Deterministic Hydropower Simulation Model for

Ethiopia
Firehiwot Girma Dires Mikael Amelin Getachew Bekele
Sch.of Electrical and Computer Engineering Dept. of Electrical Engineering Sch.of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Addis Ababa institute of technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology Addis Ababa institute of technology
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Stockholm, Sweden Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Email: dires@kth.se Email: amelin@kth.se Email: getachew.bekele@aait.edu.et
2021 IEEE Madrid PowerTech | 978-1-6654-3597-0/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/PowerTech46648.2021.9494862

Abstract—This paper presents a long-term deterministic linear

simulation model for the Ethiopian hydropower system, intending
to utilize the water stored in the rainy season throughout the
year with minimum load shedding. Two cases are simulated and
compared to historical data. The base case represents current
load levels, and the second case represents a load level increase.
The results show that the Ethiopian hydropower system has
a great deal of flexibility to be operated in a more efficient
way to minimize load shedding. The results also show that
the system can support a 50% load increase with minimum
load shedding, mostly when the load demand exceeds the total
generating capacity. The contribution of this paper is to apply a
standard hydropower model for Ethiopia to estimate the potential
of the Ethiopian hydropower system to avoid or minimize load
shedding with improved generation and operation planning.
Index Terms—Hydroelectric power generation, power system
planning, power system reliability, optimization

I. I NTRODUCTION Fig. 1. Ethiopia River Basin Map

Ethiopia is a country located in the horn of Africa between
latitudes of 3.8°N to 14.5°N and longitudes of 33°E to 48°E.
capacity of approximately 6 GW, which will be the largest
The total area of Ethiopia is around 1.12 Mkm2 with a varied
hydroelectric power plant in Africa, and Koysha hydropower
topology ranging from the lowest point of 120.00 m below
plant with an installed capacity of 2.16 GW. Moreover,
sea level and the highest point about 4620.00 m above sea
Ethiopia is following the green resilience policy and has
level [1]. The country is endowed with a substantial amount
a plan of becoming a middle-income county by 2025, as
of water body which is divided into twelve basins, eight of
stipulated in its Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP-II)
which are river basins, one lake basin, and the remaining three
[5]. The government of Ethiopia launched the first National
are dry basins as shown in Fig. 1, [2]. Seasonal rainfall in
Electrification Program (NEP-1) in November 2017 that
Ethiopia is driven mainly by the migration of the Intertropical
represents the action plan for achieving universal electricity
Convergence Zone (ITCZ), tropical upper easterlies, and local
access nationwide by 2025, 65% of access provision targeted
convergence in the Red Sea coastal region [3]. There are four
with grid solutions and 35% with off-grid technologies
different seasons in Ethiopia; small rain Belg (April to June),
(solar off-grid and mini-grids). The NEP-1 document has
heavy rain Kiremt (July to September), small rain Tseday
been updated to NEP-2 by 2019 to reflect the government’s
(October to December), and dry season Bega (January to
commitment to revise the electrification program based on
March).
implementation progress and improved analytics [6]. To
ensure timely provision of reliable and sufficient electricity
Hydropower constitutes 90% of the country’s electricity
access and to address the ambitious plans, the power sector
generation, with an overall national potential of as much
should undergo thorough modernization.
as 45 GW [4]. To harness this considerable national
potential, the government is working on further expansion
of hydropower capacity with mega projects like the Grand There are 13 existing larger hydropower plants, 3 wind
Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) with an installed power plants, and 1 waste-to-energy plant, which are fully
engaged in the power generation as shown in Table I. All
these power plants are owned, administrated, and operated by
978-1-6654-3597-0/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE the Government.

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I planning is done manually following historical data.
E XISTING P OWER P LANTS IN E THIOPIA

Storage at Installed Rated Average The main purpose of this paper is to develop a deterministic
Plant name Max. level Capacity Discharge Energy linear simulation model for the Ethiopian hydropower system,
(Mm3) (MW) (m3/s) (GWh) with the objective of utilizing the water stored in the rainy
Tana Beles 37,307.00 460.00 160.00 1,860.00
Melka Wakena 763.00 153.00 60.00 543.00 season trough out the dry season with minimum load
Fincha 406.00 134.00 29.68 760.00 shedding. The model is used to outline the hourly generation
GibeI, schedule of hydropower plants taking reservoir contents, load
Upstream to 668.00 210.00 100.00 722.00
Gibe II demand, and hourly volume inflow into consideration. It is
Gibe II Weir 420.00 98.12 1,635.00 developed for one year with an hourly resolution, starting
Gibe III 15,300.00 1870.00 2200.00 6500.00 from 1st of July to 30th of June, based on the Ethiopian
Koka, physical year.
Upstream 4250 42.00 144.00 110.00
to AwashII
Awash II, The contribution of this paper is to apply a standard
Upstream to 26.00 32.00 65.60 182.00 hydropower model for the Ethiopian power system to
Awash III
Awash III 0.70 32.00 66.20 182.00 minimize load shedding by optimizing the hydro scheduling
Tekeze 9,310.00 300.00 184.00 1,393.00 in such a way that excess water during the rainy season is
Amerti Neshe 2.33 97.00 18.70 35.00 utilized in the dry seasons. The model is used to compare
Tis Abay I 9,100.00 12.00 114.00 33.70
Tis Abay II 9,100.00 72.00 114.00 359.0
actual data with simulation results for the existing system
Adama wind I 51.00 and a future scenario with increased demand (but without
Adama wind II 153.00 additional power generation capacity). The comparison of the
Ashegoda 120.00 model with perfect information and historical operation gives
Repi WTE 25.00
an indication of how much load shedding could be avoided
if the planning of the system is improved.The other objective
of this paper is to investigate the flexibility of the Ethiopian
hydropower system for a better operation and if the existing
There are numerous researches carried out on long-term power plants could be used more efficiently and effectively
and short-term hydropower planning models for different to avoid the load shedding encountered in the dry seasons of
countries using different algorithms and approaches. To the year.
briefly describe some of the works; a long-term hydro
scheduling model is proposed for Swiss hydropower in [7]
with the goal of maximizing the revenue from electricity II. M ATHEMATICAL M ODEL
sales by optimizing the dispatch of each plant. An overview A. Problem Definition
of historical and current modeling practices used to form The deterministic model is developed considering the
system expansion policies and operations strategies in the existing larger hydropower plants. The generation from the
long, medium, and short term is given for the Icelandic power three wind power plants and the waste to energy plant is taken
system in [8], a computational tool based on Monte Carlo as a constant value from historical generation data, to keep the
simulation is proposed for a short term operation planning deterministic nature of the model. The simulation period is
of Itaipu in [9], a complete survey of the implementation of for one year with hourly time resolution. It is considered that
various methods to get the optimal generation schedule of the stored water will be used for electricity generation at the
hydro systems is presented in [10], a short term hydropower best efficiency. The data for the Mean Annual Inflow (MAI)
generation scheduling is proposed using a compact Mixed of each reservoir is approximated from the average annual
Integer Linear Programming (MILP) method in [11], a linear energy generated and the rated discharge of the reservoirs.
programming approach for hydro scheduling and power flow All volume units are converted to Hour Equivalent (HE),
algorithm is applied to a long term problem but with short which is defined as 1 m3 /s of water released during one hour,
term phenomena in [12], and the challenges of short term i.e., 1 HE = 3600 m3 . The minimum discharge(Qi ) from
hydropower scheduling are presented for the Norwegian all reservoirs is assumed to be zero except for Tana Beles,
power system in [13]. The effect of uncertain wind power and Fincha, and Koka reservoirs with downstream sugar-cane
large wind power in the system on the short-term hydropower plantation.
planning is addressed in [14] and [15].
The data for hourly load demand forecast for the period
No model has been developed for the planning of the from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 and the starting content
unique Ethiopian hydropower system so far. In the Ethiopian of reservoirs are collected from Ethiopian Electric Power
power system, all power plants are owned and administered (EEP). Local inflow is scaled using the Mean Annual Inflow
by the government, there is no competitive electricity market, (MAI) and a ten-years average rainfall data from the NASA
electricity price is relatively cheaper, generation and operation satellite. The value of stored water is calculated from the

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
future electricity price and the amount of energy that could
be generated out of the stored water, and a penalty cost is
taken into consideration for load shedding.
B. Assumptions
The model of the hydropower plants neglects head de-
pendence and the efficiency curve of the turbines; therefore,
generation is approximated as a linear function of discharge:
Hi,t = γi Qi,t
where:
Hi,t = Generation of hydropower plant i, during hour t,
γi = Production equivalent for power plant i,
Qi,t = Discharge from power plant i, during hour t.
The water delay time between cascaded hydropower plants
is neglected. Assumptions of future electricity price and a
penalty cost for load shedding are used in the objective
function. Moreover, the system is considered as one area, i.e.,
transmission limitations are neglected, and only power export
to neighboring countries are considered from historical data.
C. Optimization problem
The optimization problem is to maximize the value
of stored water and minimize load shedding by taking
hydrological balance constraints, reservoir content, discharge,
and spillage limitations into consideration.
Vi,t = Local inflow to reservoir i, during hour t,
Ki = Index set of all power plants downstream to reservoir i,
Li = Index set of power plants upstream to reservoir i.
Pm,t = Power export to area m, during hour t,
Wn,t = Power generation of power plant n(other than
hydropower), during hour t.
Variables:
(1) Hi,t = Generation of hydropower plant i, during hour t,
Ut = Load shedding during hour t,
Qi,t = Discharge from power plant i, during hour t,
Si,t = Spillage from reservoir i, during hour t,
Mi,t = Content of reservoir i, at the end of hour t,
The objective function consists of two sub-functions, the
first one is the value of stored water Z1 which should be
maximized, and the second one is the penalty cost of load
shedding Z2 , which should be minimized to minimize load
shedding. The objective function can then be expressed as
M aximize Z = Z1 − Z2 (2)
where
13 X
X 
Z1 = λf γj Mj,T (3)
i=1 j∈Ki

T
X
M aximize Z2 = C L Ut (4)
t=1
V alue of stored water − Cost of load shedding
The hydrological balance equation for each reservoir at the
Subjected to : Hydrological balance, end of hour t is represented by

limitations : reservoir content, N ew reservoir content = Old Reservoir Content

discharge, and spillage + W ater Coming to the Reservoir
Indices: − W ater Leaving the Reservoir
i = Index for hydropower plants: i = 1, . . . , 13 X
n = Index for power plants other than HPP: n = 1, . . . , 4 Mi,t = Mi,t−1 + Vi,t − Qi,t − Si,t + (Qj,t + Sj,t ) (5)
j∈Li
m = Index for area of export: m = 1, . . . , 2
t = Planning period, one year with hourly resolution : The power generated from hydropower plants and the power
t = 1, . . . , 8760 generated from power plants(other than hydropower) should
satisfy the local demand and the contracted load for export
Parameters: in each planning period. The power balance equation can be
Dt = Load forecast during hour t, expressed as:
λf = Forecast of electricity price after the end of the planning
Local Demand − Load Shedding + Export = Generation
period,
CL = Penalty cost of load shedding, It should be noted that, the local demand and export include
Mi,0 = Start content of reservoir i, the power losses in the system.
M̄i = Maximal content of reservoir i, 2 13 4
Mi = Minimal content of reservoir i,
X X X
Dt − Ut + Pm,t = Hi,t + Wn,t f or t = 1, ..., T
M iT = Minimal content of reservoir i, at the end of the m=1 i=1 n=1
planning period, T = 8760h (6)
H̄i = Maximal generation in power plant i,
γi = Production equivalent for power plant i, Limits on the discharge of reservoir i, during hour t.
Qi Minimal discharge in power plant i,
Q̄i = Maximal discharge in power plant i, Qi ≤ Qi,t ≤ Q̄i (7)

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Total Generation
Limits on reservoir content of each hydropower plants during 3000

Power(MW)
hour t 2000

1000

0
Mi ≤ Mi,t ≤ M̄i (8) Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Months

Limits on spillage and load shedding during hour t

respectively. Total Demand

Power(MW)
3000
2000
0 ≤ Si,t (9) 1000
0

0 ≤ Ut ≤ Dt (10) Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Months
The optimization problem for this model is analyzed using
Julia scientific programming tool. Julia is an open-source,
Load Shedding
high level, and high-performance dynamic programming 2000

Power(MW)
language developed specifically for scientific computing [16]. 1000

0
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
III. R ESULT AND D ISCUSSION
Months
The model has been used to simulate two cases: a base case
representing the current load levels in Ethiopia and another
case for a load level increase. These two cases are compared Fig. 2. Actual generation, demand and load shedding for the period 01 July
2018 to 30 June 2019
to historical data from 2018-2019.

A. Historical data Total Generation

3000

In the Ethiopian power system, a traditional method of

Power(MW)

2000

generation and operation planning, based on historical data is

1000
performed twice a year. The first planning period is, starting
0
from the beginning of July to the end of September, where Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

there is a considerable amount of rainfall in almost all regions Months

of the country, and the second period is from the beginning of

Total Demand
October to the end of June which is the dry season. Based on 3000

the data collected from Ethiopian Electric Power (EEP), the

Power(MW)

2000
actual power generated, the demanded load, and load shedding
1000
for the Ethiopian physical year July 2018 to June 2019 is
0
shown in Fig.2. As it can be seen from the figure, there was Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

significant load shedding starting from the mid of March to the Months

mid of May, which is the end of the driest season and again
Load Shedding
in the month of June, the beginning of the rainy season. These 200

were the periods when power was rationed for the end-users
Power(MW)

in the country. This was mainly due to the shortage of water 100

in the reservoirs during the period. The question is if this load

0
shedding could have been mitigated by better scheduling and Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

management of stored water, there could have been no power Months

rationing in the country. It should be noted that there could be

possible errors in the data collection that could not be tracked,
which may explain the unexpectedly high demand for some
hours and a low demand towards the end of the year.
B. Base Case
The load data for the base case is the same as the historical
data described above. Moreover, the content of reservoirs at
the end of the previous physical year 2017/2018, and the actual
rainfall data for scaling the inflow for the same year are used
as input. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Generation,Demand, Load shedding and Spillage for the base case.
When we compare the base case with the actual scenario,
the simulation result indicates the possibility of operating
the hydropower plants in a more efficient way to eliminate
the load shedding. The simulation result also indicates the
possibility of using the water in the reservoirs throughout the
year with minimum spillage. However, it should be noted that
the model assumes perfect information, neglects transmission

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
limitations, and uses a simplified model of hydropower Total Generation
5000
generation as a function of discharge. Moreover, the inflow 4000

Power(MW)
data used in the simulation are approximations. Thus, the 3000

results could change if more reliable data were available for 2000

1000
Ethiopia. 0
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Months
Fig. 4 shows the total reservoir content and spillage of the
reservoirs throughout the planning period. The result shows Total Demand
5000

4000

Power(MW)
3000
Reservoir Content
2000
volume (HE)

1.7×10⁷
1000
1.6×10⁷
1.5×10⁷ 0
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
1.4×10⁷
1.3×10⁷ Months
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Months Load Shedding

1000

Power(MW)
Total Spillage 500
volume (HE)

8000
6000
4000 0
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
2000
0 Months
Jul 1, 2018 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 2019 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Months
Fig. 5. Generation,Demand, and Load shedding for case2

Fig. 4. Reservoir content and spillage 2000

that the reservoirs start filling up in the rainy season and 1500

reach their maximum at the end of September. Then they start Legend
Power H(MW)

Beles

dropping from mid-October throughout the dry season. And 1000

Melka wakena
Fincha
Gibe I
then start filling up again at the beginning of the rainy season. Gibe II
GibeIII
Tkekze
Most of the spillage occurred in the rainy season, especially 500

from the smallest reservoirs.

0
C. 50% Load Increase 0 50 100 150 200 250

In this case, the load is increased by 50% compared to the
base case. To develop the model for the case, a ten-year aver-
age rainfall data from the NASA satellite and a start content of
the reservoirs from the end content of the simulation period for
the base case are taken. The simulation result in Fig. 5 shows,
with optimum generation scheduling the system can support
the 50% load increase with a minimum load shedding in the
system. Load shedding is observed where there is load demand
more than the generating capacity of the system. The model
can be utilised to forecast the appropriate time to perform
system expansion by considering the load demand increase in
the system. To see the hourly scheduling in the power plants,
the simulation result of the bigger hydropower plants for 10
days is shown in Fig. 6 as an example.
The generation schedule can be an indicator for the opera-
tion and maintenance schedule of the power plants. The model
can also be used to see the capacity of the system to supply
the increased load without shedding any load.
IV. C ONCLUSION
This paper presents the long-term deterministic linear model
for the Ethiopian hydropower system with the objective of
Time(h)
Fig. 6. Generation schedule for 10 days.
utilizing the water stored in the rainy season for the whole
year with minimum load shedding.
Two different cases are studied, the results show that the
Ethiopian hydropower system has a great deal of flexibility.
In theory, most of the load shedding could be avoided both
for current as well as a 50% higher load demand. How much
of this flexibility can be utilized in reality will depend on
the uncertainty of inflow, load forecasts, and the trading
with neighboring countries. Therefore, there is a need to
develop long-term planning tools using stochastic models and
appropriate forecasts.
The simulation tool presented in this paper could be further
developed by considering, for example, transmission limi-
tations and more precise models for the efficiency of the
hydropower plants. Moreover, to obtain more reliable results,
the procedure for collecting and validating power system

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
data in Ethiopia needs to be improved. With better data, the
simulation model can further be used to evaluate the need for
additional investments in generation capacity as the demand
for electricity increases in the system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of
SIDA to fund this research project, and the collaboration of
AAIT and KTH to facilitate the project study, and EEP to
provide the necessary data for the research work.
R EFERENCES
[1] B. Berhanu, Y. Seleshi, and A. M. Melesse, “Surface water and ground-
water resources of Ethiopia: Potentials and challenges of water resources
development,” in Nile River Basin, Cham: Springer International Pub-
lishing, 2014, pp. 97–117.
[2] S. B. Awulachew, A. D. Yilma, M. Loulseged, W. Loiskandl, M.
Ayana, and T. Alamirew, “Water Resources and Irrigation Development
in Ethiopia.” International WaterManagement Institute, Colombo, Sri
Lanka, p. 78, 2007.
[3] D. Conway, “The climate and hydrology of the upper blue Nile river,”
Geogr. J., vol. 166, no. 1, pp. 49–62, 2000.
[4] MoWE, research and development directorate, Water and energy sector
development researchable issues/problems and list of research out-
puts/index. Addis Ababa: Novell, 2013.
[5] “Ethiopia growth and Transformation Plan II (GTP II),”
Greengrowthknowledge.org, 26-Dec-2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/national-documents/ethiopia-
growth-and-transformation-plan-ii-gtp-ii. [Accessed: 02-Nov-2020].
[6] Powermag.com. [Online]. Available: https://www.powermag.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/ethiopia-national-electrification-program.pdf.
[Accessed: 02-Nov-2020].
[7] O. Weiss, G. Pareschi, O. Schwery, M. Bolla, G. Georges and K.
Boulouchos, ”Long-term scheduling model of Swiss hydropower,” 2019
16th International Conference on the European Energy Market (EEM),
Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2019, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/EEM.2019.8916260.
[8] E. Benedikt Hreinsson, ”Operations modeling in the Iceland hy-
dro dominated power system,” 2013 48th International Universities’
Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), Dublin, 2013, pp. 1-6, doi:
10.1109/UPEC.2013.6714916.
[9] R. E. Oviedo-Sanabria and R. A. González-Fernández, ”Short-term
operation planning of the Itaipu hydroelectric plant considering uncer-
tainties,” 2016 Power Systems Computation Conference (PSCC), Genoa,
2016, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/PSCC.2016.7540928.
[10] A. Thaeer Hammid et al., “A review of optimization algorithms in
solving hydro generation scheduling problems,” Energies, vol. 13, no.
11, p. 2787, 2020.
[11] L. S. M. Guedes, P. de Mendonça Maia, A. C. Lisboa, D. A. G. Vieira
and R. R. Saldanha, ”A Unit Commitment Algorithm and a Compact
MILP Model for Short-Term Hydro-Power Generation Scheduling,” in
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 3381-3390,
Sept. 2017, doi: 10.1109/TPWRS.2016.2641390.
[12] E. Benedikt Hreinsson, ”Long term hydro scheduling with short term
load duration and linear transmission constraints,” 2016 51st Interna-
tional Universities Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), Coimbra,
2016, pp. 1-8.
[13] O. B. Fosso and M. M. Belsnes, ”Short-term hydro scheduling in a
liberalized power system,” 2004 International Conference on Power
System Technology, 2004. PowerCon 2004., Singapore, 2004, pp. 1321-
1326 Vol.2, doi: 10.1109/ICPST.2004.1460206.
[14] Y. Vardanyan, M. Amelin, and M. Hesamzadeh, “Short-term hydropower
planning with uncertain wind power production,” in 2013 IEEE Power
Energy Society General Meeting, 2013.
[15] Y. Vardanyan and M. Amelin, “The state-of-the-art of the short term
hydro power planning with large amount of wind power in the system,”
in 2011 8th International Conference on the European Energy Market
(EEM), 2011.
[16] A. Joshi and R. Lakhanpal, Learning Julia: Build high-performance
applications for scientific computing. Birmingham, England: Packt Pub-
lishing, 2017.

Authorized licensed use limited to: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 11,2021 at 06:37:30 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.