacity c. Released distribution substation capacity d. Reduced energy losses e. Reduced voltage drop and consequently improved voltage regulation f. Released capacity of feeder and associated apparatus g. Capital expenditure deferral due to system improvements and/or expansions h. Revenue increase due to voltage improvements
Conventional switched capacitor banks allow for step-wise reactive power compensation. Distributed Generators (DG) and devices such as SVCs and STATCOMs may allow for more versatile and continuous (reactive power load following) 3 compensation and voltage control (even during dynamic conditions). Although voltage regulation using DG is not widely utilized nor allowed by some of the existing regulations, there is plenty of activity in this area, including ongoing research and revisions of standards [13]. Therefore, it has the potential for becoming more common distribution system operation practice. B. Reconductoring of primary and secondary lines Given that distribution load losses are directly proportional to the series resistance (R) of system components, another way to reduce technical losses is to reduce R. This can be achieved by replacing existing primary and secondary lines by greater cross-section conductors. This procedure is commonly known as reconductoring. For instance, [14] reports the experience of a municipal utility that implemented a reconductoring project. The total losses reported by this utility are approximately 2%; this value is considerably lower than that of the majority of utilities in the same region, which ranges between 4 to 13%. The benefit/cost ratio associated with reconductoring is system dependent. Additional benefits provided by reconductoring are voltage profile improvement due to voltage drop reduction along the feeder, and availability of additional capacity for load transferring, either from or to neighbor feeders. The latter also has a positive impact on system reliability. C. Voltage upgrading Distribution system losses can also be reduced by increasing primary line voltage; this is known as voltage upgrading or voltage conversion. Figure 1 shows an example of estimated line current and active power losses for different operating voltages, the current and losses reductions are evident. Additional benefits include increased feeder capacity and reach, i.e., increased ability to serve customers located at farther distances from the substation. A potential drawback is decreased reliability, particularly in rural and wooded areas. Besides requiring higher voltage class insulation 2 , voltage upgrade may also imply replacing crossarms, poles, etc.
Figure 1. Line current and active power losses (%) as a function of the operating voltage (kV)
2 Additional costs for higher voltage class insulation are comparatively small to total feeder costs [15]. D. Transformer load management Transformer losses represent an appreciable portion of a utilitys overall losses. For instance, a study conducted by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimated that distribution transformers account for 26% of transmission and distribution losses and 41% of distribution and sub-transmission losses [16]. Similarly [17] presents the results of an analysis conducted for a real distribution utility where transformers losses accounted for 55% of total distribution system losses, and 2.14% of electricity sales (no-load and load losses represented 86% and 14% of total losses, respectively). During the last three decades many utilities executed projects for replacing old and highly inefficient distribution transformers, particularly in developing countries. Here, an important factor to take into account is the fact that distribution transformers are one of the most numerous components of distribution systems. Despite the loss reduction due to the replacement of a single transformer might not appear to be significant, when this is accounted for a large group of transformers, during an average life cycle of 20 years, savings become evident. For instance, [18] presents the results of a project implemented by a utility in Europe that replaced 146 old transformers by 75 higher efficiency units, the estimated total annual savings attained by this project reached about 1.2 million of kWh per year. Furthermore, Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and Transformer Load Management (TLM) systems have given utilities the possibility of tracking and performing an accurate economic evaluation of distribution transformer loadings that takes into account several cost components (losses, capital, loss of life, etc). The information supplied by AMI and TLM systems may be used for optimizing distribution transformers loading to ensure that they are operated within their high- efficiency loading range e.g., distribution transformers are typically at maximum efficiency when loaded at 50% of nominal rating [18]. E. Reconfiguration Distribution system reconfiguration consists in changing the topology of distribution feeders by modifying the status of distribution protective and switching devices (from normally open to normally closed and vice versa). Reconfiguration aims at improving the way loads are served by taking into account their location and time patterns and adjusting power flow paths. By switching to better distribute load, the system I 2 R delivery losses will decrease [19]. Although distribution feeder reconfiguration was first proposed in 1975, it was until the early 90s that it was acknowledged as a viable option. With the introduction of the smart grid concept and its self-healing requirements, as well as the notable development of new distribution automation switches, reclosers, sensors, and communications systems, reconfiguration is increasingly becoming popular. Since in many cases, distribution automation is introduced as a means for improving reliability, the loss reduction associated with reconfiguration is an additional benefit [10]. Therefore, reconfiguration may be implemented as a part of a multi- 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 P l o s s
( % ) Operating Voltage (kV) I (%) Ploss(%) 4 objective optimization to improve reliability, minimize losses, optimize voltage profiles, etc. It is important to mention that system protection coordination may need to be updated every time the configuration changes. This is one of the reasons why utilities prefer to avoid frequent configuration changes. However, new technologies, such as adaptive protection systems, can be implemented to allow for more frequent and flexible reconfiguration. Theoretically, if the distribution automation, communications and information systems infrastructure is in place reconfiguration could be conducted even at an hourly basis. However, practical limitations such as equipment lifetime, system security, and workforce safety concerns must be taken into account to define how frequent reconfiguration should be performed. Even in the context of utility systems that are not equipped with sufficient automated switches, off-line seasonal reconfiguration can be performed. This way the different load and loss profiles of summer and winter (or rainy and dry seasons) can be taken into account. The level of losses reduction that can be achieved by system reconfiguration can be significant. For instance, a project reported in [19] simulated implementing reconfiguration to a portion of a utility distribution system (peak load of 230 MW) for a period of one year and attained an estimated loss reduction of 14.6%. Likewise, [20] presents the results of a study for losses reduction through different reconfiguration methods. A real utility distribution system was used for evaluating the proposed methods, which achieved losses reduction of up to 9.59%. F. Load balancing Load unbalance is relatively common in three-phase distribution systems, and depending on its magnitude it can negatively affect system operations, reliability, and safety. Furthermore, measurements and computations reported by the international literature show that losses increase due to unbalanced loads, mainly due to the circulation of unbalanced currents through neutral conductors. For, instance [21] shows that for a 15% current unbalance, losses on a real low-voltage distribution system of Brazil increase by 4.1% when compared to a fully balanced system. Extreme load unbalance also causes voltage unbalance, which affects sensitive electronic equipment and also causes overheating (and losses increase) of motor loads. Despite being a challenging problem, the costs of performing load balancing are relatively low, since usually it only implies metering equipment and labor costs (e.g., for gathering and processing data, conducting analysis and swapping loads phases in the field). Capital investments may be required to add additional phases to single or two-phase distribution lines. G. Standardization of medium and low-voltage lines One of the main sources of technical losses in secondary (low-voltage) distribution systems of developing countries is the proliferation of non-standard systems, which are facilities that do not comply with accepted distribution practices and national or international standards. These systems are usually originated by the unauthorized connection of a single load to the standard distribution system. This may start a chain reaction and prompt the connection of additional unauthorized loads to this facility or to other nodes of the standard system. Non-standard systems represent a serious problem for utilities, not only for the high losses caused by the installation of non-standard conductors, but also for the safety risks (e.g., fires caused by overheating of conductors), and the cascading of outages to the standard system. Moreover, users of these systems may not pay for the service; which significantly increases non-technical losses. Figure 2 shows a non-standard secondary system of a city in South Asia.
Figure 2. Non-standard secondary system H. Distribution Management System (DMS) During the last 20 years the distribution system has witnessed the emergence of new supervision, control and information technologies such as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Distribution Automation (DA), and AMI. The convergence of these technologies has propelled the materialization of modern distribution control centers and Distribution Management Systems (DMS). Modern control centers have been thought for optimizing the real-time operation of distribution systems, in the same way Energy Management Systems (EMS) accomplish this task for generation and transmission systems. Some of the functions implemented in modern DMS environments are state estimation, Volt-VAr optimization (VVO), load forecasting, outage management and restoration, data gathering for planning functions (reliability analysis, off-line load flow, short circuit analysis, etc), DG dispatch, and reconfiguration. Evidently, the implementation of these functions implies the availability of several metering and control points along the distribution system, situation that is becoming more common in modern distribution systems. Distribution state estimation algorithms allow estimating feeder electric variables in real or quasi real-time. This is accomplished by using a combination of: a) real-time data provided by voltage and current sensors installed along the feeders, b) pseudo-measurements obtained, for instance, by processing AMI and historical billing data, and c) data
5 regarding the status of switching and protective devices. Distribution state estimation and on-line power flow algorithms allow for a more accurate calculation of feeder losses than that accomplished by using conventional approaches. Furthermore, as discussed in the next sections, they also allow for implementing VVO and determining the spatial distribution of losses. I. Distributed Energy Resources (DER) The last decade has seen an unprecedented growth of DER facilities interconnected to the distribution system. Abundant research in this area has focused on estimating both, impacts and benefits of DER integration. In the specific case of DG, low to moderate market penetration levels, interconnected at strategic locations, can help reduce system losses. Figure 3 shows the results of an analysis conducted on a real 12.47 kV distribution feeder. Here the base case shows normalized hourly losses (including losses on 12.47 kV lines and 12.47/7.2 kV 120/240 V transformers) before DG interconnection. Cases C1, C2, and C4 show losses after interconnection of 1 MW, 2 MW and 4 MW of photovoltaic DG, respectively. For simplicity, neither output intermittency due to cloud cover nor night hours have been considered in this analysis. The plants used in this study have an individual capacity of 500 kW interconnected via dedicated transformers. The results show that losses decrease for C1 and C2; however, they increase for the larger penetration level represented by C4. Similarly, cases D1, D2 and D4 show losses for the same penetration levels when highly-distributed photovoltaic DG is used instead. Here photovoltaic DG plants with an individual capacity of 5 kW interconnected to the secondary side of distribution transformers were simulated. The results for the latter cases show a reduction on feeder losses even for the 4 MW penetration level. This is due to the fact that the DG plants are located close to customer loads. These results demonstrate the criticality of DG sizing and location, as well as their potential benefit on losses reduction.
Figure 3. Feeder losses (normalized with respect to peak losses) J. Alternative distribution feeder operation Historically the large majority of medium-voltage distribution feeders have been operated in radial fashion. The reasons behind this decision include simplicity to operate and protect, lower fault current levels, lack of real-time monitoring, control and automation, etc. Recently, the introduction of smart grid technologies, DER proliferation, growing demand for high reliability levels, and advances in information systems, distribution automation, protection and communications technologies have prompted a renewed interest on exploring alternative distribution operation approaches. This includes operating medium- voltage feeders as closed-loops, i.e., in similar fashion as sub- transmission and transmission lines. This type of operation is more complex and requires using more advanced protection systems, more robust equipment, and widespread automation, monitoring, control, and addressing technical concerns regarding potential switching transients, circulating currents, etc. Nevertheless, this type of operation has a series of obvious advantages, particularly from the point of view of reliability and operations efficiency, including losses reduction and voltage profile improvement. For instance, Figure 4 and Table VI show a summary of the losses reduction that can be achieved by operating two real 12.47 kV feeders as a closed loop. Here each color (red and blue) represent a different feeder. The arrows indicate the location of three normally open tie switches.
Figure 4. Feeder losses under closed-loop operation
Cases C1, C2, and C3 show the reduction on active power losses at peak that can be achieved by closing the respective tie switch of Figure 4. C4 shows the results that can be attained by closing the three switches. Losses are shown as a percentage of the base case (radial operation). As in the case of DG, these results show the importance of switch location. Interestingly, the results obtained by C4 are marginally better 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 A c t i v e
L o s s
( %
o f
p e a k
l o s s ) Hour Base D1 D2 D4 C1 C2 C4
C1 C2 C3 6 than those of C2, and would not justify the additional complexity and equipment required for operating these feeders under the former scenario. Similarly, Figure 5 shows the voltage profiles for both feeders under radial operation (left) and closed-loop (right) operation (C2 scenario). Here, voltage on blue sections is within utility limits, and red sections experience low voltage violations. The results show how closed-loop operation also improves feeder voltage profiles. Therefore, given the technology advances previously discussed and its apparent benefits this type of operation deserves further consideration and analysis.
Figure 5. Feeder voltage profiles under radial (left) and closed-loop (right) operation K. Volt-VAr Optimization (VVO) Traditionally, voltage and VAr control devices have been controlled independently by using local voltage and current measurements. This type of operation leads to suboptimal operation and uncoordinated equipment interactions. Ideally, real-time data provided by local sensors should be consolidated and evaluated to optimize global operation. VVO utilizes capacitor banks, voltage regulators, DG units, and other distribution system components to maintain acceptable voltages at all points along a feeder under varying loading conditions. VVO allows for: a) minimizing energy losses and reduce demand, b) operating the distribution system as efficiently as possible (without violating load and voltage constraints), and c) supporting the reactive power needs of bulk power systems during contingencies. VVO algorithms reside at modern DMS on distribution control centers and can either monitor the distribution system in a continuous way or react to operator requests. They rely on a computational model of the distribution system to conduct a series of real-time power flow computations to estimate the optimal settings of control variables that allow attaining predefined objectives. VVO benefits include reducing peak demands, energy losses and frequency of operation of distribution equipment, which translates into evident economic benefits. III. REDUCTION OF NON-TECHNICAL LOSSES Non-technical losses are mainly caused by electricity theft, meter tampering, and commercial system inefficiencies. This includes: a) consumption of unmetered energy (e.g., by bypassing existing utility meters or directly tapping secondary lines); b) meter accuracy alteration, e.g., by tampering with supply and instrument transformer wires [22]; and c) meter reading and billing errors, e.g., inaccurate energy consumption estimation of customers premises located at remote sites, unmetered utility facilities (substations and power plants), etc. This section discusses a list of alternatives for reduction of non-technical losses. These alternatives deal with issues related with metering, secondary systems and service drops, and utility information systems. A. Metering Alternatives to reduce technical losses by more efficient and widespread metering include: a. Installation of meters to all customers and facilities, regardless of type of customer, type of facility (e.g., auxiliary services, substations, etc), or type of tariff (there might be customers with special rates, e.g., gratis). This enables measuring all the energy delivered by the system and accurately calculating losses. b. Installation of prepaid meters. Over 40 countries have implemented prepaid meters in their markets. Some examples are the United Kingdom, with about 3.5 million consumers, and South Africa, with over 6 million meters. Prepaid meters allow customers to purchase in advance the monetary equivalent of the amount of energy to be consumed. The meters inform consumers when most of the credit energy has been consumed, and the consumer then purchases additional energy. The international experience has shown that prepaid meters are a good alternative for reducing non-technical losses due to billing and commercial irregularities [23]. c. Installation of macro-metering for metering and calculating technical and non-technical losses. The macro-metering (also known as collective metering, master metering or totalizing metering) strategy requires the installation of global meters (e.g., at the low voltage side of distribution transformers). This way the total energy delivered can be compared to the energy billed by the utility, a solution known as energy balance, which enables the company to localize, detect and control non- technical losses. The international experience with macro- metering has been highly satisfactory. For instance, [24] reports a reduction of 8% of non-technical losses (from 25% in Dec. 2003 to 17% in Jun. 2006) by implementing a totalizing meter project. d. AMI. AMI creates a network between smart meters and utility enterprise systems. This allows implementing remote reading, disconnection of overdue accounts, tamper detection (meter cover open alarm, reverse current alarm, phase unbalance alarm), outage notification, and advanced functions including demand response, and Time of Use (TOU) rates. AMI used in combination with macro-metering (what is called preplanned installation topology of smart meters) facilitates detecting excessive load and unmetered consumption, which facilities remote theft detection [6]. Furthermore, the data provided by AMI can be used for profiling electricity usage; this is done by analyzing smart meter readings to identify abnormal consumption patterns, for instance, when consumption is lower or higher than usual for a long time.
Low voltage 7 Numerous utilities are using AMI for non-technical losses detection, for instance, [7] discusses experiences using AMI for fighting electricity theft. e. Installation of meter seals (on meters and instrument transformers), heavy-duty meter locking rings or any other type of tampering-proof device. The objective of these devices is to assure that nobody tampers or opens the meter without leaving evidence. Meters, locking rings and seals must be installed at the same time, to avoid leaving the meter un-protected. Periodic field inspections must be performed to identify, verify, and seal meters in the field. B. Secondary lines and service drops a. Replacing conventional wires by antifraud conductors. The objective of this alternative is to restraint or to make more difficult the access of consumers to secondary lines. For instance, in areas known for electricity theft, low voltage preassembled or coaxial cables are used instead of conventional conductors. Moreover, service drops are replaced by antifraud cable, avoiding the access to the phase conductor by means of piercing o cutting the insulation. The phase conductor is protected by the neutral conductor, which has a concentric pattern around the insulation. Therefore, if an unauthorized connection is attempted, it causes a short-circuit that interrupts service. This cable is mostly used for single-phase loads, and its effectiveness has been reported in the international literature. For instance, [25] reports the reduction of total losses by about 16% through the implementation of a portfolio of solutions that included the utilization of antifraud cable. b. Conversion of secondary lines from overhead to underground: The easy access to overhead secondary lines facilitates the illegal connection of loads and the proliferation of non-standard systems. One alternative for overcoming this problem is to convert overhead lines to an underground layout. The main advantages of this approach are the inherent benefits of underground systems: aesthetics (much less visual clutter), safety (less chance for public contact), reliability (significantly fewer short and long-duration interruptions), O&M (notably lower maintenance costs), and longer reach (less voltage drop) [16]. Its main disadvantage is economic; the cost of underground lines is greater than that of overhead lines. However, under the right conditions, some cost estimates that cable installations can be less expensive than overhead lines. According to [16], the underground to overhead ratio for construction costs varies between 1.3 and 7.6. An alternative for reducing costs is the utilization of direct-buried cables (with or without spare conduit). C. Utility Information Systems Distribution system geo-referencing using standard GIS software and Customer Information Systems (CIS) are vital for non-technical losses reduction. Through GIS the utility is able to geographically relate each customer with its respective secondary system, distribution transformer, feeder, and distribution substation. CIS handles customer energy consumption and billing information. Both systems facilitate calculating accurate energy balances, and monitoring and localizing system losses. Furthermore, utilities are moving towards the implementation of DMS, which enables optimizing system operation for minimizing technical losses, as well as gathering data that can be used for estimating and locating non-technical losses. For instance, [26] presents the application of a state estimator (embedded in a DMS) for determining the areas with the greatest amount of non- technical losses on a radial distribution feeder. IV. CONCLUSIONS Distribution system efficiency can be notably improved by controlling and reducing technical and non-technical losses. The main contributors and level of system losses differ in industrialized and developing countries. Interestingly, non- technical losses are not an exclusive problem of developing countries. Given the widespread electrification, and higher energy consumption and rates, relatively low system losses in an industrialized country may have a similar absolute monetary value than that due to high system losses in a developing country. For instance, electricity theft represents 3% of system losses and about $6 billion annually in the US, while in India it corresponds to 30% and $4.5 billion [6]. Recent technological advances and industry trends such as the implementation of the smart grid concept are giving utilities additional tools and promising alternatives for reducing system losses. On the technical losses side this includes, for instance, more frequent system reconfiguration, strategic DG sitting and dispatch to provide reactive power and voltage support, closed-loop operation of distribution feeders, VVO, and on-line power flow and state estimation algorithms residing on modern DMS. On the non-technical losses side, this includes AMI, pre-paid meters, and utility information systems, among others. The specialized literature and the simulations discussed in previous sections show encouraging results in these areas. However, given the diverse nature system losses, a comprehensive and efficient strategy for improving distribution system efficiency must consider the implementation of a portfolio of solutions that include conventional and smart grid technologies. V. REFERENCES [1] A New Method to Calculate Power Distribution Losses in an Environment of High Unregistered Loads, M. Poveda, in Proceedings of 1999 IEEE Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, Vol. 2, pp. 609 614, New Orleans, LA. [2] Standard levels of energy losses in primary distribution circuits for SCADA application, H.M. Khodr, J. Molea, I. Garcia, C. Hidalgo, P.C., Saiva, J.M. Yusta, A.J. Urdaneta, IEEE Trans. on Power Systems, Vol. 17, No. 3, Aug. 2002 [3] A new method for the computation of technical losses in electrical power distribution systems, C.C.B. Oliveira, N. Kagan, A. Meffe, S. Jonathan, S. Caparroz, J.L. Cavaretti, CIRED 2001, 16th International Conference and Exhibition on Electricity Distribution. Part 1: Contributions, Vol. 5, pp. 5, Jun. 2001 [4] A model for calculating technical losses in the secondary energy distribution network, H. Lasso, C. Ascanio, M. Guglia, IEEE/PES Transmission & Distribution Conference and Exposition: Latin America, 2006, pp 1-6, Aug. 2006
Electricity The Vol. 32, No. 18 Fighting Electr Telecom, Mar. http://www.ecit fighting-electric AMI Helps Co available at: http://www.geo Strategy for A Sources in Elec Valtin, Oil Sha Engineering Munasinghe, Pr 0] Electric Power Hill Inc., 1986 1] Practical Aspec Study, R.J. Sar Conference on 167, Sep. 1995 2] Power Distribu Burke, Marcel 3] P1547.8 Worki for Establishin Support for Im Standard 1547 http://grouper.i 4] Loss Reduction Ritchie, P.W. B International, 1 5] Reducing Distr Utility Automa 6] Electric Power 2004 7] Evaluation of Grainger, T.J. Electricity Dist 8] The Scope for Efficient Elec Institute, Dec. 1 9] A Method and Control, R.E. L Vol. 3, No. 3, p 0] Feeder Recon Distribution A IEEE Trans. on 1] Evaluation Of D Ochoa, R.M. C Power Systems 2005 2] Non-Technical MSc Thesis, Oh 3] Prepaid Energ available at: http://www.fros top.pag?docid= 4] Control of No Acosta, and J. G and Distributio 5] Antifraud Serv Krysiak, in Pro (CIRED), 1999 6] Detecting Non Transformation R.V. Cruz, C.V Transmission America, Vene eft: A comparative 8, pp 2067-2076 ricity Theft with A 2011, available at tele.com/OurOffer city-theft-with-adv ompany Fight Ele orgiapower.com/ne Analysis of Loss ctricity Distributio le, 2007, Vol. 24, Economic Anal roc. of the IEEE, V r Distribution Sys cts of Performing rfi, M.M. Salama, Electrical and C ution Engineering Dekker Inc., 1994 ing Group (WG), ng Methods and P mplementation St eee.org/groups/scc n - An Overview Beard, A. Barker, 988, pp 191-194 ribution Losses w ation T&D, Apr. 20 r Distribution Han Technical Losses Kendrew, in Proc tribution (CIRED) Energy Saving i ctricity Distributi 1999 d its Application Lee and C.L. Bro pp 1232-1240, Jul. nfiguration for L Automation, T.P. n Power Delivery, Distribution System Ciric, A. Padilha-F s Computation Con Losses in Electri hio University, No gy Meters Ele st.com/prod/servle =27962688 on Technical Los Gmez. Ospino, in n Conference and vice Drop Cable in oc. of International 9 n-Technical Los n Point through th V. Quintero, and and Distribution zuela e Analysis, T.B. S Advanced Meterin t: ring/Industries/Ind vanced-metering-i ectricity Theft, Th ews/citizen/20100 Situation and Id n Networks, P. Ra No. 2 Special, pp lysis of Electric Vol. 72, No. 4, Ap tem Engineering, a Distribution Sy , A.Y. Chikhani, Computer Engineer Fundamentals
IEEE P1547.8 R Procedures that P trategies for Exp c21/1547.8/1547.8 of the Problems and D.G.T. Lewi without Breaking 007 ndbook, T.A. Sho on Electric Distr c. of 10th Interna , Vol. 6, pp 488-49 in the EU through on Transformers n to Evaluate Au ooks, IEEE Trans 1988 Loss Reduction: Wagner, A.Y. C Vol. 6, No. 4, pp 1 m Losses Due To Feltrin, G.P. Harri nference (PSCC), ical Power System ov. 2002 ectrifying Prospe et/market-insight- sses through Tot n Proc. of 2006 IE Exposition Latin A n Low Voltage A l Conference on E ses in Radial he Real Time Stat F. Prez, in Proc n Conference an Smith, Energy Po ng Infrastructure, dustriesAssets/ener nfrastructure.pdf he Citizen, Jun. 2 6/ami.shtml dentification of L aesaar, E. Tiigimag 297-307 Power Systems, pr. 1984, pp 424-46 T. Gonen, McGr ystem Loss Reduc on Proc. of Cana ring, Vol. 1, pp and Applications, ecommended Prac Provide Suppleme panded Use of IE 8_index.html and Solutions, W is, Power Technol the Bank, S. Eck ort, CRC Press L ribution Systems, ational Conference 93, May 1989 h the Use of Ene s, European Cop utomated Distribu s. on Power Deliv an Application hikhani, R. Hack 1922-1933, Oct. 1 Load Unbalance, ison, in Proc. of 2 Liege, Belgium, A m, D. Suriyamong ects, Srivatsan M talizing Meters, R EE PES Transmis America, Venezue Aerial Distribution Electricity Distribu Distribution Sys te Estimation Meth c. of 2006 IEEE nd Exposition L licy, ECI rgy- 010, Loss gi, J. M. 61 raw- ction adian 164- , J.J. ctice ental EEE W.M. logy kles, LLC, J.J. e on ergy- pper ution very, n of kam, 991 L.F. 2005 Aug. gkol, M.R., R.O. ssion ela n, G. ution stem hod, PES Latin Universid has been w planning, smart grid Ju Dis is Sub Gr Mo Sec Re IEE En Ph dad Nacional de Sa with Quanta Techn operations, mode ds, and distributed VI. BIOGRAPH lio Romero Ag stribution at Quan Vice-Chair o ubcommittee, Edito rid, Secretary of odern and Future cretary of the IEE esources Integratio EE. He is former nergy Commission h.D. degree in an Juan (UNSJ), A nology, Raleigh, N eling and analysis resources integrat HIES gero (SM06) i nta Technology, R of the IEEE or of IEEE Transac the IEEE Work Distribution Sys EE Working Group on, and Senior M r Commissioner o n of Honduras. H Electrical Engi Argentina in 2005 NC. His areas of ex s of power distrib tion. 8 is Director of Raleigh, NC. He Distribution ctions on Smart king Group on stems Planning, p on Distributed Member of the of the National He received his ineering from . Since 2007 he xpertise include bution systems,