In consequence to the worldwide growth of distributed generation (DG), especially photovoltaic (PV), several studies discuss on the impacts on the voltage profile of the distribution feeders. However, they do not apply Brazilian real electricity regulation for DG and PV systems. This article proposes to study the voltage Profile of the IEEE 13-Node radial test feeder with high PV penetration level with the presence of the voltage regulator (OLTC) connected to the substation output. The results obtained for the case without voltage regulator and with the presence of the regulator will be compared under the regulation of electricity of Brazilians Regulatory Agency of Electric Energy (ANEEL) and Electrical System Operator (ONS). The results show that PV generators operating with fixed PF (PF = 1), and with the presence of the voltage regulator (OLTC) the voltage values and the electricity quality levels are directly affected.

The joint planning of several device types and network reconfiguration is seldom validated on real feeders. This paper proposes a four-objective framework (investment cost, losses, voltage deviation, inter-substation load balance) for allocating photovoltaic generation, capacitors, batteries and series voltage regulators with tie-switch reconfiguration treated through scenarios. Validation uses a real 273-bus system of three Brazilian feeders with the power-flow solver matching OpenDSS in all 64 switching configurations (error below $1.5\times {10}^{-5}$ p.u.). Over 20 runs, NSGA-III outperforms a hybrid whale algorithm (WOA-SRD) in hypervolume and spacing with no significant IGD difference. In radial operation, three reference solutions (BRL 3.2 M, BRL 6.1 M, BRL 9.7 M) reduce daily losses by 44.5%, 52.5% and 56.1%; only the last two meet the 0.93 p.u. limit, the Knee by 0.0002 p.u. The search explores switching weakly; a post-processing sweep of the 64 configurations shows that closing ties would cut losses a further 33.6–37.3%. A no-DER baseline that only closes ties meets the voltage limit and cuts losses by 37.3%, at nine times the load-balance index, so DER benefits must be judged against reconfiguration. Regulators and tie states, not DER siting, cut the scenario-averaged load-balance index by 68% relative to the Knee solution at 31% higher investment and 10% higher losses.