1

Control techniques of Dispersed Generators to

improve the continuity of electricity supply
Stefano Barsali, Massimo Ceraolo, Paolo Pelacchi, Member, IEEE, Davide Poli

Abstract: It is expected that Dispersed Generation (DG) will

play an increasing role in electric power systems in the near future. Among the benefits that DG can give to the power system
operators and to the electricity customers, one of the most attractive is the possibility of improving the continuity of power supply.
DG plants can be designed to supply portions of the distribution
grid in the event of an upstream supply outage. Techniques for
controlling DG plants that use feedback of only locally measurable variables are presented. This solution allows correct system
operation and switching between parallel and isolated modes
without needing online communication of control signals between
the generators.
The control technique is described with particular reference to
inverter-interfaced systems (micro-turbines, fuel cells). Simulations of sample cases including different size and type of generators are presented.
Index TermsDispersed storage and generation, Inverters,
Power distribution, Power system reliability.

I. INTRODUCTION

HREE major factors are now pushing forward the development of distributed resources for electric power generation.
The first one is the possibility of making exploitable several
kinds of sources such as renewable and co-generation sources
(combined heat and power: CHP), thus improving primary
energy exploitation.
The second factor is associated with the increased difficulties met in developing new transmission and distribution facilities and to the current high levels of power flows in some critical grid sections.
The last factor regards the high levels of power quality
needed by an increasing number of activities. Such levels cannot be ensured by the standard distribution systems.
Therefore we can imagine a mid-term scenario in which
many distributed power sources are present that require the
solution of many technical problems. In fact, present-day distribution grids are conceived as a top-down means of conveying energy, while the presence of small power plants in
such a grid can sometimes reverse this flow. An extreme case
is that of small isolated systems where the dispersed generators
are (permanently or for short periods) the only active sources
in the network. This big change requires a new approach to
system operation, protection and planning [1, 2].

II. THE NEW SCENARIO OF DISTRIBUTED RESOURCES

On the technology side, several main options are available
for building dispersed generation sources; some of them are
already well developed (based on Internal Combustion Engines (ICE), hydro and wind turbines), others are currently
coming onto the market (based on small gas turbines), others
are expected to be introduced within a few years (based on fuel
cells).
Many DG plants (ICE, small hydro plants etc.) presently use
rotating machinery directly connected to the grid to supply
electric power.
The new technologies (such as micro turbines, fuel cells,
photovoltaic systems and several kinds of wind generators), on
the other hand, are not suitable for supplying the grid directly.
They are therefore interfaced through an inverter stage. It is
worth noticing that the share of these plants is expected to increase in the future.
From the point of view of the electric power system, DG
sources can offer a wide range of possible services [3, 4]. The
actual exploitation of these possibilities depends on the kind of
plant, on the exploited source, on the choice of the control
system logic and on possible constraints given, for example,
by the thermal load demand in the case of CHP plants.
One important way of increasing power supply reliability
could be to supply the most important loads on a protected
network that can be fed by a generator in the event of failure of
the main supply.
An interesting opportunity can derive from the increasing
diffusion of DG resources. Due to the large number of dispersed generators we can expect to be installed, we can argue
that in several portions of the distribution grid the DG installed
capacity will reach high values if compared to the local load
demand. These plants could be used to ensure the power supply of portions of the distribution grid where they are installed.
Automatic Sectionalising Switching Devices (ASSD) can be
sited in the distribution networks to cut areas where the installed dispersed generators can supply the local load [5, 6].
According to this scheme, DG can be used to feed customers in the event of an outage in the feeding line or in the primary substation or during scheduled interruptions. Obviously,
voltage and frequency in the islanded portion of the network
have to be controlled.
The main challenge that has to be faced to exploit this intriguing possibility is the co-ordination of the numerous generators for sharing the real and reactive power output and to
control the system frequency and voltage.
Indeed, small generators are often designed to run in paral-

S. Barsali, M. Ceraolo, P. Pelacchi and D. Poli are with Dipartimento di

Sistemi Elettrici e Automazione, University of Pisa, via Diotisalvi, 2 I-56126
Pisa Italy (e-mail: pelacchi@dsea.unipi.it).
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

789
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

III. CONTROL OF DG SOURCES INTERFACED

WITH ROTATING MACHINES
Rotating machines in dispersed generation systems are usually associated with reciprocating engines (Diesel or gas engines). If such plants are not used as back-up sources, they are
often associated with heat generation. In this case, the real
possibility of modifying the power output depends on the
thermal load characteristics and on the overall heat generation
system. In any case, three control possibilities are likely to be
met:
fixed power control,
fixed speed control,
droop control.
The fixed power control logic is adopted for plants running
in parallel to the grid and with no obligation regarding regulation. The electricity generated can be fixed by the needs of the
thermal load associated, or by means of economic evaluations.
In this last case such plants usually run at their maximum
power for most of the operating time.
To supply a local load, for example in the case of back-up
units, an isochronous control is often used. This allows the
adaptation of the power output to the load demand while keeping a constant frequency value. As is well known, no more
than one single isochronously controlled unit can be connected
to a grid.
If more than one unit is to supply a grid, a droop control is
to be adopted. The turning out frequency depends on the load
value according to the droop characteristic. The power sharing
among the units is now possible on the basis of the droop frequency control principles.
IV. CONTROL OF DG SOURCES INTERFACED WITH INVERTERS
A. Description of devices and standard control systems
For the purposes of this study reference will be made to a
generation system (e.g. micro-turbine or fuel cells) having a
DC stage before the inverter. Moreover it will be assumed that,
if the power demand is within the capability of the device, the
DC voltage is kept constant by the primary generator controls
[9]. Therefore the analysis can be limited to the inverter control itself.
The control scheme of an inverter device can be represented
as shown in Fig. 1
Two cascaded control loops can be identified: the inner one,

the PWM control, concerns the bridge valve pulsing, the outer
one regards the generation of the input signals of the PWM
control based on the chosen control logic, on field measures
and control signals.
Field measures &
control signals

lel to the main grid or as stand-alone devices [7]. At most we

can find a few generators running in parallel on a single plant
and driven by a single control system. Often, the paralleling
and islanding operations of the plant require the system to shut
down and restart in a different configuration.
A flexible solution requires that each generator operates
only on the basis of local measures independently of the actual
configuration of the grid and of the other generators [8].
This is similar to what happens in large power plants where
the frequency droop control allows the plant to run either on
an island or in parallel to other plants or in parallel to the interconnected power system.
The control system proposed is then based on this principle.

Phase
control

PWM
control
Amplitude
control

Power
terminals

Fundamental phase

Pulses

Power
bridge

Fundamental amplitude

Fig. 1. Control scheme of an inverter device.

In several cases the phase and amplitude control loops are

integrated in a single control system having two outputs.
Limiting the analysis to the fundamental frequency supplied
by the inverter, the device can be simply modelled as shown in
Fig. 2. In the diagram on the right of the figure, E represents
the fundamental amplitude generated by the inverter (before
the filters), Zf is the equivalent impedance of the filter and, if
applicable, of the transformer installed within the generating
unit, V is the terminal voltage (after the filters).
+

Filter

Z
f
V

Transformer

DC-side
equivalent
Fig. 2. Inverter interfaced generator: principle scheme and equivalent network at the fundamental frequency.

The PWM control effect can be neglected at this stage,

since it has a faster dynamic behaviour with respect to the external loops and does not affect the possibility of exploiting the
system capacity.
Usually two kinds of control can be adopted to operate an
inverter device, namely:
A so-called PQ control: the inverter is operated to meet a
given real and reactive power set point. Therefore the E
waveform must be synchronized with the grid voltage V and
controlled in amplitude and phase.
A voltage control logic: the inverter is controlled to supply
the load with given values of voltage and frequency. Depending on the load demand at such voltage and frequency,
the inverter real and reactive output will be defined automatically.
The first can be adopted when the inverter has to exchange
real and reactive power with the grid, e.g. in power compensation systems or generation systems that have to supply the grid
itself (grid parallel operation) [10].
The second is suitable for supplying a local load, e.g. in motor drives or isolated systems where the inverter is the sole
power source.
Obviously any attempt to use the PQ control on an isolated
grid would fail due to the absence of a voltage reference and to
the practical impossibility of balancing the load demand exactly. On the other hand, a fixed frequency source (e.g. an inverter following the voltage control) could not be paralleled
with the grid.
Therefore the switching between the parallel and the isolated operation requires a control switching between the two

790
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

3
techniques and a synchronization of the inverter to the network
frequency.
A similar but more complex problem is met when several
inverters are connected in parallel with each other and with the
grid, especially if the inverters are spread on a portion of the
grid, instead of being gathered in a single plant. In this case a
central control system should continuously communicate with
all the machines and with the grid interface switch and should
force one of the inverters to become the voltage reference for
the others in the islanded operation.
B. Proposed control logic
The considerable complexity, the high cost and the high reliability of the supervision system needed to allow the socalled automatic islanding of a portion of the distribution grid
supplied by several DG sources could make this possibility an
unattractive option.
On the other hand, a control philosophy based on local
loops would be preferable, each driving a single inverter without the need for intercommunication with the others and keeping the same structure both when running in parallel with the
mains and when supplying an isolated load.
Based on the usual droop frequency control of synchronous
generators, a control system linking the inverter fundamental
frequency to its power output has been developed.
Therefore the inverter is controlled as a voltage source with
frequency and amplitude defined by local control loops (see
Fig. 3).
The modulating signal for the PWM control is:
(1)
vm=msin[(t)]
The values of the scaling factor m and of the (t) time function are determined according to the rules described below.
f

f
P

2
s

Measures from the inverter terminals

C2

Switch
logic

MAX

Frequency control P
V

C3

m
m

REF

C4

signQ

m
Switch
logic

MAX

Frequency

Amplitude control V
f0
f1
f2

To the inverter PWM control

I signQ

Standard droop
control
Maximum
power
control

P1

C 2 Maximum power
control (e.g. PI cont.)
C 3 Standard control
(e.g. PI control)
C 4 Maximum current
control (e.g. PI cont.)

, m see text. Equation (1)

P
real power at inverter
terminals
PMAX Maximum real power
(prime source limit)
Q

reactive power at
inverter terminals

voltage at the
controlled bus

VREF voltage set point at the

controlled bus
f
frequency of the
modulating wave
f 0 frequency at no load
I
inverter current
I MAX maximum inverter
current

Real power

Fig. 3. Principle block diagram of the inverter control and power frequency
characteristic

1) Frequency control
As shown in Fig. 3, the steady state link between power and
frequency is defined by the droop characteristic (D=(f0-f2)/f0).

When running in parallel with the rest of the system, the

grid itself fixes the frequency. Therefore if the inverter frequency is higher than the grid frequency, its fundamental phase
shift E-V with respect to the terminal voltage increases together with the power output as they are linked by (2).
(2)
P=VE/Xsin(E-V)
As a consequence, the fundamental frequency will be reduced according to the droop characteristic and the inverter
will synchronize to the grid.
On a stand-alone system, the frequency will be defined by
the load; i.e. to power P1 corresponds the frequency f1 in Fig.
3.
If several inverters are connected in parallel to supply an
isolated grid, they will share the load power based on their
droop characteristics in the same way as large power plants
subject to primary frequency regulation do.
More in detail, the frequency control has the measured real
power generation P as input and the frequency f of the fundamental voltage as output (or, rather, its time integral used for
generating the modulating signal of the PWM control, according to (1)).
When reaching the maximum allowable output (that is the
maximum power the prime source can supply), the control
automatically switches to a fixed power control acting on the
phase shift between the fundamental voltage generated by the
inverter and the voltage measured on the grid side of the filters. The system returns to normal control when the frequency
exceeds the value f2 by a given margin.
2) Amplitude control
The amplitude control system acts on the m factor based on
the voltage error V-VREF measured at the inverter terminals
(point T in Fig. 2; other buses can be utilised for the purpose,
however). The choice of the voltage set points of the different
DG plants must be co-ordinated to avoid undesirable reactive
power flows.
When the inverter current I reaches its maximum value IMAX,
the control switches to a current control. The purpose of this is
to maintain a constant current value. Depending on the sign of
the reactive power flow Q, the system returns to the standard
control when the voltage set point VREF is exceeded by a given
margin.
3) Choice of set points
Usually a DG plant planned to run in parallel to the grid
should be controlled at a given power output. With the control
logic described above, the frequency value f0 (frequency at
P=0) together with the characteristic slope D, univocally defines the operation of the plant. Therefore, since grid frequency fluctuations are very small for almost the whole length
of operating time, the choice of f0 fixes the plant power output
and can be used to dispatch the generation.
Similarly the choice of the voltage set points defines the reactive power flows.
Correct management of the distribution grid with dispersed
generators will therefore require a periodical refreshing of the
various set points, based on contractual agreements between
the operators and on regulation obligations. This can be done
locally, based on the demand of the load and of the generation
process, or by a central dispatching system. Anyway there is
no need for an on-line centralized control system and of a con-

791
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

4
tinuous communication between the various machines.
4) Switching from parallel to islanded operation
The switching transient from parallel to islanded operation
can occur without any modification in the inverter control
logic. In fact when the grid trips the inverter will find a new
operating point defined by the overall characteristic of the system (as in the primary frequency regulation in conventional
power systems).
If the connected load is too large to be supplied by the DG
sources, the maximum power control forces the inverter fundamental voltage to slide with respect to the reference, thus
resulting in an under-frequency that can be used as a signal for
shedding the less important loads.
On the other hand, if the inverters reach the maximum current value, due to a high reactive power output, the maximum
current control forces a reduction of the fundamental amplitude and of the reactive power flow. If the total capability is
too low, the system voltage will decrease. This signal also can
be adopted to set a load shedding procedure.
5) Paralleling with the grid
To close the parallel between the survived local grid and the
restored mains, only a paralleling switch located at the point of
interconnection is needed. Due to the absence of inertia in the
inverter systems they will rapidly synchronize the local grid by
automatically adapting the inverter frequency to the grid frequency by means of the droop power frequency control.
V. SIMULATIONS OF SYSTEM OPERATION
The above-described control technique was tested by means
of simulations in several operating conditions. The configurations considered are:
the paralleling and isolating transients of a single inverter,
the paralleling of two inverter fed stand alone systems,
the behaviour of a portion of a LV distribution grid with
inverter devices and rotating machinery.
A. Single inverter operation
The first operating condition tested regards a single inverter
feeding a local load connected in parallel to the main grid as
shown in Fig. 4.
1

Inverter

Eq. Z loads

This action causes a frequency decay and the intervention of

the shedding relay at t=1 s (Fig. 6). After that, the load amount
is within the generator capability and the control returns to the
standard configuration supplying the load at a frequency value
that depends on the droop characteristic.
Power (p.u.)

1.5

Paralleling

Active power

1.0
0.5

Reactive power

0.0
-0.5

Load shedding
Grid trip
1
2

5 time (s) 6

Fig. 5. Real and reactive power supplied by the DG unit

50.5

Frequency (Hz)

49.5
48.5
47.5

5 time (s) 6

Fig. 6. Frequency on the local grid

After the parallel command has been given at t=2 s the parallel switch closes as soon as the paralleling conditions occur
(t=3.6 s). The resynchronization between the inverter and the
grid is rapid and does not cause heavy current transient in the
switch (Fig. 7).
Current (A)

Voltage (V)

1000

Parallel switch voltage

0
-1000

Parallel switch current (rms)

200
100
0

5 time (s)6
Fig. 7. Voltage (instantaneous) and current (rms) on the parallel switch
0

B. Two inverter operation

The ability of the inverter-fed areas to run stably in parallel
with each other without communication was checked on the
sample network shown in Fig. 8.

2
Shedding relay
Grid equivalent

Parallel
switch

Inverter 1

Grid 1

Parallel
switch

Grid 2

Inverter 2

Eq. motor

Fig. 4. Test grid for a single inverter operation

The power amount supplied by the inverter is fixed by the

choice of f0 and of the droop value D, given a grid frequency
of 50 Hz.
The sudden loss of the main supply was simulated by the
opening of the parallel switch at t=0.5 s. In this case the maximum real power the generator can supply is not enough to feed
the local load (Fig. 5). The maximum power control logic acts
trying to limit the power supplied by the inverter by shifting
the fundamental voltage phase with respect to a 50 Hz wave.

M
Eq. Z load 1

Eq. motor 1

M
Eq. Z load 2

Eq. motor 2

Fig. 8. Test grid for the parallel operation of two inverter fed areas

Initially the parallel switch is open; each inverter feeds the

local load at a frequency value (50.33 Hz on grid 1 and
49.83 Hz on grid 2) depending on the choice of f0, D and on
the value of the local load L (f0=1.02 p.u. for inverter 1 and
1.01 p.u. for inverter 2; D=0.02 p.u. for both, L1=L2=55 kW).

792
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

5
After the paralleling command has been given, the parallel
conditions occur at t=1.5 s and the parallel switch closes. The
inverters rapidly synchronize themselves solely on the basis of
local real power measures. The new power sharing (Fig. 10)
still depends on the control parameters as well as the final frequency value (50.07 Hz, Fig. 9).
Frequency (Hz)

50.5
50.3

Frequency 1

50.1
49.9

Frequency 2

49.7
49.5

0.0
1.0
Fig. 9. Frequency on grid 1 and 2

2.0

3.0 time (s)

4.0

Active power (p.u.)

1.0

Inverter 1

0.8

a)

0.6

Inverter 2

0.4
0.2

Reactive power (p.u.)

1.0

Inverter 2

0.8

Main grid

0.6

b)

Inverter 1

0.4
0.2

C. A sample LV network
The last sample configuration considered is constituted by a
simple low voltage grid fed by a 630 kVA transformer, by
three inverter-interfaced dispersed generators (G1 to G3, e.g.
micro turbines) and by a synchronous generator (G4, e.g. a
Diesel unit). A diagram of this scheme is shown in Fig. 13.
The synchronous generator has a fixed power control; i.e. the
mechanical power is kept at a fixed value (180kW). The three
inverters are controlled as described in section IV. A single
droop value (D=0.02) and three different values of f0 (1.02,
1.012 and 1.01 respectively for G1, G2 and G3) are used.
As soon as the main supply fails (t=1.5s), the three inverters
reach the maximum real power output (first G1 and then G2
and G3; Fig. 16). As a consequence of the attempt to keep the
output within the limit, the frequency starts to decay (Fig. 14).
After the tripping of the load shedding relays, the frequency is
recovered and the system stabilises at a frequency defined by
the load and by the power frequency characteristics.
The new paralleling command is given at t=5 s and the paralleling conditions occur at t=7.2 s. The closure of the switch
resynchronizes the generators to the grid. It is worth noting
that the synchronous generator participates in the transient
with its inertia, while keeping the steady state power output
unchanged.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

630 kVA
z sc=6%

time (s)

4.0

In the case of a higher load value, the unit having the highest f0 can reach the maximum power when making the parallel
(see Fig. 11). Therefore it will run at its maximum power while
the second unit will supply the rest of the load as shown qualitatively in Fig. 12.

Active power (p.u.)

1.2

Maximum power

1.0

G2: inverter G3: inverter

100 kW
170 kW
150 kVA
250 kVA

G1: inverter
170 kW
250 kVA

Fig. 10. Real a) and reactive b) power supplied by the DG units

100 kW
50 kvar

Inverter 1

G4: synchr.
180 kW
200 kVA

Eq. motor 1
62.5kVA
running at
50 kW
100 kW
50kW
50 kvar
50 kvar
sheddable

Eq. motor 2
125kVA
running at
100 kW 100kW
50 kvar
sheddable

150 kW 50 kW
50 kvar 50 kvar
sheddable

Fig. 13. Scheme of the LV grid adopted for the simulation

0.8

Inverter 2

Frequency (Hz)

50.5

0.6

50.0
0.4

1.0

0.0

2.0

3.0

time (s)

49.5

4.0

49.0

Fig. 11. Real power supplied by the DG units in case of reached power limit
for unit 1

48.5
48.0

frequency
f

frequency

f
1
f=f
1 2

P1 P2 generation before
paralleling
generation after
P
P
1
2 paralleling

8 time (s) 10

8 time (s) 10

Fig. 14. Frequency on the local grid

1.2

f2

Voltage (p.u.)

1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8

active power

L=P P
1 1 1

active power

P L=P
2 2 2

Fig. 12. Power sharing between two units in case of reached power limit for
unit 1.

Fig. 15. Voltage at G1 terminals

793
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE

6
Power (p.u.)
1.5

[5] G. Celli, F. Pilo, Optimal sectionalizing switches allocation in

distribution networks, IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol 14 n
3 July 1999
[6] S. Barsali, G. Celli, M. Ceraolo, R. Giglioli, P. Pelacchi, F. Pilo,
Operating and planning issues of distribution grids containing diffuse
generation in Proceedings of CIRED 2001, Amsterdam (The
Netherlands), June 18-21, 2001
[7] M. Etezadi-Amoli, K. Chroma, Electrical Performance Characteristics of
a New Micro-Turbine Generator in Proceedings of IEEE-PES Winter
Meeting 2001, Columbus, OH (USA) January 28-February 1, 2001
[8] B. Lasseter, Role of Distributed Generation in Reinforcing the Critical
Electric Power Infrastructure in Proceedings of IEEE-PES Winter
Meeting 2001, Columbus, OH (USA) January 28-February 1, 2001
[9] S. Banetta, M. Ippolito, D. Poli, A. Possenti, A model of cogeneration
plant based on small-size gas turbine in Proceedings of CIRED 2001,
Amsterdam (The Netherlands), June 18-21, 2001
[10] M. Ceraolo: Modelling Static Watt-Var Compensators using ATP, 3rd
International Conference on Power Systems Transients (IPST99),
Budapest (Hungary), June 20-24 1999

Inverter 1

1.0

Active power

0.5
Reactive power

0.0
-0.5
1.5

Inverter 2

1.0

Active power

0.5
Reactive power

0.0
-0.5
1.5

Inverter 3

1.0

Active power

0.5
Reactive power

0.0

VIII. BIOGRAPHIES

-0.5
1.5

Synchronous generator

1.0

Active power

Stefano Barsali (1969): was awarded master and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering by the University of Pisa, Italy, in 1994 and 1998 respectively.
Since 2000 he has been Assistant Professor of Electric Power Systems at the
Electrical Systems and Automation Department at Pisa University.
His major research interests regard dynamic simulation of power systems,
distributed generation, electricity market deregulation and electrical and hybrid vehicles.

Reactive power

0.5
0.0
-0.5

4
Load shedding

Islanding

8 time (s) 10
New paralleling

Fig. 16. Real and reactive power supplied by the four DG units (three inverter
interfaced unit and one synchronous generator)

VI. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed control logic for inverter interfaced dispersed
generators proves to be effective in easing the islanding and
paralleling procedures of portions of the distribution grid with
embedded generation. The ability to operate without any
online signal communication between the machines for synchronization makes the system cost-effective. An offline local
control system makes it possible to optimise power-sharing
between the units and the reactive power flows.
This can be effectively exploited in the event of main supply
failures to feed, at least partially, the load, thus enhancing supply continuity.
The technical principle that has been illustrated must be coordinated with the distribution grid operation as well as with
the standards of substations and power switches management.
In particular, the generator operators have to co-ordinate with
the distribution grid operator regarding the control of the parallel switches and the real and reactive power exchange.

Massimo Ceraolo (1960): was awarded a degree in Electrical engineering at

the University of Pisa in 1985. From 1992 to 2000 he was a researcher, then
an Associate professor of the University of Pisa.
His major fields of interest are: Active and Reactive compensation of
Power Systems, Long-distance Transmission systems, Computer Simulations
in Power Systems, Storage Batteries, electric and hybrid vehicles
Paolo Pelacchi (1951): was awarded his electrical engineering degree by Pisa
University, Italy, in 1976. In 1979 he joined the Electrical Research Center of
ENEL.
Since 1983 he has worked in the Department of Electrical Systems and
Automation at Pisa University first as a researcher, then, from 1992, as an
associate professor and lastly, since 2000, he has been full professor of electric power systems.
His recent research interests regard electricity market liberalisation processes with particular attention to the Italian situation.
Davide Poli (1972): received his electrical engineering degree from Pisa
University, Italy, in 1997. He is now a Ph.D. student at the Electrical Systems
and Automation Department at Pisa University.
His research interests regard generation, transmission and distribution
problems related to market liberalisation processes.

VII. REFERENCES
[1] N. Hadjsaid, J.F. Canard, F. Dumas, Dispersed generation impact on
distribution networks, IEEE Computer Applications in Power, vol 12,
n 2, April 1999
[2] R. C. Dugan, T. F. McDermott, G. J. Ball, Planning for Distributed
Generation, IEEE Industry Application Magazine, March-April 2001.
[3] T. Moore, Emerging Markets for Distributed Resources, EPRI
JOURNAL March-April 1998
[4] S. Barsali, M. Ceraolo, R. Giglioli, P. Pelacchi, Microturbines for
dispersed generation in Proceedings of CIRED 1999, Nice (France),
June 1-4, 1999

794
0-7803-7322-7/02/$17.00 (c) 2002 IEEE