Possibilities to Improve Reliability of

Distribution Network by Intended Island

Operation
Jussi Antikainen, Sami Repo, Pekka Verho, Pertti Järventausta
Tampere University of Technology, P.O. Box 692, FI-33101 Tampere, Finland
e-mail [email protected]

Abstract— This paper discusses the possibilities of improving planned carefully in any case. Therefore, it is very important
reliability of distribution networks. The focus of this paper is to to take island operation systematically into considerations
study the reliability impacts of intended island operation in when designing a network.
distribution systems. In this study, traditional development
Island operation requires, for instance additional control
actions on networks are explored to enable comparison of the
effects of intended island operation. Intended island operation is equipment and new communication methods. Load shedding
executed by means of distributed generation units (DG) located can be necessary as well. In this paper we will not specify
in medium voltage (MV) or in low voltage (LV) side of the these technical issues involved with islanding. Also, the
network. The impacts of intended island operation are examined reliability of the DG unit itself is not under consideration. The
in case studies using reliability analysis software by observing main target is to quantify the effects of island operation on the
changes in distribution reliability indices and in outage costs. The
reliability of the distribution network from the network
case studies are examined in a test network, which is based on a
real network consisting of one rural feeder. Different placement owner’s point of view.
of DG unit and changing environmental aspects are considered. The first part of this paper contains the general discussion
Network reliability analysis methods are discussed in this paper of network reliability analysis. Information of this study and
in general level. used initial data are presented too. In the second part of the
paper the results and considerations of the simulations are
Index Terms— Distributed generation, distributed energy given.
resources, network reliability, optimal location, reliability based
network analysis

II. NETWORK RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Reliability
Dependency on reliable power supply is an emergent trend
Major problems in a reliable power supply are
[1]. In consequence of that trend, the development of
consequences of faults on one or several network components.
reliability and availability of electricity networks has received
A failure in one network component, like a part of overhead
more attention year by year. Intended islanding has been
line or a cable, is able to prevent power supply to a large area
regarded as to be one of the possibilities to rise to the
of distribution network. Customers in that area will suffer an
challenge [2,3]. Island operation in distribution networks can
outage whose duration depends on possibilities to arrange
be based on local DG units or backup power units, like mobile
backup power to the downstream network from the faulted
stand-by power units. The idea of intended islanding is that
part. If there is no possibility to restore power supply, the
DG unit supplies power to the loads during a grid failure in
outage time is the same as the repair time. If there is a
the upstream network. This will improve reliability by
possibility to isolate the faulted component and restore power
reducing the outage time of customers in the islanded part of
supply, the outage time will be shorter.
the network. In case of abnormal operation, DG units can also
Distribution network reliability is related to fault frequency
be used as a part of power restoration arrangements by backup
and outage time. Reliability can be defined numerically by
connections. This could offer a possibility of restoring power
reliability indices [5]. These indices give trends for trouble
supply to more customers than in a case without DG. These
spots on the network and they make it possible to compare
considerations are studied and widely published in many
different ways to evolve the supply system. Simplifying the
earlier studies [4].
task, there are three main ways of improving reliability of the
The results of earlier studies are quite positive on the part
supply system: reducing the average fault frequency, the
of island operation. Intended island operation requires some
outage time and size of the fault-affected zone. However, this
new approaches to planning and operating distribution
is a complex task because these three main ways include many
networks. In addition, intended island operation must be
possibilities for reaching the desired effect. The optimal

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 22 of 43
solution is found when reliability of the network is maximised dependent on several factors such as customer type, the actual
and the costs of outages and investments in a given load demand at the time of the outage and the time of day
consideration period are minimised. when the outage occurs. The outage types as long fault
The average failure frequency can be reduced by using interruptions, planned maintenance outages or outages from
components with lower failure rates, e.g. replacing overhead auto-reclosing (high speed AR or delayed AR) affect the
lines with underground cables, improving the maintenance outage costs as well. The outage costs can be modelled with
program and using network reclosers. Using distribution the outage cost parameters (more details in references [6-8].
automation in networks (e.g. remote controlled Table 1 shows the parameters for each customer group and for
disconnectors), supply restoration equipments (e.g. temporary different outages. The data is based on a Finnish questionnaire
cables and mobile generation units) or personnel training, the study conducted in 2005 [6] where different customers are
average interruption duration will be reduced. These actions to divided into five groups: residential, agricultural, industry,
improve reliability are partially overlapping. At the same time, public and commercial. In parentheses (Table 1) are the older
these actions can also be divided into preventive and parameters, which are based on earlier Finnish studies from
corrective actions. Preventive actions reduce the probability the 70s, 80s and 90s [7].
that a potential problem will occur. These actions may also The expected annual outage costs (C) caused by a fault in
reduce the severity of a problem if one should occur. the zone under study is defined by using following equation 1.
Corrective actions eliminate the cause of an existing A zone refers to a part of feeder, which can be isolated by one
undesirable situation in order to prevent reoccurrence. or more switches from the rest of the feeder.
B. Evaluation of outage costs
C = ∑∑ λzone ( Ai + Bit j ) Pij nij (1)
The evaluation of outage costs is the way to estimate the j ∈ J i∈ I
quality of power supply along with reliability indices. The where J is a set of load points to which a fault in the zone
exact evaluation needs a lot of detailed information from the causes interruption,
entire network, such as network topology, used components, I is a set of customer groups,
components environment and condition as well as information λzone is the sum of the individual network component
about the customers. The fault isolation and power supply failures per year in the zone,
restoration are made on the grounds of the network topology. Ai is the constant outage cost parameter of customer
The information of used components, like conductor type, group i [€/kW],
length, age and environment, weigh heavily on failure Bi is time dependent outage cost parameter of customer
frequency. The type and placement of disconnectors affect the group i [€/kWh]
outage time. The customer details give information about tj is expected outage duration of load point j in case of
needed power and energy. Based on these, it is possible to fault in the zone [h],
calculate the probability of outages and outage times in nij is the number of customers of group i at load point j,
different parts of the network. This makes calculating outage Pij is average power of customer group i at load point j
costs possible. [kW].
The outage cost evaluation is based on the value of non-
distributed energy. Non-distributed energy will incur direct Our economy is increasingly based on continuous power
and indirect damage to customers. This damage is highly supply. The outage cost parameters (Table 1) have grown

Unexpected outage Planned outage High speed AR Delayed AR

A B A B A B
[€/kW] [€/kWh] [€/kW] [€/kWh] [€/kW] [€/kWh]
0.36 4.29 0.19 2.21 0.11 0.48
Residential
(0.07) (0.61) (0.03) (0.30) (0.03) (0.09)
0.45 9.38 0.23 4.80 0.20 0.62
Agriculture
(0.54) (4.90) (0.18) (1.60) (0.25) (2.90)
3.52 24.45 1.38 11.47 2.19 2.87
Industry
(2.60) (8.70) (0.80) (3.80) (1.10) (2.90)
1.89 15.08 1.33 7.35 1.49 2.34
Public
(0.65) (3.40) (0.23) (1.50) (0.23) (0.73)
2.65 29.89 0.22 22.82 1.31 2.44
Commercial
(1.90) (11.00) (0.80) (7.20) (0.95) (2.10)

Table 1: Interruption cost parameters for different customer groups based on questionnaire studies in 2005 and in 1993 (1993
results in parentheses).

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 23 of 43
outstandingly in twelve years. We can assume that the outage used as an input for outage cost modeling. More details are
cost parameters are in a trend of growing. This motivates presented in references [8-10].
network owners to evolve new approaches to improve the In this study the power generation is modelled for the
reliability of distribution networks. However, network power source with 100 % reliability. This means the secure
investments in improving reliability should be related to the power generation satisfies the power demand in all cases with
benefits customers enjoy from quality power supply. By complete availability. This could distort the simulation results
applying reliability analysis and the outage costs as a part of but it is possible to reduce inaccuracy with simple modelling.
network planning, the quality and reliability can be taken into The generation unit does not operate in parallel with the
consideration when optimising total costs and technical supply system. Thus, the generation unit switches on to the
solutions. In this task the consideration period, the internal network after a 6-minute delay in case of an outage.
rate of interest and the growth of load have to be considered. The study network is based on a real network with real
These factors are always case-specific and have affect on the network data. The network data contains information about
final results of the life-time costs. customers (group and average power) and network
components (type, length, location) for example. The study
network consists of one radial rural feeder including 54
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH distribution substations fed by a primary 110/20 kV substation
(100 % reliability). The total line length of existing (overhead
The idea of this research is to find out how the intended
line) network is 71 km. The peak power is 1050 kW. The
island operation affects distribution network reliability.
feeder has 4 remote controlled backup connections, 8 other
Intended island operation is based on the possibility of
remote controlled disconnectors and several manual operated
continuing power supply in a specific part of the network
disconnectors. The switching delay for a remote controlled
during an outage. The power demand should be related to the
disconnector is 6 minutes and for a manual operated
power generation in the island. This depends on the size of the
island, quantity and type of the customers, point of time and
the used power generation technology and the generation
equipment among others. Power control and ability to start
power generation in a de-energized network are important
requirements as well as protection aspects. In this paper we do
not consider these. We assume that these technical issues are
solved.
The effects of intended island operation are examined in
case studies, which are presented later. The effects are
calculated by using reliability-based network analysis
software, developed by Tampere University of Technology.
In the developed reliability based network analysis failure
rates are based on the “partial failure rates” due to certain
failure causes. Partial failure rates are, in turn, dependent on
one or more weight factors. For example, the partial failure Figure 1: The test network used for analysis. Cross-lines mean remote
controlled disconnectors (one line means that the disconnector is
rate due to wind and/or snow for overhead lines is dependent closed, two lines mean that the disconnector is open). BC is a backup
on the surroundings of the line (forest, field or alongside a connection, SA is the substation, L1-L6 are studied network nodes.
road) and on the neutral earthing method of the overhead line
disconnector 60 minutes. The test network used is shown in
feeder.
Figure 1.
The reliability analysis software determines the outage time
In rural networks, conductors could be located in different
in different parts of the network by taking into account that
environments. This affects the probability of an outage. The
some parts of the network can be restored in a few minutes by
annual outage frequencies are different between conductors in
using remote controlled disconnectors, but some other parts
a forest or in a field. It is easy to understand that the failure
must be restored manually, which will take some tens of
frequency in a forest will be higher than the failure frequency
minutes. In a fairly small part of the network the outage time
in a field. The failure frequency of a conductor which is
is the same as the real repair time. In the reliability model
located alongside a road could be lower than the frequency in
several different switching times are applied and each outage
the forest but more than the frequency in the field. Therefore,
time depends on how the faulty component, load point and
the conductor placement is another way of reducing outages.
remote controlled and manually operated disconnectors are
In the analysing software used, this is noticed by defining the
situated.
outage frequency parameters for the main conductor types in
The reliability analysis results are the expected number and
different environments. The used outage frequencies are
duration of outages at each load point in the network as well
presented in Table 2.
as the overall reliability indices (SAIFI, SAIDI, CAIDI and
In case of a permanent outage, the repair time depends on
MAIFI). The load point specific information can further be

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 24 of 43
the conductor type and the fault location. The type and For assessing the effects of DG unit locations on the
location of the conductor also affects the maintenance costs. distribution system reliability, 6 different locations are
The data used for the repair times and the maintenance costs examined. These locations, from L1 to L6, are shown in
Location Permanent faults Scheduled Temporary faults Repair time Maintenance
maintenance costs
[per 100 km,a] [per 100 km,a] [per 100 km,a] [min/fault] [€/km,a]
High speed AR Delayed AR
Overhead line 180
in forest 7.0 2.0 50.0 20.0 260
by road 2.3 2.0 37.0 12.0 215
in field 1.0 2.0 5.0 1.0 170
Covered
180
conductor line
in forest 4.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 200
by road 1.3 2.0 10.0 4.0 170
in field 1.0 2.0 10.0 4.0 140
Cable 240
0.5 2.0 - - 80

Table 2: Used outage frequencies, repair times and maintenance costs.

are presented in Table 2. Figure 1. The network automation, in locations L1, L3 and
In this study, we also consider optional network solutions L6, are examined in point of comparison. The results of
to improve reliability of the test network. These solutions are SAIDI are shown in Figure 2.
based on network development actions such as building new The results show that the variation of reliability is strongly
backup connections with different types of conductors, sensitive to the location of DG. According to the results, the
removing existing backup connections or building remote best location for DG is the point L5, which causes the biggest
controlled disconnector stations. Removing backup improvement in reliability measured by SAIDI. SAIDI
connections reduces the length of the network and thus the reduced from 217 (min/a) to 104 (min/a). Based on the results,
annual outage frequency and volumes will be diminished. DG or automation could be very beneficial from a reliability
This can affect the reliability of the test network by upgrading viewpoint. This depends on the existing backup connections
it, but it can worsen the reliability on a larger scale, e.g. and the focus of the loads. Therefore, there is no exact
adjacent feeders. If the existing backup connection is definition for the best location of DG and it is always case
removed, the sufficiency of the stand-by power has to be specific. It is also important to notice that reliable power
ensured. One way of ensuring the sufficient stand-by power supply for some customers is more significant than for others.
during outages is to use distributed generation, e.g. mobile DG Examples of these uppermost customers are hospitals, military
units. services and other important society services. This affects the
In this study, the study period is 20 years. The internal rate definition of the best location of DG as well.
of interest used is 5 %, and growth of load is 1 % per year. The results show that the network automation (remote
controlled disconnector) reduced the system average outage
time more than the DG in L1 or L3. At location points L1 and
IV. THE RESULTS OF THE CASE STUDIES L3, the simulation results between DG and automation are
almost the same, but it has to be noticed that the DG has
A. Intended island operation in medium voltage abnormal 100 % reliability in power supply. This distorts the
network simulation results. In consequence, the network automation in
the L1 and L3 can be preferable solution than DG to improve
the reliability of the test network. This depends for instance on
characteristics and technology of DG and the used protection
methods.
Automation or DG at a branch line has no great effect on
the reliability of the entire test network. Even then, it can have
a strong effect on an individual customer of the branch. DG at
the location point L6 has almost the same effect on reliability
as DG located in point L3. The small difference is explained
by outages, which occur at the branch between points L3 and
L6. If DG is located at L6 and a fault occurs at the branch, it is
Figure 2: Variation of SAIDI in different cases. Basic signifies the possible to continue power supply to customers in
original network without any changes.
downstream network from the fault location after fault

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 25 of 43
isolation time in intended island operation of the branch. If These constructions are overhead line (OHL in Figure 4)
DG is located at L3, this is not possible. The load of the mainly in the forest, overhead line mainly alongside a road,
branch (180 kW) is quite small compared to the entire test covered conductor (CC in Figure 4) and cable. The length of
network (1050 kW). Thus, if the load (and number of the backup connection is varied as well. The results are shown
customers) of the branch is higher, the positive effect of DG at in Figure 4. Note that SAIDI (217 min/a) in the case Basic is
L6 on SAIDI is stronger. not printed on Figure 4.
The total costs have to be considered to define the All considered network solutions have positive effects on
economical effects of DG or automation. The total costs the test network from the reliability point of view. The results
during the planning horizon are defined by the sum of outage show that the new backup connection reduces the average
costs, maintenance costs, investment costs and failure repair outage duration. This depends strongly on the length and the
costs to the network owner in the period of 20 years. The type of the backup connection. Cabling presents the biggest
failure repair costs used for one failure was 1600 €. improvements in reliability, except for DG. When building the
Maintenance and operation costs of DG are not included in the backup connection by overhead line selectively alongside a
results. The cost estimate of investments with DG was 100 k€. road, the failure frequency decreases in comparison to the
The investment cost of remote controlled disconnectors in overhead line mainly in the forest. An overhead line mainly
locations L1 and L6 was 16.5 k€, in location L3 the alongside a road has the same effect on reliability than a
investment cost was 40.4 k€. The difference in the investment covered conductor when using the selected relative ratio of
costs is based on the required number of new remote forest, road and field. The relative ratios used are also
controlled disconnectors. The results are shown in Figure 3. presented in Figure 4.
The results of the total costs are shown in Figure 5. The
following investment costs have been used: overhead line
19.6 k€/km, CC 30.9 k€/km, cable 43.6 k€/km. The
investment costs make many of these solutions quite
unbeneficial, especially cable-based solutions. DG solution
and the new backup connection constructed using overhead
line or CC with 3 km in length, reduces the total costs. It is
noteworthy that the results of the simulations indicate that an
overhead line alongside a road can be a more cost-effective
solution than a CC-based solution.
For the future, it is reasonable to consider the same case
Figure 3: Variation of the total costs in planning horizon. with higher outage cost parameters and failure frequencies.
The results show that the investment costs are higher than This is because our society is growingly based on a highly
savings in the total cost except for locations L4 and L5. The
cost difference between cases Basic and DG located in L5 is
17 k€. From the economic point of view, DG solutions are not
very advantageous. However, an interesting question lies in
definition who makes the investment decisions and takes
responsibility for them.
B. Comparison of DG and a new backup
connection in connection point L5
DG located at L5 has the biggest influence on the
reliability of the test network. Therefore, an exhaustive
research is performed in L5. This includes comparison of DG Figure 5: Variations of the total costs in different cases. Gross-lines
and a new backup connection built in different constructions. mean costs in cases Basic (dashed line) and DG at L5 (solid line).

Figure 4: Variation of SAIDI in different cases. Gross-line is SAIDI Figure 6: Variations of the total costs in altered cases. Gross-lines
in case of DG located at L5 (104 min/a). mean costs in cases Basic (dashed line) and DG at L5 (solid line).
reliable power supply and the holding times of investments are reliable enough power supply unit with sufficient generation
very long. In this simulation the outage cost parameters are capacity.
doubled and the used failure frequencies are increased by On the level of primary substation, the results are different.
50 %. The results are shown in Figure 6. DG located in L3 led to a situation where the total costs and
The variations of outage costs and the failure frequencies SAIDI increased. In a situation where DG is located in L5
alter the solution acceptability from the economical point of SAIDI decreases but the total costs increase slightly. One
view. According to the results, the total costs decrease reason for the decrease of SAIDI is that the length of the
substantially with DG solution or with a new backup entire network is reduced. Another reason is that DG in L5
connection. Also, cabling has become more advantageous has such significant influence on the reliability of the test
than in earlier cases. For example, savings made in the outage network. However, the total costs increased, which means
costs are now even bigger than the investment costs of a worsened reliability to the adjacent feeders. According to the
cable-based backup connection over 5 km long. results on the level of primary substation, it is not possible to
In the cases of basic parameters and changed parameters remove all existing backup connections. The simulation
the relative variation of SAIDI (-52 %) has not changed but results give information about the possibility of replacing
the relative variation of the total costs have. The results are some of those 4 backup connections. DG located in L5 and
shown in Table 3. one backup connection connected to L3 leads to a situation
Basic parameters Changed parameters where SAIDI reduces 15.2 % and the total cost reduces 0.8 %.
Basic DG L5 Basic DG L5 So, it may even be possible to make savings in investment
SAIDI [min/a] 217 104 306 147
costs when renovating a network by using DG-based solutions
instead of rebuilding all backup connections.
Relative variation - 52 % - 52 %
The total costs [k€] 730 713 1380 1162 D. Power supply of a low-loaded branch
Relative variation - 2,3 % - 15,8 % The test network has a low-loaded branch, which supplies
Table 3: Relative variations of the total costs and SAIDI. power to one single low voltage network. Customers of this
DG has become more advantageous in an altered branch are mainly summer cottages. The following data has
environment. In the cases of basic parameters and changed been used for the branch in this simulation: number of
parameters, DG solution gives the best results from the customers 12, peak power 24.4 kW, the length of branch
economical and the reliability point of view, except in the case 2 km, the investment cost of DG 10 k€. The average failure
of a 3 km long overhead line alongside a road. frequency of the entire test network was 3.9 failures per year.
This consists of failures which occur partially at the branch
C. Replacement of an existing backup connection and partially at other parts of the test network. The branch is
by DG shown in Figure 7.
The examined test network has 4 backup connections, Single low voltage
which are used to ensure reserve power supply during failures network
in the upstream network. This means reserve power supply to
the examined test network and also reserve power supply to Low-loaded branch
adjacent feeders throughout the test network.
Table 4 represents the results of simulations where all 4
existing backup connections are removed and replaced by
means of DG in locations L3 and L5. The simulations are
carried out on two levels, on the test network level and on the
level of the primary substation that supplies power to the test
network and to the adjacent feeders.
Figure 7: A low-loaded branch.
DG L3 DG L5
Test Test If the low-loaded branch is removed or de-energized and
Substation Substation
network network power supply to the low voltage network is arranged by means
Total costs 10.4 % 3.1 % -2.4 % 0.3 % of DG, the customers of the low voltage network will not
SAIDI -10.8 % 0.8 % -52.0 % -12.3 % suffer outages that occur in the medium voltage network. In
Table 4: Relative variations of the total costs and SAIDI in that case, reliability of power supply in the low voltage
the case of the replacement of an existing backup connection. network depends on the characteristics of DG. And vice versa,
reducing the length and number of branches in the medium
On the test network level, the results indicate that removing
voltage network diminishes the possibility of outages. So,
the existing backup connections could be possible. This is
reliability of the test network will increase. This affects a large
based on the variation of SAIDI. Secondly, the total costs
group of customers.
decrease if DG is located in L5. Based on these, it could be
In that case, removal of the branch decreases the average
possible to remove the existing backup connections if L5 has a

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 27 of 43
failure frequency by 0.1 failures per year. SAIDI reduces by [3] H. Falaghi and M.-R. Haghifam, “Distributed generation impacts on
electric distribution systems reliability: Sensitivity analysis,”
5.7 minutes per year and the total costs reduce by 13.6 k€ International conference on “computer as a tool”, Serbia & Montenegro,
when the investment cost to DG has been taken into account. Belgrade, 22-24 November 2005.
The results are shown in Table 5. [4] H.L. Willis and W.g. Scott, “Distributed power generation – planning
and evaluation. Marcel Dekker,” New York, 2000.
[5] C.A. Willis, “Distribution reliability: What is it?,” IEEE Industry
Basic DG CC Cable
Applications Magazine, Vol 2, Issue 4, pp 32-37 July/August 1996.
Investment [k€] 0.0 10.0 61.8 87.1 [6] P. Verho, A. Mäkinen, K. Kivikko, S. Repo, P. Järventausta, T. Kaipia,
Total costs [k€/20a] 729.7 716.1 781.6 799.8 J. Lassila, J. Partanen, J. Pylvänäinen, “ Visionary Development of
Distribution Networks”, The 19th International Conference on
SAIFI [1/a] 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 Electricity Distribution (CIRED), May 2007
SAIDI [min/a] 217.3 211.7 214.3 211.8 [7] B. Lemström and M. Lehtonen, “Kostnader för elavbrott,” Nordiska
ministerrådets serie TeMaNord, 1994:627, p 165 (in Swedish)
Table 5: Relative variations of the total costs and SAIDI. [8] P. Verho, P. Järventausta, K. Kivikko, J. Pylvänäinen, J. Lassila, S.
Honkapuro and T. Kaipia, “ Applying reliability analysis in evaluation
Different constructions of the branch are explored to enable of life-cycle costs of alternative network solutions,” European
comparison of the effects of DG. Using CC or cable instead of Transactions on electrical power, Vol 16, September/October 2006, pp
overhead line improves the reliability of the test network with 523-531
[9] J. Pylvänäinen, P. Verho, J. Järvinen, S. Kunttu and J. Sarsama,
higher total costs.
“Advanced failure rate and distribution network reliability modeling as
part of network planning software,” Proceedings CIRED 2005.
[10] J. Pylvänäinen, J. Järvinen, M. Oravasaari and P. Verho, “ Software tool
for reliability based distribution network analysis,” 3rd IEE
V. CONCLUSION International Conference on Reliability of Transmission and Distribution
In this paper the possibilities of intended island operation Networks, February 2005 London, UK5, pp. 15-17.
to improve the reliability of distribution network are
examined. Intended island operation effects are examined by
observing changes in distribution reliability indices.
Rationality of the effects is also evaluated in perspective of
incurred costs or achieved savings in planning horizon.
Effects are examined by reliability-based software in a test
network, which is based on a real distribution network. In this
study, traditional development actions on a network such as
building new backup connections in different constructions
and remote controlled disconnector stations are explored to
enable comparison of the effects of intended island operation.
According to this study, intended island operation can
increase the reliability of the distribution network and reduce
long-term costs of the network. The number and quality of the
effects are strongly dependent on the placement of the
production unit and on the reliability of power supply.
According to calculations, the number of positive effects
grows when failure frequency and outage costs increase. The
effects of intended island operation on distribution network
reliability are higher than examined alternatives except
cabling the backup connections. From an economical point of
view DG, is not always the best solution. Based on the study
results, it can be possible to replace some of the network’s
backup connections by means of DG, but it is important to
notice the effects that removing backup connections can cause
on a larger scale. The study results demonstrate that
electrification of a single low voltage network by means of
DG in island operation can be an advantageous solution.

VI. REFERENCES
[1] Commission of the European communities, “The Green paper – A
European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy,”
Brussels, 2006.
[2] Y. Sun, M.H.J. Bollen and G. Ault, “Improving distribution system
reliability by means of distributed generation,” International conference
on electricity distribution, Vienna, Austria, 21-24 May 2007.

International Journal of Innovations in Energy Systems and Power (Vol. 4 no. 1, April 2009) Page 28 of 43