Randomized trial demonstrates effective reactive power optimization in distribution networks, suggesting improved economic efficiency.
With the high penetration of distributed photovoltaic and storage systems, active distribution grids are prone to experiencing “active power surplus and reactive power shortage” during the evening peak, leading to voltage sags at the network end. Although electric vehicle (EV) grid-connected inverters possess four-quadrant reactive power regulation capabilities without causing the additional chemical cyclic aging of the battery cells, existing dispatch systems often treat them as unconditional response resources, overlooking users’ actual willingness to cede control and the associated strategic interactions. To address this, this paper proposes a “grid-load” coordinated reactive power optimization strategy that accounts for EV users’ willingness to respond: a Logit model incorporating price incentives, initial energy consumption, and parking duration is constructed based on discrete choice theory. By combining a truncated normal distribution with the Monte Carlo method to eliminate micro-sampling errors, a model of the expected reactive power capacity of charging stations under dynamic incentives is established; considering the physical constraints of SVCs and EVs, a scalarized single-objective optimization model is constructed with grid loss-equivalent costs, ancillary service costs, and voltage deviation as objectives, and solved using an improved particle swarm optimization algorithm with linearly decreasing weights. Simulations on a modified 33-node IEEE system incorporating storage indicate that this strategy can assign optimal compensation prices to each node based on the spatial value of reactive power. Compared to traditional single-voltage regulation and fixed subsidies, it not only stabilizes the grid-wide voltage within a safe range but also avoids overcompensation, achieving global optimization of both power quality and economic efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: