CHAPTER 5 CASE STUDY AND RESULTS

The software developed has been tested on various standard IEEEsystems. A case study of UPPCL, KESCO and NPCL has been taken and results by different methods have been obtained. For calculating the transmission tariff and wheeling charges the following data is a must.

5.1 Data needed for Postage Stamp Method

Data needed from Transco (UPPCL) Table 5.1.1 Year: _________ S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Name of Data Total Expenses (Yearly) Capital base amount (Yearly) Average power purchase cost rate of energy Total annual power purchase cost (yearly) Peak load data of Transco ( Monthly peak) (March 2002) Transmission Losses (As % of the Energy) Employee cost(Yearly) Administrative & general charges(Yearly) Repair and Maintenance charges(Yearly) Depreciation cost(Yearly) Provision for bad & doubtful debts (Yearly) Others expenses(Yearly) Interest and finance cost (Yearly) Total equity (Yearly) Initial capitalized spare cost Total Energy purchased (Monthly)

47

17 18 19 20

Total Energy purchased (Monthly) Less expenses capitalized(Yearly) Total income tax (Yearly) Availability

Data needed from Disco (NPCL and KESCO) Table 5.1.2 Financial Year: __________ S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 (UPPCL) (MW) Load of NPCL at the time of transmission Company peak (UPPCL) (MW) Yearly Energy purchase by Disco (MU) (KESCO) Energy purchase by Disco (KESCO) Yearly Energy purchase by Disco (MU) (NPCL) Energy purchase by Disco (MU) Monthly (NPCL) (MU) Monthly(March 2002) Name of Data Load of KESCO at the time of transmission Company peak

48

5.2 Data needed for Megawatt Mile Method and Best Economic Node Method
Data needed from Transco (UPPCL) Table 5.2.1 Year & Month: _________ S.No. Name of the data 1 Total assets of the UPPCL 2 Amount of power taken by the Disco (KESCO/NPCL) with voltage class and nodes 3 Total Energy purchased (Yearly) 4 5 6 Average power purchase cost rate of energy Transmission Losses (As % of the Energy) Transmission Annual revenue Requirement

Table 5.2.2 S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Name of the data Largest bus number used Number of two winding transformers Number of three winding transformers Number of transmission lines Number of transmission lines used Number of series reactors Number of series capacitors Number of shunt reactors Number of shunt capacitors Number of generators Number of loads Generator data 1 Bus voltage magnitude(pu) 2 Voltage angle(degree)

49

3 Real power generation(pu) 4 Reactive power generation(pu) 5 Real load (pu) 6 Reactive load (pu) 7 G shunt(pu) 8 B shunt(pu) 9 Bus type Swing bus Generator bus (PV bus) Load bus (PQ bus) 10 Max Reactive power generation(pu) 11 Minimum Reactive power generation(pu) 12 Rated voltage of the bus (kVA) 13 Max bus voltage magnitude(pu) 14 Min bus voltage magnitude(pu) 13 Line data 1 Bus (from) to Bus (to) 2 Branch/Line resistance 3 Branch/Line reactance 4 Shunt admittance 5 Transformer Tap ratio 6 Transformer Tap Phase shift (radian) 7 Max transformer Tap ratio 8 Min transformer Tap ratio 9 Transformer Tap ratio increment

5.3 Losses taken for the two methodologies

If it is assumed that power taken by a Disco will flow only on one particular voltage class (132, 220, 400 or 800 KV) then the losses

50

proposed for the UPPCL for different voltage class can be taken as follows as discussed in the chapter 4: Table 5.3.1 S.No. 1 2 3 4 Voltage Class 132 KV 220 KV 400 KV 800 KV Losses % of Energy 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.5

Calculations and Results 5.4 Calculations using Postage Stamp Method:

The results for the Data given in the Appendix C for KESCO and NPCL for various financial years are as follows KESCO FY 2001-02 S.No. Method 1 2 Transmission ARR Method CERC Recommendation Method (Without losses) 3 Consideration of Peaks 4 5 method 22.434 26.668 21.394 25.629 19.690 23.924 18.851 23.0857 (Monthly peak) Approximation Method Energy Method division 22.890 21.850 20.146 19.307 16.1500 16.1500 16.1500 16.1500 Table 5.4.1 132 KV Paisa/Unit 27.438 220 KV 400 KV Paisa/Unit 24.3456 800 KV Paisa/Unit 23.399 Paisa/Unit 26.266

51

KESCO FY 2002-03 Table 5.4.2 S.No. Method 1 2 Transmission ARR Method CERC Recommendation Method 3 Consideration of Peaks 4 5 method 30.443 24.446 29.390 23.394 27.665 21.667 26.8161 20.819 (Monthly peak) Approximation Method Energy Method division 23.304 22.252 20.257 19.677 13.365 13.365 13.365 13.365 132 KV Paisa/Unit 25.131 220 KV 400 KV Paisa/Unit 23.043 800 KV Paisa/Unit 21.098 Paisa/Unit 23.961

NPCL FY 2001-02 Table 5.4.3 S.No. Method 1 2 Transmission ARR Method CERC Recommendation Method 3 Consideration of Peaks method (Monthly peak) 21.581 20.542 18.838 17.99 16.1500 16.1500 16.1500 16.1500 132 KV Paisa/Unit 27.438 220 KV 400 KV Paisa/Unit 24.3456 800 KV Paisa/Unit 23.399 Paisa/Unit 26.266

52

4 5

Approximation Method Energy Method division

21.161 26.668

20.12 25.629

18.412 23.924

17.57 23.0857

NPCL FY 2002-03 Table 5.4.4 S.No. Method 1 2 Transmission ARR Method CERC Recommendation Method 3 Consideration of Peaks 4 5 method 27.265 24.446 26.213 23.394 24.488 21.667 23.638 20.819 (Monthly peak) Approximation Method Energy Method The above results show that the transmission charges for various financial years for KESCO and NPCL varies for different voltage class. The charges for higher voltage class are less as compared to others. However the charges using CERC method for different voltage class do not vary as consideration of the losses has not been done. division 21.060 20.007 18.282 17.433 13.365 13.365 13.365 13.365 132 KV Paisa/Unit 25.131 220 KV 400 KV Paisa/Unit 23.043 800 KV Paisa/Unit 21.098 Paisa/Unit 23.961

53

5.5 MW-Mile Method

Calculations using MW-Mile method has been done using the Data shown in table 5, 6 & 7 of Appendix C. Results are calculated for KESCO and NPCL for March 2002 and at different values of transmission losses. These are shown in various tables shown below. Year & Month: March 2002 (At 3.6 % system losses) Table 5.5.1 S.No Method Name Rs (Crores) 1 2 3 4 Division_base_transacti on Division_base Division_base_transacti on_both Division_base_both 4.07673 20.38 0.53320 34.64 4.19869 3.83357 20.99 19.16 0.53325 0.47737 36.37 32.56 3.94155 KESCO Monthly Rates Paisa /Unit 19.70 Rs (Crores) 0.50086 NPCL Monthly Rates Paisa /Unit 34.16

Year & Month: March 2002 (At 3.0 % system losses) Table 5.5.2 S. No Monthly Rs (Crores) 1 2 3 4 Division_base_transaction Division_base Division_base_transaction _both Division_base_both 4.05653 20.28 0.50622 34.53 3.92041 4.17739 3.81351 Rates Paisa /Unit 19.60 20.88 19.06 Monthly Rs (Crores) 0.49738 0.52974 0.47567 Rates Paisa /Unit 33.92 36.13 32.44 Method Name KESCO NPCL

54

Year & Month: March 2002 (At 2.0 % system losses) Table 5.5.3 S. No Monthly Rs (Crores) 1 2 3 4 Division_base_transaction Division_base Division_base_transaction _both Division_base_both 4.02285 20.114 0.50337 34.336 3.88518 4.14188 3.78008 Rates Paisa /Unit 19.425 20.709 18.900 Monthly Rs (Crores) 0.49157 0.52389 0.47285 Rates Paisa /Unit 33.531 35.736 32.254 Method Name KESCO NPCL

Year & Month: March 2002 (At 1.5 % system losses) Table 5.5.4 S. No Monthly Rs (Crores) 1 2 3 4 Division_base_transaction Division_base Division_base_transaction _both Division_base_both 4.00602 20.030 0.50195 34.239 3.86756 4.12413 3.76337 Rates Paisa /Unit 19.337 20.620 18.816 Monthly Rs (Crores) 0.48867 0.52097 0.47143 Rates Paisa /Unit 33.333 35.536 32.157 Method Name KESCO NPCL

The above results shows that out of the four different methodologies tested at different systems losses, methodology based on Division_base_transaction_both gives minimum charges for the two 55

systems studied. This method is recommended for the calculations of charges based on the discussion in chapter 3.

Wheeling charge prediction for a year keeping in view the annual load flow: The software developed can also be used for
predicting the wheeling charges for a year if past data for annual load flow is available. The results of wheeling charges at 3.6% system losses for KESCO and NPCL for 12 months after March 2002 using data of Appendix C (Table 5, 6 & 7) have given below. The prediction was verified using past records and found to be much accurate. Similar predictions can be done at different values of system losses. Year & Month of data: March 2002 (At 3.6% system losses) Table 5.5.5 KESCO
S.No. Month Division_base_ transcation Rs Cr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jan03 Feb03 Mar02 Apr02 May02 Jun02 July02 Aug02 Sept02 3.799 3.618 3.941 3.674 3.578 3.587 3.751 3.805 3.9613 P/U 18.99 18.09 19.70 18.37 17.89 17.93 18.75 19.02 19.80 Rs Cr 4.0475 3.8542 4.19869 3.914 3.81201 3.82106 3.99625 4.05362 4.2197 P/U 20.23 19.27 20.99 19.57 19.06 19.10 19.98 20.26 21.09 Division_base Division_base _transcation_ both Rs Cr P/U 3.6955 3.5191 3.8335 3.5742 3.4805 3.4887 3.6487 3.7011 3.8528 18.47 17.59 19.61 17.87 17.40 17.44 18.24 18.50 19.26 Rs Cr 3.9299 3.7423 4.0767 3.8010 3.7012 3.7100 3.8801 3.9358 4.0971 P/U
19.64 18.71 20.38 19.00 18.50 18.55 19.40 19.67 20.40

Division_base _both

56

10 11 12

Oct02 Nov02 Dec02

3.8280 3.8309 3.9528

19.14 19.15 19.76

4.0778 4.0808 4.21071

20.38 20.40 21.05

3.7231 3.7259 3.8445

18.61 18.62 19.22

3.9593 3.9623 4.0884

19.79 19.81 20.44

P/U Paisa per Unit Table 5.5.6 NPCL

S.No. Month Division_base_ transcation Rs Cr 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Jan03 Feb03 Mar02 Apr02 May02 Jun02 July02 Aug02 Sept02 Oct02 Nov02 Dec02 0.48283 0.45977 0.50086 0.4669 0.4547 0.4558 0.4767 0.48355 0.50337 0.48643 0.48680 0.502295 P/U
32.93 31.36 34.16

Division_base

Division_base _transcation_ both

Division_base_ both Rs Cr 0.514 0.4894 0.5332 0.4971 0.4840 0.4852 0.5071 0.5147 0.5358 0.5178 0.5182 0.5347 P/U 35.06 33.38 36.37 33.90 33.01 33.09 34.59 35.10 36.54 35.32 35.34 36.47

Rs Cr 0.51405 0.48950 0.53325 0.4971 0.4841 0.48529 0.50754 0.51482 0.53592 0.5178 0.51828 0.53477

P/U 35.06 33.39 36.37 33.90 33.02 33.10 34.62 35.11 36.55 35.32 35.35 36.47

Rs Cr P/U 0.4601 0.4382 0.4773 0.4333 0.4450 0.4344 0.4543 0.4608 0.4797 0.4636 0.4639 0.4787 31.38 29.89 32.55 29.55 30.35 29.63 30.98 31.43 32.72 31.62 31.64 32.65

31.84 31.01 31.09 32.51 32.98

34.33 33.18 33.20 34.26

P/U Paisa per Unit

5.6 Best Node Method

If a Disco has the option of sending and receiving power at more than one node then by this method the best combination of the nodes at which a Disco will have to pay least wheeling charges can be known. Some of the theoretical results tested on the software are as follows.

57

Suppose a company wants to input power at Unnao 800 and they have option of taking power either at Greator Noida 220 or at Allahabad. Then the best economic combination of the sending and receiving node will be as follows. Ex. No.1: Table 5.6.1 S.No. 1 2 Input points (sending Node) Unnao 800 Input points (Receiving Node) Greater Noida 220 Allahabad 220 20 Allahabad 220 Ex. No.2: Similarly If there are more the one sending and receiving nodes then the best combination results will be as follows: Table 5.6.2 S.No. 1 2 3 4 5 Input points (sending Node) Unnao 800 Auraiya 220 Allahabad PG 220 Chibra 220 GangaCanal132 Gonda 132 20 Input points (Receiving Node) Anpara 400 Jaunpur 220 Naubasta 220 Amount of power (MW) 20 20 20 Best combination Unnao 800 Anpara 400 Amount of power (MW) 20 Best combination Unnao 800

5.7 Correct economic signal for UPPCL depending on the loading:

The MW Mile model gives correct economic signal for the efficient development of transmission system. For smooth operation of the system and avoiding system overloading it is imperative that overloaded 58

substations should be charged more than an under loaded stations. This generates a correct economic signal for the company and also insists the substations to limit their load, resulting in an increase in the life of the system. Here is the list of some under loaded and over loaded substations with their charges 1 Over loaded stations Table 5.7.1 S.No. Name of Substation Charge for 1 month by Division_base_both method for 1MW Cr 1 2 3 Meerut MEd132 Murad Nagar 132 Moradabad 132 2 Under loaded stations Table 5.7.2 S.No. Name of substation Cr 1 2 3 Gorakhpur132 Azamgarh 132 Sultanpur 132 0.014227 0.010430 0.012948 Charge for 1 month by Division_base_both method for 1MW Paisa/Unit 19.75 14.48 17.98 Cr 0.014290 0.010431 0.012951 Charge for 1 month by Division_base method for 1 MW Paisa/Unit 19.84 14.48 17.98 0.026935 37.40 0.026945 37.42 0.024632 34.21 0.024640 43.22 0.024865 Paisa/Unit 34.53 Charge for 1 month by Division_base method for 1 MW Cr Paisa/Unit 34.54 0.024873

The above results show that charges for the over loaded substations are more than the under loaded substations. Normally the substations

59

situated in the east U.P. are under loaded. So the charges should be less in eastern area than the western area substations. Note: Charges for the above substations by various Postage Stamp methods are between 22.292 paisa/unit to 27.438 paisa/unit at losses of 3.6%. (For more detail see table No-5.4.1)

5.8 Some theoretical results:

5.8.1 Comparative Results for transmission charge and wheeling charge on a bus In the system studied of UPPCL, comparative transmission charges and wheeling charges for bus Gorakhpur132 are as follows. For transmission charges it has been assumed that power of 1MW is supplied by the UPPCL itself and for wheeling charge it has been assumed that the power of 1MW is transacted between Tanda220 and Goragkpur132. With 3.6% losses (Data has been shown in the appendix C) Table 5.8.1 S.No. Name of the method Cr 1 2 Division_base_trans Division_base Transmission Charge Paisa/unit 19.7597 19.7620 Cr Wheeling charge Paisa/unit Paisa/unit 10.615 10.617

0.014227 0.014229

0.007644 0.007645

Above results have been calculated at a loss of 3.6%. Similar results can be calculated with other proposed losses. Note: For postage stamp results of above see table No-5.4.1 5.8.2 Results for transmission charge and wheeling charge on a radial bus only For transmission charges it has been assumed that power of 1MW is supplied by the UPPCL itself and for wheeling charge it has been

60

assumed that the power of 1MW is transacted between Tanda 220 and Kasia 132. With 3.6% losses (Data has been shown in the appendix C) Table 5.8.2 S.No. Name of the method Cr 1 2 Division_base_ trans Division_base 0.016035 22.270 0.008602 11.946 Transmission Charge Paisa/unit 22.265 Cr 0.008601 Paisa/unit 11.945 Wheeling charge

0.016031

Note: For postage stamp results of above see table No-5.4.1 Discussions: A brief comparison between two methods is given below. We recommend using MW-Mile method to determine the transmission and wheeling charges for the UPPCL. We have considered all the constraints and problems faced for the current UPPCL system. The table below shows the superiority of the MW-Mile method over Postage Stamp Method. Table 5.8.3 S.No. 1 2 3 Charges Consideration of power flow Effect distance generator of Not Considered of Taken care of distance Postage Stamp Charges are constants Not taken MW Mile Charges are different at different locations Taken

load from the

61

Loading the system

and Not Considered

Considered

over loading of 5 6 Simplicity calculations Voltage class Charges are same for Charges are different at all voltage class, Which different voltage class is unfair. All cost can not voltage and gives benefit to the are consumers voltage class be Exact charge for losses can be done Reactive power pricing can also be done more accurately Capacity use of the system is also considered of Higher class aggregated 7 8 9 Charge for the Losses system losses charged too accurately in Easy to calculate Little complex

Charge for the Not possible to charge reactive power accurately for reactive power Use of system No capacity use is capacity considered

62