P. K. Sen and Keun H.

Lee (Doctoral Student)

psen@mines.edu
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO 80401

IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference

Fort Worth, Texas

May 19, 2014

Introduction
Why CVR and Why Now?
Literature Review
Modelling and Analytical Tools
Analytical and Experimental Results
Comparison
Application Guidelines
Conclusions

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

Voltage at Point of Delivery (at the Meter Location)

National Service Voltage Standard (ANSI C84.1)
Allows 5 % service voltage bandwidth
Range A or Normal Conditions: 114 ~ 126 V (for a Nominal 120V

System)

Most Common
Practice is to Stay
Higher and Closer to
120V!!
5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

CVR Technique:
Reduction of the Voltage will Reduce Power Demand (kW), Reactive Power

(kVAR), and Energy Consumption (kWh) by the End-Use Loads, but how much?
Rule of Thumb Used by Many Utilities in the Past: 1% Reduction in Voltage will
Bring 1% of Energy (and Power) Consumption Saving.
PkW

Energy Saving
PkW

Energy Saving

kW
kW

Is it True?
Daily Load Demand Profile

5/19/2014

Hour

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

Load Duration Curve

Hour

Different Load Characteristics: Lighting, Motor,

Appliances, Heaters, HVAC, etc.
For Load Modeling, Exact Assessment is Required.

Energy Saving
PkW

kW

kW

Daily Load Demand Profile

5/19/2014

Energy Saving

PkW

Hour

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

Load Duration Curve

Hour
6

CVR Factor is Defined as the Percentage Reduction of

Quantities to the Percentage Reduction of Voltage:

% Reductionof " Quantities"

CVR f
% Reductionof Votage

Quantities:

Power (kW)
Reactive Power (kVAR)
(Real) Energy (kWh)
(Reactive) Energy (kVARh)

Common numbers are between 0.0 and 2.0 for kW & kWh

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

The CVRf for Power (kW) and Energy (kWh)

has been used Interchangeably in the
Literature.

The CVRf for Reactive Power (kVAR) has not

been addressed much in the Literature. There
is very limited Information available.

CVRf corresponds to kVARh has not

mentioned at all in the Literature.

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

Wind / Solar /
Gas Turbine

1,200,000

1.2TW
7.00

Ref : EIA-Annual Energy Review 2011, Sept. 2012

6.00

5.00

Gen. Capacity
Energy Used

800,000

Energy Used (Billion MWh)

4.00

600,000

4,000TWh
400,000

3.00

2.00
200,000

U.S. Generation Capacity and Electrical Energy Usage

1.00

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

0.00

1972

1970

Generation Capacity (MW)

1,000,000

Year
10

4,000TWh

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

Year

1972

1970

Energy Used (Billion kWh)

4,500

Ref : EIA-Annual Energy Review 2011, Sept. 2012

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

11

Cost of Average Electricity Price Trend

Cost of Electricity Trend

43%

[2] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Average Retail

Price of Electricity, Monthly

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

12

 [2005] Energy Policy Act (EPAct),

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS),
[2007] Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA),
[2008] Energy Improvement and Extension Act (EIEA),
[2009] American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES),
[2009] American Clean Energy Leadership Act,
[2009] American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
[2012] Energy And Water Development Appropriations Bill

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

13

Energy Conservation
Peak Power Reduction
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Energy Efficiency and Loss Reduction
Energy Independence and Sustainability
And More!!! (Greenhouse Gas, Carbon
Reduction!!)
Smart[er] Grid and Micro-Grid Initiative
Fact: 40% of Total Primary Energy is
Used to Produce Electricity in the US

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

14

See the References in the

Paper

Not a New Idea. Known to Electrical

Engineers since the Beginning!
Was not Economically Justifiable (Cheap
and Abundant and Reliable Supply of
Electricity)
Limited Technology
Surfaced as a Matter of Interest in late
70s after the Oil Embargo

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

16

(late 1970s 1980s) California PUC Along with the

NEEA Consortium
(early to Mid 80s) Limited Work Performed by EPRI:
Effects of Reduced Voltages on Electric Loads
(Late 1980s - Early 1990s) PNNL, Pacific
Northwest, BPA, Snohomish County PUD (NEEA),
etc.
Limited Work by a Few Utilities for Verification:
PP&L, Northeast, Wisconsin Electric Power,
Commonwealth Edison

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

17

(2010) PNNL: Evaluation of CVR at a National Level,

Analytical (GridLAB-D)
(2011) EPRI: Green Circuit- Distribution Efficiency
(OpenDSS)
(2013) NEETRAC
(2013) IEEE REPC Roundtable Discussions
Utilities (Experimental Verification) Palmetto, Idaho
Power, Snohomish PUD, Dominion Energy, San Diego Gas
and Electric, Northeast Utility, Hydro Quebec, Australian
Utility
Handful of Technical Papers

Difficult Analytical Analysis

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

18

1. Basics and Fundamentals

2. Field Test data and Analysis
3. CVR Design, Hardware and Software
Implementation, Feasibility, Cost-Benefit Analysis
4. Volt/VAR Control and Voltage Optimization
5. Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency
6. Smarte[er] Grid, Micro-Grid and Renewable Energy
Application
7. Manufacturers Guidelines and Product
Development
5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

19

Element

Basic Equations

CVR Factor

Constant (Z)

V2
S
Z

CVRf = 2.0

Constant (I)

S V I *

CVRf = 1.0

Constant (P or S)

S V I *

CVRf = 0.0

Constant (E)

E P t

CVRf = 0.0

Traditional ZIP Model for CVR

The load composition is not known for most of the feeders and it changes with time
5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

21

Element

Basic Equations and

Relationships

P: Power (kW)
Q: Reactive Power (kVAR)

P = I2 R

Constant Energy:
Resistive Element (E)

5/19/2014

V = I.R
E = P.t

Voltage Sensitivity

CVAR factor
(CVRf)

Comments

P V2; Q V2
Lower voltage results
proportionately lower current

CVRf (kW) = 2.0

CVRf (kVAR) = 2.0
CVRf (kWh) = 2.0

Constant Resistance R is
a special application, when
X = 0; CVRf (kVAR) = 0

P = V I Cos

Q = V I Sin

P V1
Q V1

CVRf (kW) = 1.0

CVRf (kVAR)= 1.0
CVRf (kWh) = 1.0

P = V I Cos

Q = V I Sin

P = V 0; Q = V0
Lower voltage increases current,
product remains same.

CVRf (kW) = 0.0

CVRf (kVAR) = 0.0
CVRf (kWh) = 0.0

Constant Power P is a
special application, when Q
=0

None

CVRf (kWh)= 0.0

t: Time

P = I2 R = V2/R

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

22

ZIP
Model

5/19/2014

Where:
Pi :
Qi :
Va :
Vn :
Sn :
Z% :
I% :
P% :
Z :
I :
P :

real power consumption of the ith load

reactive power consumption of the ith load
actual terminal voltage
nominal terminal voltage
apparent power consumption at nominal voltage
percent of load that is constant impedance
percent of load that is constant current
percent of load that is constant power
phase angle of constant impedance component
phase angle of constant current component
phase angle of constant power component

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

23

Frequency-Domain Electrical Circuit

Simulation Tool for
Models designed to accurately represent

unbalanced,
Multi-phase distribution system

0.8
3.0

Where,
CVRf (kW)
CVRf (kVAR)
Pn and Qn
V
Pl and Ql

:
:
:
:
:

Active power exponents,

Reactive power exponents,
Active and reactive powers Values at the nominal voltages,
Voltage magnitude at the terminals of the load,
Resulting values of real and reactive powers.

Ref: [2011],EPRI Distribution Green Circuits

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

24

CVR Factor (CVRf)

[ xx] Reference[Yr.
Published]

Results from:

[36] Priess [1978]

(kWh)

(kW)

(kVAR)

Utilities

Residential: CVRf (kWh): 0.61; Commercial: CVRf (kWh): 0.89; Industrial: CVRf (kWh): 0.35. Reference:
Ellens [22], Table I

0.62

Field Test,

[17]Erickson [1982]

11 Feeders (12.47kV)

0.47-1.04

Comments

San Diego Gas & Electric,

CA

0.5480.967

Suggested, Residential: CVRf (kWh): 1.14, CVRf (kW): 1.14

Suggested, Commercial: CVRf (kWh): 0.26, CVRf (kW): 0.08

[19] Lauria [1987]

Field Test

0.57-1.35

Northeast Utilities

[15] Kennedy [1991]

Field Test,
12 Feeders

0.3361.103

Snohomish PUD, WA
Northwest Utilities

Residential: CVRf (kWh): 0.765; Commercial: CVRf (kWh): 0.991; Industrial: CVRf (kWh): 0.409.Reference:
Ellens [22], Table I
Residential: CVRf (kWh): 0.73; Commercial: CVRf (kWh): 0.84; Industrial: CVRf (kWh): 0.49.Overall: 0.71;
Reference: Ellens [22], Table I
Average Value CVRf (kWh)= 1.0
32 Feeders (13.2kV, 13.8kV, 23kV)
Estimate: Average 3% voltage reduction will reduce the energy consumption by 1.5%. CVR f (kWh)
Residential: 0.330-0.676, Commercial: 0.893-1.103. Overall: 0.62

0.3361.103

Snohomish PUD, WA
Northwest Utilities

Average CVRf (kWh)= 0.62

Inland Power (Halfmoon Sub): 5% voltage reduction reduced energy consumption by4.17%

Snohomish PUD, WA
Northwest Utilities

2.5% average voltage reduction saves energy consumption by 1.3%.

Simulated

[35] Kirshner [1984]

[34] Warnock [1986]

0.409 0.991
0.71

[26] Wilson [2002]

[30] Fletcher [2002]

Simulated

[9] Schneider [2011]

Simulated,
24 Feeders

[8] Singh [2011]

Simulated, IEEE 13node system

Based on PNNL Report [3]. CVRf was not calculated. Peak Load and Annual Energy reduction is 0.54.0%.Estimate: 100% feeders with CVR in USA will produce 3.04% reduction in annual energy. Loss
reduction is insignificant.
PNNL GridLAB-D, Effect of PV is considered.

0.67-1.33

[6] EPRI Project [2011]

0.6 - 0.95

CVRf (kW): Average 0.62 (Assumed)

CVARf (kVAR): Average 3.0 (Assumed)

2.0 - 6.0

[22] Ellens [2012]

Simulated

0.4

Australian Experience

Residential Sector

[24] Peskin [2012]

Field Test

0.92

Dominion Energy, VA

Energy savings up to 4%. Estimated annual saving is 2.8%.

[29] Sunderman
[2012]

Field Test
4, 13.2kV Feeders

Utility / EPRI

CVRf (kW): Average: 0.7. Energy reduction range, CVRf (kWh): 0.16-1.2%

[39] Casavant [2013]

Field Rest

0.95

Palmetto Elec. Coop, SC

Total Economic Analysis. Average 3.5% voltage reduction throughout the system.

[41] Anderson
[Unknown]

Field Test

0.3-0.86

Idaho Power

Lower voltage by 2-4% produces 1-3% reduction in energy (kWh) and peak demand (kW).

[13] De Steese
[Unknown]

Simulated

Pacific Northwest / BPA

PNNL, Economic analysis for a 2.5% voltage reduction.

5/19/2014

0.16-1.19

0.17-0.93

3.0

1.9920.12

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

26

CVRf (kWh)
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20

1978-1991

2011-2014
[41] Anderson

[39] Casavant

[24] Peskin

[22] Ellens

[8] Singh

[15] Kennedy

[19] Lauria

[34] Warnock

[35] Kirshner

[17] Erickson

[36] Priess

0.00

Comparison of CVRf (kWh) Values from Literature

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

27

1. Palmetto Electric Coop reported savings of $1.4M and their

gross revenue is $160M (~ 0.9%), CVR energy savings was
about 3.3%
2. Idaho Power reported savings between 0.9-1.8% for a typical
1,000kWH/moth customer
3. A significant energy savings was reported in a Northeast Utility.
4. Dominion Virginia Power projected an average of 2.8% savings
of annual energy
5. PNNL study suggested that a 3.04% reduction in annual energy
consumption in USA, if all the distribution feeders utilizes CVR.
Word of Caution: These percentage Reduction Figures must
not be confused with the CVRf factor. Most of the above
numbers includes anywhere between 2-4% voltage reduction.
5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

28

CVR Technique is not a NEW Concept

Exact Assessment of CVR requires detail
information of a power distribution system
CVR factor is one way to measure the
benefits
Average CVRf(kWh) and CVRf(kW) is around
0.75
Is it safe to assume 0.75?

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

29

During the initial testing, BEMC was able to

achieve a demand reduction of approximately
2% for a 3% reduction in voltage at the
substations regulated bus.

Question? What is the approximate CVRf(kW) ?

Answer. CVRf(kW) 0.67

5/19/2014

Sen and Lee: 2014 IEEE REPC

30

Questions and/or
Comments.