Historical renewable-load variability, voltage-security risk, and investment-operation coupling can materially change the assessed value of distribution-level energy storage. This study develops an uncertainty-aware bilevel energy storage system (ESS) planning framework in which the upper level selects a discrete siting-sizing-duration plan and the lower level solves a fixed-topology, multi-scenario mixed-integer second-order cone program (MISOCP) in which the network physics are represented by a DistFlow-SOCP formulation. An ESS-aware topology robustness check is further introduced to examine whether ESS-induced topology changes affect the planning conclusions obtained under the common-topology comparison. Complete daily load, photovoltaic, and wind observations from Denmark in 2016 and 2017 are represented as joint 72-dimensional trajectories. Input-risk-stratified historical-day reduction is examined for K = 3, 5, 10, and 20, with K = 10 used for the principal 33-bus study and K = 20 used as a higher-fidelity scenario-set check. Exhaustive evaluation of 211 alternatives identifies a 1.00 MW/ 2.00 MWh ESS at bus 24. Under K10 and the baseline fixed topology, the proposed design reduces daily TOTEX from 73,151.02 to 51,826.24 CNY/day (29.2%) relative to No ESS, raises the minimum voltage from 0.94138 to 0.95405 p.u., and reduces cumulative undervoltage exposure from 0.013528 to 0.001740 p.u.·h. Cross-year and seven-day chronological tests retain the economic and security pattern. On the released 240-bus feeder, the reference design improves voltage exposure, loading, and losses at a small incremental economic cost. These results show that historical tail conditions, common-topology attribution, and physical security metrics are important for auditable ESS planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: