Cea

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh
FOREWORD
Power is an essential infrastructural requirement for the overall economic development of the
country. The demand for power has been growing steadily and it is our endeavour to achieve our objective of
supplying power to all on demand by 2012, keeping in view the sustainable development needs of the
country.
On request from Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, CEA has carried out a
comprehensive study and analysis of the forecasted demand for power to be adopted for the power
procurement plan of Andhra Pradesh as consultancy work. An assessment of the reserve margin and
generating capacity addition required to attain LOLP of at least 1% in the A.P. System has also been carried
out.
Andhra Pradesh has been experiencing both peak and energy shortages of varying magnitude for the
past 5 years. With a view to meet these shortages through capacity addition, the first step was to make
accurate demand projections for Andhra Pradesh. After a detailed analysis and studying of the various
alternatives it is opined that the methodology adopted by the 16th EPS Committee to forecast demand is a time
tested one giving fairly accurate results and should be relied upon to make future forecasts. 16 th EPS demand
forecasts should, therefore, be the minimum requirements for power planning. However, as a sensitivity
analysis, studies have also been carried out for demand variations of +/- 5% in both peak and energy
requirements of 16th EPS as well as APTRANSCO demand projections furnished by APERC.
The detailed Planning studies carried out by CEA indicate that besides stringent efforts towards
timely implementation of programmed 10th Plan projects, additional projects totaling to a capacity of about
1300 MW need to be identified for giving benefits during the 10th Plan. Additionally, A.P. should review
their decision and avail benefit from Neyveli Ext. and Kaiga Unit as also to continue the contract with
GRIDCO, Orissa.
I would like to place on records the excellent efforts made by Shri S. Ramar, Chief Engineer in
preparation of this Report and the excellent work done by the team of outstanding engineers - Shri M.L.
Gupta, Director supported by Smt. Neerja Mathur, Director and ably assisted by Smt. P.E. Kamala, Asstt.
Director. Excellent secretariat support has been provided by Shri Vijay Bhushan, Personal Assistant and
meritorious work has been done by Shri Jai Prakash, Draftsman in preparation of cover design as well as
general layout of the Report.
The report in the present form has been brought out due to the guidance, encouragement and
motivation provided by Shri R.V.Shahi, Secretary (Power) and Shri H.L. Bajaj, Chairman, CEA who have
been a source of continuous inspiration throughout the preparation of this Report. It is also hoped that
interaction with the APERC will also continue in future.
March , 2003
New Delhi (V.S. VERMA)
MEMBER (PLANNING)
APERC 1 CEA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DEMAND FORECAST – METHODOLOGICAL ASPECT
 Broadly there are three methods of demand forecasting:
a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data

b) Econometric Modeling
c) Forecast made on the basis of End Use/Partial end use techniques
 APERC estimated the future demands of AP based upon the trends of past
consumption data. The Consultants of APTRANSCO had applied econometric
models for making future projections. The forecasts made by CEA in the report
of 16th EPS are based upon the most reliable and practiced End use/partial end
use techniques. The forecasts of CEA’s Electric Power Survey have stood the
test of time.
 16th EPS demand projections are perspective in nature and take into account
the past consumption in various sectors, foreseeable changes in the pattern of
consumption and projected growth and surveys.
 While making any demand forecast for power planning, merits, demerits,
limitations, availability of realistic data and ground realities have to be given
due consideration.
 The demand met and energy consumed are restricted figures in view of
power shortages of varying magnitude in the past. Accordingly, projections
made on historical trend of past consumption without corrections for shortages
would not be a true representation of future demands.
 It was brought out and agreed during discussions with APERC that the 17th
EPS studies have been started and completion of studies would take
considerable time. The present analysis of demands in AP shall be carried out
by adopting the projections of the 16th EPS.
POWER SUPPLY POSITION
The State of Andhra Pradesh had witnessed power shortages of varying magnitude
in terms of energy and peak load during the period 1995-96 to 2001-02.. An analysis of
energy shortages and peak deficit has been carried out up to the year 2001-02 based upon
the actual energy data during these years.
Summary of energy and peak shortages in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Southern
region and on All India basis is given below. These figures are based upon the data
APERC 2 CEA
reported by the concerned state agencies etc. It is also very likely that the indicated
shortages are on the lower side due to various reasons including those of regulatory
measures.
Table - 1
% ENERGY DEFICIT % DEFICIT IN PEAK

YEAR A.P. SOUTHERN ALL YEAR A.P. SOUTHERN ALL
REGION INDIA REGION INDIA
1995-96 -20.2 -16.7 -9.2 1995-96 -26.7 -23.6 -18.3
1996-97 -22.1 -20.6 -11.5 1996-97 -23.6 -19.5 -17.6
1997-98 -14.4 -16.1 -8.1 1997-98 -11.3 -12.2 -11.3
1998-99 -8.7 -10.8 -5.9 1998-99 -9.3 -12.3 -13.9
1999-00 -6.5 -7.4 -6.2 1999-00 -11.7 -12.7 -12.4
2000-01 -7.8 -7.9 -7.8 2000-01 -14.6 -14.4 -13.0
2001-02 -8.5 -8.8 -7.5 2001-02 -19.9 -15.6 -12.6
From the above it is noted that :
♦ During the year 2001-02 in the state of Andhra Pradesh the energy shortages
were 8.5% with associated peak shortages of 19.9%. During the period 1995-96
to 2001-02, the State experienced energy deficit ranging from 22.1% to 6.5%
and peak deficit ranging from 26.7% to 9.3%.
♦ The Southern Region was also short of energy and power. Shortages ranging
from 20.6 to 7.4% in energy and 23.6% to 12.2% in peak demand were
experienced.
♦ The country as a whole was also short of energy and power. Shortages
ranging from 11.5% to 5.9% in energy and 18.3% to 11.3% in peak demand
were experienced.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
16th EPS Projections
Andhra Pradesh
An analysis of 16th EPS projections versus actual energy supplied and estimated
shortages during the last three years in the State of Andhra Pradesh as brought out at Table
2.10 indicate that the 16th EPS energy projections for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-01
were less by 3.54 % and 1.4 % respectively of the energy requirements and the same were
higher by 4.34% for the year 2001-02.
While comparing the 16th EPS forecasts with actual unrestricted requirements in the
system following aspects may also be kept in view:
a) The compounding average growth rate (CAGR) for the energy requirement
during period 1995-96 to 2001-02 works out to 4.68% on the basis of actual
APERC 3 CEA
energy supplied and the estimated shortages. However during 1998-99 and 2001-
02 growth rates works out to 0.86% and 0.84% respectively over previous years.
These are not normal and are taken as exceptional. While the analysis of the
specific reasons for these lower growth rates is not under the purview of this
study, the CAGR actually works out to 6.87% if these two abnormal years are not
considered.
b) The abnormal growth in the year 1998-99 is also substantiated by the fact
that GDP growth in AP was –1.37 % in 1997-98 which would have affected the
energy consumed in the following year. The GDP growth rates in AP are in the
range of 6 to 9 % as per the information received from the Govt. of AP given at
Table 2.11. These growth rates would therefore need to be given due weightage in
case the industrial development has to keep pace with the GDP in the state.
c) It is pertinent to mention that during the year 2000-01 energy requirements
were almost matching with 16th EPS demand forecasts (1.4% variation). The
CAGR of 16th EPS is 6.44%, which is lower than CAGR of normal years.
d) Future projections therefore need to be based upon unrestricted requirement
in the system and not upon actual energy supplied as this would put serious
constraints on the future development and growth of the state.
Southern Region and All- India
The energy forecasted for the year 2001-02 as per 16th EPS were higher by 1.75%
for the Southern Region and by 1.22% on all India basis. In the other two years i.e. 1999-
2000 and 2000-01, sum of energy supplied and estimated shortages in Southern Region as
well as on All India basis were higher than the 16th EPS forecasts.
APTRANSCO Projections
Agriculture Requirement Forecasted by APTRANSCO.
The agriculture requirement projected by the APTRANSCO appears to be

conservative on account of following:
 During the year 1995-96 the agricultural sales are shown as 50% and the
same were brought down to 40% in 1996-97. This reduction in the agricultural
consumption was shifted to T&D losses in 1996-97. The T&D losses, which were
20% in 1995-96, were increased to 33% in 1996-97.
 This reflects only change in the accounting of energy consumed in the AP
System and no change in the demand.
 The reduced agriculture consumption which was recorded as 11757 MU in
1995-96 has been projected as 10,565 MU in 2007-08, thus showing an overall
decrease in agriculture consumption.
 Analysis of per consumer agriculture consumption in 2007-08 indicates that
agriculture supply would be for 129 days per year for a period of 9 hours/day as
against informed requirement of about 180 to 200 days per year.
In view of the above analysis and the detailed methodology adopted for making
the projections by 16th EPS Committee, it is considered appropriate and prudent to
APERC 4 CEA
adopt the 16th EPS demand forecasts for working out the power development
programme.
However, as a sensitivity analysis, studies have also been carried out for demand
variations of ± 5% in both peak and energy requirements of 16th EPS as well as
APTRANSCO projections furnished by APERC.
CAPACITY CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS
 The existing installed capacity of AP as on 31.3.2002 considered for the

purpose of this Study is 9246 MW comprising of 6055.2 MW thermal, 2965 MW
hydro, 143 MW nuclear and 82.8 MW bio-mass based capacity.
 Existing Captive capacity totalling to 1313 MW has not been considered
because of reasons explained in chapter 3 of the report.
 Committed capacity addition of 4214.7 MW as given by APTRANSCO has
been considered during the year 2002-03 to 2006-07. The benefits of 133 MW
Neyveli Extension (2002-03) and 58 MW Kaiga Nuclear (2006-07) have not been
considered as APTRANSCO have confirmed that they do not have any plan to draw
share from these Central Sector projects.
 400 MW benefits from GRIDCO, Orissa has been phased out in 2004-05 as
indicated by APTRANSCO.
The above philosophy and the basis of the study was also agreed by APERC during the
discussion from 4th to 7th Feb 2003 at Hyderabad.
RESULTS OF STUDIES:
Based on 16th EPS Demand Projections
 Under the 16th EPS demand projection scenario the AP System is expected
to operate at 5.81% LOLP and 2.2% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to
achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 1320 MW would be required over and
above the following programmed capacity addition during 10th Plan.
Sl.No. Name of the Project Sector Year of Capacity

Comng considered
(MW)
1. Simhadri CS 2002-03 500
2. Ramagundam III CS 2005-06 183
3. Talcher-II1* CS 2003-04 106.3
4. Talcher-II2 CS 2004-05 106.3
5. Talcher-II3&4 CS 2005-06 212.6
6. Rayalasema-II SS 2006-07 420
7. Sri Sailam LBPH3&4 SS 2002-03 300
9. Vemagiri-I PS 2004-05 370
10. Gautami PS 2003-04 464
11. Jegurupadu Ext. PS 2004-05 230
APERC 5 CEA
12. Ramagundam BPL PS 2005-06 520

13. Konaseema PS 2004-05 445
14. Bio Mass Based Capacity SS 2002-03 47.6
Total 4214.7
*since already commissioned
Accordingly, it is our considered view that work on above projects

programmed to be implemented during the 10th plan needs to be taken up
immediately on an urgent basis with compressed time schedule so as to achieve the
commissioning in the 10th plan itself.
Additional projects (totalling to a capacity of about 1300 MW) needs to be

identified preferably thermal projects of small size 210/250 MW with less gestation
period so as to achieve the commissioning schedule in the 10th plan itself.
Additionally AP should review their decision and avail benefits from Central
sector stations of Neveyli Ext. and Kaiga, and continue the contract with GRIDCO,
Orissa.
Based on Increase in 16th EPS demand by 5 %
 5% increase in peak demand and energy requirement from the 16th EPS
projections results in worse LOLP & ENS. In this scenario the system is expected to
operate at 10.77% LOLP and 6.16% ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to
achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 2200 MW would be required over and
above the programmed committed capacity of 10th Plan.
Based on Reduction in demand by 5 %
 5% reduction in peak demand and energy requirement of the 16 th EPS

projections is expected to meet the energy requirement with less than 0.15% ENS
and LOLP would be less than 1.5% during all the years except in the year 2006-07
when the LOLP would be 2.51 % and ENS of 0.097 %. Since the energy
requirements are by and large met under this scenario, it may not be pragmatic to
achieve 1% LOLP by adding additional capacity. This could be achieved by
demand management.
Based on APTRANSCO demand projection
 Under APTRANSCO demand projection which are about 4.6 % to 15%

lower than 16th EPS demand, the expected LOLP are much lower than 1% and ENS
is also very much below 0.15% . This shows an over expanded system.
APERC 6 CEA
 It is concluded that APTRANSCO projections would have serious

implications on generating capacity expansion programme of AP.
 A study has been carried out without the benefits of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J’
Padu Ext. and Konaseema CCGT projects and demand projections as per
APTRANSCO. This Study has indicated that up to the year 2003-04, the AP
System would have LOLP below 1 % ( LOLP of 0.78% and ENS 0.193%.).
During the years 2004-05 to 2006-07 the LOLP would be in the range of 2.2% to
3.4% and ENS in the range of 3.96 % to 7.6 %.
Expected utilisation of 4 CCGTs during 2006-07
An analysis has been done of the expected utilisation of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J’ Padu
Ext. and Konaseema CCGT projects for different demand scenarios and considering
normative and improved outage rates for these units. The results are as follows:
Table - 2
(Outage rate 24%) (Outage rate 10%)

Rated th 16th EPS 16th EPS 16th EPS
Capacity 16 EPS APTRANSCO 16th EPS
UNIT NAME Increased by Reduced By Increased
DEMAND Demand DEMAND
5% 5% by 5%
MW C.F (%) C.F (%) C.F (%) C.F (%) C.F (%) C.F (%)
VEMAGIRI CCGT 370 66.76 68.34 61.91 11.2 79.07 80.93

GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW 464 64.02 66.76 57.61 0.41 75.34 78.78
J'PADU EXT.(SC) 230 56.07 61.54 1.44 0.1 63.05 70.60
KONASEEMA (NEW) 445 59.73 64.05 47.96 0.18 69.02 74.77
Reserve Margin Required Corresponding to 1 % LOLP
 Corresponding to 1% LOLP, reserve margin of about 30% of rated capacity

over and above the peak demand and 29% of net capacity would be required for
A.P.
Additional Rural Supply
 APTRANSCO has proposed to APERC that its energy requirement would

be higher by 1500 GWh due to 24 hours supply to rural areas over and above the
regulated supply to agriculture consumers. The proposed generating system can
meet this requirement and no additional generating capacity over and above the
programmed capacity of 10th plan would be required on this account.
Reduction in Hydro Generation
 Reduction in 1000 GWh of hydro energy would also not call for any
additional generating capacity over and above the programmed capacity of 10 th plan
on this account.
APERC 7 CEA
RECOMMENDATIONS
 16th EPS forecasts shall be the minimum requirements for power planning.
 Reserve Margin of 30% in terms of rated capacity over peak demand or 29% of net
capacity would give 1% LOLP and less than 0.15% ENS for the AP system.
 Work on programmed projects to be implemented in the 10th plan needs to be taken up

immediately.
 Additional projects totalling to a capacity exceeding 1300 MW needs to be identified in

order to meet the demand projections as per the 16th EPS.
 Possibility of advancing the schedule of commissioning of projects due in 11th Plan like
Vijaywada VII Unit (660 MW) may be seriously considered.
 The decision of APTRANSCO of not utilsing the benefits from Kaiga (58 MW
allocated AP share) and Neyveli Ext.(113 MW allocated AP share) should be reviewed.
It may also not be in national interest in the long run to avoid absorption of nuclear
generation from energy security angle and to reduce the shortages under 16th EPS
demand scenario..
 The APTRANSCO projections are not representative of future need based growth.
This will have adverse affect on the power development and availability programme for
AP in general and country as a whole.
 Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a

number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that achievement
of capacity addition under private sector is highly unsatisfactory. Keeping this
uncertainty in view, it would be prudent and pragmatic to plan for much more addition
of capacity required to meet the demand projections as made by 16 th EPS so that the
actual achievement would be meeting the projected plan requirements
 It would be advised that action on all the above issues is initiated on priority so that the
commitment of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to achieve the mission
‘Power on Demand to all by year 2012’ is fulfilled.
APERC 8 CEA
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
1.1 Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC),

Hyderabad had requested , Chairman, CEA to depute officers to give an expert opinion on
demand forecast and capacity planning for Andhra Pradesh. In that connection
Shri S. Ramar, Chief Engineer (IRP) and Shri M.L.Gupta, Director (IRP) from Central
Electricity Authority were deputed by Chairman, CEA from 27th to 28th January, 2003 to
discuss with the officers of APERC regarding demand forecasting and generating capacity
requirement to meet the forecasted demand of power for the state of Andhra Pradesh.
APERC examines the proposals of APTRANSCO on power procurement plan for the State
of Andhra Pradesh. APERC had sought the expert opinion of Central Electricity Authority
on the following:
(i) Forecasted demand for power to be adopted for the power procurement plan
of the APTRANSCO.
(ii) Assessment of reserve margin and generating capacity requirement to attain
LOLP of less than 1% in the AP System.
1.2 The material/information made available by APERC during the first meeting was
examined in the CEA and another round of discussion was held by Shri ML Gupta,
Director and Mrs. P.E. Kamala, Asstt. Director with the officers of APERC and
APTRANSCO from 4th to 7th February, 2003 at Hyderabad. The broad assumptions made
by APTRANSCO to arrive at capacity requirement corresponding to 1% LOLP, the details
of SYPCO model available with APTRANSCO and assumptions made for making demand
projections and capacity planning were discussed at length.
1.3 Based upon the information made available by APERC and APTRANSCO, studies
have been carried out by CEA and the results of the studies alongwith analysis, conclusion
and recommendations are brought out in this report.
APERC 9 CEA
CHAPTER 2
DEMAND FORECAST
Basically two demand forecasts are available for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
 Demand forecast as per the 16th EPS.

 The projected requirement of electricity by APTRANSCO.
2.1 16th EPS Demand Forecast
2.1.1 Central Electricity Authority makes projections for requirement of electricity for
drawing up power programme in the country on regional and state level basis under a
system of periodic power surveys. The latest forecast made by CEA is as per the report of
16th Electric Power Survey Committee, September, 2000. The 16th EPS Committee was
constituted in March, 1998 and under its terms of reference detailed demand projections
were made up to 2004-05 and perspective demand was projected upto 2016-17. The
Report by the EPS Committee was submitted to CEA in December, 1999 and was finalised
on 24th May, 2000 based upon the discussions with the representatives of Ministry of Power
, Planning Commission, State Utilities, TERI etc.
2.1.2 The methodology adopted for making the demand forecast is based upon partial end
use techniques and trend analysis for various sectors/categories of consumers. The other
highlight of 16th EPS are:
• The actual data of electricity consumption and T&D losses is given up to the
year 1997-98.
• The detailed forecasts on sectoral basis is given up to the year 2004-05.
• The load mix is analyzed in terms of LT load and HT load.
2.1.3 LT loads covers following categories of load :

 Irrigation (Agriculture)
 Domestic,
 Commercial and Miscellaneous,
 Public lighting
 Public water Works and
 LT industries.
The HT load covers following in the 16th EPS

 Irrigation (Lift Irrigation)
 Industry (less than 1 MW)
 Industry (1 MW & above)
 Railway Traction
 Non Industrial Consumers
2.1.4 The micro level forecast for each category of consumption prepared by the Sectt. of
the Committee for every State Utilities/licencees were discussed. In case of Andhra
APERC 10 CEA
Pradesh, these discussions were held with the representatives of APTRANSCO before
finalisation. The projected energy requirement for the State as per 16 th EPS corresponds to
a growth rate of 6.44% per annum compounded for the period 2000-01 to 2006-07 against
the corresponding past restricted growth rate of 7.69% during 1994-95 to 2000-01.
2.1.5 The demand forecast made by 16th EPS for the State of Andhra Pradesh are given in
Table-2.1.
TABLE-2.1
DEMAND FORECAST AS PER 16th EPS
Year Energy Requirement Peak Load
GWh MW
2001-02 50493 8234
2002-03 53711 8759
2003-04 57121 9315
2004-05 60633 9888
2005-06 64486 10516
2006-07 68797 11219
2.1.6 Analysis of Trend in Actual Consumption
16th EPS has given the actual consumption of energy in the Andhra Pradesh under
11 categories for the period 1993-94 to 1997-98. Summary of category-wise consumption
in AP is given at Table-2.2 and the graphs of growth rates in each category are given at
Graph 2.1 given below. It could be seen that there is no consistent trend of growth in the
Sectoral consumption for making projections. In view of this, any projections made on the
basis of past consumption would give wrong projections.
Table2.2
SUMMARY OF CATEGORYWISE FORCAST FOR ANDHRA PRADESH
S.NO. CATEGORIES 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98

1 DOMESTIC 3289.8 3319.81 3393.49 3894 4636
2 COMMERCIAL & MISCELLANEOUS 823.21 747.88 860.18 878 1026
3 PUBLIC LIGHTING 154.76 156.64 166.65 217 291
4 IRRIGATION 9366.8 11269.75 11757.42 8230 9783
5 LIFT IRRIGATION 45 55 29 26 25
6 LT NDUSTRIES 1125.19 1177.82 1224.61 1320 1411
7 HT INDUSTRIES LESS THAN 1 MW 2165.55 2505.26 2107.59 1886.25 2010.37
8 HT NDUSTRIES 1 MW & ABOVE 3802.7 3607.63 3317.86 3494.01 3357.53
9 LOW FREQ. & VOLTAGE CORRECTION
10 RAILWAY TRACTION 552.51 594.69 631.25 687 818
11 NON INDUSTRIAL 201.33 203.38 205.55 214.76 227.1
12 TOTAL CONSUMPTION-MKWH 21526.85 23637.86 23693.6 20847.02 23585
13 T & D LOSSES (%) 20.24 18.08 19.6 33.19 34.1

14 T & D LOSSES -MKWH 5463.15 5217.14 5776.4 10357.98 12206
15 ENERGY REQUIREMENT- MKWH 26990 28855 29470 31205 35791
16 LOAD FACTOR (%) 76.95 77.09 78.25 74.27 74.64
17 PEAK LOAD (MW) 4004 4273 4299 4796 5474
APERC 11 CEA
It is seen from the above analysis that in view of large variations in the growth rates in
various sectors, trends in past consumption can not be used for making future projections.
GRAPH 2.1
GRAPHS SHOWING GROWTH RATES OF ACTUAL CONSUMPTIONS IN VARIOUS SECTORS
(1994-95 TO 1997-98)
DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL & MISC

GROWTH RATE(%)
GROWTH RATE (%)

25.0 20.0
20.0
10.0
15.0
10.0 0.0
5.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
-10.0
0.0
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 -20.0
YEAR YEAR
PUBLIC LIGHTING IRRIGATION

30.0
GROWTH RATE (%)

GROWTH RATE (%)
40.0 20.0
30.0 10.0
20.0 0.0
10.0 -10.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
0.0 -20.0
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 -30.0
YEAR -40.0
YEAR
LIFT IRRIGATION HT INDUSTRIES LT 1 M W

GROWTH RATE (%)
40.0 20.0
GROWTH RATE
20.0
10.0
0.0
(%)
0.0
1994-95
-20.0 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
-10.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
-40.0
-60.0 -20.0
YEAR YEAR
HT INDUSTRIES 1 MW &ABOVE NON INDUSTRIAL

GROWTH RATE (%)
7.0
GROWTH RATE
10.0 6.0
5.0
5.0 4.0
3.0
(%)
0.0
2.0
-5.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1.0
0.0
-10.0 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98
YEAR YEAR
RAILWAY TRACTION
25.0
GROWTH RATE (%)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
APERC 1994-95 12
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 CEA
YEAR
2.2 Projections made by APTRANSCO
2.2.1 A study of the Load-Mix of constrained scenario for the period 1990-91 to 2000-01
indicates that under the reforms process the share of irrigation (Agriculture) in total sales
has been brought down in one year from about 50% in 1995-96 to about 40% in 1996-97
and this quantum of energy has been transposed from sales to T&D losses as Commercial
Loss Component. Therefore, the T&D losses, which were around 20% up to 1995-96, have
been hiked to about 33% in 1996-97 and further to about 35% in 2000-01. Thus terming
the average growth rates with administrated sales figures of recent past (1996-97 to 2000-
01) as representative of future is not proper.
2.2.2 Analysis of Agriculture Projections made by APTRANSCO for 2007-08
As per the AP TRANSCO estimates, the requirement of energy in the agriculture

sector would be 10,565 MU for 24 lakh registered consumers.
The per capita consumption of agricultural consumers is = 10,565 MU

24 lakh consumers
= 4402 Units.
Average capacity of Pump set = 5 H.P. = 3.75 KW
Assuming 9 hours of supply to every agriculture consumer the average per day
consumption = 3.75 x 9 kwh = 33.75 kWh
No. of days electricity supplied = 4402 = 129 days
34
The average supply of electricity required for agriculture consumers is 180-200

days per year against which supply to agriculture consumers would be 129 days which is
about 65 to 70% of the electricity required for pumping the agriculture sector.
Thus it may be seen from the above that the agriculture consumption for the
forecasted periods by APTRANSCO is under estimated.
2.3 COMPARISON OF 16TH EPS AND APTRANSCO PROJECTIONS
2.3.1 A comparison between 16th EPS forecasts and that of APTRANSCO has been made
in the table 2.3 given below. The captive demand and energy have been deducted from the
projections of APTRANSCO to bring them at par with 16th EPS forecasts.
It could be seen from the table given below that APTRANSCO projections are
lower than 16th EPS projections ranging from 5.4 % to 14.6 %.
APERC 13 CEA
Table 2.3
16TH EPS APTRANSCO

YEAR ENERGY ENERGY WHEELING RE- RURAL TOTAL % DIFF PEAK
REQ. PURCHASE IMPORT PATRIATED SUPPLY between A LOAD
CAPTIVE &B
Gwh Gwh Gwh Gwh Gwh Gwh % MW
A B
2001 47319 41130 3631 44761 5.4 7300
2002 50493 42199 3650 45849 9.2 7477
2003 53711 43161 3321 46482 13.5 7580
2004 57121 45926 3324 820 1500 51570 9.7 8410
2005 60633 47557 3226 1574 1500 53857 11.2 8783
2006 64486 49953 3165 1544 1500 56162 12.9 9159
2007 68797 52658 3106 1523 1500 58787 14.6 9587
2008 73183 56389 3086 1523 1500 62498 14.6 10192
2.3.2 Methodology to be adopted
There could be several methods of projecting power demands apart from historical
and econometric modeling etc. While selecting the methodology , objective of the forecast,
data base available and its spatial distribution has to be kept in mind. End-use method is
another method internationally recognised as an accurate yet mathematically simple
method of projecting power demands. This is a BOTTOM-UP exercise against the TOP-
DOWN approach of econometric method. This method does not necessarily require a
time-series data base, which is a basic necessity of other two methods, referred above. The
end-use method has also a distinct advantage of dovetailing the effect of changes in policy
decision on any particular sector of consumption. This method has been adopted and
evolved in CEA and a combination of trend and end-use method which has come to be
known as “Partial End-use Method” and is being used for forecasting State/sub-
State/System-wise power demands for the National Power Survey Committee set by Govt.
of India from time to time. This has proved to be a time tested method giving fairly
accurate forecast for a country like India where planning is being done from States upward.
It is our considered opinion that methodology adopted by the 16 th EPS Committee

being a time tested method should be relied upon to make future forecasts.
During the discussions with officials of APERC/APTRANSCO we have come to

know that following three methods given below have been applied.
a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data.

b) Econometric Modeling
c) Forecast made on the basis of End Use/Partial end use techniques.
It was agreed with APERC that the review of the various methodology would not
be carried out in this Report and recommendations would only be made in respect of
demand forecast to be adopted for the expansion plan of APTRANSCO.
APERC 14 CEA
Estimates of future demands based upon past consumption has been made by
APERC. The Consultants of APTRANSCO had applied econometric models for making
future projection. 16th EPS forecasts are based upon End use/partial end use techniques.
2.4 Actual Load-Met And Assessed Shortages in Andhra Pradesh, Southern

Region and All India
2.4.1 Analysis of availability and shortages both in terms of energy and peak demand in
respect of Andhra Pradesh, Southern Region and All India basis is given in the Tables
below:
Table 2.4
POWER SUPPLY POSITION (ENERGY IN MU)
ANDHRA PRADESH
YEAR REQUIREMENT Growth AVAILABILITY Growth Rate SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/

Rate DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 36790 29376 -7414 -20.2
1996-97 40240 9.38 31359 6.75 -8881 -22.1
1997-98 41599 3.38 35606 13.54 -5993 -14.4
1998-99 41958 0.86 38293 7.55 -3665 -8.7
1999-00 45835 9.24 42832 11.85 -3003 -6.5
2000-01 47992 4.71 44055 2.86 -3737 -7.8
2001-02 48394 0.84 44302 0.56 -4092 -8.5
Table 2.5
SOUTHERN REGION

Rate DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 105590 87925 -17665 -16.7
1996-97 112675 6.71 89469 1.76 -23206 -20.6
1997-98 117657 4.42 98749 10.37 -18908 -16.1
1998-99 118038 0.32 105301 6.64 -12737 -10.8
1999-00 125759 6.54 116358 10.53 -9371 -7.4
2000-01 134300 6.79 123677 6.26 -10623 -7.9
2001-02 140516 4.63 128095 3.57 -12421 -8.8
Table 2.6
ALL INDIA

Rate DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 389721 354045 -35676 -9.2

1996-97 413490 6.10 365900 3.35 -47590 -11.5
1997-98 424505 2.66 390330 6.68 -34175 -8.1
1998-99 446584 5.20 420235 7.66 -26349 -5.9
1999-00 480430 7.58 450594 7.22 -29836 -6.2
2000-01 507216 5.58 467400 3.73 -39816 -7.8
2001-02 522537 3.02 483350 3.41 -39187 -7.5
APERC 15 CEA
Variation of growth rate of energy requirement and Energy availability for the
period 1995-96 to 2001-02 for A.P, Southern region and all India is given in graph 2.2
Table 2.7
POWER SUPPLY POSITION (PEAK IN MW)
ANDHRA PRADESH
YEAR REQUIREMENT AVAILABILITY SHORTAGE SURPLUS(+)/

DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 5830 4276 -1554 -26.7

1996-97 5940 4540 -1400 -23.6
1997-98 6111 5423 -688 -11.3
1998-99 6770 6139 -631 -9.3
1999-00 7209 6366 -843 -11.7
2000-01 8000 6835 -1165 -14.6
2001-02 8585 6873 -1712 -19.9
Table 2.8
SOUTHERN REGION

DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 16170 12350 -3820 -23.6

1996-97 16676 13428 -3248 -19.5
1997-98 17437 15318 -2119 -12.2
1998-99 18812 16490 -2322 -12.3
1999-00 20424 17832 -2592 -12.7
2000-01 21929 18777 -3152 -14.4
2001-02 22757 19201 -3556 -15.6
Table 2.9
ALL INDIA

DEFICIT(-)%
1995-96 60981 49836 -11145 -18.3

1996-97 63553 52376 -11177 -17.6
1997-98 65435 58042 -7393 -11.3
1998-99 67905 58445 -9460 -13.9
1999-00 72669 63691 -8978 -12.4
2000-01 78037 67880 -10157 -13.0
2001-02 81555 71262 -10293 -12.6
2.4.2 It can be seen that Andhra Pradesh has felt energy shortages ranging from 22.1% to
6.5% in the period 1995-96 to 2001-02 and the southern region as a whole has also felt
shortages during this period in the range of 20 .6% to 7.4% . The energy shortages on All
India basis range from 11.5% to 5.9% for the same period. Similarly the shortages were
experienced in peak demand-met in AP, Southern Region and All India. A comparative
APERC 16 CEA
chart of shortages both in energy and peak demand for the three systems examined are
given at Graph 2.3.
Graph 2.2
GR OF AP ER GR OF AP EA
10.00
16.00
9.00
8.00 14.00
7.00 12.00
6.00
10.00
5.00
8.00
4.00
6.00
3.00
2.00 4.00
1.00 2.00
0.00 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
REQUIREMENT 36790 AVAILABILITY 29376
8.00
GR OF SR ER GR OF SR EA
12.00
7.00
10.00
6.00
5.00 8.00
4.00 6.00
3.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 AVAILABILITY 87925
REQUIREMENT 105590
8.00
GR OF ALL-INDIA ER
GR OF ALL-INDIA EA
9.00 7.00
8.00
6.00
7.00
5.00
6.00
4.00
5.00
4.00 3.00
3.00 2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 AVAILABILITY REQUIREMENT 389721
354045
APERC 17 CEA
Graph 2.3
% ENERGY DEFICIT
25.0
20.0
A.P.
15.0
SOUTHERN
10.0 REGION
ALL INDIA
5.0
0.0
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02
YEAR
% DEFICIT IN PEAK
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
A .P.
5.0
0.0 SOUTHERN
1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REGION
A LL INDIA
YEAR
The above analysis shows that country, as a whole, Southern Region and Andhra
Pradesh have experienced energy and peak shortages of varying magnitude.
APERC 18 CEA
2.5 Comparison of energy requirement in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Southern

Region and all India basis during the last three years as compared to 16th EPS.
2.5.1 A comparison has been made between demand forecast made by 16th EPS and total
energy requirement considering the energy supplied and shortages in Andhra Pradesh,
Southern Region and All India. Details are furnished in Table 2.10. It could be seen that
during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 the 16th EPS energy projections for Andhra
Pradesh were lower by 3.5% and 1.4% respectively while it was higher by 4.3% in the
year 2001-02. This trend was followed in Southern Region as well as on All India basis.
Table - 2.10
COMPARISON WITH 16th EPS / VARIATION IN ENERGY REQUIREMENT
Year Estimated Actual Energy Total Energy %Age Variation

As Per 16th Energy Not Requirement W.R.T. W.R.T.
EPS Supplied Supplied (ii) (iv)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
ANDHRA PRADESH
1999-00 44215 42832 3003 45835 3.22 -3.54
2000-01 47319 44055 3737 47992 6.89 -1.4
2001-02 50493 44302 4092 48394 13.97 4.34
SOUTHERN REGION
1999-00 125356 116358 9371 125759 7.73 -0.32
2000-01 133845 123677 10623 134300 7.59 -0.3
2001-02 142980 128095 12421 140516 11.62 1.75
ALL INDIA
1999-00 466066 450594 29836 480430 3.43 -2.98
2000-01 496266 467400 39816 507216 5.82 -2.2
2001-02 529013 483350 39187 522537 7.10 1.22
2.5.2 From the above tables it may be seen that:
a) The compounding average growth rate (CAGR) for the energy requirement
during period 1995-96 to 2001-02 for AP works out to 4.68%. However,
1998-99 and 2001-02 are abnormal years showing growth rate of 0.86% and
0.84% over previous years. The CAGR works out to 6.87% if these two
abnormal years are not considered.
b) During the year 2000-01 energy requirements of AP were almost matching
with 16th EPS demand forecasts (1.4% variation). The CAGR of 16th EPS is
6.44%, which is lower than CAGR of normal years.
Shortages in the previous years had affected the actual growth in the last years.
Had there been adequate supply available the growth would have been maintained and the
estimated projections of 16th EPS would have been achieved. This gives strong indication
that 16th EPS projections should be used for planning to arrive at need based capacity
addition. However, scenarios corresponding to the projections of 16th EPS reduced by 5%
and increased by 5% have also been considered as a sensitivity study.
APERC 19 CEA
2.5.3 GSDP/GDP Growth Rates of Andhra Pradesh and All India at constant (1993-
94) Prices.
The GDP growth rates of Andhra Pradesh and all India at constant (1993-94) prices
are given in the Table 2.11 below.
Table 2.11
GSDP/GDP Growth Rates of Andhra Pradesh and All India
at constant (1993-94) Prices.
Sl. No. Year Growth Rate

Andhra Pradesh All India
1. 1993-94 10.82 5.90

2. 1994-95 5.61 7.25
3. 1995-96 5.92 7.34
4. 1996-97 6.30 7.84
5. 1997-98 -1.37 4.79
6. 1998-99 12.16 6.51
7. 1999-2000 4.58 6.07
8. 2000-01 7.43 4.37
9. 2001-02 3.79 5.57
From the above table it may be concluded that the GDP growth in AP was –1.37 %
in 1997-98, which would have affected the energy consumed in the following year. The
GDP growth rates in the AP may be considered in the range of 6 to 9 % which would
require same order growth of electricity.
APERC 20 CEA
CHAPTER 3
CAPTIVE & BIO-MASS POWER GENERATION
3.1 As of date total captive power generation in the State of Andhra Pradesh using
diesel, coal and other fuels is 1313 MW. It is expected that the industrial load will be
repatriated to the grid due to incentive given by APERC in the tariff for HT industrial
consumers and the same has been considered by APTRANSCO in their projections
Currently, APTRANSCO projects its requirement considering the captive load and
captive generating capacity in the system. During the discussions held with the officials of
APTRANSCO it was noted that the capacity utilisation of captive power plants is
considered at 40% and its availability is taken as 90% for LOLP calculation. This is not
appropriate from the modelling point of view as far as considering the captive power plants
available for 90% of the time in the system. These captive power plants would by and
large meet the demand of H.T. consumers when the grid supply is not available. However,
in the above referred assumption made by APTRANSCO it gives an effect that 90% of
time the captive plants are available to meet any demand in the system restricted by hours
of operations to yield 40% capacity factor.
In view of the above, it is recommended that captive demand and captive plants
should be kept outside the simulation runs of the Andhra Pradesh system.
3.2 Bio Mass Based Capacity.
As per the information available during the discussions the existing bio-gas capacity
in the AP System is about 82.8 MW and 47.6 MW capacity is planned for additions in
2002-03 and 46.9 MW during 2003-04.
Though it has not been the practice to consider non-conventional capacity along
with conventional power projects for power planning but for the present studies the
benefits have been considered as these capacities are committed for benefits in the AP
system. APTRANSCO is buying power from these plants as per signed PPA’s at 70 %
PLFs.
APERC 21 CEA
CHAPTER 4
GENERATION PLANNING CRITERIA - PROBABILISTIC

APPROACH
4.1 The fundamental objective of generation system expansion planning is to supply

reliable power to the ultimate consumers at reasonable price.
There are broadly three approaches in power planning

• Deterministic Approach
• Probabilistic Approach
• Chronological Approach
In the deterministic approach of generation planning, the generation reserve

requirements are determined on the basis of fixed percentage of peak load or a fixed
number of system’s largest generation units. Judgement based on past experience plays a
crucial role in adopting this technique, which is based on the assumption that the reserve
margins arrived at on the basis of past experience will provide the same degree of
reliability even in future, irrespective of pattern of generation mix, load characteristics, unit
sizes and system inter-connections. The other draw backs of deterministic approach are that
it fails to quantify reliability and its influence on generation capacity requirements, ignores
stochastic nature of forced outages and random variation of system load.
The probabilistic approach enables determination of reserved margins

corresponding to a given level of reliability. The commonly used measures of reliability are
Loss Of Load Probability (LOLP) and Energy Not Served (ENS). The LOLP is a measure
of probability of system failure whereas ENS provides a measure of magnitude of energy
not served in the system.
In chronological approach hourly simulation of system operation is done to assess

the performance of the system.
4.2 For the purposes of these studies, EGEAS model based upon probabilistic approach
has been applied to evaluate the system performance. The two reliability indices are briefly
explained below.
4.2.1 Loss of Load Probability (LOLP)
Loss of Load Probability (LOLP) is defined as the average number of days or hour
over a specific period, normally a year, during which the demand exceeds generating
capacity. There is no standard value of LOLP and the targeted LOLP varies from country
to country. For example, in the United States, the targeted value of LOLP is 1 day in 10
years. In Europe, the targeted value of LOLP varies from country to country from 1 day in
1 year to 1 day in 15 years. In India, LOLP of 1% i.e. 3.65 days in a year is adopted for
regional planning to assess the capacity requirements on long term basis.
APERC 22 CEA
LOLP is dependent upon a number of factors such as shape of Load Duration

Curves, forced outage of generating units, unit sizes, etc.
4.2.2 Energy Not Served (ENS)
Energy Not Served is the expected amount of Energy Not Supplied due to outages
in the long run and is expressed in units of energy or as a percentage of the total energy
demand during a specified period. Since two or more alternative scenarios of generation
expansion plans can have same level of LOLP but different values on ENS, a cost value is
assigned to ENS in the Objective Function called as cost of energy Not Served. Recent
value of cost of ENS adopted in the planning studies has been of the order of Rs.4 per unit.
APERC 23 CEA
CHAPTER 5
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS
5.1 Existing Generating Capacity
The existing generating capacity in the A.P. System as on 31.3.2002 is 10559 MW

comprising of 7451 MW thermal, 2965 MW hydro and 143 MW nuclear as per
APTRANSCO. The installed capacity is inclusive of AP Share in Central Sector projects.
This capacity includes captive generating capacity of 1313 MW based upon coal, diesel
and gas and 82.8 MW capacity based on bio-mass. The captive capacity has not been
considered for the Studies. Thus existing capacity considered for the purpose of these
studies is 9246 MW. The 400 MW benefits from GRIDCO, Orissa has been phased out in
2004-05 as indicated by APTRANSCO.
5.2 Committed Capacity 2002-2007
Following listed projects totaling to 4214.7 have been considered as committed for
the purpose of Studies
Sl.No. Name of the Project Sector Year of Capacity

Comng considered
(MW)
1. Simhadri CS 2002-03 500
2. Ramagundam III CS 2005-06 183
3. Talcher-II1* CS 2003-04 106.3
4. Talcher-II2 CS 2004-05 106.3
5. Talcher-II3&4 CS 2005-06 212.6
6. Rayalasema-II SS 2006-07 420
9. Vemagiri-I PS 2004-05 370
10. Gautami PS 2003-04 464
11. Jegurupadu Ext. PS 2004-05 230
12. Ramagundam BPL PS 2005-06 520
13. Konaseema PS 2004-05 445
Total 4214.7
*since already commissioned
The total capacity available for benefits is 13060.7 MW by 2006-07 after phasing out
imports of 400 MW from Gridco, Orissa.
APERC 24 CEA
5.3 Scenarios Examined:
Considering above capacities the APTRANSCO system has been evaluated for the
following four demand scenarios.
Scenario Description Details of Study

Scenario ‘A’ Demand as per 16th EPS. Enclosed as Study
‘A’
Scenario ‘B’ 16th EPS Demand reduced by 5% both in terms Enclosed as Study
of energy and power. ‘B’
Scenario ‘C’ 16th EPS Demand increased by 5% both in Enclosed as Study
terms of energy and power ‘C’
Scenario ‘D’ Energy projections of APTRANSCO and Enclosed as Study
system load factor of 70%( the captive demand ‘D’
and energy projected by APTRANSCO is not
considered)
5.4 Summary of results
5.4.1 The results of the studies in terms of LOLP, ENS and Reserve Margin for the four
scenarios is tabulated below.
Table 5.1
SCENARIO A: 16th EPS Demand Forecast
Year Peak Energy Reserve LOLP ENS

Load Require Margin
ment
MW GWh % (%) (%)
2002-03 8759 53711 20.45 2.81 3.30
2003-04 9315 57121 20.40 3.26 2.46
2004-05 9888 60633 21.02 3.54 1.43
2005-06 10516 64486 21.14 3.72 0.53
2006-07 11219 68797 18.23 5.81 2.20
It could be seen from above that under the 16th EPS demand projection, the AP
System is expected to operate at 5.81% LOLP and 2.2% ENS during the year 2006-07.
In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of 1320 MW would be required over
and above programmed capacity of 10th Plan.
APERC 25 CEA
Table 5.2
th
SCENARIO B: 16 EPS Demand Forecast reduced by 5%

Load Requirement Margin (%) (%)
MW GWh % (%) (%)
2002-03 8321 51025 26.79 0.93 0.024
2003-04 8849 54265 26.74 1.16 0.034
2004-05 9394 57601 27.39 1.32 0.042
2005-06 999- 61262 27.51 1.42 0.047
2006-07 10658 65357 24.46 2.51 0.097
5% reduction in peak demand and energy requirement from the 16th EPS projections
is expected to meet the energy requirement with less than 0.15% ENS and LOLP would
be less than 1.5% during all the years except in the year 2006-07. Since the energy
requirements are by and large met under this scenario, it may not be pragmatic to
achieve 1% LOLP by adding additional capacity. This can be achieved by demand
management.
Table 5.3
th
SCENARIO C: 16 EPS Demand Forecast increased by 5%

Load Require Margin
ment
MW GWh % (%) (%)
2002-03 9197 56397 14.71 6.21 7.57
2003-04 9781 59977 14.66 6.92 6.64
2004-05 10382 63665 15.26 7.3 5.50
2005-06 11042 67710 15.36 7.6 4.45
2006-07 11780 72237 12.60 10.77 6.16
It could be seen from above that under the scenario of 16th EPS demand projection
increased by 5%, the AP System is expected to operate at 10.77% LOLP and 6.16%
ENS during the year 2006-07. In order to achieve 1% LOLP, additional capacity of
2200 MW would be required over and above programmed capacity of 10th Plan.
Table 5.4
SCENARIO D: APTRANSCO Demand Forecast

Load Requirement Margin
MW GWh % (%) (%)
2002-03 7580 46482 39.18 0.06 0.001
2003-04 8410 51570 33.35 0.31 0.007
2004-05 8783 53857 36.25 0.24 0.006
2005-06 9159 56162 39.08 0.15 0.004
2006-07 9587 58787 38.36 0.20 0.005
APERC 26 CEA
5.4.2 Under APTRANSCO demand projections which are about 4.6 % to 15% lower
than 16th EPS demands, the expected LOLP are much lower than 1% and ENS is also very
much below 0.15% . This shows an over expanded system.
Since the four CCGTs namely Vemagiri, Gautimi, J’ Padu Ext. and Konaseema are
operating at extremely low PLFs , following studies have been carried out by dropping
them from the capacity expansion plan and the AP system is studied again.
5.4.2.1 Effect Of Dropping 4 CCGT Plants:
The scenarios have been examined when the benefits of Vemagiri, Gautimi, J’ Padu
Ext. and Konaseema CCGTs have not been considered in the system and system
performance is evaluated for APTRANSCO projections. Up to year 2003-04 the system
give LOLP and ENS at accepted levels and shortages are indicated beyond 2004-05.
Summary of results is given below:
Table 5.5
SCENARIO : APTRANSCO Demand Forecast without all the CCGTs

Load Requirement Margin
MW GWh % (%) (%)
2002-03 7580 46482 39.18 0.06 0.011
2003-04 8410 51570 27.84 0.78 0.193
2004-05 8783 53857 19.07 3.39 5.562
2005-06 9159 56162 22.61 2.22 7.588
2006-07 9587 58787 22.62 2.49 3.969
This Study has indicated that up to the year 2003-04, the AP System would have
LOLP below 1 % ( LOLP of 0.78% and ENS 0.193%.). During the years 2004-05 to
2006-07 the LOLP would be in the range of 2.2% to 3.4% and ENS in the range of 3.96
% to 7.6 %. This indicates that one of the four CCGTs can be considered.
5.4.1 Energy Supplying Capability Under Four Scenarios:
The energy supplied by the proposed system of expansion under four load
conditions is given below. It could be seen that in the year 2006-07 the system would
supply energy of 67283 GWh under 16th EPS demand conditions and would supply 58784
GWh under APTRANSCO projections. Thus there would be about 8500 GWh which
system is capable of supplying but would go unutilized.
APERC 27 CEA
Table 5.6
Year 16th 5 % Less of 5 % More APTRA

EPS 16th EPS of 16th EPS NSCO
GWh GWh GWh GWh
2001-02 48266 47927 48418 44838
2002-03 51939 51013 52127 46482
2003-04 55716 54080 55993 51570
2004-05 59766 57577 60165 53848
2005-06 64144 61233 64695 56160
2006-07 67283 65294 67785 58784
The above Table indicates that proposed generation expansion plan is also
capable of meeting any eventuality arising out of additional rural supply and shortfall in
hydro generation in the system as explained below
5.4.3.1 Additional Rural Supply
APTRANSCO has proposed to the APERC that its energy requirement would be higher
by 1500 GWh, due to 24 hours supply to rural areas over and above the regulated supply to
agriculture consumers.
The proposed generating system can meet this requirement and no additional
generating capacity would be required. Moreover this situation of additional rural supply
is arising only under APTRANSCO projections
5.4.3.2 Reduction in Hydro Generation
APTRANSCO has estimated that hydro generation may decrease by 1000 GWh per
year on account of diversion of water upstream to Srisailam.
Reduction in 1000 GWh of hydro energy would also not call for any additional
generating capacity
5.4.4 Expected Utilsation Of Generating Units
The expected plant load factor of each generating unit in the Andhra Pradesh
system is given at Annexure I to IV
Annexue I……………… 2003 -04

Annexue II……………… 2004-05
Annexue III……………… 2005 -06
Annexue IV……………… 2006 –07
It could be seen that expected utilisation of some of the generating units is much below the
accepted levels and is summarised in Table 5.7.
APERC 28 CEA
Table 5.7
PLF’s of affected generating units under various demand scenarios:
UNIT NAME 16th EPS 16TH EPS 16th EPS APTRANSCO

DEMAND RED by 5 % Increased by 5 Demand
%
RATED OPERATING CAP. CAP. CAP. CAP.
CAPACIT CAPACITY FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR
Y
UNIT NAME YEAR MW MW % % % %
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 2005 370 358.9 68.2 64.39 68.97 61.8

VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 2006 358.9 66.86 62.08 68.17 30.08
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 2007 358.9 67.12 62.51 68.34 23.18
GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW 2004 464 450.1 62.62 43.24 65.38 0.21

GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW 2005 450.1 66.06 60.77 67.65 27.96
GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW 2006 450.1 63.95 57.5 66.31 0.39
GAUTAMI CCGT(NEW 2007 450.1 64.6 58.48 66.76 0.48
J'PADU EXT.(SC) 2005 230 223.1 57.47 0.72 62.5 0.12

J'PADU EXT.(SC) 2006 223.1 54.14 0.78 60.12 0.08
J'PADU EXT.(SC) 2007 223.1 56.07 1.44 61.54 0.1
KONASEEMA (NEW) 2005 445 431.7 61.33 42.5 65.08 0.22

KONASEEMA (NEW) 2006 431.7 58.32 22.61 63.09 0.14
KONASEEMA (NEW) 2007 431.7 59.73 47.96 64.05 0.18
LVS DGPP 2004 36.8 35.3 65.57 59.37 67.69 0.43

LVS DGPP 2005 35.3 68.93 65.04 69.5 64.61
LVS DGPP 2006 35.3 67.96 63.31 68.99 58.9
LVS DGPP 2007 35.3 68.08 63.54 69.05 57.11
NELLORE 2004 30 25.5 70.04 0.54 69.58 0.15

NELLORE 2005 25.5 66.11 0.64 69.58 0.12
NELLORE 2006 25.5 62.1 0.7 69.58 0.08
NELLORE 2007 25.5 64.58 1.32 71.45 0.1
PEDDAPURAM2 2004 80 77.6 60.04 0.57 67.4 0.15

PEDDAPURAM2 2005 77.6 64.46 58.31 69.42 0.44
PEDDAPURAM2 2006 77.6 61.97 54.67 68.86 0.28
PEDDAPURAM2 2007 77.6 62.89 55.98 68.95 0.34
It may be concluded from the above table that
 4 Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power projects i.e. Vemagiri,

Gautimi, J’ Padu Ext. and Konaseema are not expected to operate at 85%
plant load factor in all the scenarios examined from the year 2005 to 2007.
 Their PLF is the maximum when 16th EPS projections with 5%
increase are considered.
 Under APTRANSCO projections these projects except Vemagiri
CCGT would operate at below 1% plant load factor.
APERC 29 CEA
5.4.5 Reserve Margins Required Corresponding to 1 % LOLP
From the four studies carried out as above it was seen that 1% LOLP is achieved
corresponding to 29.5% Reserve Margin and 0.97% LOLP with 30% Reserve Margin.
Thus from the above it can be concluded that Andhra Pradesh System would
require around 30% Reserve Margin to arrive at rated installed capacity of the system.
The average net capacity of the Andhra Pradesh System has been assessed as 96.5% of the
rated capacity. Thus, in terms of net capacity the reserve margin may be adopted as 29%.
This value would undergo a change if the system load factor or availability of
generating units or hydro thermal mix is drastically changed.
APTRANSCO gives the reserve margin in terms of net capacity whereas in CEA
rated capacity is used in reserve margin calculations.
5.4.6 Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a

number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that achievement of
capacity addition under private sector is dismal. Keeping this uncertainty in view, it would
be prudent and pragmatic to plan for capacity required to meet the demand projections as
made by 16th EPS.
APERC 30 CEA
CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 16TH EPS forecasts shall be the minimum requirements for power planning.
6.2 Reserve Margin of 30% in terms of rated capacity over peak demand or 29% of net
capacity would give 1% LOLP and less than 0.15% ENS for the AP system.
6.3 Work on programmed projects to be implemented in the 10th plan needs to be taken
up immediately on urgent basis with compressed time schedule so as to achieve the
commissioning in the 10th plan itself.
6.4 Additional projects totalling to a capacity exceeding 1300 MW needs to be

identified, preferably small size 210/250 MW thermal projects with less gestation
period so as to achieve the commissioning schedule in the 10th plan itself in order to
meet the demand projections as per the 16th EPS
6.5 Possibility of advancing the schedule of commissioning of projects due in 11th Plan
like Vijaywada VII Unit (660 MW) may be seriously considered.
6.6 The decision of APTRANSCO of not utilsing the benefits from Kaiga (58 MW
allocated AP share) and Neyveli Ext.(113 MW allocated AP share) should be
reviewed. It may also not be in national interest in the long run to avoid absorption
of nuclear generation from energy security angle and to reduce the shortages under
16th EPS demand scenario..
6.7 The APTRANSCO projections are not representative of future need based growth.
This will have adverse affect on the power development and availability programme
for AP in general and country as a whole.
6.8 Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a

number of MOUs had been signed with IPPs, the experience indicates that
achievement of capacity addition under private sector is highly unsatisfactory.
Keeping this uncertainty in view, it would be prudent and pragmatic to plan for
much more addition of capacity than required to meet the demand projections as
made by 16th EPS so that the actual achievement would be meeting the projected
plan requirements
6.9 It would be advised that action on all the above issues is initiated on priority so that
the commitment of the Ministry of Power, Government of India to achieve the
mission ‘Power on Demand to all by year 2012’ is fulfilled.
APERC xxxi CEA

Annexure - I Page xxxii of 46
CAPACITY FACTORS FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE YEAR 2003-04

16th EPS 16TH EPS 16TH EPS APTRANSCO
RATED OPERATING DEMAND RED by 5 % INCR. by 5 % Demand
UNIT NAME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAP. CAP. CAP. CAP.
MW MW FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR
% % % %
KOTHAGUDAM-1 60 54.9 86.02 77.99 86.77 83.93

KOTHAGUDAM-2 60 54.9 85.91 77.79 86.77 83.53
KOTHAGUDAM-3 60 54.9 86.12 78.16 86.77 84.28
KOTHAGUDAM-4 60 54.9 85.79 77.57 86.77 83.07
KOTHAGUDAM-5 110 96.6 77.71 66.89 79.11 73.28
KOTHAGUDAM-6 110 96.6 77.33 66.26 79.04 72.05

KOTHAGUDAM-7 110 98.1 80.12 70.5 81.23 77.07
KOTHAGUDAM-8 110 98.1 79.85 70.02 81.23 76.11
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-1 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-2 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
NELLORE 30 25.5 70.04 0.54 75.24 0.15

RAMAGUNDAM 62.5 57.0 83.9 75.99 83.27 82.35
RAYL.SEMA-1 210 188.8 83.7 72.77 85.14 76.25
RAYL.SEMA-2 210 188.8 80.43 68.87 82.51 45.72
VIJAYWADA-1 210 192.5 86.64 79.3 86.56 86.27
VIJAYWADA-2 210 192.5 86.7 79.4 86.65 86.48

VIJAYWADA-3 210 191.0 86.77 78.91 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-4 210 191.5 86.77 79.12 86.77 86.75
VIJAYWADA-5 210 192.3 86.77 79.46 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-6 210 192.5 86.77 79.52 86.77 86.77
VIJJESHWARAM-I1 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62

VIJJESHWARAM-I2 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-I3 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II1 112.5 109.1 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II2 60.5 58.7 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
RAMAGUNDAM-CS1 200 183.1 84.92 77.75 84.91 84.88

RAMAGUNDAM-CS2 380 348.0 84.9 77.71 84.87 84.8
KALPAKKAM(MAPS) 28 24.1 84.92 73.03 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-II 97 87.3 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-U4-7 180 162.0 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
KAIGA-1&2 115 99.8 84.92 73.71 84.92 84.92

SIMHADRI TPS-1 500 460.0 83.08 76.43 83.08 83.08
JEGURUPADU 48.9 47.4 70.15 68.05 70.15 70.15
CCGT1
JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
CCGT2
Annexure - I Page xxxii of 46
APERC xxxii CEA


% % % %
APERC xxxiii CEA

JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85

CCGT3
JEGURUPADU CCST 75.5 73.2 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT1 46.8 45.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT2 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT-3 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCST 68.88 66.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCST 125 121.3 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT1 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT2 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
PEDDAPURAM1 140 135.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
UPPER SILERU-4 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
MACHKUND-SH 80 79.6 48.94 48.7 48.94 48.94

HAMPI (T.B.DAM) 58 57.7 11.57 11.51 11.57 11.57
UPPER SILERU-1 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-2 60 59.7 20.82 20.71 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-3 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
DONKARAYI 25 24.9 59.55 59.26 59.55 59.55

LOWER SILERU-1 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-2 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-3 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-4 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
SRISAILAM-1 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6

SRISAILAM-2 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-3 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-4 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-5 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-6 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64

SRISAILAM-7 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
NAG. SAGAR LB1 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR LB2 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR RB1 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR RB2 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01

NAG. SAGAR RB3 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR PH-1 110 301.9 5.77 15.82 5.77 5.77
NAG. SAGAR-II1 105.6 105.1 16.56 16.48 16.56 16.56
NAG. SAGAR-II2 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
Annexure - I Page xxxiv of 46

% % % %
NAG. SAGAR-II3 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II4 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
APERC xxxiv CEA

NAG. SAGAR-II5 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II6 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II7 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NIZAMSAGAR 10 10.0 16.14 16.06 16.14 16.14

PENNA AB-1 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
PENNA AB-2 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
POCHAMPAD-1-3 27 26.9 37.36 37.17 37.36 37.36
SRISAILAM LB-1 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM LB-2 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
VATHASASA PP 17.69 17.0 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
BIOMASS PP 82.2 78.9 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
LVS DGPP 36.8 35.3 65.57 59.37 67.69 0.43
SIMHADRI TPS-2 500 460.0 76.31 69.94 75.93 75.47
GAUTAMI 464 450.1 62.62 43.24 65.38 0.21

CCGT(NEW
PEDDAPURAM2 80 77.6 60.04 0.57 67.4 0.15
AP-SMALL 8 8.0 11.02 10.96 11.02 11.02
SRISAILAM-LB-4 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM-LB-6 450 447.8 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
RVK POWER 20 18.4 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46

TALCHER II-2C1 106.3 97.8 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
EASTERN SH 400 368.0 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
BIOMASS PP-II 94.5 86.94 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
APERC xxxv CEA

Annexure - II Page 1 of 46

% % % %
KOTHAGUDAM-1 60 54.9 86.59 79 86.77 85.93

KOTHAGUDAM-2 60 54.9 86.56 78.96 86.77 85.81
KOTHAGUDAM-3 60 54.9 86.61 79.05 86.77 86.05
KOTHAGUDAM-4 60 54.9 86.53 78.9 86.77 85.66
KOTHAGUDAM-5 110 96.6 78.96 69.03 79.33 77.44
KOTHAGUDAM-6 110 96.6 78.86 68.86 79.31 76.97

KOTHAGUDAM-7 110 98.1 80.96 71.96 81.23 79.97
KOTHAGUDAM-8 110 98.1 80.89 71.82 81.23 79.64
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-1 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-2 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
NELLORE 30 25.5 66.11 0.64 72.51 0.12

RAMAGUNDAM 62.5 57.0 84.33 76.73 84.16 83.85
RAYL.SEMA-1 210 188.8 85.98 76.64 86.35 83.11
RAYL.SEMA-2 210 188.8 83.74 74.28 84.29 79.49
VIJAYWADA-1 210 192.5 86.76 79.49 86.73 86.64
VIJAYWADA-2 210 192.5 86.77 79.52 86.76 86.7

VIJAYWADA-3 210 191.0 86.77 78.91 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-4 210 191.5 86.77 79.12 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-5 210 192.3 86.77 79.46 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-6 210 192.5 86.77 79.52 86.77 86.77
VIJJESHWARAM-I1 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62

VIJJESHWARAM-I2 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-I3 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II1 112.5 109.1 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II2 60.5 58.7 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
RAMAGUNDAM-CS1 200 183.1 84.92 77.76 84.92 84.92

RAMAGUNDAM-CS2 380 348.0 84.92 77.76 84.92 84.9
KALPAKKAM(MAPS) 28 24.1 84.92 73.03 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-II 97 87.3 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-U4-7 180 162.0 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
KAIGA-1&2 115 99.8 84.92 73.71 84.92 84.92

SIMHADRI TPS-1 500 460.0 83.08 76.43 83.08 83.08
JEGURUPADU 48.9 47.4 70.15 68.05 70.15 70.15
CCGT1
JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
CCGT2
APERC xxxvi CEA


RATED OPERATING DEMAND RED by 5 % INCR. By 5 % Demand
% % % %
APERC xxxvii CEA

JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85

CCGT3
JEGURUPADU CCST 75.5 73.2 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT1 46.8 45.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT2 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT-3 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCST 68.88 66.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCST 125 121.3 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT1 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT2 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
PEDDAPURAM1 140 135.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
UPPER SILERU-4 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
MACHKUND-SH 80 79.6 48.94 48.7 48.94 48.94

HAMPI (T.B.DAM) 58 57.7 11.57 11.51 11.57 11.57
UPPER SILERU-1 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-2 60 59.7 20.82 20.71 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-3 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
DONKARAYI 25 24.9 59.55 59.26 59.55 59.55

LOWER SILERU-1 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-2 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-3 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-4 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
SRISAILAM-1 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6

SRISAILAM-2 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-3 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-4 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-5 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-6 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64

SRISAILAM-7 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
NAG. SAGAR LB1 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR LB2 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR RB1 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR RB2 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01

NAG. SAGAR RB3 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR PH-1 110 301.9 5.77 15.82 5.77 5.77
NAG. SAGAR-II1 105.6 105.1 16.56 16.48 16.56 16.56
NAG. SAGAR-II2 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

% % % %
NAG. SAGAR-II3 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II4 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
APERC xxxviii CEA

NAG. SAGAR-II5 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II6 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II7 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NIZAMSAGAR 10 10.0 16.14 16.06 16.14 16.14

PENNA AB-1 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
PENNA AB-2 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
POCHAMPAD-1-3 27 26.9 37.36 37.17 37.36 37.36
SRISAILAM LB-1 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM LB-2 150 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
VATHASASA PP 17.69 17.0 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
BIOMASS PP 82.2 78.9 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
LVS DGPP 36.8 35.3 68.93 65.04 69.5 64.61
SIMHADRI TPS-2 500 460.0 76.55 70.36 76.44 76.29
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 464 358.9 68.2 64.39 68.97 61.8

GAUTAMI 80 450.1 66.06 60.77 67.65 27.96
CCGT(NEW
PEDDAPURAM2 8 77.6 64.46 58.31 69.42 0.44
AP-SMALL 150 8.0 11.02 10.96 11.02 11.02
SRISAILAM-LB-4 450 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM-LB-6 20 447.8 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96

KONASEEMA (NEW) 106.3 431.7 61.33 42.5 65.08 0.22
RVK POWER 400 18.4 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C1 94.5 97.8 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C2 98.1 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
11008.5
J'PADU EXT.(SC) 223.1 57.47 0.72 62.5 0.12
BIOMASS PP-II 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
APERC xxxix CEA

Annexure - III Page xl of 46

% % % %
KOTHAGUDAM-1 60 54.9 86.36 78.6 86.77 84.32

KOTHAGUDAM-2 60 54.9 86.31 78.51 86.77 84
KOTHAGUDAM-3 60 54.9 86.41 78.69 86.77 84.61
KOTHAGUDAM-4 60 54.9 86.25 78.4 86.77 83.64
KOTHAGUDAM-5 110 96.6 78.54 68.29 79.23 74.38
KOTHAGUDAM-6 110 96.6 78.36 67.99 79.2 73.41

KOTHAGUDAM-7 110 98.1 80.65 71.43 81.23 77.75
KOTHAGUDAM-8 110 98.1 80.52 71.19 81.23 76.99
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-1 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-2 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
NELLORE 30 25.5 62.1 0.7 69.58 0.08

RAMAGUNDAM 62.5 57.0 84.15 76.43 83.87 82.61
RAYL.SEMA-1 210 188.8 85.27 75.39 85.97 78.27
RAYL.SEMA-2 210 188.8 82.76 72.6 83.77 73.35
VIJAYWADA-1 210 192.5 86.69 79.39 86.65 86.28
VIJAYWADA-2 210 192.5 86.73 79.45 86.7 86.47

VIJAYWADA-3 210 191.0 86.77 78.91 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-4 210 191.5 86.77 79.12 86.77 86.74
VIJAYWADA-5 210 192.3 86.77 79.46 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-6 210 192.5 86.77 79.52 86.77 86.77
VIJJESHWARAM-I1 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62

VIJJESHWARAM-I2 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-I3 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II1 112.5 109.1 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II2 60.5 58.7 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
RAMAGUNDAM-CS1 200 183.1 84.92 77.76 84.92 84.87

RAMAGUNDAM-CS2 380 348.0 84.91 77.73 84.9 84.78
KALPAKKAM(MAPS) 28 24.1 84.92 73.03 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-II 97 87.3 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-U4-7 180 162.0 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
KAIGA-1&2 115 99.8 84.92 73.71 84.92 84.92

SIMHADRI TPS-1 500 460.0 83.08 76.43 83.08 83.08
JEGURUPADU 48.9 47.4 70.15 68.05 70.15 70.15
CCGT1
JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
CCGT2
Annexure - III Page 2 of 46
APERC xl CEA

% % % %
APERC xli CEA

JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85

CCGT3
JEGURUPADU CCST 75.5 73.2 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT1 46.8 45.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT2 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT-3 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCST 68.88 66.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCST 125 121.3 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT1 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT2 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
PEDDAPURAM1 140 135.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
UPPER SILERU-4 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
MACHKUND-SH 80 79.6 48.94 48.7 48.94 48.94

HAMPI (T.B.DAM) 58 57.7 11.57 11.51 11.57 11.57
UPPER SILERU-1 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-2 60 59.7 20.82 20.71 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-3 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
DONKARAYI 25 24.9 59.55 59.26 59.55 59.55

LOWER SILERU-1 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-2 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-3 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-4 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
SRISAILAM-1 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6

SRISAILAM-2 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-3 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-4 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-5 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-6 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64

SRISAILAM-7 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
NAG. SAGAR LB1 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR LB2 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR RB1 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR RB2 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01

NAG. SAGAR RB3 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR PH-1 110 301.9 5.77 15.82 5.77 5.77
NAG. SAGAR-II1 105.6 105.1 16.56 16.48 16.56 16.56
NAG. SAGAR-II2 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
Annexure - III Page 3 of 46

% % % %
NAG. SAGAR-II3 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
APERC xlii CEA

NAG. SAGAR-II4 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II5 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II6 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II7 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NIZAMSAGAR 10 10.0 16.14 16.06 16.14 16.14

PENNA AB-1 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
PENNA AB-2 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
POCHAMPAD-1-3 27 26.9 37.36 37.17 37.36 37.36
SRISAILAM LB-1 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM LB-2 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
VATHASASA PP 17.69 17.0 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
BIOMASS PP 82.2 78.9 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
RAMAGUNDAM BPL- 36.8 478.4 76.62 70.49 76.62 76.62
C
RAMAGUNDAM-IIIC 500 134.3 76.62 70.49 76.62 76.62
LVS DGPP 464 35.3 67.96 63.31 68.99 58.9

SIMHADRI TPS-2 80 460.0 76.44 70.17 76.26 75.57
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 8 358.9 66.86 62.08 68.17 30.08
GAUTAMI 150 450.1 63.95 57.5 66.31 0.39
CCGT(NEW
PEDDAPURAM2 450 77.6 61.97 54.67 68.86 0.28
AP-SMALL 20 8.0 11.02 10.96 11.02 11.02

SRISAILAM-LB-4 106.3 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM-LB-6 400 447.8 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
KONASEEMA (NEW) 94.5 431.7 58.32 22.61 63.09 0.14
RVK POWER 18.4 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
11008.5
TALCHER II-2C1 97.8 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C2 98.1 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C3 97.5 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
J'PADU EXT.(SC) 223.1 54.14 0.78 60.12 0.08
BIOMASS PP-II 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
APERC xliii CEA

Annexure - IV Page xliv of 46

% % % %
KOTHAGUDAM-1 60 54.9 86.55 78.94 86.77 85.11

KOTHAGUDAM-2 60 54.9 86.53 78.89 86.77 84.9
KOTHAGUDAM-3 60 54.9 86.58 78.99 86.77 85.32
KOTHAGUDAM-4 60 54.9 86.49 78.84 86.77 84.66
KOTHAGUDAM-5 110 96.6 78.94 68.98 79.31 75.99
KOTHAGUDAM-6 110 96.6 78.85 68.83 79.29 75.32

KOTHAGUDAM-7 110 98.1 80.92 71.9 81.23 78.88
KOTHAGUDAM-8 110 98.1 80.86 71.77 81.23 78.36
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-1 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
KOTHAGUDAM-IV-2 250 228.9 87.69 80.29 87.69 87.69
NELLORE 30 25.5 64.58 1.32 71.45 0.1

RAMAGUNDAM 62.5 57.0 84.3 76.68 84.15 83.21
RAYL.SEMA-1 210 188.8 85.99 76.65 86.35 80.91
RAYL.SEMA-2 210 188.8 83.81 74.4 84.33 76.8
VIJAYWADA-1 210 192.5 86.73 79.46 86.71 86.43
VIJAYWADA-2 210 192.5 86.76 79.49 86.74 86.56

VIJAYWADA-3 210 191.0 86.77 78.91 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-4 210 191.5 86.77 79.12 86.77 86.76
VIJAYWADA-5 210 192.3 86.77 79.46 86.77 86.77
VIJAYWADA-6 210 192.5 86.77 79.52 86.77 86.77
VIJJESHWARAM-I1 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62

VIJJESHWARAM-I2 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-I3 33 32.0 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II1 112.5 109.1 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
VIJJESHWARAM-II2 60.5 58.7 76.62 74.32 76.62 76.62
RAMAGUNDAM-CS1 200 183.1 84.92 77.76 84.92 84.88

RAMAGUNDAM-CS2 380 348.0 84.92 77.75 84.92 84.82
KALPAKKAM(MAPS) 28 24.1 84.92 73.03 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-II 97 87.3 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
NEYVELI-U4-7 180 162.0 84.92 76.43 84.92 84.92
KAIGA-1&2 115 99.8 84.92 73.71 84.92 84.92

SIMHADRI TPS-1 500 460.0 83.08 76.43 83.08 83.08
JEGURUPADU 48.9 47.4 70.15 68.05 70.15 70.15
CCGT1
JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
CCGT2
Annexure - IV Page 2 of 46
APERC xliv CEA


% % % %
JEGURUPADU 45.8 44.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85

CCGT3
JEGURUPADU CCST 75.5 73.2 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT1 46.8 45.4 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT2 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCGT-3 46.1 44.7 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
GODAVARI CCST 68.88 66.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCST 125 121.3 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT1 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
KONDAPALLI CCGT2 115 111.6 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
PEDDAPURAM1 140 135.8 73.85 71.63 73.85 73.85
UPPER SILERU-4 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
MACHKUND-SH 80 79.6 48.94 48.7 48.94 48.94

HAMPI (T.B.DAM) 58 57.7 11.57 11.51 11.57 11.57
UPPER SILERU-1 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-2 60 59.7 20.82 20.71 20.82 20.82
UPPER SILERU-3 60 59.7 20.82 20.72 20.82 20.82
DONKARAYI 25 24.9 59.55 59.26 59.55 59.55

LOWER SILERU-1 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-2 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-3 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
LOWER SILERU-4 115 114.4 28.21 28.07 28.21 28.21
SRISAILAM-1 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6

SRISAILAM-2 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-3 110 109.5 42.6 42.39 42.6 42.6
SRISAILAM-4 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-5 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
SRISAILAM-6 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64

SRISAILAM-7 110 109.5 42.64 42.43 42.64 42.64
NAG. SAGAR LB1 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR LB2 30 29.9 36.67 36.49 36.67 36.67
NAG. SAGAR RB1 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR RB2 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01

NAG. SAGAR RB3 30 29.9 31.01 30.85 31.01 31.01
NAG. SAGAR PH-1 110 301.9 5.77 15.82 5.77 5.77
NAG. SAGAR-II1 105.6 105.1 16.56 16.48 16.56 16.56
NAG. SAGAR-II2 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
Annexure - IV Page 3 of 46
APERC xlv CEA


% % % %
NAG. SAGAR-II3 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49

NAG. SAGAR-II4 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II5 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II6 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NAG. SAGAR-II7 100 99.5 17.49 17.4 17.49 17.49
NIZAMSAGAR 10 10.0 16.14 16.06 16.14 16.14

PENNA AB-1 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
PENNA AB-2 10 10.0 3.93 3.91 3.93 3.93
POCHAMPAD-1-3 27 26.9 37.36 37.17 37.36 37.36
SRISAILAM LB-1 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM LB-2 150 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
VATHASASA PP 17.69 17.0 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
BIOMASS PP 82.2 78.9 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
RAMAGUNDAM BPL- 36.8 478.4 76.62 70.49 76.62 76.62
C
RAMAGUNDAM-IIIC 500 134.3 76.62 70.49 76.62 76.62
LVS DGPP 464 35.3 68.08 63.54 69.05 57.11

SIMHADRI TPS-2 80 460.0 76.52 70.32 76.43 75.9
VEMAGIRI CCGT (C 8 358.9 67.12 62.51 68.34 23.18
GAUTAMI 150 450.1 64.6 58.48 66.76 0.48
CCGT(NEW
PEDDAPURAM2 450 77.6 62.89 55.98 68.95 0.34
AP-SMALL 20 8.0 11.02 10.96 11.02 11.02

SRISAILAM-LB-4 106.3 149.3 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
SRISAILAM-LB-6 400 447.8 12.96 12.9 12.96 12.96
KONASEEMA (NEW) 94.5 431.7 59.73 47.96 64.05 0.18
RAYL.SEMA-II-2 190.1 68.82 61.15 69.45 60.94
11008.5
RAYL.SEMA-II-1 190.1 68.35 60.34 69.2 58.41
RVK POWER 18.4 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C1 97.8 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C2 98.1 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C3 97.5 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46
TALCHER II-2C4 97.5 78.46 72.18 78.46 78.46

J'PADU EXT.(SC) 223.1 56.07 1.44 61.54 0.1
BIOMASS PP-II 94.5 70.15 67.35 70.15 70.15
APERC xlvi CEA

Cea

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Cea

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Power Requirement of Andhra Pradesh

DEMAND FORECAST – METHODOLOGICAL ASPECT

 Broadly there are three methods of demand forecasting:

a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data

POWER SUPPLY POSITION

% ENERGY DEFICIT % DEFICIT IN PEAK

From the above it is noted that :

16th EPS Projections

Southern Region and All- India

Agriculture Requirement Forecasted by APTRANSCO.

The agriculture requirement projected by the APTRANSCO appears to be

CAPACITY CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS

 The existing installed capacity of AP as on 31.3.2002 considered for the

Based on 16th EPS Demand Projections

Sl.No. Name of the Project Sector Year of Capacity

12. Ramagundam BPL PS 2005-06 520

Accordingly, it is our considered view that work on above projects

Additional projects (totalling to a capacity of about 1300 MW) needs to be

Based on Increase in 16th EPS demand by 5 %

Based on Reduction in demand by 5 %

 5% reduction in peak demand and energy requirement of the 16 th EPS

Based on APTRANSCO demand projection

 Under APTRANSCO demand projection which are about 4.6 % to 15%

 It is concluded that APTRANSCO projections would have serious

Expected utilisation of 4 CCGTs during 2006-07

(Outage rate 24%) (Outage rate 10%)

VEMAGIRI CCGT 370 66.76 68.34 61.91 11.2 79.07 80.93

Reserve Margin Required Corresponding to 1 % LOLP

 Corresponding to 1% LOLP, reserve margin of about 30% of rated capacity

Additional Rural Supply

 APTRANSCO has proposed to APERC that its energy requirement would

Reduction in Hydro Generation

 Work on programmed projects to be implemented in the 10th plan needs to be taken up

 Additional projects totalling to a capacity exceeding 1300 MW needs to be identified in

 Although in a bid to encourage private sector participation in power development, a

1.1 Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC),

 Demand forecast as per the 16th EPS.

2.1 16th EPS Demand Forecast

2.1.3 LT loads covers following categories of load :

The HT load covers following in the 16th EPS

2.1.6 Analysis of Trend in Actual Consumption

S.NO. CATEGORIES 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98

12 TOTAL CONSUMPTION-MKWH 21526.85 23637.86 23693.6 20847.02 23585

13 T & D LOSSES (%) 20.24 18.08 19.6 33.19 34.1

17 PEAK LOAD (MW) 4004 4273 4299 4796 5474

DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL & MISC

GROWTH RATE (%)

PUBLIC LIGHTING IRRIGATION

GROWTH RATE (%)

LIFT IRRIGATION HT INDUSTRIES LT 1 M W

HT INDUSTRIES 1 MW &ABOVE NON INDUSTRIAL

2.2 Projections made by APTRANSCO

2.2.2 Analysis of Agriculture Projections made by APTRANSCO for 2007-08

As per the AP TRANSCO estimates, the requirement of energy in the agriculture

The per capita consumption of agricultural consumers is = 10,565 MU

The average supply of electricity required for agriculture consumers is 180-200

2.3 COMPARISON OF 16TH EPS AND APTRANSCO PROJECTIONS

16TH EPS APTRANSCO

2.3.2 Methodology to be adopted

It is our considered opinion that methodology adopted by the 16 th EPS Committee

During the discussions with officials of APERC/APTRANSCO we have come to

a) Projections made on the basis of trend analysis of past data.