1

The Benefits and Challenges of the Integrated

Volt/Var Optimization in the Smart Grid
Environment
Nokhum Markushevich, Member, IEEE1

Abstract This paper discusses new opportunities and

challenges of Integrated Voltage and Var Optimization (IVVO)
associated with the emerging high penetration of Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Distributed Energy Resources
(DER), Demand Response (DR) and Plug-In Electric Vehicles
(PEV) in power distribution systems. The paper addresses the
impact of the IVVO application on the operation of other power
system domains, the possible objectives and benefits of IVVO, and
the specifics of the constraints, controllable variables, and
information sources for the IVVO, all based on a holistic approach.
Index TermsActive Distribution Network, DMS, Dynamic
Optimization of Power System Operations, Smart Grid, Volt/Var
Optimization.

voltages due to the var control depends on the upstream

impedances and is distributed differently along the feeder.
The changes of the power flow and losses are also of a
different nature due to the direct injection of the reactive
power in the circuits. The changes due to the impacts of var
control alter the operations in distribution and may require
adjustment of the voltage control by LTC and voltage
regulators. The overlaps of the voltage and var control impacts
on distribution operations require coordination of the controls
of voltages with the controls of vars.
ES

DR

DER
Watt
Var

PEV

5
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Integrated Voltage and Var Optimization in the Active

Distribution Networks (ADN) is a multifaceted function,
which, in addition to the distribution operations domain,
impacts the operations of the customer, transmission, and
generation domains. Figure 1 illustrates the impacts of
Volt/Var controls on the different domains, including the
emerging active components of the ADN.
As seen in the figure, the control of voltages by the
transformers with the under-load tap changers (LTC) and
voltage regulators, firstly, changes the voltage in the primary
distribution and in the secondaries down to the customer
appliances. This, in turn, impacts the voltage quality and the
real and reactive demands at the customer sides. Typically,
the reactive load is more sensitive to the voltage than real
load, and, therefore, the power factor on the customer side is
also changed. These changes impact the power flow in
distribution, the power losses, and, consequently, the customer
electricity bills.
The var control by changing the states of feeder capacitors
or other reactive power sources impacts the same components
of distribution operations in a different manner. The change of

N. Markushevich is with Smart Grid Operations Consulting (UCI associated),

929 East El Camino Real, Suite 228J, Sunnyvale, CA 94087,(e-mail:
n.markushevich@smartgridoperations.com;

978-1-4577-1002-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

Control
of LTC

Control
of vars

Volts
(PQ)

Watts &
vars

Power
Factor

Power
Flow

Losses

Change
of Bills

Transmission bus load and voltage

Power
Flow

Dispatcha
ble load

Losses

Voltage

Power
Factor

Congest
ion

LMP

3
P-Q-V
Capacity

P &Q Redispatch

Operating
Reserve

Energy
Cost

Figure 1. Impacts of Volt/Var control on operations of different power system

domains. 1 impacts of vars; 2 adjustment of voltage control due to impacts
of vars; 3 impact of changes in distribution and transmission domains on the
operations of the generation domain; 4 impact of new active grid
components on the distribution operations domain; 5 adjustment of voltage
control due to the impact if new technology.

All the changes in the distribution domain caused by

voltage and var controls result in changes of the actual and
dispatchable real and reactive loads at the demarcation buses
between distribution and transmission. This, in turn, changes
the power flow, voltages, losses, and power factors in
transmission, which, subsequently, may impact the congestion
management and finally the Locational Marginal Prices
(LMP).
The changes in the real and reactive power balances in the
bulk power system impacts the operations of the generation
domain. The changes in reactive demand may change the
reactive power requirements from the generators, which in
some cases may impact the available real power capacity in
accordance with the generator capability curves. Based on the

2
changed demand of real power and change of available
capacity, the generation can be re-dicpatched, impacting the
operating reserves and, finally, the cost of supply and
ancillary services. This, again, impacts the LMP. In the end,
the change of LMPs would impact the customer electricity
bills.
The high penetration of Distributed Energy Resources,
including Energy Storage (ES), Demand Response, and plugin electric vehicles, will significantly change the operating
conditions of the power systems. On one hand, the operations
of these technologies will impact the volt/var situation in the
system and should be taken into account by the IVVO
function, and on the other hand, these devices could be
integrated in the Volt/Var optimization as controllable
variables and provide significant added benefits.
The presence of multiple active components and the many
impacting factors associated with IVVO suggest that the
IVVO may follow several operational objectives and is also
constrained by a number of limits imposed on the possible
impacts.
II. OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF IVVO
The main objective of IVVO is providing the voltage quality
at the customer service terminals in accordance with the
effective power quality standards. In addition, the following
objective can be followed by the IVVO depending on the
utilitys conditions:
a)

Reduce load (kW) at given time by a given value. This

objective is commonly called Peak Load Reduction.
However, under the current market condition, there may
be different purposes for load reduction, as follows:
Reduction of required generation due to shortage in
generation capacity to cover the demand, the required
operating reserves, and the ancillary services. Such
shortage can happen at any time, although it is most likely
to happen at peak-load times. To follow this objective, the
total of demand and losses in both distribution and
transmission systems should be reduced.
Reduction of an overload of a distribution circuit element.
This means reduction of the current through the element. It
must be noted that voltage reduction resulting in load
reduction does not always results in reduction of the
current [1]. The kW and kvar reductions lead to current
reduction, while the voltage reduction by itself leads to the
current increase. The resultant change in current depends
on the relationships between these two impacts, which are
defined by the Conservation Voltage Reduction factors
(CVRf) for Watts, vars, and by the power factor of the
current trough the subject element. Figure 2 and Figure 3
illustrate the current dependency on voltage under two
combinations of these parameters. As seen in the figures, in
the first case the current increases with the reduction of
voltage, and it the second case, the current reduces. It is
also seen in the figures that the sensitivity of the current to
the voltage is not the same under different voltage levels.
The role of var control under this objective is also
different from the role it takes for generation reduction.
The injection of the reactive power by a var source may

have a greater impact on the unloading than the increase of

load due to the increase of voltage caused by the additional
injection of vars. The voltage and var control for the
unloading of a distribution element is location specific.
1.06

1.05
-0.1
1.04

1.03

Amps. p.u.

1.01

-0.3

%Amp-to-%Volt ratio

-0.2
1.02

-0.4
0.99

0.98
-0.5
0.97

0.96

-0.6
0.85

0.9

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Voltage, p.u.
Amps

%Amp/%Volt

Figure 2. Current dependency on voltage; Power factor = 0.95; %Watt/%Volt

= 0.6; %var/%Volt = 3.

Reduction of an overload of a transmission element

(reduction of congestion). If it is about respecting the
thermal limit of a transmission line, the current should be
reduced. If it concerns a stability limit, it is typically about
MW or MVA reduction.
In the first case, the load
reduction in distribution results in approximately
proportional reduction of the current. The proportion is
defined by the power flow distribution factors. Therefore,
the allocation of the load reduction among different
distribution substations is dependent on the location of the
congested line and its specific distribution factors of the
load to be reduced.
b) Conserve energy (kWh). This objective like the Load
Reduction objective is also based on the loaddependencies on voltage. The difference is in the duration
of the load reduction, which under long-term application
becomes energy reduction, and in the values of CVRf.
Typically, when the voltage reduction is applied for a
long duration, the CVRf are smaller than for short-term
load reduction due to load adjustment to the lower
voltages. The first adjustment may happen in the range of
hours, depending on the nature of the operating
appliances.
While lower voltages (within reasonable limits) in most
cases result in lower consumption, they also result in
reduction of the useful output of many devices. In the
cases of undersized appliances the user may later adjust to
the permanently lower voltage by replacing the underperforming appliances by more powerful ones. It is
difficult to predict now the effect of this adjustment,
which may be a positive factor, if the new appliances are
more energy-efficient. However, when applying the
long-term energy conservation objective, one should be
aware that despite the overall energy conservation, there
may be customers experiencing significant disadvantages.

1.03

0.35

1.02

0.3

1.01

0.25

0.2

0.99

0.15

0.98

0.1

0.97

0.05

0.96

%Amp-to-%Volt ratio

Amps. p.u.

3
voltage reduction leads to loss increase, and a case, when
it leads to loss reduction respectively. As also seen in the
figures, the sensitivities of losses expressed in percentage
of the real load are different from the sensitivity of the
losses expressed in kW. The percentage loss may show
reduction, while the absolute losses increased.
1.06

1.05
-0.1
1.04

1.03

0.95

1.05

1.1

Voltage, p.u.
Amps

1.02

1.15

%Amp/%Volt

Figure 3. Current dependency on voltage; Power factor = 0.95; %Watt/%Volt

= 1.0; %var/%Volt = 4

Amps. p.u.

0.9

1.01

-0.3

%Amp-to-%Volt ratio

-0.2
0.85

-0.4
0.99

c)

0.98
-0.5
0.97

0.96

-0.6
0.85

0.9

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Voltage, p.u.
Amps

%Amp/%Volt

Figure 4. Load loss dependency on voltage; Power factor = 0.95;

%Watt/%Volt = 0.6; %var/%Volt = 3

e) Reduce currents for feeder paralleling. When there is a

1.03

0.35

1.02

0.3

1.01

0.25

0.2

0.99

0.15

0.98

0.1

0.97

0.05

0.96

%Amp-to-%Volt ratio

need in feeder paralleling, the sum of the circulating and

load currents through the loop of the interconnected
feeders should not exceed the ampacity of the involved
circuits and the settings of the relay protection.

Amps. p.u.

Provide reactive power and voltage support for

transmission/distribution bus. In some cases, the utilities
set an objective for var control to keep the power factor =
1 at all feeder heads or at the substation bus all the time or
most of the time. The losses cannot be considered
separate from the demand and consumption. The
generation reduction and energy conservation is based on
the reduction of the sum of demand/consumption and
losses.
Additional generation of reactive power in distribution
circuits results in voltage increase, unless the increase of
voltage is compensated by other voltage-controlling
means. The increase of voltage leads to an increase of
demand/consumptions and reactive load, and to a reduced
power factor at the customer side. If this increase of
demand/consumption exceeds the reduction of losses,
there will be an increase in the generation instead of
conservation [3-4]. Therefore, when the voltage at a
common bus is reduced to the lowest possible level, and
there are capacitors in the ON status or DER with var
capabilities, the var injection should be reduced, if there
still is room for localized voltage reduction and the load
reduction exceeds the increase of losses. So, the objective
of keeping the power factor =1 may conflict with the load
reduction and energy conservation objectives.
There may be another reason for increased power
factor at the T/D substation buses, namely, voltage and
var support of transmission operations. The benefit of this
objective may overweight the energy conservation
objectives, especially, if it is reliability related.
Another possible reason for this objective is the
necessity of releasing real power capacity by reducing the
reactive power generation.
d) Reduce energy losses in D & T. Practically, any changes
in distribution operations with the objective of loss
reduction are associated with the changes of voltages and
thus with changes of the load. If the loss reduction is
motivated by the energy conservation, these two
components of energy should be analyzed together.
While voltage reduction results in reduction of noload losses, it does not always results in reduction of load
losses. Figure 4 and Figure 5 illustrate a case, when

0
0.85

0.9

0.95

1.05

1.1

1.15

Voltage, p.u.
Amps

%Amp/%Volt

Figure 5. Load loss dependency on voltage; Power factor = 0.95;

%Watt/%Volt = 1.0; %var/%Volt = 4.

The circulating current depends on the difference between

the phase angles and on the difference between the voltage
magnitudes of the adjacent T/D buses. It also depends on
the real and reactive loads along the paralleled feeders and
on the power injections by the capacitors and DERs. In
some cases, the voltages and the vars, and maybe even the
kW of the DERs, can be manipulated to reduce the current
through the limiting feeder section (s) [4].
Depending on the utility conditions, there may be a need to
switch from one objective to another or to a combination of
compatible objectives in near-real-time.

4
III. CONSTRAINTS OF IVVO
The main objective of IVVO is providing standard voltages
at the customer service terminals. This does not mean that
IVVO can search for the optimum solutions within the
standard voltage limits. There is always an uncertainty in the
execution of the optimal solution. This uncertainty is caused
by the bandwidths of the voltage- and var- controlling
devices, by the inaccuracy of voltage measurements and
models used for the optimization, by the unknown voltage
imbalances in different points, etc. Due to these random
factors, the tolerances for voltage optimization should be
reduced in comparison with the standard tolerances, especially
for the load reduction and energy conservation objectives.
Reduced tolerances for voltage optimization reduce the IVVO
benefits.
Also, there may be highly sensitive end-users which need
narrower than standard voltage tolerances at their service
terminals at all times, or at specific times. Hence, the voltage
tolerances limiting the Volt/Var optimization may be different
at different service terminals and at different times.
Although the optimization tolerances for all load nodes are
represented in the IVVO model, only few of them are limiting
the optimization. These are the nodes, where the actual
voltages are the closest to the limits. If the optimization limits
are different in different nodes, the critical voltages are not
necessarily the lowest or the highest voltages.
There is a notion that the lowest voltage is always in the
end of the feeder. In many situations this is not the case, even
for the primary voltages, which are often used as indicators of
voltage quality. In general, the voltages in the primary
distribution are not indicative of the voltage quality at the
service terminals due to different loading and impedances of
the distribution transformers and different characteristics of
the secondaries between the distribution transformers and the
service terminals. If there is a high-impedance, heavily-loaded
distribution transformer at the beginning of the feeder, the
voltage at its secondary bus may be much lower than the
voltage at the bus of a transformer at the end of the feeder. If
there is a high-impedance secondary circuit between the
distribution transformer bus and the customer terminals, this
may be the critical point in the feeder.
Because different nodal load shapes at different nodes
impact the voltage drops differently at different times in both
primaries and secondaries, the voltage critical points move
along the feeder during the day, week, and season.
There is another notion that flattening the voltage profile
along the primary distribution feeder provides better benefits
from conservation IVVO. However, flattening the primary
voltage profiles does not guarantee flat profiles of the voltages
at the service terminals in the secondaries due to the different
locations of the critical secondary nodes and their dynamics.
Presently, the voltage limits at the customer terminal sites
are not observable by the utility operation personnel.
Therefore, the utility sets limits at the observable buses,
mostly at the distribution buses of the T/D substations
monitored by SCADA. Typically, these limits are defined by
the peak load conditions and are kept the same for all other
times over a long duration. However,
the optimal bus

voltages change when the voltage drops along the circuits

change in the primary and secondary distribution circuits, and
when devices operate which impact the voltages in
distribution. In many cases, the optimal bus voltages cannot be
achieved because of the bus voltage limits; this shortcoming
may significantly reduce the benefits of IVVO.
The limits on the loading of distribution elements set
significant limits on distribution operations. In some cases,
observing these limits conflicts with the IVVO objectives,
depending on the how the current varies with voltage.
Sometimes, achieving the optimal solution may require a
large change of the voltage in a short time interval. Such a rate
of change may be unacceptable by some customers. In this
case, a limit on the rate of voltage change should be imposed
on the execution of the IVVO solution.
There are a number of constraints on the ranges of
operations of the controllable devices. They include such
constraints as the ranges and number of LTC operations, the
capability curves of DER , the availability of DR, the number
of capacitor switching operations and the time intervals
between them.
Because the operations of the active distribution networks
may significantly impact transmission operations, there may
be constraints imposed on these impacts. The possible
constraints of IVVO from the transmission side include the
loading limits of selected transmission elements, voltage limits
at some target transmission buses, reactive power limits of
selected reactive power sources, and aggregated limits of the
area operating reserve.
IV. CONTROLLABLE VARIABLES
The dominant voltage controlling devices in the distribution
system are the substation transformers with LTC, and voltage
regulators. These devices are controlled by voltage controllers
following raise and lower voltage setpoints, with or without
line-drop compensation (LDC). The difference between the
raise and lower setpoints is the controllers bandwidth.
The size of the bandwidth is selected to avoid hunting and
an excessive number of LTC operations. The greater the
bandwidth, the greater the uncertainty in the execution of the
IVVO solutions and the smaller the benefits. The uncertainty
caused by the bandwidth is combined with other uncertainties,
e.g., the uncertainties of the IVVO model. Assuming these
uncertainties are not correlated, the total uncertainty can be
defined as follows:
tot = (2bw + 2mod),

(1)

where
bw uncertainty caused by the voltage controller
bandwidth,
mod - uncertainty caused by the model inaccuracy
Figure 6 illustrates the percent loss of benefits due to the
uncertainty of the controller bandwidth added to an
uncertainty of 0.5% introduced by the inaccuracy of the
model. The figure shows the benefits dependences on the
available optimization tolerance without the bandwidth

5
uncertainty. As seen in the figure, when the potential room for
optimization is small and the bandwidth is large, there may
not be any benefits at all (100% loss of benefits). Hence, the
size of the controllers bandwidth has a significant impact on
the IVVO benefits, and this factor should be compared with
other reasons for its selection.
The IVVO function issues optimal setpoints to the voltage
controller for the look-ahead interval. During this interval, the
controller continues to control voltage following the last
received setpoints until new setpoints arrive. IVVO should
also issue signals to the controllers about its normal
performance (heartbeats). If the signal is not received by the
controller within a given time interval, the controller should
automatically switch to default settings until the signal is
restored. The controller, in turn, replies to IVVO about
receiving the signal, confirming its availability for the remote
control [5]. This procedure is necessary to avoid being stuck
with setpoints issued for past conditions and which are
unacceptable under new conditions in the case of a lost control
signal.
Other significant volt/var controlling devices in distribution
are feeder and station capacitors. The IVVO algorithm
provides coordinated control of the capacitors and other
voltage controlling devices. Sometimes the group of
commands
120%

100%

operations due to capacitor switching can be reduced by

increasing the voltage controller bandwidth. The number of
LTC operations per capacitor switching operation can be
calculated as a function of the sizes of the bandwidth, the
voltage change caused by the capacitor, and the LTC step
using the following formulas:
Number of LTC Operations= Vcap/ Vbw,
(3)
if Vcap < Vstep
Number of LTC Operations= (2Vcap-Vstep)/ Vbw,
(4)
if Vcap > Vstep ,
where
Vcap voltage change caused by the capacitor operation,
Vstep size of the LTC step.
Figure 7 illustrates the probable number of LTC step
changes per capacitor switching operation for different sizes
of the LTC controller bandwidth and voltage change due to
capacitor, for LTC steps of 0.625%.
As seen in the figure, under some conditions there may be
more than two step changes for one capacitor operation. The
cost of these operations should be considered in the evaluation
of alternative IVVO solutions.
The tradeoff between the cost of additional LTC operations
and the lost benefits due to the increased bandwidth, as well as
the cost of reducing the sizes of individual capacitors should
be considered when designing the IVVO application.

80%

Loss of benefits, %

2.5

60%
2

20%

0%

0.5

1.5

2.5

Number of LTC operations

40%

1.5

Potential
tolerance, %
LTC bandwidth, % 1

LTC bandwidth, % 1.5

LTC bandwidth, % 2

LTC bandwidth, % 3

Figure 6. Dependency of lost IVVO benefits on the size of the voltage

controller bandwidth and available optimization tolerance (the model error
assumed to be 0.5%).

0.5

0
1

issued by IVVO to the LTC controllers and to the capacitors

can be executed at the same time, and sometimes they should
be executed in a particular sequence to avoid limit violations
during the intermediate steps of execution of the IVVO
solution.
Another coordination of the operations of capacitors and
LTC controllers should be considered when the change of
voltage caused by the switching operation of a capacitor is
comparable with the bandwidth of the LTC controller. This
situation is most typical for large capacitors, e.g., station
capacitors. When such a capacitor changes its status and the
voltage changes beyond the controller bandwidth, the LTC
will change its position by one or more steps to return the
voltage in accord with the existing setpoints. Such events
increase the number of LTC operations. The number of LTC

1.5

2.5

LTC bandwith, %
Voltage change = 0.5%

Voltage change = 1.0%

Voltage change = 1.5%

Figure 7. Dependency of the number of LTC operations due to the change of

capacitor status on the size of the bandwidth.

Active Distribution Networks will include new controllable

devices, such as DER with the capability of reactive power
control, some DER with availability of real power control, and
DR [6].
The operations of the new active components of the ADN
may strongly impact the voltages in the distribution network
and the behavior of the volt/var controlling devices.
The following are the main concerns [7]:
Voltage fluctuations caused by intermittent operations
of DER

Adverse operations of voltage regulators switched to

reverse operations due to DER
Overvoltage due to power injection by DER
The intermittent changes of kW can be significant and
frequent. The kW changes of a significant DER, or a group of
DERs, change the power flow and the voltage drop in the
upstream circuits, thus changing the voltages at many points
in the distribution circuits. The dominant change in the
voltage drop due to a change of DER kW is proportional to
the upstream resistance. This change can be offset by an
opposite change in the reactive power of the same DER, other
DERs, or other fast sources of reactive power. The change in
the voltage drop caused by the change of vars is proportional
to the reactance of the upstream circuits. Therefore, the
degree of compensation of the voltage fluctuation by changing
the reactive power is different in different locations of the
distribution circuits, depending on the X/R ratio of different
portions of the upstream circuits.
The change of the vars needed to compensate the change of
the voltage due to the change of Watts can be assessed as
follows:
var -Watt x R/X, (5)
where R and X are the total resistance and reactance between
the source of power and the point of constant voltage.
As follows from the formula, the amount of compensating
vars needed may be significantly different for normal and
abnormal connectivity of the distribution circuits and for
overhead and underground circuits.
The compensating vars should be injected or absorbed,
practically concurrently with the Watt fluctuations. This
suggests the use of a fast local controls of voltages at given
monitoring points. Other possible modes of var control by
DER are the following: constant var control with or without
voltage override; maximum var control in accord with the
capability curve; or constant power factor control with or
without voltage override.
Under intermittent conditions, the constant var control
mode does not provide the needed adjustment for
compensation of the Watt-caused fluctuations. The constant
power factor mode acts against the needed compensation,
when the DER generates reactive power, although when the
DER absorbs the reactive power, it changes the intake of
reactive power in a direction consistent with the need of
compensation, however it may be not the correct amount.
Also, with multiple DERs located in different places of the
circuits, the voltage fluctuations at any place in the circuit is a
combination of the impacts of all fluctuating DERs, SVCs,
capacitors, reactors, etc. Therefore, the different compensating
devices should be controlled in a coordinated manner.
To avoid the adverse impact of DER operations on other
voltage/var controlling devices, the setup of these devices and
the modes of volt/var control of DER could be different for
steady-state operations and for intermittent operations. The
adjustment of the modes of operation and the setting of the
controllable devices is one of the IVVO functionalities. For
instance, to reduce the sensitivity of the LTC controllers to the
fluctuations of power and voltages under intermittent DER

operations, the LDC could be disabled and the bandwidth and

time delays could be increased.
A similar approach, consisting of adjusting the settings of
controllable devices by IVVO concurrently with the changing
conditions is possible to avoid excessive voltages due to a
significant injection of power by DERs located behind a large
impedance and to avoid unacceptable voltages caused by
voltage regulators in the inverse mode of operations.
It is expected that certain control of DERs by the
applications of the Distribution Management Systems (DMS)
will be available in the ADN. For instance, the utility-owned
DER can be under direct status and set point control from the
IVVO applications. The customer-owned DER can be
controlled via price signals or other mutually agreed triggers
within contractual constraints. The gateways to the customerowned DER can be individual DER or micro-grid controllers
at the points of common coupling, or customer EMS, or AMI
meters.
While the ability to control the real power of a customer
DER for the purpose of IVVO may be limited, control of the
reactive power may be more available [8-10]. In addition, if
this source of controllable reactive power is included in the
dynamic IVVO, it may increase the voltage tolerance for the
overall optimization of voltage and provide a local means for
voltage adjustment [6, 11].
Other possible controllable variables integrated into IVVO
are the means of Demand Response [6, 12]. If, under the
objective of load reduction, the control of voltages and vars
exhausted its tolerances and did not provide sufficient load
reduction, the tolerances could be expanded by reducing the
loads at the voltage-critical points enabling the demand
response, if available.
The IVVO model should contain sufficient information to
determine the amount of demand response needed to obtain a
given added tolerance at the critical points. The needed
reduction of the real power can be assessed by the following
formula:
kW = Volt/(Resistance +Reactance x tan()),

(6)

Where
Volt needed added tolerance, V
tan() tangent of the phase angle of the load reduced by
DR.
Figure 8 illustrates the sequence of control with the
integration of DR into IVVO: 1 IVVO issues the setpoints
and statuses to the LTC, voltage regulators and capacitor
controllers to utilize the available room for load reduction; 2
if the load needs to be reduced more, IVVO issues triggers
enabling DRs at the critical points; 3 the execution of DR is
reported by the customer interfaces; 4 the Distribution
Operation Model updates the IVVO model; and 5 IVVO
issues additional commands to the LTC, voltage regulators,
and capacitor controllers to utilize the additional optimization
tolerances created by DR. Such a method of integration of
IVVO with DR requires minimal demand response and may
provide significant added benefits of IVVO.

7
Setpoints 1, 5

LTC/VR
Setpoints/Statuses 1, 5

IVVO

Updates

Capacitors
DER/SVC

4
DR Triggers 2

Load Modeling Processor;

Near-real-time Distribution
Operation
Models

DR
3
DR execution

AMI
Critical points

Figure 8. Sequence of actions integrating Demand Response in IVVO

V. INFORMATION SOURCES FOR IVVO

The information support needed for IVVO to be capable of
meeting all of the objectives and constraints discussed above
include the following sources of information:
SCADA - for measurements of reference voltages,
loading at the feeder heads, and measurements from
IEDs installed along the feeders. Measurements from
three phases are preferred. The errors of these
measurements contribute to the uncertainty of the
optimization tolerances.
GIS database - for nominal topology, facility parameters,
and associations between the distribution transformers
and customers. Currently, the GIS databases do not
contain many attributes of the facilities involved in the
models to be used by IVVO. The data objects and
attributes that could be added to many GIS databases
and used by the IVVO models include T/D substation
nominal topology, and substation equipment and their
attributes; the secondary circuits electric parameters,
the distribution transformer impedances, load and noload losses and their dependencies on voltage, exciting
current, and nominal tap position; and the nominal
modes of operation and the settings of local volt/var
controllers. The GIS databases should be updated in a
timely manner and should undergo comprehensive
consistency checks of their contents.
AMI Data Management System containing a massive
amount of measurements collected from AMI meters,
and relevant customer attributes. The AMI Data
Management Systems may include or be associated
with a Load Management/Demand Response System, a
Load modeling processor, a DER Management System,
and a Secondary Equivalent Processor [11, 13, 14].
Some designs of centralized voltage control rely
predominantly on the measurements from selected
AMI meters in near-real-time. This approach can serve
the purpose of voltage control when there are a limited
number of voltage-controlling devices with known
impacts on the target voltages.
For the variety of voltage impacting devices in the
ADN, different objectives and constraints, IVVO
should search for the optimal solutions from a large
number of look-ahead what-if scenarios. These

scenarios should be simulated based on a

comprehensive model of distribution operations. The
measurements from the Smart Meters do not provide
sufficient information for the what if studies.
However, the data collected from the Smart Meters
over a period of time, including the measurements of
kW and kvar profiles, along with the voltages, is a rich
source of information for the development of adequate
behavioral load models and the secondary equivalents
needed for a comprehensive IVVO [13].
The AMI bellwether meters can be efficiently used
for the validation of the models used by IVVO.
The models of nodal loads in distribution and of
secondary circuit equivalents are critical components
for the purpose of IVVO. The notion of typical loads
may not be applicable under the conditions of the
ADN. Price-dependent load, Demand Response, DER
embedded in customer loads, and the PEV will make
the behavior of the loads strongly dependent on
changing external conditions and therefore should be
represented as behavioral models dependent on these
conditions.
The Load Model Processor is supposed to develop
and update such models based on the association of
AMI-provided data with the applicable external
signals.
The critical attributes of the load models are the real
and reactive load-to-voltage dependencies. The
inclusion of DER in the customer loads will
significantly alter these dependencies and increase their
differences at different times and under different
conditions.
Most likely, the load models will be aggregated at
the equivalent secondary nodes of each distribution
transformer. One of the attributes of the load model
will be the optimization tolerance for the particular
node, which will be dependent on such factors as the
controller bandwidths and model accuracy, local
random fluctuations, and voltage imbalances. The latter
attributes can be determined based on the historic data
collected via AMI. This also implies that the
optimization tolerances may be different for different
nodes in distribution, regardless of the same standard
tolerance.
Another source of information for the IVVO is the
Energy Management System of the area power system
for the provision of information exchange regarding
transmission and generation operations.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
1. The implementation of AMI and the high penetration of
Distributed Energy Resources and Demand Response in
distribution systems will increase the impacts of distribution
system operations on the operations of the customer,
distribution, transmission and generation domains. This will
present opportunities for significant additional benefits of the

8
Integrated Voltage and Var Optimization functions and
impose additional constraints on its operations.
2. The variety of the new active elements in distribution and
customer domains will present significant challenges for the
coordinated and optimal control of volt/var related devices in
the near-real-time.
3. The near-real-time measurements obtainable from AMI
meters can be directly used for calculating required voltages at
selected service terminals to be executed by controlling
devices with known impacts on these voltages.
This
information in itself is insufficient for a comprehensive IVVO
which should take into account all impacts of the different
active elements and their interrelationships.
4. In order to comprehensively optimize the voltages and vars
in a holistic manner, the IVVO should be based on adaptive
models adequately representing the impacts of these devices
on the operation of the power system. The models of the
behavior of the customer loads should represent the
dependencies of the loads on the customer choices and on the
external conditions that impact these models.
5. The AMI-provided data combined with the relevant data
from external systems is the major source of information for
the development and update of the behavioral models. The
development and updates of such models could be performed
within the AMI Data Management Systems or in special
processors associated with AMI.
6. The voltage tolerances for IVVO should be different from
the standard voltage tolerances by the amount of uncertainty
of the models, control execution, voltage imbalances, and
random fluctuations of voltages at the service terminals.
7. The location of the critical voltage tolerances limiting the
IVVO can be at any point along the distribution feeder and
can change in time.
8. In addition to the traditional volt/var controlling devices,
the controllable variables of IVVO in the Active Distribution
Networks can include reactive and real power of DER,
Electric Storage and Demand Response.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Mr. Martin Delson for his
comments on this paper.
VII. REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

The Specifics of Coordinated Real-Time Voltage and Var Control in

Distribution, Nokhum S. Markushevich, presented at the Distributech
2002 Conference
Understanding Coordinated Voltage and Var Control in Distribution
Systems: Is Power Factor = 1 Always a Good Thing?, Nokhum
Markushevich,
Energy
Pulse,
2007.
Avalable:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=155
3
IntelliGrid Architecture Development for Distribution Systems.
Requirements and Device Information Models for Integrated Advanced
Distribution Automation Applications, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2008,
1013843
Analysis of Three-Phase Parallel Distribution Feeders Fed from
Different Substations, Alex Berman, and Nokhum Markushevich, 2010
IEEE PES conference, New Orleans, April, 2010

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]

Distribution Automation Pilot Projects at JEA and OG&E. New Ideas

for Remote Voltage and Var Control, Charles J. Jensen, James C.
Clemmer Nokhum S. Markushevich, DA/DSM Distributech Conference,
January 1999
Distribution Automation and Demand Response, N. Markushevich and
A. Berman, DistribuTech2008, Tampa, Fl, January, 2008; North
American Policies and Technologies, Electricity, Transmission &
Distribution, 2008, Volume 20, No. 8 ; 2009, Volume 21, No. 1
http://www.electricity-today.com/download/issue8_2008.pdf;
http://www.electricity-today.com/download/issue1_2009.pdf
P1547.2TM-2008: IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Std 1547, IEEE
Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric Power
Systems
J. Kueck, B. Kirby, T. Rizy, F. Li, and N. Fall, Reactive power from
distributed energy, The Electricity Journal, December 2006, Vol. 19,
Issue 10
C. Tufon, A. Isemonger, B. Kirby, J. Kueck, and F. Li, A tariff for
reactive power, presented at IEEE PES meeting, 2009, PSCE2009000030
H. Li, F. Li, Y. Xu, D. T. Rizy, J. D. Kueck, Interaction of multiple
distributed energy resources in voltage regulation, Presented at
Power and Energy Society General Meeting - Conversion and Delivery
of Electrical Energy in the 21st Century, 2008 IEEE
Volume , Issue , 20-24 July 2008
Development of Data and Information Exchange Model for Distributed
Energy Resources, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020832. Avalable:
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt?space=CommunityPage&cached=tru
e&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=2&control=SetCommunity&Commu
nityID=404&RaiseDocID=000000000001020832&RaiseDocType=Abst
ract_id
Integrated Voltage, Var Control and Demand Response in Distribution
Systems, Nokhum Markushevich and Edward Chan, IEEE, March 2009,
Seattle
Benefits of Utilizing Advanced Metering Provided Information Support
and Control Capabilities in Distribution Automation Applications, EPRI
Product ID 1018984, Technical Update,: December 2009
Distribution Grid Management (Advanced Distribution Automation)
Functions. Use Case Description, SGIP DEWG, PAP8, 5/2010.
Avalable:
http://collaborate.nist.gov/twikisggrid/bin/view/SmartGrid/PAP08DistrObjMultispeak .

Dr. Nokhum S. Markushevich has more than 45

years of experience in power system operations,
research, and education. He worked for the Latvian
Power System for 29 years and was an Associate
Professor in the Latvian Institute of Advanced
Education. He has lived in the U.S. since 1990 and
has provided consulting services to utilities in North
America and South East Asia. He was a Domain
Leader and Principal Investigators in a number of
EPRI-sponsored Intelligrid and Smart Grid projects,
as well as in Smart Grid studies for utilities. He is
an active member of the Smart Grid Interoperability Panel Domain Expert
Working Group (SGIP DEWG). At present, he is President of Smart Grid
Operation Consulting (Sunnyvale, California). He has authored several books
and more than 100 papers, and inventions on power system operations, Smart
Grid, EMS, and DMS. He is a recipient of the Appreciation Award of the
Smart Grid Interoperability Panel of USA.