Loss Allocation in Three-phase Distribution Network using \tau-value

• Published in: IEEE transactions on power systems 2024-05, Vol.39 (3), p.1-11
• Main Authors: Kumar, Himesh, Khatod, Dheeraj K.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: <inline-formula xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"> <tex-math notation="LaTeX"> tau</tex-math> </inline-formula>-value; Computational complexity; cooperative game theory; cross subsidy; distributed generation; Distribution network; Distribution networks; Games; Impedance; Load flow; loss allocation; Resource management; Wires
• ISSN: 0885-8950; 1558-0679
• DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2023.3325532

As the weakest link in power system, the distribution system accounts for majority of the losses occurring in power system. The accountability for the losses needs to be fixed for fair recovery of the associated cost. Hence, a loss allocation mechanism is required, which can be applied to each possible operating condition of the power distribution network. Generally, power is delivered through the inherently unbalanced three-phase distribution networks. This paper, therefore, proposes a cooperative game theory based loss allocation mechanism for balanced as well as unbalanced distribution networks. The losses are allocated using the \tau-value solution concept of cooperative game in two steps. In the first step, the losses are allocated to loads, followed by allocation of remuneration to distributed generation for their contribution to loss reduction in the second step. The computation complexity involved in the \tau-value solution limits its applicability to large distribution networks. Therefore, a simplified \tau-value solution with reduced computational complexity is proposed. The proposed allocation mechanism is tested on IEEE 34 bus, 24.9/4.16 kV three-phase distribution network considering different scenarios of network loading and DG penetration. The results are compared with the classical loss partitioning, resistive loss partitioning, multi-phase loss allocation, and graph-based loss allocation methods.