Cea

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh
FOREWORD
Power is an essential infrastructural requirement for the overall economic development of the country. The demand for power has been growing steadily and it is our endeavour to achieve our objective of supplying power to all on demand by 2012, keeping in view the sustainable development needs of the country. On request from Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, CEA has carried out a comprehensive study and analysis of the forecasted demand for power to be adopted for the power procurement plan of Andhra Pradesh as consultancy work. An assessment of the reserve margin and generating capacity addition required to attain LOLP of at least 1% in the A.P. System has also been carried out. Andhra Pradesh has been experiencing both peak and energy shortages of varying magnitude for the past 5 years. With a view to meet these shortages through capacity addition, the first step was to make accurate demand projections for Andhra Pradesh. After a detailed analysis and studying of the various alternatives it is opined that the methodology adopted by the 16th EPS Committee to forecast demand is a time tested one giving fairly accurate results and should be relied upon to make future forecasts. 16 th EPS demand forecasts should, therefore, be the minimum requirements for power planning. However, as a sensitivity analysis, studies have also been carried out for demand variations of +/- 5% in both peak and energy requirements of 16th EPS as well as APTRANSCO demand projections furnished by APERC. The detailed Planning studies carried out by CEA indicate that besides stringent efforts towards timely implementation of programmed 10th Plan projects, additional projects totaling to a capacity of about 1300 MW need to be identified for giving benefits during the 10th Plan. Additionally, A.P. should review their decision and avail benefit from Neyveli Ext. and Kaiga Unit as also to continue the contract with GRIDCO, Orissa. I would like to place on records the excellent efforts made by Shri S. Ramar, Chief Engineer in preparation of this Report and the excellent work done by the team of outstanding engineers - Shri M.L. Gupta, Director supported by Smt. Neerja Mathur, Director and ably assisted by Smt. P.E. Kamala, Asstt. Director. Excellent secretariat support has been provided by Shri Vijay Bhushan, Personal Assistant and meritorious work has been done by Shri Jai Prakash, Draftsman in preparation of cover design as well as general layout of the Report. The report in the present form has been brought out due to the guidance, encouragement and motivation provided by Shri R.V.Shahi, Secretary (Power) and Shri H.L. Bajaj, Chairman, CEA who have been a source of continuous inspiration throughout the preparation of this Report. It is also hoped that interaction with the APERC will also continue in future.
March New Delhi
, 2003 (V.S. VERMA) MEMBER (PLANNING)
APERC
CEA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEMAND FORECAST METHODOLOGICAL ASPECT Broadly there are three methods of demand forecasting: a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data b) Econometric Modeling c) Forecast made on the basis of End Use/Partial end use techniques APERC estimated the future demands of AP based upon the trends of past consumption data. The Consultants of APTRANSCO had applied econometric models for making future projections. The forecasts made by CEA in the report of 16th EPS are based upon the most reliable and practiced End use/partial end use techniques. The forecasts of CEAs Electric Power Survey have stood the test of time.
16th EPS demand projections are perspective in nature and take into account the past consumption in various sectors, foreseeable changes in the pattern of consumption and projected growth and surveys.
While making any demand forecast for power planning, merits, demerits, limitations, availability of realistic data and ground realities have to be given due consideration. The demand met and energy consumed are restricted figures in view of power shortages of varying magnitude in the past. Accordingly, projections made on historical trend of past consumption without corrections for shortages would not be a true representation of future demands. It was brought out and agreed during discussions with APERC that the 17th EPS studies have been started and completion of studies would take considerable time. The present analysis of demands in AP shall be carried out by adopting the projections of the 16th EPS.
POWER SUPPLY POSITION The State of Andhra Pradesh had witnessed power shortages of varying magnitude in terms of energy and peak load during the period 1995-96 to 2001-02.. An analysis of energy shortages and peak deficit has been carried out up to the year 2001-02 based upon the actual energy data during these years.
Summary of energy and peak shortages in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Southern region and on All India basis is given below. These figures are based upon the data
APERC 2 CEA
reported by the concerned state agencies etc. It is also very likely that the indicated shortages are on the lower side due to various reasons including those of regulatory measures. Table - 1
YEAR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 % ENERGY DEFICIT A.P. SOUTHERN REGION -20.2 -16.7 -22.1 -20.6 -14.4 -16.1 -8.7 -10.8 -6.5 -7.4 -7.8 -7.9 -8.5 -8.8 ALL INDIA -9.2 -11.5 -8.1 -5.9 -6.2 -7.8 -7.5 YEAR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 % DEFICIT IN PEAK A.P. SOUTHERN REGION -26.7 -23.6 -23.6 -19.5 -11.3 -12.2 -9.3 -12.3 -11.7 -12.7 -14.6 -14.4 -19.9 -15.6 ALL INDIA -18.3 -17.6 -11.3 -13.9 -12.4 -13.0 -12.6
From the above it is noted that : During the year 2001-02 in the state of Andhra Pradesh the energy shortages were 8.5% with associated peak shortages of 19.9%. During the period 1995-96 to 2001-02, the State experienced energy deficit ranging from 22.1% to 6.5% and peak deficit ranging from 26.7% to 9.3%. The Southern Region was also short of energy and power. Shortages ranging from 20.6 to 7.4% in energy and 23.6% to 12.2% in peak demand were experienced. The country as a whole was also short of energy and power. Shortages ranging from 11.5% to 5.9% in energy and 18.3% to 11.3% in peak demand were experienced. DEMAND PROJECTIONS 16th EPS Projections Andhra Pradesh An analysis of 16th EPS projections versus actual energy supplied and estimated shortages during the last three years in the State of Andhra Pradesh as brought out at Table 2.10 indicate that the 16th EPS energy projections for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 were less by 3.54 % and 1.4 % respectively of the energy requirements and the same were higher by 4.34% for the year 2001-02. While comparing the 16th EPS forecasts with actual unrestricted requirements in the system following aspects may also be kept in view: a) The compounding average growth rate (CAGR) for the energy requirement during period 1995-96 to 2001-02 works out to 4.68% on the basis of actual
APERC 3 CEA
energy supplied and the estimated shortages. However during 1998-99 and 200102 growth rates works out to 0.86% and 0.84% respectively over previous years. These are not normal and are taken as exceptional. While the analysis of the specific reasons for these lower growth rates is not under the purview of this study, the CAGR actually works out to 6.87% if these two abnormal years are not considered. b) The abnormal growth in the year 1998-99 is also substantiated by the fact that GDP growth in AP was 1.37 % in 1997-98 which would have affected the energy consumed in the following year. The GDP growth rates in AP are in the range of 6 to 9 % as per the information received from the Govt. of AP given at Table 2.11. These growth rates would therefore need to be given due weightage in case the industrial development has to keep pace with the GDP in the state. c) It is pertinent to mention that during the year 2000-01 energy requirements were almost matching with 16th EPS demand forecasts (1.4% variation). The CAGR of 16th EPS is 6.44%, which is lower than CAGR of normal years. d) Future projections therefore need to be based upon unrestricted requirement in the system and not upon actual energy supplied as this would put serious constraints on the future development and growth of the state. Southern Region and All- India The energy forecasted for the year 2001-02 as per 16th EPS were higher by 1.75% for the Southern Region and by 1.22% on all India basis. In the other two years i.e. 19992000 and 2000-01, sum of energy supplied and estimated shortages in Southern Region as well as on All India basis were higher than the 16th EPS forecasts. APTRANSCO Projections Agriculture Requirement Forecasted by APTRANSCO. The agriculture requirement projected by the APTRANSCO appears to be conservative on account of following: During the year 1995-96 the agricultural sales are shown as 50% and the same were brought down to 40% in 1996-97. This reduction in the agricultural consumption was shifted to T&D losses in 1996-97. The T&D losses, which were 20% in 1995-96, were increased to 33% in 1996-97. This reflects only change in the accounting of energy consumed in the AP System and no change in the demand. The reduced agriculture consumption which was recorded as 11757 MU in 1995-96 has been projected as 10,565 MU in 2007-08, thus showing an overall decrease in agriculture consumption. Analysis of per consumer agriculture consumption in 2007-08 indicates that agriculture supply would be for 129 days per year for a period of 9 hours/day as against informed requirement of about 180 to 200 days per year. In view of the above analysis and the detailed methodology adopted for making the projections by 16th EPS Committee, it is considered appropriate and prudent to
APERC 4 CEA
adopt the 16th EPS demand forecasts for working out the power development programme. However, as a sensitivity analysis, studies have also been carried out for demand variations of 5% in both peak and energy requirements of 16th EPS as well as APTRANSCO projections furnished by APERC. CAPACITY CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS The existing installed capacity of AP as on 31.3.2002 considered for the purpose of this Study is 9246 MW comprising of 6055.2 MW thermal, 2965 MW hydro, 143 MW nuclear and 82.8 MW bio-mass based capacity. Existing Captive capacity totalling to 1313 MW has not been considered because of reasons explained in chapter 3 of the report. Committed capacity addition of 4214.7 MW as given by APTRANSCO has been considered during the year 2002-03 to 2006-07. The benefits of 133 MW Neyveli Extension (2002-03) and 58 MW Kaiga Nuclear (2006-07) have not been considered as APTRANSCO have confirmed that they do not have any plan to draw share from these Central Sector projects. 400 MW benefits from GRIDCO, Orissa has been phased out in 2004-05 as indicated by APTRANSCO.
The above philosophy and the basis of the study was also agreed by APERC during the discussion from 4th to 7th Feb 2003 at Hyderabad. RESULTS OF STUDIES: Based on 16th EPS Demand Projections Under the 16th EPS demand projection scenario the AP System is expected to operate at 5.81% LOLP and 2.2% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 1320 MW would be required over and above the following programmed capacity addition during 10th Plan.
Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

APERC
Name of the Project Simhadri Ramagundam III Talcher-II1* Talcher-II2 Talcher-II3&4 Rayalasema-II Sri Sailam LBPH3&4 Sri Sailam LBPH5&6 Vemagiri-I Gautami Jegurupadu Ext.
5
Sector CS CS CS CS CS SS SS SS PS PS PS
Year of Capacity Comng considered (MW) 2002-03 500 2005-06 183 2003-04 106.3 2004-05 106.3 2005-06 212.6 2006-07 420 2002-03 300 2003-04 300 2004-05 370 2003-04 464 2004-05 230
CEA
12. 13. 14. 15.
Ramagundam BPL Konaseema Bio Mass Based Capacity Bio Mass Based Capacity
PS PS SS SS Total
2005-06 2004-05 2002-03 2003-04
520 445 47.6 46.9 4214.7
*since already commissioned Accordingly, it is our considered view that work on above projects programmed to be implemented during the 10th plan needs to be taken up immediately on an urgent basis with compressed time schedule so as to achieve the commissioning in the 10th plan itself. Additional projects (totalling to a capacity of about 1300 MW) needs to be identified preferably thermal projects of small size 210/250 MW with less gestation period so as to achieve the commissioning schedule in the 10th plan itself. Additionally AP should review their decision and avail benefits from Central sector stations of Neveyli Ext. and Kaiga, and continue the contract with GRIDCO, Orissa. Based on Increase in 16th EPS demand by 5 % 5% increase in peak demand and energy requirement from the 16th EPS projections results in worse LOLP & ENS. In this scenario the system is expected to operate at 10.77% LOLP and 6.16% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 2200 MW would be required over and above the programmed committed capacity of 10th Plan.
Based on Reduction in demand by 5 % 5% reduction in peak demand and energy requirement of the 16 th EPS projections is expected to meet the energy requirement with less than 0.15% ENS and LOLP would be less than 1.5% during all the years except in the year 2006-07 when the LOLP would be 2.51 % and ENS of 0.097 %. Since the energy requirements are by and large met under this scenario, it may not be pragmatic to achieve 1% LOLP by adding additional capacity. This could be achieved by demand management.
Based on APTRANSCO demand projection Under APTRANSCO demand projection which are about 4.6 % to 15% lower than 16th EPS demand, the expected LOLP are much lower than 1% and ENS is also very much below 0.15% . This shows an over expanded system.
APERC 6 CEA
It is concluded that APTRANSCO projections would have serious implications on generating capacity expansion programme of AP.
A study has been carried out without the benefits of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J Padu Ext. and Konaseema CCGT projects and demand projections as per APTRANSCO. This Study has indicated that up to the year 2003-04, the AP System would have LOLP below 1 % ( LOLP of 0.78% and ENS 0.193%.). During the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 the LOLP would be in the range of 2.2% to 3.4% and ENS in the range of 3.96 % to 7.6 %.
Expected utilisation of 4 CCGTs during 2006-07 An analysis has been done of the expected utilisation of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J Padu Ext. and Konaseema CCGT projects for different demand scenarios and considering normative and improved outage rates for these units. The results are as follows: Table - 2
Rated Capacity MW (Outage rate 24%) 16th EPS 16th EPS APTRANSCO Increased by Reduced By Demand 5% 5% C.F (%) C.F (%) C.F (%) (Outage rate 10%) 16th EPS 16th EPS Increased DEMAND by 5% C.F (%) C.F (%)
UNIT NAME
16 EPS DEMAND C.F (%)
th
VEMAGIRI CCGT GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW J'PADU EXT.(SC) KONASEEMA (NEW)
370 464 230 445
66.76 64.02 56.07 59.73
68.34 66.76 61.54 64.05
61.91 57.61 1.44 47.96
11.2 0.41 0.1 0.18
79.07 75.34 63.05 69.02
80.93 78.78 70.60 74.77
Reserve Margin Required Corresponding to 1 % LOLP Corresponding to 1% LOLP, reserve margin of about 30% of rated capacity over and above the peak demand and 29% of net capacity would be required for A.P.
Additional Rural Supply APTRANSCO has proposed to APERC that its energy requirement would be higher by 1500 GWh due to 24 hours supply to rural areas over and above the regulated supply to agriculture consumers. The proposed generating system can meet this requirement and no additional generating capacity over and above the programmed capacity of 10th plan would be required on this account.
Reduction in Hydro Generation Reduction in 1000 GWh of hydro energy would also not call for any additional generating capacity over and above the programmed capacity of 10 th plan on this account.
APERC 7 CEA
RECOMMENDATIONS

16th EPS forecasts shall be the minimum requirements for power planning. Reserve Margin of 30% in terms of rated capacity over peak demand or 29% of net capacity would give 1% LOLP and less than 0.15% ENS for the AP system. Work on programmed projects to be implemented in the 10th plan needs to be taken up immediately. Additional projects totalling to a capacity exceeding 1300 MW needs to be identified in order to meet the demand projections as per the 16th EPS. Possibility of advancing the schedule of commissioning of projects due in 11th Plan like Vijaywada VII Unit (660 MW) may be seriously considered. The decision of APTRANSCO of not utilsing the benefits from Kaiga (58 MW allocated AP share) and Neyveli Ext.(113 MW allocated AP share) should be reviewed. It may also not be in national interest in the long run to avoid absorption of nuclear generation from energy security angle and to reduce the shortages under 16th EPS demand scenario.. The APTRANSCO projections are not representative of future need based growth. This will have adverse affect on the power development and availability programme for AP in general and country as a whole. Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that achievement of capacity addition under private sector is highly unsatisfactory. Keeping this uncertainty in view, it would be prudent and pragmatic to plan for much more addition of capacity required to meet the demand projections as made by 16 th EPS so that the actual achievement would be meeting the projected plan requirements It would be advised that action on all the above issues is initiated on priority so that the commitment of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to achieve the mission Power on Demand to all by year 2012 is fulfilled.
APERC
CEA
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
1.1 Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC), Hyderabad had requested , Chairman, CEA to depute officers to give an expert opinion on demand forecast and capacity planning for Andhra Pradesh. In that connection Shri S. Ramar, Chief Engineer (IRP) and Shri M.L.Gupta, Director (IRP) from Central Electricity Authority were deputed by Chairman, CEA from 27th to 28th January, 2003 to discuss with the officers of APERC regarding demand forecasting and generating capacity requirement to meet the forecasted demand of power for the state of Andhra Pradesh. APERC examines the proposals of APTRANSCO on power procurement plan for the State of Andhra Pradesh. APERC had sought the expert opinion of Central Electricity Authority on the following: (i) (ii) Forecasted demand for power to be adopted for the power procurement plan of the APTRANSCO. Assessment of reserve margin and generating capacity requirement to attain LOLP of less than 1% in the AP System.
1.2 The material/information made available by APERC during the first meeting was examined in the CEA and another round of discussion was held by Shri ML Gupta, Director and Mrs. P.E. Kamala, Asstt. Director with the officers of APERC and APTRANSCO from 4th to 7th February, 2003 at Hyderabad. The broad assumptions made by APTRANSCO to arrive at capacity requirement corresponding to 1% LOLP, the details of SYPCO model available with APTRANSCO and assumptions made for making demand projections and capacity planning were discussed at length. 1.3 Based upon the information made available by APERC and APTRANSCO, studies have been carried out by CEA and the results of the studies alongwith analysis, conclusion and recommendations are brought out in this report.
APERC
CEA
CHAPTER 2
DEMAND FORECAST
Basically two demand forecasts are available for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Demand forecast as per the 16th EPS. The projected requirement of electricity by APTRANSCO.
2.1
16th EPS Demand Forecast
2.1.1 Central Electricity Authority makes projections for requirement of electricity for drawing up power programme in the country on regional and state level basis under a system of periodic power surveys. The latest forecast made by CEA is as per the report of 16th Electric Power Survey Committee, September, 2000. The 16th EPS Committee was constituted in March, 1998 and under its terms of reference detailed demand projections were made up to 2004-05 and perspective demand was projected upto 2016-17. The Report by the EPS Committee was submitted to CEA in December, 1999 and was finalised on 24th May, 2000 based upon the discussions with the representatives of Ministry of Power , Planning Commission, State Utilities, TERI etc. 2.1.2 The methodology adopted for making the demand forecast is based upon partial end use techniques and trend analysis for various sectors/categories of consumers. The other highlight of 16th EPS are: The actual data of electricity consumption and T&D losses is given up to the year 1997-98. The detailed forecasts on sectoral basis is given up to the year 2004-05. The load mix is analyzed in terms of LT load and HT load. 2.1.3 LT loads covers following categories of load : Irrigation (Agriculture) Domestic, Commercial and Miscellaneous, Public lighting Public water Works and LT industries. The HT load covers following in the 16th EPS Irrigation (Lift Irrigation) Industry (less than 1 MW) Industry (1 MW & above) Railway Traction Non Industrial Consumers 2.1.4 The micro level forecast for each category of consumption prepared by the Sectt. of the Committee for every State Utilities/licencees were discussed. In case of Andhra
APERC 10 CEA
Pradesh, these discussions were held with the representatives of APTRANSCO before finalisation. The projected energy requirement for the State as per 16 th EPS corresponds to a growth rate of 6.44% per annum compounded for the period 2000-01 to 2006-07 against the corresponding past restricted growth rate of 7.69% during 1994-95 to 2000-01. 2.1.5 The demand forecast made by 16th EPS for the State of Andhra Pradesh are given in Table-2.1. TABLE-2.1 DEMAND FORECAST AS PER 16th EPS
Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Energy Requirement GWh 50493 53711 57121 60633 64486 68797 Peak Load MW 8234 8759 9315 9888 10516 11219
2.1.6
Analysis of Trend in Actual Consumption
16th EPS has given the actual consumption of energy in the Andhra Pradesh under 11 categories for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98. Summary of category-wise consumption in AP is given at Table-2.2 and the graphs of growth rates in each category are given at Graph 2.1 given below. It could be seen that there is no consistent trend of growth in the Sectoral consumption for making projections. In view of this, any projections made on the basis of past consumption would give wrong projections.
Table2.2 SUMMARY OF CATEGORYWISE FORCAST FOR ANDHRA PRADESH S.NO. CATEGORIES DOMESTIC 1 COMMERCIAL & MISCELLANEOUS 2 PUBLIC LIGHTING 3 IRRIGATION 4 LIFT IRRIGATION 5 LT NDUSTRIES 6 HT INDUSTRIES LESS THAN 1 MW 7 HT NDUSTRIES 1 MW & ABOVE 8 LOW FREQ. & VOLTAGE CORRECTION 9 10 RAILWAY TRACTION 11 NON INDUSTRIAL 12 13 14 15 16 17
TOTAL CONSUMPTION-MKWH T & D LOSSES (%) T & D LOSSES -MKWH ENERGY REQUIREMENT- MKWH LOAD FACTOR (%) PEAK LOAD (MW)
1993-94 3289.8 823.21 154.76 9366.8 45 1125.19 2165.55 3802.7 552.51 201.33
1994-95 3319.81 747.88 156.64 11269.75 55 1177.82 2505.26 3607.63 594.69 203.38
1995-96 3393.49 860.18 166.65 11757.42 29 1224.61 2107.59 3317.86 631.25 205.55
1996-97 1997-98 3894 4636 878 1026 217 291 8230 9783 26 25 1320 1411 1886.25 2010.37 3494.01 3357.53 687 214.76 818 227.1 23585 34.1 12206 35791 74.64 5474
21526.85 23637.86 20.24 18.08 5463.15 5217.14 26990 28855 76.95 77.09 4004 4273
23693.6 20847.02 19.6 33.19 5776.4 10357.98 29470 31205 78.25 74.27 4299 4796
APERC
11
CEA
It is seen from the above analysis that in view of large variations in the growth rates in various sectors, trends in past consumption can not be used for making future projections.
GRAPH 2.1 GRAPHS SHOWING GROWTH RATES OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTIONS IN VARIOUS SECTORS (1994-95 TO 1997-98)
DOMESTIC
GROWTH RATE(%) GROWTH RATE (%) 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1994-95 1995-96 YEAR 1996-97 1997-98 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 YEAR 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
COMMERCIAL & MISC
PUBLIC LIGHTING
40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1994-95 1995-96 YEAR 1996-97 1997-98
IRRIGATION GROWTH RATE (%)

30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 -30.0 -40.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
GROWTH RATE (%)
YEAR
LIFT IRRIGATION GROWTH RATE (%) 40.0 20.0 0.0 1994-95 -20.0 -40.0 -60.0 YE AR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
HT INDUSTRIES LT 1 M W
GROWTH RATE (%)
20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
YEAR
GROWTH RATE (%)
HT INDUSTRIES 1 MW &ABOVE
N ON IN DU STRIAL 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1994-95 1995-96 YE AR 1996-97 1997-98
GROWTH RATE (%)
10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
YEAR
RAILWAY TRACTION GROWTH RATE (%) 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1994-95
APERC
12 1995-96
YEAR
1996-97
1997-98
CEA
2.2
Projections made by APTRANSCO
2.2.1 A study of the Load-Mix of constrained scenario for the period 1990-91 to 2000-01 indicates that under the reforms process the share of irrigation (Agriculture) in total sales has been brought down in one year from about 50% in 1995-96 to about 40% in 1996-97 and this quantum of energy has been transposed from sales to T&D losses as Commercial Loss Component. Therefore, the T&D losses, which were around 20% up to 1995-96, have been hiked to about 33% in 1996-97 and further to about 35% in 2000-01. Thus terming the average growth rates with administrated sales figures of recent past (1996-97 to 200001) as representative of future is not proper. 2.2.2 Analysis of Agriculture Projections made by APTRANSCO for 2007-08
As per the AP TRANSCO estimates, the requirement of energy in the agriculture sector would be 10,565 MU for 24 lakh registered consumers. The per capita consumption of agricultural consumers is = 10,565 MU 24 lakh consumers = 4402 Units. Average capacity of Pump set = 5 H.P. = 3.75 KW Assuming 9 hours of supply to every agriculture consumer the average per day consumption = 3.75 x 9 kwh = 33.75 kWh No. of days electricity supplied = 4402 = 129 days 34 The average supply of electricity required for agriculture consumers is 180-200 days per year against which supply to agriculture consumers would be 129 days which is about 65 to 70% of the electricity required for pumping the agriculture sector. Thus it may be seen from the above that the agriculture consumption for the forecasted periods by APTRANSCO is under estimated. 2.3 COMPARISON OF 16TH EPS AND APTRANSCO PROJECTIONS
2.3.1 A comparison between 16th EPS forecasts and that of APTRANSCO has been made in the table 2.3 given below. The captive demand and energy have been deducted from the projections of APTRANSCO to bring them at par with 16th EPS forecasts. It could be seen from the table given below that APTRANSCO projections are lower than 16th EPS projections ranging from 5.4 % to 14.6 %.
APERC
13
CEA
Table 2.3
YEAR 16TH EPS APTRANSCO ENERGY ENERGY WHEELING RERURAL REQ. PURCHASE IMPORT PATRIATED SUPPLY CAPTIVE Gwh Gwh Gwh Gwh Gwh A 47319 41130 3631 50493 42199 3650 53711 43161 3321 57121 45926 3324 820 1500 60633 47557 3226 1574 1500 64486 49953 3165 1544 1500 68797 52658 3106 1523 1500 73183 56389 3086 1523 1500 TOTAL % DIFF between A &B Gwh % B 44761 5.4 45849 9.2 46482 13.5 51570 9.7 53857 11.2 56162 12.9 58787 14.6 62498 14.6 PEAK LOAD MW 7300 7477 7580 8410 8783 9159 9587 10192
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2.3.2
Methodology to be adopted
There could be several methods of projecting power demands apart from historical and econometric modeling etc. While selecting the methodology , objective of the forecast, data base available and its spatial distribution has to be kept in mind. End-use method is another method internationally recognised as an accurate yet mathematically simple method of projecting power demands. This is a BOTTOM-UP exercise against the TOPDOWN approach of econometric method. This method does not necessarily require a time-series data base, which is a basic necessity of other two methods, referred above. The end-use method has also a distinct advantage of dovetailing the effect of changes in policy decision on any particular sector of consumption. This method has been adopted and evolved in CEA and a combination of trend and end-use method which has come to be known as Partial End-use Method and is being used for forecasting State/subState/System-wise power demands for the National Power Survey Committee set by Govt. of India from time to time. This has proved to be a time tested method giving fairly accurate forecast for a country like India where planning is being done from States upward. It is our considered opinion that methodology adopted by the 16 th EPS Committee being a time tested method should be relied upon to make future forecasts. During the discussions with officials of APERC/APTRANSCO we have come to know that following three methods given below have been applied. a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data. b) Econometric Modeling c) Forecast made on the basis of End Use/Partial end use techniques. It was agreed with APERC that the review of the various methodology would not be carried out in this Report and recommendations would only be made in respect of demand forecast to be adopted for the expansion plan of APTRANSCO.
APERC
14
CEA
Estimates of future demands based upon past consumption has been made by APERC. The Consultants of APTRANSCO had applied econometric models for making future projection. 16th EPS forecasts are based upon End use/partial end use techniques. 2.4 Actual Load-Met And Assessed Shortages in Andhra Pradesh, Southern Region and All India 2.4.1 Analysis of availability and shortages both in terms of energy and peak demand in respect of Andhra Pradesh, Southern Region and All India basis is given in the Tables below:
Table 2.4 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (ENERGY IN MU) ANDHRA PRADESH YEAR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 REQUIREMENT 36790 40240 41599 41958 45835 47992 48394 Growth AVAILABILITY Growth Rate SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ Rate DEFICIT(-)% 29376 -7414 -20.2 9.38 31359 6.75 -8881 -22.1 3.38 35606 13.54 -5993 -14.4 0.86 38293 7.55 -3665 -8.7 9.24 42832 11.85 -3003 -6.5 4.71 44055 2.86 -3737 -7.8 0.84 44302 0.56 -4092 -8.5 Table 2.5 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (ENERGY IN MU) SOUTHERN REGION YEAR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 REQUIREMENT 105590 112675 117657 118038 125759 134300 140516 Growth AVAILABILITY Growth Rate SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ Rate DEFICIT(-)% 87925 -17665 -16.7 6.71 89469 1.76 -23206 -20.6 4.42 98749 10.37 -18908 -16.1 0.32 105301 6.64 -12737 -10.8 6.54 116358 10.53 -9371 -7.4 6.79 123677 6.26 -10623 -7.9 4.63 128095 3.57 -12421 -8.8 Table 2.6 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (ENERGY IN MU) ALL INDIA YEAR 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 REQUIREMENT 389721 413490 424505 446584 480430 507216 522537 Growth AVAILABILITY Growth Rate SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ Rate DEFICIT(-)% 354045 365900 390330 420235 450594 467400 483350 -35676 -47590 -34175 -26349 -29836 -39816 -39187 -9.2 -11.5 -8.1 -5.9 -6.2 -7.8 -7.5
6.10 2.66 5.20 7.58 5.58 3.02
3.35 6.68 7.66 7.22 3.73 3.41
APERC
15
CEA
Variation of growth rate of energy requirement and Energy availability for the period 1995-96 to 2001-02 for A.P, Southern region and all India is given in graph 2.2
Table 2.7 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (PEAK IN MW) ANDHRA PRADESH YEAR REQUIREMENT AVAILABILITY SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ DEFICIT(-)% -26.7 -23.6 -11.3 -9.3 -11.7 -14.6 -19.9
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
5830 5940 6111 6770 7209 8000 8585
4276 4540 5423 6139 6366 6835 6873
-1554 -1400 -688 -631 -843 -1165 -1712
Table 2.8 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (PEAK IN MW) SOUTHERN REGION YEAR REQUIREMENT AVAILABILITY SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ DEFICIT(-)% -23.6 -19.5 -12.2 -12.3 -12.7 -14.4 -15.6
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
16170 16676 17437 18812 20424 21929 22757
12350 13428 15318 16490 17832 18777 19201
-3820 -3248 -2119 -2322 -2592 -3152 -3556
Table 2.9 POWER SUPPLY POSITION (PEAK IN MW) ALL INDIA YEAR REQUIREMENT AVAILABILITY SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/ DEFICIT(-)% -18.3 -17.6 -11.3 -13.9 -12.4 -13.0 -12.6
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
60981 63553 65435 67905 72669 78037 81555
49836 52376 58042 58445 63691 67880 71262
-11145 -11177 -7393 -9460 -8978 -10157 -10293
2.4.2 It can be seen that Andhra Pradesh has felt energy shortages ranging from 22.1% to 6.5% in the period 1995-96 to 2001-02 and the southern region as a whole has also felt shortages during this period in the range of 20 .6% to 7.4% . The energy shortages on All India basis range from 11.5% to 5.9% for the same period. Similarly the shortages were experienced in peak demand-met in AP, Southern Region and All India. A comparative
APERC 16 CEA
chart of shortages both in energy and peak demand for the three systems examined are given at Graph 2.3. Graph 2.2
GR OF AP ER
10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 REQUIREMENT 36790
6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVAILABILITY 29376 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00
GR OF AP EA
8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
GR OF SR ER
12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00
GR OF SR EA
1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 REQUIREMENT 105590
0.00
1 2 3 4 5
AVAILABILITY 87925
GR OF ALL-INDIA EA
9.00 8.00 7.00
8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00
GR OF ALL-INDIA ER
6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVAILABILITY 354045
6 REQUIREMENT 389721
APERC
17
CEA
Graph 2.3
% ENERGY DEFICIT 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 YEAR A.P. SOUTHERN REGION ALL INDIA
% DEFICIT IN PEAK
30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00
YEAR
A .P. SOUTHERN REGION A LL INDIA
The above analysis shows that country, as a whole, Southern Region and Andhra Pradesh have experienced energy and peak shortages of varying magnitude.
APERC
18
CEA
2.5 Comparison of energy requirement in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Southern Region and all India basis during the last three years as compared to 16th EPS. 2.5.1 A comparison has been made between demand forecast made by 16th EPS and total energy requirement considering the energy supplied and shortages in Andhra Pradesh, Southern Region and All India. Details are furnished in Table 2.10. It could be seen that during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the 16th EPS energy projections for Andhra Pradesh were lower by 3.5% and 1.4% respectively while it was higher by 4.3% in the year 2001-02. This trend was followed in Southern Region as well as on All India basis. Table - 2.10
COMPARISON WITH 16th EPS / VARIATION IN ENERGY REQUIREMENT Year Estimated Actual Energy Total Energy As Per 16th Energy Not Requirement EPS Supplied Supplied (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 44215 47319 50493 42832 44055 44302 3003 3737 4092 45835 47992 48394 %Age Variation W.R.T. W.R.T. (ii) (iv) (v) (vi) 3.22 6.89 13.97 -3.54 -1.4 4.34
ANDHRA PRADESH 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 SOUTHERN REGION 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 ALL INDIA 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
125356 133845 142980
116358 123677 128095
9371 10623 12421
125759 134300 140516
7.73 7.59 11.62
-0.32 -0.3 1.75
466066 496266 529013
450594 467400 483350
29836 39816 39187
480430 507216 522537
3.43 5.82 7.10
-2.98 -2.2 1.22
2.5.2
From the above tables it may be seen that: a) The compounding average growth rate (CAGR) for the energy requirement during period 1995-96 to 2001-02 for AP works out to 4.68%. However, 1998-99 and 2001-02 are abnormal years showing growth rate of 0.86% and 0.84% over previous years. The CAGR works out to 6.87% if these two abnormal years are not considered. During the year 2000-01 energy requirements of AP were almost matching with 16th EPS demand forecasts (1.4% variation). The CAGR of 16th EPS is 6.44%, which is lower than CAGR of normal years.
b)
Shortages in the previous years had affected the actual growth in the last years. Had there been adequate supply available the growth would have been maintained and the estimated projections of 16th EPS would have been achieved. This gives strong indication that 16th EPS projections should be used for planning to arrive at need based capacity addition. However, scenarios corresponding to the projections of 16th EPS reduced by 5% and increased by 5% have also been considered as a sensitivity study.
APERC 19 CEA
2.5.3 GSDP/GDP Growth Rates of Andhra Pradesh and All India at constant (199394) Prices. The GDP growth rates of Andhra Pradesh and all India at constant (1993-94) prices are given in the Table 2.11 below. Table 2.11 GSDP/GDP Growth Rates of Andhra Pradesh and All India at constant (1993-94) Prices. Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Year 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 Growth Rate Andhra Pradesh All India 10.82 5.61 5.92 6.30 -1.37 12.16 4.58 7.43 3.79 5.90 7.25 7.34 7.84 4.79 6.51 6.07 4.37 5.57
From the above table it may be concluded that the GDP growth in AP was 1.37 % in 1997-98, which would have affected the energy consumed in the following year. The GDP growth rates in the AP may be considered in the range of 6 to 9 % which would require same order growth of electricity.
APERC
20
CEA
CHAPTER 3
CAPTIVE & BIO-MASS POWER GENERATION
3.1 As of date total captive power generation in the State of Andhra Pradesh using diesel, coal and other fuels is 1313 MW. It is expected that the industrial load will be repatriated to the grid due to incentive given by APERC in the tariff for HT industrial consumers and the same has been considered by APTRANSCO in their projections Currently, APTRANSCO projects its requirement considering the captive load and captive generating capacity in the system. During the discussions held with the officials of APTRANSCO it was noted that the capacity utilisation of captive power plants is considered at 40% and its availability is taken as 90% for LOLP calculation. This is not appropriate from the modelling point of view as far as considering the captive power plants available for 90% of the time in the system. These captive power plants would by and large meet the demand of H.T. consumers when the grid supply is not available. However, in the above referred assumption made by APTRANSCO it gives an effect that 90% of time the captive plants are available to meet any demand in the system restricted by hours of operations to yield 40% capacity factor. In view of the above, it is recommended that captive demand and captive plants should be kept outside the simulation runs of the Andhra Pradesh system. 3.2 Bio Mass Based Capacity.
As per the information available during the discussions the existing bio-gas capacity in the AP System is about 82.8 MW and 47.6 MW capacity is planned for additions in 2002-03 and 46.9 MW during 2003-04. Though it has not been the practice to consider non-conventional capacity along with conventional power projects for power planning but for the present studies the benefits have been considered as these capacities are committed for benefits in the AP system. APTRANSCO is buying power from these plants as per signed PPAs at 70 % PLFs.
APERC
21
CEA
CHAPTER 4
GENERATION PLANNING CRITERIA - PROBABILISTIC APPROACH
4.1 The fundamental objective of generation system expansion planning is to supply reliable power to the ultimate consumers at reasonable price. There are broadly three approaches in power planning Deterministic Approach Probabilistic Approach Chronological Approach In the deterministic approach of generation planning, the generation reserve requirements are determined on the basis of fixed percentage of peak load or a fixed number of systems largest generation units. Judgement based on past experience plays a crucial role in adopting this technique, which is based on the assumption that the reserve margins arrived at on the basis of past experience will provide the same degree of reliability even in future, irrespective of pattern of generation mix, load characteristics, unit sizes and system inter-connections. The other draw backs of deterministic approach are that it fails to quantify reliability and its influence on generation capacity requirements, ignores stochastic nature of forced outages and random variation of system load. The probabilistic approach enables determination of reserved margins corresponding to a given level of reliability. The commonly used measures of reliability are Loss Of Load Probability (LOLP) and Energy Not Served (ENS). The LOLP is a measure of probability of system failure whereas ENS provides a measure of magnitude of energy not served in the system. In chronological approach hourly simulation of system operation is done to assess the performance of the system. 4.2 For the purposes of these studies, EGEAS model based upon probabilistic approach has been applied to evaluate the system performance. The two reliability indices are briefly explained below. 4.2.1 Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)
Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) is defined as the average number of days or hour over a specific period, normally a year, during which the demand exceeds generating capacity. There is no standard value of LOLP and the targeted LOLP varies from country to country. For example, in the United States, the targeted value of LOLP is 1 day in 10 years. In Europe, the targeted value of LOLP varies from country to country from 1 day in 1 year to 1 day in 15 years. In India, LOLP of 1% i.e. 3.65 days in a year is adopted for regional planning to assess the capacity requirements on long term basis.
APERC
22
CEA
LOLP is dependent upon a number of factors such as shape of Load Duration Curves, forced outage of generating units, unit sizes, etc. 4.2.2 Energy Not Served (ENS)
Energy Not Served is the expected amount of Energy Not Supplied due to outages in the long run and is expressed in units of energy or as a percentage of the total energy demand during a specified period. Since two or more alternative scenarios of generation expansion plans can have same level of LOLP but different values on ENS, a cost value is assigned to ENS in the Objective Function called as cost of energy Not Served. Recent value of cost of ENS adopted in the planning studies has been of the order of Rs.4 per unit.
APERC
23
CEA
CHAPTER 5
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Existing Generating Capacity
The existing generating capacity in the A.P. System as on 31.3.2002 is 10559 MW comprising of 7451 MW thermal, 2965 MW hydro and 143 MW nuclear as per APTRANSCO. The installed capacity is inclusive of AP Share in Central Sector projects. This capacity includes captive generating capacity of 1313 MW based upon coal, diesel and gas and 82.8 MW capacity based on bio-mass. The captive capacity has not been considered for the Studies. Thus existing capacity considered for the purpose of these studies is 9246 MW. The 400 MW benefits from GRIDCO, Orissa has been phased out in 2004-05 as indicated by APTRANSCO. 5.2 Committed Capacity 2002-2007
Following listed projects totaling to 4214.7 have been considered as committed for the purpose of Studies Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Name of the Project Simhadri Ramagundam III Talcher-II1* Talcher-II2 Talcher-II3&4 Rayalasema-II Sri Sailam LBPH3&4 Sri Sailam LBPH5&6 Vemagiri-I Gautami Jegurupadu Ext. Ramagundam BPL Konaseema Bio Mass Based Capacity Bio Mass Based Capacity Sector CS CS CS CS CS SS SS SS PS PS PS PS PS SS SS Total *since already commissioned The total capacity available for benefits is 13060.7 MW by 2006-07 after phasing out imports of 400 MW from Gridco, Orissa. Year of Capacity Comng considered (MW) 2002-03 500 2005-06 183 2003-04 106.3 2004-05 106.3 2005-06 212.6 2006-07 420 2002-03 300 2003-04 300 2004-05 370 2003-04 464 2004-05 230 2005-06 520 2004-05 445 2002-03 47.6 2003-04 46.9 4214.7
APERC
24
CEA
5.3
Scenarios Examined:
Considering above capacities the APTRANSCO system has been evaluated for the following four demand scenarios. Scenario Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Description Demand as per 16th EPS. 16th EPS Demand reduced by 5% both in terms of energy and power. 16th EPS Demand increased by 5% both in terms of energy and power Energy projections of APTRANSCO and system load factor of 70%( the captive demand and energy projected by APTRANSCO is not considered) Details of Study Enclosed as Study A Enclosed as Study B Enclosed as Study C Enclosed as Study D
5.4
Summary of results
5.4.1 The results of the studies in terms of LOLP, ENS and Reserve Margin for the four scenarios is tabulated below. Table 5.1 SCENARIO A: 16th EPS Demand Forecast Year Peak Load MW 8759 9315 9888 10516 11219 Energy Require ment GWh 53711 57121 60633 64486 68797 Reserve Margin % 20.45 20.40 21.02 21.14 18.23 LOLP ENS
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(%) 2.81 3.26 3.54 3.72 5.81
(%) 3.30 2.46 1.43 0.53 2.20
It could be seen from above that under the 16th EPS demand projection, the AP System is expected to operate at 5.81% LOLP and 2.2% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 1320 MW would be required over and above programmed capacity of 10th Plan.
APERC
25
CEA
SCENARIO B: Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Peak Load MW 8321 8849 9394 99910658
Table 5.2 16 EPS Demand Forecast reduced by 5%

th
Energy Requirement GWh 51025 54265 57601 61262 65357
Reserve Margin % 26.79 26.74 27.39 27.51 24.46
LOLP (%) (%) 0.93 1.16 1.32 1.42 2.51
ENS (%) (%) 0.024 0.034 0.042 0.047 0.097
5% reduction in peak demand and energy requirement from the 16th EPS projections is expected to meet the energy requirement with less than 0.15% ENS and LOLP would be less than 1.5% during all the years except in the year 2006-07. Since the energy requirements are by and large met under this scenario, it may not be pragmatic to achieve 1% LOLP by adding additional capacity. This can be achieved by demand management. Table 5.3 th SCENARIO C: 16 EPS Demand Forecast increased by 5% Year Peak Load MW 9197 9781 10382 11042 11780 Energy Require ment GWh 56397 59977 63665 67710 72237 Reserve Margin % 14.71 14.66 15.26 15.36 12.60 LOLP ENS
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
(%) 6.21 6.92 7.3 7.6 10.77
(%) 7.57 6.64 5.50 4.45 6.16
It could be seen from above that under the scenario of 16th EPS demand projection increased by 5%, the AP System is expected to operate at 10.77% LOLP and 6.16% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 2200 MW would be required over and above programmed capacity of 10th Plan. SCENARIO D: Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
APERC
Table 5.4 APTRANSCO Demand Forecast Energy Requirement GWh 46482 51570 53857 56162 58787
26
Peak Load MW 7580 8410 8783 9159 9587
Reserve Margin % 39.18 33.35 36.25 39.08 38.36
LOLP (%) 0.06 0.31 0.24 0.15 0.20
ENS (%) 0.001 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.005

CEA
5.4.2 Under APTRANSCO demand projections which are about 4.6 % to 15% lower than 16th EPS demands, the expected LOLP are much lower than 1% and ENS is also very much below 0.15% . This shows an over expanded system. Since the four CCGTs namely Vemagiri, Gautimi, J Padu Ext. and Konaseema are operating at extremely low PLFs , following studies have been carried out by dropping them from the capacity expansion plan and the AP system is studied again. 5.4.2.1 Effect Of Dropping 4 CCGT Plants: The scenarios have been examined when the benefits of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J Padu Ext. and Konaseema CCGTs have not been considered in the system and system performance is evaluated for APTRANSCO projections. Up to year 2003-04 the system give LOLP and ENS at accepted levels and shortages are indicated beyond 2004-05. Summary of results is given below: Table 5.5 SCENARIO : APTRANSCO Demand Forecast without all the CCGTs Year 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Peak Load MW 7580 8410 8783 9159 9587 Energy Requirement GWh 46482 51570 53857 56162 58787 Reserve Margin % 39.18 27.84 19.07 22.61 22.62 LOLP (%) 0.06 0.78 3.39 2.22 2.49 ENS (%) 0.011 0.193 5.562 7.588 3.969
This Study has indicated that up to the year 2003-04, the AP System would have LOLP below 1 % ( LOLP of 0.78% and ENS 0.193%.). During the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 the LOLP would be in the range of 2.2% to 3.4% and ENS in the range of 3.96 % to 7.6 %. This indicates that one of the four CCGTs can be considered. 5.4.1 Energy Supplying Capability Under Four Scenarios:
The energy supplied by the proposed system of expansion under four load conditions is given below. It could be seen that in the year 2006-07 the system would supply energy of 67283 GWh under 16th EPS demand conditions and would supply 58784 GWh under APTRANSCO projections. Thus there would be about 8500 GWh which system is capable of supplying but would go unutilized.
APERC
27
CEA
Table 5.6 Year 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 16th EPS GWh 48266 51939 55716 59766 64144 67283 5 % Less of 16th EPS GWh 47927 51013 54080 57577 61233 65294 5 % More of 16th EPS GWh 48418 52127 55993 60165 64695 67785 APTRA NSCO GWh 44838 46482 51570 53848 56160 58784
The above Table indicates that proposed generation expansion plan is also capable of meeting any eventuality arising out of additional rural supply and shortfall in hydro generation in the system as explained below 5.4.3.1 Additional Rural Supply APTRANSCO has proposed to the APERC that its energy requirement would be higher by 1500 GWh, due to 24 hours supply to rural areas over and above the regulated supply to agriculture consumers. The proposed generating system can meet this requirement and no additional generating capacity would be required. Moreover this situation of additional rural supply is arising only under APTRANSCO projections 5.4.3.2 Reduction in Hydro Generation APTRANSCO has estimated that hydro generation may decrease by 1000 GWh per year on account of diversion of water upstream to Srisailam. Reduction in 1000 GWh of hydro energy would also not call for any additional generating capacity 5.4.4 Expected Utilsation Of Generating Units
The expected plant load factor of each generating unit in the Andhra Pradesh system is given at Annexure I to IV Annexue I Annexue II Annexue III Annexue IV 2003 -04 2004-05 2005 -06 2006 07
It could be seen that expected utilisation of some of the generating units is much below the accepted levels and is summarised in Table 5.7.
APERC 28 CEA
Table 5.7 PLFs of affected generating units under various demand scenarios:
UNIT NAME 16th EPS 16TH EPS 16th EPS APTRANSCO DEMAND RED by 5 % Increased by 5 Demand % CAP. CAP. CAP. CAP. FACTOR FACTOR % % FACTOR % FACTOR %
RATED
OPERATING
UNIT NAME
CAPACIT CAPACITY Y YEAR MW MW
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C VEMAGIRI CCGT (C VEMAGIRI CCGT (C GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW J'PADU EXT.(SC) J'PADU EXT.(SC) J'PADU EXT.(SC) KONASEEMA (NEW) KONASEEMA (NEW) KONASEEMA (NEW) LVS DGPP LVS DGPP LVS DGPP LVS DGPP NELLORE NELLORE NELLORE NELLORE PEDDAPURAM2 PEDDAPURAM2 PEDDAPURAM2 PEDDAPURAM2
2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007 2004 2005 2006 2007
370
358.9 358.9 358.9 450.1 450.1 450.1 450.1 223.1 223.1 223.1 431.7 431.7 431.7 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 25.5 25.5 25.5 25.5 77.6 77.6 77.6 77.6
68.2 66.86 67.12 62.62 66.06 63.95 64.6 57.47 54.14 56.07 61.33 58.32 59.73 65.57 68.93 67.96 68.08 70.04 66.11 62.1 64.58 60.04 64.46 61.97 62.89
64.39 62.08 62.51 43.24 60.77 57.5 58.48 0.72 0.78 1.44 42.5 22.61 47.96 59.37 65.04 63.31 63.54 0.54 0.64 0.7 1.32 0.57 58.31 54.67 55.98
68.97 68.17 68.34 65.38 67.65 66.31 66.76 62.5 60.12 61.54 65.08 63.09 64.05 67.69 69.5 68.99 69.05 69.58 69.58 69.58 71.45 67.4 69.42 68.86 68.95
61.8 30.08 23.18 0.21 27.96 0.39 0.48 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.43 64.61 58.9 57.11 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.1 0.15 0.44 0.28 0.34
464
230
445
36.8
30
80
It may be concluded from the above table that 4 Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power projects i.e. Vemagiri, Gautimi, J Padu Ext. and Konaseema are not expected to operate at 85% plant load factor in all the scenarios examined from the year 2005 to 2007. Their PLF is the maximum when 16th EPS projections with 5% increase are considered. Under APTRANSCO projections these projects except Vemagiri CCGT would operate at below 1% plant load factor.
APERC 29 CEA
5.4.5 Reserve Margins Required Corresponding to 1 % LOLP From the four studies carried out as above it was seen that 1% LOLP is achieved corresponding to 29.5% Reserve Margin and 0.97% LOLP with 30% Reserve Margin. Thus from the above it can be concluded that Andhra Pradesh System would require around 30% Reserve Margin to arrive at rated installed capacity of the system. The average net capacity of the Andhra Pradesh System has been assessed as 96.5% of the rated capacity. Thus, in terms of net capacity the reserve margin may be adopted as 29%. This value would undergo a change if the system load factor or availability of generating units or hydro thermal mix is drastically changed. APTRANSCO gives the reserve margin in terms of net capacity whereas in CEA rated capacity is used in reserve margin calculations. 5.4.6 Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that achievement of capacity addition under private sector is dismal. Keeping this uncertainty in view, it would be prudent and pragmatic to plan for capacity required to meet the demand projections as made by 16th EPS.
APERC
30
CEA
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 6.2 6.3 16TH EPS forecasts shall be the minimum requirements for power planning. Reserve Margin of 30% in terms of rated capacity over peak demand or 29% of net capacity would give 1% LOLP and less than 0.15% ENS for the AP system. Work on programmed projects to be implemented in the 10th plan needs to be taken up immediately on urgent basis with compressed time schedule so as to achieve the commissioning in the 10th plan itself. Additional projects totalling to a capacity exceeding 1300 MW needs to be identified, preferably small size 210/250 MW thermal projects with less gestation period so as to achieve the commissioning schedule in the 10th plan itself in order to meet the demand projections as per the 16th EPS Possibility of advancing the schedule of commissioning of projects due in 11th Plan like Vijaywada VII Unit (660 MW) may be seriously considered. The decision of APTRANSCO of not utilsing the benefits from Kaiga (58 MW allocated AP share) and Neyveli Ext.(113 MW allocated AP share) should be reviewed. It may also not be in national interest in the long run to avoid absorption of nuclear generation from energy security angle and to reduce the shortages under 16th EPS demand scenario.. The APTRANSCO projections are not representative of future need based growth. This will have adverse affect on the power development and availability programme for AP in general and country as a whole. Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that achievement of capacity addition under private sector is highly unsatisfactory. Keeping this uncertainty in view, it would be prudent and pragmatic to plan for much more addition of capacity than required to meet the demand projections as made by 16th EPS so that the actual achievement would be meeting the projected plan requirements It would be advised that action on all the above issues is initiated on priority so that the commitment of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to achieve the mission Power on Demand to all by year 2012 is fulfilled.
6.4
6.5 6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
APERC
xxxi
CEA
Annexure - I Page xxxii of 46 CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2003-04
16th EPS 16TH EPS 16TH EPS APTRANSCO RATED OPERATING DEMAND RED by 5 % INCR. by 5 % Demand CAPACITY CAPACITY CAP. CAP. CAP. CAP. MW MW FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR % % % %
UNIT NAME
KOTHAGUDAM-1 KOTHAGUDAM-2 KOTHAGUDAM-3 KOTHAGUDAM-4 KOTHAGUDAM-5 KOTHAGUDAM-6 KOTHAGUDAM-7 KOTHAGUDAM-8 KOTHAGUDAM-IV-1 KOTHAGUDAM-IV-2 NELLORE RAMAGUNDAM RAYL.SEMA-1 RAYL.SEMA-2 VIJAYWADA-1 VIJAYWADA-2 VIJAYWADA-3 VIJAYWADA-4 VIJAYWADA-5 VIJAYWADA-6 VIJJESHWARAM-I1 VIJJESHWARAM-I2 VIJJESHWARAM-I3 VIJJESHWARAM-II1 VIJJESHWARAM-II2 RAMAGUNDAM-CS1 RAMAGUNDAM-CS2 KALPAKKAM(MAPS) NEYVELI-II NEYVELI-U4-7 KAIGA-1&2 SIMHADRI TPS-1 JEGURUPADU CCGT1 JEGURUPADU CCGT2
60 60 60 60 110 110 110 110 250 250 30 62.5 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 33 33 33 112.5 60.5 200 380 28 97 180 115 500 48.9 45.8
54.9 54.9 54.9 54.9 96.6 96.6 98.1 98.1 228.9 228.9 25.5 57.0 188.8 188.8 192.5 192.5 191.0 191.5 192.3 192.5 32.0 32.0 32.0 109.1 58.7 183.1 348.0 24.1 87.3 162.0 99.8 460.0 47.4 44.4
86.02 85.91 86.12 85.79 77.71 77.33 80.12 79.85 87.69 87.69 70.04 83.9 83.7 80.43 86.64 86.7 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.9 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
77.99 77.79 78.16 77.57 66.89 66.26 70.5 70.02 80.29 80.29 0.54 75.99 72.77 68.87 79.3 79.4 78.91 79.12 79.46 79.52 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 77.75 77.71 73.03 76.43 76.43 73.71 76.43 68.05 71.63
86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 79.11 79.04 81.23 81.23 87.69 87.69 75.24 83.27 85.14 82.51 86.56 86.65 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.91 84.87 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
83.93 83.53 84.28 83.07 73.28 72.05 77.07 76.11 87.69 87.69 0.15 82.35 76.25 45.72 86.27 86.48 86.77 86.75 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.88 84.8 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
Annexure - I Page xxxii of 46
APERC
xxxii
CEA
UNIT NAME
APERC
xxxiii
CEA
JEGURUPADU CCGT3 JEGURUPADU CCST GODAVARI CCGT1 GODAVARI CCGT2 GODAVARI CCGT-3 GODAVARI CCST KONDAPALLI CCST KONDAPALLI CCGT1 KONDAPALLI CCGT2 PEDDAPURAM1 UPPER SILERU-4 MACHKUND-SH HAMPI (T.B.DAM) UPPER SILERU-1 UPPER SILERU-2 UPPER SILERU-3 DONKARAYI LOWER SILERU-1 LOWER SILERU-2 LOWER SILERU-3 LOWER SILERU-4 SRISAILAM-1 SRISAILAM-2 SRISAILAM-3 SRISAILAM-4 SRISAILAM-5 SRISAILAM-6 SRISAILAM-7 NAG. SAGAR LB1 NAG. SAGAR LB2 NAG. SAGAR RB1 NAG. SAGAR RB2 NAG. SAGAR RB3 NAG. SAGAR PH-1 NAG. SAGAR-II1 NAG. SAGAR-II2
45.8 75.5 46.8 46.1 46.1 68.88 125 115 115 140 60 80 58 60 60 60 25 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 30 30 30 30 30 110 105.6 100
44.4 73.2 45.4 44.7 44.7 66.8 121.3 111.6 111.6 135.8 59.7 79.6 57.7 59.7 59.7 59.7 24.9 114.4 114.4 114.4 114.4 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 301.9 105.1 99.5
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 20.72 48.7 11.51 20.72 20.71 20.72 59.26 28.07 28.07 28.07 28.07 42.39 42.39 42.39 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43 36.49 36.49 30.85 30.85 30.85 15.82 16.48 17.4
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
Annexure - I Page xxxiv of 46

UNIT NAME
NAG. SAGAR-II3 NAG. SAGAR-II4

APERC
100 100
99.5 99.5
17.49 17.49
xxxiv
17.4 17.4
17.49 17.49
17.49 17.49
CEA
NAG. SAGAR-II5 NAG. SAGAR-II6 NAG. SAGAR-II7 NIZAMSAGAR PENNA AB-1 PENNA AB-2 POCHAMPAD-1-3 SRISAILAM LB-1 SRISAILAM LB-2 VATHASASA PP BIOMASS PP LVS DGPP SIMHADRI TPS-2 GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW PEDDAPURAM2 AP-SMALL SRISAILAM-LB-4 SRISAILAM-LB-6 RVK POWER TALCHER II-2C1 EASTERN SH BIOMASS PP-II
100 100 100 10 10 10 27 150 150 17.69 82.2 36.8 500 464 80 8 150 450 20 106.3 400 94.5
99.5 99.5 99.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 26.9 149.3 149.3 17.0 78.9 35.3 460.0 450.1 77.6 8.0 149.3 447.8 18.4 97.8 368.0 86.94
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 65.57 76.31 62.62 60.04 11.02 12.96 12.96 78.46 78.46 78.46 70.15
17.4 17.4 17.4 16.06 3.91 3.91 37.17 12.9 12.9 67.35 67.35 59.37 69.94 43.24 0.57 10.96 12.9 12.9 72.18 72.18 72.18 67.35
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 67.69 75.93 65.38 67.4 11.02 12.96 12.96 78.46 78.46 78.46 70.15
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 0.43 75.47 0.21 0.15 11.02 12.96 12.96 78.46 78.46 78.46 70.15
APERC
xxxv
CEA
Annexure - II Page 1 of 46 CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2004-05
UNIT NAME
60 60 60 60 110 110 110 110 250 250 30 62.5 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 33 33 33 112.5 60.5 200 380 28 97 180 115 500 48.9 45.8
54.9 54.9 54.9 54.9 96.6 96.6 98.1 98.1 228.9 228.9 25.5 57.0 188.8 188.8 192.5 192.5 191.0 191.5 192.3 192.5 32.0 32.0 32.0 109.1 58.7 183.1 348.0 24.1 87.3 162.0 99.8 460.0 47.4 44.4
86.59 86.56 86.61 86.53 78.96 78.86 80.96 80.89 87.69 87.69 66.11 84.33 85.98 83.74 86.76 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
79 78.96 79.05 78.9 69.03 68.86 71.96 71.82 80.29 80.29 0.64 76.73 76.64 74.28 79.49 79.52 78.91 79.12 79.46 79.52 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 77.76 77.76 73.03 76.43 76.43 73.71 76.43 68.05 71.63
86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 79.33 79.31 81.23 81.23 87.69 87.69 72.51 84.16 86.35 84.29 86.73 86.76 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
85.93 85.81 86.05 85.66 77.44 76.97 79.97 79.64 87.69 87.69 0.12 83.85 83.11 79.49 86.64 86.7 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.9 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
Annexure - II Page 2 of 46
APERC
xxxvi
CEA
UNIT NAME
16th EPS 16TH EPS 16TH EPS APTRANSCO RATED OPERATING DEMAND RED by 5 % INCR. By 5 % Demand CAPACITY CAPACITY CAP. CAP. CAP. CAP. MW MW FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR % % % %
APERC
xxxvii
CEA
45.8 75.5 46.8 46.1 46.1 68.88 125 115 115 140 60 80 58 60 60 60 25 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 30 30 30 30 30 110 105.6 100
44.4 73.2 45.4 44.7 44.7 66.8 121.3 111.6 111.6 135.8 59.7 79.6 57.7 59.7 59.7 59.7 24.9 114.4 114.4 114.4 114.4 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 301.9 105.1 99.5
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 20.72 48.7 11.51 20.72 20.71 20.72 59.26 28.07 28.07 28.07 28.07 42.39 42.39 42.39 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43 36.49 36.49 30.85 30.85 30.85 15.82 16.48 17.4
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
Annexure - II Page 3 of 46
UNIT NAME
NAG. SAGAR-II3 NAG. SAGAR-II4

APERC
100 100
99.5 99.5
17.49 17.49
xxxviii
17.4 17.4
17.49 17.49
17.49 17.49
CEA
NAG. SAGAR-II5 NAG. SAGAR-II6 NAG. SAGAR-II7 NIZAMSAGAR PENNA AB-1 PENNA AB-2 POCHAMPAD-1-3 SRISAILAM LB-1 SRISAILAM LB-2 VATHASASA PP BIOMASS PP LVS DGPP SIMHADRI TPS-2 VEMAGIRI CCGT (C GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW PEDDAPURAM2 AP-SMALL SRISAILAM-LB-4 SRISAILAM-LB-6 KONASEEMA (NEW) RVK POWER TALCHER II-2C1 TALCHER II-2C2 J'PADU EXT.(SC) BIOMASS PP-II
100 100 100 10 10 10 27 150 150 17.69 82.2 36.8 500 464 80 8 150 450 20 106.3 400 94.5 11008.5
99.5 99.5 99.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 26.9 149.3 17.0 78.9 35.3 460.0 358.9 450.1 77.6 8.0 149.3 447.8 431.7 18.4 97.8 98.1 223.1
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 68.93 76.55 68.2 66.06 64.46 11.02 12.96 12.96 61.33 78.46 78.46 78.46 57.47 70.15
17.4 17.4 17.4 16.06 3.91 3.91 37.17 12.9 12.9 67.35 67.35 65.04 70.36 64.39 60.77 58.31 10.96 12.9 12.9 42.5 72.18 72.18 72.18 0.72 67.35
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 69.5 76.44 68.97 67.65 69.42 11.02 12.96 12.96 65.08 78.46 78.46 78.46 62.5 70.15
17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 64.61 76.29 61.8 27.96 0.44 11.02 12.96 12.96 0.22 78.46 78.46 78.46 0.12 70.15
APERC
xxxix
CEA
Annexure - III Page xl of 46 CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2005-06
UNIT NAME
60 60 60 60 110 110 110 110 250 250 30 62.5 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 33 33 33 112.5 60.5 200 380 28 97 180 115 500 48.9 45.8
54.9 54.9 54.9 54.9 96.6 96.6 98.1 98.1 228.9 228.9 25.5 57.0 188.8 188.8 192.5 192.5 191.0 191.5 192.3 192.5 32.0 32.0 32.0 109.1 58.7 183.1 348.0 24.1 87.3 162.0 99.8 460.0 47.4 44.4
86.36 86.31 86.41 86.25 78.54 78.36 80.65 80.52 87.69 87.69 62.1 84.15 85.27 82.76 86.69 86.73 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.91 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
78.6 78.51 78.69 78.4 68.29 67.99 71.43 71.19 80.29 80.29 0.7 76.43 75.39 72.6 79.39 79.45 78.91 79.12 79.46 79.52 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 77.76 77.73 73.03 76.43 76.43 73.71 76.43 68.05 71.63
86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 79.23 79.2 81.23 81.23 87.69 87.69 69.58 83.87 85.97 83.77 86.65 86.7 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.9 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
84.32 84 84.61 83.64 74.38 73.41 77.75 76.99 87.69 87.69 0.08 82.61 78.27 73.35 86.28 86.47 86.77 86.74 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.87 84.78 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
Annexure - III Page 2 of 46
APERC
xl
CEA
UNIT NAME
APERC
xli
CEA
45.8 75.5 46.8 46.1 46.1 68.88 125 115 115 140 60 80 58 60 60 60 25 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 30 30 30 30 30 110 105.6 100
44.4 73.2 45.4 44.7 44.7 66.8 121.3 111.6 111.6 135.8 59.7 79.6 57.7 59.7 59.7 59.7 24.9 114.4 114.4 114.4 114.4 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 301.9 105.1 99.5
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 20.72 48.7 11.51 20.72 20.71 20.72 59.26 28.07 28.07 28.07 28.07 42.39 42.39 42.39 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43 36.49 36.49 30.85 30.85 30.85 15.82 16.48 17.4
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
Annexure - III Page 3 of 46

UNIT NAME
NAG. SAGAR-II3
APERC
100
99.5
xlii
17.49
17.4
17.49
17.49
CEA
NAG. SAGAR-II4 NAG. SAGAR-II5 NAG. SAGAR-II6 NAG. SAGAR-II7 NIZAMSAGAR PENNA AB-1 PENNA AB-2 POCHAMPAD-1-3 SRISAILAM LB-1 SRISAILAM LB-2 VATHASASA PP BIOMASS PP RAMAGUNDAM BPLC RAMAGUNDAM-IIIC LVS DGPP SIMHADRI TPS-2 VEMAGIRI CCGT (C GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW PEDDAPURAM2 AP-SMALL SRISAILAM-LB-4 SRISAILAM-LB-6 KONASEEMA (NEW) RVK POWER TALCHER II-2C1 TALCHER II-2C2 TALCHER II-2C3 J'PADU EXT.(SC) BIOMASS PP-II
100 100 100 100 10 10 10 27 150 150 17.69 82.2 36.8 500 464 80 8 150 450 20 106.3 400 94.5 11008.5
99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 26.9 149.3 149.3 17.0 78.9 478.4 134.3 35.3 460.0 358.9 450.1 77.6 8.0 149.3 447.8 431.7 18.4 97.8 98.1 97.5 223.1
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 67.96 76.44 66.86 63.95 61.97 11.02 12.96 12.96 58.32 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 54.14 70.15
17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 16.06 3.91 3.91 37.17 12.9 12.9 67.35 67.35 70.49 70.49 63.31 70.17 62.08 57.5 54.67 10.96 12.9 12.9 22.61 72.18 72.18 72.18 72.18 0.78 67.35
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 68.99 76.26 68.17 66.31 68.86 11.02 12.96 12.96 63.09 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 60.12 70.15
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 58.9 75.57 30.08 0.39 0.28 11.02 12.96 12.96 0.14 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 0.08 70.15
APERC
xliii
CEA
Annexure - IV Page xliv of 46 CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2006-07
UNIT NAME
60 60 60 60 110 110 110 110 250 250 30 62.5 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 33 33 33 112.5 60.5 200 380 28 97 180 115 500 48.9 45.8
54.9 54.9 54.9 54.9 96.6 96.6 98.1 98.1 228.9 228.9 25.5 57.0 188.8 188.8 192.5 192.5 191.0 191.5 192.3 192.5 32.0 32.0 32.0 109.1 58.7 183.1 348.0 24.1 87.3 162.0 99.8 460.0 47.4 44.4
86.55 86.53 86.58 86.49 78.94 78.85 80.92 80.86 87.69 87.69 64.58 84.3 85.99 83.81 86.73 86.76 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
78.94 78.89 78.99 78.84 68.98 68.83 71.9 71.77 80.29 80.29 1.32 76.68 76.65 74.4 79.46 79.49 78.91 79.12 79.46 79.52 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 74.32 77.76 77.75 73.03 76.43 76.43 73.71 76.43 68.05 71.63
86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 79.31 79.29 81.23 81.23 87.69 87.69 71.45 84.15 86.35 84.33 86.71 86.74 86.77 86.77 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
85.11 84.9 85.32 84.66 75.99 75.32 78.88 78.36 87.69 87.69 0.1 83.21 80.91 76.8 86.43 86.56 86.77 86.76 86.77 86.77 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 76.62 84.88 84.82 84.92 84.92 84.92 84.92 83.08 70.15 73.85
Annexure - IV Page 2 of 46
APERC
xliv
CEA
CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2006-07

UNIT NAME
45.8 75.5 46.8 46.1 46.1 68.88 125 115 115 140 60 80 58 60 60 60 25 115 115 115 115 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 30 30 30 30 30 110 105.6 100
44.4 73.2 45.4 44.7 44.7 66.8 121.3 111.6 111.6 135.8 59.7 79.6 57.7 59.7 59.7 59.7 24.9 114.4 114.4 114.4 114.4 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 109.5 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 29.9 301.9 105.1 99.5
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 16.56 17.49
71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 71.63 20.72 48.7 11.51 20.72 20.71 20.72 59.26 28.07 28.07 28.07 28.07 42.39 42.39 42.39 42.43 42.43 42.43 42.43 36.49 36.49 30.85 30.85 30.85 15.82 16.48 17.4
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01
73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 73.85 20.82 48.94 11.57 20.82 20.82 20.82 59.55 28.21 28.21 28.21 28.21 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.64 42.64 42.64 42.64 36.67 36.67 31.01
31.01 31.01 31.01 31.01 5.77 5.77 16.56 16.56 17.49 17.49 Annexure - IV Page 3 of 46
APERC
xlv
CEA
UNIT NAME
NAG. SAGAR-II3 NAG. SAGAR-II4 NAG. SAGAR-II5 NAG. SAGAR-II6 NAG. SAGAR-II7 NIZAMSAGAR PENNA AB-1 PENNA AB-2 POCHAMPAD-1-3 SRISAILAM LB-1 SRISAILAM LB-2 VATHASASA PP BIOMASS PP RAMAGUNDAM BPLC RAMAGUNDAM-IIIC LVS DGPP SIMHADRI TPS-2 VEMAGIRI CCGT (C GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW PEDDAPURAM2 AP-SMALL SRISAILAM-LB-4 SRISAILAM-LB-6 KONASEEMA (NEW) RAYL.SEMA-II-2 RAYL.SEMA-II-1 RVK POWER TALCHER II-2C1 TALCHER II-2C2 TALCHER II-2C3 TALCHER II-2C4 J'PADU EXT.(SC) BIOMASS PP-II
100 100 100 100 100 10 10 10 27 150 150 17.69 82.2 36.8 500 464 80 8 150 450 20 106.3 400 94.5 11008.5
99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 26.9 149.3 149.3 17.0 78.9 478.4 134.3 35.3 460.0 358.9 450.1 77.6 8.0 149.3 447.8 431.7 190.1 190.1 18.4 97.8 98.1 97.5 97.5 223.1 94.5
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 68.08 76.52 67.12 64.6 62.89 11.02 12.96 12.96 59.73 68.82 68.35 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 56.07 70.15
17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 16.06 3.91 3.91 37.17 12.9 12.9 67.35 67.35 70.49 70.49 63.54 70.32 62.51 58.48 55.98 10.96 12.9 12.9 47.96 61.15 60.34 72.18 72.18 72.18 72.18 72.18 1.44 67.35
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 69.05 76.43 68.34 66.76 68.95 11.02 12.96 12.96 64.05 69.45 69.2 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 61.54 70.15
17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 17.49 16.14 3.93 3.93 37.36 12.96 12.96 70.15 70.15 76.62 76.62 57.11 75.9 23.18 0.48 0.34 11.02 12.96 12.96 0.18 60.94 58.41 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 78.46 0.1 70.15
APERC
xlvi
CEA

Cea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

March New Delhi

, 2003 (V.S. VERMA) MEMBER (PLANNING)

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Sl.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

12. 13. 14. 15.

2005-06 2004-05 2002-03 2003-04

520 445 47.6 46.9 4214.7

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

16 EPS DEMAND C.F (%)

VEMAGIRI CCGT GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW J'PADU EXT.(SC) KONASEEMA (NEW)

370 464 230 445

66.76 64.02 56.07 59.73

68.34 66.76 61.54 64.05

61.91 57.61 1.44 47.96

11.2 0.41 0.1 0.18

79.07 75.34 63.05 69.02

80.93 78.78 70.60 74.77

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

16th EPS Demand Forecast

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Analysis of Trend in Actual Consumption

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

COMMERCIAL & MISC

IRRIGATION GROWTH RATE (%)

GROWTH RATE (%)

GROWTH RATE (%)

20.0 10.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98

GROWTH RATE (%)

GROWTH RATE (%)

10.0 5.0 0.0 -5.0 -10.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

Projections made by APTRANSCO

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

6.10 2.66 5.20 7.58 5.58 3.02

3.35 6.68 7.66 7.22 3.73 3.41

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

5830 5940 6111 6770 7209 8000 8585

4276 4540 5423 6139 6366 6835 6873

-1554 -1400 -688 -631 -843 -1165 -1712

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

16170 16676 17437 18812 20424 21929 22757

12350 13428 15318 16490 17832 18777 19201

-3820 -3248 -2119 -2322 -2592 -3152 -3556

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02

60981 63553 65435 67905 72669 78037 81555

49836 52376 58042 58445 63691 67880 71262

-11145 -11177 -7393 -9460 -8978 -10157 -10293

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00

1.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 REQUIREMENT 105590

8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00

6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00