Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

A comprehensive study on energy management, sensitivity

analysis, and inertia compliance of feed-in tariff in IEEE bus
systems with grid-connected renewable energy sources
Sadasiva Behera a , Sumana Das b , B.S.S. Ganesh Pardhu c , Ram Ishwar Vais d ,
Naladi Ram Babu c, ** , Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat e , Mohammed Alharbi f , Wulfran
Fendzi Mbasso g, *
a
Department of Electrical Engineering, Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology, Meerut, India, 250005
b
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, MLR Institute of Technology, Dundigal, Hyderabad, India, 500043
c
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Aditya University, Surampalem, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India, 533437
d
Department of Electrical Engineering, Rajkiya Engineering College Sonbhadra, UP, India
e
Department of Electrical Engineering, Sandip University, Sijoul, Madhubani, Bihar, India, 847235
f
Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11421, Saudi Arabia
g
Laboratory of Technology and Applied Sciences, University Institute of Technology, University of Douala, PO Box: 8698, Douala, Cameroon

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The need to incorporate renewable energy generators (REGs) into the electrical grid has become
Energy management increasingly crucial due to the push for a more sustainable environment. This study advocates an
Emission reduction innovative strategy for optimizing inertia-integrated generation and transmission expansion
Energy consumption
planning (GTEP) to implement feed-in tariffs (FiT). The application of the GAMS CPLEX solver to
Feed-in tariff
Renewable energy generators
the model, which tested on an IEEE 6/IEEE 16 system, reveals that using FiT results in a 12.1 %
CPLEX solver drop in system cost ($599 million to $526 million) and a 7.91 % rise in total system inertia.
Sensitivity analysis highlights the correlation between increased REG integration and FiT pay-
ment reduction at 50 % penetration. The model outperforms soft computing optimization tech-
niques, showcasing rapid convergence and computational efficiency. The proposed model’s
validated superiority in rapid convergence and computational efficiency is demonstrated by
comparing its results with those obtained from other soft computing optimization techniques.

1. Introduction

Renewable energy sources (RES) are increasingly used since fossil fuels are becoming more harmful daily [1]. So, according to the
Paris proposal, it targets net zero carbon emissions by 2050 [2]. By 2030, renewable energy generators (REGs) will make up 60 % of the
grid in certain countries [3]. However, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), wind power is approximately reaching

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sadasiva.behera@miet.ac.in (S. Behera), dassumana12@gmail.com (S. Das), pardhu4all@gmail.com (B.S.S. Ganesh Pardhu),
ramismdhanbad@gmail.com (R.I. Vais), rambabu.nits@yahoo.com (N.R. Babu), sksanju1070@gmail.com (S.K. Bhagat), mohalharbi@ksu.edu.sa
(M. Alharbi), fendzi.wulfran@yahoo.fr (W.F. Mbasso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36927
Received 11 April 2024; Received in revised form 15 August 2024; Accepted 24 August 2024
Available online 26 August 2024
2405-8440/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

(8020 TWh) and solar power is (7000 TWh), which covers 2030 [4]. However, FiTs, like other existing related Renewable Portfolio
Standards (RPSs) tariffs, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credits (RETCs), Investment Tax
Credits (ITCs), Residential Energy Credits (RECs), and Tradable Green Certificates (TGCs), etc. are approved nationwide to promote
RES development and help meet the high-RES target [5]. Fig. 1 shows the various FiT systems grouped by methodology and electricity
market structure. China, Japan, the USA, the UK, Italy, Thailand, Iran, Malaysia, and Germany have successfully implemented
comparable economic incentive systems. One of the best method-based RES incentives is the FiT. It assures a long-term price per kWh
for REs-produced electricity, relieving investors and fostering sustainable REs growth [6]. Thus, acceptable FiT rates provide adequate
returns to attract RES technology investors [7]. The most common is the market-independent fixed price FiT model, whose price
depends on the REs technology’s infrastructure cost. When converter based REGs replace synchronous generators (SGs), system inertia
decreases. During system contingency, the grid’s instability makes it more sensitive to frequency issues [8]. The rapid rate of change of
frequency (RoCoF) and nadir frequency are most used in RES systems to perform stability. Furthermore, these ideas have drawbacks
regarding the limited renewable energy generation (REG) adoption. To overcome this, it is suggested to utilize
fast-dynamic-responding energy storage systems (ESSs), hybrid fast-dynamic-responding energy storage systems (HESS), and REGs
with a converter scheme. This approach aims to tackle the frequency stability problems faced by low-inertia power grids [9] and power
management. Several countries like Australia, Ireland, Great Britain, and the Nordic countries have imposed limitations on minimum
inertia limitation for RoCoF in RES penetration [10,11]. So far, RE investors and sustaining grid inertia to promote RE technology
advancement are crucial. Generation, transmission, GEP/TEP, and combined expansion planning (GTEP) studies exist. This power
system planning methods make the network bigger to handle more energy use and technical problems with the grid. Few growth
planning models consider system inertia. Such developed grid inertia and CO2 emission will generate a very low-carbon expansion
planning model [12]. New generators were introduced in the model without transmission expansion plans. Model planning excluded
incentives. The incorporation of power with natural gas systems was GTEP by Ref. [13] using decreased system frequency restrictions.
Planning power system expansion for inertia demands specialized equipment. This study didn’t examine the effects of economic
incentive schemes on planning (see Fig. 2).
These power systems, GEP, TEP, and GEP/TEP planning models, enlarge the network for rising energy demand and grid challenges.
Few expansion models have inertia [14], which created grid inertia and CO2 emission-based low-carbon producing expansion models.
Planning model errors stem from ignoring inertia and CO2 emissions. The model lacks transmission expansion plans after adding
generators. Model planning lacks incentives. GTEP was done on a low-frequency integrated power and natural gas system. Inertia
planning requires unique equipment. This research didn’t analyze the planning consequences of economic incentive schemes.
Renewable energy incentives receive more attention in studies than power system growth planning models’ economic incentives
[15]. However, the FiT’s impact on Chinese PV power output was studied. They found FiT boosts PV investment. The model’s
expanded planning excluded inertia and emission. GTEP model [16] minimizes system cost and CO2 emissions while boosting FiT.
Which can increase REG energy usage and reduce CO2 emissions, but the grid inertia didn’t increase FiT in this model. However, we
have summarized the aforementioned articles in a tabular format for enhanced clarity in Table 1.
The authors are unaware of any GTEP optimization models that account for FiT and grid inertia application point of view. Very few
articles are found. This study recommends using a FiT inertia integrated GTEP model to boost RES development and grid frequency
stability. GTEP’s system inertia and FiT combination distinguish it from new energy management system model models, which are
shown in Table 2. Common important features of FiT tariffs in the recently published articles are shown in Table 3. The mathematical
programming-based optimization approach provides quick convergence to the global optimal solution with reduced processing time,
improved stability, and accurate results obtained by this FiT approach.
The novelties of the article are as follows:

• To develop a FiT incentives-based inertia combined generating and transmission expansion model.
• Analyze the impact of including system inertia and FiT in GTEP decision-making while considering the financial and environmental
implications.
• Compare these outcomes to a fictitious situation in which these elements are not considered.
• To assess the upshot of FiT spurs on the cohesive GTEP model under diverse levels of REG penetration and examine the correlation
between RES penetration and system inertia.

Fig. 1. Functions of smart EMS.

2
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Fig. 2. FiT classifications.

Table 1
Past research information on FiT objectives, along with the outcomes and future scope of each article.
Ref. Outcomes Future Scopes

[4] The presents a charging navigation strategy for electric vehicles that Further research could explore integrating real-time traffic data and
optimizes charging times based on time-of-use pricing, reducing costs for renewable energy sources to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of
users. the charging navigation system.
[5] The study finds that the feed-in tariff policy significantly reduces the It could investigate the long-term economic impacts of feed-in tariffs and
curtailment of wind power in China. their integration with other renewable energy policies.
[6] It demonstrates that a centralized energy management system for isolated Future scope can explore the integration of advanced forecasting
microgrids improves operational efficiency and reliability by using feed-in techniques and adaptive control strategies to further enhance the
tariff policy. performance of centralized energy management systems.
[8] It reveals that reductions in feed-in tariffs and the implementation of Future research may examine the combined effects of various policy
renewable portfolio standards significantly influence the growth of measures and technological advancements on the long-term sustainability
distributed photovoltaic generation in China. and scalability of distributed photovoltaic systems.
[9] The study evaluates different feed-in tariff models for photovoltaic systems Further such objectives can focus on optimizing feed-in tariff structures and
in Thailand, providing insights into their effectiveness based on empirical incorporating market dynamics to enhance the adoption and efficiency of
evidence. photovoltaic systems in Thailand.
[10] It explores the effectiveness of payback-year based feed-in tariff Future research could investigate the long-term impacts of these
mechanisms in Australia, finding that they can significantly accelerate the mechanisms on market stability and renewable energy adoption rates, as
payback period for renewable energy investments. well as their applicability in different regional contexts.
[11] It provides an overview of the challenges associated with inertia By developing advanced control strategies and storage solutions to enhance
requirements in modern grids powered by renewable energy sources, grid inertia and ensure reliable integration of renewable energy sources cab
highlighting the need for improved grid stability. be applicable for future study.
[12] It review provides an updated overview of current solutions and emerging Further investigate novel control methodologies and technologies to
challenges in power system frequency control, highlighting advancements address the increasing complexity and dynamic behavior of modern power
and areas needing improvement. systems, especially with high renewable energy integration.
[13] The study highlights that fast-acting reserves can effectively augment Future research could explore the integration of various fast-acting reserve
system inertia in power systems with high penetration of wind power, technologies and their economic feasibility in different power system
enhancing grid stability. configurations.
[14] Authors presented the impact of increasing renewable energy integration on Future research could focus on developing strategies and technologies to
system rotational inertia in the European power system, identifying mitigate the negative effects on rotational inertia, ensuring stable and
potential stability challenges. reliable grid operation amidst growing renewable energy penetration.
[15] It assesses how inertia and reactive power constraints influence generation May explore integrated planning approaches that optimize generation
expansion planning, highlighting their critical role in ensuring grid expansion while considering inertia and reactive power requirements to
reliability and stability. support increased renewable energy integration.
[16] The study presents a stochastic planning approach for integrating power It could investigate more advanced modeling techniques and real-time data
and natural gas networks, incorporating simplified system frequency integration to further refine the accuracy and robustness of integrated
constraints to enhance operational reliability. energy network planning under stochastic conditions.
[17] New evidence on how feed-in-tariff subsidies influence renewable energy Further investigation could delve into the long-term sustainability of feed-
investments in China at the firm level, highlighting their impact on market in-tariff policies and their interaction with other regulatory mechanisms to
dynamics. optimize renewable energy investment strategies in China.
[18] Developed a software program to determine the open-circuit voltage and fill The program could be adapted to assess the impact of feed-in tariff (FiT)
factor of photovoltaic cells based on the one-diode equivalent circuit model. policies on the economic performance and efficiency of photovoltaic
systems.

The subsequent sections of the paper follow the same organization as Section 2, which deals with the precise mode of the cohesive
FiT with inertia GTEP. The implementation and developed simulation models are described in Section 3. The results and discussion are
described in Section 4. Analysis of the dynamic behavior of the studied model is presented in section 5. Section 6 examines the
proposed Sensitivity Analysis and Result Discussion. Section 7 presents the study’s conclusion along with suggestions for future
research.

3
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Table 2
Common important features of FiT tariffs in the recently published articles.
New features Applications

FiT • This approach is suited for unreliable solar or wind power production. • Electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) and electric vehicles (EVs)
[1–7] It manages frequency or voltage fluctuations to fulfill environmental encourage the de-carbonization of the power and transportation sectors
regulations and accommodate electric vehicle usage’s unpredictable by increasing the use of renewable energy.
patterns. • EVs and EVCSs solve renewable energy integration issues.
• Compatible with EVCSs near wind farms, solar farms, or high-traffic
regions.
• This tariff mechanism helps the power system address the problems of
variable power production from wind and solar energy.
• It indicates the de-carbonization of the transportation and energy
sectors.
• It enables the use of the fluctuating nature of renewable energy
through Vehicle-to-home (V2H).

2. Mathematical formulation of a GTEP model that incorporates both FiT and inertia

This research presents a unique model of the GTEP system that includes inertia and a Feed-in Tariff (FiT) mechanism. The CPLEX
solver in GAMS software is described as a mixed integer quadratic constrained programming (MIQCP) model. The model’s main goal is
to reduce the system’s total cost, reduce CO2 emissions, enhance FiT incentives for renewable energy, and improve system inertia for
technical stability. It describes the integrated model formulation, and Fig. 1 depicts the flowchart of the proposed GTEP model steps.
Table 3 comprehensively compares other relevant works, considering various constraints.

2.1. Formulation of the system inertia objectives

Power grid stability and resilience depend on system inertia. The term “inertia” pertains to the rotational energy that is stored
within the rotor of synchronous generators (SGs). This energy helps to maintain system frequency stability, particularly during un-
expected events or contingencies [8]. Thus, this subsection’s issue aims at system inertia maximization. So, the expression for the
maximum inertia function is given as in Eq. (1) [19].
⎛N NHes Nj Nk
⎞
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
⎜i=1 Hi .Si + Hes=1 Hhes .Shes .λ1hes + j=1 Hj .Sj .λ2j + Hk .Sk .λ3k ⎟
⎜ k=1 ⎟
Max (H) = ⎜ Nj
⎟ (1)
⎝ ∑N NHes
∑ ∑ ∑Nk ⎠
Si + Shes .β1hes + Sj .β2j + Sk .β3k
i=1 Hes=1 j=1 k=1

where Hi, Hhes,Hj, Hk are the inertial constants of the different generators, howeverthe generators’ apparent power is being referred to
Si, Shes,Sj, Sk, and N, NHes, Nj, Nk are the number of generators respectively. λ1hes , .λ2j , λ3k , β1hes , and β3k decide the potential of HES,
solar PV and wind turbine respectively with the help of binary decision variables.

2.2. Proposed mathematical modeling

The model also reduces system operating cost, the system cost includes operating, asset, and economic incentive costs. Operational
costs include thermal generator fuel, wind turbine O&M, and thermal generator pollutants. The investment cost includes purchasing
and installing new solar power plants, wind turbines, HES, and conduction lines. In contrast, the government’s entire FiT cost on

Table 3
Evaluation of the proposed model about multiple power system models that have been reviewed.
Ref. Analysis of the system- FiT Consideration of the CO2 TEP GEP GTEP
inertia analysis emission considerations considerations considerations

[11] £ ✓ £ £ £ £
[19] ✓ £ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[20] ✓ £ £ ✓ ✓ ✓
[21] £ £ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[22] £ £ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[23] £ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[24] £ £ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
[25] £ £ £ ✓ £ £
[26] £ ✓ £ ✓ ✓ ✓
[17] × ✓ × ✓ ✓ ✓
Proposed ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
article

✓: considered ⨯: Not-considered.

4
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

renewable energy providers’ electricity is the monetary incentive price. This model’s incentive is a fixed FiT scheme. Eq. (3) states that
one issue aim is to minimize the model’s overall system cost and maximize the FiT incentive.

2.3. Formulation of environmental (CO2) objective

In this proposed methodology, minimizing CO2 emissions to the lowest possible level is a primary concern, as detail describe in Eq.
(2), which gives the mathematical formulation of environmental (CO2) emission objective.
CO2 emissions
⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
({ }) ̅⏞
∑ N
CO2
Min (CO2 ) = min α ei (Pi ) ∀i ∈ I (2)
i=1

in this unique objective function, the power output of thermal generators (Pi) is the key decision variable, acting as a throttle for CO2
emissions. By adjusting the power output, we can precisely regulate the amount of emissions released into the atmosphere.

2.4. Formulation of a proposed model that considers multiple objectives

According to Eq. (1), the GTEP becomes a multi-objective problem when inertia and FiT are added and the proposed objective is
described in Eq. (2). However this issue is expressed in details mathematically as in Eq. (3). Moreover the resultant multi-objective
issue maximizes system inertia while minimizing economic expense and carbon dioxide emissions (technical objective). Eq. (4) il-
lustrates the process of converting a multi-objective problem into a single objective function using the weighted-sum method, whereby
the relative importance of each goal is determined by multiplying it by an equal factor. Objectivity requires a system of weights to rank
the relative importance of its many goals. This research uses uniform weighting parameters to avoid favoring one goal function over
another. In this study, we utilize Eq. (5) [22], to assign a weight of 0.33 to each objective function due to the fact that there are three of
them.
[ [ ] ]
⎡ ∑ N [ ] ∑ N ∑ Nj ⎤
2 CO2 CO2 om
( )
α ai (Pi ) + bi (Pi ) + ci + λi · ei (Pi ) + COj Pj · λ2j
⎢ i=1 i j ⎥
⎢ ⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ operational cost ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ N Hes Nj Nk Nc
⎥
⎢ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ⎥
inv inv inv inv
⎢ +
⎢ COhes · λ1hes + COj · λ2j + COk · λ3 k + COcl · λ4 cl ⎥
⎥
⎢ ⎥
Min(Cost) = min⎢ ⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅⏟ ⎥
Hes j k cl (3)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ investment cost ⎥
⎢ ⎧ ⎫ ⎥
⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥
⎢ ⎪
⎪ [ j=Nj ]⎪⎪ ⎥
⎢ ⎪
⎨∑ t=α k=Nk ⎪
⎬ ⎥
⎢ ∑ ∑ ⎥
⎢
⎣ +max max
Pj · CFj · FiTj · λ2j + max
Pk · CFk · FiTk · λ3k ⎥
⎦
⎪
⎪ t=1 j=1 k=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⏟̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ ⏞⏞̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅ ⏟⎪
⎪
⎩ ⎭
Economic incentive

where ai , bi , ci are the coefficients mentioned in Ref. [21] are utilized to express the thermal generators’ fuel cost ($/hr) as a quadratic
function of their producing power, Pi [20]. The emission cost is determined by the product of the carbon tax λCO i
2
($/tonCO2), emission
factor eCO
i
2
(tonCO2/kWh), and the power from thermal unit is expressed as (kWh), the maintenance, operating cost of wind power
generation is expressed as in dollars. Where, the maintenance costs COom inv
j ($/kWh), and the active power (Pj ) of the wind turbine. COhes ,
COinv inv inv
j , COk , and COcl are the HES potential. Whereas λ1Hes , λ2j , λ3k , λ4cl are helps to take the decision in order to invest in various
power generation resources.
When selecting this specific technology for installation, the decision variable is assigned a value of 1, and 0 otherwise. The decision
variables stand in for the power production of wind turbines and thermal generators Pi and Pj respectively. During the planned horizon,
this is the highest possible number of potential transmission lines that can be built. That represents the fixed FiTj and FiTk incentives
rate in $/kWh and denotes the rates to find the precise outcomes of the power of a solar PV plant and a wind turbine, respectively.
Moreover, the Pmax
j (wind turbine) and Pmax
k (solar PV) maximum capacity. For both plant capacity factor is assigned by as CFj and, CFk
respectively. The cumulative yearly operational duration of the power generation units are measured in hours. Hence, the study
utilizes FiT incentive of 0.00240 US $/kWh for wind turbines and 0.00750 US $/kWh for solar PV systems.

2.5. Proposed model constraints

2.5.1. Constraints on FiT incentives

Feed-in Tariff (FiT) rates must be appealing, offering a substantial return on investment without putting an excessive financial
strain on the government. Hence, the constraints on FiT utilized in the model [23] are defined by Eqs. (6) and (7). Eq. (6) provides a
definition for the total annual Feed-in Tariff (FiT) payment received for generating electricity from Renewable Energy Generators

5
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

(REGs). This payment is determined by the FiT rate per technology (expressed in dollars per kilowatt-hour. The capacity factor of
Renewable Energy (RE) generators and the capacity of each technology are expressed in kilowatts. According to equation (7), the total
yearly Feed-in Tariff (FiT) incentive payment made to investors in renewable energy cannot exceed the budget allocated for renewable
energy. The budget cap is the highest monetary limit BUres established for the acquisition of new RE generators.
[ Nj ]
t=α
∑ ∑ k=Nk
∑
TFiTtotal = Pmax
j (t) · CFj · FiT j (t) · λ 2j + Pmax
k (t) · CF k · FiT k (t) · λ 3k (4)
t=1 j=1 k=1

TFiT ≤ BUres (5)

2.5.2. Constraint on power equilibrium

In this contest, the power equilibrium in Eq. (6) provides the power balance constraint for the model, which is derived from
Kirchhoff’s current law. According to the statement, the combined power output of the thermal generator, the potential of HES, solar
PV plants, wind power, and the overall load demand must be met or exceeded by the net electricity flowing via current and future
transmission lines [24] at any given node. PFijext+ , PFijext− is The real or active power flow that enters and leaves the existing transmission
line. PFijcl+ , PFijcl− is The active power entering and exiting the identified conduction lines, and total load demand (LODi ) is the at bus.

n
∑ nhes
∑ nw
∑ ns
∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
Pg + Phes · μ1hes + Pw · μ2w + Ps · μ3s + PFext+
ij − PFext−
ij + PFcl+
ij · μ4cl − PFcl−
ij · μ4cl ≥ LODi (6)
g hes w s l∈rl l∈sl l∈rl l∈sl i

∵∀g ∈ G, ∀s ∈ S, ∀w ∈ W, ∀hes ∈ HES, ∀cl ∈ CL, ∀ext ∈ EXT, ∀rl ∈ RL, ∀i ∈ I

2.5.3. Constraint on power flow

Power flow limitations are established via equation (7) through [16] using Kirchhoff’s voltage law’s DC approximation. These
formulas are used to control power transmission for both the current system, which includes the lines that are currently in place, and
ext cl
any future extensions that may be necessary [25]. However, PFmax , PFij,max are represent the upper limits of power flow in the current
transmission lines (TL) and potential candidate lines, respectively. Bext cl
ij , Bij represents the bus susceptance of lines connected among ith
and jth, respectively. θrli , θsli , θrcl scl
i , θi represents angles corresponding to voltage form sending to receiving ends transmission line.
Moreover, it θi represents the angle associated with voltage at the specified bus.

− PFmax
ext
≤ PFijext ≤ PFmax
ext
∀ext ∈ EXT (7)

− μ4cl · PFij,max
cl
≤ PFijcl ≤ μ4cl · PFij,max
cl
∀cl ∈ CL (8)
( )
PFijext = Bext
ij θsli − θrlj ∀ext ∈ EXT (9)

( )
− (1 − μ4cl )M ≤ PFijcl − Bclij θscl rcl
i − θj ≤ M(1 − μ4cl ) ∀i ∈ I, ∀cl ∈ CL (10)

π π
− ≤ θi ≤ ∀i ∈ I (11)
4 4

μ4cl ∈ [0, 1] ∀cl ∈ CL (12)

∑
μ4cl ≤ nc ∀cl ∈ CL (13)
cl

Eq. (9) determines the maximum power flow allowed on current transmission lines, while Eq. (10) specifies the maximum power
flow permitted on potential transmission lines. The equation for DC power flow on existing transmission lines, outlined in Eq. (11),
describes the susceptance and the voltage angles for both ends of the line. Newly built transmission lines, which include the Big-M
variables, have their DC power flow Eq. described by Eq. (12).). However, M encompasses every conceivable value since it is a
huge integer. No voltage angle greater than the one specified by Eq. (13) should be allowed on the bus. The decision variable that is
used to decide whether a new line is to be added is defined by Eq. (14) and is 1 if the line is to be built and 0 otherwise. A maximum of
one hundred candidate TL may be built within the planning horizon, according to Eq. (15).

2.5.4. Constrained and limitations on power generation

Eq. (16) through [23] govern the operational aspects of existing and potential renewable energy generators. Eq. (16) sets the
maximum power output for existing thermal generators, while Eqs. (17) and (18) determine the allowable production capacities for
potential wind turbines and solar PV facilities, respectively. So far, Eq. (19) presents a binary decision variable determining the choice
of potential wind turbines and solar PV facilities, considering their maximum power ratings and capacity factors, which reflect the
intermittent characteristics of renewable energy sources. Since, Eq. (20) prevents concurrent investment in both solar PV facilities and

6
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

wind turbines by establishing a binary investment decision for each bus. Equations (21) and (22) place restrictions on the total number
of PV units and wind turbines that can be built throughout the planning horizon.

Pmin
g ≤ Pg ≤ Pmax
g ∀g ∈ G (14)

0 ≤ Pw ≤ Pmax
w .CFw ∀w ∈ W (15)

0 ≤ Ps ≤ Pmax
s · CFs ∀s ∈ S (16)

μ2w , μ3s ∈ [0, 1] ∀w, s (17)

μ3w + μ4s ≤ 1 (18)

∑
μ2w ≤ nw (19)
w

∑
μ3s ≤ ns (20)
s

2.5.5. Limitation of HES

When it comes to inertia response, conventional power systems rely entirely on the kinetic energy that SGs’ rotors emit. But with
the right virtual inertia controllers, HES can also respond to inertia and main frequency in today’s power systems. However, in order
for the current power grid to be stable, it is necessary to carefully choose and appropriate size HES [27,28]. A combination of
high-power super capacitor energy storage (SCES) and high-energy batteries is employed to give the required main frequency response
and inertial response. According to [29], Eq. (23)–(30) characterizes the functioning of the HES.
∑
PRmin ≥ k · LODi (21)
i

nhes
∑
Phes ≥ PRmin (22)
hes

Pmin
hes ≤ Phes ≤ Phes
max
(23)

Phes = ηv · Pv + ηsces · Psces (24)

Pv ≥ z · Phes (25)

nhes
∑
z · Phes ≥ [Khes .fo ] × [ΔPOF] (26)
hes

nhes
∑
z · Phes ≤ q.[Khes .fo ] × [ΔPOF] (27)
hes

SCmin
hes ≤ SChes ≤ SChes
max
(29)

μ1hes ∈ [0, 1] ∀hes ∈ HES (30)

The power system’s principal frequency response, as defined by Eq. (23), should be at least 5 % of should ideally be at least 5 % of
the entire load demand at the bus, and preferably more. According to Eq. (24), the combined power capacity of all potential HESs must
be more than or equal to the main reserve minimum. Eq. (25) sets upper and lower bounds on the power that HES can supply. If we add
together the electricity from the BES and the SCES sources, we get the total power provided by the HES, as stated in Eq. (26). As per
Equation (27), 80 % of the overall capacity of the Hybrid Energy System (HES) must be allocated to Battery Energy Storage (BES)
within the HES configuration. Eq. (28) delineates the lowest capacity necessary for BES within the HES composite to prevent storage
capacity overflow, factoring in the power-frequency characteristics of the model. However, Eq. (29) establishes the maximum BES
capacity required within the HES composite to avoid excessive storage. Moreover, Eq. (30) imposes constraints on the states of charge
for potential HES units. But Eq. (31) introduces a binary decision variable determining whether a new HES is to be installed at a specific
bus; a value of 1 denotes selection, while 0 signifies non-selection.

2.5.6. Constraint on the flexibility of renewable energy sources

Eqs (32)–(34) provide restrictions on the integration of RES into the power grid, ensuring that it remains within a predetermined
limit in accordance with the renewable energy (RE) goal set by the suggested model [12]. The desired levels for the penetration of RES

7
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

are set at 25 %, 50 %, 75 %, and 100 %. Eq. (32) imposes limitations on the overall power production from RES by using a versatile
parameter f, expressed as a proportion of the entire load need. Eq. (33) restricts the maximum power output from thermal generators,
which cannot exceed (1- f) percent of the total load demand. This requirement ensures that f percent of the power production comes
from renewable energy sources [12,30]. Eq. (34) establishes the permissible values for the variable parameter, f, in order to restrict the
amount of RE source penetration within the range of 25 %–100 % of the overall load demand.
[ ] [ ]
∑ns nw
∑ ∑
Ps · μ3s + Pw · μ2w ≤ f · LODi (31)
s=1 w=1 i

[ ] [ ]
n
∑ ∑
Pg ≤ (1 − f ) · LODi (32)
g=1 i

f ∈ [0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1] (33)

2.5.7. Limitation of inertia

Inertia plays a crucial role in preserving the stability of the power system after a transitory incident. It is crucial to make sure that
the virtual inertia energy from RE generators and storage units can equal the kinetic energy provided by the decommissioned syn-
chronous generators (SGs) to replace the current SGs with these virtual inertia-providing units and storage units [11]. The suggested
model ensures frequency stability by the inertia constraint formulation, which is given by Eqs (35)–(40), [31]. Eq. (35) provides the
defined limit for the total system inertia constant, as stated in [8]. Eq. (36) restricts the frequency of the system to a permissible limit
according to the grid code of South Africa [32]. The system’s RoCoF is limited by Eq. (37) to a reasonable range. The above pertur-
bation data constrained analyses [33], which contain all of in Eq. (38). Likewise, Eq. (39) accurately calculates the total inertia energy
produced by all wind turbines, solar photovoltaic plants, and hybrid energy systems (HES) that are currently in operation. Eq. (40)
states that the overall inertia energy produced by the hybrid energy system (HES) and all online renewable energy sources must exceed
or equal the minimum threshold of inertia energy set. As per Eq. (41), to reimburse for the discrepancy in kinetic energy, the cu-
mulative inertia energy derived from the HES must exceed or equal the rotational energy dissipated by the heat generator(s) during a
contingency event. The model stipulates 49 Hz as the minimum permissible frequency [34].

Hmin ≤ H ≤ Hmax ∀g ∈ G, ∀s ∈ S, ∀p ∈ P, ∀w ∈ W, ∀v ∈ V (34)

frmin ≤ fr ≤ frmax ∀g ∈ G, ∀s ∈ S, ∀p ∈ P, ∀w ∈ W, ∀v ∈ V (35)

− RoCoFmax ≤ RoCoF ≤ RoCoFmax (36)

ΔP · f o
IEmin = + ΔP · Hgl (37)
2 · RoCoFmax v

ns
∑ nw
∑ nhes
∑
IEhes,w,s = Hs Ss + Hw Sw + Hhes Shes (38)
s=1 w=1 hes=1

IEhes,w,s ≥ IEmin (39)

∑
Hhes · Shes ≥ ΔP · Hgl (40)
hes

Fig. 3. Comparing the REG outcomes in 2020 with the predicted future REGs by 2030.

8
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

3. Implementing and simulating models implementation

The suggested model is applied to an IEEE 6-bus system for efficacy evaluation, followed by model validation through various case
studies. Both solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind turbines are considered, categorized as Class I and Class II, as potential installation
options. Class II PV plants and Class II wind turbines are anticipated to be capable of providing virtual inertia, while Class I PV plants
and Class I wind turbines lack this capability. Additionally, it is presumed that the demand for each bus will rise by 50 % to meet
growing power demands and facilitate financing for new transmission lines (TL) and renewable energy generation units. Concurrently,
the determined capacity of every conduction line is halved from its early construction capacity (see Fig. 3).

3.1. Implementation of the IEEE 6-bus system

The IEEE 6-bus test setup used for model validation is shown in Fig. 4. The system consists of four load points, six TL that are now in
use, ten TL that are planned, four Hydroelectric Systems (HES), four possible wind turbines, and four possible solar PV plants. Two TL
per corridor are allowed, and Big-M is set to 103. Under consideration are 100 MW Renewable Energy Generators (REGs) for buses 2
and 5, which have the greatest load demand. Due to variable renewable energy sources, 50 MW Hybrid Energy Systems (HES) at buses
2 and 5 are considered. Table 4 lists the study’s system data, including a mean load demand of 1140 MW [35] despite a cumulative
thermal production capacity of 1400 MW. Additional system data is provided [17,18,26,36–38], and Bus 1 is slack. The IEEE-16 bus
test system may be analyzed similarly.

4. Simulation results and analysis

The outcomes of the simulated model will be discussed and studied here.

4.1. Consideration of the System’s inertia

The total system inertia for the various case studies is shown in Table 4. With a total inertia constant of 6.139s—or 10,700 MWs in
inertia energy—Case Study 3 has the highest value. With a constant of 5.565 s and associated inertia energy of 9700 MWs, case study 2,
on the other hand, exhibits the lowest total system inertia. The incorporation of inertia into the model formulation leads to an increase
in inertia energy in case study 3, which impacts investment decisions. Cases 1 and 2, on the other hand, have lower inertia energies
since inertia is not taken into account during the planning stage.

Fig. 4. Flowchart for standard procedure.

9
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Table 4
Aggregate inertia over many case studies.
Case study System inertia constant [s] Total inertia energy [MWs]

Synchronous inertia Virtual inertia Total inertia

Case-1 5.681 8500.0 1400.0 9900.00

Case-2 5.566 8500.0 1200.0 9700.00
Case-3 6.140 8500.0 2200.0 10700.0

Table 5
Thorough evaluation of expenses and investment choices in various research scenarios.
Metrics Study cases

Case study1 Case study 2 Case study 3

How Much fuel cost required [$] 1.78131E+08 1.67839E+08 1.7747E+08

Estimated wind power plant [$] 9.29206E+06 – 9.3206E+06
Emission cost [$] 2.39342E+08 2.39342E+08 2.4432E+08
Overall expense [$] 4.194E+08 4.191E+08 4.31E+08
The overall expense of the investment [$] 1.75E+08 1.58E+08 9.64E+07
Earned FiT total (including PV and wind turbine) [$] – 3.29E+06 1.5978E+6
Total cost [$] 5.99E+08 5.76E+08 5.26E+08
Record of wind turbine investments 2 [WT1, WT3] – 2 [WT2, WT4]
The sum of all investments in solar PV – 2 [S3, S4] –
Total number of investments on HES 2 2 2
Funding for transmission cables (2–6) (×2) (4–6) (×2) (4–6)
(3–5) (×2) (2–6) (×2) (3–5)
(4–6) (×2) (3–5) (2–6)

4.2. Decisions on system costs and investments

Table 5 shows the cost analysis and expansion plans for additional HES, transmission lines, and REGs for each study instance. Case 1
has the highest investment and system cost, whereas case 3 has the lowest. Investment choices in both scenarios explain the cost
discrepancy. Case 3 had an 11.94 % and 8.86 % drop in system cost and a 44.9 % and 38 % decrease in investment cost compared to
examples 1 and 2. However, scenario 2 had the greatest yearly FiT payment since solar PV facilities had higher FiT rates than wind
turbines, as in cases 1 and 3. The FiT effectively influences scheduling choices. Due to FiT inducements and the optimum choice to
invest in fewer TL (3 lines) than case 1 (6 lines) and case 2, case 3 had the lowest overall system cost (5 transmission lines).

4.3. Variation in generation capacity and CO2 emissions

After planning, CO2 emissions and capacity mix for each producing technology are shown below. Table 6 shows thermal generator
CO2 emissions and capacity mix for each research instance. Table 6 shows that instance 3 emits 2.2 % less CO2 than case study 2. The
integrated model that included FiT (cost), system inertia and emission reduce CO2 emissions by 0.226 million tons. Because wind
turbines have a larger capacity factor than solar PV facilities, scenario 3 has the largest producing capacity. Case 2 has the largest
thermal generator CO2 emissions compared to case studies 1 and 3. However, for the variation in generation capacity and CO2
emissions, whereas in Fig. 5 illustrates the IEEE 6-bus test system schematic is shown, with blue dashed lines representing transmission
lines, candidate HES, and REGs (see Table 7).

5. Analysis of the dynamic frequency response of the model

The dynamic behavior of the frequency response is analyzed for every research scenario. An examination has been conducted after
the failure of the largest 600 MW synchronous generator. Table 5 displays the system frequency variation caused by disturbances in

Table 6
Variation in CO₂ emissions and generating capacity across all cases.
Identities Study cases

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Total CO2 emissions [tonsCO2] 9.7367E+6 0.9999E+7 9.7729E+6

The sum of all thermal generator output powers [MW] 963.9 989.9 967.5
Total electricity produced through wind power plant [MW] 76 – 76
Output power from PV systems [MW] – 50 –
Total power generation [MW] 1039.9 1039.9 1043.5

10
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Table 7
Frequency response dynamics under contingency conditions for the various situations investigated.
Case study System inertia [s] Drop in frequency Nadir frequency range

Case-1 5.5980 1.0478 48.9623

Case-2 5.4965 1.0605 48.9496
Case-3 6.0941 0.9978 49.0012

Fig. 5. The IEEE 6-bus test system schematic is shown, with blue dashed lines representing transmission lines, candidate HES, and REGs. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

several study scenarios. In instances 1 and 2, where system inertia was not accounted for in the proposed model, the frequency nadir
was found to be 47.9396 Hz and 48.9523 Hz, respectively. The frequency of nadir readings falls below the permissible limit set by the
research. When system inertia is taken into account in scenario 3, the lowest frequency, known as the frequency nadir, is 49.002 Hz.
This value is within the allowed frequency range. Therefore, the model improves the existing grid’s ability to withstand and recover
from disruptions.

6. The proposed sensitivity analysis and result discussion

By applying various RES penetration levels to the model, FiT and system inertia are analyzed. Then, system inertia and total FiT
change.

6.1. Analyzing the sensitivity of FiT

Generally, four scenarios are proposed to analyze the sensitivity of FiT incentives in relation to different degrees of RES penetration.
A model with a 25 % penetration of RES in the base scenario. Scenario 2: RES adoption at 50 %. Scenario 3: The level of RES pene-
tration is 75 %. In scenario 4: Model with 100 % renewable energy penetration. Table 8 shows the composition of energy production
based on the level of RES penetration. Additionally, it presents the whole investment expenditure and Feed-in Tariff (FiT) payment for

Table 8
Assortment of capacities for various degrees of RES integration.
The power output of each installed generator technology in (MW) RES Penetration level (%)

25 50 75 100

Thermal 1400 800 400 0

Wind 400 400 800 1200
Solar – 600 600 600
Investment cost on new REGs ($) 3.2000E+07 8.76E+07 1.17E+08 1.46E+08
Accrued total FiT ($) 3.1956E+06 1.31E+07 1.62E+07 1.94E+07

11
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Fig. 6. A proportion of the investment cost is financed by the overall FiT payments.

Table 9
Inertia coefficients correspond to different levels of renewable energy integration.
Percentage of System inertia
Renewable Energy
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Integration (%)
Inertia Inertia energy of the Inertia Total Inertia Synchronous Inertia Total
constant Synchronous energy from inertia constant inertia energy energy from inertia
[sec.] generator [MWs] RES and HES energy [s] [MWs] RES and HES energy
[MWs] [MWs] [MWs] [MWs]

25 5.333 8499 1100 9600 6.827 8500 3400 11900

50 2.6890 3999 800 4800 4.8179 4000 4600 8600
75 2.1176 1999 1600 3600 4.5938 2000 6200 8200
100 1.4860 0000 2400 2400 4.2105 0 6800 6800

any Renewable Energy Source (RES) penetration scenario. The FiT payment substantially decreased investment expenses. Fig. 6 il-
lustrates the proportion of investment costs that are financed by the FiT payment. The sensitivity analysis, using data from Table 9 and
Fig. 6, demonstrates that when the penetration of renewable energy sources (RESs) increases, both the total system cost and the total
FiT received likewise increase. Nevertheless, once the 50 % RES penetration threshold is reached, the ratio of FiT payment to the
overall investment cost diminishes, despite maintaining steady FiT rates.

6.2. Explore the impact of variations in system inertia through a sensitivity analysis

The sensitivity analysis looked at how the combined GTEP model’s total system inertia changed with different percentages of RES.
In order to do the sensitivity analysis, two possible outcomes were examined, with varying degrees of RES penetration assumed in each.
The assumption of virtual inertia by REGs and HES was made in Scenario 1. Scenario 2 included the use of virtual inertia by REGs and
HES. The consequences of the sensitivity analysis are displayed in Table 9, Figs. 7 and 8. In all situations, there is a decline in overall
system inertia as the proportion of renewable energy sources (RESs) increases (as shown in Table 9 and Fig. 7). More precisely,
Scenario 1, which fails to consider the virtual inertia capacity of RE generators and HES, demonstrates a more significant decrease rate
in comparison to Scenario 2. In Scenario 1, the total inertia constant drops from 5.333 s to 1.4860 s, resulting in a reduction of 72.1 %.
This information can be found in Table 9 and visually represented in Fig. 8. In contrast, in Scenario 2, there is a decrease from 6.827s to
4.2105s (a drop of 38.3 %). Furthermore, the inertia constant limit set in Eq. (35) imposes a restriction on the maximum permissible
RES penetration level, limiting it to less than 50 % in Scenario 1 and up to 100 % in Scenario 2. However, even though Scenario 2
allows for 100 % RES penetration without breaching the inertia limit, the substantial reduction in the total inertia constant raises
concerns about the grid’s stability. The examination of grid stability becomes crucial at 100 % RES penetration, warranting further
analysis.

6.3. Details elaboration of the results

The simulation results show that the cost, system inertia, and CO2 emissions were considerably affected by the addition of pa-
rameters including inertia, emissions, and FiT in the GTEP model (case 3). In particular, compared to case-2, the total system cost
dropped by 8.86 %, CO2 emissions declined by 2.2 %, and the system inertia constant increased by 10.3 % (from 5.565s to 6.139s)
when these aspects were taken into account throughout the model design process (case 3). Case 3 also made better transmission line
planning selections than case-1 and case-2. Case-3 installs three transmission lines, whereas case- 1 and 2 install six and five,
respectively, increasing transmission line investment costs. In scenario 3, two virtual inertia wind turbines (W2, W4) are installed to

12
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Fig. 7. RES penetration changes in multiple scenarios were investigated with respect to changes in synchronous inertia and total inertia energy.

Fig. 8. Changes in the system inertia constant across various levels of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) penetration.

Table 10
Computing time comparison of the suggested mathematical method to previous soft-computing
optimization strategies.
Method of solving Processing duration [sec.]

Proposed method utilizing (MILP) 16.359

Using (NSGA-II) [18] 18.61
Using GA 33.76
Using of Multi-objective Harris Hawks optimization 253.8
Using ALO 353.1225
Using SSA 384.7674
Using an improved PSO called IBPSO 3096

balance cost and model inertia. In contrast, example 1 (W1, W3) recommends installing two wind turbine units without any virtual
inertia. The maximum FiT of 3.29 million USD was attained in case-2. This is explained by the purchase of a solar power plant, which
provided greater FiT rates than wind turbines while having a lower inertia constant. Case 3 got 1.5978 million USD in FiT, significantly
less than case 2, although grid inertia was included in the planning. Thus, the GTEP (case 3) model that incorporates inertia, emissions,
and The FiT boost improved system performance by leveraging the highlighted metrics, aiding power system planners in making
informed decisions regarding expansion planning.
In terms of calculation time, Table 10 compares the mathematical programming model to soft-computing optimization approaches.
Compared to the Genetic algorithm (GA), Slap swarm algorithm (SSA), and other soft-computing optimization methods, the provided
mathematical approach obtained global optimum solutions quicker and with less computation time. Therefore, the suggested tech-
nique saves processing time. The trade-off relationship between total system cost, CO2 emissions, and system inertia is depicted by the
Pareto optimal graph in Fig. 9.

13
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

Fig. 9. The relationship between system inertia and both total system cost and total emissions using a Pareto chart.

7. Conclusions and future study

This article concludes that the integrated Feed-in Tariff (FiT) application within the inertia-based GTEP optimization technique has
been successfully implemented on the IEEE test system. Leveraging the CPLEX software, the proposed model effectively minimizes the
total system cost and CO2 emissions while optimizing system inertia through FiT incentives. The model is based on the IEEE 6/IEEE 16-
bus test system, and the GAMS CPLEX solver is used to solve it. Three distinct research scenarios were employed to evaluate the efficacy
of the suggested approach. These hypothetical situations were created to investigate FiT and system inertia at various penetration
levels of Renewable Energy Generation (REG). The following is an explanation of the thorough study results:

• In order to promote increased utilization of Renewable Energy (RE), particularly solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, which tend to
have higher costs compared to wind turbines, it is recommended that the Feed-in Tariff (FiT) rate be set at a level greater than 0.24
$/Wh. This higher FiT rate serves as an incentive, encouraging greater adoption of solar PV systems by making their economic
viability more attractive to users. By offering a competitive FiT rate, policymakers aim to stimulate the growth of solar energy
projects and bolster the overall shift towards sustainable and renewable energy sources.
• Notable improvements were obtained when FiT, emissions, and system inertia were incorporated into the GTEP model, especially
in Case-3. These improvements encompassed a substantial decrease in total system cost (11.94 % lower compared to case-1), a
significant boost in system inertia (8 % increase compared to case-1), and a reduction in CO2 emissions (2.2 % decrease compared
to case-2). Moreover, the GTEP model exhibited superior performance compared to alternative soft-computing optimization
techniques, requiring less processing time for its computations.
• The combined model’s larger inertia constant value improved frequency stability after system contingency.
• A considerable influence on the supply of virtual inertia by REGs and HES is revealed by the shift from a 25 % to a 100 %
penetration level of RES. A significant 72.1 % reduction in the total system inertia occurs when REGs and HESS are unable to
provide virtual inertia in the absence of support. Nonetheless, the overall system inertia drops to 38.3 % when RES penetration is
raised from 25 % to 100 % with the help of REGs and High-Efficiency Synchronous Systems (HESS) that provide virtual inertia. In
order to maintain system inertia levels during the shift to increasing RES penetration, it is imperative that planning methodologies
consider both RES and High-Efficiency Storage Systems HESS that can provide virtual inertia.
• The proposed analysis indicates that as the penetration of RES increases, both the overall system cost and the total FiT received also
increase. However, once renewable energy (RE) penetration exceeds 50 %, the proportion of FiT received in relation to the total
investment cost decreases.
• As per the designated limit for the inertia constant in the model Eq. (31), investing in renewable energy (RE) technology and hybrid
energy storage systems (HESS) cannot provide sufficient virtual inertia when the RE penetration level exceeds 50 %. This violates
the inertia limit. However, when using renewable energy generators (REGs) and HESS, the inertia limit is not exceeded even at RE
penetration levels of up to 100 %.

The future work will expand the model to a bigger test system by studying grid stability improvement by considering island/grid
mode of operations at 100 % RESs and energy storage penetration.

Data availability statement

The data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

14
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Sadasiva Behera: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. Sumana Das: Resources, Formal analysis, Conceptu-
alization. B.S.S. Ganesh Pardhu: Validation, Software, Investigation. Ram Ishwar Vais: Project administration, Methodology,
Investigation, Kareem M. AboRas, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. Naladi Ram Babu: Visualization,
Validation, Investigation. Sanjeev Kumar Bhagat: Visualization, Software, Data curation. Mohammed Alharbi: Software, Meth-
odology, Data curation. Wulfran Fendzi Mbasso: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2024R467), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.

References

[1] H.X. Li, P. Horan, M.B. Luther, T.M.F. Ahmed, Informed decision making of battery storage for solar-PV homes using smart meter data, Energy Build. 198 (2019)
491–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.06.036.
[2] R.M. Pereira, A.M. Pereira, Financing a renewable energy feed-in tariff with a tax on carbon dioxide emissions: a dynamic multi-sector general equilibrium
analysis for Portugal, Green Financ 1 (3) (2019) 279–296, https://doi.org/10.3934/gf.2019.3.27.
[3] W. Antweiler, A two-part feed-in-tariff for intermittent electricity generation, Energy Econ. 65 (2017) 458–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.05.010.
[4] J. Huang, X. Wang, Y. Wang, Z. Ma, X. Chen, H. Zhang, Charging navigation strategy of electric vehicles considering time-of-use pricing. Proc. - 2021 6th Asia
Conf. Power Electr. Eng. ACPEE, 2021, pp. 715–720, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACPEE51499.2021.9436864, 2021.
[5] F. Xia, X. Lu, F. Song, The role of feed-in tariff in the curtailment of wind power in China, Energy Econ. 86 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eneco.2019.104661.
[6] A.C. C, M.K. Daniel E. Olivares, A centralized energy management system for isolated microgrids, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 5 (4) (2014) 1864–1875, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2013.2294187.
[7] IEA, World energy outlook 2020, Available at: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/a72d8abf-de08-4385-8711-b8a062d6124a/WEO2020.pdf. (Accessed
31 July 2022).
[8] L. Zhang, C. Chen, Q. Wang, D. Zhou, The impact of feed-in tariff reduction and renewable portfolio standard on the development of distributed photovoltaic
generation in China, Energy 232 (January 2019) 120933, 2021.
[9] K. Sagulpongmalee, A. Therdyothin, A. Nathakaranakule, Analysis of feed-in tariff models for photovoltaic systems in Thailand : an evidence-based approach
Analysis of feed-in tariff models for photovoltaic systems in Thailand : an evidence-based approach, Renew. Sustain. Energy (February) (2019) 045903.
[10] H.X. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Li, J. Huang, G. Costin, P. Zhang, Exploring payback-year based feed-in tariff mechanisms in Australia, Energy Pol. 150 (November 2020)
112133, 2021.
[11] O.J. Ayamolowo, P. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, An overview of inertia requirement in modern renewable energy sourced grid : challenges and way forward,
J. Electr. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2 (2022).
[12] H. Bevrani, H. Golpira, A.R. Messina, N. Hatziargyriou, F. Milano, T. Ise, Power system frequency control: an updated review of current solutions and new
challenges, Elec. Power Syst. Res. 194 (2021 May 1) 107114.
[13] M. Rezkalla, M. Marinelli, Augmenting system inertia through fast acting reserve – a power system case study with high penetration of wind power. 2019 54th
Int. Univ. Power, Eng. Conf., 2019, pp. 1–6.
[14] L. Mehigan, D. Al, P. Deane, Renewables in the European power system and the impact on system rotational inertia, Energy 203 (2020).
[15] S. Wogrin, D. Tejada-arango, S. Delikaraoglou, A. Botterud, Assessing the impact of inertia and reactive power constraints in generation expansion planning,
Appl. Energy 280 (September) (2020).
[16] A. Safari, M. Farrokhifar, H. Shahsavari, V. Hosseinnezhad, Stochastic planning of integrated power and natural gas networks with simplified system frequency
constraints, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 132 (May) (2021) 107144.
[17] B. Lin, Y. Xie, How feed-in-tariff subsidies affect renewable energy investments in China? New evidence from firm-level data, Energy 294 (2024) 130853.
[18] S. Adak, H. Cangi, Development software program for finding photovoltaic cell open-circuit voltage and fill factor based on the photovoltaic cell one-diode
equivalent circuit model, Electr. Eng. 106 (2024) 1251–1264.
[19] M. Larsen, E. Sauma, Economic and emission impacts of energy storage systems on power-system long-term expansion planning when considering multi-stage
decision processes, J. Energy Storage 33 (July 2020) 101883, 2021.
[20] S.L. Gbadamosi, N.I. Nwulu, Y. Sun, Multi-objective optimisation for composite generation and transmission expansion planning considering offshore wind
power and feed-in tariffs, IET Renew. Power Gener. Res (2018) 1–11.
[21] V. Asgharian, M. Abdelaziz, A low-carbon market-based multi-area power system expansion planning model, Elec. Power Syst. Res. 187 (March) (2020) 106500.
[22] M. Qorbani, T. Amraee, Long term transmission expansion planning to improve power system resilience against cascading outages, Elec. Power Syst. Res. 192
(November 2020) 106972, 2021.
[23] O.J. Ayamolowo, P.T. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, Optimal planning of Renewable energy generators in modern power grid for enhanced system inertia.
Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable, Energy 7 (1) (2022 Dec) 1–7.
[24] L. Zheng, W. Hu, Q. Lu, Y. Min, Optimal energy storage system allocation and operation for improving wind power penetration, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 9
(16) (2015 Dec) 2672–2678.
[25] H. Abdi, Profit-based unit commitment problem : a review of models , methods , challenges , and future directions Total revenue, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
138 (March 2020) (2021) 110504.
[26] O.J. Ayamolowo, P.T. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, Sensitivity analysis of feed-in tariff in joint generation and transmission expansion planning considering the
inertia requirement of the grid, Energy Syst (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12667-023-00593-0.
[27] D. Yang, Y. Jing, C. Wang, P. Nie, P. Sun, Analysis of renewable energy subsidy in China under uncertainty : feed-in tariff vs . renewable portfolio standard,
Energy Strategy Rev. 34 (2021) 100628.
[28] M. Kazemi, M.R. Ansari, An integrated transmission expansion planning and battery storage systems placement - a security and reliability perspective, Int. J.
Electr. Power Energy Syst. 134 (May 2021) 107329, 2022.

15
S. Behera et al. Heliyon 10 (2024) e36927

[29] M. Emmanuel, K. Doubleday, B. Cakir, M. Marković, B.M. Hodge, A review of power system planning and operational models for flexibility assessment in high
solar energy penetration scenarios, Sol. Energy 210 (2020 Nov 1) 169–180.
[30] U. Akram, N. Mithulananthan, R. Shah, S.A. Pourmousavi, Sizing HESS as inertial and primary frequency reserve in low inertia power system, IET Renew. Power
Gener. 15 (1) (2021 Jan) 99–113.
[31] O.J. Ayamolowo, S.O. Adigun, P.T. Manditereza, Short-term solar irradiance evaluation and modeling of a hybrid distribution generation system for a typical
Nigeria university, In2020 IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica (2020 Aug 25) 1–5. IEEE.
[32] R. Wang, W. Yang, X. Li, Z. Zhao, S. Zhang, Day-ahead multi-objective optimal operation of Wind – PV – pumped Storage hybrid system considering carbon
emissions, Energy Rep. 8 (2022) 1270–1279.
[33] Y. Li, et al., Optimal generation expansion planning model of a combined thermal – wind – PV power system considering multiple boundary conditions : a case
study in Xinjiang , China, Energy Rep. 7 (2021) 515–522.
[34] O.J. Ayamolowo, P.T. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, Investigating the potential of solar trackers in renewable energy integration to grid, InJournal of Physics:
Conference Series 2022 (1) (2021 Sep 1) 012031. IOP Publishing.
[35] O.J. Ayamolowo, P.T. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, South Africa power reforms: the Path to a dominant renewable energy-sourced grid, Energy Rep. 8 (2022 Apr
1) 1208–1215.
[36] O.J. Ayamolowo, P.T. Manditereza, K. Kusakana, Exploring the gaps in renewable energy integration to grid, Energy Rep. 6 (2020 Dec 1) 992–999.
[37] S. Adak, H. Cangi, B. Eid, et al., Developed analytical expression for current harmonic distortion of the PV system’s inverter in relation to the solar irradiance
and temperature, Electr. Eng. 103 (2021) 697–704.
[38] S. Adak, Harmonics mitigation of stand-alone photovoltaic system using LC passive filter, J. Electr. Eng. Technol. 16 (2021) 2389–2396.

16