bescom.orgbescom.org/.../uploads/2013/01/Chapter6-_Load_forecast-Autosav… · Web viewThe Commission vide above Load Forecast regulations has directed the Distribution Licensees

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited MYT for 3rd control period (FY14 – FY16)

CHAPTER – 6

LOAD FORECAST

The Commission has issued guidelines for preparation of Load Forecast,

Power Procurement Plan & Power Procurement procedure through

regulations:

KERC (Conditions of License for ESCOMs) Regulations, 2004 dated 28.0.2004

KERC (Load Forecast) Regulations, 2009 dated 02.04.2009

As per the Technical Conditions prescribed by the Commission under

Chapter III of the first regulation,

The Licensee shall on an annual basis:

(a) forecast the demand for electricity within the Area of Supply in each of the

next succeeding 10 years;

(b) prepare and submit such forecasts to the Commission in accordance with the

guidelines issued by the Commission from time to time; and

(c) Co-operate with the STU in the preparation of electricity demand forecasts

for the state of Karnataka.

The Commission vide above Load Forecast regulations has directed the

Distribution Licensees to follow the Forecast methodology adopted by CEA

from time to time, so as to have a consistent methodology. Further, it is also

stated that the forecast as per the latest available EPS (Electric Power Survey

of India), under fulfillment of CEA’s obligation under Section 73(a) of

Electricity Act, 2003 would be the reference point.

The latest available CEA forecast is 17th EPS. Some of the Objectives and

Methodology of Forecast of 17th EPS brought out by CEA during March 2007

of the document is listed below:

Chapter 6 – Load Forecast Page 73


Objectives: Page No: 27

Access to electricity: Available for all house-holds in next five years.

Availability of Power: Demand to be fully met by 2012. Energy and

peaking shortages to be overcome and adequate spinning reserve (at

least 5%) to be available.

Per capita availability of electricity to be increased to over 1000 units

by 2012.

In order to reduce the requirement for capacity addition, the

difference between electrical demand during peak periods and off

peak periods would have to be reduced. Suitable load management

technique should be adopted for this purpose.

High voltage distribution system is an effective method for reduction

of technical losses, prevention of thefts, improved voltage profile &

better consumer service. It should be promoted to reduce LT/HT ratio

keeping in view the techno- economic consideration.

Methodology: Page Nos: 31 -34

Partial end use methodology ie., time series and end use method is

made use of.

For domestic and commercial category estimate is made on the basis

of number of electricity consumers (Mid year) and their specific

electrical energy consumption.( Average electricity consumption per

consumer)

The forecast of consumption for Public lighting and Public water

works has been made on estimated connected electric load(kW) and

average electricity consumption per kW of connected load(kWh/kW).

IP sets: The average capacity of pumpsets has been worked out by

studying the growth trend of midyear figures for both connected

electric load and the number of pumps sets in the past years. Based on



these trends, the growth in average capacity of pump set for future

determined.

Industrial Category: The electricity requirement for the industrial

sector has been estimated for LT industries, HT industries each with a

demand less than 1 MW and HT industries each with a demand of 1

MW & above.

In the light of the above, an attempt has been made to forecast the energy sales under four different scenarios. The 4 scenarios are based on:

1. Per capita consumption2. 18th draft EPS3. Circle wise energy sales4. Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)

Scenario 1 : Energy Forecast on per Capita Electricity Consumption .

Under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Central

Government has prepared the National Electricity Policy for development of

the power sector based on optimal utilization of resources. The Policy has

been evolved after extensive consultations with the States, other stake

holders, the Central Electricity Authority and after considering the advice of

the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.

The National Electricity Policy is one of the key instruments for providing

policy guidance to the Electricity Regulatory Commissions in discharge of

their functions and to the Central Electricity Authority for preparation of the

National Electricity Plan. The Policy aims at accelerated development of the

power sector, providing supply of electricity to all areas and protecting

interests of consumers and other stakeholders keeping in view availability of

energy resources, technology available to exploit these resources, economics

of generation using different resources, and energy security issues.

Objectives of the Policy:



Access to Electricity Available for all households in next five years.

Supply of Reliable and Quality Power of specified standards in an

efficient

manner and at reasonable rates.

Financial Turnaround and Commercial Viability of Electricity Sector.

Protection of consumer’s interests.

Per capita consumption of various countries is depicted in the table below.

Globally, in Asian continent China is placed one notch higher to that of India

on the list with per capita power consumption of 2,471 kWh. India’s per

capita power consumption is 778.71 kWh, three times lower than that of

China.

Per capita electricity consumption in 2010:

(Source: Press Information Bureau of Government of India, Ministry of Power dated

12.08.2011)


Sl. No. Country kWh

1 Canada 170532 USA 136473 Australia 111744 Japan 80725 France 77036 Germany 71487 Korea 88538 UK 60679 Russia 6443

10 Italy 565611 South Africa 477012 Brazil 223213 China 247114 India 778*15 World 2782


Per capita availability of electricity for the year 2009-10 within the country as published is as under;

State wise per capita electricity consumption in 2009-10

(Source: Press Information Bureau of Government of India, Ministry of Power dated 12.08.2011)

From the above table, Delhi ranks the top with per capita consumption of 1,651.26

kWh, and Gujarat follows with 1,615.24 kWh. The State of Karnataka, in comparison,

stands at 12th place with 903.24 kWh. Adjacent States Andhra Pradesh with 966.99


States / UTs kWhHaryana 1222.21Himachal Pradesh 1379.99Jammu & Kashmir 952.02Punjab 1526.86Rajasthan 736.2Uttar Pradesh 348.37Uttarakhand 1112.29Chandigarh 1340Delhi 1651.26Gujarat 1615.24Madhya Pradesh 602.07Chhattisgarh 1546.94Maharashtra 1028.22Goa 2263.63Daman & Diu 7118.23D & N Haveli 11863.64Andhra Pradesh 966.99Karnataka 903.24Kerala 525.25Tamil Nadu 1131.58Pondicherry 1743.37Lakshadweep 418.14Bihar 122.11Jharkhand 880.43Orissa 874.26West Bengal 550.16A & N Islands 493.98Sikkim 850Assam 204.8Manipur 240.22Meghalaya 675.19Nagaland 218.03Tripura 335.47Arunachal Pradesh 470Mizoram 376.99Total(All India) 778.71


kWh and Tamil Nadu with 1131.58 kWh are much better than that of

Karnataka.

Per capita GDP rising by about 8 percent per year during 2000–2010 and it is

expected to grow by 7.59 % during 2010–2020 based on 2011census report.

Contribution of electricity, water and gas to the GDP which is now at 2.25% is

expected to reach 4% and with this expansion, it is predicted that the existing

Indian per capita consumption would be doubled by 2020.

Analysis of figures of 2011 published in the provisional Census of

Karnataka at glance is as under:

POPULATION:

DECADAL POPULATION GROWTH 2001-2011

Absolute persons 82,80,142Percentage 15.67Males 41, 58,824 (15.46%)Female 41, 21,318 (15.88%)Density of Population per sq. km

319

Sex Ratio (females per 1000 males)

968

BESCOM has jurisdiction to distribute Electricity in 8 districts of Karnataka.

As per the Census, BESCOM constitutes 33.93% of population in Karnataka.

Percentage of population of Districts in BESCOM to that of total population of

the State is as under.


Persons 6,11,30,704

Males 3,10,57,742

Females 3,00,72,962


Tumkur; 4.39

Bangalore; 15.69

Chitradurga; 2.72Davanagere; 3.18Kolar; 2.52

Chikkaballapura; 2.05Bangalore Rural; 1.61Ramanagara; 1.77000000000001

Sl.No District

Population as per 2011

census

Percentage decadal growth rate of

population

Projected growth rate of

population1999-2000

2000-2011 2012-2020

1 Bangalore-Urban 9588910 35.09 46.68 42.012 Bangalore-Rural 987257 18.6 16.02 14.423 Tumkur 2681449 12.1 3.74 3.374 Kolar 1540231 14.46 11.04 9.945 Chikkaballapur 1254377 14.33 9.17 8.256 Ramanagaram 1082739 7.84 5.06 4.557 Chitradurga 1660378 15.63 9.39 8.458 Davanagere 1946905 14.86 8.71 7.84 Total 2,07,42,246

Census data analysis states that the percentage decadal growth of population

in the inter-censual period 2001 - 2011 varied from a negative rate of -0.28

percent in Chikkamagaluru district to the highest of 46.68 % in Bangalore

district. The average decadal growth rate for the States stands at 15.67%.

There are seven districts including Bangalore, which have registered growth

rate above the Karnataka State average, whereas in the remaining 23

districts, the decadal population growth rate is below the State average of

15.67%. The change in percentage decadal growth rates between the



decades 1991 - 2001 and 2001 - 2011 establishes the declining trend (except

Bangalore) in the decadal growth rates over the previous decade. It is stated

that the decadal growth rate for the Karnataka State has declined by 1.84 %.

Considering the growth rate of the districts of BESCOM as depicted in the

above table, the population for the next period ie., from FY12 to FY 20 is

projected and the energy is projected by aiming per capita at 2112 units for

the year 2020 (Approximately double the per capita of 1055 units for 2010).

Detailed calculations are as under based on the following points.

Average growth rate of the population of each district is considered for

projecting the population.

Per capita consumption is considered as the energy requirement at the

generating points. It means the energy requirement is inclusive of

Transmission, Distribution and Commercial losses.

Per capita consumption of BESCOM for 2010 and 2011 is computed as

1055.64 units and 1110.72 units based on the actual consumption and the

population of BESCOM jurisdictional area for the respective years. The

growth in per capita consumption for the future years is projected at the

rate of 7.4% per annum to reach the targeted 2111 units for FY 2020.

For FY 11Total Population 2,07,42,246Energy Input in

MU 23039Per capita

Consumption in Units 1110.72

The peak loading of the system for the past two years as verified from

the past data is between 74% to 78%. It is presumed that the load factor for

the future years will be in ascending trend and considered at an average of

80% for projecting the peak load.

District Expected Population for the period



2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Bangalore-Urban

10036520 10484131 10931741 11379351 11826962 12274572 12722182 13169793 13617403

Bangalore-Rural

1003073 1018889 1034705 1050520 1066336 1082152 1097968 1113784 1129600

Tumkur 2691478 2701506 2711535 2721563 2731592 2741621 2751649 2761678 2771707

Kolar 1557235 1574239 1591243 1608248 1625252 1642256 1659260 1676264 1693268

Chikkaballapur 1265880 1277382 1288885 1300388 1311890 1323393 1334895 1346398 1357901

Ramanagaram 1088218 1093696 1099175 1104654 1110132 1115611 1121090 1126568 1132047

Chitradurga 1675969 1691560 1707151 1722742 1738333 1753924 1769515 1785106 1800697

Davanagere 1963863 1980820 1997778 2014735 2031693 2048650 2065608 2082565 2099523

Total Population

21282235 21822223 22362212 22902201 23442190 23982178 24522167 25062156 25602145

Growth 2.60% 2.54% 2.47% 2.41% 2.36% 2.30% 2.25% 2.20% 2.15%

Projected 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Per capita consumption in units 1193 1281 1376 1478 1587 1705 1831 1966 2112

Energy input in MU 26358

28230 31049

34120 37474

41136 45133

49494 54251

Energy consumption in MU per day 72 77 85 93 103 113 124 136 149MW projected 3779 4047 4452 4892 5373 5898 6471 7096 7778

The following is opined by the experts:

Business Monitor International's India Power Report provides industry

professionals and strategists, corporate analysts, power associations,

government departments and regulatory bodies with independent forecasts

and competitive intelligence on India's power industry.

BMI View: India has all options open to it in terms of meeting rising power

demand. As a result, capacity and supply growth will be spread among coal-

and gas-fired thermal, hydro-power, nuclear and wind/solar power. There is

no shortage of international investment to support the efforts of domestic

companies.

During the period 2011-2015, India’s overall power generation is expected to

increase by an annual average of 6.63%, reaching 1,217TWh. Driving this



growth is an annual 16.7% gain in gas-fired generation and a 24.6% rise in

nuclear energy, accompanied by annual increases in excess of 20% for

renewable-based supply.

India is actively promoting nuclear power as a clean and efficient source of

electricity generation. Many of the major developments taking place in the

Indian electricity sector recently involve nuclear power. Independent

sources forecast that India will add up to 11GW of new nuclear energy

capacity by 2020. Hydro-electric power represents some 17% of India’s total

installed generating capacity, with the country currently ranked sixth in the

world in terms of hydro-power. There is plenty of hydro-electric capacity in

the construction and planning stages, according to the Indian government. In

particular, hydro-power development in the Brahmaputra river basin in

eastern India is expected to result in several large power plants, which could

add nearly 30GW to capacity.

India's theoretical solar potential is said to be about 5,000TWh per annum,

or some 600GW of potential installed capacity. This far exceeds forecast

demand, but solar generating costs are currently too high for rapid

expansion. However, solar is likely to form a key part of longer-term energy

policy. There is also wind power potential and some scope for biomass. India

hopes to double wind power generation capacity over the next decade. By

2022, the government is planning to have more than 20GW of wind

generating capacity.

Following an increase in 2011 real GDP of an estimated 7.56%, BMI forecasts

average annual growth of 7.65% between 2011 and 2020. The population is

expected to rise from the current level of 1.19bn to 1.32bn during the period

2011-2020, and net power consumption looks set to increase from 730TWh

to 945TWh by 2015, rising further to 1,321TWh by 2020. During the period

2011-2015, the average annual growth rate for electricity demand is forecast



at 6.63%, but accelerating somewhat later in the decade to an average 6.94%

in 2016-2020.

According to the Indian government, massive energy investment is required

to achieve targeted economic expansion. To deliver sustained GDP growth of

8% until 2031-2032, primary energy supply needs to grow to up to four

times current consumption, installed electricity generating capacity needs to

increase six or sevenfold and the current coal requirement needs to triple.

(Source: India Power report Q4 2011 Business Monitor International,

dated October 2011)

Scenario 2: Energy Projection based on Energy Power Survey (EPS)

Report

An attempt has been made to project the sales based on the draft 18 th EPS

report duly considering the actual share of BESCOM for the figures indicated

in the 17th EPS report.

The 18th EPS report from CEA is awaited. A draft of the said report is

mentioned in the Shunglu Committee report.

An attempt has been made to compare the figures of 17 th EPS report with

actual figures of Karnataka State and BESCOM’s contribution for the period

from FY 04 to FY 12.

In this context, a table showing the projections 17th Electric Power Survey of

India (EPS) on page 192 of the report and the actual consumption of

Karnataka State for the corresponding period along with BESCOM

contribution is furnished below:

Year 17th EPS sales projection for the Karnataka

State Actual Sales

State v/s EPS variation

BESCOM Actual Sales

BESCOM Contribution in % age w.r.t State Sales

BESCOM Contribution in % age w.r.t EPS Projections



State1 2 3 4 5 6=(5/3)*100 7=(5/2)*100

2003-04 23143 21367 -8% 10161 47.55% 43.91%

2004-05 24781 23169 -7% 11026 47.59% 44.49%

2005-06 26518 24112 -9% 11620 48.19% 43.82%

2006-07 28747 28454 -1% 14126 49.65% 49.14%

2007-08 31192 30073 -4% 14934 49.66% 47.88%

2008-09 34059 32484 -5% 16295 50.16% 47.84%

2009-10 37347 34978 -6% 17222 49.24% 46.11%

2010-11 41050 37101 -10% 18736 50.49% 45.64%

2011-12 45241 21029 46.48%

Above table depicts that the Karnataka State actual consumption is showing a

negative trend, compared to the EPS figures. The BESCOM contribution

varies from 47% to 50% with respect to State sales and the same varies

between 44% to 49% with respect to EPS projections.

In the absence of 18th EPS, draft EPS sales projections indicated in the

Shungulu Committee Report (on page No 35) to estimate the financial

viability of Utilities for the 12th plan is considered. The figures pertaining to

Karnataka in the draft report is considered.

Further, actual contribution of BESCOM with respect to the figures as

depicted in the 17th EPS is reckoned. (Reference table above) BESCOM energy

sales works out an average of 46.146% when compared to 17 th EPS figures

for the period from FY 03 to FY 12. Also in the 18 th draft EPS report on page

38 it is indicated that a growth rate of 8.1% is reckoned for the period from

FY 18 to FY 22. These two assumptions are considered in computing energy

sales projections for the period from FY 13 to FY 20. The same is depicted in

the table furnished below:

In MU



Based on the above, energy input to BESCOM is projected with the following

assumptions:

Sales projection is computed at 46.14% of draft 18th EPS for the period

from FY 13 to FY 17

Distribution loss for FY 13 is considered at 14% as approved by KERC. A

reduction of 0.2% is considered for the subsequent years.

Transmission loss for FY 13 is considered at 3.96% as approved by KERC.

A reduction of 0.02% is considered for the subsequent years.

A Load factor of 80% is considered for computing the Peak load.

Year

Projected under draft 18th EPS

Projected BESCOM Sales at 46.14% of EPS

Projected Dist. Loss in percentage

Energy at IF Points

Projected Trans. Loss in percentage

Energy at Gen. points

2012-13 47770 22041 14.00 25629 3.96 26686

2013-14 52170 24071 13.80 27925 3.94 29070

2014-15 56780 26198 13.60 30322 3.92 31559

2015-16 61290 28279 13.40 32655 3.90 33980

2016-17 66090 30494 13.20 35131 3.88 36549

2017-18 71443 32964 13.00 37890 3.86 39411

2018-19 77230 35634 12.80 40949 3.84 42584

2019-20 83486 38520 12.60 44256 3.82 46014


Year Projected under draft 18th EPS

Projected BESCOM Sales at 46.14% of EPS

2012-13 47770 22041

2013-14 52170 24071

2014-15 56780 26198

2015-16 61290 28279

2016-17 66090 30494

2017-18 71443 32964

2018-19 77230 35634

2019-20 83486 38520


Scenario 3: Energy Forecast based on circle wise sales growth.

BESCOM has 3 Zones, one exclusively catering to Metropolitan Bangalore

city and other two are rural zones. There are 2 circles under Bangalore zone

and 2 circles each under rural zones, the details are tabulated as below:

Zone Circles

Bangalore Metro Politian Zone (BMAZ) Bangalore –NorthBangalore- South

Bangalore Rural Area Zone (BRAZ) Bangalore-RuralKolar

Chitradurga Area Zone (CTZ) TumkurDavanagere.

The diagram illustrates the circle wise energy consumption over the period

from FY 01 to FY 11. It is seen that south circle has registered a maximum

growth from 23% to 33% over the years. North circle has shown a slight

decline fron 23% to 21%. The Rural circle has maintained a constant growth

of 17%. The rural circles have shown a decling trend. Eventhough the

percentage appears to be small, the contribution in respect of MU is quite

significant as shown in the graph below.



24%

23%17%

13%

13%11%

21%

23%

17%

12%

15%

12% 24%

26%17%

10%

14%

10% 22%

26%

17%

11%

15%

10% 22%

28%

16%

10%

14%

10% 23%

31%17%

8%

12%

9% 21%

32%16%

11%

11%

9%21%

33%17%

10%

11%

9%

Percentage energy consumption

BLR-NorthBLR-SouthBLR-RuralTKRKLRDVG

The energy consumption pattern in MU of these Circles for the past three

years is as under:

in MU

Circles FY-10 FY-11 FY-12

NORTH CIRCLE 3614.6 3964 3850

SOUTHCIRCLE 5705.5 6313 7365

RURAL CIRCLE 2834.3 3233 3710

KOLAR CIRCLE 1928.7 2012 2203

TUMKUR CIRCLE 1881.3 1920 2018

DAVANAGERE CIRCLE 1608.1 1674 1884Total 17572.6 19116 21030

Inference:

Bangalore –South Circle is growing fast

Bangalore –Rural Circle maintains its share



The other Circles are losing their share

Bangalore Metro consumption constitutes 53% of the total energy

Other Urban consumption amounts to only 4%

Rural Consumption is about 43%

Circle Metro Urban Rural Total Metro Urban RuralBangalore -North 3783.42 66.60 3850.02 98% 2%Bangalore-South 4295.04 26.58 4321.62 99% 1%Bangalore-Rural 3037.52 5.68 3043.21 5% 95%Kolar 191.74 3517.99 3709.73 7% 93%Tumkur 163.78 2038.92 2202.70 7% 93%Davanagere 150.43 1867.75 2018.18 13% 87%Total 11115.98 750.77 9163.20 21029.95 53% 4% 43%

Further, energy consumption pattern among metro, urban and rural is

depicted in the above table.

Circle wise growth is calculated and the estimation for the future years is

computed based on the past data.

South Circle:

Consumption and growth rate of South Circle from FY-01 to FY-12 is as

under:

Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU 1739 1974 2222 2617 3037 3639 4248 4974 5403 5705 6312 7950 Growth rate in % 13.47 12.55 17.79 16.08 19.80 16.74 17.08 8.63 5.60 10.63 25.95

Yearly growth rate of this Circle is not uniform. Economic slowdown during

FY-09 and FY-10 may be the cause for the dip in growth rate for FY-09 and

FY-10.

CAGR growth rate for the period from FY-2001 to FY-2012.



LT231%

LT39%

LT-5

HT-13%

HT2a19%

HT2b30%

ht41%

LT2LT3LT-5HT-1HT2aHT2bht4

Years

11 years from

2001to 2012

10 years from

2002to 2012

9 years from

2003to 2012

8 years from

2004to 2012

7 years from

2005to 2012

6 years from

2006to 2012

5 years from

2007to 2012

4years from

2008to 2012

3years from

2009to 2012

2years from

2010to 2012

Yearly growth

rate from 2011 to

2012Growth rate in %

13 14 14 13 13 12 11 10 10 12 26

Category Share of Consumption

HT 54%HT-Industry 20%

HT-Comml 30%LT

46%LT-Domestic 31%LT- Comml 9% LT-Industry 3%

The historical data of South Circle shows 54% of the consumption is towards

HT and 46% towards LT sales.

Major category of consumers are Commercial (both HT and LT) consuming

39%, Industries consume (both HT &LT) 23% and the Domestic consumers

consume 31% of the total sales.



IT BT installations are engaged in Hardware and Soft ware development,

Certified by the concerned Department of Karnataka are categorized as

Industry and IT enabled services, BPO’s are categorized as Commercial.

Principally this installation belongs to service sector. Any global economic

conditions have major impact in the consumption of this circle.

CAGR growth rate of this Circle is considered as 12% for the future

projections based on the average as depicted in the above table.

North Circle:

Consumption and yearly growth rate of North Circle from FY-01 to FY-12 is

as under:

Year FY 01

FY 02 FY 03

FY 04

FY 05 FY 06

FY 07

FY 08 FY 09

FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU

1754 1851 2067 2185 2403 2669 2854 3198 3397 3615 3964 3904

Growth in % 5.5111.72 5.69 9.96

11.06 6.93 12.08 6.20 6.42 9.67 -1.52


Years

11 years from 2001to 2012







4years from 2008to 2012



Yearly growth rate from 2011 to 2012

Growth rate in %

7 7 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 0

Combined reading of the yearly growth and the CAGR, we can say that this

region is moving towards saturation. 2 years CAGR growth of 3% is

considered for estimation.

The Consumer Mix of North Circle is as under:



36%

10%

1%

13%

3%2%1%

25%

8%

1%

LT2

LT3

LT-5

HT-1

HT2a

HT2b


HT

33%HT-Industry 25%

HT-Comml 8%LT

67%LT-Domestic 36%LT- Comml 10%

LT-Industry 13%

From the historical data of the North Circle it can be seen that, 33% of the

consumption is towards HT and 67% towards LT sales. (Quite reverse of

South Circle)

Major categories of consumers are LT- Domestic customers consuming 36%.

It is seen that the area has attained saturation. The present scenario

indicates that the Industrial consumption is likely to be reduced or stagnated.

However, commercial consumption (both HT &LT) may increase due to

renovation/vertical growth.




projections based on the 2 years CAGR growth as depicted in the above

table.

Bangalore Rural Circle:

Consumption and yearly growth rate of Bangalore Rural Circle from FY-04 to

FY-12 is as under:

Year FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU

868.52 1025.7 1252.23 1999.38 2523.9 2574.5 2834.3 3233.34 3696.73

Growth rate in % 18 22 60 26 2 10 14 14


Years

8 years from

2004to 2012

7 years from

2005to 2012

6 years from

2006to 2012

5 years from

2007to 2012

4years from

2008to 2012

3years from

2009to 2012

2years from

2010to 2012

Yearly growth rate

from 2011 to 2012

Growth rate in %

17 17 17 11 8 9 9 14

Combined reading of the Yearly growth and the CAGR, this Circle has potential for

growth. As the industrial belt is expanding vis-a vis, Bangalore International Airport,

Special Economic Zone projects etc, the CAGR growth rate of 12.00% is considered

for this circle.

The Consumer Mix of Bangalore Rural Circle is as under:



1%

8%

2%

31%5%

6%

40%

4%0%

LT2LT3LT4a,bLT-5HT-1HT2aHT2b


HT

50%HT-Industry 40%HT-Comml 4%HT-Water Supply 6%LT

50%LT-Agri 31%LT-Domestic 8%LT- Comml 2% LT-Industry 5%

From the above data, the consumption of HT and LT is 50:50%. HT-Industrial

and LT- Agriculture has major share in this circle.


projections based on the average as depicted in the above table



Kolar Circle:

Consumption and yearly growth rate of Kolar Circle from FY-04 to FY-12 is as

under:

Year FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU 286.04 310.46 562.74 1187.46 1744.28 1616.52 1928.73 2011.75 2168.78

Growth rate in %

47 -7 19 4 8


Years

5years from

2007to 2012

4years from

2008to 2012

3years from

2009to 2012

2years from

2010to 2012

Yearly growth rate from 2011

to 2012Growth

rate in % 11 4 6 2 2

Combined reading of the Yearly and CAGR growth rate, the data available upto FY-06 is not consistent.



8%

2%

72%

2%

4%1%0%

9%

LT1bLT2LT3LT4a,bLT-5LT6aLT6bHT-1HT2a


HT2(a) 9% 9%LT

91%LT-Agri 72%LT-Domestic 8%LT-Industry 2%LT-Comml 2%

The HT and LT sales ratio at 9 : 91. LT-Agriculture constitutes 72%of the

total sales. Any increase in availability of Supply will have impact on the

Circles consumption.



table.



Tumkur Circle:

Consumption and yearly growth rate of Tumkur Circle from FY-05 to FY-12 is

as under:

Year FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU

268.77

407.51 1031.93 1200.21702.5

41881.27 1920.04 1842.00

Growth rate in %

16.31 41.85 10.50 2.06 -4.06

CAGR Growth rate of Tumkur circle is:

Year 4years from 2008to 2012




Growth in %

9% 2% -1% 4.06

Combined reading of the yearly and CAGR growth rate, the data available

upto FY-06 is not consistent.

CAGR growth depicts the reduction in the growth rate. Hence, growth rate of

CAGR 2% is considered for the estimation for the future years.



1%

9%

2%

67%

2% 3%1%1% 12%

LT1bLT2LT3LT4a,bLT-5LT6aLT6bHT-1HT2aHT2bht4


HT2(a) 12% 12%LT

88%LT-Agri 67%

LT-Domestic 9%

LT-Industry 2%LT-Comml 3%

The ratio of the HT and LT consumption is at 12 : 88. Predominant

consumption is attributable to LT agriculture.



table.



Davanagere Circle:

Consumption and yearly growth rate of Davanagere Circle from FY-07 to FY-

12 is as under:

Year FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Consumption in MU

1121.73 1275.59 1471.99 1608.15 1673.57 1780.17

Growth rate in % 14 15 9 4 6

CAGR Growth rate:

Year5years from 2007to 2012





Growth in %

8% 7% 5% 3% 6%

Combined reading of yearly growth and CAGR, there is reductions in the growth rate of this circle.



LT1b3% LT2

14%

LT34%

LT4a,b64%

LT-53%

HT-12%

HT2a6%

LT1bLT2LT3LT4a,bLT-5LT6bHT-1HT2a


HT2(a) 6%7%

HT-1(a) 1%LT

93%

LT-Agri 63%LT-Domestic 14%

LT-BJ/KJ 3%LT-Industry 3%LT-Comml 3%

About 93% of energy is attributable to LT category , in which 63%

contributes to Irrigation.



table.

Considering the Circle wise growth rate. Estimated energy sales and energy requirement upto 2020 is as under:



Sl.No

.

Prov. 2012

Growth Rate (%)

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

1 Bangalore-South 7365 12.00 8249 9239 10347 11589 12980 14537 16282 18235

2 Bangalore North 3850 3.00 3966 4084 4207 4333 4463 4597 4735 4877

3 Bangaor-Rural 3710 12.00 4155 4654 5212 5838 6538 7323 8202 9186

4 Kolar 2203 3.00 2269 2337 2407 2479 2554 2630 2709 27915 Tumkur 2018 2.00 2058 2100 2142 2184 2228 2273 2318 2364

6 Davanagere 1884 3.00 1941 1999 2059 2120 2184 2250 2317 2387

Total 21030 22637 24412 26374 28544 30947 33610 36563 39840

7 Distribution loss 14.46 14.00 13.80 13.60 13.40 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60

8 In put at IF 24584 26323 28321 30526 32961 35653 38632 41930 45584

9 Tr. Loss 4.19 3.96 3.94 3.92 3.9 3.88 3.86 3.84 3.82

10 Energy requirement. 25658 27408 29482 31771 34299 37093 40183 43604 47394 Growth rate 6.82% 7.57% 7.76% 7.96% 8.15% 8.33% 8.51% 8.69%

11 MW requirement 2929 3129 3395 3647 3925 4232 4571 4946 5355

12

Peak load requirement @ LF of 80% (MW)

3661 3911 4243 4558 4906 5290 5714 6183 6694

It is to state that efforts have been made to collect all the historical data. It is

a fact that there may be some inconsistency crept in due to the following

reasons.

Formation of new subdivisions/divisions/circles.

Change in jurisdictional area of operation of respective

subdivisions/divisions/circles

Monitoring of data at Corporate Office at the level of divisions/circles.

The data for all the years is not captured, however the relevant data

for depicting the growth rate is duly considered.

For projection of circle wise sales, relevant data has been reckoned.

The pictorial representation is done on the data available.

Scenario 4 : Energy Forecast based on Compounded Annual Growth Rate

(CAGR) .

The sales projection for 3rd control period is projected on the following lines:



The historical data for past years is available. The CAGR for 7yrs, 6 yrs, 5 yrs,

4 yrs, 3 yrs, 2 yrs and one year growth is computed. Accordingly, 7 scenarios

of projections are obtained. An empherical formula is made use of.

The minima and maxima and most likely of all the CAGR years are worked

out - minima is considered as pessimistic and maxima is considered as

optimistic, the average of the rest is considered as most likely.

Statistical empirical formula is applied for all the scenarios

Average = (Optimistic+Pessimistic+4X Most Likely) 6

The growth rate in respect of all the four scenarios is shown in the table

below:

The Compounded Annual Growth Rate of energy Consumption computed is

shown below:

1 year growth

Tariff category

FY 04 FY 03

FY 05 FY 04

FY 06 FY 05

FY 07 FY 06

FY 08 FY 07

FY 09 FY 08

FY 10 FY 09

FY 11 FY 10

FY 12 FY 11

FY 13 FY 12

Min MaxMost likely

Avg. growth rate using empirical formula

LT-1 -4.5% -14.8% -8.9% 5.0% 19.0% 18.7% -2.9% -0.9% 4.4% 6.7% -15% 19% 2.20% 2.16%LT-2(a) 4.7% 11.9% 10.7% 13.0% 10.2% 8.8% 6.7% 9.8% 8.3% 9.9% 5% 13% 9.54% 9.31%LT-2(b) 4.8% 11.9% 10.7% 18.2% 13.7% 2.8% 5.0% 6.5% 9.9% 15.3% 3% 18% 9.71% 9.97%



LT-3 17.4% 17.4% 17.2% 17.0% 14.0% 8.4% 10.8% 12.8% 11.9% 12.9% 8% 17% 14.26% 13.81%LT-4(a) 3.2% 1.0% -18.3% 37.8% -9.3% 12.9% 5.4% 4.1% 19.7% 12.3% -18% 38% 5.00% 6.59%LT-4( c ) -49.9% -26.5% 1.6% 59.2% 152.7% 33.7% 3.7% 40.5% -4.6% -28.7% -50% 153% 9.86% 23.71%LT-4(d) 9.4% 34.4% 13.5% 16.7% 60.7% -10.7% 41.1% 14.0% 27.8% 12.5% -11% 61% 21.16% 22.45%LT-5 3.5% 2.0% 4.0% 3.6% 2.1% -5.0% 0.3% 8.2% 5.8% 6.8% -5% 8% 3.51% 2.87%LT-6a(i)WS 11.4% 7.7% 29.3% -5.1% -7.3% 21.8% 14.8% 14.4% 13.1% -2.2% -7% 29% 9.51% 10.02%LT-6a(ii)SL -4.3% 13.1% 24.9% 10.0% -12.9% 4.7% 1.4% 16.8% 12.5% 2.0% -13% 25% 7.02% 6.68%LT-7 34.7% 21.7% 36.7% 34.1% 18.4% -1.1% -12.8% 1.4% 34.6% 10.1% -13% 37% 5.00% 7.32%LT Total 6.0% 5.7% -1.5% 20.7% 0.4% 9.2% 5.8% 7.9% 13.2% 10.3% -2% 21% 7.30% 8.07%HT-1 14.3% 7.3% 5.0% 4.8% -2.8% 0.8% 5.8% -1.3% 1.9% 4.1% -3% 14% 3.56% 4.29%HT-2(a) 23.1% 21.6% 26.0% 25.3% 15.3% 7.8% 6.1% 11.7% 11.6% 15.5% 6% 26% 11.73% 13.16%HT-2(b) 23.1% 21.6% 26.0% 26.7% 25.4% 14.7% 5.1% 9.4% 10.9% 15.1% 5% 27% 9.38% 11.55%HT-3(a) 9.4% -57.1% -24.6% -36.% 5.5% 73.1% 55.6% 18.6% 264.7% -16.0% -57% 265% 10.68% 41.73%HT3 (b) 0 0 0 93.7% -42.0% 86.4% 153.7% -73.5% 130.5% -48.7% 0 0 0 0HT-4 15.8% 13.1% 7.7% 21.0% -2.5% -0.1% 5.5% 13.4% 11.5% 4.4% -3% 21% 8.91% 9.02%HT TOTAL 21.4% 19.1% 22.6% 23.2% 16.2% 9.4% 5.7% 9.9% 10.8% 14.4% 6% 23% 15.49% 15.15%TOTAL 9.6% 9.1% 5.2% 21.5% 5.6% 9.2% 5.8% 8.6% 12.3% 11.8% 5% 22% 9.00% 10.46%

2 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 05 FY 03

FY 06 FY 04

FY 07 FY 05

FY 08 FY 06

FY 09 FY 07

FY 10 FY 08

FY 11 FY 09

FY 12 FY 10

FY 13 FY 11

Min MaxMost likely


LT-1 -9.8% -11.9% -2.2% 11.8% 18.8% 7.4% -1.9% 1.7% 5.5% -12% 19% 1.78% 2.34%LT-2(a) 8.3% 11.3% 11.8% 11.6% 9.5% 7.8% 8.3% 9.0% 9.1% 8% 12% 9.57% 9.64%LT-2(b) 8.3% 11.3% 14.4% 15.9% 8.1% 3.9% 5.7% 8.2% 12.6% 4% 16% 9.79% 9.82%LT-3 17.4% 17.3% 17.1% 15.5% 11.2% 9.6% 11.8% 12.4% 12.4% 10% 17% 13.96% 13.81%LT-4(a) 2.1% -9.1% 6.1% 11.8% 1.2% 9.1% 4.8% 11.6% 16.0% -9% 16% 5.00% 4.47%LT-4( c ) -39.3% -13.6% 27.2% 100.6% 83.8% 17.7% 20.7% 15.8% -17.5% -39% 101% 19.16% 22.98%LT-4(d) 21.2% 23.5% 15.1% 36.9% 19.8% 12.3% 26.9% 20.7% 19.9% 12% 37% 21.00% 22.21%LT-5 2.7% 3.0% 3.8% 2.8% -1.5% -2.4% 4.2% 7.0% 6.3% -2% 7% 3.05% 2.80%LT-6a(i)WS 9.6% 18.0% 10.8% -6.2% 6.3% 18.2% 14.6% 13.7% 5.2% -6% 18% 11.18% 9.47%LT-6a(ii)SL 4.0% 18.8% 17.2% -2.1% -4.5% 3.0% 8.8% 14.6% 7.1% -5% 19% 7.54% 7.41%LT-7 28.0% 29.0% 35.4% 26.0% 8.2% -7.1% -6.0% 16.9% 21.8% -7% 35% 5.00% 8.05%LT Total 5.8% 2.0% 9.0% 10.1% 4.7% 7.5% 6.8% 10.5% 11.7% 2% 12% 7.78% 7.48%HT-1 10.8% 6.2% 4.9% 1.0% -1.0% 3.3% 2.2% 0.3% 3.0% -1% 11% 2.97% 3.60%HT-2(a) 22.3% 23.8% 25.7% 20.2% 11.5% 7.0% 8.9% 11.7% 13.5% 7% 26% 11.73% 13.26%HT-2(b) 22.3% 23.8% 26.3% 26.0% 19.9% 9.8% 7.2% 10.1% 13.0% 7% 26% 9.38% 11.85%HT-3(a) -31.4% -43.1% -30.6% -17.9% 35.1% 64.1% 35.8% 108.0% 75.0% -43% 108% 18.59% 23.20%HT3 (b) 5.9% 3.9% 117.4% -18.0% -21.9% 8.7%HT-4 14.4% 10.4% 14.2% 8.6% -1.3% 2.7% 9.4% 12.5% 7.9% -1% 14% 9.37% 8.42%HT TOTAL 20.3% 20.9% 22.9% 19.7% 12.8% 7.6% 7.8% 10.3% 12.6% 8% 23% 14.90% 15.01%

TOTAL 9.3% 7.2% 13.1% 13.3% 7.4% 7.5% 7.2% 10.5% 12.0% 7% 13% 9.57% 9.79%

3 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 06 FY 03

FY 07 FY 04

FY 08 FY 05

FY 09 FY 06

FY 10 FY 07

FY 11 FY 08

FY 12 FY 09

FY 13 FY 10 Min Max

Most likely

Avg. growth rate using empirical

formula

LT-1 -9.5% -6.6% 4.4% 14.0%11.1

% 4.5% 0.2% 3.3% -10% 14% 2.82% 2.64%

LT-2(a) 9.0% 11.8% 11.3% 10.7% 8.6% 8.4% 8.3% 9.3% 8% 12% 9.56% 9.72%



LT-2(b) 9.1% 13.5% 14.2% 11.4% 7.0% 4.7% 7.1% 10.5% 5% 14% 9.77% 9.66%

LT-3 17.3% 17.2% 16.1% 13.1%11.1

%10.7

% 11.8% 12.5% 11% 17% 13.64% 13.76%

LT-4(a) -5.2% 4.4% 0.7% 12.2% 2.6% 7.4% 9.5% 11.9% -5% 12% 5.00% 4.50%

LT-4( c ) -28.0% 5.9% 59.9% 75.2%51.9

%24.9

% 11.6% -1.5% -28% 75% 25.45% 24.84%

LT-4(d) 18.6% 21.2% 28.6% 18.8%26.5

%12.9

% 27.2% 17.9% 13% 29% 21.69% 21.37%

LT-5 3.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.2% -0.9% 1.0% 4.7% 6.9% -1% 7% 2.58% 2.72%

LT-6a(i)WS 15.8% 9.8% 4.4% 2.4% 9.1%16.9

% 14.1% 8.2% 2% 17% 10.22% 10.03%

LT-6a(ii)SL 10.6% 15.8% 6.2% 0.1% -2.6% 7.4% 10.1% 10.3% -3% 16% 7.43% 7.16%

LT-7 30.9% 30.7% 29.5% 16.2% 0.7% -4.4% 6.0% 14.6% -4% 31% 5.00% 7.75%

LT Total 3.3% 7.9% 6.1% 9.8% 5.1% 7.6% 8.9% 10.4% 3% 10% 7.56% 7.33%

HT-1 8.8% 5.7% 2.3% 0.9% 1.2% 1.7% 2.1% 1.5% 1% 9% 2.43% 3.24%

HT-2(a) 23.5% 24.3% 22.1% 15.9% 9.7% 8.5% 9.8% 12.9% 9% 24% 11.73% 13.29%

HT-2(b) 23.5% 24.7% 26.0% 22.1%14.8

% 9.7% 8.4% 11.8% 8% 26% 9.38% 11.99%

HT-3(a) -29.2% -40.8% -20.2% 5.3%41.6

%47.2

% 88.8% 53.7% -41% 89% 16.40% 18.92%

HT3 (b)39.9

% 7.8% 15.7% -32.1%

HT-4 12.1% 13.8% 8.3% 5.6% 0.9% 6.1% 10.1% 9.7% 1% 14% 8.66% 8.23%

HT TOTAL 21.1% 21.6% 20.6% 16.1%10.4

% 8.3% 8.8% 11.7% 8% 22% 14.78% 14.85%

TOTAL 7.9% 11.7% 10.5% 11.9% 6.9% 7.9% 8.9% 10.9% 7% 12% 9.64% 9.56%

4 year CAGR



Tariff category

FY 07 FY 03

FY 08 FY 04

FY 09 FY 05

FY 10 FY 06

FY 11 FY 07

FY 12 FY 08

FY 13 FY 09 Min Max

Most likely


formula

LT-1 -6.1% -0.8% 7.8% 9.5% 8.0% 4.5% 1.7% -6%10% 4.25% 3.41%

LT-2(a) 10.0% 11.4%10.7

% 9.7% 8.9% 8.4% 8.7% 8%11% 9.58% 9.69%

LT-2(b) 11.3% 13.6%11.2

% 9.7% 6.9% 6.0% 9.1% 6%14% 9.64% 9.69%

LT-3 17.3% 16.4%14.1

%12.5

%11.5

%11.0

%12.1

% 11%17%

13.33% 13.59%

LT-4(a) 4.1% 0.8% 3.6%10.5

% 3.0%10.4

%10.2

% 1%10% 5.27% 5.39%

LT-4( c ) -12.2% 31.7%52.9

%53.7

%49.0

%16.8

% -0.2% -12%54%

30.01% 26.93%

LT-4(d) 18.1% 30.0%17.4

%24.0

%23.3

%16.4

%23.3

% 16%30%

21.23% 21.90%

LT-5 3.3% 2.9% 1.1% 0.2% 1.3% 2.2% 5.2% 0% 5% 2.16% 2.34%

LT-6a(i)WS 10.2% 5.2% 8.5% 5.3%10.4

%16.0

% 9.8% 5%16% 8.84% 9.43%

LT-6a(ii)SL 10.4% 7.8% 5.8% 0.4% 1.9% 8.7% 8.0% 0%10% 6.45% 6.11%

LT-7 31.7% 27.5%21.1

% 8.2% 0.9% 4.2% 7.0% 1%32% 5.00% 8.76%

LT Total 7.4% 6.0% 6.8% 8.8% 5.8% 9.0% 9.3% 6% 9% 7.60% 7.57%HT-1 7.8% 3.5% 1.9% 2.1% 0.6% 1.8% 2.6% 1% 8% 2.38% 2.98%

HT-2(a) 24.0% 22.0%18.4

%13.4

%10.2

% 9.3%11.2

% 9%24%

11.73% 13.37%

HT-2(b) 24.3% 24.9%23.1

%17.6

%13.4

%10.0

%10.1

% 10%25% 9.38% 12.06%

HT-3(a) -31.0% -31.6% -3.2%16.1

%35.5

%84.7

%54.2

% -32%85%

14.31% 18.39%

HT-4 14.3% 9.5% 6.1% 5.6% 3.9% 7.5% 8.6% 4%14% 7.46% 8.01%

HT TOTAL 21.6% 20.3%17.7

%13.4

%10.3

% 8.9%10.2

% 9%22%

14.37% 14.67%

TOTAL 11.2% 10.2%10.2

%10.4

% 7.3% 9.0% 9.6% 7%11% 9.86% 9.66%



5 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 08 FY 03

FY 09 FY 04

FY 10 FY 05

FY 11 FY 06

FY 12 FY 07

FY 13 FY 08 Min Max

Most likely


LT-1 -1.5% 2.9% 5.6% 7.4% 7.2% 4.9% -2% 7% 5.15% 4.41%LT-2(a) 10.1% 10.9% 9.9% 9.7% 8.8% 8.7% 9% 11% 9.59% 9.66%LT-2(b) 11.8% 11.3% 9.9% 9.1% 7.5% 7.8% 8% 12% 9.53% 9.57%

LT-3 16.6% 14.8% 13.4% 12.6% 11.6% 11.4% 11% 17%13.09

% 13.39%LT-4(a) 1.3% 3.1% 4.0% 9.2% 6.1% 10.8% 1% 11% 3.88% 4.59%

LT-4( c ) 8.5% 32.1% 41.5% 51.0% 36.3% 5.8% 6% 51%29.58

% 29.17%

LT-4(d) 25.6% 20.6% 21.8% 21.9% 24.2% 15.6% 16% 26%22.14

% 21.63%LT-5 3.0% 1.3% 1.0% 1.7% 2.2% 3.1% 1% 3% 2.06% 2.05%LT-6a(i)WS 6.5% 8.4% 9.8% 7.1% 10.9% 12.1% 6% 12% 9.03% 9.11%LT-6a(ii)SL 5.3% 7.2% 4.9% 3.5% 4.0% 7.3% 4% 7% 5.35% 5.37%LT-7 28.9% 21.2% 13.4% 6.8% 6.9% 5.3% 5% 29% 5.00% 9.04%LT Total 6.0% 6.6% 6.6% 8.6% 7.2% 9.2% 6% 9% 7.26% 7.38%HT-1 5.6% 3.0% 2.7% 1.4% 0.8% 2.2% 1% 6% 2.32% 2.62%

HT-2(a) 22.2% 19.0% 15.8% 13.0% 10.5% 10.5% 10% 22%11.73

% 13.26%HT-2(b) 24.5% 22.8% 19.3% 15.9% 12.9% 11.0% 11% 25% 9.38% 12.17%

HT-3(a) -24.9% -17.7% 6.5% 16.6% 65.1% 57.8% -25% 65%15.79

% 17.23%HT3 (b) 7.0% 10.8% 8.2% HT-4 10.7% 7.5% 6.0% 7.1% 5.4% 6.8% 5% 11% 6.86% 7.26%

HT TOTAL 20.5% 18.0% 15.2% 12.7% 10.4% 10.0% 10% 20%14.08

% 14.47%TOTAL 10.1% 10.0% 9.3% 10.0% 8.3% 9.5% 8% 10% 9.71% 9.53%



6 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 09 FY 03

FY 10 FY 04

FY 11 FY 05

FY 12 FY 06

FY 13FY 07 Min Max

Most likely


formula

LT-1 1.6% 1.9% 4.5% 6.9% 7.1% 2% 7% 4.40% 4.39%

LT-2(a) 9.9% 10.2% 9.8% 9.4% 9.0% 9% 10% 9.72% 9.67%

LT-2(b) 10.2% 10.2% 9.3% 9.2% 8.8% 9% 10% 9.59% 9.56%

LT-3 15.2% 14.1% 13.3% 12.5% 11.8% 12% 15%13.30

% 13.37%

LT-4(a) 3.1% 3.5% 4.0% 10.9% 7.1% 3% 11% 3.76% 4.83%

LT-4( c ) 12.4% 26.8% 41.3% 39.8% 22.3% 12% 41%29.67

% 28.72%

LT-4(d) 18.7% 23.8% 20.5% 22.9% 22.1% 19% 24%21.84

% 21.65%

LT-5 1.7% 1.1% 2.1% 2.4% 2.9% 1% 3% 2.06% 2.05%

LT-6a(i)WS 8.9% 9.4% 10.5% 8.1% 8.6% 8% 11% 8.96% 9.07%

LT-6a(ii)SL 5.2% 6.2% 6.8% 5.0% 3.6% 4% 7% 5.46% 5.38%

LT-7 23.3% 14.7% 11.3% 11.0% 7.4% 7% 23% 5.00% 8.46%

LT Total 6.5% 6.5% 6.8% 9.4% 7.7% 6% 9% 7.02% 7.32%

HT-1 4.8% 3.4% 2.0% 1.5% 1.4% 1% 5% 2.31% 2.57%

HT-2(a) 19.7% 16.7% 15.1% 12.8% 11.3% 11% 20%11.73

% 12.98%

HT-2(b) 22.8% 19.6% 17.5% 15.1% 13.3% 13% 23% 9.38% 12.27%

HT-3(a) -13.7% -8.5% 8.4% 41.0% 47.5% -14% 48%13.64

% 14.73%

HT-4 8.8% 7.2% 7.2% 7.8% 5.2% 5% 9% 7.40% 7.28%

HT TOTAL 18.6% 15.9% 14.3% 12.4% 11.0% 11% 19%14.20

% 14.40%

TOTAL 9.9% 9.3% 9.2% 10.4% 8.9% 9% 10% 9.47% 9.52%



7 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 10 FY 03

FY 11 FY 04

FY 12 FY 05

FY 13 FY 06 Min Max

Most likely


formulaLT-1 0.9% 1.5% 4.5% 6.8% 1% 7% 2.96% 3.27%LT-2(a) 9.4% 10.1% 9.6% 9.5% 9% 10% 9.57% 9.64%LT-2(b) 9.4% 9.7% 9.4% 10.1% 9% 10% 9.57% 9.63%

LT-3 14.6% 13.9% 13.1% 12.5% 13% 15%13.53

% 13.53%LT-4(a) 3.5% 3.6% 6.1% 11.1% 3% 11% 4.85% 5.65%

LT-4( c ) 11.1% 28.7% 33.6% 27.0% 11% 34%27.86

% 26.02%

LT-4(d) 21.7% 22.4% 21.5% 21.3% 21% 22%21.58

% 21.67%

LT-5 1.5% 2.1% 2.6% 3.0% 1% 3% 2.37% 2.33%

LT-6a(i)WS 9.7% 10.1% 10.9% 6.5% 7% 11% 9.90% 9.51%

LT-6a(ii)SL 4.7% 7.7% 7.6% 4.5% 5% 8% 6.12% 6.12%

LT-7 17.4% 12.7% 14.4% 10.9% 11% 17% 5.00% 8.04%

LT Total 6.4% 6.7% 7.7% 9.5% 6% 9% 7.20% 7.45%

HT-1 4.9% 2.8% 2.0% 1.9% 2% 5% 2.37% 2.71%

HT-2(a) 17.6% 16.0% 14.6% 13.2% 13% 18%11.73

% 12.96%

HT-2(b) 20.1% 18.1% 16.6% 15.1% 15% 20% 9.38% 12.12%

HT-3(a) -6.1% -5.0% 28.9% 30.9% -6% 31%11.94

% 12.10%HT3 (b) 7.5%

HT-4 8.4% 8.0% 7.8% 7.3% 7% 8% 7.92% 7.90%

HT TOTAL 16.6% 15.0% 13.8% 12.7% 13% 17%14.40

% 14.49%

TOTAL 9.3% 9.2% 9.6% 10.6% 9% 11% 9.48% 9.61%

8 year CAGR

Tariff category

FY 11 FY 03

FY 12 FY 04

FY 13FY 05 Min Max

Most likely


formulaLT-1 0.7% 1.8% 4.7% 1% 5% 1.83% 2.13%

LT-2(a) 9.4% 9.9% 9.7% 9% 10% 9.66% 9.66%LT-2(b) 9.1% 9.7% 10.1% 9% 10% 9.73% 9.69%

LT-3 14.3% 13.7% 13.1% 13% 14% 13.66% 13.68%

LT-4(a) 3.5% 5.5% 6.9% 4% 7% 5.47% 5.38%



LT-4( c ) 14.4% 24.0% 23.5% 14% 24% 23.51% 22.07%

LT-4(d) 20.7% 23.0% 20.3% 20% 23% 20.67% 21.01%

LT-5 2.3% 2.6% 3.1% 2% 3% 2.56% 2.61%

LT-6a(i)WS 10.3% 10.5% 9.2% 9% 10% 10.27% 10.12%

LT-6a(ii)SL 6.1% 8.3% 6.9% 6% 8% 6.88% 6.98%

LT-7 15.3% 15.2% 13.8% 14% 15% 5.00% 8.18%

LT Total 6.6% 7.5% 8.0% 7% 8% 7.47% 7.42%

HT-1 4.1% 2.6% 2.3% 2% 4% 2.64% 2.83%

HT-2(a) 16.9% 15.5% 14.7% 15% 17% 11.73% 13.08%

HT-2(b) 18.7% 17.2% 16.4% 16% 19% 9.38% 12.11%

HT-3(a) -3.3% 12.4% 22.2% -3% 22% 12.37% 11.39%HT-4 9.0% 8.5% 7.4% 7% 9% 8.46% 8.37%

HT TOTAL 15.8% 14.5% 13.9% 14% 16% 14.46% 14.58%

TOTAL 9.2% 9.6% 9.9% 9% 10% 9.57% 9.57%

The Comparison of growth in consumption of the above scenarios are shown below:

Consumer Category

8 years CAGR

7 years CAGR

6 years CAGR

5 years CAGR

4 years CAGR

3 years CAGR

2 years CAGR

One year growth

LT-1 2.13% 3.27% 4.39% 4.41% 3.41% 2.64% 2.34% 2.16%LT-2(a) 9.66% 9.64% 9.67% 9.66% 9.69% 9.72% 9.64% 9.31%LT-2(b) 9.69% 9.63% 9.56% 9.57% 9.69% 9.66% 9.82% 9.97%LT-3 13.68% 13.53% 13.37% 13.39% 13.59% 13.76% 13.81% 13.81%LT-4(a) 5.38% 5.65% 4.83% 4.59% 5.39% 4.50% 4.47% 6.59%LT-4( c ) 22.07% 26.02% 28.72% 29.17% 26.93% 24.84% 22.98% 23.71%LT-4(d) 21.01% 21.67% 21.65% 21.63% 21.90% 21.37% 22.21% 22.45%LT-5 2.61% 2.33% 2.05% 2.05% 2.34% 2.72% 2.80% 2.87%LT-6a(i)WS 10.12% 9.51% 9.07% 9.11% 9.43% 10.03% 9.47% 10.02%LT-6a(ii)SL 6.98% 6.12% 5.38% 5.37% 6.11% 7.16% 7.41% 6.68%LT-7 8.18% 8.04% 8.46% 9.04% 8.76% 7.75% 8.05% 7.32%LT Total 7.42% 7.45% 7.32% 7.38% 7.57% 7.33% 7.48% 8.07%HT-1 2.83% 2.71% 2.57% 2.62% 2.98% 3.24% 3.60% 4.29%HT-2(a) 13.08% 12.96% 12.98% 13.26% 13.37% 13.29% 13.26% 13.16%HT-2(b) 12.11% 12.12% 12.27% 12.17% 12.06% 11.99% 11.85% 11.55%HT-3(a) 11.39% 12.10% 14.73% 17.23% 18.39% 18.92% 23.20% 41.73%HT-3(b) 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%HT-4 8.37% 7.90% 7.28% 7.26% 8.01% 8.23% 8.42% 9.02%HT TOTAL 14.58% 14.49% 14.40% 14.47% 14.67% 14.85% 15.01% 15.15%TOTAL 9.57% 9.61% 9.52% 9.53% 9.66% 9.56% 9.79% 10.46%



8 years CAGR

7 years CAGR

6 years CAGR

5 years CAGR

4 years CAGR

3 years CAGR

2 years CAGR

One year growth

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

LT-1 LT-2(a) LT-2(b) LT-3 LT-4(a) LT-4( b )LT-4(c) LT-5 LT-6WS LT-6SL LT-7 HT-1HT-2(a) HT-2(b) HT-3(a) HT-3(b) HT-4

A graph depicting the various scenarios is shown above. It is seen that the

various scenarios are showing more or less the consistent rate of growth. In

the event of the graph depicting consistent growth in all the scenarios, 4

years CAGR growth is considered for the sales forecast.

The CAGR projections from FY-14 to FY-20 are shown in the table below:

Consumer Category FY-13

4 years CAGR FY-14 FY-15 FY-16 FY-17 FY-18 FY-19 FY-20

LT-1 123.94 3.41% 128.17 132.54 137.06 141.74 146.58 151.58 156.75

LT-2(a) 4976.84 9.69% 5459.04 5987.95 6568.11 7204.48 7902.51 8668.17 9508.01

LT-2(b) 36.32 9.69% 39.84 43.71 47.94 52.59 57.69 63.28 69.41

LT-3 1505.36 13.59% 1709.99 1942.43 2206.47 2506.40 2847.10 3234.12 3673.74

LT-4(a) 6012.17 5.39% 6336.18 6677.65 7037.53 7416.80 7816.51 8237.76 8681.71

LT-4( c ) 4.60 26.93% 5.84 7.41 9.40 11.93 15.14 19.22 24.40

LT-4(d) 4.56 21.90% 5.55 6.77 8.25 10.06 12.26 14.94 18.22

LT-5 1114.74 2.34% 1140.84 1167.55 1194.88 1222.86 1251.49 1280.79 1310.77

LT-6WS 450.40 9.43% 492.87 539.35 590.21 645.86 706.77 773.41 846.34

LT-6SL 409.61 6.11% 434.63 461.17 489.33 519.22 550.93 584.57 620.28

LT-7 139.48 8.76% 151.70 164.98 179.43 195.15 212.25 230.84 251.06

HT-1 511.67 2.98% 526.94 542.66 558.86 575.53 592.70 610.39 628.61

HT-2(a) 5038.40 13.37% 5711.88 6475.37 7340.93 8322.17 9434.58 10695.69 12125.36

HT-2(b) 3046.46 12.06% 3413.97 3825.81 4287.34 4804.54 5384.13 6033.64 6761.51

HT-3(a) 5.09 18.39% 6.02 7.13 8.44 9.99 11.83 14.00 16.57



HT-3(b) 0.16 0.00% 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

HT-4 123.38 8.01% 133.26 143.93 155.45 167.90 181.34 195.86 211.54

Total Sales 23503.18 9.66% 25696.87 28126.57 30819.80 33807.38 37123.96 40808.42 44904.43

% Growth 9.3% 9.5% 9.6% 9.7% 9.8% 9.9% 10.0%

Distribution Loss 14.00 13.80 13.60 13.40 13.20 13.00 12.80 12.60Energy Input @ IF point 27329.28 29810.75 32553.91 35588.68 38948.60 42671.22 46798.64 51378.07Transmission Loss 3.96 3.94 3.92 3.90 3.88 3.86 3.84 3.82Energy Input @ Gen point 28456.14 31033.47 33882.08 37032.97 40520.81 44384.46 48667.47 53418.66MW requirement 3248.42 3542.63 3867.82 4227.51 4625.66 5066.72 5555.65 6098.02Peak MW requirement 4060.52 4428.29 4834.77 5284.38 5782.08 6333.40 6944.56 7622.53

The above table depicts the sales projection based on 4 years CAGR growth.

The energy requirement at IF points and generating points have been

computed as per the projected figures for distribution and transmission loss

respectively. The corresponding peak loads have been arrived with a Load

factor of 80%.

Summary of different scenarios:

Methodology Projected 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Per Capita Consumption

Energy input in MU 25658 28585 31857 35516 39610 43156 47036 51283 55911 11.41 11.45 11.49 11.53 8.95 8.99 9.03 9.02Avg. MW projected 2929 3263 3637 4054 4522 4926 5369 5854 6383Peak MW projected 3661 4079 4546 5068 5652 6158 6712 7318 7978

EPS Projections

Energy input in MU 26686 29070 31559 33980 36549 39411 42584 46014 8.93 8.56 7.67 7.56 7.83 8.05 8.05Avg. MW projected 0 3046 3319 3603 3879 4172 4499 4861 5253Peak MW projected 0 3808 4148 4503 4849 5215 5624 6077 6566

Circle wise sales projections

Energy input in MU 25658 27415 29537 31888 34494 37385 40595 44163 48074 7.74 7.96 8.17 8.38 8.59 8.79 8.86Avg. MW projected 3130 3372 3640 3938 4268 4634 5041 5488Peak MW projected 3912 4215 4550 4922 5335 5793 6302 6860

CAGR Projections

Energy input in MU 25658 28456 31033 33882 37033 40521 44384 48768 53640 9.06 9.18 9.30 9.42 9.53 9.88 9.99Avg. MW projected 3248 3543 3868 4228 4626 5067 5567 6123Peak MW projected 4061 4428 4835 5284 5782 6333 6959 7654



Graphical representation of the Peak load projections under different

scenarios are shown below:

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20200

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Per Capita Consumption EPS ProjectionsCircle wise sales projections CAGR Projections

Graphical representation of the energy requirement projections under

different scenarios are shown below:



2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20200

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Per Capita Consumption EPS ProjectionsCircle wise sales projections CAGR Projections

Inference:

Per capita consumption: It is proposed to double the per capita

consumption of BESCOM from 1110 units (FY 11) to 2221units (FY 20),

which calls for a growth rate of 7.4%. Accordingly, the computed energy

requirement will be 54251 MU for FY 20, which is more than 100% when

compared to the provisional figures of 26358 MU for FY 12. This appears

to be an ambitious target. The projections computed under this scenario

may be considered as a goal. The stake holders may plan their investment

to reach the goal. The State can plan for investment in generation sector

accordingly. As quoted in earlier paras, this calls for massive energy

investment to achieve targeted expansion.

EPS Projections: The Commission has directed the Licensee to follow the

CEA guidelines in forecasting the energy projections. The 18th EPS is still

in draft stage. A cursory look at the 17th EPS indicates that the estimation

is on the higher side. The State energy sales recorded 37101MU for

FY 11against the estimated EPS figure of 41050 MU (-10%). The targeted



energy projection has not been achieved due to the occurrence of

unpredictable events such as time over run of the projects, cost overrun

of the projects etc. It is to state that the BESCOM’s contribution to the

State energy sales is consistent around 50% and the same has been

reckoned for projections. The draft 18th EPS report is also referred for

estimation of sales. In the absence of final 18th EPS report and the

historical figures not matching with the estimates, it is difficult to

comment on this scenario.

Circle wise Projection: The total circle wise projection figures are done

on similar lines of CAGR projected figures. It is to state that efforts have

been made to segregate the historical data circle wise, tariff wise to arrive

at better estimation of sales. This exercise gave an indication about the

sales growth attributable to certain categories of consumers at the circle

level. It is noticed that the south circle has a major portion of service

sector (IT BT). Any economic crisis will have a direct effect on the sales

for this circle. The percentage of agricultural consumption in rural circles

is more than the other categories. Since the agricultural consumption is

assessed, the consumption / sales under this category is debatable. The

percentage of consumption under unmetered categories is more in rural

circles. Hence, projections made on the basis of circle wise consumption

may lead to increase in estimation of unmetered sales, which may not be

realistic.

CAGR projections: It is to state that this is a time tested scenario. The

projections are based on actual historical figures. The State in the past

has suffered from shortage power. Most of the time the projections were

made on the restricted hours of power supply to farming community.

Further, the hours of power supply to rural areas was also restricted as

per the directions of the State Government. Even now, the scenario has



not changed much even though many power projects are envisaged. The

demand and supply gap is yet to be fully met. In the light of all this, it is

opined that all economic conditions, hours of power supply variations etc

are all taken care with CAGR projections. From the past data it can be

seen that the CAGR projections and actual sales values recorded are

nearer to the projections.

In view of the above the CAGR method has been reckoned for the purpose

of sales forecast for the 3rd control period for FY-14 to FY-16.

Limitations:

1. Planning for power system is essentially a projection of how the system

grows over a specific period of time. Any plan can become technically and

economically obsolete when new inventions in electrical utilization

equipments are taken up.

2. Unforeseen industrial, commercial or residential projects can change the

load forecast.

3. Breakthroughs in new generation and transmission technologies and un

expected inflation in equipment labor costs can take the plan in other

directions.

4. Reliability is one of the most important criteria which must be taken into

consideration during all phases of power system planning, design and

operation.




Documents

bescom.orgbescom.org/.../uploads/2013/01/Chapter6-_Load_forecast-Autosav… · Web viewThe Commission vide above Load Forecast regulations has directed the Distribution Licensees