Co-Optimization Generation and Distribution Planning
in Microgrids
Hossein Lotfi, Amin Khodaei
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Denver
Denver, CO, USA
hossein.lotfi@du.edu, amin.khodaei@du.edu
Abstract—This paper proposes a co-optimization generation
and distribution planning model in microgrids in which
simultaneous investment in generation, i.e., distributed generation
(DG) and distributed energy storage (DES), and distribution, i.e.,
upgrading the existing distribution network, is considered. The
objective of the proposed model is to minimize the microgrid total
planning cost which comprises the investment cost of installed
generation assets and lines, the microgrid operation cost, and the
cost of unserved energy. The microgrid planning solution
determines the optimal generation size, location, and mix, as well
as required network upgrade. To consider line flow and voltage
limits, a linearized power flow model is proposed and used,
allowing further application of mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) in problem modeling. The proposed model is applied to
the IEEE 33-bus standard test system to demonstrate the
acceptable performance and the effectiveness of the proposed
model.

NOMENCLATURE
Indices:
ch
Superscript for DES charging mode
d
Index for day
dch
Superscript for DES discharging mode
h
Index for hour
i
Index for DERs
l
Index for lines
m, n
Index for buses
s
Index for scenarios
t
Index for year
Sets:
B
Bl
E
G
L
Lm
W

Set of buses
Set of buses at both ends of line l
Set of DES units
Set of dispatchable DGs
Set of lines
Set of lines connected to bus m
Set of nondispatchable DGs

Parameters:
a1/a2
Line-bus connection indicator (1 if connected at
from/to bus, 0 otherwise)
b
Line susceptance
c
Generation price for dispatchable DGs
Allowable DES installation capacity
Ccap
CC
Annualized DG investment cost

CE
CL
CP
g
M
Pcap
PM,max
PD
PDmax
PLmax
pr
QLmax
QD
r
u

v
β
η
κ
μ
ρ

Annualized DES investment cost – energy
Annualized line investment cost
Annualized DES investment cost – power
Line conductance
Large positive constant
Allowable DER installation capacity
Flow limit between microgrid and the utility grid
Active load
Maximum demand during the planning horizon
Active line flow limit
Probability of each scenario
Reactive line flow limit
Reactive load
Discount rate
Binary islanding parameter (1 if grid connected, 0 if
islanded)
Value of lost load (VOLL)
Ratio of critical loads to total load
DES efficiency
Coefficient of present-worth value
Normalized generation forecast of nondispatchable
DGs
Market price

Variables:
Installed DES capacity
Cmax
IC
Microgrid investment cost
LS
Load shedding
OC
Microgrid operation cost
P
DER active power output
Pch
DES charging power
Pdch
DES discharging power
PM
Microgrid exchanged power with the utility grid
Pmax
Installed DER capacity
PL
Active line flow
Q
DER reactive power output
QL
Reactive line flow
RC
Microgrid reliability cost
V
Bus voltage magnitude
x
DER investment state (1 if installed, 0 otherwise)
z
Line investment state (1 if installed, 0 otherwise)
θ
Bus voltage angle

I. INTRODSUCTION
Microgrids, as modern small-scale power systems capable
of islanding and self-supply, offer many advantages for grid
operators and consumers, such as improving reliability by
islanding and decreasing outage time, improving power quality
by managing local loads, providing better operational
economics by selling energy back to the utility grid and
reducing power delivery costs, and reducing carbon emission
by utilizing renewable distributed generations (DGs) [1-5].
Congestion in distribution lines or disturbance in the
upstream utility grid may prevent fully supplying the loads in a
distribution network. Moreover, addition of new loads to the
network may require timely upgrade of the existing distribution
network assets. An efficient distribution planning is required in
this case to cope with the potential network problems. There are
various methodologies proposed in the literature for distribution
network planning. In [6], a methodology for optimal expansion
planning of distribution networks is presented which considers
network contingencies and relocation of switchgears. The
optimization methodology consists of two stages in which the
investment and operation problems are solved in the first and
second stages, respectively. The study in [7] proposes an
algorithm to capture the load variations along with the
generation volatility and intermittency of renewable energy
sources. The proposed model coordinates voltage control
among smart grid technologies by determining the optimal
number of DG units. In [8], a model for distribution grid
planning enhancement is presented using profiling estimation
technique. The objective of the proposed model is to reconstruct
the load profile of the medium/low voltage substations. The
study in [9] proposes a methodology to be used by distribution
system operators (DSOs) for optimal distribution grid planning.
The proposed model can be used in meshed and radial grids.
Both passive and active network measures are considered in
this study. The solution of this model determines whether a new
line or transformer should be installed or any other
reinforcement actions should be taken. In [10], the economic
impact of demand response on distribution network planning is
investigated. The reference network model, a large-scale
distribution network planning tool, is used to take appropriate
action in response to demand growth in a ten-year planning
horizon. The study in [11] presents the microgrid planning as an
alternative to generation and transmission expansion. The
microgrid-based co-optimization planning problem is solved by
decomposition to a planning problem and annual reliability
subproblem. Microgrid planning is also investigated in [12][15]. The study in [12] proposes microgrid planning under
uncertainty, and solves the planning problem by decomposition
to an investment master problem and an operation subproblem.
In [13]-[15], individual AC/DC and hybrid AC/DC microgrid
planning problems are discussed in which the optimal
distributed energy resource (DER) size and location as well as
the type of the microgrid are determined, but power flow and
line losses are overlooked.
This paper presents a co-optimization generation and
distribution planning in a microgrid aiming at minimizing the
microgrid long-term operation cost while ensuring a reliable
supply of loads. One solution to increase the distribution

network reliability and prevent load curtailment is to build new
distribution lines or to reinforce the existing lines through
upgrades. Another solution is to install DERs in strategic
locations in distribution network. In this paper, both these
solutions are considered simultaneously, allowing the
identification of the most viable solution. Various types of
DERs are considered in this study in which their optimal size
and location are determined through the proposed model. The
power flow equations are linearized, using minor
approximations, in order to be able to formulate the problem
using mixed integer linear programming (MILP). The rest of
the paper is organized as follows: Section II presents the outline
and formulates the microgrid co-optimization generation and
distribution planning problem. Section III presents numerical
simulations on a test microgrid, and Section IV concludes the
paper.
II. MODEL OUTLINE AND FORMULATION
There are both dispatchable and nondispatchable candidate
DGs in the microgrid. Nondispatchable DGs are renewable
energy sources such as solar PV and wind. Distributed energy
storage (DES) is employed in order to increase the
controllability and dispatchability of these energy sources. DES
is charged at off-peak hours with low electricity prices and
discharged at peak hours when electricity price is high. The
microgrid is connected to the utility grid to exchange power as
needed and further govern voltage and frequency. One
significant feature of the microgrid is its islanding capability
which allows operation in the islanded mode in case of any
disturbance in the upstream grid. Islanding is defined as a set of
scenarios in the planning problem as will be further explained.
The microgrid can buy power from the utility grid, associated
with positive exchanged power, or sell back the excess power to
the utility grid, associated with negative exchanged power
which increases the microgrid revenue. A number of candidate
distribution lines between predetermined buses are considered
in order to alleviate potential congestion in existing lines. The
solution of the optimization problem determines the optimal
size and location of DERs as well as the installation of lines.
The proposed co-optimization generation and distribution
planning problem aims at minimizing the microgrid total
planning cost (1) comprising of the investment cost of DERs
and distribution lines (IC), the operation cost (OC), and the
reliability cost (RC). A discount rate r is considered in order to
evaluate the objective in terms of discounted costs, which is
appeared in the objective as the present-worth value κt, where
κt=1/(1+r)t-1. It should be noted that the investment cost is
calculated annually while the operation and reliability costs are
calculated hourly for all hours and days in the planning horizon.
The investment, operation, and reliability costs are defined in
(2)-(4), respectively.
min  κt ( ICt + OCt + RCt )
t

ICt =

 CC P

max

it i

i∈{G,W}

(1)

+ ( CPit Pi

max

max
i

+ CEit C

i∈E

OCt =    ci Pihdt 0 +   ρhdt P

M
hdt 0

d

i∈G

h

d

RCt =  prs  vLS mhdts
s

d

h

m

) + CL z

lt l

∀t

(2)

∀t

(3)

∀t

(4)

l∈L

h

The investment cost (2) comprises the investment cost of
dispatchable and nondispatchable DGs (derived by multiplying
the DGs’ annualized capital cost by their installed capacity),
investment cost of the DES, and investment cost of distribution
lines. The DES investment cost has two components associated
with installed power capacity and energy capacity, in which
both are calculated as the associated annualized capital cost
times installed capacity. The investment cost of line is
determined as the given annualized capital cost times a binary
investment variable, zl. The binary variable is employed to
consider the installation of distribution lines; that is if a
candidate line is installed, zl would be one, otherwise it is zero.
The operation cost (3) consists of two terms, the operation cost
of dispatchable DGs calculated by their generation price times
generated power in each hour, and cost of power exchanged
with the utility grid, calculated by electricity market price times
the amount of exchanged power with the utility grid. Both
terms are aggregated over all hours and days in the planning
horizon. The reliability cost (4) represents the cost of unserved
energy and is defined as the value of lost load (VOLL) times
the amount of hourly load curtailment, aggregated over all
hours, days, and islanding scenarios in the planning horizon. A
comprehensive discussion on VOLL for different types of
customers can be found in [13]. The operation and reliability
costs are further summed over the considered scenarios (for
grid-connected and islanded operation) based on the associated
probability. In (3), s=0 represents the grid-connected mode. The
objective function (1) is further subject to DERs and power
balance constraints (5)-(19) and power flow equations (20)(28).
DERs and Power Balance Constraints: A binary decision
variable, xim, is used to determine the location of DER
installations, which would be one when DER i is installed at
bus m, and zero otherwise. Constraint (5) ensures that each
DER is connected to only one bus. The total dispatchable
capacity should be larger than the microgrid critical load to
ensure a reliable supply of loads when operating in the islanded
mode (6). The active load balance equation (7) ensures that the
generated power from all DERs and lines connected to each bus
plus the exchanged power with the utility grid at the point of
interconnection (POI) is equal to the hourly load demand minus
the amount of curtailed load. Similarly, the reactive load
balance equation (8) ensures that the reactive power from all
DERs and lines connected to each bus plus the exchanged
reactive power with the utility grid is equal to the amount of
hourly reactive load. The exchanged power with the utility grid
is limited by the capacity of the line connecting the microgrid to
the utility grid (9). The amount of hourly generated power of
dispatchable DGs cannot exceed their installed capacity (10).
The hourly power generated by nondispatchable DGs is
determined by a normalized forecasted generation times the
associated installed capacity (11). Additionally, installed DG
capacity cannot exceed its allowable installation capacity limits
(12), which is determined based on budget or space limitations.
The load shedding at each bus cannot exceed its hourly load
demand (13). The DES constraints are represented in (14)-(19).
The DES power in both discharging and charging modes is
limited by its installed power capacity (14)-(15). The DES
stored energy is determined based on the net charged power,

efficiency, and the stored energy in previous hours (16).
Additionally, the DES net charge is assumed to be zero at the
end of each day in the planning horizon (17). Finally, the
installed DES power and energy capacity are limited by its
allowable power and energy capacity limits, respectively (18)(19).

x

∀ i ∈ {G, W,E }

≤1

im

m

max
β  PD mhdt
≤
m



i∈{G,W}

(6)

 Pi max

i∈G

dch
ch
M
Pihdts xim +  ( Pihdts
− Pihdts
) xim +  PLlhdts + Pmhdts
i∈E

l∈L m

= PDmhdt − LSmhdt

(7)

∀m, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

M
= QD mhdt
 Qihdts xim +  QLlhdts + Qmhdts

i∈{G, W }

(5)

l∈L m

(8)

∀m , ∀ h , ∀ d , ∀t , ∀s

∀ h, ∀ d , ∀t , ∀ s

(9)

∀i ∈ G , ∀ h, ∀ d , ∀ t , ∀ s

(10)

∀i ∈ W , ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(11)

M
− P M , max u hdts ≤ Phdts
≤ P M , max u hdts

0 ≤ Pihdts ≤ Pi max
Pihdts = Pi
Pi

max

max

μ ihdt

cap

 xim

≤ Pi

m

∀ i ∈ {G, W}

(12)

≤ Pi

max

∀i ∈ E , ∀ h, ∀ d , ∀ t , ∀s

(13)
(14)

≤ Pi

max

LS mhdts ≤ PD mhdts

∀m , ∀ h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀ s

0≤

dch
Pihdts
ch
Pihdts

∀i ∈ E , ∀ h, ∀ d , ∀t , ∀ s

(15)

0≤

ch
dch
− Pikdts
η i ) ≤ C imax ∀ i ∈ E , ∀ h , ∀ d , ∀ t , ∀ s
 ( Pikdts

(16)

0≤

k ≤h
ch
( Pihdts

∀i ∈ E , ∀d , ∀t, ∀s

(17)

Pi max ≤ Pi cap  xim

∀i ∈ E

(18)

Cimax ≤ Cicap  xim

∀i ∈ E

(19)


h

dch
− Pihdts
ηi ) = 0

m

m

Power Flow Constraints: Power flow equations are nonlinear
and cannot be directly included in the developed MILP
formulation. In order to linearize the equations, (20) and (21)
are assumed. Voltage magnitudes and angles are considered as
those of bus 1 (i.e., the POI) plus deviations, as represented in
(22) and (23). The resulting multiplication of voltage magnitude
and voltage angle variables is very small and thus can be
eliminated from power flow equations.
sin(θ mhdts − θ nhdts ) ≈ θ mhdts − θ nhdts ∀mn ∈ L, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(20)

cos(θ mhdts − θ nhdts ) ≈ 1

∀mn ∈ L, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(21)

Vmhdts = 1.0 + ΔVmhdts

∀m, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(22)

θ mhdts = 0 + Δθ mhdts

∀m, ∀h , ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(23)

The linear active and reactive power flow equations for
distribution lines are represented by (24) and (25), respectively.
If a candidate line is not installed, zl would be zero, and (24)(25) would be relaxed. Therefore, the real and reactive powers
passing through the lines would be zero according to (26) and
(27). Likewise, if the solution of the optimization problem is to
install a line, zl would be one, and real and reactive powers
would be respectively determined by (24) and (25) with the
limits imposed by (26) and (27). It should be noted that (24)
and (25) are not linear, and are solved in a two-stage fashion.

The term ∑ ∈
△
is considered zero in stage one,
and then by finding △
, this term will be replaced, and
the problem is solved again in stage two. Finally, the voltage
magnitudes at all buses cannot exceed their minimum and
maximum limits (28).
−M (1 − zl ) ≤ PLlhdts − gl (1 +

a

ΔVmhdts )  ( (alm2 − alm1)ΔVmhdts ) +

lm1

m∈Bl

m∈Bl

bl  (alm2 − alm1)Δθmhdts ≤ M (1− zl )
m∈Bl

− M (1 − zl ) ≤ QLlhdts

∀l, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(24)

+ bl (1 +  alm1ΔVmhdts )  ( (alm2 − alm1 )ΔVmhdts ) +
m∈Bl

gl  (alm2 − alm1 )Δθmhdts ≤ M (1 − zl )

m∈Bl

∀l, ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(25)

m∈Bl

max

zl ≤ PLlhdts ≤ PLl

max

zl ≤ QLlhdts ≤ QLl

− PLl

− QLl

min

Δ Vm

max

zl

max

max

≤ Δ Vmhdts ≤ Δ Vm

zl

∀l , ∀h, ∀d , ∀t , ∀s

(26)

∀ l , ∀h , ∀d , ∀t , ∀ s

(27)
(28)

∀ m , ∀ h , ∀ d , ∀t , ∀ s

III. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
The IEEE standard 33-bus test system, as shown in Fig. 1 is
used for microgrid installation. This system comprises 33 buses,
32 distribution lines, and 32 loads, with a maximum initial
aggregated load of 2.7 MW [14]. Tables I, II and III show the
characteristics of candidate DGs, DES, and distribution lines,
respectively. As renewable DGs have a negligible operation
cost, their cost coefficient is assumed to be zero. The
investment cost of the candidate lines is calculated based on
studies in [16]. The hourly load demand, renewable generation,
and market price data are forecasted based on the historical data
from a practical system [14]. The DES efficiency is assumed to
be 95%. The planning horizon is 20 years. No islanding
scenarios are considered in simulations, meaning that the
microgrid operates in grid-connected mode at all times.
However, the proposed model can efficiently consider islanded
operation. The microgrid planning problem is implemented on a
high performance computing server consisting of four 10-core
Intel Xeon E7-4870 2.4 GHz processors. The problem is
formulated by MILP and solvedtabl by CPLEX 12.6 [17], with
average running time of 70 minutes. Following cases are
studied.
Case 0: Base case microgrid planning
Case 1: Sensitivity analysis on the ratio of critical loads
Case 2: Sensitivity analysis on load demand
Case 3: Sensitivity analysis on market prices
Case 0: The ratio of critical loads to total load is considered to
be 40% for all operation hours. It is assumed that DGs 1-6 can
be installed in buses 17, 21, 32, 24, 15, and 15, respectively, as
end lines have lower capacity and congestion is more likely. It
is further assumed that the DES can be installed in bus 15. The
microgrid planning solution would install dispatchable DGs 3
(with 0.65 MW capacity) and 4 (with 0.44 MW capacity) as
well as the solar unit (with 0.48 MW capacity). No candidate
lines are installed in the base case. The total planning cost is
$9,462,578 with a cost breakdown of $1,310,805 for the
investment cost and $8,151,773 for the operation cost.

Fig. 1. IEEE 33-bus test system.

Unit
No.

Type

1
2
3
4
5
6

Gas
Gas
Gas
Gas
Wind
Solar

Allowable
Installation
Capacity (MW)
1

TABLE I
CANDIDATE DGS CHARACTERISTICS
Allowable
Cost
installation
Coefficient
capacity (MW)
($/MWh)
3
90
3
90
1
70
1
70
2
0
2
0

Annualized
Investment Cost
($/MW)
50,000
50,000
70,000
70,000
132,000
133,000

TABLE II
CANDIDATE DES CHARACTERISTICS
Allowable
Annualized
Installation
Investment Cost
Energy
– Power ($/MW)
(MWh)
6
60,000

Annualized
Investment
Cost – Energy
($/MWh)
30,000

TABLE III
CANDIDATE LINES CHARACTERISTICS
Line

From
bus

To
bus

R(Ω)

X(Ω)

Line Capacity
(kW)

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

12
13
14
15
16
17
20
21
23
24
30

13
14
15
16
17
18
21
22
24
25
31

1.468
0.5416
0.591
0.7463
1.289
0.732
0.4095
0.7089
0.898
0.896
0.9744

1.155
0.7129
0.526
0.545
1.721
0.574
0.4784
0.9373
0.7091
0.7011
0.963

500
450
300
250
250
100
210
110
1050
500
500

Annualized
Investment
Cost ($)
37749
12534
9118
9595
16573
3765
4423
4010
48492
23040
25056

Case 1: The impact of changing the ratio of critical loads, β, on
planning results is studied in this case. The microgrid planning
is studied two scenarios, with and without allowing installation
of candidate lines, and results are tabulated in Table IV. The
total dispatchable capacity increases by increasing the ratio of
critical loads as the microgrid should be able to seamlessly
supply critical loads. Therefore, the microgrid investment cost
increases too by increasing β, as shown in Table V. By
increasing the ratio of critical loads from 0 to 60%, none of the
candidate lines are installed, but by increasing β to 0.8 and 1
(meaning all loads are considered as critical), lines 34, 35, and
39 are installed. The investment cost suddenly increases in
comparison with the case without line installation. If there is no
critical load in the microgrid (associated with β=0), only the
solar unit is installed, but none of the dispatchable units,

meaning that importing power from the utility grid is more
economical than installing local DGs. It is worth mentioning
that for the ratio of critical loads at 80% and 100%, a larger
capacity of solar unit is also installed when the line installation
is considered (increased from 0.48 MW to 0.78MW). The
reason is that the solar unit is installed in bus 15, and lines 34
and 35 are respectively between buses 13-14 and 14-15, thus
can help with transferring the additional generated power. As
total load does not change, there would be excess power to sell
back to the utility grid, which causes the operation cost to
decrease. As the increase in the investment cost is higher than
the decrease in the operation cost, the planning cost would
increase by increasing the ratio of critical loads. According to
results, the planning cost would decrease in case of the
installation of candidate lines, which means the simultaneous
installation of DERs and distribution lines would be more
economical. It should be noted that DES is not installed for any
ratio of critical loads.
TABLE IV
INVESTMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO CHANGES IN RATIO OF CRITICAL LOADS
Installed
1
2
3
4
5
6
Lines
w/o lines
0
0
0
0
0
0.48
0
w/ lines
0
0
0
0
0
0.48
w/o lines
0
0
0
0.55
0
0.48
0.2
w/ lines
0
0
0
0.55
0
0.48
w/o lines
0
0
0.10 1.00
0
0.48
0.4
w/ lines
0
0
0.10 1.00
0
0.48
w/o lines
0
0
0.65 1.00
0
0.48
0.6
w/ lines
0
0
0.65 1.00
0
0.48
w/o lines 0.17 0.35 0.68 1.00
0
0.48
0.8
w/ lines 0.17 0.35 0.66 1.00
0
0.78
34,35,39
w/o lines 0.28 0.76 0.68 1.00
0
0.48
1.0
w/ lines 0.50 0.55 0.68 1.00
0
0.78
34,35,39

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0

TABLE V
MICROGRID COSTS WITH RESPECT TO RATIO OF CRITICAL LOADS
Operation Cost
Planning Cost
Investment
($)
($)
Cost ($)
w/o lines
596650
8809487
9406137
w/ lines
w/o lines
9406137
8459261
9412997
w/ lines
w/o lines
1310805
8151773
9462578
w/ lines
w/o lines
1668653
7864340
9532992
w/ lines
w/o lines
1932385
7759704
9692089
w/ lines
2354132
7116085
9470217
w/o lines
2187500
7758661
9946161
w/ lines
2613157
7082358
9695515

Case 2: In this case, a sensitivity analysis of planning results
with respect to the load demand is carried out. The installed
DER capacity and installed lines are represented in Table VI.
The hourly load in all years is increased by up to 100%,
investigating additional cases with different load growth rates.
As expected, by increasing the load demand, more DER
capacity should be installed, which causes the investment cost
to increase (Table VII). It should be noted that among
dispatchable DGs, units 3 and 4, despite their higher capital
costs, are installed first because they are associated with a lower
cost coefficient compared to that of units 1 and 2. Also,
following more than 60% increase in the load, the microgrid

planning solution would install candidate lines, as represented
in Table VI, which causes a sudden increase in the investment
cost. On the other hand, by increasing the total load, more
power is generated by DGs, and more power would be imported
from the utility grid, which cause the operation cost, and hence
the planning cost, to increase.
TABLE VI
INVESTMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO LOAD CHANGES
Installed
Load change
2
3
4
5
6
1
Lines
percentage
Orig.
0
0
0.10
1.00
0
0.48
+20%
0
0
0.31
1.00
0
0.52
+40%
0
0
0.53
1.00
0
0.55
+60%
0
0
0.75
1.00
0
0.58
38
33,34,36,38,40,
+80%
0.02 0.14 0.80
1.00
0
0.91
41,42
33,34,35,36,
+100%
0.03 0.31 0.84
1.00 0.10 0.96
37,38,39,40,42
TABLE VII
MICROGRID COSTS WITH RESPECT TO LOAD CHANGES
Operation
Planning
Load change
Investment
Cost ($)
Cost ($)
percentage
Cost ($)
Orig. Load
1310805
8151773
9462578
+20%
1497853
9961260
11459110
+40%
1683933
11734030
13417960
+60%
1876168
13594840
15471010
+80%
2644088
14884100
17528190
+100%
2904977
16729010
19633980

Case 3: In this case, market prices are changed from -80% to
+80%, and their impact on planning results is studied. Price
changes are studied in two cases of considering and ignoring
line installations. The planning results are represented in Tables
VIII and IX. By 20% decrease in the market price, the total
dispatchable capacity would remain unchanged, but unit 1 is
also installed as its capital cost is relatively low, and as the
market price has decreased. Therefore, it is financially
beneficial to dispatch unit 1 instead of increasing the installed
capacity of units 3 and 4. By 40% decrease in market prices,
units 3 and 4 are not installed anymore, but unit 1 is installed
with a higher capacity, as its annualized investment cost is
lower. By additional reduction in the market price up to -80%,
the solar unit is not installed either, and only a capacity of 1.09
MW of unit 1 is installed. This is due to the very low market
price which makes it more economical to buy power from the
utility grid. Unit 1 is installed in this case for the mere purpose
of supplying critical loads. On the other hand, by increasing the
market price, it would be desirable for the microgrid to generate
more power in order to sell back to the utility grid (associated
with negative exchange power with the utility grid in many
hours), which causes the operation cost to drop. Therefore,
more DG capacity would be installed. For more than 40%
increase in the market price, a number of distribution lines
become congested, therefore, candidate lines are also installed,
which would cause an increase in the investment cost. By
increasing the market price, the decrease in the operation cost
would be more dominant over the increase in the investment
cost, so the planning cost would increase and then decrease. As
shown in Table IX, for the values of percentage change in
market prices that candidate lines are installed, the planning
cost is lower than the case without allowing the installation of
candidate lines. It means that the simultaneous installation of

DGs and candidate lines would be economically more viable
than installation of only DGs. Also, it should be mentioned that
the DES is not installed for any change in market prices.
TABLE VIII
INVESTMENT PLAN WITH RESPECT TO MARKET PRICE CHANGES
Installed
Price change
1
2
3
4
5
6
Lines
percentage
w/o lines 1.09
0
0
0
0
0
-80%
w/ lines
1.09
0
0
0
0
0
w/o lines 1.09
0
0
0
0
0
-60%
w/ lines
1.09
0
0
0
0
0
w/o lines 1.09
0
0
0
0
0.48
-40%
w/ lines
1.09
0
0
0
0
0.48
w/o lines 0.45
0
0
0.64
0
0.48
-20%
w/ lines
0.45
0
0
0.64
0
0.48
w/o lines
0
0
0.10 1.00
0
0.48
Orig.
Price
w/ lines
0
0
0.10 1.00
0
0.48
w/o lines 0.32
0
0.67 1.00 0.12 0.48
+20%
w/ lines
0.32
0
0.67 1.00 0.12 0.48
w/o lines 0.46
0
0.68 1.00 0.12 0.48
+40%
34,35,36,
w/ lines
0.75
0
0.68 1.00 0.21 0.77
39,41
w/o lines 0.50
0
0.68 1.0 0.12 0.47
+60%
w/ lines
0.79
0
0.68 1.0 0.21 0.77 34,35,39,41
w/o lines 0.62
0
0.68 1.0 0.19 0.44
+80%
w/ lines
0.88
0
0.68 1.0 0.30 0.73 34,35,39,43
TABLE IX
MICROGRID COSTS WITH RESPECT TO MARKET PRICE CHANGES
Operation
Planning
Price change
Investment
Cost ($)
Cost ($)
percentage
Cost ($)
w/o lines
-80%
510117
1957936
2468052
w/ lines
w/o lines
-60%
510117
3915872
4425988
w/ lines
w/o lines
-40%
1106618
5270609
6377227
w/ lines
w/o lines
-20%
1225734
6883798
8109532
w/ lines
w/o lines
Orig.
1310805
8151773
9462578
w/ lines
w/o lines
+20%
1988144
8298427
10286570
w/ lines
w/o lines
2059625
8622853
10682480
+40%
w/ lines
2824677
7354827
10179500
w/o lines
2078623
8893008
10971630
+60%
w/ lines
2831566
7307358
10138920
w/o lines
2174184
9012843
11187030
+80%
w/ lines
2883257
7110567
9993824

IV. CONCLUSION
A microgrid co-optimization generation and distribution
planning was proposed in this paper, with the objective of
determining the optimal DER generation mix and upgrading the
network by building new lines. The nonlinear power flow
equations were linearized to formulate the problem by MILP.
The problem was tested on the IEEE 33-bus standard system,

demonstrating the sensitivity of the planning results with
respect to various planning factors, including the ratio of critical
loads, total aggregated load, and electricity prices. Obtained
results advocated that microgrid planners can ensure better
planning economics by considering a simultaneous expansion
in generation and distribution as opposed to traditional models
focused only on generation expansion.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

M. Shahidehpour, “Role of smart microgrid in a perfect power system,”
Proc. IEEE Power Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
Jul. 2010.
S. Parhizi, H. Lotfi, A. Khodaei, and S. Bahramirad, “State of the art in
research on microgrids: A review,” IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 890-925, Jul.
2015.
N. Hatziargyriou, H. Asano, M. R. Iravani, and C. Marnay, “Microgrids:
An overview of ongoing research, development and demonstration
projects,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 78–94, Jul./Aug.
2007.
R. Eskandarpour, H. Lotfi, and A. Khodaei, “Optimal Microgrid
Placement for Enhancing Power System Resilience in Response to
Weather Events,” North American Power Symposium, Denver, CO, Sep
2016.
H. Lotfi and A. Khodaei, “Levelized Cost of Energy Calculations for
Microgrids,” IEEE PES General Meeting, Boston, MA, Jul 2016.
N. N. Mansor, “Distribution planning considering network contingencies
and switchgear relocation,” 2016 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), Ljubljana, 2016.
B. Nasiri, C. Wagner, A. Ahsan, and U. Häger, “A new perspective for
smart distribution grid planning,” 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Power System Technology (POWERCON), Wollongong, NSW, 2016.
S. Sarabi, A. Davigny, V. Courtecuisse, L. Coutard, and B. Robyns,
“Distribution grid planning enhancement using profiling estimation
technic,” CIRED Workshop 2016, Helsinki, 2016, pp. 1-4.
S. Karagiannopoulos, P. Aristidou, A. Ulbig, S. Koch, and G. Hug,
“Optimal planning of distribution grids considering active power
curtailment and reactive power control,” 2016 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, 2016, pp. 1-5.
J. Domínguez, J. P. Chaves-Ávila, T. G. S. Román and C. Mateo, “The
economic impact of demand response on distribution network
planning,” 2016 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Genoa,
2016, pp. 1-7.
A. Khodaei and M. Shahidehpour, “Microgrid-Based Co-Optimization of
Generation and Transmission Planning in Power Systems,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 1582-1590, May 2013.
A. Khodaei, S. Bahramirad, and M. Shahidehpour, “Microgrid Planning
Under Uncertainty,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 24172425, Sept. 2015.
H. Lotfi and A. Khodaei, “AC Versus DC Microgrid Planning,” IEEE
Trans. on Smart Grids, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 296-304, Jan. 2017.
H. Lotfi, A. Khodaei, “Hybrid AC/DC Microgrid Planning,” Energy, vol.
118, pp. 37-46, Jan. 2017.
H. Lotfi and A. Khodaei, "Static hybrid AC/DC microgrid
planning," 2016 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies Conference (ISGT), Minneapolis, MN, 2016, pp. 1-5.
State Highway Administration Research Report- Cost Benefits For
Overhead/Underground Utilities: Edwards And Kelcey, Inc/Exeter
Associates,
Inc
[Online].
Available:
http://www.roads.maryland.gov/opr_research/md-03-sp208b4c-costbenefits-for-overhead-vs-underground-utility-study_report.pdf.
CPLEX 12, IBM ILOG CPLEX, User's Manual, 2013 [Online].
Available: http://gams.com/dd/docs/solvers/cplex.pdf.

