Dynamic investment planning of CVR implementation considering PEVs’ reactive power compensation capability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation voltage reduction (CVR) is a strategy that tries to save energy consumption by managing consumers’ voltage. On the other hand, enhancing reactive power compensation in the power system gives rise to CVR implementation more effectively. This paper addresses how the power system planner could encourage investment to establish the above‐mentioned topics. Here, a model for encouraging industrial loads to dynamically invest in implementing the CVR strategy over the planning horizon is presented. To make CVR implementation more efficient, investment in upgrading plug‐in electric vehicles (PEVs) chargers to be utilized as reactive power compensators is also considered. Industrial loads benefit from saving in their electricity bills and incentive payments that might be paid by utilities (if necessary). The objective function of the proposed planning model is to maximize the energy‐saving of industrial loads and to minimize incentive payment by electric utilities over the planning horizon. This objective is achieved subject to that the investment plan is economically feasible. Moreover, power system operation constraints in the planning horizon based on AC power flow equations and voltage‐dependent load models are considered. The proposed planning problem is modelled as a non‐linear optimization problem that can be solved by off‐the‐shelf software, for example, GAMS. The proposed model is applied to the Ontario transmission system. The numerical results show the proposed model's effectiveness in designing an investment plan for industrial loads to implement the CVR strategy and upgrade PEVs’ chargers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".