Undergraduate: Runsha Long Mentor: Hantao Cui Professor: Fran Li Minimize Total Power Loss in Distribution Network Reconfiguration Considering PEV Charging Strategy Undergraduate: Runsha Long Mentor: Hantao Cui Professor: Fran Li

Outline PEV Introduction Data Collection Minimizing Power Loss

PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicles Electricity instead of gasoline Modeled after Nissan Leaf Specifications: Range: ~84 miles Battery Capacity: 24 kWh Efficiency = 3.5 miles/kWh

PEV Charging Three levels of charging Level 1: 120V/15A Level 3: 480V/60A (not used)

Data Collection Daily Travel Data PEV Load Data Base Load Characteristics % PEV Penetration Characteristics

Daily Travel Data National Household Transportation Survey - nhts.ornl.gov 10,000 samples Start Time End Time Trip Duration Distance Traveled

End Times

PEV Load Data Estimated the percentage of Levels 1 & 2 charging Charging assumed to start immediately upon arrival

Sample PEV Load Curve

Base Load Characteristics NYISO load characteristic Scaled load curve to a population size to 180,000 – about the size of Knoxville

Base Load Curve

Base Load + PEV

Base Load + PEV

Minimizing Power Loss Reconfiguration Model Delay Strategy

Network Reconfiguration Distribution network are typically constructed with sectionalizing switches Interconnecting lines can be switched on/off Lines are configured radially outward from the perspective of a substation IEEE 33-Bus Distribution System

Power Loss Power loss in power lines exist based on P= 𝐼 2 𝑅 As the amount of load on a node increases, so does the current → Greater power loss

Delayed Charging Strategy Delay charging PEV until after a certain period of time Benefits: Reduced peak load Valley-filling

Improved Network Reconfiguration One-time optimization model reformulated to minimize over a period of time Enables the calculation of total power loss during that period Additional PEV delay constraint added to allow PEV charge scheduling

Model

Model (contd.)

Testing Phase Optimization model is input into GAMS Testing carried out on the 33-bus distribution system with 10%, 20% and 40% PEV penetration PEV split into 8 groups Maximum delay allowed: 5 hours

PEV Set Up

Results Total Power Loss No PEV/Base (kWh) Pen. Level No Delay (kWh) Reduction (%) 1095.8 10% 1513.8 1480.9 2.17 20% 2083.3 2024.6 2.81 40% 3680 3451.2 6.22 Delay (in hours) Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10% PEV Reconfiguration

Analysis Network configuration remains the same for delayed charging and unmanaged charging Power loss reduction difference between ‘no delay’ and ‘with delay’ increases as penetration level increases

10% Penetration Load Curve

With the addition of a delayed charging strategy: Conclusion With the addition of a delayed charging strategy: Peak load is reduced by shifting PEV charging to later hours Total power loss is reduced in the system There is no configuration difference between unmanaged and delayed charging