Abstract
Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) is a well-known technique to reduce energy consumption by reducing the supplied voltage within statutory limits. Historically, the efficacy of CVR schemes has been quantified using the CVR factor (CVRf) which relates, in a given period, voltage reduction to energy savings. This metric has proved useful in the past, where fixed voltage reductions were applied. However, this letter shows from a theoretical perspective and with a realistic case study that when used for active CVR schemes (voltages actively controlled throughout the day), the CVRf can be smaller than that for fixed voltage reductions despite the larger energy savings. This could be misleading for decision makers considering active CVR schemes as an energy efficiency measure. Consequently, it is recommended that comparisons among CVR schemes are carried out in terms of actual energy reductions.
Highlights
CONSERVATION Voltage Reduction (CVR) is a wellknown method to reduce energy consumption by reducing the supplied voltage within statutory limits
This letter shows from a theoretical perspective and with a realistic case study that when used for active CVR schemes, the CVR factor (CVRf) can be smaller than that for fixed voltage reductions despite the larger energy savings
Due to the historical lack of observability in distribution networks, CVR has been traditionally implemented by adopting modest, fixed voltage reductions at primary substations equipped with on-load tap changers (OLTCs) [1]
Summary
CONSERVATION Voltage Reduction (CVR) is a wellknown method to reduce energy consumption by reducing the supplied voltage within statutory limits. The CVR factor (CVRf) has been typically adopted This is defined as the ratio between the percentage energy savings obtained (∆E). Due to the historical lack of observability in distribution networks, CVR has been traditionally implemented by adopting modest, fixed voltage reductions at primary substations equipped with on-load tap changers (OLTCs) [1]. More sophisticated (active) CVR schemes have included monitoring at critical points [2, 3] or even used smart meters to monitor customer voltages [3,4,5] This has allowed increasing energy savings by actively determining adequate voltage reductions throughout the day. This letter shows from a theoretical perspective and with a realistic case study that this practice can be misleading: the CVRf of active schemes can be smaller than that for fixed voltage reductions despite the larger energy savings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
