Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

Pakistan’s electrical energy crises, a way forward towards 50% of sustain

clean and green electricity generation
Jinsong Tao *, Muhammad Waqas, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Umair, Wangwei Gan,
Hussain Haider
School of Electrical Engineering, Wuhan University, Luojiashan, Wuchang, Wuhan, Hubei Province, 430072, China

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

Keywords: Electrical sustainability is a foundation for urbanization and industrialization. Over the past three decades,
Electricity demand factors Pakistan has been convulsed by electricity shortages that at times have reached over 10–15% of total demand;
ANN Therefore, we initiated an effort to explore and understand recurrent energy crises using ANN, Stochastic Time
Forecasting techniques
Series (STS), and regression forecasting techniques. In order to determine electricity-influencing factors, the
Pakistan’S future power system
assumptions were analyzed using multiple (weather and time, seasonal and economic factors) factors, for the
short, medium, and long terms respectively finding that Pakistan’s power system will likely demand 192.64 TWh,
346.31 TWh, 600.08 TWh, and 2299.59 TWh of electricity by 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2050 respectively. Addi­
tionally, we explored economic indicators to develop a comprehensive electricity generation plan using the Long-
Term Alternative Energy Modeling Tool (LEAP) under diverse (Current Government Policy (CGP), Renewable
Energy Generation (REG) and Green, Clean, and Sustainable (GCS)) electricity generation scenarios. Among
these scenarios, we conclude that the GCS scenario will enable Pakistan’s power system to generate 50% of its
electricity using sustainable, clean, and green energy technologies, thus ensuring power and economic sustain­
ability in Pakistan.

1. Introduction including ineffective power polices, heavy T&D losses, mismanagement

Forecasting electricity demand has a strategic significance. Accurate
forecasting helps ensure the sustained socioeconomic growth of a
country [1]. The need for energy drives authorities to explore new en­
ergy resources as well as to expand the transmission and distribution
(T&D) system. Economic growth and electricity consumption show a
linear relationship, which necessitate policies to effectively meet
forthcoming challenges [2]. Comprehensive generation plans and power
policies have been introduced in Pakistan however; they have been
unsuccessful or unimplemented, giving birth to recurrent energy crises
[3], threatening Pakistan’s economic and security situation with dele­
terious effects on human development.
Pakistan is facing serious energy shortfalls. Extensive economic
growth has stimulated electricity consumption across all economic
sectors [12]. Electricity generation in 2020 stood at 22 GW against 25
GW peak demands [4]; however, the actual peak demand ratio is
widening annually. As a result, the entire country endures blackouts for
3–4 h a day. Electrical shortages are likely caused by multiple factors
of indigenous resources, and continues use of obsolete thermal power
plants that burn costly imported fossil fuels [5,6]. The electricity
shortages have cut GDP growth by 4%, causing shutdowns in hundreds
of manufacturing plants, and a decline in agricultural productivity [7,8],
compromising the economic security of the country through fluctuations
in GDP, devaluations of the currency, and increases in the unemploy­
ment rate. About 25% of the population is not electrified, while those
who have electricity are paying heavy bills [9]. The Pakistani govern­
ment understands the situation and has developed policies to increase
energy production, but with mixed success.
There are many policies which have been set up to solve the problem
of electricity shortages. The Government of Pakistan (GOP) introduced
energy polices [13] that incorporate mixed energy technologies relying
on indigenous resources to reduce foreign fossil fuel imports. These
polices however, were not fully implemented resulting in electricity
shortfalls [14–17]. The under-performance of the Pakistan Power Sector
(PPS) is related to power policies, mismanagement of indigenous re­
sources, continued usage of obsolete thermal power plants, and burning

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jamson_tao@163.com (J. Tao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100813
Received 24 March 2019; Received in revised form 21 November 2021; Accepted 17 January 2022
Available online 4 February 2022
2211-467X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Tao et al.
costly imported fossil fuels [10,11]. The prime reason behind this failure
was that these polices were organized without ground truth and stan­
dard modeling tools [18].
Efforts have been made by academic researchers to predict national
electricity demand and socioeconomic polices using standard modeling
tools. Electricity demand was projected using GDP and population [19]
as independent variables with the Long-Term Alternative Energy
Modeling Tool [LEAP]. Rehman S et al. [20] considered only GDP as
influencing factor, and ref [18,21,22] created dissimilar scenarios to
forecast electricity demand using GDP, electricity consumer and popu­
lation as predictor, the LEAP model was one of the latest prediction
models applied. Although LEAP has ability to predict electricity with
multiple scenarios, but there is no alternative means to test the signifi­
cance level and correlation magnitude of predictors.
Three periods of demand were predicted and calculated by LEAP in
our research. An array of modeling algorithms have been used to
develop electricity forecasting scenarios for Short-Term Electricity De­
mand (STED) 24-h [23–26], Medium-Term Electricity Demand (MTED)
for one week [27–31] and Long-Term Electricity Demand (LTED) [29,
32–35]. Time series can predict hourly and weekly electricity demand
[35] using Artificial Neural Network (ANN) to analyze long-term fore­
cast results. STED forecasts predict electricity over the periods for one
day or few hours. MTED used to make forecast over the one-week or
month that measure data in time periods. However, LTED applied for
long time such as 10 or more years [29]. Hence, to predict these time
ranges first step needs to determine what are the factors are involved or
apply on these ranges. To determine the nature of different factors, as­
sumptions were made that weather and time factors have an impact on
electric load for short-term (24-h), seasonal factors for medium-term
(more than 7 days) and economic factors for long-term (more than 5
years). So, using the natural influence of these factors on electricity
utilization, the best forecast can be made [28,35]. Therefore, analysis
was done in MATLAB by taking possible electricity influencing in­
dicators. These indicators were analyzed in regression and in ANN al­
gorithm that made STED, MTED, and LTED. Moreover, economic
indicators were carried to develop a comprehensive electricity genera­
tion plan using LEAP tool. The Electricity generation plans were fore­
casted under three scenarios, the Current Government Policy (CGP),
Renewable Energy Generation (REG) and Green, Clean and Sustain
(GCS). Hence, these generation plans were furthers analyzed to meet
future electricity demand.
Projection of energy demand for a country has significance when
tackling future development challenges and managing indigenous re­
sources. The planning and management system however, has not
appropriately supported economic growth or the rising living standard
of inhabitants of Pakistan [35]. Fewer academic studies have referenced
the PPS. Among foremost studies the LEAP model has forecast future PPS
demand as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows four model has been used in the history forecast in 6
references. Factors such as Demand, GDP, Population, Consumers and
Capita were used as the known conditions in prediction process. Aca­
demic studies have projected electricity demand for the duration 2008
to 2050, utilized fewer influencing variables that might have impact on
the projected vales. The studies have used the LEAP model. The model
has a robust capability to guesstimate future demands. The reliability of
Table 1
History of forecast model for PPS.
Study Ref Projection Model Study Year TWh Demand Variable GDP
[20] LEAP 2011–30 312 YES
[21] LEAP 2014–35 172 YES
[22] LEAP 2014–35 303.7 YES
[23] LEAP 2008–30 368 YES
[18] LEAP 2015–50 1706.1 YES
LTED ANN, MLR 2017–50 2297.5 YES
2
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
any model always depends on significance level of influencing variables
[36], but the LEAP model has no means to measure the statistical sig­
nificance of predictors. Therefore, current research chose multiple
models to predict electricity selecting maximum influencing factors.
The more factors included in the model, the more accurate the pre­
dicted results. The rest of this article is organized as follows: section 2
discusses various factors that impede the power system and describes
historical (1990–2017) trend. Section 3 and section 4 give the meth­
odologies and model setup, section 5 forecast results and discussion,
section 6 discusses energy resources, developments, future electricity
generation plans and established the supply side management up to
2050 based on indigenous resources. Finally, the conclusions are pre­
sented in sections 7.
2. Chaos in power system
Pakistan’s population is rising at an average 1.93% rate yearly thus
mounting electricity demand, with a total 26.12 million registered
electricity consumers in 2020 [4]. Meanwhile, a recent National
Transmission and Distribution Company (NTDC) reports highlighted
that the Pakistan power system demanded 25 GWh of electricity in hot
summer days, but the system only able to deliver 22 GWh, which showed
3 GWh of shortfall [4]. However, overall electricity shortfall in 2006 was
only 0.9 GWh, but due to various factors, the GDP was unable to meet
the growing demand until recent year.
From the period 2004–2017, Pakistan’s total installed capacity was
slightly higher than total electricity generation and demand. However,
with greater capacity, PPS never able to meet total electricity demand of
Pakistan. A minor shortfall was evidenced during the period 2004 to
2006, however this trend shattered after 2006 and electricity demand
increased with the rate of 8–9% annually that showed massive shortfall
about 5–8 GW during the period 2007 to 2011. Moreover, the GOP made
some effort to minimize this trend but it never been achieved until now.
The capacity reached to 32 GW but power system was only able to
generate 19.02 GW of electricity against the demand of 24 GW that
clearly left five GW of shortfall during the peak load. Despite the fact
that electricity demand showed higher tendency since 1990 but due to
the lack of proper planning and ignorance of indigenous resources total
electricity demand never been achieved.
Strategic planning is a primary requirement to ensure sustained so­
cioeconomic growth [1]. Where, energy polices direct the attention of
authorities to explore new energy resources and expand the T&D system
to beat future challenges. Hence, prediction of electricity demand should
be accurate process in the support of future strategic power policies.
Moreover, prediction of electric load for an individual facility in a large
network could be complex process since, there are plenty of factors are
involved. Therefore, it is appropriate; these individual utilities load
pattern should merge in one large facility, which make feasible to pre­
dict load pattern statistically [30]. A plenty of factors are involved that
are known to contain influence on actual load pattern that should be
define while planning future electricity demand.
2.1. Economic factors
Economic factors are the combination of economic, urbanization,
Variable Population Variable Consumers Variable Capita/KWh
YES NO NO
NO NO NO
YES NO NO
YES YES NO
YES YES NO
YES YES YES
J. Tao et al.
industrialization and other developments that consume electricity and
create wealth for a country. However, these developments take a long
time to come online hence, also contains influence on electric load for
after a long period [30,36]. The historical electricity consumption and
economic factors trends of Pakistan are shown in Fig. 1. Illustrating to
figure the economic growth, electricity consumption and generation
capacity development trend explained the trend how these measures are
correlated with each-other. At the time GDP was growing at the rate of
5% annually and amounted for 52 billion US$ however, the domestic
consumption was lower.
Although, this trend supports Pakistan’s economy today nevertheless
it is not sustainable for the long-term. In 1995, the population of
Pakistan will increase with an average growth rate of 2.8% annually.
PPS did not have enough capability to meet that demand. This resulted
in electricity crises as the increase in population growth was accompa­
nied by reverse growth rate in the GDP that remained unstable until
2001. However, GOP announced energy generation polices in 1994 and
1995 that brought rapid development in imported thermal fossil fuel
technologies to support GDP and human development. At the time, GDP
growth recorded 6.5% average for four consecutive years and increase
Per Capita Electricity Consumption PCEC/KWh to highest level. Hence,
electricity demand rose to 8–9% annually. In the mean time, very low
development was evidenced in power system after 2005, resulting in
huge electricity crises reached to 4 GW in 2008. Hence, these crises
continued until 2017 resulting in fluctuations in GDP growth rate and
the PCEC/KWh. Although, fewer power polices were introduced, they
have not managed electricity crises resulting in periodic blackouts.
2.2. Seasonal variations in electricity consumption
Electricity consumption is the main source to productivity but it
varies periodically such as seasonal (summer & winter), holidays
(weekends and public holidays) and weekly cycles [30]. The seasonal
factors influence load pattern with increase or decrease in temperature
where electricity consumes for cooling or heating system. Normal
working days and weekends influence the total load with the increase
(peak hours) or decrease of work load and also same pattern for public
holidays. Summer and winter weekly daily electricity consumption and
temperature profile is shown in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 2(b) for summer and
Fig. 1. Historical Trend for economic factors [4].
3
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
winter 4-weeks respectively. Weekly-daily electricity consumption cycle
changes over the time and by day. During summer load increase with
temperature hikes normally reached a 37 OC average during the day
time resulting in high cooling load costs. Meantime, the electric load
also remains higher during the working hours gradually dropping until
mid-night. A similar pattern of variations in increase and decrease in
temperature occurred during the four weeks of winter in December 2016
in Fig. 2(b).
During winter season the load pattern shows quite opposite to
summer load profile and it seems not constant but the total load increase
to 15520 MW when the temperature lows-down to 10 ◦ C. Winter season
load pattern and temperature profile shows probability to make negative
correlation, where any changes in temperature showed variation in
electric load. However, it is notable that normal working days and
weekends load profile is different because most of the load consumed in
services sectors are reduced in non-working day. Thus, these factors
might contain influence on electric load over time such as seasonal
summer and winter, weekends or other public holidays.
2.3. Weather and electricity consumption
Weather factor contains wide influence on the STED profile [23,29,
31]. Where weather-sensitive loads, including air conditioning, heating
and cooling load contains huge impact on load pattern in electricity
distribution levels power system. As distribution level facilities are
working with small loads any changes in whether parameters can make
huge difference in load pattern and can caused in overloading of system.
It can commonly evidence in PPS distribution utilities because changes
in weather caused increased in load diversity such as summer temper­
ature. Hence the effect of this increase disturbs daily cycle load and
damped electricity profile of power system. Despite the effects of tem­
perature, there are other factors are also influence electricity profile
such as humidity, wind speed, barometric pressure and precipitation.
Explaining to precipitation, it reveals the nature to reduce the at­
mospheric temperature, in the result it reduces cooling load in summer
[29]. High Humidity generates moisture in the air thus it increases the
load of cooling system to access this moisture and decrease it. Wind
speed and air pressure also have influence in actual load and these
natural factors often increase or decrease with the precipitation. To
J. Tao et al.
Fig. 2. Electric Load profile of the PPS.
explain these facts winter 1-week weather factors are shown in Fig. 3 for
PPS.
Illustrating to figure weather factors (precipitation, humidity, wind
speed and air-pressure) can explain the variation and variance over
electricity consumption of PPS for December-2016 week. Weather fac­
tors air pressure and humidity showed a negative relationship however,
precipitation and wind speed show some variation over time with
electricity that might have positive relation. The same profile is shown
in Fig. 4 for July-2017 week.
Depicting to figure weather factors (precipitation, humidity, wind
speed and air-pressure) explains the variation and variance over elec­
tricity consumption for PPS for July-2017 week. Considering weather
factors, air pressure and humidity showed negative relationship with
electricity consumption however, precipitation and wind speed show
some variation over time that might have positive relation with elec­
tricity. Thus, these variables influence on electricity and might need to
be included when forecasting electricity for short-term.
4
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
3. Data and methodology
3.1. Economic variables and long-term electricity demand
The electricity supply including consumption by sectors has been
tracked since 1990s, as shown in Table 2. During the 1990s, the total
electricity demand was only 31.02 TWh; the industrial sector consumed
35.6%, and led all of the economic sectors in electricity use. However,
this lead was not retained for long as industrial consumption declined
until 2017, when industrial consumption represented 24.05% of the
total use. Hence, domestic electricity supply increased from 1991 to
2017, rising from 40.9% in 1995 to 48.24% in 2017. Thus, domestic
electricity consumption increased with the number of consumers in the
domestic sector.
The increase in electricity demand was likely related to a sudden
growth in population averaging about 2.3% per year, starting in 1990, if
the historic average growth (5.41%) in the domestic sector electricity
demand follows the trend evident since 1995, then electricity
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Fig. 3. Weather factors for winter week of December 2016 (a) Electrical load and air pressure, (b) Electrical load and humidity, (c) Electrical load and precipitation,
(d) Electrical load and wind speed.

Fig. 4. Weather factor for the week of July 2017 (a) Electrical load and air pressure, (b) Electrical load and humidity, (c) Electrical load and precipitation, (d)
Electrical load and wind speed.

consumption will likely reach to 55 TWh in 2020. Nevertheless, 50
million Pakistanis are not electrified. The increase in population influ­
enced electricity distribution; enlarge the number consumers in do­
mestic and commercial sector over the period 1990–2017, as shown in
Table 3.
As shown, the average growth trend of electricity consumers in the
industrial and agriculture sectors rose from 1990 to 2005. These two
sectors make a huge contribution to GDP, and have influenced actual
economic growth. Domestic electricity consumers remained stable and
domestic consumers led all sectors until 2017. Increase in the number of
electricity consumers indicating huge industrialization and urbaniza­
tion, creating wealth for country and improving the living standard of
inhabitants.
The shortfall of electricity and extensive population growth have
birthed economic challenges in the country, influenced living standards
and increasing the number of electricity consumers as shown in Table 4,
showing GDP, population, electricity consumers, PCEC and demand
from 1990 to 2017.
Depicting to the table, electricity demand was higher (40.25 TWh) in
1995 than 1990 (31.02 TWh). Growth in GDP (5.9%) was also higher in

5
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Table 2 to perform non-linear, linear, multivariate analysis for the sample of

Historical (1990–2017) electricity consumers in percentage. data. Hence, it is strong modeling technique to perform non-linear
Year Domestic Industrial Agriculture Commercial other analysis or linear [41–43]. It has efficient performance to provide a
statically best fit line of the model [44]. However, it uses neuron to
1990 33 35.6 19.9 6.6 6.9
1995 40.9 29.1 18.22 5.2 15.5 process input data and produce an output of the sample data.
2000 46.9 29.5 10.1 5.7 7.7 The neuron contains Xn multiple numeric samples and a constant 1.
2005 44.89 30.36 11.42 6.67 6.36 Each Xn explained in individual weight wi and 1 explained in θ or bias.
2010 45.72 26.89 13.17 7.55 7.33 These both inputs are programmed in neuron to activate non-linear
2015 44.84 27.71 8.91 7.26 11.28
2017 48.24 24.05 9.26 7.8 10.65
function of ANN, where the output of the activated function is output
of neuron of ANN. The most famous activation function for linear ANN
model explains as y = x, or such logistic function y = 1/(1 +e− x ) [44,
45]. Meanwhile, the structure of ANNs can vary with model population
Table 3
or samples but most popular and this research adopted is multilayer
Historical (1990–2017) electricity consumers in percentage (%).
perceptron (MLP).
Year Domestic Industrial Agriculture Commercial other The neuron of ANN model contains two layers and inner layer; these
1990 6.35 1.01 0.168 0.149 0.005 neurons can exchange the samples data but actually are configured
1995 8.14 1.65 0.181 0.165 0.007 separately. But the ANN feed-forwards network configuration is
2000 10.39 2.00 0.18 0.18 0.008
different from the normal network because it is configured as output of
2005 12.61 2.11 0.23 0.22 0.009
2010 16.67 2.36 0.26 0.27 0.013 one neuron layer is assembled to output of the next layer [46]. Mainly,
2015 20.15 2.72 0.32 0.32 0.015 individual neuron layer is appropriate for any constant function [41].
2017 21.99 2.91 0.34 0.32 0.017 But in the case if the structure of model or data set is different than ANN
can have more than one output layer. If the ANN hidden layers and
neurons trigger algorithm is logistic; and if the output neuron layers are
1990 than in 2000 (4.26%) however, it fluctuated over the period
linear function, then it can be expressed as equation [39];
1990–2017, peaking at 7.66% in 2005, with per capita electricity con­
(
sumption rising to 385 KWh in 2005. The rapid economic growth and ∑3 1
other economic indicators has heightened the electricity demand. Due to yk = j=1
ukj × ( ∑4 )+Θ (10a)
1 + exp − i=1 wji xi + Θj
lack of power polices the extensive power shortfall birthed the multiple
challenges in the country. Moreover, these challenges started in early Weights w and biases of the model are explained through the pro­
time, the authority’s negligence, lack of supportive forecasting tools and gramming of training function that helps to minus the loss function. The
ineffective polices damaged the country power system that stopped program to minus the error, is commonly based on widrow-hoff error
economic growth. correction standard, where the dissimilarity between output and target
value determine the error signal is learning algorithm mainly called
3.2. Seasonal, weather, and time factors back-propagation [47,48]. Since the w and biases in ANN model are
defined to normalize the error signals, if the ANN contains many hidden
Seasonal, weather and time factors already discussed in section 3 layer these weights and Θ layers can be a complex calculation. Thus, to
however, to emphasize the variance of these factors over electrical load; solve this complexity the generalized delta rule can be second-hand
data was collected for two different seasons such as summer (July 2017) [49]. Hence, this process continues until error from signal reduce to
and winter (December 2016). Analyzing the nature of these factors the an accepted value, this training structure permits us to generate the
assumption was made that weather factors affect electric load for 24-h correlation between samples and predictors and save this data in
and seasonal and time factors for one week or more than one week. memory that can be access for future forecasting and further process it
Moreover, a number of hidden factors are known as influencing without retraining of model.
factors of electricity demand but few contains high variance and other The ANN model for the electricity demand projection can be train
hidden factors are called random factors. These factors cannot be according to the periodic samples such as weather data, weekly data or
interpreted while data representation but they can appear in forecast monthly data [31]. Hence, if once network read the concept of our
trend as residuals or random variables. This study will cover all factors training then it can continuous to work on data which we suppose to
those who are known or unknown. These factors can be explained in provide. Then the output of the model can be used to explain error on
final trend line. forecast through comparing this data with actual demand.
Errors in output are known as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) [27,
31] and mainly it is also called Mean Absolute Present Error (MAPE)
3.3. Artificial Neural Network [12,31,50] that can be formalize as;
√̅̅̅ N
ANN is an artificial mathematical tool that read the creative process 1 ∑
RMSE = * y t )2
(Yt − ̂
of the data and acts on data as human brain. ANN model was firstly 2 t=1
utilized for demand forecasting in 1980s [41]. By then it has been used

Table 4
Electricity demand and economic indicators.
Year GDP Billion $ Growth (%) Population million Growth (%) Consumers Million PCEC KWh Demand TWh

1990 52.43 5.9 107.60 3.1 7.67 296 31.02

1995 79.45 4.96 122.80 2.53 10.14 359 40.25
2000 79.71 4.26 138.50 2.3 12.76 370 47.91
2005 118.48 7.66 153.20 2.0 15.73 385 63.23
2010 177.17 1.60 170.00 2.1 19.60 430 77.41
2015 270.56 4.72 191.30 1.96 23.50 457 85.16
2017 303.99 5.70 199.70 1.89 25.60 501 99.61

*Source-NTDC and NEPRA annually reports, Pakistan economic surveys

6
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

N ( ) linear and non-linear models and simulations [27]. Daily 24-h electricity
1 ∑ Yt − ̂yt
MAPE = * * 100 consumption and other weather data for July 2017 and for December
n t=1 Yt
2016 were loaded and used to estimate the STED and MTED. The data
collected for LTED forecasting was imported separately. The variables
where N = number of samples, ̂ y t = forecasted electricity demand with for training the forecasting models are shown in Table 5.
in time t and Yt = actual electricity demand with in time t. In Table 5, the lag day variables showing how the predicted values
for a current day are correlated to the previous days. The weeks, days,
3.4. Long-term energy alternative planning and hours list the codes for the days of the week and hours used in the
ANN. The last column indicates the units of the data used as input. In
LEAP is an energy accounting-modeling tool that use future demands order to predict the STED, MTED and LTED, two methods were applied.
indicators to plan energy generation over-long periods. Additionally, it Both make 24-h predictions and are based on the Multiple Linear
provides wide platform to explain total indigenous energy resources and Regression (MLR) method combined with ANN processing. Method one
their development under dissimilar scenarios [51,52]. Although many will perform 24-h of electricity demand forecast, the Mean Absolute
studies have sited previously using LEAP model for forecasting elec­ Percentage Error (MAPE) will be reduced to an acceptable level if the
tricity demand but LEAP have no means to evaluate the variance of ANN testing step minimized the MAPE. Subsequently, each-iteration of
demand indicators causing variations in future trend [19–21]. Hence, network will minimize the error and newly trained ANN substitutes the
this research utilized other means to forecast electricity demand and previous saved data thus, this process continues until the error is mini­
carried identified electricity economic indicators to plan future elec­ mized. Method two will forecast 24-h electricity demand; the MAPE will
tricity generation plan in LEAP model. The basic of LEAP structure for be reduced if the previous day MAPE forecast was reduced by the ANN
Electricity Consumption (EC) calculation in LEAP can be track through during step training. As the current electricity demand is correlated to
following equation. the electrical consumption of the previous day, an accurate forecast can
∑∑ be made by calculating the MAPE, based on the correlation analysis
EC = Ali,j × EIi,j (11)
i j
using a multiple linear regression (MLR) model.
The MLR method fits a linear regression trend to the appropriate the
The term Al is activity level, EI is energy intensity, and i, j refers to values of its function [22]. The best fit line and thus predicts future
consumption by sector and number of consumers. Thus, LEAP model consumption from the slope of the line [37]. A linear regression can be
takes all inputs to plan electricity generation according to explained expressed as,
scenarios.
y = ao + a1 x + a (1)
4. Input data and forecasting model
where, y is a response variable and x is a predictor variable and a0 and a1
are model coefficients from the regression analysis. However, a repre­
In order to truly reflect the power situation in Pakistan and author­
sents the error/residuals, used to measure the difference between the
itative data was collected for two different seasons, winter in 2016 and
actual and predicted values. If the predicted values contain residuals,
summer in 2017. In the meantime, the forecasting method is based on
they may fall off the regression line but if there are n or more observa­
the software of MATLAB 2015b which was used to predict electrical
tions greater than one then, the sum of the squares of the line is;
production and consumption for the PPS service area. This section also
∑
present prediction method for the STED, MTED and LTED forecast and S(Sum) = a2 (2)
get the result as well.
∑
= (yi − ao − ai xi )2 (3)
4.1. Data collection
To minimize the error in square of the sum of the squares in equation
The PPS has a number of Distribution Companies (DISCOs). The data (3) then the coefficients for ao , a1 in the equation must be equal to zero,
for all DISCOSs was downloaded from the official sites of the National hence;
Energy and Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and the NTDC [53, ∑
δs
54]. Weather data was collected the Pakistan Meteorological Depart­ =− 2 (yi − ao − ai xi ) = 0 (4)
δao
ment (PMD) which is the authority responsible for weather updates
[55]. The average temperature, precipitation, humidity, air pressure and Then for example, when;
wind speed data were organized for four weeks in December 2016 and ∑ ∑
nδao ai xi = yi (5)
July 2017, to match the aggregate electricity consumption data of entire
PPS for the same periods. The short-term electricity demand (STED), ∑
δs
Medium-term electricity demand (MTED) and Long-term electricity =− xi (yi − ao − ai xi ) = 0
δai
demand (LTED) forecasting results are based on this data.
The seasonal data was compiled for the four weeks of July 2017 and
December 2016 and sufficient for calculating the MTED. LTED fore­ Table 5
casting however, requires additional economic, demographic, and Training variables for the STED, MTED and LTED Models.
electrical consumption data. These data were the GDP, PCEC, popula­ Lag Day variables Week Days and hours Units
tion, and electricity consumer counts [56], covering the entire
Forecast day y (t) Monday (1) Electricity Consumption (TWh)
1990–2017 period. The GDP and population growth data were taken 1 day-lag y (t-1) Tuesday (2) ECPC (KWh)
from GOP annual surveys. Electricity consumption, electricity consumer 2 days-lag y (t-2) Wednesday (3) electricity consumers in (Million)
counts, and PCEC data were downloaded from NTDC [53], NEPRA [54], 3 days-lag y (t-3) Thursday (4) GDP in billion US$
and an academic study [25]. These data were analyzed using a combi­ 4 days-lag y (t-4) Friday (5) Population in (million)
5 days-lag y (t-5) Saturday (6) Electric Load (MW)
nation of ANN and Regression methodologies.
Sunday (7) Temperature in (OC)
Hours of the week (1–168) Humidity (%)
4.2. Forecasting model training Hours of the day (1-24) Precipitation (mm)
Wind speed (m/s)
Air-pressure (mbar)
The MATLAB ANN toolbox provides functions to build and validate

7
J. Tao et al.
So, the solution is;
∑ ∑ ∑ As shown in Fig. 5, during the summer season electricity demand is
nao xi + ai x2i = xi yi (6)
If we have n variables more than the solution of equation (5) then
equation (6) can be written as follows;
y = a0 + a1 x1 + …… + an xn (7)
In the MLR model, electricity consumption is an explanatory vari­
able, but weather, time, economic or other non-weather variables might
be factors as these variables are known to have some influence on
electricity demand [27,28,30]. Additionally, these variables were used
in regression analysis to make future forecasts [38–40]. The MLR model
over time is expressed as in the following equation.
y(t) = a0 + a1 x1 (t) + ⋯ + an xn (t) + a(t) (8)
where, a0 a1 x1 are the coefficients of regression; x(t) are the independent
variables, a(t) is a random factor and y(t) is the electricity demand.
To make the LTED forecast, the MLR equation (8) was utilized to
perform regression analysis. However, the ANN was trained to calculate
and minimize MAPE from the forecast. To check the significance level of
regression coefficients, hypothesis testing was done through setting
constraints.
Hypothesis testing is always about population of model that indicates
the decision on the base of sample data whether to reject or accept based
on assumed restriction in the regression model. The restrictions are
known as Null or H0 and alternative Hα hypothesis.
H0 = a0 = a1 = a2 = a3 = a4 = 0 (9)
Ha = a0 = a1 = a2 = a3 = a4 ∕
=0 (10b)
where, a0 = a1 = a2 = a3 = a4 are the coefficients of model and α alpha
is the critical value. The value α always defines the variance in the
population and confidence level of the model. The value of α differen­
tiates the test values if it stands true with equation (9) than we are able
to reject the variable because we cannot find the compatible relationship
between predictor and demand variable. If the statement of Hα or
equation (10) stands positive, then we are able to accept this variable in
the model because we can find a correlation between the variables in our
model. Now, the determination of ‘‘α’’ is totally based on confidence
level of the model. If the confidence level is 99% then α = 0.01, if the
confidence level is 95% then to test the statistically significance of a0 =
a1 = a2 = a3 = a4 values ‘‘α’’ used to compare the slopes, coefficient
probability values, or the P-Values of the independent variables. To test
for significance, a right tailed test was used. If the relation between α and
p-values is ‘‘P-value ≤ α’’ then it is quite rational to accept at least one of
the slopes is not equal to zero so, we accept Hα and can say the variables
have a statistically significant relationship with dependent variable. If
the P-value ＞ α; then, we do not reject H0.
Utilizing MLR and ANN MATLAB toolbox the LTED demand forecast
was calculated for the year 2017–2050 and the STED and MTED was
performed in ANN that minimized the MAPE error and provided next
day for (24- hour and for 7 days) forecast for seasonal, holidays, and
normal working days. The results are discussed in next section.
4.3. Forecast results
This section encompasses the STED and MTED forecast results. The
STED forecast is limited for the duration for 24-h, MTED forecast for 1-
week.
4.3.1. Correlation analysis
Correlation matrices can visualize weather, seasonal and economic
factors influencing electrical demand. Using correlation coefficient, we
will able to determine the influence interval of predictors on indepen­
dent variable. The correlation matrix for summer weekdays is shown in
8
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
Fig. 5.
affected by temperature, any incremental increase in temperature
increased the demand for electricity. Hence temperature showed a
positive correlation to electricity consumption than other factors. Hu­
midity, precipitation, and air pressure showed negative correlation to
electricity. Since these factors are somehow attached with each-other
but only temperature and wind have positive relation, thus these two
factors also can be considered as influencing factors. To investigate the
effects of these variables on winter season a correlation matrix is shown
in Fig. 6.
During the winter season the correlation matrix showed minimum
correlation with electricity demand that is close to zero, Fig. 6. Only
humidity showed a positive relation. Globally temperature and elec­
tricity are negative correlated in winter but PPS profile is different
because most of electrified region temperature is normally stable even if
it slopes down, electricity consumption remains usual for winter. Due to
high shortfall in electricity (10–12 h) most of population used other
energy resources for heating process (natural gas or open fires) so the
electricity profile shows a very minor relation with temperature. Hence,
from these factors for summer and winter none of factors was qualified
to forecast electricity so our model used lagged-day or previous day
electricity consumption data to forecast electricity for STED and MTED
for PPS. The correlation matrix results are shown in Table 6.
As depicted, summer season correlation matrix showed the high
correlation between y (t) and y (t-1)-y (t-5) but it decreases with the day
lags to previous day and correlation coefficients reached to 0.71 and
0.73 for y (t-5) during the different dates. However, this trend was
higher for winter lag-day correlation since the influencing factors in­
crease or decrease daily and influence electricity demand. So, two
different weeks has the different correlation coefficients.
The weather factors correlation coefficients were also determined for
different dates of summer and winter month of 2016 and 2017. The
results showed that the coefficient for electricity demand in summer
remained 0.73 and 0.78 for the two different weeks. The trend for winter
temperature was negatively correlated to electricity demand. The co­
efficient for electricity demand and temperature in winter were − 0.45
and − 0.34 for the two different weeks of December 2016.
Air-pressure for summer and winter both 2016 and 2017 showed
negative magnitude against y(t). Wind speed is positively correlated in
summer month because in high temperature in summer the wind are
caused of heat stroke so it has linear relation with electricity demand
where the correlation coefficient remained 0.46 and 0.31 for the month
of July 2017. In winter, the correlation coefficient of electricity demand
and wind remained close to zero but nonetheless it showed 0.02 and
− 0.01 for two different weeks of December 2016.
The correlation between humidity and y (t) remained negative for
the summer months but it showed positive correlation coefficient for
winter. Humidity contained negative correlation in summer but in
winter it has both positive and negative relationship with electricity
demand. These variables are correlated with electricity and showed
substantive influence on y (t) so using the lag-days data set an electricity
forecast was made for two seasons for 24-h and one week.
4.3.2. Demand forecast
The results for 24-hurs ahead load forecast for STED and MTED are
shown in Fig. 7 for different days of summer and winter. Fig. 7(a) shows
the actual and forecasted demand for Thursday 19/12/2016. As a
normal working day, the electricity demand decreased from 1 Am
(11219 MW) to 4 a.m. in the morning, after morning prayer the demand
started to increase due to the heating and lighting loads of mosques that
continued until normal working time. However, demand started to
decrease from peak demand (14576 MW) at 4–5 PM to 11650 at
midnight.
Electricity demand on non-working day in winter (Fig. 7 (b)) has the
same tendency but peak demand only increased to 12665 MW at 10 a.m.
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Fig. 5. Summer (04/7/2017) week correlation matrix.

Fig. 6. Winter (16/12/2016) week correlation matrix.

9
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Table 6 winter weeks.

Correlation matrix results. As illustrated by Fig. 8, the summer week demand forecast showed a
Predictors 10/07/2017 24/07/2017 12/12/2016 26/12/2016 similar pattern as the 24-h forecast, the highest demand reached above
23500 MW while the lowest demand occurred during weekends about
Y (t-1) 0.96 0.97 0.94 0.96
Y (t-2) 0.90 0.89 0.93 0.91 17550 MW. However, during the week precipitation was recorded for 4
Y (t-3) 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.89 mm on the 4th day of the week that lower temperature and subsequently
Y (t-4) 0.83 0.78 0.85 0.83 electricity demand that further decreased in weekend. However, winter
Y (t-5) 0.71 0.73 0.80 0.77 season in Fig. 9 electricity trend was been disturbed due to rainy
Humidity − 0.46 − 0.37 0.22 0.29
Precipitation − 0.10 − 0.21 0.02 − 0.09
weather and temperature lows down hence, it cost more electricity and
Temperature 0.73 0.78 − 0.45 − 0.34 fluctuated trend was forecast. The winter week highest demand reached
Wind 0.46 0.31 0.02 − 0.01 up to 15000 MW on the 5th day of the week that lows down in weekend
Air-pressure − 0.45 − 0.52 − 0.14 − 0.06 to 11000 MW. The difference between actual and forested demand is
shown in the form of minimum MAPE that is also varied over time.
However, the load pattern of winter week is not smoother than summer
then it starts decreasing at 18 p.m. The MAPE showed the difference
because it contained number of peaks that also fluctuated in weekends
between actual and forecasted demand. The demand showed in Fig. 7 (c)
load.
for 4th July 2017 is normal working day, where the actual peak demand
reached to 23 GW due to high temperature commonly recorded at 38–39
O 4.3.3. LTED forecast
C average at noon. However, electricity demands decreased with the
The Pearson correlation algorithm was used to explore the influ­
decrease in temperature which reached 19000 MW at mid night. The
encing magnitude of economic factors (GDP, ECPC, population and
minimized MAPE are showed the highest difference at peak load 1.08%.
electricity-consumers) on electricity consumption. Moreover, these
Loading profile for Sunday (non-working day) summer (Fig. 7 (d))
factors are closely related to the extensive development of the country
showed normally distributed forecast when the temperature increase it
such as urbanization, industrialization and rapid economic growth.
showed positive relationship. It starts declining from peak time 20,564
Therefore, the correlation magnitude of GDP (0.92), electricity con­
MW at 12 a.m. and reached to 17440 MW at night. Although, the de­
sumers (0.99), PCEC (0.93), and population (0.98) were significantly
mand forecast was made based on the previous day demand, so it in­
agreed to our assumption and hence, these variables were used in MLR
volves many factors such as, in summer and winter mosque scheduling
analysis with 95% confidence.
for prayer five times a day it cost high electricity during the prayer time
MLR determines the strength of the relationship between all the
due to temperature difference so often variation can be found in load
variables was known to have influenced on y (t) was selected through
sudden increase and decrease are the causes of many hidden factors that
Pearson correlation matrix for the regression model as in equation (8).
contains less correlation with electricity demand but still exist. MTED
Where, a0. a1 ….a are the coefficient of model, pursues to be weighed
forecast was made for a week through analyzing previous week elec­
according to the reflection of model samples. Normally, coefficients
tricity demand data that is shown in Figs. 13 and 14 for summer and

Fig. 7. 24-hours or STED electricity forecast (a) winter working day electricity forecast and MAPE (b) winter non-working day electricity forecast and MAPE (c)
summer working day electricity forecast and MAPE (d) summer non-working day electricity forecast.

10
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Fig. 8. Summer week Electricity demand forecast or MTED forecast.

Fig. 9. Winter week Electricity demand forecast or MTED forecast.

describe through the curve fitting method with the objective of the restriction of model has explained in equation for null hypothesis
decreasing the difference between the observed and predicted values. and equation for alternative hypotheses.
The term a(t) used in regression equation represents the fitted error and Since, the probability values were lagging behind our critical value.
residuals of the model used for testing overall significance level, using Thus, we have strong evidence to reject H0 and three is sufficient evi­
the F-test and t-test [57,58]. Moreover, the results of these residual dence to conclude that our independent variables have linear relation
analysis tests are related to the distribution of residuals. The result of with electricity demand at a confidence level of 95%. Therefore, the
MLR is shown in Table 7. forecasting equation can be written as:
To determine the effectiveness of the variables in ANOVA, all ob­
y(t) = 41.874 + 0.0205(x1 ) + 0.0489(x2 ) + (0.0148(x3 ) + 0.0557(x4 ) + a(t)
servations were taken from the entire population. The coefficient,
Standard Error (SE) and Probability Values (P-values) however, the
Where x1 is GDP, x2 is ECPC, x3 is population and x4 is electricity-
parameters in the ANOVA have yet to be explained. In order to generate
consumers. The P-values of our model significantly agreed that our
a forecast, significance level of variables must be tested at a selected
predictors have linear relation with electricity demand now only error
confidence level for regression analysis [57,58]. The T. DIST. RT test was
terms need to define in model that was calculated using MAPE formu­
employed though setting alpha/critical value 0.05 or α = 5% however,
lation. Fig. 10 showed forecasted electricity consumption, where MAPE,
percentage error and standard error has calculated for long-term elec­
tricity forecast over the years 1990–2017.
Table 7
The result of MLR.
4.3.4. LTED forecast evolution and discussion
Label Coefficient SE t-stat P-value
The forecast trend indicated that the PPS will demand 2299.7 TWh of
Intercept − 41.8747 3.4340 − 12.1905 0.000 electricity by 2050, this is likely related to rapid growth in population,
Population 0.0148 0.0012 12.5726 0.024
stabilization of the GDP, urbanization, and rural electrification. At the
GDP 0.0557 0.0109 5.1102 0.013
Consumers 0.0205 0.0065 3.1343 0.003 same time the development in economic zones and living standard of
Consumption 0.0489 0.0105 4.6443 0.038 people will enlarge the number of consumers in all economic sectors. In

11
J. Tao et al.
Fig. 10. Actual and forecasted electricity demand for LTED.
contrast to the base year 2017, PPS will require 23 times more electricity
by 2050.
The PCEC/KWh will grow to 2500 KWh by 2050. Nonetheless, such
growth is the evidence of rapid industrialization and urbanization will
improve the living standard of inhabitants. At the same time, electricity
demand will lag behind the GDP growth by 2043. Most of the population
was not electrified in 2017 but, more people are expected to have access
to electricity in future. The forecast for electricity demand will grow to
346.31, 600.08, and 2299.7 TWh for the year 2030, 2035 and 2050
respectively. Compared to other studies our model shows much promi­
nent forecast as shown in Table 8 but still well behind the official NTDC
forecast for 2035.
Among foremost forecast model for PPS has utilized LEAP. Likewise,
Usman Pervez and Maryam Gul projected, PPS will require 312 TWh and
368 TWh of electricity by 2030. Hanan et al. and [21] forecasted that the
PPS will require 303.7 and 172 TWh of electricity by the year 3035. The
NTDC forecast is clearly higher than Mirjat at el for the year 2035. The
official NTDC forecast for all economic groups by the year 2035 is
687.517 TWh is comparatively higher than all the other studies but
slightly higher than this paper’s forecast which means it is reasonable.
Nevertheless, the minor variation in this paper’s forecast for 2035
compare with the NTDC. Mirjat [18] and other researchers made pre­
dictions for long-term remained behind because all of these studies were
missing predictors, affecting the forecast results. Forecasted electricity
consumption for all economic groups is shown in Fig. 11.
The electricity consumption in main economic sectors will rise to
38.08% in domestic consumption and will grow to 37.23% in industrial
sector by 2050. Such growth has cited in 1990s [66], where industrial
and domestic sectors were leading among all consumers with the per­
centage of 35% and 32%. The industrial sector demand is the evidence
of high rate of industrialization. The increased percentage of demand in
Table 8
Forecasted electricity demand.
Reference 2030 (TWh) 2035 (TWh) 2050 (TWh)
[19] 312 – –
[21] - 303.7 –
[20] 368 – –
[18] 330.1 504.4 1706.3
[59,60] – 687.51 – presented in Table 9 The economic factors in the forecast remained the
This study 346.31 600.08 2299.7
12
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
Fig. 11. Forecasted electricity consumption by economic sectors.
domestic sector is related to extensive electrification. The rural electri­
fication and industrial sector growth will support sustained economic
growth which will boost GDP up to 1.922 trillion US$ by 2050. The
number of electricity consumers will increase from 25.60 million in
2017 to 49.96 million by 2050. The socioeconomic case seems more
noteworthy for electricity demand in 2017 as 60% population is living in
rural areas, with less access to electricity. The population will increase to
324 million in 2050 that will consume 2299.7 TWh of electricity by
2050. With such growth, in order to ensure sustained development in the
country, the electricity market and academic researchers must play an
effective role to improve economic security by utilizing indigenous
resources.
Pakistan’s economy is growing average at the rate 5.5% yearly and
requires more electricity. Currently Pakistan is experiencing enormous
environmental and economic challenges due to electricity shortage. It is
a country with a fast-growing population estimated to grow to 240 and
322 million by 2030 and 2050 respectively. At the same time, the
country is heading towards a high rate of industrialization and urbani­
zation that are also driving electricity demand dramatically, rising to
2299.7 TWh by 2050. In the meantime, many efforts have made to
mitigate electricity demand however; these measures remained unsuc­
cessful to mitigate electricity crises of Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan has
enough potential to generate cheap electricity. The resources however,
were largely neglected until 2017 or underutilized. Therefore, proper
planning and appropriate utilization of energy resources can diagnose
electricity shortfall.
5. Supply side management
5.1. Long term alternative energy planning model input
The out-put of long-term foresting model was used to make future
energy planning in LEAP model. Since LEAP model focuses to make
long-term planning, it demands a huge amount of data about demand
indicators, generation technologies life-spam and efficiency of all tech­
nologies, variable and maintenance cost, capital and fixed cost,
maximum efficiency and total energy resources and exploitation. The
data was collected from NTDC, NEPRA sites for capacity, availability,
generation and fuel consumption. The rest of data is shown in Table 9
was collected from International Energy Agency (IEA) reposts.
The fuel coal and the life span of all technologies used in Pakistan are
same as the input parameters. Using these variables three different
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

Table 9
Total Pakistan power generation Technologies [59,61–63].
Technology 2017 TOE GWH Million$/MW Thousand $/MW $/MWh % % Year

Power-Plants Capacity Fuel Burn Electricity Capital-Cost Fixed-Cost Variable Cost Efficiency Availability Life-Spam

FO + HSD 9212 7583155 38812.7 1.16 26.21 8.523 38.8 88 30

Nuclear 1142 # 6278 5.71 96.21 2.208 34.1 85 30
Coal-Power 810 91463 997 3 32.18 4.613 33 75 30
Solar-Energy 400 # 625 4 25.48 0 100 18 25
Wind-Energy 785 # 1387 2 40.82 0 100 35 20
Biomass 280 # 928 4 109.01 5.428 35 80 25
Hydropower 7116 36969C 32077.4 8 107.27 12.08 86.5 53 40
NGCCA 2425 8577186 26483 1 15.86 3.375 54 70 30
NGOCB 6443 # 12462.3 0.698 7.27 10.702 32.7 70 30
Coal-Power # # 7.7 192.5 14.7 45 75 30

*A-Natural Gas Combined-Cycle *B-Natural Gas Open-Cycle *C-Auxiliary consumption.

Fig. 12. LEAP model for PPS.

13
J. Tao et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813

electricity generation scenarios CGP, REG and GCS were analyzed with
the LEAP model.

5.2. Demand side growth indicators

The economic indicators and total electricity consumption in eco­

nomic sectors were forecasted and discussed in previous section such as
GDP, PCEC/KWh, Electricity consumers, population and electricity
consumption by sector (industrial, domestic, agriculture, commercial
and others) are used in leap model. Leap model is shown in Fig. 12.
As shown in the figure, model elaborated the input key parameters of
model, such as economic factors denoted the growth factors in 2017.
The forecast for 2050 used MLR model are used for input l. The total
electricity consumption by economic sectors was accounted for 48.24%,
24.05%, 7.83%, 9.34%, and 10.64% domestic, industrial, commercial,
agriculture and other sectors in 2017 will consume 38.29%, 36.98%,
8.67, 10.02% and 6.02% by 2050 respectively. Hence, estimating all
economic indicators forecast that PPS will consume 2299.7 TWh of
electricity by 2050 where it was only 99.60 TWh in 2017. Moreover, at
the time PPS is working under the policy of 2015. The contribution of
energy resources in total electricity generation in 2017 was already
discussed in section 2.
5.3. Generation scenarios
5.3.1. Current Government Policy (CGP) scenario
The CGP scenario is the representation scenario of the current GOP
power policy. The GOP adopted the generation plan for future expansion
as power policy 2015 [15] and in vision 2025 [64] that were introduced
to expand total generation capacity through energy mix technologies
including RE technologies. Additionally, the vision strictly rejected to
enhance the capacity of imported oil projects however; they consider
coal and natural gas indigenous and imported resources for thermal
power generation. Moreover, this plan is only limited to 2030 however,
the same trend was followed under CGP and will provide electricity
generation plan for 2050.
5.3.2. Renewable electricity generation (REG) scenario
The REG scenario was developed to inject maximum share of RE
technologies. Pakistan has rich endogenous potential to generate elec­
tricity from hydropower, solar, wind, and biomass [3,20] that can be
utilized to meet short, medium- and long-term electricity demand.
Governments around the world are making polices to utilize RE poten­
tial to meet 100% of global energy demand by clean and green energy
Fig. 13. Projected Electricity Generation plan [4].
Fig. 14. CO2 emission from all technologies [4].
technologies by 2050 [65]. Thus, the purpose of this REG senior is to
exploit RE resource for Pakistan to meet future electricity demand.
5.3.3. Green Clean and Sustain (GCS) electricity generation scenario
The GCS scenario was developed to provide alternative electricity
generation. The scenario committed to meet 2299.7 TWh of electricity
demand by 2050. Moreover, all over Globe including Pakistan’s officials
are aiming to reduce carbon emission and 2OC temperatures by 2050
[66], through reducing the fossil fuel consumption for energy genera­
tion. Additionally, Pakistan is currently overlaying on thermal power
technologies and facing high electricity crises. Hence, this scenario
challenges the global thrust to reduce carbon emissions by 2050 with
increased generation capacity through sustained green and clean energy
indigenous resources.
5.4. Forecast electricity generation plans
The supply-side forecast results for each explained scenario (CGS,
REG, and GCS) is the combination of electricity generation plan for 2050
and CO2 assessment of each scenario. The results are shown in Fig. 13 for
each scenario.
In CGP scenario, the contribution of imported oil in current elec­
tricity generation is 32.12% that will reduce to 11.20% by 2030 and
furthermore it would end-up to 0% by 2035. At the same time hydro­
power is currently contributing 26.32% in 2017 will have share of
17.7% (407.03) TWh. Moreover, the coal power generation is only
generating 0.8% of electricity in 2017 will generate 26.3% of electricity
by 2050. The scope of nuclear power as per GOP polices and PAEC, the
nuclear plants will generate 4.1% of total demand however it is 5.2% in
current situation. The RE technologies (wind, Solar and biomass) are
highly neglected in past and miserly took part (1.1%,0.63% and 0.76%)
in generation 2017 will generate 8.1%, 10.1% and 3.9% by 2050.
However, huge contribution was made by natural gas resources in past
and present (32.62%) electricity generation by NGCC technology will
not have addition any more in total capacity however, it will contribute
11.03% by 2030 and end-up in 2035 due to age limits. Additionally,
GOP has planned to adopt NGOC technology by importing LNG that
would contribute 29.8% by 2050.
The REG scenario was based to relay more renewable energy re­
sources such as solar PV, wind, biomass and hydropower other than
fossil fuel. Hence, thermal electricity will reduce 68% in 2017 to 46.63%
by 2050. Where, NGOC, Coal and Nuclear technologies will contribute
19.51%, 21.52% and 5.6% by 2050. However, solar energy will generate
14.52%, wind 15.12%, and biomass 4.09% by 2050. Hydropower was

14
J. Tao et al.
projected to contribute 17.7% in CGP scenario however it will
contribute 19.64% in REG scenario.
The GCS scenario was established to manage technology mix gen­
eration due to many factors such as seasonal factors (hydropower, wind,
solar and biomass resources lose their generation efficiency). Hence, this
scenario especially was explained to generate sustained clean and green
electricity generation. That resulted, PPS will generate 50.81% from RE
technologies likewise (wind 15.43%, solar 12.42%, Biomass 5.02% and
hydro 17.94%) however, their nuclear role is highly significance that
will contribute 8.31% by 2050. The fossil fuel technologies will
contribute 40.88% while coal 19.08% and NGOC 21.8%. In future the
additions of thermal power plants generation capacities will pose
additional threat to environment. Recent years Pakistan is not really big
contributor of CO2 emission but with such electricity demand it is pro­
jected there will be huge amount of CO2 emission from thermal power
technologies that is currently 59.32 million tons in 2017. However, it
will grow further in future with additional electricity generation tech­
nologies shown in Fig. 14.
Depicted in Fig. 14, in CGP scenario, the GOP has promised to reduce
imported oil generation plants as thermal energy generation but intro­
duced an imported LNG project that will contribute 56.1% to the total
thermal electricity generation by 2050. This is only a decrease from 65%
in 2017 to 56.1% by 2050, and will omit 942.38 million tons of CO2.
The CO2 emission from REG scenario, the contribution of RE gen­
eration technologies will account for 53.37% by 2050. Where NGCC
technology will omit 260.21 million tons of carbon and coal 445.89
million tons that is high enough to current year but it is 1.35 times lower
than the CGS scenario.
In GCS scenario, RE technologies will contribute 50.81% and nuclear
8.31% that contains very low contribution to CO2 emission. Where
40.88% of thermal technologies will generate thermal electricity, NGCC
290.76 million tones, Coal 395.33 million tons. The contribution of RE
technologies are however, is lower than REG scenario but the nuclear
power also called sustained and clean energy source that have signifi­
cance contribution in GCS scenario by 2050. Hence, the CO2 emission in
CGS scenario is 1.5 times lower than CGP scenario and 1.12 times from
REG scenario.
6. Realizing a sustainable electricity generation plan
The GOP has announced a power generation vision to generate
surplus electricity by 2025. The vision ensures the short-term power
surplus accessibility by introducing mixed energy technologies. Ac­
cording to NTDC electricity peak electricity consumption will increase to
210 TWh by 2025 and this research projected PPS will consume 192
TWh of electricity by 2025. Thus, the generation plan for 2025 from CGP
shows investment in local potential, LNG and 50% imported coal pro­
jects. However, the dependency on imported fuel will drop to 14.8% in
2020 and to 10.91% by 2025. The GOP mission to reduce foreign ex­
change pressure is likely to achieve in 2025 where LNG based plants will
generate 20.30%, Coal 10.91%, Hydro 19.56%, Nuclear 7.69% and RE
8.29%. Furthers this trend was forecast by our LEAP model until 2050
where the demand will reach t 2299.7 TWh, and 56.1% electricity will
come from fossil fuel, 4% from nuclear and 39.8% from RE technologies.
Considering fuel constrains in current electricity generation Pakistan
GOP trend is largely focusing on natural gas resources that has almost
shrink to less than 50% and GOP still largely depending on natural gas
that will contribute 29.8% by 2050 and it has huge environmental
threats. The sources only will omit approximately 397.46 million tons of
carbon dioxide and CGP scenario totally will omit 942.37 million Tons
of CO2.
RE technologies currently make hardily 1.2% contribution in total
generation, but the country has a huge potential [67,68] hence, REG
scenario projected the contribution of RE technologies for this study will
contribute 53.37% where hydropower will have major role. Fossil fuel
will only contribute 41.03% by 2050. This proportion yields an ideal
15
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
utilization of RE resources and also appropriate to for the development
of more RE resources rather than thermal resources. However, RE gen­
eration can be interrupted due to number of factors such as in Pakistan
hydroelectricity generation lose it efficiency to 40% in winter season,
solar energy minimizes due to fewer sunny hours during winter season
and biogas technology mostly utilize during sugar cane crushing sea­
sons. Therefore, these technologies can threat the power generation
reliability hence there still need technology balance generation plan.
Fossil fuel technologies (coal, Natural gasoline, Natural gas, furnace
oil etc.) are aggressively considered harmful for environment. The fuel
burned to produce electricity and discharge multifaceted carbon ironic
gases into the surrounding atmosphere that affects normal temperature
of the planet. However, world is aggressively burning fossil fuel to
generate electricity by improved technologies, such as natural gas base
NGOC and Coal IGCC that can minimize the CO2 emission. The PPS have
not yet adopted these technologies however, the GOP has forced
stakeholder to largely adopt advance technologies to reduce environ­
mental threats. Moreover, our model assessment suggested in GCS sce­
nario, electricity generation from fossil fuel will remain 40.88% by 2050
which is lower than REG and CGP; however, the contribution of nuclear
power generation is higher to 8.31%. This percentage is appropriate to
PEAC policy to generate 50 GW of electricity by 2050 [69,70]. The RE
potential will have contribution about 50.81% which is less than REG
scenario and higher than CGP scenario. Moreover, GCS scenario is
mimicking the world vision.
The policy makers around the world are introducing environment
friendly generation technologies utilizing RE resources that might meet
50% and 100% of electricity demand by 2050 [65]. The GOP expects to
generate electricity by indigenous clean and green energy mix tech­
nologies. Recently, the GOP polices neglected, imported oil fuel for
electricity generation however, already commissioned oil based NGCC
power plants supposed to be grounded by 2035. Thus, CO2 emission
from GCS scenario is lower than others and have appropriate generation
mix plan that should preferred to generate future electricity demand.
The technology balance plan will ensure the power system sustainabil­
ity, security and liability.
7. Conclusion
This investigative study focused on data relevant to the mitigation of
electricity crises in the PPS to ensure economic and power sector sus­
tainability. At present, the electricity generation technologies in
Pakistan rely on imported fossil fuel to generate thermal electricity. This
situation is not sustainable due to a number of dynamics, including
environmental impacts and economic instability due to high foreign
debt and mismanagement of indigenous resources. These factors and
other factors are overtaxing the total electricity generation and making
electricity unaffordable to potential consumers and causing high short­
falls in electricity.
Hence, to over-come electricity crises of Pakistan different factors
(weather, seasonal, and economic factors) were analyzed to know in­
fluence of these factors on electricity consumption using MLR, STS and
ANN for short, medium and long-term electrical load. Thus, the samples
were analyzed for the month of December 2016 and July 2017 for short
and medium terms factors and for long-term the samples were analyzed
from 1990 to 2017.
In the results, Weather and seasonal (summer and winter) factors
were found correlated either positively or negatively but the coefficient
magnitude of these factors was lower than over significance level (0.70)
except summer temperature. Thus, we forecast that electricity demand
for short- and medium-term using STS process. In the result, the lags-day
showed positive correlation with forecast day but as we were getting
away from forecast day, thereby we were losing the magnitude level of
predictors. Hence, this research concluded that the short-term (24-hous)
and medium-term (1-week) electricity demand factor is the inspiration
of lags-days load however, it can have many random factors involved
J. Tao et al.
inside that can be appears as model random noises or residuals. These
errors were calculated using MAPE formulation and explained as actual
and the load trend forecast.
The long-term electricity demand involved high rate of development
that last for long time hence, the demand factors also influence elec­
tricity consumption after long period. There the economic factors elec­
tricity consumption by sectors and their further term (GDP, population,
ECPC, and total consumers) were analyzed for long-period. Thus, the
observation for long-period suggested that these economic factors highly
influenced electricity consumption from 1990s and their correlation
magnitude also evidenced close to +1. Hence, using these indicators and
hidden random factors (error or MAPE), the final trend was set in
regression equation to forecast electricity consumption for long-period.
The forecast indicated that PPS will require192 TWh by 2025, 346
TWh by 2030, 601 TWh by 2035 and 2297.7 TWh of electricity by 2050.
The forested electricity-demand for this study showed quite competitive
forecast with the NTDC official demand forecast for 2035. Hence, elec­
tricity demand growth indicators and total electricity consumption by
sectors were used as input of LEAP model for future generation planning,
and presented a socio-economically and environmentally friendly elec­
tricity generation plan in CGP, REG and GCS scenarios.
Electricity supply side scenarios were presented based on a review of
existing GOP power polices, RE potential and total energy resources
evaluating the total potential capability of indigenous resources related
to narratives concerning clean and green electricity technologies. This
plan includes electricity generation technologies in the CGP scenario
that could reduce CO2 emissions from 68% in 2017 to 56.1% by 2050, in
REG scenario 41.03% and in GCS scenario 40.88%.
Clean and green electricity generation technologies will contribute
39.8% (hydropower 17.7%, wind 8.1%, solar 10.1% and, biomass 3.9%)
in CGP scenario, 53.37% (19.64%, wind 15.12%, solar 14.52% and
biomass 4.09% respectively) in REG scenario and 50.81% (17.94%,
15.42%, solar 12.43% and biomass 5.1% respectively) in GCS scenario
by 2050. However, CO2 emission technologies are considered harmful to
the environment but implementation of advance technologies (Coal
based IGCC and Gas base NGOC) can minimize environmental concerns.
Thus, concluding among all generation scenarios GCS should be
preferred for future electricity generation that contains combination of
all technologies are appropriate to manage future electricity demand
ensuring socioeconomic development.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Y.H. Fung, V.M.R. Tummala, Forecasting of electricity consumption: a comparative
analysis of regression and artificial neural network models, in: International
Conference on Advances in Power System Control IET, 1993.
[2] Maxim Alexandru, Sustainability assessment of electricity generation technologies
using weighted multi-criteria decision analysis, Energy Pol. 65 (2014) 284–297.
[3] Omer Rauf, et al., An overview of energy status and development in Pakistan,
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 48 (2015) 892–931.
[4] National Electricity Power Regularity Authority, State of industry report. htt
ps://www.nepra.org.pk/publications/State%20of%20Industry%20Reports/State
%20of%20Industry%20Report%202020.pdf, 2020.
[5] G.D. Valasai, M.A. Uqaili, H.R. Memon, et al., Overcoming electricity crisis in
Pakistan: a review of sustainable electricity options, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
72 (2017) 734–745.
[6] Muhammad Waqas, Jinsong Tao, Muhammad Umair, Muhammad Ali, Hussian,
Research approval assessment: an approach to cultivate engineering student’s
attention towards engineering curriculum, Euro. Res. J. 2 (2019) 1118–1140. http:
//euacademic.org/UploadArticle/3985.pdf.
[7] Ministry of Finance, Pakistan economic survey. http://www.finance.gov.
pk/survey_1213.html. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[8] Rashid Aziz, Munawar Baseer Ahmad, Pakistan’s power crisis. https://www.usip.
org/publications/2015/06/pakistans-power-crisis-way-forward. (Accessed 13
October 2019).
16
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
[9] U. Qazi, M. Jahanzaib, W. Ahmad, S. Hussain, An institutional framework for the
development of sustainable and competitive power market in Pakistan, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 70 (2017) 83–95.
[10] Ambreen Latif, Naveed Ramzan, A review OF renewable energy resources IN
Pakistan, J. Glob. Innov. Agri. Soc. Sci. 2 (3) (2014) 127–132. http://www.jgiass.
com.
[11] F. Shaikh, Q. Ji, Y. Fan, The diagnosis of an electricity crisis and alternative energy
development in Pakistan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 52 (2015) 1172–1185.
[12] Government of Pakistan, Power policy. http://www.ppib.gov.pk/Power%20Policy
%201994.pdf, 1994. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[13] Government of Pakistan, Policy for development of renewable energy. http
s://www.aedb.org/Documents/Policy/REpolicy.pdf, 2006. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[14] Government of Pakistan, National power policy. http://www.ppib.gov.
pk/National%20Power%20Policy%202013.pdf, 2013. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[15] Government of Pakistan, Power generation policy. http://www.ppib.gov.pk/Power
%20Policy%202015.pdf. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[16] Government of Pakistan, National power policy. http://www.ppib.gov.
pk/National%20Power%20Policy%202013.pdf, 2013. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[17] Government of Pakistan, National power policy. http://www.ppib.gov.
pk/National%20Power%20Policy%202013.pdf, 2013. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[18] Nayyar Hussain Mirjat, et al., Long-term electricity demand forecast and supply
side scenarios for Pakistan (2015–2050): a LEAP model application for policy
analysis, Energy Pol. 165 (2018) 512–526.
[19] U. Perwez, A. Sohail, S.F. Hassan, U. Zia, The long-term forecast of Pakistan’s
electricity supply and demand: an application of long range energy alternatives
planning, Energy 93 (2) (2015) 2423–2435, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.10.103.
[20] S. Rehman, et al., An integrated modeling approach for forecasting long-term
energy demand in Pakistan, Energies 10 (11) (2017), https://doi.org/10.3390/
en10111868.
[21] Ishaque, Hanan, Is it wise to compromise renewable energy future for the sake of
expediency? An analysis of Pakistan long-term electricity generation pathways,
Energy Strat. Rev. 17 (2017) 6–18.
[22] Mariam Gul, W.A. Qureshi, Modeling Diversified Electricity Generation Scenarios
for Pakistan, Power & Energy Society General Meeting, 2012. https://ieeexplore.
ieee.org/document/6344821.
[23] T. Haida, S. Muto, Regression based peak load forecasting using a transformation
technique, IEEE (1994).
[24] Y. Al-Rashid, L.D. Paarmann, Short-term Electric Load Forecasting Using Neural
Network Models, Circuits and Syst., Ames, IA, 1996, pp. 1436–1439.
[25] E. Almeshaiei, H. Soltan, A methodology for electric power load forecasting, Alex.
Eng. J. 50 (2011) 137–144.
[26] Ü.B. Filik, Ö.N. Gerek, M. Kurban, A novel modeling approach for hourly
forecasting of long-term electric energy demand, Energy Convers. Manag. 52
(2011) 199–211.
[27] T. Hill, M. O’Connor, W. Remus, Neural networks models for time series forecasts,
Manag. Sci. (1996) 1082–1092.
[28] Saeed M. Badran, O.B. Abouelatta, Forecasting electrical load using ANN combined
with multiple regression method, Int. J. ACM Jordan 2 (2) (2012) 52–58.
[29] I. Moghram, S. Rahman, Analysis and evaluation of five short-term load forecasting
techniques, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 4 (1989) 1484–1491.
[30] G. Gross, F.D. Galiana, Short-term load forecasting, Proc. IEEE 75 (1987)
1558–1573.
[31] T. Hong, M. Gui, M. Baran, H.L. Willis, Modeling and Forecasting Hourly Electric
Load by Multiple Linear Regression with Interactions, ” Power and Energy Soc.
General Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 2010, pp. 1–8.
[32] P.J. Santos, A.G. Martins, A.J. Pires, Short-term Load Forecasting Based on ANN
Applied to Electrical Distribution Substations, vol. 1, Universities Power
Engineering Conf., Bristol, UK, 2004, pp. 427–432.
[33] G.P. Alexander, O. Esmaeil, J. Muthusami, A.D. Patton, A.F. Atiya, Development of
an intelligent longterm electric load forecasting systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.
11 (2) (1996) 858–863.
[34] N.X. Jia, R. Yokoyama, Y.C. Zhou, Z.Y. Gao, A flexible long-term load forecasting
approach based on new dynamic simulation theory – GSIM, Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 23 (2001) 549–556.
[35] M.R. AlRashidi, K.M. EL-Naggar, Long term electric load forecasting based on
particle swarm optimization, Appl. Energy 87 (2010) 320–326, 2010.
[36] Shiwei Yu, K. Wang, Y.M. Wei, A hybrid self-adaptive particle swarm
optimization–genetic algorithm–radial basis function model for annual electricity
demand prediction, Energy Convers. Manag. 91 (2015) 176–185.
[37] Weisberg Sanford, Applied Linear Regression, fourth ed., Wiley, Hoboken, New
Jersey, 2013.
[38] A.K. Imtiaz, et al., Evaluation and forecasting of long-term electricity consumption
demand for Malaysia by statistical analysis, in: 2006 IEEE International Power and
Energy Conference IEEE, 2007.
[39] R.P. Thomson, Weather sensitive electric demand and energy analysis on a large
geographically diverse power system – application to short term hourly electric
demand forecasting, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. 90 (1976) 385–393.
[40] N. Amral, C.S. Ozveren, D. King, Short Term Load Forecasting Using Multiple
Linear Regression, ” Universities Power Engineering Conference, Brighton, 2007,
pp. 1192–1198.
J. Tao et al.
[41] T.G. Manohar, V.C. Veera Reddy, Load forecasting by a novel technique using
ANN, ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 3 (2008) 19–25.
[42] H.S. Hippert, C.E. Perdreira, R.C. Souza, Neural networks for short-term load
forecasting: a review and evaluation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 16 (2001) 44–55.
[43] K.Y. Lee, Y.T. Cha, J.H. Park, Short-term load forecasting using an artificial neural
network, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 7 (Feb. 1992) 124–132.
[44] P. Mandal K. Uezato Senjyu, T. Funabashi, Next day load curve forecasting using
recurrent neural network structure, Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng. 151 (May 2004)
388–394.
[45] Z.H. Osman, M.L. Awad, T.K. Mahmoud, Neural Network-Based Approach for
Short-Term Load Forecasting, IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition,
Seattle, WA, 2009. Mar. 15-18.
[46] F. Liu, R.D. Findlay, Q. Song, “A Neural Network Based Short Term Electric Load
Forecasting in Ontario Canada, Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence for Modeling,
Control, and Automation, Sydney, NSW, 2006, pp. 119–126.
[47] W. Charytoniuk, M. Chen, Very short-term load forecasting using artificial neural
networks, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 15 (Feb. 2000) 263–268.
[48] J.K. Mandal, A.K. Sinha, G. Parthasarathy, Application of Recurrent Neural
Network for Short Term Load Forecasting in Electric Power System, Int. Conf. on
Neural Networks, Perth, WA, 1995, pp. 2694–2698.
[49] T. Senjyu, H. Takara, K. Uezato, T. Funabashi, One-hour-ahead load forecasting
using neural network, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 17 (Feb. 2002) 113–118.
[50] D.C. Park, M.A. El-Sharkawi, R.J. Marks II, L.E. Atlas, M.J. Damborg, Electric load
forecasting using an artificial neural network, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 6 (May
1991) 442–449.
[51] B.S. Kermanshahi, et al., Artificial neural network for forecasting daily loads of a
canadian electric utility, in: Applications of Neural Networks to Power Systems,
Japan, Yokohama, 1993, pp. 302–307.
[52] C.G. Heaps, Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning (LEAP) System. [Software
Version: 2018.1.23], Stockholm Environment Institute, Somerville, MA, USA,
2016. https://www.energycommunity.org.
[53] National transmission and dispatch company. http://www.ntdc.com.pk/.
(Accessed 13 October 2019).
[54] National electricity regulatory authority. https://www.nepra.org.pk/. (Accessed
13 October 2019).
[55] Pakistan Meteorological department. www.pmd.gov.pk. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[56] Y.H. Fung, V.M.R. Tummala, Forecasting of electricity consumption: a comparative
analysis of regression and artificial neural network models, in: International
Conference on Advances in Power System Control IET, 1993.
17
Energy Strategy Reviews 40 (2022) 100813
[57] liver Linton, Chapter 20 - hypothesis testing for linear regression, in: Oliver Linton,
Probability, Statistics and Econometrics, Academic Press, 2017, pp. 277–288. https
://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128104958000233.
[58] Mark Howard, Jerry Workman, Chapter 112 - choosing the best regression model,
in: Howard Mark, Jerry Workman, Chemometrics in Spectroscopy, second ed.,
Academic Press, 2018.
[59] Pakistan economic forum – energy panel. www.pbc.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/
Towards-Pakistanu2019s-Energy. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[60] NTDC Electricity demand forecast based on regression analysis, Planning power,
national transmission and dispatch company. http://www.ntdc.com.pk/, 2014.
(Accessed 13 October 2019).
[61] Government of Pakistan, Pakistan economic survey 1990-91. http://www.irispu
njab.gov.pk/StatisticalReport/Pakistan%20Economic%20Surveys/Economic%
20Survey%201990-91.pdf. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[62] British multinational oil and gas company (BP), BP Statistical Review of World
Energy, June 2018.
[63] Eia report oil prices, 13.10.2019, https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php.
[64] Government of Pakistan A road Map to vision 2025 Institute of strategic research
and analysis, National Defense university Islamabad. https://aan.ndu.edu.pk/d
ownload/Post-Report-Ex-NSW-16.pdf. (Accessed 13 October 2019).
[65] WWF, The energy report − 100% renewable energy by 2050, Available from: World
Wide Fund for Nature (accessed 29.09.18), http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.
net/downloads/the_energy_report_ lowres_111110.pdf, 2011.
[66] C. McGlade, P. Ekins, The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when
limiting global warming to 2 ◦ C, Nature 517 (2015) 187–190, 2015.
[67] International Renewable Energy Agency (IREA), Renewable readiness assessment
of Pakistan. https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/
2018/Apr/IRENA_RRA_Pakistan_2018.pdf, April 2018. (Accessed 13 October
2019).
[68] K. Harijan, Modelling and Analysis of the Potential Demand for Renewable Sources
of Energy in Pakistan, PhD Thesis, Mehran University of Engineering and
Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan, May 2008.
[69] Nuclear Capacity Could More than Double by 2050, says IAEA [Accessed
13.10.2019].
[70] Iaea, 08 August, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-capacity-coul
d-more-than-double-by-2050-says-IAEA-0808174.html, 2017. (Accessed 13
October 2019).