Paper accepted for presentation at the 2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech
Factorial Analysis for Modeling Large-Scale
Grid Integration of Renewable Energy Sources
Douglas A. Halamay, Student Member, IEEE, and Ted K.A. Brekken, Member, IEEE
 renewable resources, such as solar and ocean wave, are also
Abstract—As more renewable power sources, such as wind,
solar, and ocean wave, are added to the grid, there has been an
increasing impact on the ability of system operators to deal with
the added variability that these resources introduce. Since these
types of sources are variable and non-dispatchable in nature,
their continued integration has required that more and more
generating resources be kept in reserve to account for unexpected
power changes. While wind, solar, and ocean wave share
similarities in their fundamental characteristics as renewable
sources, their variability and subsequent impact on the grid can
often differ greatly. In combination, however, it has been shown
that positive synergistic effects are possible (e.g., in combination,
reserve requirements can be reduced compared to single-
resource scenarios). This paper utilizes the factorial design
methodology to analyze the reserve requirement impacts of
combining different resources to determine parameters for
modeling various grid penetration scenarios. The results point to
the possibility of determining an optimal mix of wind, solar, and
ocean wave resources.
Index Terms—Wind power generation, solar power
generation, factorial design, power systems, power system
reliability, power system stability, marine technology, simulation,
reserve requirements.
I. INTRODUCTION
A S the planning, construction, and grid integration of new
wind farms continues at a rapid pace in the Pacific
Northwest (PNW) region of the United States, power system
operators are being forced to deal with the consequences of
this growth. While existing power generation infrastructure is
designed to accommodate significant variability in the form of
changes in load or the loss of generation, the addition of new
variable renewable power generation at ever-increasing levels
can strain grid operation [1].
Over the last five years, wind generation nameplate capacity
in the PNW has increased from 265 MW to 3372 MW [2].
Moreover, it is expected that installed wind capacity could
double from current levels by 2013 [3]. Already, however,
system operators are finding that there is no longer enough
reserve capacity in the system to deal with the increased
variability that has been introduced by wind generation [3].
Wind generation represents a very mature technology with a
large existing installed base throughout the world. Other
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 0846533.
Douglas A. Halamay and Ted K.A. Brekken are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Oregon State University,
Corvallis, OR, 97331, USA (e-mail: brekken@eecs.oregonstate.edu).
978-1-4244-8417-1/11/$26.00 ©2011
good candidates for large-scale grid integration, but their use
is still being explored through a variety of commercial and
academic initiatives [4]. While solar and ocean wave
resources also introduce variability into the power grid,
previous research has demonstrated that, when combined with
wind generation, these resources can have a beneficial impact
on overall reserve requirements [5].
This paper builds off of the research presented in [5] and [6]
by exploring the use of factorial design methodology to
analyze the combined renewable resource scenario to
determine parameters for future modeling of large-scale
renewable resource grid integration. These parameters are
found through the calculation of the reserve requirements for a
large number of simulations utilizing different sets of
synthetically-generated wind, solar, and ocean wave power
generation data at two different penetration levels. The
methodology for generating synthetic power data that
accurately represents the characteristics of the actual data is a
modified second-order Markov model [6].
The use of the factorial analysis methodology provides an
opportunity to perform a first-order examination to determine
which renewables (and combinations thereof) have a
significant impact on the overall reserve requirements for the
power system. The overall goal of this research is to develop
a model framework for evaluating different renewable
resources and their various combinations to determine their
impact on the power grid.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Original Data Sources
The original data that was used in this study to generate the
synthetic power data sets was produced from real sources
throughout the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
Balancing Authority Area (BAA). Data used includes total
wind generation and load demand for the BPA BAA,
combined solar power calculated from actual irradiance data
from 10 locations in the PNW, and ocean wave power
calculated from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration buoy data (including significant wave height,
period, and direction from three buoys in the PNW), as
outlined in [7]. The wind and load data were taken directly
from BPA and are freely available [8]. The solar power data
is modeled as a 50/50 combination of photovoltaic and
concentrating thermal with a six-hour time constant. All of
the data sets are composed of corresponding 10-minute

Fig. 1. Plots of load and renewable generation (wind, solar, ocean wave) for
seven days in July 2008. The wind, solar, and ocean wave plots are at a 5%
penetration level.
samples for the year 2008 (for a total of 52704 samples).
For this study, penetration is defined as the ratio of peak
renewable generation to peak load over the entire year.
Differing penetration levels were produced by directly scaling
the generation data.
Fig. 1 shows a comparison of the different data sets for a
seven-day period in July 2008. For this example, the various
renewable sources were set at a 5% penetration level. It is
clear that there are significant differences between the
variability of the different types of renewables, with the
regular pattern of solar contrasting against the large ramps of
wind power and the more consistent ocean wave resource.
B. Synthetic Data Generation
Based on a modified second-order Markov model,
presented in detail in [6], which includes corrections for both
monthly/seasonal and hourly renewable resource variations,
100 sets of synthetic power generation time-series data were
produced for each of wind, solar, and ocean wave generation.
Similar to the original data that these synthetic data sets were
based on, the data is at a 10-minute sample time.
C. Reserve Requirements
Both the variability of generation and the variability of the
load impact the ability of a system operator to keep a power
system balanced on a minute-by-minute, hourly, or daily basis.
To the operator, variable renewable generation appears as a
negative load, and thus all reserve calculations must be
completed utilizing the concept of net load (i.e., load-minus-
renewable-generation).
To that end, the utility industry (and BPA in particular)
currently utilizes three different timescales to calculate reserve
requirements. The first, regulation, is defined as the
difference between the minute-to-minute load-minus-
renewable-generation and the 10-minute average load-minus-
renewable-generation. The second timescale, following, is
defined as the difference between the 10-minute average load-
minus-renewable-generation and the hourly average load-
minus-renewable-generation. The final timescale, imbalance,
2
is defined as the difference between the hourly average load-
minus-renewable-generation and the forecasted load-minus-
renewable-generation for that hour. The imbalance
component of the reserve requirements is directly impacted by
the accuracy and frequency of the forecasted load-minus-
renewable-generation [9].
In order to better illustrate the concept of different
timescales for reserve requirements, both the following and
imbalance reserve requirements are demonstrated in Fig. 2.
Since the available data for this paper was at a 10-minute
sample time, the regulation reserve requirement is not
presented. This should not have a significant impact on the
analysis, however, since the regulation reserve component is
generally smaller than the following and imbalance reserve
requirements due to the smaller minute-to-minute variability
that the regulation component represents [9].
One of the key considerations in determining the imbalance
reserve requirements is the scheduled or forecasted power,
which must be calculated for both the renewable resource and
the load. For this study, the forecast utilizes a one-hour
persistence method which predicts that the renewable
generation for the next hour will be equal to the current
generation level when the forecast is made. This one-hour
persistence method is often used as a baseline technique that
has proven itself to be both simple and adequate to forecast the
power generated by a variable, renewable source. As Fig. 2
shows, however, one of its primary drawbacks is the lag in the
forecast when the power rapidly increases or decreases (i.e.,
rapid power ramps), which negatively impacts the imbalance
reserve requirement.
Based on the one-hour persistence method, the calculation
of the following and imbalance reserve requirements can be
conducted for each renewable resource. By moving through
the data one point at a time, the hourly average load-minus-
renewable-generation and the forecasted load-minus-
renewable-generation can be easily computed, which then
enables the calculation of the following and imbalance reserve
requirements for each data point. These sets of reserve
requirement data can then be sorted and, utilizing industry-
Fig. 2. Illustration of differences between following and imbalance reserve
requirements.
 3

standard practices for computing reserve requirements, only

the middle 99.5% of the data points are kept, which eliminates 1 െ1 െ1 െ1 1 1 1 െ1 ‫ߚۍ‬଴ ‫ې‬ ‫ݎ‬ଵ
the top and bottom 0.25% of outliers. Trimming the data in
‫ۍ‬1 െ1 െ1 1 1 െ1 െ1 1 ‫ߚێ ې‬ଵ ‫ݎۍ ۑ‬ଶ ‫ې‬
‫ێ‬1 ‫ۑ ݎێ‬
െ1 1 െ1 െ1 1 െ1 1 ‫ߚێ ۑ‬ଶ ‫ۑ‬ ଷ
this way eliminates those very rare events where the required ‫ێ‬ ‫ۑ‬ ‫ۑ ݎێ‬
‫ێ‬1 െ1 1 1 െ1 െ1 ‫ێ‬
1 െ1‫ ۑ‬ଷߚ ‫ۑ‬ ସ
reserves are more than three standard deviations from the =‫ۑ ێ‬ (2)
‫ێ‬1 1 െ1 െ1 െ1 െ1 1 1 ‫ߚێ ۑ‬ସ ‫ݎێ ۑ‬ହ ‫ۑ‬
mean and still enables controllers to meet the required North ‫ۑ ێ‬
‫ێ‬1 1 െ1 1 െ1 1 െ1 െ1‫ߚێ ۑ‬ହ ‫ۑ ଺ݎێ ۑ‬
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and ‫ێ‬1 1 1 െ1 1 െ1 െ1 െ1‫ۑ ଻ݎێ ۑ ଺ߚێ ۑ‬
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) reliability ‫ۏ‬1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ‫ے ଼ݎۏ ے ଻ߚۏ ے‬
guidelines for balancing power supply and demand [10].
where the ri are the calculated reserve requirements for each
D. Factorial Analysis possible combination of penetration levels. In order to
Given the three different renewable resources (i.e., wind, simplify further discussion, (2) can be directly rewritten as
solar, and ocean wave), and the range of possible penetration
levels for each, the problem of determining the optimal [‫ߚ[]ܯ‬௜ ] = [‫ݎ‬௜ ] (3)
combination to minimize the total reserve requirement is not a
simple one due to an abundance of variables. While simple It is assumed that the error term in (1), ne, is zero-mean and
logic predicates that only one variable be changed at a time to can thus be neglected for a significantly large sample size.
determine the impact of each resource, this is simply not a Given this assumption, the model can be re-formulated as
possibility given the very large number of possible ‫ ݎ‬ൎ ߚ଴ + ߚଵ ‫ݔ‬௪ + ߚଶ ‫ݔ‬௦ + ߚଷ ‫ݔ‬௢ + ߚସ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௦ + ߚହ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௢
combinations and the limited processing time available. (4)
+ ߚ଺ ‫ݔ‬௦ ‫ݔ‬௢ + ߚ଻ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௦ ‫ݔ‬௢
Fortunately, changing one variable at a time is not necessarily
a requirement in order to obtain meaningful results. To ensure that an acceptable sample size was taken, 10000
Through the use of 2m factorial design/analysis, this simulations were run, each using randomly selected sets of
problem becomes much easier to approach and model [11]. synthetic wind, solar, and ocean wave power generation data
Using this methodology, the renewable resources (and their (from an inventory of 100 possible sets for each resource type
penetration levels) can be viewed as inputs, and the reserve – providing a possible 1003 sets of combinations). This
requirement can be viewed as an output. Assuming linearity methodology was applied for both the following and
(which, for the purposes of the first-order examination of imbalance reserve requirements.
interaction effects considered in this study is an acceptable Using the results from each of the 10000 simulations, (3)
assumption), the resulting model can be expressed thusly was expanded to provide multiple data points for each
parameter, such that it becomes
‫ߚ = ݎ‬଴ + ߚଵ ‫ݔ‬௪ + ߚଶ ‫ݔ‬௦ + ߚଷ ‫ݔ‬௢ + ߚସ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௦ + ߚହ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௢
(1) ‫ܯ‬ଵ ‫ݎ‬௜భ
+ ߚ଺ ‫ݔ‬௦ ‫ݔ‬௢ + ߚ଻ ‫ݔ‬௪ ‫ݔ‬௦ ‫ݔ‬௢ + ݊௘
‫ܯ‬ଶ ‫ݎ‬௜మ
where r LV WKH WRWDO UHVHUYH UHTXLUHPHQW ȕi are the model ൦ ൪ [ߚ௜ ] = ൦ ‫ ڭ‬൪ (5)
‫ڭ‬
parameters, xw, xs, xo are the inputs (wind, solar, and ocean ‫ܯ‬ଵ଴଴଴଴ ‫ݎ‬௜భబబబబ
wave penetration), and ne is an error parameter. In particular,
ȕ0, ȕ1ȕ2DQGȕ3 are the main-HIIHFWSDUDPHWHUVDQGȕ4ȕ5ȕ6, This equation then provides the basis to undertake a multiple
DQG ȕ7 are the interaction-effect parameters. The reason for OLQHDUUHJUHVVLRQWRJHQHUDWHHVWLPDWHGYDOXHVIRUHDFKRIWKHȕi
this nomenclature comes directly from (1), where the first four and their accompanying 95% confidence intervals.
ȕSDUDPHWHUVRQO\KDYHDVLQJOHIDFWRUWKHLQGLYLGXDORUPDLQ For the purposes of this study, the null hypothesis was that
LQSXWV DQG WKH ODVW IRXU ȕ SDUDPHWHUV KDYH WZR RU PRUH
factors (accounting for interaction between each possible
combination of inputs).
Using the methodology presented in [11], a set of
simulations was run using two different penetration levels, 5%
and 15%, for each of wind, solar, and ocean wave, producing a
set of eight (23) different combinations (and eight calculated
reserve requirements). While trials were done at other
combinations of penetration levels (e.g., 9% and 11%, 10%
and 15%), for the purposes of investigating the importance of
the main-effect and interaction-effect parameters, a wider
separation between the low and high levels was beneficial.
7RVLPSOLI\WKH VXEVHTXHQWFDOFXODWLRQRIȕi, the inputs xw,
xs, and xo were normalized to -1 for 5% penetration, and +1 for
15% penetration. Thus, the set of eight combinations forms a
simple matrix equation WKDWFDQWKHQEHVROYHGIRUȕi
the particular ȕi term was not a contributing factor to the
reserve requirements. Thus, if the confidence interval does
QRWFRQWDLQ]HURIRUDVSHFLILFȕi term, it may be said that the
null hypothesis for that term is rejected.
III. RESULTS
In order to visualize the results from the multiple linear
regression analysis, the estimated value and confidence
interval for each of the ȕi are plotted in Fig. 3 through Fig. 6
(with the exception of the constanW WHUP ȕ0). Fig. 3 presents
the results for ȕ1 ȕ2 DQG ȕ3 for the following reserve
requirement and Fig. 4 presents the results for ȕ4ȕ5, ȕ6, and
ȕ7. Similarly, Fig. 5 SUHVHQWVWKHUHVXOWVIRUȕ1ȕ2DQGȕ3 for
the imbalance reserve requirement, and Fig. 6 presents the
UHVXOWVIRUȕ4ȕ5, ȕ6, and ȕ7.
It is difficult to clearly see the confidence interval while
also directly comparing the estimated values for the main-
effect parameters in both the following and imbalance reserve
requirement cases (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5) because the wind main-
HIIHFWWHUPȕ1LVVRPXFKODUJHUWKDQWKHVRODUȕ2) and ocean

Fig. 3. Plot of estimated values and 95% confidence intervals for main-effect
beta parameters for following reserve requirement.
Fig. 4. Plot of estimated values and 95% confidence intervals for interaction-
effect beta parameters for following reserve requirement.
ZDYH ȕ3) main-effect terms. To clarify the results, Table 1
presents the estimated values and their confidence intervals for
HDFK RI WKH ȕi parameters for the following reserve
requirement, and Table 2 presents the results for the imbalance
reserve requirement. Please note that the scales for Fig. 3 and
Fig. 5 are different.
Both the plot in Fig. 3 and the values in Table 1
demonstrate that the main-effect parameter for wind is much
larger than those for solar and ocean wave (which are both
very similar in value). This can be interpreted to mean that
wind has a larger contribution to the reserve requirements than
do solar and ocean wave, which correlates well with prior
results in [6]. A similar observation holds true for the
imbalance reserve requirement scenario as well (Fig. 5 and
Table 2), with the difference that in the imbalance reserve
case, the solar main-effect term has a greater impact than the
ocean wave main-effect term.
In analyzing the results for the following reserve
requirements, it can be noted that the confidence intervals for
each of the eight beta parameters do not include zero. Thus,
the null hypothesis can be rejected in each of these cases. This
leads to the conclusion that the results for both the main-effect
4
Fig. 5. Plot of estimated values and 95% confidence intervals for main-effect
beta parameters for imbalance reserve requirement.
Fig. 6. Plot of estimated values and 95% confidence intervals for interaction-
effect beta parameters for imbalance reserve requirement.
and interaction-effect parameters are meaningful on the
overall following reserve requirement.
In comparing the interaction-effect parameters, it is
LPSRUWDQWWRQRWHWKDWZKLOHȕ4 LVSRVLWLYHWKHRWKHUWKUHHȕ5,
ȕ6DQGȕ7) are all negative. Given the model presented in (4),
this implies that the interaction effects tend to cause a reserve
requirement that is lower than that which would be found if
the reserve requirement was predicted from an analysis of the
reserve requirement for single sources. For example, if
interaction effects are ignored, 15% penetration of wind, 5%
penetration of solar and 5% penetration of ocean wave would
be predicted to require 0.053723 reserve (pu), whereas if the
interaction effects are included, 0.053709 reserve (pu) is
required. This is a fascinating result, as it hints at the
possibility for synergistic effects occurring when the various
renewable resources are combined in these specific ways.
However, it should also be noted that some of the interaction
betas are positive, so the total negative interaction contribution
depends on the specific renewable mix. It should also be
noted that the interaction-HIIHFW EHWDV ȕ4 WKURXJK ȕ7) are an
order of magnitude lower than the main-HIIHFW EHWDV ȕ0
 5

TABLE I TABLE II
RESULTS FOR FOLLOWING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS BETA PARAMETERS RESULTS FOR IMBALANCE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS BETA PARAMETERS

WKURXJKȕ3). This suggests that while a synergistic effect may
exist, it also may be small.
A similar analysis can be done for the imbalance reserve
requirement case. Similar to the following reserve
requirements, the confidence intervals for each of the eight
beta parameters do not include zero. Thus, again, the null
hypothesis can be rejected in each of these cases, which leads
to the conclusion that both the main-effect and interaction-
effect terms are contributing in a meaningful way to the
overall imbalance reserve requirement.
However, unlike in the following reserve requirement case
where three of the four interaction-effect parameters were
negative, only two are negative in the imbalance reserve
requirement case: ȕ5 (wind & wave) and ȕ7 (wind & solar &
wave). Of particular interest is the fact that the confidence
intervals for the interaction-effect parameters in the imbalance
case are generally much larger than those in the following
case, indicating a larger spread of results. This is in line with
previous experience that indicates the imbalance reserve
requirement is generally larger and often more volatile than
the following reserve requirement [6].
The results from both the following and imbalance cases
demonstrate that there are specific combinations of renewable
resources that could possibly have a beneficial effect in terms
TABLE III
MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS FOR FOLLOWING RESERVE REQUIREMENTS
of allowing a greater combined penetration rate for the same
reserve requirement level. This is an important consideration
for power system operators who are planning for increasing
renewable power portfolios in the future.
IV. MODEL VALIDATION
Given the initial results that reject the null hypothesis for
each beta parameter in both the following and imbalance
reserve requirement cases, it is useful to further examine the
validity of the model in (4) by applying it to a new set of wind,
solar, ocean wave, and load data and checking to see how
close the actual calculated reserve requirements are to those
predicted by the model. In this case, since only the
synthetically-generated sets of wind, solar, and wave data
were used to generate the beta parameters, the real data sets
(upon which the synthetic data are based) were not directly
used and thus remain a valid resource with which to perform a
simple check to validate the model.
Tables 3 and 4 present the model validation results for the
following and imbalance cases, respectively, with the actual
reserve, estimated reserve (from the model (4) using the
parameters in Tables I and II), and percent error. Two models
were verified: a reduced model that uses only the main-effect
betas (ȕ0 through ȕ3 in (4)), and the full model that uses all

TABLE IV
MODEL VALIDATION RESULTS FOR IMBALANCE RESERVE REQUIREMENTS

betas. It is clear that the model is quite accurate, given that
most of the errors are less than 1%, with a maximum of
2.451% error. The reduced model is also quite accurate, thus
verifying the earlier suggestion that while there can be a
synergistic interaction between the three different sources, the
effect can also be quite modest if not optimized. Thus, the
factorial analysis method has provided a useful set of
parameters with which future analyses can be conducted
towards finding an optimal mix of wind, solar, and ocean
wave renewable resources.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a methodology for determining a model
to predict reserve requirements for balancing authority areas
with high penetrations of wind, solar, and ocean wave. This
model includes interaction effects. The results show that the
interaction effects between different renewable sources can
result in a lower reserve requirement than would be required if
the sources are considered in isolation, although the reduction
may be modest. More study on this to find the best mix is
necessary.
Validation of the presented model with actual data suggest
the model is accurate. It is also shown that using a reduced
model that ignores interaction effects may be able to provide
an acceptable first-order approximation in cases where the
interaction effects are not known.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] M. Milligan, K. Porter, E. DeMeo, P. Denholm, H. Holttinen, B. Kirby,
N. Miller, A. Mills, M. O’Malley, M. Schuerger, and L. Soder, “Wind
power myths debunked,” Power and Energy Magazine, IEEE, vol. 7,
November-December 2009.
[2] “Wind generation capacity in the BPA balancing area authority,”
Bonneville Power Administration, Tech. Rep., October 2010. [Online].
Available:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/WIND_Ins
talledCapacity_current.xls
[3] T. Sickinger, “Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes
life difficult for grid managers,” The Oregonian, July 17, 2010.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/07/too_much_of_a_
good_thing_growt.html
[4] R. Thresher, W. Musial, “Ocean renewable energy’s potential role in
supplying future electrical energy needs,” Oceanography, vol. 23, no. 2,
June 2010.
[5] D. Halamay, T.K.A. Brekken, A. Simmons, S. McArthur, “Reserve
Requirement Impacts of Large-Scale Integration of Wind, Solar, and
Ocean Wave Power Generation,” Power and Energy Society General
Meeting, 2010 IEEE, Minneapolis, July 2010.
6
[6] D. Halamay, T.K.A. Brekken, “A methodology for quantifying
variability of renewable energy sources by reserve requirement
calculation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Energy Conversion Congress
and Expo (ECCE), Atlanta, 2010.
[7] S. McArthur, T.K.A. Brekken, “Ocean Wave Power Data Generation for
Grid Integration Studies,” Power and Energy Society General Meeting,
2010 IEEE, Minneapolis, July 2010.
[8] “Total load & wind generation in the BPA control area (balancing
authority area) for 2008,” Bonneville Power Administration, 2008.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/TotalWind
Load% _5Min_08.xls
[9] “2010 BPA Rate Case Wholesale Power Rate Final Proposal Generation
Inputs Study,” Bonneville Power Administration, Tech. Rep., July 2009.
[Online]. Available:
http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/ratecase/2008/2010_BPA_Rate_Case/doc
s/WP-10-FS-BPA-08_Web.pdf
[10] “Reserve Capacity Forecast For Wind Generation Within-Hour
Balancing Service,” Bonneville Power Administration, Tech. Rep.,
February 2008. [Online]. Available:
https://secure.bpa.gov/ratecase/openfile.aspx?fileName=WI-09-E-BPA-
02_Testimony.pdf&contentType=application%2fpdf
[11] J. C. Spall, “Factorial design for efficient experimentation,” Control
Systems Magazine, IEEE, vol. 30, no. 5, October 2010.
VII. BIOGRAPHIES
Douglas A. Halamay (SM ‘02, M ’05, GSM ‘08) is a
graduate student in Energy Systems at Oregon State
University. He graduated from Gonzaga University
in 2005 with his BSEE (summa cum laude) with an
emphasis in power. After working for three years as
a systems engineer on the P-8A Poseidon at Boeing
Integrated Defense Systems in Renton, WA, he
returned to graduate school to focus on power
systems and renewable energy integration. He
received his M.S. from Oregon State in 2010 and is now pursuing his Ph.D.
Ted K. A. Brekken (M ‘06) is an Assistant Professor
in Energy Systems at Oregon State University. He
received his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from the University
of Minnesota in 1999, 2002, and 2005 respectively.
He studied electric vehicle motor design at Postech in
Pohang, South Korea in 1999. He also studied wind
turbine control at the Norwegian University of
Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim,
Norway in 2004-2005 on a Fulbright scholarship. His
research interests include control, power electronics and electric drives;
specifically digital control techniques applied to renewable energy systems.
He is co-director of the Wallace Energy Systems and Renewables Facility
(WESRF), and a recipient of the NSF CAREER award.