Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41601-019-0147-z
Protection and Control of
Modern Power Systems

ORIGINAL RESEARCH Open Access

Multi-objective energy management in

microgrids with hybrid energy sources and
battery energy storage systems
V. V. S. N. Murty* and Ashwani Kumar

Abstract
Microgrid with hybrid renewable energy sources is a promising solution where the distribution network expansion
is unfeasible or not economical. Integration of renewable energy sources provides energy security, substantial cost
savings and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, enabling nation to meet emission targets. Microgrid energy
management is a challenging task for microgrid operator (MGO) for optimal energy utilization in microgrid with
penetration of renewable energy sources, energy storage devices and demand response. In this paper, optimal
energy dispatch strategy is established for grid connected and standalone microgrids integrated with photovoltaic
(PV), wind turbine (WT), fuel cell (FC), micro turbine (MT), diesel generator (DG) and battery energy storage system
(ESS). Techno-economic benefits are demonstrated for the hybrid power system. So far, microgrid energy
management problem has been addressed with the aim of minimizing operating cost only. However, the issues of
power losses and environment i.e., emission-related objectives need to be addressed for effective energy
management of microgrid system. In this paper, microgrid energy management (MGEM) is formulated as mixed-
integer linear programming and a new multi-objective solution is proposed for MGEM along with demand
response program. Demand response is included in the optimization problem to demonstrate it’s impact on
optimal energy dispatch and techno-commercial benefits. Fuzzy interface has been developed for optimal
scheduling of ESS. Simulation results are obtained for the optimal capacity of PV, WT, DG, MT, FC, converter, BES,
charging/discharging scheduling, state of charge of battery, power exchange with grid, annual net present cost,
cost of energy, initial cost, operational cost, fuel cost and penalty of greenhouse gases emissions. The results show
that CO2 emissions in standalone hybrid microgrid system is reduced by 51.60% compared to traditional system
with grid only. Simulation results obtained with the proposed method is compared with various evolutionary
algorithms to verify it’s effectiveness.
Keywords: Microgrid energy management, Renewable energy sources, Storage system, Demand response

1 Introduction smart grid technology, the microgrid (MG) model was

For several decades, the conventional power generation suggested to coordinate distributed generators with
was transferred to the load centers over long distances. conventional power grid. Establishment of MGs by inte-
There was huge cost involved for infrastructure develop- grating local renewable energy sources, conventional
ment of longer transmission lines. The longer lines have generators and loads, is a significant step towards Smart
the issues of stability and voltage profile management Grids [1]. Despite significant benefits, there are some
for it’s reliable and flexible operation. Renewable sources challenges in terms of system configuration, adequate
based distribution generation penetration into the grid energy storage capacity requirement, energy manage-
has the advantages of deferring the construction of new ment, reserve power allocation, and control. One of the
transmission lines and there by the reduction in cost of critical issues is optimal coordination of hybrid energy
infrastructure and reduced network losses. With the sources in MG with the main grid. The economic dis-
patching of microgrids will affect the operating efficiency
* Correspondence: [email protected] [1]. Energy management module of the central controller
Electrical Engg Department, NIT Kurukshetra, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India

© The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 2 of 20

is responsible for ensuring an optimal energy generation stable grid. It is recommended to run PV and WT units
in a MG. A novel power scheduling methodology is pre- at maximum operating points to maximize objective
sented in [2] for economic dispatch in microgrid with function. Capacity of BES shall be selected suitable to
integration of renewable energy sources to operation maintain energy balance in the microgrid and to store
cost of microgrid. The problem of MGEM encompasses excessive surplus energy of renewable energy sources.
both supply and demand side management, unit com- Diesel generator set in microgrid serves as reserve. DG
mitment (UC), while satisfying system constraints, to sets shall be sized adequately to fed emergency loads i.e.,
realize an economical, sustainable, and reliable operation critical loads during emergency situation i.e., main grid
of microgrid. MGEM provides many benefits from gen- and renewable energy sources are not available. Micro-
eration dispatch to energy savings, support to frequency grid operator needs to compute load and generation un-
regulation, reliability to loss cost-reduction, energy bal- certainties accurately for optimal dispatch of energy in
ance to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and customer microgrids. In the MGEM model, the ESS state of
participation to customer privacy. Generally, the object- charge (SOC) in each hour depends on the SOC in the
ive is to minimize total microgrid operating cost, but previous hour. Therefore, the ESS SOC in each two con-
other important objectives such as minimizing gaseous secutive hours is correlated and the optimization prob-
emissions and line losses can be taken into account. lem is subjected by a dynamic constraint. Up to now,
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the architecture of the MGEM two main methods, namely, centralized energy manage-
system. Usually in such system, some information such ment (CEM) and decentralized energy management
as the DG parameters, availability of ESS, the forecasted (DEM) have been proposed in various literatures to solve
load demand, RES generations and market electricity MGEM problem. The structure of a CEM system in-
price for all hours of day ahead should be known in ad- cludes a central controller which solves a global
vance. These data are sent as input parameters to the optimization problem with regard to selected objectives
MGEM optimization algorithm, and the outputs show and constraints, but DEM system is based on multi-
the best generation schedule for all hours of day ahead. agent systems. Various optimization formulations have
A comprehensive review of energy management and been proposed for CEM of MG [4]. These formulations
control with hybrid energy sources have been discussed are often aimed at minimizing operating costs [5–13] or
in [3]. A typical framework of microgrid with its key at minimizing both the operating cost and emissions
components is shown in Fig. 2. The microgrid is con- [14–18]. Sometimes objectives such as load curtailment
nected to main utility grid through the point of common index [19], voltage deviation [20], power losses [21], fuel
coupling (PCC) which is under control of MGO. Micro- consumption [22], and grid power profile fluctuations
grid agents are assigned the responsibility of energy [23] are also considered as the objective function of
management of individual microgrid units. Bi-directional MGEM problem. Although the objective function of the
communication link is mandatory for optimal energy energy management problem in [24] includes several
management in microgrid. Each microgrid unit compris- objectives, such as minimizing grid voltage deviations,
ing of battery energy storage device, diesel generator set, power losses, security margins and energy imported
PV and wind turbines etc. Each microgrid agent com- from the main grid; and the objective function presented
municates to MGO in real time for optimal energy in [25], includes four objectives of minimizing cus-
dispatch. In microgrids, battery energy storage systems tomer’s costs, emissions, load peak and load curve
are mandatory for: deliver power instantaneously, store fluctuations, but the proposed MG configuration only
surplus energy from RES, load curve smoothing, reserve consist of renewable sources and electrical vehicles, and
support and optimal energy dispatch etc. with adequate controllable DGs or ESS are not considered. Further-
battery ESS, the microgrid network become strong and more, the main objective function is formulated in the

Fig. 1 Microgrid energy management system

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 3 of 20

Fig. 2 Typical framework of microgrid

simplest form, i.e., in the form of a weighted sum of ob- renewable energy sources considering deferrable loads
jectives, as well as the MG configuration is also ignored. were discussed in [35] for energy exchange and reserve al-
The inadequacy of objective functions and constraints in location. Scheduling of energy among wind, nuclear, gas
most existing models affects the accuracy and effective- based DG, and hydro sources along with reserve manage-
ness of the MGEM results, and, despite the computa- ment problem is solved using MATPOWER tool [36].
tional effort, the results are not efficient [1]. Energy management among multiple microgrids having
Additionally, these models do not specify how to deal heat and electricity energy systems was discussed in [37]
with the ESS and the dynamic mode of MGEM problem; using distributed optimization algorithm. Demand re-
as well as the unit commitment of controllable DGs have sponse program also included in the optimization prob-
not been identified in them and only addressed the eco- lem. Economic strategy for power dispatch to reduce
nomic dispatch problem. Therefore, a more comprehen- operating cost in AC-DC hybrid microgrid presented in
sive model for MGEM is needed [1, 12]. Different [38] considering uncertainty of load demand and renew-
optimization techniques have been used to solve the CEM able energy sources. Uncertainties were modeled using
problem in MGs [4]. These techniques include classical Hong’s two- point estimate approach. The economic
methods (linear programming [5, 18, 22, 26, 27], nonlinear dispatch problem was solved using combination of PSO
programming [20, 24, 25], dynamic programming [3] and and fuzzy logic system. Energy management in commu-
stochastic programming [16, 28, 29], Heuristic approach nity microgrids was presented in [39] considering distribu-
[17, 30], evolutionary approach [6, 7, 14, 19, 31], model tion generation and electrical load demand to minimize
predictive control approach [9, 12, 29], and robust total cost. Photovoltaic and battery storage system inte-
optimization [10, 11, 15]. A generalized architecture pro- grated to grid connected microgrid [40]. Authors have for-
posed for energy management in microgrids [6] based on mulated the dispatch problem as MILP with an objective
multi agent system. Multi period imperialist competition of maximization of PV production. Genetic algorithm
method used in [8] for energy management in microgrids used in [41], for power dispatching in grid connected
to minimize cost of generation. Optimal power dispatch microgrid for minimizing operating cost of PV, WT, FC,
in islanded microgrid presented in [32] considering dis- MT and grid. Economic dispatch problem was formulated
tributed energy sources and storage systems. In hybrid as a quadratic programming problem in grid connected
power system with PV and wind based energy sources, microgrid [42] with an objective of minimization of cost
ESS used to smoothing the load and generation curve. In of grid, DG and battery storage system. Dynamic pro-
[33], smoothing control approach proposed to regulate gramming based economic dispatch in grid connected
power fluctuations in hybrid power system. Economic microgrid was presented in [43] for minimization total
dispatch problem among multiple microgrid clusters was operation cost. Economic schedule of grid connected
presented in [34]. In each microgrid, energy management microgrid with hybrid energy sources was carried out
problem solved and simultaneously co-operate with adja- based on distributed model predictive control algorithm
cent microgrid clusters. The problem of economic sched- and solved using mixed integer linear programming [44].
uling on multi-time scale with PV and wind based In [45], power dispatch in grid connected microgrid with
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 4 of 20

PV/BES was obtained using quadratic programming to minimization for the purpose of improving microgrid
minimize grid cost. Power dispatch strategy of island performance.
microgrid consists of diesel generator, PV and battery In summary of above research gaps, intent of this
energy storage system presented in [46] to minimize oper- paper is development of optimal energy dispatch model
ation cost and optimization problem was formulated as for microgrid in grid connected and off-grid modes with
MINLP. Capacity of PV/WT/DG/FC/BES in island hybrid hybrid energy sources and energy storage devices. In
system was determined using particle swarm optimisation order to investigate the impact of the flexible loads on
to minimise net present cost [47]. Dispatch of PV/DG/ system operation, the collaboration of demand response
BES in isolated microgrid was presented in [48] to minim- strategies are evaluated in detail. In this paper, a multi-
ise annual system cost. Two-stage min-max-min robust objective solution is formulated as mixed-integer linear
optimal dispatch model presented in [49] for island hybrid programming for optimal energy management of micro-
microgrid considering uncertainties of renewable energy grid. The multi-objective function consists of minimizing
generation and customer loads. The first stage of the the total operating cost, cost of emissions and cost of
model determines the startup/shutdown state of the diesel power loss. The large number of decision variables
engine generator and the operating state of the bidirec- and the dynamic mode of the MGEM problem dra-
tional converter of the microgrid. Then, the second stage matically increase the execution time of multi-objective
optimizes the power dispatch of individual units in the optimization algorithms. Therefore, in this work a global
microgrid. The column-and-constraint generation algo- criterion method is proposed and new single objective
rithm was implemented to obtain dispatching plan for the problem obtained from this method. The main contribu-
microgrid, which minimizes the daily operating cost. A tion of this paper work is given as below:
decomposition-based approach was proposed to solve the The main contributions of this paper are as follows:
problem of stochastic planning of battery energy storage
system under uncertainty to minimize net present value i) A multi-objective optimization solution is
[50]. Cutting-plane algorithm used to solve unit commit- proposed for microgrid energy management
ment problem in isolated microgrid [51]. Simulation re- problem with hybrid energy sources and battery
sults were compared with deterministic and stochastic storage system.
formulations. In [52], chaotic group search optimizer with ii) Hybrid energy sources such as photovoltaic (PV),
multiple producer used to solve dispatch problem in is- wind turbine (WT), diesel generator (DG), micro
land microgrid to minimise energy cost and voltage devi- turbine (MT), fuel cell (FC) and energy storage
ation. Authors have considered uncertain power output of system (ESS) are integrated into to the microgrid.
wind turbine and photovoltaic cell in the optimization iii) The multi-objective function proposed in this paper
problem as interval variables. Two stage methodology pro- for determining the best optimal capacity of energy
posed in [53] for dynamic power dispatch in isolated sources and storage system.
microgrids with micro turbines and energy storage devices iv) Two modes of microgrids i.e., grid connected and
considering demand side management. In first stage, dom- standalone microgrid are studied in this work.
inance based evolutionary algorithm used to find pareto- v) Proposed a fuzzy inference system for optimal
optimal solutions of the problem. The best solution was scheduling of charging/discharging of ESS.
obtained using decision analysis in the second stage. Prob- vi) Techno-economic benefits of microgrid operation
abilistic nature of load demand and renewable energy is further enhanced through demand response
sources were taken care in energy scheduling problem of program.
isolated microgrid [54], which was solved using mixed in- vii) The proposed method is scalable and can be
teger linear programming. Authors have considered ob- implemented in real systems interconnected with
jective function as minimization of fuel cost of micro distribution network.
turbines, spinning reserve cost, and BES. viii)The proposed scheme provides end user flexibility.
Application of robust optimization methods to energy ix) Optimization algorithms: PSO, GA, DE, TS, TLBO,
management in microgrids have been addressed on grid ICA, BBO and ABC have not been reported in the
connected systems. The critical issues in this type of literature for energy dispatch in microgrids. A
microgrid: power balance and reserve power allocation. comprehensive comparison among these algorithms
Further, many researchers have solved energy manage- has been reported in this work. Further, performance
ment problem considering objective function of total of the proposed methodology is compared with
operation cost minimization. It can be deduced from evolutionary optimization algorithms.
the comprehensive review on the most recent litera- x) Simulation results are obtained for optimal capacity
ture that a great deal of studies have mainly focused on of PV, WT, DG, MT, FC, BES, converter, state of
energy scheduling implementation and operation cost charge of BES, grid power exchange, levelized COE,
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 5 of 20

NPC, capital cost, replacement cost, O&M cost, PBES ðt Þ ¼ P dch ðt Þ if P PV ðt Þ þ P WT ðt Þ

fuel cost, power loss cost and emission penalty. þ P DG ðt Þ þ P FC ðt Þ þ P MT ðt Þ
þ P g ðt Þ−P d ðt Þ<0 ð6Þ
2 Modeling of hybrid energy sources in microgrid
Hybrid power system comprise of PV/WT/DG/MT/FC/ At particular instant BES can be operate in one mode
BES could be an economic solution to produce clean only i.e. charging or discharging state. Charging and dis-
energy to match with time varying realistic load demand charging power of battery is calculated as below:
and therefore unmet energy demand shall be zero at any Charging mode:
instant of time. Modelling of each component is ex-

P DG ðt Þ þ PWT ðt Þ þ P FC ðt Þ þ PMT ðt Þ−P d ðt Þ
plained in this section. E ch ðt Þ ¼ þ P pv ðt Þ Δtηch
ηConv
ð7Þ
2.1 Modelling of PV system
Output power of PV array can be calculated as follows: SOC ðt Þ ¼ SOC ðt−1Þð1−σ Þ þ E ch ðt Þ ð8Þ


GT    Discharging mode:
Ppv ¼ P rpv f pv 1 þ αp T c −T c;STC ð1Þ
GT ; STC

−P DG ðt Þ−PWT ðt Þ−P FC ðt Þ−P MT ðt Þ þ P d ðt Þ
E dch ðt Þ ¼ −P pv ðt Þ Δtηdch

 ηConv
  GT
T c ¼ T aþ T c;NOCT −T a;NOCT ð9Þ
GT ;NOCT
 η
 1−
mp
ð2Þ SOC ðt Þ ¼ SOC ðt−1Þð1−σ Þ−E ch ðt Þ ð10Þ
0:9
SOC(t): battery state of charge at time “t”.
SOC(t − 1): battery state of charge at time “t-1”.
2.2 Modelling of wind power Two independent factors may limit the lifetime of the
Power output from wind turbine is calculated using storage bank: the lifetime throughput (Qlifetime) and the
following equations: storage float life (Rbatt, f). While selecting storage system,
8 operator can choose whether the storage lifetime is
>
> 0; v ≤ vci
< limited by time, throughput, or both. If the storage prop-
P n ðvÞ; vci < v < vr
Pw ¼ Pr ð3Þ erties indicate that the storage life is limited by through-
>
> 1; vr < v < vco
: put, operator need to replace storage bank when its total
0; v > vco
throughput equals to it’s lifetime throughput. The stor-
Pwt ¼ ηwt Pw ð4Þ age bank life is determined using the following equation:
8
> N batt Qlifetime
>
> if limited by throughput
>
> Qthrpt
<
2.3 Modelling of BES R
Rbatt ¼
>
batt;"f #if limited by time
Integration of renewable generation and electric vehicles >
> N Q
> min
>
batt lifetime
; Rbatt; f iflimited by throughput and time
to the grid makes it more difficult to maintain energy : Qthrpt
balance and can result in large frequency deviations on a ð11Þ
microgrid. Ancillary services provide the supplementary
resources required to maintain the instantaneous and The float life of the storage system is the length of
ongoing balance between sources and load. ESS can pro- time it will last before it needs replacement. When you
vide regulating reserve, a type of ancillary service, by create a storage system you can choose whether to limit
modulating active power for frequency control, to re- its life by time, by throughput, or by both. The float life
duce frequency deviations caused by sudden changes in does not apply if you have chosen to limit the storage
renewable generation. The rating of ESS is affected by lifetime by throughput only. The battery wear cost can
battery configuration, back-up period, temperature, be determined using the following equation:
battery life time, depth of discharge, reserve power re-
C rep;batt
quirement and renewable energy sources etc. Char- C bw ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð12Þ
ging and discharging schedule of battery is expressed N batt Qlifetime ηrt
in eqs. (5–6).
2.4 Modelling of power converter
PBES ðt Þ ¼ P ch ðt Þ if P PV ðt Þ þ PWT ðt Þ Converter is required in hybrid systems contains AC
þ P DG ðt Þ þ P FC ðt Þ þ P MT ðt Þ and DC elements. Rating of inverter is determined using
þ P g ðt Þ−P d ðt Þ ≥0 ð5Þ eq. (13) [30].
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 6 of 20

  Xn
INV cap ¼ ð3Lind Þ þ L0 ð13Þ F 1 Pg ¼ C g ðt ÞP g ðt Þ ð19Þ
t¼1
Xn nXNDG o
2.5 Generator capacity F 2 ðP i Þ ¼ t¼1 i¼1
FC i ðPi ðt ÞÞ þ S i ðt Þ ð20Þ
The output power of each controllable unit must satisfy     
its upper and lower limits as follows. F 3 C RES;i P RES;i ðt Þ ¼ aRES;i P RES;i ðt Þ2 þ bRES;i P RES;i ðt Þ þ C RES;i
ð21Þ
DG ≤ P DG ðt Þ ≤ P DG
Pmin ð14Þ
max
Xn XN XM  
F 4 ðCE i Þ ¼ EF ij :P i ðt Þ cedg
MT ≤ P MT ðt Þ ≤ P MT
Pmin ð15Þ
max
t¼1 i¼1 j¼1
X
M  

FC ≤ P FC ðt Þ ≤ P FC
Pmin ð16Þ þ EF gj :P g ðt Þ ceg
max

j¼1

ð22Þ
2.6 Demand response
Microgrid operator offers incentive to consumers against F 5 ðDRÞ ¼ IC DR ð23Þ
t
participation in demand response program. Incentive
cost for demand response is given below: F 6 ðP loss Þ ¼ K e TPL ð24Þ
X  
t ¼
IC DR k P DR ð17Þ FC i ðP i ðt ÞÞ ¼ ai P i ðt Þ2 þ bi P i ðt Þ þ C i ð25Þ
b∈nb DR b;t

S i ðt Þ ¼ SC i if θi ðt Þ−θi ðt−1Þ ¼ 1 ð26Þ

3 MGEM problem modeling
Where, F1(Pg) is cost of main grid, F2(Pi) is fuel cost
Optimization model for microgrid energy management
and start-up cost of controllable generators, F3(CRES, i) is
problem is presented in this section with multi-objective
cost of renewable based distribution generation, F4(CEi)
as defined in eq. (18) and constraints as follows.
is cost of green house gas emissions, F5(DR) is incentive
cost of demand response and F6(Ploss) is cost of real
3.1 Objective function
power loss in microgrid. Pg(t) = 0, if the MG operates in
Decision problems with several conflicting objectives or
island mode, Pg(t) > 0 if the power is purchased from the
multi-objective optimization, unlike standard optimization
main grid, and Pg(t) < 0 if the power is sold to the main
problems, do not have a single solution; rather, all the opti-
grid. θi(t) = 1, if the ith unit is on and θi(t) = 0, if it is off
mal possible points that satisfy the constraints can be ac-
at time t.
cepted as an optimal. The choice of a single point from
these optimal points (the Pareto Front) is the responsibility
3.2 Constraints
of the so-called decision-maker. For the proposed MGEM,
The microgrid energy management system is affected by
the solution of the MO process comes to find the unit
a number of constraints as follows.
commitment and output power generation of each control-
Power balance constraint: The balance between gener-
lable DGs, the power exchanged with the main grid, and
ation and demand is maintained as mentioned in eq.
the charging and discharging power of the ESS for all
(27). Net power generation shall be equal to total load
hours of day ahead to ensure that the certain objectives are
demand and losses. Therefore, unmet energy at any time
achieved while satisfying the constraints [55]. Although,
shall be zero.
due to the presence of RES, the environmental issue of the
micro-grid is less than traditional power generation sys- PD ðt Þ þ P DR ðt Þ þ P loss ðt Þ þ P ch ðt Þ
tems, it cannot be ignored in the definition of the objective ¼ P grid ðt Þ þ P DG ðt Þ þ P WT ðt Þ þ PPV ðt Þ
function. Also, due to low voltage and high resistance of þ PMT ðt Þ þ PFC ðt Þ þ P dc ðt Þ ð27Þ
MG lines, power losses cannot be ignored. This work aims
to define, implement and validate energy management in Generation capacity constraint: The output power of
microgrids with hybrid energy sources. The power dispatch each controllable generator unit must satisfy its upper
strategy is formulated as mixed integer linear programing and lower limits as specified in eqs. (14)–(16).
problem and implemented in GAMS using CPLEXS solver. Consumer Loads: Based on process/operation require-
The proposed multi-objective function of the MGEM ments loads are categorized as critical loads, non-critical
problem is given in eq. (18). loads, transferrable, sheddable and non-sheddable loads
     etc.
min F 1 P g ; F 2 ðP DG Þ; F 3 C RES;i P RES;i ðt Þ ; F 4 ðCE Þ; F 5 ðDRÞ; F 6 ðP loss Þ

ð18Þ shed; max

L;t ≤ P L;t
0≤ P shed ð28Þ
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 7 of 20

trans; max
L;t ≤P L;t ð29Þ
0≤ P trans charging and discharging the ESS using some informa-
tion about the forecasted main grid power prices, load
b;t ≤ ∝P D b;t
0≤ P DR ð30Þ demand and RES generation levels. Fuzzy logic is used
for optimal scheduling of BES.
Charging-discharging constraints:
Charging and discharge power of BES shall be less 4.1 Fuzzy logic based ESS scheduling
than nominal capacity of BES. In fact, ESS scheduling as a part of MGEM problem is a
0≤ P ch ðt Þ ≤ P rBES ð31Þ decision-making process in which, due to the combin-
ation of many scenarios, it seems inevitable to use a
0≤ P dch ðt Þ ≤ PrBES ð32Þ fuzzy inference system that is able to decide whether the
ESS should be charged or discharged and at which rates.
The output power of each energy storage unit must
satisfy charge-discharge limits as follows. 4.2 Fuzzification process
ES min ≤ ES i ðt Þ ≤ ES max ð33Þ The fuzzy inference system used in ESS scheduling is
i i
based on the following parameters as inputs.
Where, ES min
i and ES max
i represent the minimum and
maximum exchanged power of energy storage unit i, – ESS State of Charge (SOC)
respectively. – Normalized Electricity Prices (NEP)
– Normalized Remaining Load (NRL) - As the
ES i ðt Þ > 0 energy storage unit is discharging mode difference between load demand and RES
ES i ðt Þ < 0 energy storage unit is charging mode generations

Dynamic performance of the energy storage units: The following membership functions specify the de-
gree of membership for the input and output patterns
ηi ES i ðt Þ
SOC i ðt þ 1Þ ¼ SOC i ðt Þ− ð34Þ sent to the fuzzy inference engine. The terms VL, L, M
Ci and H in input membership functions are very low, low,
SOC min ≤ SOC i ðt Þ ≤ SOC max ð35Þ medium and high, respectively. Furthermore, the terms
i i
HC, MC and LC, in output membership function re-
Where, SOCi, ηi and Ci represent the state of charge, spectively mean high, medium and low charging; the
charging or discharging efficiency and capacity of the terms HD, MD and LD, respectively mean high, medium
energy storage unit i, respectively. Battery life time shall and low discharging and the term ZR indicates that the
be limited as given in eq. (11). BES is neither charged nor discharged.

4 Scheduling of ESS 4.3 Inference engine

Energy storage is needed to overcome the intermittent After determining the fuzzy rules, inference engine using
nature of RES power output, enhance the power quality these rules converts the fuzzy input to the fuzzy output.
and improve the controllability of power flow. Since in a The fuzzy rules applied in the inference engine are
MG, the coordination of the energy storage system with shown in Table 1 of the appendix. In the fuzzy rule set,
the generating units can improve the energy efficiency charging priority relates to the low NRL and NEP pe-
and the voltage and frequency stability of the system, the riods and discharging priority relates to the high NRL
attention to these systems is significantly increasing. A and NEP periods to avoid expensive energy purchases
fact appears in MGEM problem that the SOC of battery from main grid.
in each hour depends on the SOC in the previous hour.
Hence, this problem is constrained by a dynamic pro- 4.4 Defuzzification
gramming [3]. Therefore, if we can determine the After calculating the fuzzy output by the inference en-
amount of charging and discharging power of the ESS gine, the next step is the defuzzification into an output
before optimizing the MGEM problem, the computa- signal of charging or discharging of the ESS and its rate.
tional burden of problem solving will be greatly reduced. Here, the defuzzification is done by the center of mass
Smart decision about the amount of charge and dis- of the fuzzy outputs.
charge of the energy storage units should be such that
they are allowed to discharge only when there is no very 5 Implementation of demand response
big load predicted within the future periods. In order to Demand side participation is an important tool for
minimize energy costs and improve MG operation indi- scheduling generation and consumption at lower cost
ces, the central controller must find the best pattern for and higher security [28]. Demand response (DR) is one
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 8 of 20

of the most popular methods of demand side participa- periods, such as peak load times. The modified load
tion that encourages the customers to adjust their elastic demand due to the implementation of incentive-based
loads in accordance with the operator’s request or price DR programs is obtained as follows.
signals. Usually, the elastic loads are classified into shift-  
able and curtailable loads. The benefits of DR for cus- EðiÞ ρðiÞ−ρo ðiÞ−AðiÞ þ penðiÞ
dðiÞ ¼ do ðiÞ 1 þ ð37Þ
tomers are the financial benefits and the continuity of ρo ðiÞ
 
electricity. It also has benefits for MG operator such as X24 ρð jÞ−ρo ð jÞ−Að jÞ þ penð jÞ
cost savings, optimal operation, reducing the use of þ E ð i; j Þ
j¼1; j≠i ρo ð jÞ
costly generators, reduced purchases of expensive power
from the main grid and load curve flattening. In general,
DR programs are classified into two main categories of 6 General framework for MGEM problem solving
time-based rate (TBR) and incentive-based (IB) pro- Figure 3 illustrates the implementation flowchart of the
grams. In TBR programs, the motivation to change cus- proposed multi-objective MGEM problem in two cases
tomer demand is related to the difference in electricity without using the fuzzy scheduling system of BES and
prices at different times, but in IB programs, incentive with the presence of this system. According to this
and penalty options are the motivation behind the flowchart, the forecasted values of load demand and
change in customer demand. electricity prices, along with the self and cross elasticity
parameters and incentive and penalty tariffs for control-
5.1 Load control in the time-based rate DR programs lable loads, are sent to the load control system to pro-
In this DR program, customer load demands change vide the modified load demand values resulting from the
with respect to the electricity price signals. The modified implementation of DR programs.
load demand at ith and jth hours due to the implementa- Then, in the case of the presence of the fuzzy schedul-
tion of time-based rate DR program can be obtained ing system of ESS, the values of the modified load de-
using the following equation. mand, along with the forecasted RES generations and
    electricity prices and the characteristics of ESS and its
E ðiÞ ρðiÞ−ρo ðiÞ X24 ρð jÞ−ρo ð jÞ SOC are sent to the fuzzy scheduling system, and the
d ðiÞ ¼ d o ðiÞ 1 þ þ E ði; jÞ
ρo ðiÞ j¼1; j≠i ρo ð jÞ output of this system and the load control system along
ð36Þ with the characteristics of the MG system and its con-
trollable DGs are forwarded to the optimization algo-
rithm to calculate the set points of the resources and the
5.2 Load control in the incentive-based DR programs amount of power exchange with the main grid for each
In this DR program, the changes in electric usage are hour of day ahead. In the case of the absence of schedul-
based on incentive and penalty options in certain ing system of BES, the MGEM problem has a dynamic
nature, and the optimization algorithm should calculate
Table 1 Fuzzy rules for ESS scheduling the set points of the controllable DGs, power exchange
I/P-1 SOC VL VL VL VL VL VL VL VL VL with the main grid and the charging and discharging
I/P-2 NRL L L L M M M H H H power of the BES, for all hours of day ahead altogether.
I/P-3 NEP L M H L M H L M H
6.1 Solution methods
O/P C&D HC HC HC HC MC MC HC MC LC
Since in the MGEM problem, several objectives have to
I/P-1 SOC L L L L L L L L L be optimized simultaneously, this is called a multi-
I/P-2 NRL L L L M M M H H H objective optimization, which does not have a single an-
I/P-3 NEP L M H L M H L M H swer, but all the non-dominate points that meet the con-
O/P C&D HC MC MC MC LC ZR MC LC ZR straints can be considered as optimal. This set of points
I/P-1 SOC M M M M M M M M M
is called the Pareto front. There are various methods to
select the final optimal point, the most common of
I/P-2 NRL L L L M M M H H H
which is the replacement of objective functions with a
I/P-3 NEP L M H L M H L M H weighted combination of all objectives, but these
O/P C&D LC LC LD LC ZR LD ZR LD MD methods are highly dependent on the information the
I/P-1 SOC H H H H H H H H H analyst receives from the decision maker. Therefore, in
I/P-2 NRL L L L M M M H H H the following, two methods of fuzzy membership rule
I/P-3 NEP L M H L M H L M H
and global criterion have been proposed that require the
least information from the decision-maker and their per-
O/P C&D ZR LD MD MD MD HD MD HD HD
formance will also be compared.
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 9 of 20

Fig. 3 Flow chart for microgrid energy management system

6.1.1 Fuzzy membership rule must first be determined in this method and this is very
In this method, after determining the points of the time-consuming, it is reasonable to use other methods,
Pareto front by the multi-objective optimization algo- such as methods for converting a multi-objective problem
rithms, since each point k has a specified value for the into a single objective.
objective function i, its fuzzy membership value is
determined as follows. 6.1.1.1 Global criterion method
In this method, the sum of the relative deviations of ob-
F max −F i jectives from their global optimum is minimized. There-
μki ¼ i
ð38Þ
F i −F min
max
i fore, a single objective optimization problem is defined
as follows.
Where, μki is the fuzzy membership value of the point
k for the objective function i, and F min
i and F max
i are re- Xn
F k −F  p
minZ ¼ k
ð40Þ
spectively the lowest and highest value of the objective k¼1 F k
function i in all points of the Pareto front. After calculat-
ing the fuzzy membership values μki for all points of the Where, Fk and F k are the kth objective function and its
Pareto front, the overall fuzzy membership value of each unique optimum value, respectively. Different metrics
point k for all objective functions are defined as follows. can be used, e.g. Lp metric where 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞, but here p is
Pnobj assumed to be equal to 1. Global criterion method has
μki attracted much attention because of the ease of use and
μk ¼ PNp i¼1
Pnobj ð39Þ
μki the little need for information from the decision maker.
k¼1 i¼1
In this paper, population-based evolutionary algorithms
Where, μk is the overall fuzzy membership value for are also used to optimize the MGEM problem; but since
point k, nobj is the total number of objectives, and Np is the evolutionary algorithms do not guarantee a global
the total number of Pareto front points. Finally, the optimal solution. MGEM problem is formulated as
point with the highest fuzzy membership value μk is se- MILP and implemented in GAMS 23.4 environment and
lected as the final optimal point. Since the Pareto front solved using CPLEX solver.
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 10 of 20

7 Results and discussions all hours of day ahead are 280.48 $, 81.51 $, and 62.88
Figure 4 shows microgrid network considered for the kWh, respectively. Although the cost and emission of a
simulation study [56]. The cost and emissions informa- microturbine unit is lower than a diesel unit, due to the
tion of the controllable DGs and the flat rate price and high impedance of the microturbine feeder, this unit is
the average emissions of the main grid are shown in given priority to shutdown when the load is low. The
Table 2. The penalty rate for CO2, SO2 and NOx emis- performance of various evolutionary optimization
sion is set at 0.03, 2.18 and 9.26 $/kg, respectively. Max- algorithms in solving the energy management problem
imum capacity of diesel generator is 60 kW and (Eq. 40) has been compared in Table 3. In all evolution-
minimum output is 20 kW. Micro turbine and fuel cell ary algorithms, the population is considered as 500 and
have max and minimum capacity of 30 kW and 10 kW max iteration as 1000. Due to the large number of deci-
respectively. Limit on power import and export to main sion variables, in spite of changing the parameters of
grid is 100 kW. The total energy storage devices have a crossover and mutation, algorithms such as GA and DE
maximum charging and discharging power of 50 kW failed to converge to the optimum. Despite the initial
and a capacity of 100 kWh. In order to increase the life fast convergence of the ISA algorithm, the optimum was
of the ESS, the minimum and maximum SOC is set to not achieved at maximum allowed iteration. Among all
20% and 95%, respectively. the evolutionary algorithms, the PSO algorithm and then
the TLBO algorithm provided the best performance.
7.1 MGEM without using the fuzzy scheduling of ESS
In this case, it is assumed that the fuzzy scheduling sys- 7.2.2 MGEM with demand response program
tem of BES is not available and the energy management In this paper, from time-based rate programs, real time
problem has a dynamic nature. Initially, total loads are pricing (RTP) and from incentive-based programs, direct
considered uncontrollable, and then different demand load control (DLC) has been implemented. Figure 6
response programs are implemented in the MG, and in illustrates the change in load demand after implementa-
each case, the optimization results of MGEM problem tion of demand response programs. It is assumed that
are presented and compared. 20% of total load demand would participate in DR pro-
grams. The self and cross elasticity and flat rate price are
7.2 Use the global criterion method to find the final optimum considered to be 0.2, 0.01 and 12.5 $/kWh, respectively.
7.2.1 MGEM without demand response program The incentive rate to reduce load in peak hours is set at
Simulation results are shown in Fig. 5 using global cri- 2 $/kWh and the peak period is from 12:00 to 18:00.
terion approach. The optimal value of the general single Optimization results of the objective function of the en-
objective function (Eq. 40) is equal to 0.567. The total ergy management problem (Eq. 40) with DR programs
operating costs, emission penalties, and power losses for are illustrated in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, respectively. The

Fig. 4 Typical microgrid system

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 11 of 20

Table 2 Power cost and emission rate

DG type Si Operating cost Emission rate (g/kwh)
($)
ai bi Ci CO2 SO2 NOx
Diesel Generator 3 0.00104 0.0304 1.3 697 0.22 0.5
Micro 2 0.00051 0.0397 0.4 670 0.0036 0.186
turbine
Fuel cell 1.5 0.00024 0.0267 0.38 441 0.0022 0.0136
Main grid – – – – 889 1.8 1.6

amount of operating costs, emission penalties, and reduction in emission penalties and 3.56% reduction in
power losses after the implementation of RTP program power losses compared to MGEM without DR imple-
throughout the scheduling period are 271.19 $, 79.38 $, mentation. Obviously, the impact of demand response
and 62.49 kWh, respectively; which represents a 3.31% programs will increase with increasing the participation
reduction in operating costs, 2.61% reduction in emis- percentage and the incentive rate.
sion penalties and 0.62% reduction in power losses com-
pared to MGEM without DR implementation. On the 7.3 MGEM using fuzzy scheduling of ESS
other hand, the operating costs, emission penalties, and Figures 9 and 10 illustrates the output results of the
power losses after the implementation of DLC program fuzzy storage scheduling system for the initial load
are 274.18 $, 79.80 $, and 60.64 kWh, respectively; which demand, which includes charging and discharging deci-
represents a 2.25% reduction in operating costs, 2.1% sions, and the SOC of the ESS. With the availability of such

Fig. 5 Simulation results for MGEM in using global criterion

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 12 of 20

Table 3 Comparison of evolutionary algorithms for MGEM

Optimization method Objective function Total cost Total emission Total power loss Convergence Execution
value ($) penalty ($) (kwh) (Iterations) time
PSO (Particle Swarm Optimization) 0.5944 284.28 78.23 65.75 930 6 min
GA (Genetic Algorithm) 1.1324 – – – 1000 7 min
DE (Differential Evaluation) 1.752 – – – 1000 6 min
TS (Tabu Search) 0.6069 289.35 83.08 61.86 810 12 min
TLBO (Reaching Learning Based 0.5937 283.84 81.90 63.38 970 10 min
Optimization)
ICA (Imperialist Competitive 1.769 – – – 1000 6 min
Algorithm)
BBO (Biogeography) 5.89 – – – 1000 15 min
ABC (Artificial Bee Colony) 0.7926 290.60 84.07 65.08 760 13 min
GAMS 0.567 280.48 81.51 62.88 – 12 s

information prior to optimization, the energy management consumption is 1,459,899 kWh/year. Hourly optimal
problem goes out of dynamic mode and can be optimized power dispatch of the hybrid system is illustrated in
for each hour of the scheduling period separately. Fig. 11 il- Fig. 12 and noted that there is no unmet energy at any
lustrate the optimization results of the MGEM problem point of time. Annual power production in the hybrid
using the fuzzy inference system for ESS scheduling. The power system is as follows: PV power is 740,873 kWh/
operating costs, emission penalties, and power losses year, WT power is 87,951 kWh/year, DG power is 153,
throughout the scheduling period are 283.05 $, 81.93 $, and 302 kWh/year, MT power is 486,857 kWh/year and FC
64.06 kWh, respectively; which compared with the results power is 57,333 kWh/year to cater the load demand.
of dynamic MGEM problem, represents an increase of Optimal hybrid system consists of 25 kW fuel cell, 70
0.92%, 0.52% and 1.88%, respectively; however, due to re- kW micro turbine, 180 kW PV, 50 kW diesel generator
duced decision variables and consequently the significant set, 200 kW wind turbine, 142 battery strings and 200
reduction in the runtime of optimization algorithms, the kW converter. Levelized COE and NPC of hybrid system
effectiveness of the use of fuzzy storage scheduling system is 0.2347$/kWh and 4,429,333$ respectively. Scheduling
in the MG energy management is confirmed. of hybrid energy sources for a typical day is shown in
Fig. 13. Figure 14 shows state of charge of battery
7.4 Optimal power dispatch in standalone microgrid with throughout the year. Detailed cost summary of standalone
hybrid energy sources hybrid microgrid system is given in Fig. 15. As specified in
Peak load demand on the system is 195 kW, daily aver- Table 4, capital cost is low for FC and high for PV. Also,
age consumption is 4001kWh/day and annual load greenhouse gas emissions in standalone hybrid system and

Fig. 6 Impact of demand response on load demand

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 13 of 20

Fig. 7 Energy management considering DR real time pricing

with grid only is given in Table 5. Greenhouse gases emis- management problem, and increases the time and com-
sions in microgrid with hybrid energy sources is lower than putational burden of optimization algorithms. Therefore,
conventional grid. in this paper, the fuzzy inference system is used to de-
cide on the amount of charging and discharging power
of the storage system in MGEM problem solving. The
8 Conclusion results confirm the effectiveness of using such a system
In this paper, a new multi-objective optimization prob- in the MGEM optimizing. Simulation results obtained
lem for microgrid energy management is formulated as with the proposed method is compared with various
MILP in GAMS environment. Energy dispatch and evolutionary algorithms to verify it’s effectiveness. In this
techno-economic analysis has been presented for standa- study, demand response programs were integrated into
lone and grid connected microgrids with hybrid energy the energy management system for better operation of
sources and storage devices. Capital cost, operational microgrids. Accordingly, the impact of different demand
cost, fuel cost, cost of energy, emission penalty and total response programs on optimal energy dispatch, techno-
cost are determined for the test system. From the simu- economic and environment benefit has been investi-
lation results it is observed that fuel cost of diesel gener- gated. Capital, replacement and O&M cost of the system
ator and micro turbines has significant impact on cost of is low after implementation of demand response. After
energy. The presence of the energy storage system in the implementation of RTP based DR program, operating
microgrid, raises the complexity of solving the energy cost, emission penalty and power losses reduced by
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 14 of 20

Fig. 8 Energy management considering DR direct load control

Fig. 9 State of charge of ESS

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 15 of 20

Fig. 10 Charging and discharging of ESS

3.31%, 2.61% and 0.62% respectively. On the other 9 Nomenclature

hand, after implementation of DLC based DR pro- GT ;STC Solar radiation at standard test condi-
gram, operating cost, emission penalty and power tions(1 kW/m^2)
losses reduced by 2.25%, 2.1% and 3.56% respectively. GT Solar radiation on PV array (kW/m^2)
In standalone microgrid with hybrid energy sources, CbwBattery wear cost ($/kWh)
CO2 emissions reduced by 51.60% per year as compared Cg(t)Main grid power price
to conventional grid. CiCapacity of energy storage system
This paper can be useful to microgrid operator Crep, battReplacement cost of storage bank ($)
for decision making, solid investment towards rural EFgjAverage emission factor of the main grid related to
electrification, design a competitive hybrid micro- emission type j (SO2, CO2, NOx)
grid and optimal energy dispatch strategy. Further, EFijEmission factor of unit i related to emission type j
this study facilitates microgrid system engineers (SO2, CO2, NOx)
during preliminary design phase and project cost Ech(t)Battery charging energy
estimation. Edch(t)Battery discharging energy

Fig. 11 Results for energy management using fuzzy interface

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 16 of 20

Fig. 12 Optimal power dispatch in standalone microgrid

FCiFuel cost of unit i P max

DG Maximum capacity of diesel generator (kW)
F max
i Highest value of the objective function P min
DG Minimum capacity of diesel generator (kW)
min
F i Lowest value of the objective function PFCFuel cell power output
GT, NOCTSolar radiation at which NOCT defined (0.8 PFCRated capacity of fuel cell (kW)
kW/m^2) P max
FC Maximum capacity of fuel cell (kW)
INVcapRating of inverter (kVA) P min
FC Minimum capacity of fuel cell (kW)
L0Total non-inductive load (kW) P shed; max
Maximum sheddable load (kW)
L;t
LindTotal inductive load (kW)
P shed
L;t Sheddable load (kW)
NbattNumber of batteries
P rBES Nominal capacity of BES P trans;
L;t
max
Maximum transferrable load (kW)
trans
PD b, tLoad at bus ‘b’ and time ‘t’ P L;t Transferrable load (kW)
PDLoad demand PMTMicro turbine power output
PDGRated capacity of diesel generator (kW) PMTRated capacity of micro turbine (kW)

Fig. 13 Scheduling of hybrid energy in standalone microgrid

Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 17 of 20

Fig. 14 Annual state of charge of BES

Fig. 15 Cost summary of standalone microgrid

Table 4 Detailed cost summary of standalone microgrid

Capital Replacement O&M Fuel Salvage
FC 12,500.0 12,259.1 22,377.5 226,955.1 − 344.3
WT 300,000.0 95,642.2 19,391.2 0.00 −53,900.5
BES 56,800.0 24,098.7 18,357.0 0.00 − 4535.6
DG 25,000.0 85,073.0 83,130.4 632,478.3 − 5120.5
MT 70,000.0 131,694.3 63,028.1 547,565.1 −10,847.4
PV 1,746,237.9 0.0 250,828.0 0.00 0.00
Converter 60,000.0 25,456.4 0.0 0.00 − 4791.1
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 18 of 20

Table 5 Greenhouse gases emissions summary d(i)Modified load demand due to demand response (kW)
Emission (kg/yr) Off-grid system Grid only ngTotal number of PV buses in the micro-grid network
Carbon Dioxide 446,628 922,950 in addition to the slack bus
Carbon Monoxide 1993 –
nobjTotal number of objectives
pen(i)Penalty amount at ith hour
Unburned Hydrocarbons 47.9 –
ηrtStorage roundtrip efficiency
Particulate Matter 32.1 – ρ(i)Spot electricity price
Sulfur Dioxide 426 4001 σBattery self-discharge rate
Nitrogen Oxides 2923 1957
Abbreviations
DG: Diesel generator; DLC: Direct load control; DR: Demand response;
ESS: Energy storage system; MGEM: Microgrid energy management;
P max
MT Maximum capacity of micro turbine (kW)
MGO: Micro grid operator; RTP: Real time pricing
P min
MT Minimum capacity of micro turbine (kW) Acknowledgements
PPVPhoto voltaic system power output Not applicable.
PWTWind turbine power output
Authors’ contributions
b;t Load shifted at bus ‘b’ and time ‘t’
P DR VVSNM carried out basic design, simulation work and prepared draft paper.
PchBattery charging power AK participated in checking simulation work, results & discussions, sequence
of paper and helped to prepare the manuscript. All authors read and
PdcBattery discharging power approved the final manuscript.
Pg(t)Power import from main grid at time t
Pi(t)Output power of the controllable unit i at time t, Funding
PpvPower output of PV array (kW) Not applicable.
P rpv Rated capacity of PV array (kW)
Availability of data and materials
PwRated power output of wind turbine (kW) The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from
PwtPower output of wind turbine (kW) the corresponding author on reasonable request.
QlifetimeBattery lifetime throughput (kWh)
Competing interests
QthrptAnnual storage throughput (kWh/yr) The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Rbatt, fBattery float life (years)
RbattBattery storage system life (years) Received: 21 August 2019 Accepted: 2 December 2019
SiStart-up cost of unit i
Ta, NOCTAmbient temperature at which NOCT defined References
TaAmbient temperature (°C) 1. Zhou, K., Yang, S., Chen, Z., et al. (2014). Optimal load distribution model of
microgrid in the smart grid environment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Tc, NOCTNominal operating PV cell temperature (°C)
Reviews, 35, 304–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.028.
Tc, STCPV cell temperature at STC (250 C) 2. Yu, Z., Gatsis, S. N., & Giannakis, G. B. (2013). Robust energy Management for
TcPV cell temperature (°C) Microgrids with High-Penetration Renewables. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 4(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2013.2255135.
do(i)Initial load demand (kW)
3. Nehrir, M. H., Wang, C., Strunz, K., Aki, H., Ramakumar, R., Bing, J., Miao, Z., &
fpvPV derating factor (%) Salameh, Z. (2011). A review of hybrid renewable/alternative energy
kDRIncentive rate ($/kW) Systems for Electric Power Generation: Configurations, control, and
αpTemperature coefficient of power (%/°C) applications. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 2(4), 392–403. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2011.2157540.
ηConvEfficiency of converter 4. Ahmad Khan, A., Naeem, M., Iqbal, M., et al. (2016). A compendium of
ηiCharging and discharging efficiency optimization objectives, constraints, tools and algorithms for energy
ηmpEfficiency of PV array at MPP (%) management in microgrids. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58,
1664–1683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.259.
ηwtEfficiency of wind turbine (%) 5. Jiang, Q., Xue, M., & Geng, G. (2013). Energy management of microgrid in
μki Fuzzy membership value of the point k for the grid-connected and stand-alone modes. IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, 28(3), 3380–3389. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.
objective function i 2013.2244104.
μkOverall fuzzy membership value 6. Joseba Jimeno, Y., Anduaga, J., Oyarzabal, J., & de Muro, A. G. (2011). Architecture
ρo(i)Initial electricity price of a microgrid energy management system. European Transactions on Electrical
Power, 21, 1142–1158. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.443.
∝Reduction factor of load 7. De Santis, E., Rizzi, A., & Sadeghian, A. (2017). Hierarchical genetic
NTotal number of controllable units optimization of a fuzzy logic system for energy flows management in
nTotal number of scheduling time intervals microgrids. Applied Soft Computing, 60, 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2017.05.059.
A(i)Incentive amount at ith hour 8. Marzband, M., Parhizi, N., & Adabi, J. (2016). Optimal energy management for
E(i, j)Cross-elasticity stand-alone microgrids based on multi-period imperialist competition algorithm
E(i)Self-elasticity considering uncertainties: Experimental validation. International Transactions
Electric Energy Systems, 26, 1358–1372. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2154.
NpTotal number of Pareto front points 9. Cominesi, S. R., Farina, M., Giulioni, L., et al. (2018). A two-layer stochastic
TPLTotal real power loss model predictive control scheme for microgrids. IEEE Transactions on
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 19 of 20

Control Systems Technology, 26(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2017. 30. Almada, J. B., Leão, R. P. S., Sampaio, R. F., et al. (2016). A centralized and
2657606. heuristic approach for energy management of an AC microgrid. Renewable
10. Guo, Y., & Zhao, C. (2018). Islanding-aware robust energy management for and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 60, 1396–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.
microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(2), 1301–1309. https://doi.org/ 2016.03.002.
10.1109/TSG.2016.2585092. 31. Liu, J., Chen, H., Zhang, W., et al. (2017). Energy management problems
11. Hu, W., Wang, P., & Gooi, H. B. (2018). Toward optimal energy management under uncertainties for grid-connected microgrids: A chance constrained
of microgrids via robust two-stage optimization. IEEE Transactions on Smart programming approach. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(6), 2585–2596.
Grid, 9(2), 1161–1174. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2580575. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2531004.
12. Liu, T., Tan, X., Sun, B., et al. (2018). Energy management of cooperative 32. Dou, C., An, X., Dong, Y., & Li, F. (2017). Two-level decentralized optimization
microgrids: A distributed optimization approach. International Journal of power dispatch control strategies for an islanded microgrid without
Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 96, 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. communication network. International Transactions Electric Energy Systems,
ijepes.2017.10.021. 27(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2244.
13. Oliveira, D. Q., Zambroni de Souza, A. C., Santos, M. V., et al. (2017). A fuzzy- 33. Li, X., Dong, H., & Lai, X. (2013). Battery energy Storage Station (BESS)-based
based approach for microgrids islanded operation. Electric Power Systems smoothing control of photovoltaic (PV) and wind power generation
Research, 149, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.04.019. fluctuations. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 4(2), 464–473. https://
14. Sarshar, J., Moosapour, S. S., & Joorabian, M. (2017). Multi-objective energy doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2013.2247428.
management of a micro-grid considering uncertainty in wind power 34. Zhou, X., Ai, Q., & Wang, H. (2018). A distributed dispatch method for
forecasting. Energy, 139, 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.138. microgrid cluster considering demand response. International Transactions
15. Wang, L., Li, Q., Ding, R., et al. (2017). Integrated scheduling of energy on Electrical Energy Systems, 28(12), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2634.
supply and demand in microgrids under uncertainty: A robust multi- 35. Yi, Z., Xu, Y., Gu, W., & Wu, W. (2019). A multi-time-scale economic
objective optimization approach. Energy, 130, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scheduling strategy for virtual power plant based on deferrable loads
energy.2017.04.115. aggregation and disaggregation. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy.
16. Jirdehi, M. A., Tabar, V. S., Hemmati, R., et al. (2017). Multi objective https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2019.2924936.
stochastic microgrid scheduling incorporating dynamic voltage restorer. 36. Lamadrid, A. J., Muñoz-Alvarez, D., Murillo-Sánchez, C. E., Zimmerman, R. D.,
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 93, 316–327. Shin, H., & Thomas, R. J. (2019). Using the MATPOWER optimal scheduling
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2017.06.010. tool to test power system operation methodologies under uncertainty. IEEE
17. Li, X., Deb, K., & Fang, Y. (2017). A derived heuristics based multi-objective Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 10(3), 1280–1289. https://doi.org/10.
optimization procedure for micro-grid scheduling. Engineering Optimization, 1109/TSTE.2018.2865454.
49(6), 1078–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2016.1218864. 37. Liu, N., Wang, J., & Wang, L. (2019). Hybrid energy sharing for multiple
18. Tabar, V. S., Jirdehi, M. A., & Hemmati, R. (2017). Energy management in microgrids in an integrated heat–electricity energy system. IEEE Transactions
microgrid based on the multi objective stochastic programming on Sustainable Energy, 10(3), 1139–1151. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2018.
incorporating portable renewable energy resource as demand response 2861986.
option. Energy, 118, 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.113. 38. Maulik, A., & Das, D. (2019). Optimal power dispatch considering load and
19. Farzin, H., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., & Moeini-Aghtaie, M. (2017). A stochastic renewable generation uncertainties in an AC-DC hybrid microgrid. IET
multi-objective framework for optimal scheduling of energy storage Generation Transmission and Distribution, 13(7), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/
systems in microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(1), 117–127. https:// 10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.6502.
doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2598678. 39. Abniki, H. (2018). Seyed Masoud Taghvaei, Seyed Mohsen Mohammadi
20. Hamidi, A., Nazarpour, D., & Golshannavaz, S. (2018). Multiobjective Hosseininejad. Optimal energy management of community microgrids: A
scheduling of microgrids to harvest higher photovoltaic energy. IEEE risk -based multi - criteria approach. International Transactions on Electrical
Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/ Energy Systems, 28(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/etep.2641.
TII.2017.2717906. 40. Conte, F., D’Agostino, F., Pongiglione, P., Saviozzi, M., & Silvestro, F. (2019).
21. Riva Sanseverino, E., Buono, L., Di Silvestre, M. L., et al. (2017). A distributed Mixed-integer algorithm for optimal dispatch of integrated PV-storage
minimum losses optimal power flow for islanded microgrids. Electric Power systems. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 55(1), 238–247. https://
Systems Research, 152, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.07.014. doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2018.2870072.
22. Anglani, N., Oriti, G., & Colombini, M. (2017). Optimized energy management 41. Yang, L., Fan, X., Cai, Z., & Bing, Y. (2018). Optimal active power dispatching
system to reduce fuel consumption in remote military microgrids. IEEE of microgrid and DistributionNetwork based on model predictive control.
Transactions on Industry Applications, 53(6), 5777–5785. https://doi.org/10. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 23(3), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.26599/
1109/TIA.2017.2734045. TST.2018.9010083.
23. Arcos-Aviles, D., Pascual, J., Marroyo, L., et al. (2018). Fuzzy logic-based 42. Yang, F., Feng, X., & Li, Z. (2019). Advanced microgrid energy management
energy management system design for residential grid-connected system for future sustainable and resilient power grid. IEEE Transactions on
microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 9(2), 530–543. https://doi.org/10. Industry Applications, 55(6), 7251–7260. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2019.2912133.
1109/TSG.2016.2555245. 43. Shuai, H., Fang, J., Ai, X., Tang, Y., Wen, J., & He, H. (2019). Stochastic
24. Carpinelli, G., Mottola, F., Proto, D., et al. (2017). A multi-objective approach optimization of economic dispatch for microgrid based on approximate
for microgrid scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 8(5), 2109–2118. dynamic programming. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(3), 2440–2452.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2516256. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2018.2798039.
25. Zheng, Y., Li, S., & Tan, R. (2018). Distributed model predictive control for on- 44. Garcia-Torres, F., Bordons, C., & Ridao, M. A. (2019). Optimal economic
connected microgrid power management. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems schedule for a network of microgrids with hybrid energy storage system
Technology, 26(3), 1028–1039. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCST.2017.2692739. using distributed model predictive control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
26. Li, J., Liu, Y., & Wu, L. (2018). Optimal operation for community-based multi- Electronics, 66(3), 1919–1929. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2018.2826476.
party microgrid in grid-connected and islanded modes. IEEE Transactions on 45. Paul, T. G., Hossain, S. J., Ghosh, S., Mandal, P., & Kamalasadan, S. (2018). A
Smart Grid, 9(2), 756–765. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2564645. quadratic programming based optimal power and battery dispatch for grid-
27. Parisio, A., Wiezorek, C., Kyntäjä, T., et al. (2017). Cooperative MPC-based connected microgrid. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 54(2), 1793–
energy management for networked microgrids. IEEE Transactions on Smart 1805. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2017.2782671.
Grid, 8(6), 3066–3074. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2017.2726941. 46. Sachs, J., & Sawodny, O. (2016). A two-stage model predictive control
28. Zakariazadeh, A., Jadid, S., & Siano, P. (2014). Smart microgrid energy and strategy for economic diesel-PV-Battery Island microgrid operation in rural
reserve scheduling with demand response using stochastic optimization. areas. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 7(3), 903–913. https://doi.org/
International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems, 63, 523–533. 10.1109/TSTE.2015.2509031.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.06.037. 47. Combe, M., Mahmoudi, A., Haque, M. H., & Khezri, R. (2019). Cost-effective
29. Kou, P., Liang, D., & Gao, L. (2018). Stochastic energy scheduling in microgrids sizing of an AC mini-grid hybrid power system for a remote area in South
considering the uncertainties in both supply and demand. IEEE Systems Australia. IET Generation Transmission and Distribution, 13(2), 277–287.
Journal, 12(3), 2589–2600. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2016.2614723. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.5657.
Murty and Kumar Protection and Control of Modern Power Systems (2020) 5:2 Page 20 of 20

48. Nejabatkhah, F., Li, Y. W., Nassif, A. B., & Kang, T. (2018). Optimal design and
operation of a remote hybrid microgrid. CPSS Transactions on Power
Electronics and Applications, 3(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.24295/CPSSTPEA.
2018.00001.
49. Zhao, B., Qiu, H., Qin, R., Zhang, X., Gu, W., & Wang, C. (2018). Robust
optimal dispatch of AC/DC hybrid microgrids considering generation and
load uncertainties and energy storage loss. IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems, 33(6), 5945–5957. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.
2018.2835464.
50. Alharbi, H., & Bhattacharya, K. (2018). Stochastic optimal planning of battery
energy storage Systems for Isolated Microgrids. IEEE Transactions on
Sustainable Energy, 9(1), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2017.2724514.
51. Lara, J. D., Olivares, D. E., & Cañizares, C. A. (2019). Robust energy
Management of Isolated Microgrids. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(1), 680–691.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2828838.
52. Li, Y., Wang, P., Gooi, H. B., Ye, J., & Wu, L. (2019). Multi-objective optimal
dispatch of microgrid under uncertainties via interval optimization. IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid, 10(2), 2046–2058. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.
2017.2787790.
53. Yang, L., Yang, Z., Zhao, D., Lei, H., Cui, B., & Li, S. (2019). Incorporating
energy storage and user experience in isolated microgrid dispatch using a
multi-objective model. IET Renewable Power Generation, 13(6), 973–981.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2018.5862.
54. Yang, L., Member, Z. Y., Li, G., Zhao, D., & Tian, W. (2019). Optimal scheduling
of an isolated microgrid with battery storage considering load and
renewable generation uncertainties. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, 66(2), 1565–1575. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2018.2840498.
55. Chaouachi, A., Kamel, R. M., Andoulsi, R., et al. (2013). Multiobjective
intelligent energy management for a microgrid. IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 60(4), 1688–1699. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2012.
2188873.
56. Maknouninejad, A., & Qu, Z. (2014). Realizing unified microgrid voltage
profile and loss minimization: A cooperative distributed optimization and
control approach. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 5(4), 1621–1630. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2014.2308541.