Technical Audit of GENCOs - Final Report April 27

Hagler Bailly Pakistan
Technical, Management, and Economic Counsel
Associated with PA Consulting Group
Technical Audit Study of

Jamshoro, Guddu and
Muzaffargarh Thermal Power
Stations in Pakistan
Final Report
HBP REF.: R1V02TAG
April 27, 2011
Advanced Engineering Associates International

Islamabad
Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants
Executive Summary
An energy audit of the thermal power stations (TPSs) of the following three state owned
power plants, collectively referred to as GENCOs was carried out:
TPS Jamshoro, or the Jamshoro Power Company Ltd., commonly referred to as

GENCO I,
TPS Guddu, which is a part of Central Power Generation Company Ltd.

commonly referred to as GENCO II), and,
TPS Muzaffargarh, which is a part of Northern Power Generation Company

commonly referred to as GENCO III.D
The main objective of the study was to carry out a baseline evaluation or a benchmarking
for determining efficiency gains and operational improvements to be achieved through
the implementation of the USAID Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreements (FARA)
Repair and Maintenance Plan currently under implementation at these GENCOs. The
key terms of reference of the study were:
Assess performance parameters such as effective output capability, heat rate and
efficiency and power plant availability of each unit
Identify reasons for drop of plant performance from the design parameters
Carry out a spot fuel oil analysis to determine the heat contents and quality of the
fuel oil being supplied to the power stations
Carry out a brief technical review to assess the potential for using high-viscosity
fuel oil to reduce the plants generation costs
The standard methodologies used by the industry to determine the baseline performance
evaluation of steam and combined cycle power plants are ANSI/ASME PTC-6 and
ANSI/ASME PTC-46 respectively. However, these methodologies could not be followed
for a number of limitations for GENCOs. These limitations include:
Lack of availability of accurate and calibrated instrumentation in the power

station for online or off-line evaluation of efficiency
Lack of trained staff and manpower to carry out detailed measurement procedures
under controlled testing conditions
Software tools to carry out the component-wise heat balance analysis of the plant
Extensive data that includes ambient conditions, design data, correction curves
and operating conditions for the main heat path components such as boilers,
turbines, condensers, and cooling towers.
A specific testing protocol was devised for each unit on the basis of its fuel supply
systems, instrumentation status, and other operating conditions. A number of units were
not available for testing due to different operational reasons. Exhibit I provides a

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
ii
summary of units that were tested and those not tested along with the reasons for their
unavailability.
Exhibit I: Unit-wise Testing Status of GENCOs
Power Station
TPS Jamshoro
Units Tested
Units Not Tested
Reasons for Not Testing

the Units
Units 1-4
TPS Guddu
Steam Block
Units 1-2
Energy input could not be

measured due to absence of gas
flow meters
Unit 3

measured accurately due to due
to errors in gas and RFO flow
meters
Unit 4
On prolonged shutdown from

December 2010 to March 2011
due to break down of air preheater
TPS Guddu CCP

Block
Block 2-A
Block 2-B
(GT 7, GT8, ST 5)
(GT 9, GT10,
ST6)
Block 1
(GT 11, GT12, ST 13)

measured accurately due to
lackof functional and calibrated
gas flow meters
TPS Muzaffargarh
Units 2-6
On prolonged shutdown from

November 2010 to mid- April
2011 due to delay in replacement
of super heater tubes
Unit 1
The heat rates and efficiency parameters for the power stations have been calculated only
for the purpose of baseline evaluation or a benchmark for determining efficiency gains
and operational improvements to be achieved after the implementation of the USAID
FARA Repair and Maintenance Plan currently under implementation at these GENCOs.
It should be noted that heat rates in this study were determined under steady loading and
specific ambient and operating conditions of the units during the winter season. Average
annual heat rates for the power stations are likely to be higher due to variations in
ambient conditions and loading levels, inclusive of startups and shutdowns.
Findings and Results
All the steam units of TPS Jamshoro and TPS Muzaffargarh are dual fuel plants having
gas and residual fuel oil (RFO) firing facilities except for Unit 1 of Jamshoro that has
only fuel oil firing capability. However, these plants were only operating on RFO firing
due to shortage of natural gas. TPS Guddu uses medium calorific raw gas from Mari and
Kandhkot. Steam Unit 3 and 4 at Guddu can also operate on mixed firing with RFO as
secondary fuel. Due to poor maintenance of the power stations, GENCOs have lost
nearly one third of their capacity and nearly 17% of their thermal efficiency due to plant
degradation. The Exhibit II shows the unit-wise results of performance evaluation tests
for the power stations.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
iii
Exhibit II: Results of Output Capability, Heat Rate and Availability of GENCOs
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present
Gross
Capability
MW
Present
Net
Capability
MW
Capacity
Degradation
Design
Heat
Rate
Design
Net
Efficiency
Gross
Heat Rate
Gross
Efficiency
Net Heat
Rate
Net
Efficiency
Average
Availability
in FY2010
Average
Availability
in FY2011
TPS Jamshoro
Unit 1
250
191
176
23%
9,315
36.6%
9,829
34.7%
10,720
31.8%
73%
80%
Unit 2
200
119
112
41%
10,068
33.9%
11,727
29.1%
12,492
27.3%
88%
69%
Unit 3
200
125
113
38%
10,068
33.9%
11,879
28.7%
13,262
25.7%
85%
58%
Unit 4
200
146
133
27%
10,068
33.9%
10,909
31.3%
11,935
28.6%
91%
79%
Total Jamshoro
850
581
535
32%
84%
72%
GT 7
100
93
92
7%
10,763
31.7%
12,840
26.6%
12,896
26.5%
78%
96%
GT 8
100
85
85
15%
10,763
31.7%
13,412
25.4%
13,467
25.3%
98%
92%
ST 5
100
71
69
29%
98%
97%
Total Block 2-A
300
248
246
17%
9,572
35.6%
9,658
35.3%
98%
95%
GT 11
136
80
80
41%
10,629
32.1%
12,196
28.0%
12,261
27.8%
99%
100%
GT 12
136
80
80
41%
10,629
32.1%
12,236
27.9%
12,272
27.8%
99%
100%
ST 13
143
84
81
41%
97%
86%
Total Block 1
415
244
240
41%
98%
95%
Total Guddu CCP
715
493
487
31%
95%
95%
TPS Guddu CCP Block

Block 2-A
Block 1

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
8,081
42.2%
8,218
41.5%
Executive Summary
iv
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present
Gross
Capability
MW
Present
Net
Capability
MW
Capacity
Degradation
Design
Heat
Rate
Design
Net
Efficiency
Gross
Heat Rate
Gross
Efficiency
Net Heat
Rate
Net
Efficiency
Average
Availability
in FY2010
Average
Availability
in FY2011
TPS Muzaffargarh
Unit 2
210
168
156
20%
9,279
36.8%
10,060
33.9%
10,784
31.6%
88%
83%
Unit 3
210
140
127
33%
9,279
36.8%
9,943
34.3%
10,773
31.7%
81%
96%
Unit 4
320
202
181
37%
9,297
36.7%
10,129
33.7%
11,312
30.2%
97%
60%
Unit 5
200
97
86
51%
10,780
31.7%
11,384
30.0%
13,026
26.2%
47%
72%
Unit 6
200
73
64
63%
10,780
31.7%
12,380
27.6%
14,392
23.7%
77%
78%
1,140
680
614
40%
80%
62%
Total Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
The key results of the performance evaluation tests are described below.
TPS Jamshoro
The average capacity degradation was found to be 32% compared to the installed
capacity with a maximum degradation of 40% for Unit 2 and a minimum degradation of
23% for Unit 1. The average drop in the net efficiency is about 20% from the design
efficiency of the power station. Unit 1 is most efficient with 32% net efficiency against
the design efficiency of 36.6%. The net efficiencies of Units 2-4 ranged between 25.7%
to 28.6% against the design efficiency of 34%. The average availability of the power
station was 84% in FY2010 and 72% in FY2011 (till November 2010). However, if this
availability is corrected for lost output of the plant due to degradation, the availability
factor would drop by about 35%, indicating poor performance of the plant.
TPS Guddu
CCP Block 1 has shown 40% degradation in its capacity from the installed capacity
whereas CCP Block 2-A appears to be in better condition with only 17% capacity
degradation. The gas turbines (GTs 7 and 8) in Block 2-A showed net efficiencies of
27.8% each against the design efficiency of 31.7%. The GT 11 and GT 12 in Block 1
showed the net efficiencies of 26.5% and 25.3% respectively against the design
efficiency of 32.1%. The net efficiency of the Block 2-A and Block 1 were calculated to
be 35.3% and 41.5% respectively. The average availability of the units tested under the
study at power station was in excess of 95% but if this availability is corrected for lost
output of the plant owing to degradation, the availability factor would drop by about
30%, quite low from industry standards.
TPS Muzaffargarh
The power station is operating with an overall capacity degradation of around 40%.
Capacity degradation for the units varied between 20% for Unit 2 to 63% for Unit 6. The
power station is facing an overall degradation of around 18% in its net efficiency. Units
2 and 3 are in better condition with 31% net efficiency compared with their design
efficiency of 36.8%. Unit 4 has a net efficiency of 30% against 36.7% design efficiency.
Units 5 and 6 have efficiencies of 26% and 24% respectively against the design
efficiency of 31.7% for both units. The average availability of the power station was in
80% and 62% in FY2010 and FY2011. The availability of TPS Muzaffargarh would also
drop by 40% if corrected for lost output of the plant.
The auxiliary consumption and energy sent out on many units could not be measured
with accuracy due to indiscrete or absent metering. Therefore gross output capability and
heat rates should be used for the benchmarking purpose in this study.
Conclusions
Based on the observations of the audit team, interviews with the power stations
management and operational staff and review of historic records of the plants, and
capacity and heat rate tests conducted at the operational units, a number of reasons were
identified behind the overall decline in the performance of the power stations studied.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
vi
Quality of RFO
None of the samples complied with Pakistan Standard and Quality Control Authority
(PSQCA) specifications for RFO. High specific gravity values were obtained due to
higher water contents. Only one sample met the standard calorific value of 18,200
Btu/lb. Moreover, the low calorific value up to 8.5% below the minimum permissible
limit was observed due to high specific gravity, water and ash contents.
Measurement Accuracy of Energy Input and Output
The discrete measurement of fuel supplied and energy generated and sent out for each
unit of the plant was found to be inadequate.
No credible measurement system exists for RFO received from the supplier as
well as fed to the installed units from the storage facilities of the plant. The same
applies to natural gas supplied and consumed at Guddu power station. At Guddu,
the gas supplied to residential colony is not measured. Measurement instruments
are either not calibrated, non-functional, or absent.
No uniform standards are followed for measurement of energy output. Auxiliary

supply is not discrete or fully measured for each unit resulting in inappropriate
accounting of auxiliary consumption.
Testing quality and procedures adopted by plants internal laboratories are also
highly questionable as they lack transparency and quality control. None of the
RFO samples complied with Pakistan Standard and Quality Control Authority
(PSQCA) specifications in one or more tests. Water and ash contents were found
to be higher than the maximum limits prescribed by the PSQCA
Lack of Preventive Maintenance
A number of maintenance activities are long overdue and have already resulted in loss of
output capability, increasing heat rates and lower availability.
GENCO managements are forced to delay the overhauling of the plants and are
not able to carry out regular preventive maintenance to avoid break-down of the
plants for the following reasons:
Refusal of shut-down time by the system operator (NTDC) due to shortages in

power supply in the country,
Delay in payments to GENCOs against power sales, and
Delay in procurements of parts and services for plants major overhauling.
Poor Housekeeping
GENCO managements are paying little attention to simple housekeeping activities which
do not require large expenditures. Examples include:
Frequent steam leakages in boiler and other steam usages increase heat loss at the
plant as well as raise water purification cost due to excessive use of chemicals.
A number of critical plant components are not operating at their optimal

conditions, causing frequent tripping and breakdowns of the units.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
vii
Plant management is generally oblivious to environmental conservation and

protection. Massive oil spills and un-optimal combustion results in higher rate of
toxic emissions and effluent discharges causing environmental threats to adjacent
population, flora and fauna.
Lack of Performance Evaluation, Monitoring, and Reporting
No attention is given to the performance evaluation of the plants and as such no standards
are observed to assess the performance of the plants.
The present monitoring and reporting system covers a few technical parameters
and is not capable to provide a detailed assessment of the plants.
Plants are running in manual mode in the absence of modern monitoring and
control systems.
The absence of performance evaluation standards and an on-line integrated

management information system (MIS) severely limits the ability of the
management to take prompt decisions and initiate actions and remedial measures
for efficient operation of the plants.
Limited Financial and Administrative Autonomy
Managements of GENCO plants have limited financial autonomy to take independent

decisions.
Payments to GENCOs are not made on time which results in deferment of

maintenance routines which is a major reason behind plant output and efficiency
degradation.
Approval process for procurement of spare parts and services through

international tendering is cumbersome and time consuming.
Management is not empowered to initiate a performance-based human resource

management system to promote efficiency and competition.
The plants are suffering from overstaffing with majority of staff working
without specialized industrial training to perform their duties
Occupational health, safety, and environmental management system and

relevant trainings are not observed at the plants increasing the potential of a
safety hazard at the plant
Recommendations
In order to improve the performance of the GENCOs, the following recommendations are
made:
A standard measurement and testing protocol needs to be devised for GENCOs

for all measurement to avoid errors in financial transactions. GENCOs should
carry out a detailed exercise to devise a robust measurement mechanism for RFO
receipts at the plants to reduce oil pilferages and acceptance of substandard oil.
A third party RFO testing mechanism should be established on regular basis to

ensure the quality of fuel received from supplier. The contracts with the fuel

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
viii
supplier should include penalties or correction in price for supply of substandard

oil.
A detailed management study is required to prescribe key performance indicators

pertaining to financial, human and environmental performance of the plant and
the procedures to evaluate them on sustainable basis.
The Inspection, Testing and Records (ITR) and Maintenance Management System
(MMS) sections may be merged to form a Performance Monitoring Section
(PMS) at each power station to provide a wider range of performance evaluation
and monitoring services.
On-line analyzers and instruments with communication channels to a central

performance modeling system should be installed to assess the performance and
efficiency of the plant on a continuous basis. The PMS should operate this
system and advise the operations and maintenance staff on corrective and
preventive actions to be taken to meet the performance targets.
Special training and workshops should be arranged to educate and train the
management and staff about best industrial practices to operate and maintain the
power stations.
The capacity of in-house repair and maintenance workshops should be enhanced

with modern machines, tools and training of staff to provide maintenance services
of critical parts locally to reduce down-time
There is a need to establish an R&D or a Technical Services section to carryout

research on technical and management problems of the power stations and devise
solutions
Switching to heavier grade RFO will require capital investment in the

infrastructure for storage, handling, transportation, and utilization of RFO. A
detailed feasibility study including the infrastructure analysis of PSO and required
modifications at the steam turbine and diesel engine based power plants and
assessment of the resulting cost savings is recommended to ascertain the
economics of burning heavier grade fuel oils.
The government is currently implementing a Generation and Transmission Improvement

Plan (GTIP) for the GENCOs. The resolution of management and operational issues
identified in this study require a complete change in the management approach and
operational environment of the GENCOs. The government could consider bringing in
independent management under a performance based O&M contract based on a structure
of incentives and penalties against the performance of the power stations. The terms and
conditions of the O&M contract could be designed in a manner to make the contractor
responsible for injecting investment for rehabilitation of the units and bringing in highly
trained and experienced senior managers. The O&M contractor may be given extended
authority to reward and motivate employees and to take disciplinary action and adjust the
size of the work force. This approach will help in establishing and expanding the O&M
industry and in improving the efficiency of the power sector in the country.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Executive Summary
ix
Contents
1.
Introduction...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.
Methodology .................................................................................... 2-1

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.
Fuel Supply Arrangements ...................................................................... 3-1

TPS Jamshoro .......................................................................................... 3-5
TPS Guddu ................................................................................................ 3-6
TPS Muzaffargarh ..................................................................................... 3-7
Maximum Present Capability ......................................................... 4-1

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.
Limitations of Standard Methodologies and Approach

Adopted for the Study .............................................................................. 2-1
Measurements and Collection of Data on Plant Performance............... 2-2
Testing of Fuel Quality ............................................................................. 2-2
Testing Arangements and Schedule ....................................................... 2-3
Description of GENCO Plants ........................................................ 3-1

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Objectives and Scope of Work ................................................................ 1-1

Study Team ............................................................................................... 1-3
Acknowledgement .................................................................................... 1-3
Organization of the Report ...................................................................... 1-3
General Approach and Overall Limitations ............................................ 4-1

TPS Jamshoro .......................................................................................... 4-1
TPS Guddu ................................................................................................ 4-2
Heat Rate Analysis .......................................................................... 5-1

5.1
5.2
Definitions ................................................................................................. 5-1

Limitations in Assessment of Heat Rates ............................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Testing Schedule.............................................................................. 5-1
5.2.2 Measurement of Fuel Flow ............................................................... 5-1
5.2.3 Metering of Electrical Output ............................................................ 5-2
5.2.4 Application of Heat Rate Assessment............................................... 5-3
5.3
TPS Jamshoro .......................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1 Testing Procedures and Data Analysis ............................................. 5-3
5.3.2 Results ............................................................................................. 5-3
5.4
TPS Guddu ................................................................................................ 5-5

5.4.1 Testing Procedures and Data Analysis ............................................. 5-6
5.4.2 Results ............................................................................................. 5-6
5.5

5.5.1 Results ............................................................................................. 5-8

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Contents
6.
7.
8.
Power Plant Availability .................................................................. 6-1

6.1
6.2
Definitions and Limitations ...................................................................... 6-1

Data and Results ...................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.1 TPS Jamshoro ................................................................................. 6-2
6.2.2 TPS Guddu ...................................................................................... 6-2
6.3
Major Reasons for Degradation of Performance.......................... 7-1

7.1
Technical Issues ....................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Measurement Accuracy of Fuel Received ........................................ 7-1
7.1.2 Fuel Oil Quality ................................................................................. 7-2
7.1.3 Lack of Preventive Maintenance....................................................... 7-3
7.1.4 Poor Housekeeping .......................................................................... 7-5
7.2
Management Issues and Recommenadations........................................ 7-7

7.2.1 Lack of Performance Evaluation ....................................................... 7-7
7.2.2 Limited Financial and Administrative Autonomy ............................... 7-7
7.2.3 Absence of Plant Automation and
Management Information System ..................................................... 7-8
7.2.4 Other Management Issues ............................................................... 7-9
7.3
Detailed Technical Assessment of GENCOs ........................................ 7-10

7.3.1 TPS Jamshoro ............................................................................... 7-10
7.3.2 TPS Guddu .................................................................................... 7-16
7.3.3 TPS Muzaffargarh .......................................................................... 7-26
Usage of High Viscosity Fuel Oil in GENCO Power Plants ......... 8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Fuel Oil Standards .................................................................................... 8-1

Potential for use in Power Generation in Paksitan ................................ 8-1
Modifications Required in Fuel Oil Handling at the Power Plants ........ 8-2
Modification and Adjustments Required in the Boilers ......................... 8-2
Fuel Oil Procurement and Supply ........................................................... 8-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Fuel Oil Analysis Results
Appendix B: Data and Results of the GENCOs Capacity Test
Appendix C: Testing Procedures for Measurment of GENCOs Gross and
Net Heat Rates
Appendix D: Calculation of GENCOs Gross and Net Heat Rates
Appendix E: Power Plant Availability

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Contents
xi
Exhibits
Exhibit 1.1:
Locations of Power Stations Studied .................................................... 1-2
Exhibit 1.2:
Formation of the Consulting Team ........................................................ 1-3
Exhibit 3.1:
Natural Gas Supply Arrangements at the Power Stations ..................... 3-2
Exhibit 3.2:
GENCOwise Installed and Derated Capacities, Plant and

Fuel Types, and Efficiencies from PEPCO Statistics ............................. 3-3
Exhibit 3.3:
200 MW Steam Unit No. 2 at TPS Jamshoro ........................................ 3-5
Exhibit 3.4:
Oil Storage Tanks at TPS Jamshoro ..................................................... 3-6
Exhibit 3.5:
200 MW Steam Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu ............................................. 3-6
Exhibit 3.6:
RFO Storage Capacity at the Power Stations-TPS Guddu.................... 3-7
Exhibit 3.7:
200 MW Steam Unit No. 6 at TPS Muzaffargarh ................................... 3-8
Exhibit 3.8:
Oil Decanting from Railway Wagons and Tank Lorries atTPS

Muzaffargarh ........................................................................................ 3-9
Exhibit 3.9:
RFO Storage Capacity at the Power Stations-TPS Muzaffargarh ......... 3-9
Exhibit 3.10: Oil Storage Tanks at TPS Muzaffargarh ............................................. 3-10

Exhibit 4.1:
Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present

CapabilityTPS Jamshoro .................................................................... 4-1
Exhibit 4.2:
Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present Capability of Units

Tested Under the StudyTPS Guddu.................................................... 4-2
Exhibit 4.3:
Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present Capability of Units

Tested Under the Study TPS Muzaffargarh ....................................... 4-3
Exhibit 5.1:
Unit-wise Gross and Net Heat Rate and

EfficiencyTPS Jamshoro ..................................................................... 5-4
Exhibit 5.2:

EfficiencyTPS Guddu .......................................................................... 5-7
Exhibit 5.3:

EfficiencyTPS Muzaffargarh ............................................................... 5-9
Exhibit 6.1:
Unit-wise AvailabilityTPS Jamshoro .................................................... 6-4
Exhibit 6.2:
Unit-wise Availability TPS Guddu ....................................................... 6-5
Exhibit 6.3:
Unit-wise AvailabilityTPS Muzaffargarh .............................................. 6-7

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Exhibits
xii
Exhibit 7.1:
Average Degradation in Performance of GENCOs ............................... 7-1
Exhibit 7.2:
Summary of Results of Fuel Oil Testing ................................................ 7-2
Exhibit 7.3:
Poor Maintenance of Insulation at TPS Jamshoro ................................ 7-4
Exhibit 7.4:
Steam Leakages at TPS Muzaffargarh ................................................. 7-5
Exhibit 7.5:
View of a Nonfunctional Soot Blower at TPS Jamshoro ........................ 7-6
Exhibit 7.6:
Oil Spillage at Storage Facility at Muzaffargarh .................................... 7-6
Exhibit 7.7:
View of the Joint Control Room of Units 3 and 4 at TPS Jamshoro ....... 7-8
Exhibit 7.8:
Smoke Showing Poor Combustion at Unit No. 6 at

TPS Muzaffargarh................................................................................. 7-9
Exhibit 7.9:
River Water Quality Supplied at TPS Jamshoro in January 2011........ 7-11
Exhibit 7.10: Reasons for Drop in Performance of the PlantTPS Jamshoro........... 7-12
Exhibit 7.11: Damaged Air Pre-heater due to Fire of Unit No. 4 at TPS Guddu ....... 7-16
Exhibit 7.12: Poor Cooling of Turbine Section of Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu ............. 7-18
Exhibit 7.13: Reasons for Drop in Performance of the Steam
UnitsTPS Guddu ............................................................................... 7-19
Exhibit 7.14: View of Under Repair Induced Draft Fan of Unit No. 1 at
TPS Muzaffargarh............................................................................... 7-26
Exhibit 7.15: Unit-wise Reasons for Drop in Performance of the
Steam UnitsTPS Muzaffargarh ......................................................... 7-28
Exhibit 8.1:
RFO Specifications ISO 8217:2010 ...................................................... 8-4

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Exhibits
xiii
1. Introduction
Advanced Engineering Associates International (AEAI) engaged Hagler Bailly Pakistan
to carry out an energy audit of the thermal power stations (TPSs) of the following three
state owned power plants:
1. TPS Jamshoro, or the Jamshoro Power Company Ltd., commonly referred to as
GENCO I,
2. TPS Guddu, which is a part of Central Power Generation Company Ltd.
commonly referred to as GENCO II), and,
3. TPS Muzaffargarh which is a part of Northern Power Generation Company
commonly referred to as GENCO III.
These thermal power stations are collectively referred to as GENCOs in this report. The
locations of these thermal power stations in the country are shown in Exhibit 1.1.
1.1
Objectives and Scope of Work
The main objective of the study was to carry out a baseline evaluation or a benchmarking
for determining efficiency gains and operational improvements to be achieved through
the implementation of the USAID Fixed Amount Reimbursement Agreements (FARA)
Repair and Maintenance Plan currently under implementation at these GENCOs. The
main features of the scope of work of the study were:
Visual inspection of all units of three GENCO power stations, review of the
station logbooks and other available records to establish main reasons for the poor
performance of the plants and the present generation capacity. Interviews and
discussions with the plant managers/operators and determine the reasons for poor
performance.
Drawing of performance profile of each unit including operating parameters, such

as effective output capability, power plant availability, heat rate and efficiency of
each unit.
Determination of specific fuel consumption and monitor on line calorific value of

fuel being injected into each machine.
Carrying out a spot fuel oil analysis to determine the heat contents and quality of
the fuel oil being supplied to the power stations.
Determination of heat rate and efficiency of each unit.
Carrying out a brief technical review to assess the potential for using highviscosity fuel oil to reduce the plants generation costs.
Preparation and submission of Energy Audit Report for each of the GENCOs.
Three teams of power generation experts were formed to carry out the site visits and
conduct tests to assess the capacity and heat rates of the operational units of the plants.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Introduction
1-1
Exhibit 1.1: Locations of Power Stations Studied

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Introduction
1-2
1.2
Study Team
The study team consisted of experienced engineers who have been extensively involved
in the construction and operation of the power stations studied, and have retired from
senior positions at the GENCOs. The names and specific assignment of the consultants
involved in the study are listed in Exhibit 1.2.
Exhibit 1.2: Formation of the Consulting Team
Name of Consultant
Responsibility
Manzar Naeem Qureshi
Team Leader
Muhammad Qasim Shaikh
TPS Jamshoro
Abdul Waris Khan
TPS Guddu Combined Cycle Power Station Block
Abdul Aziz Chandio
TPS Guddu Steam Power Station Block
Abdul Karim Leghari
TPS Muzaffargarh
Additional staff was engaged at each power station to assist the Consultants in taking
concurrent meter readings of input and output energy measurements at the power
stations.
1.3
Acknowledgement
The management of the GENCOs extended their generous cooperation in facilitating the
audit teams, and allowed unhindered and unlimited access to power station equipment,
instruments, data records and personnel for interviews. HBP management would like to
extend their profound gratitude to the management of the GENCOs for their support in
completing the assignment.
1.4
Organization of the Report
Section 2 of the report describes the methodology used to carry out the capability and
efficiency tests for the GENCOs. Section 3 provides an overview of the power stations
in terms of configuration and fuel supply arrangements. Section 4 presents the results of
the unit-wise maximum capability tests for each power station. Section 5 provides
detailed procedures employed for carrying out the heat rate tests and presents the results
of heat rate and efficiency for each unit of the power stations. Section 6 shows the unitwise annual availability in terms of load factor, utilization factor and availability.
Section 7 provides a detailed account of the main technical and management reasons
causing the drop in performance of these power stations. Section 8 sums up the
conclusions and recommendations of the study.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Introduction
1-3
2. Methodology
2.1
Limitations of Standard Methodologies and Approach Adopted for

the Study
The standard methodologies used by the industry to determine the baseline performance
evaluation of steam and combined cycle power plants are ANSI/ASME PTC-6 and
ANSI/ASME PTC-46 respectively. Application of these methodologies helps in accurate
determination of performance of the power stations and generation of analysis and
information for optimization of their performance. These standard methodologies have
the following requirements:
Availability of accurate and calibrated instrumentation in the power station for

online or off-line evaluation of efficiency
Trained staff and manpower to carry out detailed measurement procedures under
controlled testing conditions
Software tools to carry out the component-wise heat balance analysis of the plant
Extensive design data and correction curves for the main heat path components
such as boilers, turbines, condensers, and cooling towers.
Ambient conditions including temperature and humidity, and
Data on operating conditions at the inlet and outlet of the main heat path
components, such as temperatures, flow rates, and stream composition.
None of the GENCOs studied fulfill the requirements listed above. Preparing the
GENCOs to fulfill these requirements would require extensive capacity building and
installation of necessary instrumentation, which was beyond the scope and schedule of
this study. It was therefore not possible to conduct a comprehensive audit of the
performance of the GENCOs using the standard industry methodologies given the
prevailing conditions and the operating environment in the GENCOs and the time
constraints for the study. In view of these limitations, the standard industry
methodologies were modified and applied in a simplified manner to measure the capacity
and input and output energy of the plants to calculate the heat rate and efficiency, and to
work out the plant availability on monthly and annual basis.
Industry experience indicates that heat rate test conducted by using formal ASTM-6
procedure has an accuracy of about 3%. Given the poor condition of instrumentation that
were not properly calibrated, unusual operating conditions for testing, and improvised
test protocols, the accuracy of the heat rate tests under this study could range between
5-10% as per expert judgment. This aspect should be kept in view while comparing the
results of benchmarking conducted under this study with the follow-up tests to be
conducted after completion of FARA program.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Methodology
2-1
2.2
Measurements and Collection of Data on Plant Performance
Special teams, comprising of instrumentation experts, were formed to carry out tests at
each unit. A specific testing protocol was devised for each unit on the basis of its fuel
supply systems, instrumentation status, and other operating conditions. The measurement
points were marked beforehand and measurement procedures were established keeping in
view the operating constraints of the unit. Special proformas were designed to prescribe
the measurement specifications and to maintain testing records. Standard conversions
and definitions were used to calculate the output and heat rates of the units. The
measurement procedures were documented and are presented in Section 5 of this report.
Residual fuel oil (RFO) consumption was calculated by using dip-tape, calibration charts
of the feeding tanks, and specific gravity of RFO at observed temperatures. Natural gas
consumption at TPS Guddu was measured through the meters installed at the units in the
power station. Electrical outputs at gross and sent-out meters, and auxiliary consumption
were recorded at the metering locations of the units studied. All the readings were taken
concurrently and coordination was managed through mobile phones and hand held radio
phones.
The Consultants did not engage any serving person from the GENCOs for the purpose of
assisting the teams in reading of instruments or recording the observations. No unit logsheet entries and event registers were used or consulted for extracting the information and
data for the purpose of calculation of heat rates. The Consultants ensured uninterrupted
operation of the plants throughout the testing period. The testing schedule was designed
to avoid interference with operations and management of the power station. The
Consultants relied to the extent possible on the installed measurement instruments, and
used their own equipment such as dip-tapes to carry out the assignment where required.
2.3
Testing of Fuel Quality
RFO
RFO samples were drawn from the main storage tanks of these power stations in
accordance with the ASTM methodology; Standard Practice for Manual Sampling of
Petroleum and Petroleum Products: D 4057 95 (Reapproved 2000). The parameters
studied to assess the quality of RFO included specific gravity, flash point, pour point,
water contents, sulfur, ash content and calorific value.
A composite sample was drawn from each of the storage tanks consisting of a blend
created from the upper, middle, and lower samples from a single tank. The sample was
obtained with the help of a specially designed sampling tube also called special thief.
The bottom sample was taken from the height of 1.5 to 2.0 meters from bottom of the
tank as the outflow of the tank was drawn from the height of 1.0 meters. The samples
were packed in aluminum bottles and dispatched to an independent laboratory for testing.
In all, eighteen samples were drawn; 4 from TPS Jamshoro; 5 from TPS Guddu; and 9
from TPS Muzaffargarh. Samples were collected during the period of December 29,
2010 to January 5, 2011 and analysis was carried out by Quality Control Laboratory of
Attock Refinery Limited, Morgah Rawalpindi.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Methodology
2-2
2.4
Testing Arangements and Schedule
The detailed procedures developed for performance testing of each unit are described in
Section 5 of this report.
TPS Jamshoro
Prior to conducting the performance tests, inspections of all the units at the power plant
were carried out in the presence of the representatives of the power station management.
The operational conditions of the units were observed and necessary information and
details were gathered.
Although all the units were in operating condition, the plant management could run only
one unit at a time due to shortage of demineralized water. Further, the units could not
operate at optimum load on continuous basis for longer periods on RFO firing due to
choking of rotary air pre-heaters. Therefore, the Consultants team faced considerable
difficulty in finding an appropriate window of time to carry out heat rate and capacity
tests for continuous three days without interruption at optimum operating conditions.
Heat rate and capacity tests at the plants were performed in the following sequence:
Unit 1: January 19-21, 2011 for heat rate tests and January 21-23, 2011 for
capacity tests
Unit 2: January 21-23, 2011 for both heat rate and capacity tests
Unit 3 & 4: February 17-19, 2011 for both heat rate and capacity tests
TPS Guddu
Meetings were held with the concerned management of each unit before the beginning of
testing. Block 2 B comprising of Units 6, 9 and 10 did not have functional gas flow
meters and therefore could not be tested. Similarly, Unit 4 was on long shut down due to
break down of air pre-heater. Units 1 & 2 also do not have gas flow meters and therefore
were not tested. The testing of these units was deferred until gas flow meters are made
operational on all of these units and repair/replacement of air pre-heater of Unit 4.
Capacity and Heat Rate Tests at the plants were performed in the following sequence:
Unit 3: December 30, 2010 to January 1, 2011
Block 2 A (Unit 5, 7& 8): December 30, 2010 to January 2, 2011
Block 1 (Unit 13, 11& 12): January 3-6, 2011
TPS Muzaffargarh
Before undertaking the performance tests, inspection of all the units installed in different
phases (1 & 2) was carried out in the presence of representatives of the power station
management. The operational conditions of the units were observed and necessary
information and details were gathered.
Unit 1 was placed under a long shutdown since November 11, 2010 for
repair/replacement of super heater tubes. However, the repair/replacement of ends of
super-heater tubes was delayed due to arrival of Russian experts of the Original

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Methodology
2-3
Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). The unit could not be restarted until the middle of
April 2011 and therefore the performance testing of this unit could not be conducted.
Heat Rate Tests & Capacity Tests at the plants were performed in the following
sequence:
Unit 2 & 3: January 9-11, 2011
Unit 4: January 5-7, 2011
Unit 5 & 6: January 2-4, 2011

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Methodology
2-4
3. Description of GENCO Plants

Total installed capacity of the three power plants studied is 3,8551 MW out of which
2,840 MW consists of dual fuel steam turbines, and 1,015 MW of gas fired gas turbine
combined cycle (CCGT) power plants installed at Guddu. The dual fuel plants operate
on pipeline quality natural gas and residual fuel oil (RFO), whereas CCGT units installed
at Guddu use medium calorific value (MCV) gas (780-800 Btu/scft).
Nearly 90% of the installed capacity of GENCOs is over 15 years old, and is generally in
poor condition. Due to the weak financial conditions prevailing amongst power sector
entities, the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) which owned the units
until 1998 and the Pakistan Electric Power Company Ltd. (PEPCO) which owns them
now, have not been able to allocate adequate funds to meet the operational and
maintenance expenditures of these plants. These factors have contributed to a gradual
loss of effective capacity, efficiency, and dispatch availability of these plants.
Consequently, the GENCOs are currently operating their plants at a derated capacity that
is 25% below their respective nameplate capacities. The combined cycle units at Guddu,
however, are an exception and can operate on full capacity if natural gas injection
pressures are restored to the design levels.
The average forced outage rate for the GENCOs has been about 12%, compared with 6%
for thermal IPPs in the country. Nearly all of the GENCO power plants studied are
operating at a much lower efficiency levels than the industry-wide standards for plants of
similar age and configuration. Exhibit 3.2 provides a snapshot of the current status, age,
and origin of these plants.
3.1
Fuel Supply Arrangements
Most of the steam units at the power stations have the provision of dual fuel combustion
on natural gas and RFO. Unit 1 at TPS Jamshoro can only operate on RFO. The Steam
Units 1-2, and combined cycle units at TPS Guddu operate on MCV gas supplied from
Mari, Kandhkot, and Zamzama gas fields. The power station-wise details of the fuel
supplies are given below.
Natural Gas
All the power stations have connections with the utilities for supply of natural gas.
However, gas utilities used these plants as swing customers and curtailed the gas supplies
during winter to meet the heating demand of the residential and commercial consumers.
TPS Jamshoro and TPS Muzaffargarh do not have firm supply contracts with their
respective gas supply utilities and therefore receive natural gas only when there is surplus
in the national gas network. The county is presently facing a shortfall in the natural gas
supplies due to rising gas demand and the gas utilities have been unable to maintain
supply of pipeline quality gas to these power stations even during the summer period.
Power System Statistics, 34th Edition, 2009

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Description of GENCO Plants
3-1
Exhibit 3.1 contains the sources and fuel supply arrangements for natural gas for the
GENCO plants.
Exhibit 3.1: Natural Gas Supply Arrangements at the Power Stations
Power Station
Gas Supply Source
Contract Status
TPS Jamshoro
Sui Southern Gas Company
No firm contract as and

when available
TPS Guddu
Mari Gas Mari Gas Company*
60 MMscfd
Kandhkot gas Pakistan Petroleum Limited
(110 + 90) MMscfd
Zamzama Gas through SNGPL and SSGC No firm contract Not

networks
supplied since 2005
TPS Muzaffargarh
*
Sui Northern Gas Pipelines
No firm contract as and

when available
Gas supplies to Guddu from Mari have been reduced to 60 MMscfd from 110 MMscfd after diversion of
50 MMscfd to Fatima Fertilizer from November 27, 2009.
Residual Fuel Oil (RFO)
RFO is supplied to all GENCOs by Pakistan State Oil (PSO). However, only TPS
Muzaffargarh has a fuel supply agreement with PSO, whereas the government has
advised TPS Jamshoro and TPS Guddu to purchase RFO from PSO exclusively. PSO
mainly supplies the RFO from Karachi through railway tank wagons and tank lorries.
GENCO plants are designed to operate on fuel oil having kinematic viscosity of 180
centistokes (cst) during summer and 120 cst during winter.
RFO Measurement
The GENCOs follow a uniform procedure for measurement of the quantity of RFO
received from PSO. The initial volumetric measurement is taken by using dip-sticks for
both railway tank wagons and tank lorries and fuel oil volumes are converted to weight
for the calculation of payments by using specific calibration charts for the lorries/wagons
after applying corrections for temperature and specific gravity of RFO. For tank lorries,
the weighbridges are also present at all the power stations. The weight of RFO calculated
using dip-sticks is verified at the weighbridges by taking measurements of the tank lorries
before and after the oil decanting. Several checks are applied to ensure complete
decanting of RFO from tank lorries and railway wagons. The weighbridge measurement
is not used for making payments to fuel supplier.
All tank lorries and railway wagons are tested for temperature and specific gravity of the
fuel oil and about 20-25% are randomly selected for detailed analysis of RFO
specifications in the local laboratory of the concerned power station. A small proportion
of the samples are also tested through independent laboratories to verify the result of the
internal laboratory. RFO that does not meet specifications is rejected for procurement.
The results of the third party analysis of the RFO samples collected from GENCO power
stations are presented in Appendix-A.
Oil Storage
All the power stations have their own RFO storage facilities at their premises for storage
of 20-30 day requirement of RFO.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-2
Exhibit 3.2: GENCOwise Installed and Derated Capacities, Plant and Fuel Types, and Efficiencies from PEPCO Statistics
Plant
Installed Capacity
(MW)
Year of Commissioning
Fuel
Country of Origin
Thermal Efficiency
(Design)
TPS Jamshoro
Unit 1
250
January 1990
RFO
Japan
36.6%
Unit 2
200
December 1990
Natural Gas/RFO
China
33.9%
Unit 3
200
June 1990
Natural Gas/RFO
China
33.9%
Unit 4
200
January 1991
Natural Gas/RFO
China
33.9%
TPS Guddu
Steam
Unit 1
110
1974
Natural Gas
Czech Slovakia
28.0%
Unit 2
110
1974
Natural Gas
Czech Slovakia
28.0%
Unit 3
210
1980
Natural Gas/RFO
USSR
30.0%
Unit 4
210
1980
Natural Gas/RFO
China
30.0%
GT-7
100
December 1985
Natural Gas
USA
31.7%
GT-8
100
March 1986
Natural Gas
ST-5
100
December 1987
N/A
GT-9
100
April 1986
Natural Gas
GT-10
100
April 1986
Natural Gas
ST-6
100
March 1988
N/A
CCGT Block 2-A
31.7%
CCGT Block 2-B

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
USA
31.7%
31.7%
3-3
Plant
Installed Capacity
(MW)
Year of Commissioning
Fuel
Country of Origin
Thermal Efficiency
(Design)
CCGT Block 1
GT-11
136
September 1992
Natural Gas
Germany
32.1%
GT-12
136
December 1992
Natural Gas
ST-13
143
May 1994
N/A
Unit 1
210
September 1993
Natural Gas/ RFO
Russia
36.8%
Unit 2
210
March 1994
Natural Gas/ RFO
Russia
36.8%
Unit 3
210
February 1995
Natural Gas/ RFO
Russia
36.8%
Unit 4
320
December 1997
Natural Gas/ RFO
China
36.7%
Unit 5
200
February 1995
Natural Gas/ RFO
China
31.7%
Unit 6
200
August 1995
Natural Gas/ RFO
China
31.7%
32.1%
TPS Muzaffargarh
th
Source: Power System, Statistics, 34 Edition, 2009.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-4
3.2
TPS Jamshoro
TPS Jamshoro is one of the major generation installation connected to the National Grid
System in the south of Pakistan. The present installed capacity of TPS Jamshoro is
850 MW consisting of four steam power units. Exhibit 3.3 shows 200 MW Steam
Turbine Unit No. 2 at TPS Jamshoro.
Exhibit 3.3: 200 MW Steam Unit No. 2 at TPS Jamshoro
The staff strength at the power station is 1,550. About 50% of the staff is residing in the
residential colony with their families built adjacent to the power house. The residential
colonies provide all the basic and civil amenities like school, hospital, recreational
centers, playgrounds, mosques, and shopping centers to cater for the needs of the
employees.
Water supply for cooling and drinking is taken from the Indus River through a pipeline
and pumping station network. For drinking purpose, the river water is only clarified
whereas for supply to the power plant it is treated further to produce demineralized water
for boilers.
RFO decanting: TPS Jamshoro has decantation arrangements for both railway tank
wagons and road tankers. However, the power station receives RFO only through tank
lorries from Karachi as delivery through railway was discontinued in 2003. The station
has two arrangements for decanting of RFO from tank lorries and railway wagons; an
open channel and an oil receiving header. The channel is normally used during dry
weather whereas the oil header was initially constructed to decant oil during rainy periods
but it is used round the year due to increasing number of incoming tank lorries. Oil is
lifted by transfer pumps from the channel and header into storage tanks. In recent times,

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-5
RFO Storage: TPS Jamshoro has common RFO storage facilities for all units. It has
4 main storage tanks of 26,500 tonnes each having a total storage of 106,000 tonnes at the
plant. These tanks are interconnected and used as common storage for all units. Exhibit
3.4 shows the oil storage facilities at TPS Jamshoro.
Exhibit 3.4: Oil Storage Tanks at TPS Jamshoro
3.3
TPS Guddu
TPS Guddu has both steam and combined cycle units that operate on medium calorific
value (MCV) gas from Mari, Kandhkot and Chachar. Exhibit 3.5 shows a view of the
turbine hall of 200 MW Steam Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu.
Exhibit 3.5: 200 MW Steam Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-6
The plant has a staff of about 1,950 persons living with their families at the residential
colony built adjacent to the powerhouse. Civil amenities like schools, hospitals,
recreational centers, playgrounds, mosques, and shopping centers have been provided at
the cost of the company to cater for the needs of the employees.
Water supply for cooling and for boiler feed water is taken from the Indus River through
a pipeline and pumping station network at the nearby Begari Feeder, Sindh. For drinking
purposes, the water taken from the canal is clarified and supplied through overhead tanks.
Water is treated to produce demineralized water for boiler feed and other usage at the
plant.
TPS Guddu is the major generation installation connected to the national grid system in
Pakistan in the middle of the country. The other important feature of this plant is that it
generates electricity on MCV gas to provide electricity at a comparatively lower cost to
national grid.
Oil Decanting: The power station has decantation arrangement for road tankers. Oil is
decanted into a channel and lifted by transfer pumps into storage tanks.
Oil Storage: TPS Guddu has common storage facilities for the steam units 3 & 4. The
plant has 9 storage tanks with total capacity of 56,400 tonnes of RFO. Exhibit 3.6 shows
the RFO storage facilities at the power stations.
Exhibit 3.6: RFO Storage Capacity at the Power Stations-TPS Guddu
Power Station
Unit No.
TPS Guddu
Total
3.4
No. of FO
Tanks
Capacity of each Tank

(Tonnes)
Total Storage Capacity

(Tonnes)
12,000
24,000
5,000-5,500
21,000
3,800
11,400
56,400
TPS Muzaffargarh
TPS Muzaffargarh is connected to the National Grid System in the mid-country near
major load centers. The present installed capacity of TPS Muzaffargarh is 1,350 MW
consisting of six steam power units. The Exhibit 3.7 shows the 200 MW Steam Turbine
of Unit No. 6 at TPS Muzaffargarh.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-7
Exhibit 3.7: 200 MW Steam Unit No. 6 at TPS Muzaffargarh
The plant has staff strength of around 1,500 personnel most of which live with their
families in the residential colony built adjacent to the powerhouse. Like other GENCO
plants, the staff residential colony provides the civil amenities like school, hospital,
recreational centers, playgrounds, mosques, and shopping centers.
Water for cooling and drinking purpose is supplied through 35 Tube-wells, which are
installed along the banks of Taliri canal flowing 8Km away in the east.
Muzaffargarh Thermal Power Plant is the major generation installation connected to the
National Grid System in Pakistan in the middle of the country.
Oil Decanting: The power station has decantation arrangements for both railway tank
wagons as well as tank lorries. Similar to TPS Jamshoro, the oil is decanted into a deep
channel and lifted by transfer pumps into storage tanks. The decantation of RFO at
Unit 4 as well as Unit 5 & 6 is carried out through oil receiving headers. Presently, only
the header for Unit 4 is operational. Exhibit 3.8 shows the RFO decanting station with
both railway wagons and tank lorries off-loading oil.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-8
Exhibit 3.8: Oil Decanting from Railway Wagons and Tank Lorries
at TPS Muzaffargarh
Oil Storage: Each phase of TPS Muzaffargarh has its own dedicated storage facilities
that have now been interconnected and can supply fuel to all the operating units. The
power station has 11 storage tanks with a maximum capacity of around 241,000 tonnes.
Exhibit 3.9 shows the phase-wise installed RFO storage capacity at the power stations.
Exhibit 3.10 shows the Oil Storage Facilities at TPS Muzaffargarh.
Exhibit 3.9: RFO Storage Capacity at the Power Stations-TPS Muzaffargarh
Power Station
TPS
Muzaffargarh
Unit No.
Capacity of each Tank Total Storage Capacity

(Tonnes)
(Tonnes)
1, 2 & 3
20,000 18,500
120,000 to 111,000
20,000 ~ 18,500
40,000 37,000
5&6
27,000 ~ 25,000
81,000 75,000
Total
11

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
No. of FO Tanks
241,000-223,000
3-9
Exhibit 3.10: Oil Storage Tanks at TPS Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
3-10
4. Maximum Present Capability

4.1
General Approach and Overall Limitations
The capacity tests were carried out under certain limitations and restrictions specific to
each unit of the power plants. Most of the units could not be operated, even for a shorter
duration of time, under full opening of the turbine steam control valve, as recommended
under ASME PTC-6, to assess their maximum output capability. Based on their
experience, the management had apprehended risk of damage to heater tubes in the
boilers and other risks if the boilers were operated above certain loads. Owing to these
reasons and the prevailing shortage of power generation capacity in the country, it was
agreed with the power station managements that the units will be operated in safe mode
for testing purposes to avoid any disruption in operations. The capacity tests were carried
out for continuous operation of each unit for 3-4 hours at a time with gross and net output
capacity observed and recorded at an interval of one hour. The test was carried out for
three days at a unit. The gross and net capability of the unit was calculated on the basis
of average readings over the testing period. Detailed data on capacity measurements for
each unit of the Jamshoro, Guddu and Muzaffargarh power stations is provided in
Appendix B as Exhibit B.1, B.2 and B.3 respectively.
4.2
TPS Jamshoro
Limitations of Test: The speed governors of Units 2-4 were not functioning on auto
control. The load was therefore adjusted manually to maintain output at a certain level.
In case of Unit 1, the output of the unit was temporarily reduced to 187 MW from 200
MW because of overheating of turbine bearing.
Results: The results of the capacity tests for TPS Jamshoro are presented in Exhibit 4.1.
The capacity tests indicated a maximum degradation of around 40% for Unit 2 from its
design capacity and a minimum degradation of around 23% for Unit 1. The overall
power station capability has dropped by 32% in the present operating conditions.
Exhibit 4.1: Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present CapabilityTPS Jamshoro
Unit No.
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present Gross
Capability
MW
Auxiliary Load
MW
Present Net
Capability
MW
Capacity
Degradation
Unit 1
250
191
15
176
23%
Unit 2
200
119
112
41%
Unit 3
200
125
12
113
38%
Unit 4
200
146
13
133
27%
Total
850
581
46
535
32%

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Maximum Present Capability
4-1
4.3
TPS Guddu
Limitations of Test: The gas flow meters of steam Unit 1 and Unit 2 and CCP Block 2B
were not functional and therefore tests could not be carried out for these units. Steam
Unit 4 was on extended shut down from December 11, 2010 to March 15, 2011 due to
damaged air preheater and therefore could not be tested in the timeframe of this study.
Gas flow meters for CCP Block 1 and Block 2-A were functional and capacity tests were
therefore carried out at these two units only.
Results: CCP Block 1 has shown 40% degradation in its capacity from the installed
capacity whereas CCP Block 2-A appears to be in better condition with only 17%
capacity degradation, most of which was contributed by the steam turbine Unit 5 which
has lost about 29% of its capacity. Exhibit 4.2 provides the unit-wise installed capacity
and present capability of the units assessed under the testing procedures.
Exhibit 4.2: Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present Capability of Units Tested
Under the StudyTPS Guddu
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present Gross Auxiliary Load

Capability
MW
MW
Present Net
Capability
MW
Capacity
Degradation
CCP Block 1
GT 11
100
93
92
7%
GT 12
100
85
85
15%
ST 13
100
71
69
29%
Total Block 1
300
248
246
17%
GT 7
136
80
80
41%
GT 8
136
80
80
41%
ST 5
143
84
81
41%
Total Block 2-A
415
244
240
41%
Total
715
493
487
31%
CCP Block 2-A
4.4
TPS Muzaffargarh
Limitations of Test: Unit 1 was on extended shut down from November 2010 to end of
March 2011 due to delay in arrival of experts from the Russian manufacturer of
equipment to supervise the replacement work. Units 2-6 were tested.
Results: Results of capacity tests for Units 2-6 are presented in Exhibit 4.3. Significant
degradation was observed on all units when compared with their respective design
capacities. Unit 2 was in the best operating condition with 20% degradation in capacity
whereas Unit 6 was the worst with 63% degradation in capacity.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
4-2
Exhibit 4.3: Unit-wise Installed Capacity and Present Capability of Units Tested
Under the Study TPS Muzaffargarh
Unit No.
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present Gross
Capabilit
MW
Auxiliary Load
MW
Present Net
Capability
MW
Capacity
Degradation
Unit 2
210
168
11
156
20%
Unit 3
210
140
13
127
33%
Unit 4
320
202
21
181
37%
Unit 5
200
97
11
86
51%
Unit 6
200
73
10
64
63%
Total
1,140
680
66
614
40%

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
4-3
5. Heat Rate Analysis

5.1
Definitions
The following definitions were followed in the analysis of heat rates:

Heat Rate: Heat rate of a plant is the amount of thermal energy required to generate one
unit of electrical energy and is generally expressed as K calories/kWh or Btu/kWh. In
this report, Btu/kWh has been adopted as the standard units for heat rate.
Thermal Efficiency: Thermal efficiency of the power plant also simply referred to as the
efficiency of the plant is the ratio of the output energy to the input energy of the plant. It
is usually calculated as 3,412/ (heat rate of the plant) expressed in Btu units.
Gross and Net Efficiency: Both the heat rate and efficiency could be gross or net
depending on the point of measurement of the output of the plant. The gross efficiency is
the ratio of the total energy generated from the plant to the total energy input whereas the
net efficiency is calculated as the ratio of total energy sent-out from the plant to the total
energy input of the plant. The energy sent-out is calculated by subtracting auxiliary
consumption of the plant and losses of plants cable and step-up transformer from the
gross generation of the plant. In certain cases, a discrete sent-out meter is installed at the
plant that can provide a direct measure of the energy sent out from the plant.
5.2
Limitations in Assessment of Heat Rates
A number of limitations were encountered in carrying out the heat rate tests and
efficiency in nearly all the cases. These are summarized in the following sections.
5.2.1
Testing Schedule
The GENCO power stations do not have functional flow meters to measure the fuel oil
supplied to each unit in continuous manner over a specified period. Oil measurements
were taken by using dip-tapes from the service tank or main storage tank depending on
the specific arrangement for each unit. Service tanks are smaller in size and provide
storage of 3-4 hours of units consumption and need to be refilled every 4 hours. The
refilling process takes about 1-2 hours. The testing team was working in single shift and
therefore could only record observations during daytime working hours. Owing to these
reasons, heat rate tests were carried out for continuous operation of each unit for 2-3
hours at a time with input and output energy observed and recorded. The test was carried
out once in the morning and once in the afternoon and continued for three days to capture
variations in the heat rates under different operating conditions of the unit. The present
gross and net heat rates and resulting efficiency of the plant were calculated on the basis
of average of the observed readings over the testing period.
5.2.2
Measurement of Fuel Flow
The steam units at the power stations studied have the provision of dual fuel combustion
on natural gas and RFO with the exception of Unit 1 at TPS Jamshoro that can only
operate on RFO and the Units 1-2 and combined cycle units at TPS Guddu that operate

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-1
on medium calorific value (MCV) gas. However, as gas was not being supplied to the
plants during the study period, the heat rates of all the dual fuel steam units were tested
on RFO.
It was observed that the GENCOs have not followed a standard fuel supply arrangement.
No credible measurement system was in place for the RFO received from supplier at the
power plants. Similarly, no credible measurements were being taken for the RFO fed to
each unit from plants main storage. Most of the measurement instruments were either
not calibrated, non-functional, or simply missing. At TPS Muzaffargarh and TPS Guddu,
many units have common fuel supply pipelines without adequate measurement
instruments at each unit. Similarly, a number of units do not have RFO service tanks to
monitor their fuel flow. The same is the case at Guddu where gas flow meters are mostly
missing and gas is supplied through common pipelines to the steam and CCGT units. It
was therefore quite a challenge to discretely measure the fuel input at most of the units.
RFO consumption was calculated by using dip-tape, calibration charts of the feeding
tanks (the specific day storage or service tank or the main storage tank, where a day tank
is not present), and specific gravity of RFO at observed temperatures. The input valves
of the respective feeding tanks of the concerned units were closed before the beginning of
the tests and sealed with locks to stop inflow of RFO and recirculation of RFO and
condensate. Electrical outputs at gross and sent-out meters, and auxiliary consumption
were recorded at the respective meter locations. All the readings at a specific time were
taken concurrently and coordination was managed through use of devices such as mobile
phones and RF radio equipment. Special teams, comprising of instrumentation experts,
were formed to concurrently read the measurement instruments to carry out tests at each
unit.
At TPS Guddu, the residential colony is also supplied gas from the header meant for
steam Units 1 and 2 with no gas measurement for the residential colony. The residential
gas consumers have individual gas meters at their premises but due to severe leakages in
the gas distribution network, the consumers are charged a flat rate with respect to size of
their houses.
5.2.3
Metering of Electrical Output
The same applied to the output side of the plants as no uniform standards are followed for
measurement of energy output. Auxiliary supply is not discrete for certain units resulting
in inappropriate accounting of auxiliary consumption. In many instances, auxiliary
consumption is not even fully measured. The units at TPS Muzaffargarh do not have
discrete sent-out meters at each unit to record net output. In case of TPS Jamshoro, the
measurement scale of the sent-out meter was in GWh at the NTDC grid station, giving
little resolution to measure the difference in kWh. The cable and step-up losses could not
be calculated at any instance due to absence of appropriate metering protocol and
therefore were not included in the calculation of net heat rate and efficiency. It was
therefore recommended to use the gross heat rates and efficiency as the baseline or
benchmark for the purpose of this study instead of net heat rate and efficiency.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-2
5.2.4
Application of Heat Rate Assessment
The heat rates and efficiency parameters for the power stations have been calculated only
for the purpose of baseline evaluation or a benchmark for determining efficiency gains
and operational improvements to be achieved after the implementation of the USAID
FARA Repair and Maintenance Plan currently under implementation at these GENCOs.
It should be noted that heat rates in this study were determined under steady loading and
specific ambient and operating conditions of the units during the winter season. Average
heat rates for the power stations are likely to be higher due to variations in ambient
conditions and loading levels, inclusive of startups and shutdowns.
5.3
5.3.1
TPS Jamshoro
Testing Procedures and Data Analysis
TPS Jamshoro has four dual fuel steam units that were operating on RFO only during the
testing period. Heat rate tests were carried out for all the units of the power station. The
specific procedure for calculation of heat rates for TPS Jamshoro is illustrated in
Appendix C. The unit-wise detailed data compiled on heat rate measurements for TPS
Jamshoro is presented in Appendix D as Exhibit D.1.
5.3.2
Results
The gross and net heat rate and efficiency for the generation units at TPS Jamshoro are
presented in Exhibit 5.1. Unit 1 is most efficient with 32% net efficiency against the
design efficiency of 36.6%. The net efficiencies of Units 2-4 ranged between 25.7% to
28.6% against the design efficiency of 34%, corresponding to an overall drop in the
efficiency of the power station of about 20% compared to the design.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-3
Exhibit 5.1: Unit-wise Gross and Net Heat Rate and EfficiencyTPS Jamshoro
Unit No.
Gross Energy
Generation
(kWh)
Unit 1
2,786,946
27,392
9,829
34.7%
231,862
Unit 2
1,361,912
15,971
11,727
29.1%
Unit 3
1,242,596
14,761
11,879
Unit 4
1,422,838
15,521
10,909
Fuel
Consumption
(Mmbtu)
Gross Heat
Rate
(Btu/kWh)
Gross
Efficiency*
Auxiliary
Consumption
(kWh)
Net Sent-out
Energy
(kWh)
Net Heat Rate

(Btu/kWh)
Net Efficiency
(%)
2,555,084
10,720
31.8%
83,370
1,278,542
12,492
27.3%
28.7%
129,597
1,112,999
13,262
25.7%
31.3%
122,336
1,300,502
11,935
28.6%
Gross heat rates and efficiency is recommended to be used for benchmarking purpose.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-4
5.4
TPS Guddu
TPS Guddu has two main set of power generation units, a steam block and a Combined
Cycle Power Station (CCP) block. In the steam block complex, the plant has four (4)
steam units out of which Units 1 and 2 can operate only on natural gas. Units 3 and 4 are
dual fuel on natural gas and RFO. In the CCP block, the plant has three combined cycle
sub-blocks of (2 GT+1 ST) gas fired CCGT. The plant receives MCV gas from Mari,
Kandhkot and Chachar.
Measurement of Fuel Supply
TPS Guddu has major shortcomings with respect to fuel measurement both on supply
side as well as for the consumption in the power plant. No gas sales meters are installed
by the gas suppliers at the premises of the plant and gas is billed from the meters installed
at the supplier end of the pipelines. Gas from various supply sources is mixed at a gas
mixing station on the plants premises. The mixing station has separate headers for steam
and CCP blocks from where it is branched through separate pipelines to each unit. The
gas is supplied at a pressure for of 11 bar to steam units and at 23 bar to CCP. No
measurements are taken for the outflow of gas from mixing headers. Units 3 and 4 have
functional gas flow meters whereas Units 1 and 2 are operating without the gas flow
meters. Units 1 and 2, therefore, have no gas inflow measurements to establish the input
energy for the purpose of calculation of heat rate and efficiency. The heat rate and
capacity testing of Units 1 and 2 was postponed until installation of appropriate gas
metering system on supply of gas to each unit.
Fuel oil is also supplied to Units 3 and 4 through a common line with no service tanks but
the two units have separate RFO flow meters to measure their respective RFO
consumption. The testing of Unit 4 could not be carried out due long shut down caused
by damage of air pre-heater. Testing was limited to Unit 3 for these reasons.
The pipelines supplying gas to CCP block also do not have a gas meter at the gas mixing
header. Out of three CCP sub-blocks, the Block 2-B does not have functional gas flow
meters to measure gas consumed in the gas turbines (Unit 9 and 10). Gas consumption of
Block 2 B could therefore not be ascertained for calculation of the heat rate and
efficiency of this block.
Attempts were made to establish fuel input of the steam Units 1 and 2 and that of CCGT
Block 2-B by using secondary data from the plant operations. Due to absence of credible
data, gas consumption of these units could not be segregated. It was therefore decided to
postpone the heat rate and capacity testing of these units until installation of appropriate
gas metering system.
Measurement of Energy Output
On the output side, all units at TPS Guddu have their individual gross energy generation
meters. However, the steam units do not have adequate metering on their auxiliary
supply as well as that of sent-out energy. Unit wise auxiliary load for steam units was
calculated on the basis of connected auxiliary load at a fixed rate of 8% of gross
generation. The sent-out energy was calculated by subtracting the estimated auxiliary
consumption from gross generation. All the CCP blocks have appropriate meters for

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-5
gross generation, auxiliary consumption and energy sent-out. Therefore, it is again

recommended to use gross heat rates and efficiency for the benchmarking of steam units.
5.4.1
Specific procedures were developed to carry out energy measurements for steam and
CCP blocks of the power station which have been illustrated in Appendix C. The unitwise detailed data compiled on heat rate measurements for TPS Guddu is presented in
Appendix D as Exhibit D.2.
5.4.2
Results
The summary of results of heat rate tests for TPS Guddu is presented in Exhibit 5.2. The
heat rate test of the Guddu Steam Unit 3 showed inaccurate results in terms of its
efficiency higher than the design efficiency of the unit. It appears the measurement of the
existing gas flow meter is not reliable and it was showing lower consumption of gas than
the actual. The heat rate test of Unit 3 therefore was rejected.
The gas turbines (GTs 7 and 8) in Block 2-A showed the net efficiencies of 27.8% each
against the design efficiency of 31.7%. The GT 11 and GT 12 in Block 1 showed the net
efficiencies of 26.5% and 25.3% respectively against the design efficiency of 32.1%.
The net efficiency of the Block a-A and Block 1 were calculated to be 35.3% and 41.5%.
The design efficiencies of these clocks under combined cycle operations were not
provided by the management.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-6
Exhibit 5.2: Unit-wise Gross and Net Heat Rate and EfficiencyTPS Guddu
Gross Energy
Generation
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Gross Heat
Rate*
(Btu/kWh)
Gross
Efficiency*
(%)
Auxiliary
Consumption
(kWh)
Net Sent-out
Energy
(kWh)
Net Heat Rate

(Btu/kWh)
Net Efficiency
(%)
CCP Block 1
GT 11
7,192,000
92,347
12,840
26.6%
31,360
7,160,640
12,896
26.5%
GT 12
6,633,000
88,962
13,412
25.4%
26,880
6,606,120
13,467
25.3%
ST 13
5,116,000
110,000
5,006,000
0.0%
18,941,000
181,309
9,572
35.6%
168,240
18,772,760
9,658
35.3%
GT 7
6,346,000
77,396
12,196
28.0%
33,685
6,312,315
12,261
27.8%
GT 8
6,320,000
77,331
12,236
27.9%
18,701
6,301,299
12,272
27.8%
ST 5
6,482,000
267,000
6,215,000
0.0%
19,148,000
154,727
8,081
42.2%
319,386
18,828,614
8,218
41.5%
Total Block 1
CCP Block 2-A
Total Block 2-A

*

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-7
5.5
TPS Muzaffargarh
TPS Muzaffargarh has six steam units installed in two phases. Phase 1 consists of
Units 1-3, and Phase 2 units 5-6. Unit 4 at TPS Muzaffargarh is managed separately by a
Resident Engineer. Unit 1 of phase 1 was on extended shut down during the testing
period so heat rate tests could not be carried out. TPS Muzaffargarh does not have
individual net output meters at each unit as each unit directly feeds to common busbars at
the switchyards. Unit wise net output, therefore, was calculated by subtracting auxiliary
consumption from gross generation. The detailed procedure for calculation of heat rate
for each unit is given here under.
The specific procedures for calculation of heat rates for TPS Muzaffargarh at each phase
of the power station are illustrated in Appendix C. The unit-wise detailed data compiled
on heat rate measurements for TPS Muzaffargarh is presented in Appendix D as
Exhibit D.3.
5.5.1
Results
The unit wise gross and net heat rate and efficiency of TPS Muzaffargarh are presented in
Exhibit 5.3. Units 2 and 3 are in better condition with 31% net efficiency compared with
their design efficiency of 36.8%. Unit 4 has a net efficiency of 30% against 36.7%
design efficiency. Units 5 and 6 have efficiencies of 26% and 24% respectively against
the design efficiency of 31.7% for both units. The power station is facing an overall
degradation of around 18% in its net efficiency.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-8
Exhibit 5.3: Unit-wise Gross and Net Heat Rate and Efficiency TPS Muzaffargarh
Gross Energy
Generation
(kWh)
Fuel
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Gross Heat
Rate*
(Btu/kWh)
Gross Efficiency*
(%)
Auxiliary
Consumption
(kWh)
Net Sent-out
Energy
(kWh)
Net Heat Rate

(Btu/kWh)
Net Efficiency
(%)
Unit 1
Unit 2
3,665,000
36,870
10,060
33.9%
246,074
3,418,926
10,784
31.6%
Unit 3
3,083,000
30,655
9,943
34.3%
237,521
2,845,479
10,773
31.7%
Unit 4
4,982,400
50,468
10,129
33.7%
521,000
4,461,400
11,312
30.2%
Unit 5
1,757,700
20,010
11,384
30.0%
221,585
1,536,115
13,026
26.2%
Unit 6
1,409,940
17,455
12,380
27.6%
197,128
1,212,812
14,392
23.7%
Unit No.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Heat Rate Analysis
5-9
6. Power Plant Availability

6.1
Definitions and Limitations
The availability of the plant is best represented by the Plant Availability Factor which is
calculated as:
Plant Availability = (Running Hours / Total Hours over the period x 100)
Equation 6.1
This expression is further expanded to include the capacity lost due to constrained low
load operations over certain duration and is modified as:
Plant Availability = ( Running Hours x load served during low load operations+
Running Hours x Rated Capacity of the plant) x 100/ (Total Hours over the period x
Rated Capacity of the plant)
Equation 6.2
As power plants are subject to planned and unforeseen shutdowns, it is normal practice to
calculate plant availability over a longer duration such as on monthly or annual basis. In
view of the short visits to the plants during this study, no tests were carried out to
calculate the plant availability. Instead, plant availability was assessed on the basis of the
data compiled and reported by the power station management under the monthly
E-forms2 for the period of July 2009-November 2010.
GENCOs also do not follow any standards for plant availability. In Pakistan, the
Independent Power Producers (IPPs) set up under the 1994 Power Policy were allowed a
minimum of 85.7% plant availability that include allowances of 8.3% and 6% for planned
and forced outages respectively. The partial outages are also counted for the IPPs in their
availability calculations. Further IPPs outages during high demand months are given
higher weightage than those during low demand months. In later power policies,
government has further tightened the standards for IPPs by raising the plant availability
top 89%.
Plant availability factor for GENCOs should be worked out using Equation 6.2 by
including the impact of both the outages and the low load operations (partial outages).
However, GENCOs report availability factor in E-forms on the basis of full outages only,
by using the simplified Equation 6.1. However, the impact of low load operations
(partial outages) can be captured by taking the other performance indicators in to
consideration such as Plant Utilization Factor3 and Plant Load Factor4 for the same
E-forms is a standard reporting template used by GENCOs to assess and report the performance of
individual units and power station on monthly basis. At the completion of a fiscal year, an annual
E-form is generated at the pattern of monthly E-form. Major parameters indicated in the E-form are
units generated, units sent out, auxiliary consumption, fuel consumption, heat rates, maximum load,
minimum load, load factor, utilization factor, capacity factor, forced and planned shut-down hours, and
plant availability.
Plant Utilization Factor is the ratio of Units generated in KWh and the product of the de-rated Load in
KW and hours of the period over which the calculations are made.
Plant Load Factor is the ratio of Units generated in KWh and the product of the maximum Load in KW
and hours of the period over which the calculations are made

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Power Plant Availability
6-1
period. These indicators give a good indication of the generation capability of the plant
over that period.
It must be noted that GENCOs report Plant Utilization Factor on the basis of derated
capability of the units that shows higher plant utilization. In order to provide the true
perspective of the plant availability, it is recommended that all power plant performance
indicators, such as load factor, utilization factor, capacity factor and availability factor,
should be worked out on the basis of the installed capacity so as to reflect the true picture
of the plant.
6.2
Data and Results
The consultants requested the management of GENCOs to provide hourly loading profile
and outage record in electronic form for all units for the period of July 2009 to November
2010 to assess the plant availability parameters. The management claimed that they do
not prepare the hourly loading and outage profile in electronic form due to shortages of
trained staff. Instead they provided unit-wise tripping data and monthly E-form for the
specified period that contained summary of the availability parameters. Despite the
definitions and quality issues, the availability data was taken from the E-forms of the
power stations after carrying out spot checks on the accuracy of data.
6.2.1
TPS Jamshoro
Unit wise data compiled on power plant availability on monthly basis for TPS Jamshoro
is presented in Appendix E as Exhibit E.1. Unit wise performance parameters
representing power plant availability on annual basis for TPS Jamshoro are summarized
in Exhibit 6.1. Units 2-3 have shown good availability ranging between 84% to 90%
during FY2010 as the units were operated in safe (derated) mode by the management.
However, if the Plant Availability Factor was corrected for derated output of the units,
the availability of the units would have dropped further by 20-25%, well below the
standards maintained by the IPPs. Lower availability of the Units 2-4 ranging between
58% tom 78% during FY2011 is mainly due to shortage of demineralized water for boiler
operations. The large difference in the load factor and utilization factor based on
installed capacity is a good indicator that plant was not able to operate on its rated output
for most of the time.
6.2.2
TPS Guddu
Unit wise data compiled on power plant availability on monthly basis for TPS Guddu is
presented in Appendix E as Exhibit E.2. Unit wise performance parameters
representing power plant availability on annual basis for TPS Guddu are shown in
Exhibit 6.2. The availability of CCP Block 2-A and Block 1 was mostly above 90% due
to operation on natural gas. CCP Block 2-B was low during FY2010 due to extended
shut downs from November 2009 to May 2010 needing major overhaul that has been
delayed due to procurement of spare parts and availability experts from the supplier. The
availability of this block improved in FY2011 due to improvement in gas turbine
operations. Steam Unit 6 was not available till November 2010 due to a major overhaul.
The availability of steam Unit 1 has been low at 60% during FY2011. The availability of
steam block otherwise has generally been shown good ranging between 82% to 93% but

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
6-2
like TPS Jamshoro, it should be interpreted with caution due to operation on derated
output.
6.3
TPS Muzaffargarh
The unit wise data compiled on power station availability on monthly basis for TPS
Muzaffargarh is presented in Appendix E as Exhibit E.3. Unit wise performance
parameters representing power plant availability on annual basis for TPS Muzaffargarh
are shown in Exhibit 6.3. The output capability of all units of Muzaffargarh has declined
over the past two years with average degradation recorded over 40%. It appears that
management is gradually reducing the output capability of these units to improve the
availability of the units. Unit 5 was operated at a maximum of 120 MW in FY2010
compared with 200 MW of installed capacity and performed poorly with 47% availability
but it improved 74% at lower load. The availability of Unit 4 dropped from 97% in
FY2010 to 60% in the FY2011 along with a reduction in the maximum output of the unit
of about 20% from the previous year. Units 1 and 2 have shown consistent availability of
over 80% but have shown a decline of 31% and 45% in their respective output
capabilities from the previous year. The availability of Unit 6 has been steady at around
75% but this unit too was operating at only 135 MW during FY2010 and further
decreasing to 95 MW during FY2011 compared with 200 Mw of installed capacity.
These performance indicators clearly indicate low reliability levels in GENCOs that are
mainly due to lack of preventive maintenance and curtailing the operational and
maintenance expenditures.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
6-3
Exhibit 6.1: Unit-wise AvailabilityTPS Jamshoro
Unit No.
Period
Unit 1
FY2010
FY2011 YTD
Unit 2
FY2010
FY2011 YTD
Unit 3
FY2010
FY2011 YTD
Unit 4
FY2010
FY2011 YTD
Installed
Capacity
(IC)
MW
Derated
Capacity
(DC)
MW
250
187
200
200
200
160
160
160
Maximum
Load
MW
Minimum
Load
MW
Load
Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor
(%)
Scheduled
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
Availability (Time-base)
(Hrs.)
(%)
200
63
64%
50%
1,592
737
6,431
73%
180
63
68%
53%
481
245
2,946
80%
180
90
75%
75%
140
889
7,731
88%
170
100
60%
49%
806
318
2,549
69%
180
100
75%
69%
770
572
7,417
85%
170
100
49%
49%
864
673
2,134
58%
175
100
81%
79%
141
688
7,931
91%
170
100
55%
52%
88
298
2,886
79%
Note: Data available till November 2010 for FY2011

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
6-4
Exhibit 6.2: Unit-wise Availability TPS Guddu
Unit No.
Unit 1
Period
FY2010
Installed
Capacity
(IC)
MW
Derated
Capacity
(DC)
MW
110
60
FY2011 YTD
Unit 2
FY2010
110
60
FY2011 YTD
Unit 3
FY2010
200
170
FY2011 YTD
Unit 4
FY2010
200
150
FY2011 YTD
Maximum
Load
MW
Minimum
Load
MW
Load
Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor
(%)
Scheduled
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Hrs.)
(%)
60
10
81%
45%
361
777
7,622
87%
55
20
53%
33%
1,154
289
2,229
61%
70
10
83%
52%
850
7,910
90%
65
15
68%
45%
251
3,421
93%
170
20
77%
70%
558
1,057
7,145
82%
130
10
52%
51%
393
128
3,151
86%
150
10
73%
59%
1,786
6,974
80%
150
10
21%
18%
394
3,278
89%
92
10
93%
85%
81
8,530
78%
103
50
87%
87%
133
3,539
96%
90
40
93%
79%
142
8,618
98%
85
42
87%
74%
3,382
92%
82
81%
62%
144
8,616
98%
70
77%
46%
102
3,570
97%
259
60
89%
76%
50
122
8,588
98%
240
124
84%
69%
94
81
3,497
95%
CCP Block 2-A

Unit 7
FY2010
100
90
FY2011 YTD
Unit 8
FY2010
100
90
FY2011 YTD
Unit 5
FY2010
100
82
FY2011 YTD
Block 2-A FY2010
FY2011 YTD

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
300
262
149
282
6-5
CCP Block 2-B

Unit 9
FY2010
100
90
FY2011 YTD
Unit 10
FY2010
100
90
FY2011 YTD
Unit 6
FY2010
100
82
FY2011 YTD
Block 2-B FY2010
300
262
FY2011 YTD
70
16
27%
24%
6,367
70
2,323
27%
100
20
26%
63%
913
1,237
1,521
41%
108
10
30%
32%
5,591
294
2,875
33%
105
10
62%
78%
250
399
3,023
82%
67
20%
18%
6,311
281
2,167
25%
0%
0%
3,672
0%
212
28%
24%
6,090
215
2,455
28%
200
20
52%
47%
1,612
545
1,515
41%
100
16
96%
60%
126
8,634
99%
80
20
99%
60%
3,671
100%
80
13
101%
60%
96
8,664
99%
80
20
90%
58%
3,665
100%
98
11
91%
55%
269
8,491
97%
84
20
80%
36%
507
3,165
86%
278
111
95%
58%
165
8,595
98%
244
78
90%
51%
177
3,495
95%
CCP Block 1
Unit 11
FY2010
136
90
FY2011 YTD
Unit 12
FY2010
136
80
FY2011 YTD
Unit 13
FY2010
143
98
FY2011 YTD
Block 1
FY2010
415
FY2011 YTD
268
Note: Data available till November 2010

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
6-6
Exhibit 6.3: Unit-wise AvailabilityTPS Muzaffargarh
Unit No.
Period
Unit 1
FY2010
Installed
Capacity
(IC)
MW
Derated
Capacity
(DC)
MW
210
160
FY2011 YTD
Unit 2
FY2010
210
200
FY2011 YTD
Unit 3
FY2010
210
160
FY2011 YTD
Unit 4
FY2010
320
250
FY2011 YTD
Unit 5
FY2010
200
120
FY2011 YTD
Unit 6
FY2010
200
FY2011 YTD
135
Maximum
Load
MW
Minimum
Load
MW
Load
Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor
(%)
Scheduled
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Hrs.)
(%)
160
110
81%
61%
852
7,908
90%
110
65
59%
31%
515
3,157
86%
200
110
85%
76%
703
378
7,671
88%
110
65
73%
64%
471
155
3,046
83%
160
50
71%
47%
899
7,117
81%
160
100
66%
53%
163
3,509
96%
250
130
89%
88%
240
8,520
97%
205
110
49%
41%
1,222
327
2,205
60%
120
20
38%
25%
3,426
1,712
4,121
47%
95
20
58%
31%
436
593
2,643
72%
135
20
65%
46%
624
1,568
6,729
77%
95
20
63%
35%
807
2,865
78%
Note: Data available till November 2010 for FY2011

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
6-7
7. Major Reasons for Degradation of Performance

The analysis presented in Section 4 to Section 6 of this report indicates significant
degradation in the performance of the GENCOs from their design parameters. The
degradation in the output, efficiency, and availability for the power stations studies is
summarized in Exhibit 7.1.
Based on the observations of the audit team, interviews with the plants management and
operational staff and review of historic records of the plants, a number of reasons were
identified behind the overall decline in the performance of the power stations studied.
These reasons were categorized as technical and management to facilitate the
identification of remedial measures.
Exhibit 7.1: Average Degradation in Performance of GENCOs
Installed
Capacity
MW
Present
Present
Capacity
Average
Average
Average
Gross
Net
Degradation Design Net
Net
Availability
Capability Capability
Efficiency Efficiency in FY2011
MW
MW
Jamshoro
850
581
535
32%
34.7%
28.6%
72%
Guddu
715
493
487
31%
N/A*
38.9%
80%
1,140
680
614
40%
35.2%
28.9%
78%
Muzaffargarh
*
The design heat rate of CCP Guddu was not available.
7.1
Technical Issues
The power stations are suffering from a number of chronic technical problems that are
severely affecting the operational and financial performance of the plants.
7.1.1
Measurement Accuracy of Fuel Received
GENCOs purchase 1.5-2.0 million tonnes of RFO annually amounting to

Pak Rs 75-100 billion at the present price of Rs 50,000/tonne. RFO measurement system
through dip-stick or dip-tapes is generally considered to be reasonably accurate if carried
out by a trained person and in stable tank conditions, and volumes converted to weight by
using accurate calibration charts and temperature corrections. This method is applied in
most of the RFO transactions in the country. Application of this measurement procedure,
however, requires strict adherence to specified procedures, documentation of
measurements, and skilled and experienced operators and monitoring supervisors. The
procedures being practiced by the GENCOs for measurement of fuel oil are lacking in
most of these elements. There is excessive human intervention at every stage of
transactions and the system is highly prone to errors and malpractices. Following
observations were made during the inspection of GENCOs.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Major Reasons for Degradation of Performance
7-1
No fuel flow measurements are taken for natural gas and for the RFO supplied
from storage tanks in the units where flow meters are not present.
On units where flow meters are available for RFO or natural gas, the meters are
either non-functional or not calibrated on regular basis.
Fuel consumption at the units is not measured in real time on regular basis and
instead the power station management relies on estimated consumption rates
worked out through accounting exercise derived from invoices of the fuel
purchased, inventory levels, and energy generated over an operating period. Such
calculations have serious limitations in determining accurate heat rates and
efficiency as they ignore critical parameters such as quality of fuel received in
each batch, and allocation of fuel to individual units for a multi-unit power station
from common storage facilities.
The validity of such accounting exercises is highly questionable for setting up the heat
rate and efficiency benchmark for the plants or individual units.
7.1.2
Fuel Oil Quality
Procedures for sampling and analysis of RFO are described in Section 2 of this report.
None of the samples complied with Pakistan Standard and Quality Control Authority
(PSQCA) specifications for RFO in one or more tests. High specific gravity values were
obtained due to higher water contents. Moreover, the low calorific value was observed
due to high specific gravity, water and ash contents. Results of fuel oil testing are
summarized in Exhibit 7.2. The detailed testing results of the analysis are provided in
Appendix A.
Exhibit 7.2: Summary of Results of Fuel Oil Testing
Test
PSQCA
TPS Jamshoro
Specifications Min
Max
TPS Guddu
TPS Muzaffargarh
Min
Max
Min
Max
Specific Gravity @ 15.6 C
0.970 Max
0.969
0.985
0.950
0.972
0.966
0.971
Water Contents Vol. %
0.5% Max
1.2%
1.8%
8.0%
4.2%
1.4%
2.8%
Sulfur, Total, % mass
3.5% Max
2.8%
3.2%
2.5%
2.9%
2.7%
3.0%
Ash Content, % Wt.
0.1% Max
0.3%
1.4%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
4.2%
17,844 18,202
16,660
17,438
17,076
18,089
Clorific Value, Gross,

BTU/Ib
18,200 Min
All the power stations have their own laboratories to analyze fuel oil on a daily basis.
However, it was observed that the laboratory staff assigned for collection of samples was
not adequately trained, and the testing procedures prescribed under the standards are not
likely being fully complied with. This is evident from the results of the analysis of RFO
tested from an independent reputed laboratory as part of this assignment and summarized
in Exhibit 7.2. All of the 18 samples taken from three plants did not meet the Pakistan
Standards for Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) specifications on specific gravity,
water contents, ash content, and calorific value. Substandard RFO coupled with

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-2
inaccurate measurements impacts plant performance and results in financial losses to

GENCOs due to high fuel costs. A third party RFO testing mechanism should be
established on regular basis to ensure the quality of fuel received from supplier. The
contracts with fuel supplier should include penalties or correction in price for supply of
substandard oil. Moreover, GENCOs should carry out a detailed exercise to devise a
robust measurement mechanism for RFO receipts at the plants to reduce oil pilferages
and acceptance of substandard oil.
7.1.3
Lack of Preventive Maintenance
A number of maintenance activities are long overdue and have already resulted in loss of
output capability, increasing heat rates and lower availability.
GENCO managements are forced to delay the overhauling of the plants and are
not able to carry out regular preventive maintenance to avoid break-down of the
plants for the following reasons:
Refusal of shut-down time by the system operator (NTDC) due to shortages in

power supply in the country,
Delay in payments to GENCOs against power sales, and
Delay in procurements of parts and services for plants major overhauling,
GENCO plants were designed to run on dual fuel with natural gas as primary fuel.
RFO is only used as backup fuel supply during infrequent gas outages. However,
TPS Muzaffargarh and Jamshoro have not received gas from the gas utilities on a
regular basis since 2005 and have run on RFO on continuous basis. The RFO
supplied to GENCOs contain up to 3.5% sulfur and other undesired impurities
such as vanadium. Continuous operation of steam units on RFO has increased the
breakdown frequency and lost time due to excessive corrosion caused by
formation of sulfuric acid in the flue gas circulation path and depositions of
vanadium oxide and ash on heat exchanging metal surfaces of boiler, reducing
their performance. Poor quality of RFO supplied to GENCOs has only
exacerbated this problem.
Most of the GENCO units urgently need detailed inspections for the hot gas/steam
path components to plug leakages and heat losses. Key plant components such as
soot blowers, a significant proportion of boiler tubes, high pressure (HP) feed
water heaters, and auxiliary equipment are not functioning. These have a direct
impact in the form of reduction in output and efficiency of the units Exhibit 7.3
show examples of poor maintenance at TPS Jamshoro resulting in damaged
insulation and flue gas ducts.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-3
Exhibit 7.3: Poor Maintenance of Insulation at TPS Jamshoro
Poor Maintenance of Flue Gas Duct at TPS Jamshoro

The capacity of in-house workshops should be enhanced with modern machines, tools,
and training of staff to provide maintenance services for critical parts locally to reduce
down-time.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-4
7.1.4
Poor Housekeeping
GENCO managements are paying little attention to simple housekeeping activities which
do not require large expenditures. Examples include:
Frequent steam leakages in boiler and other steam usages increase heat loss at the
plant as well as raise water purification cost due to excessive use of chemicals.
Exhibit 7.4 shows steam leakages at RFO heating system at Muzaffargarh. Such
leakages on continuous basis cause significant drop in efficiency.
A large number of soot blowers have become non-operational due to their

metallurgy or poor design. This increases the rate of clogging of heater elements.
A non-functional soot blower at Unit 3 of TPS Jamshoro is shown in Exhibit 7.5.
Plant management is generally oblivious to environmental conservation and

protection. Massive oil spills and un-optimal combustion results in higher rate of
toxic emissions and effluent discharges causing environmental threats to adjacent
population, flora and fauna. Exhibit 7.6 shows significant oil spillage at
Muzaffargarh RFO decanting and storage facility.
There is a need to establish a Research and Development (R&D) or a Technical Services

section to carryout research on such problems and devise solutions.
Exhibit 7.4: Steam Leakages at TPS Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-5
Exhibit 7.5: View of a Nonfunctional Soot Blower at TPS Jamshoro
Exhibit 7.6: Oil Spillage at Storage Facility at Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-6
7.2
Management Issues and Recommenadations
Management of the power station is responsible to carry out safe, economic, and reliable
operation of the plants. Deficiencies highlighted below were common to all the plants.
7.2.1
Lack of Performance Evaluation
No attention is given to the performance evaluation of the plants and as such no standards
are observed to assess the performance of the plants.
Each power station has an Inspection, Testing and Record (ITR) section but their
role is limited to monitoring of a few technical parameters. The power stations
also have a Maintenance Management System (MMS) which evaluates and
compiles the performance parameters of the power station and generates E-forms
on monthly and annual basis.
A detailed management study is required to prescribe key performance indicators

pertaining to financial, human and environmental performance of the plant and
the procedures to evaluate them on sustainable basis.
The ITR and MMS sections may be merged to form a Performance Monitoring
Section (PMS) at each power station to provide a wider range of performance
evaluation and monitoring services. In addition to the activities carried out by
ITR and MMS, the PMS should develop a 24-hour capability for continuous
analysis of trends in performance and losses. With this capability the PMS will
be in a position to provide definitive advice on discrepancies on fuel receipts,
inventories, and heat rates. By adding analyses and instruments over time, the
trend analysis can help identify emerging problems and form the basis for
management decisions for improvement of plant performance.
7.2.2
Limited Financial and Administrative Autonomy
Managements of GENCO plants have limited financial autonomy to take

independent decisions.
Payments to GENCOs are not made on time which results in deferment of

maintenance routines which is a major reason behind plant output and efficiency
degradation.
Approval process for procurement of spare parts and services through

international tendering is cumbersome and time consuming. It takes on the
average 18 months from initiating the tendering process to procure spare parts and
services from international sources due to time consumed in preparation of tender
documents, advertisement notices and evaluation of tenders, tender awards and
inspections, and manufacturing and transportation of goods. In addition, it takes
significantly long time before the tendering process can be initiated to get internal
approvals for procurement.
Best industry practices are not observed for financial management of the power
plants and important financial instruments such as a maintenance reserve fund to
cater for the financial needs of plants maintenance cycles are not available.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-7
7.2.3
Absence of Plant Automation and Management Information System
Exhibit 7.7 shows the control room of Units 3 & 4 at the Jamshoro power plant mainly
consisting of manual and analogue instrumentation. General observations are
summarized below.
Plants are running in manual mode in the absence of modern monitoring and
control systems.
Most of the instrumentation is analogue in nature and readings are recorded

manually in the log sheets. Limited data is organized in electronic form and
therefore it is difficult to carry out meaning full analyses on plant performance
and identify problem areas.
Vital on-line analyzers necessary for optimization and control of plant operation
are missing.
The absence of performance evaluation standards and an on-line integrated

management information system (MIS) severely limits the ability of the
management to take prompt decisions and initiate actions and remedial measures
for efficient operation of the plants.
Exhibit 7.7: View of the Joint Control Room of Units 3 and 4 at TPS Jamshoro
The impact of absence of such on-line facilities and controls could be observed
frequently at the plants where air-fuel mixing ratio is not monitored due to absence of
on-line analyzers that allows escape of un-burnt fuel through plants exhaust which is
visible as black smoke (Exhibit 7.8). This not only contributes heavily towards
degradation of air quality in the surroundings of the plant but also increases the fuel
consumption of the plant raising the heat rate and cost of fuel.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-8
Exhibit 7.8: Smoke Showing Poor Combustion at Unit No. 6 at TPS Muzaffargarh
All the units of GENCOs should be upgraded with installation of on-line analyzers and
instruments with communication channels to a central thermal model should be provided
to assess the performance of the plant on continuous basis.
7.2.4
Other Management Issues
The plants are suffering from overstaffing with majority of staff working without
specialized industrial training to perform their duties.
No occupational health, safety, and environmental management system and

relevant trainings were observed at the plants increasing the potential of a safety
hazard at the plant.
Inventory control system is primitive and in certain instances not operational that
result in un-optimal inventory levels at the plant, causing a direct financial burden
in the form of working capital.
GENCOs, like other power sector entities, lack any performance based human
resource management systems to promote efficiency and competition.
Simple housekeeping and safety measures such as firefighting facilities are

inadequate and completely missing in certain cases.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-9
The government is currently implementing a Generation and Transmission Improvement

Plan (GTIP) for the GENCOs. Under this Action Plan, the Board of Directors of
GENCOs will be reconstituted by induction of directors from private sector to bring in
improvements in the GENCOs performance. In the absence of financial stakes, the
effectiveness of the new management at a higher level may be doubtful. Furthermore, the
resolution of a number of management and operational issues identified in the study need
a complete change in the management approach and operational environment of the
GENCOs which could prove to be a major challenge for the new management. Under
these circumstances, government could consider bringing in independent management
under a performance based O&M contract based on a structure of incentives and
penalties against the performance of the power stations. The terms and conditions of the
O&M contract could be designed in a manner to make the contractor responsible for
injecting investment for rehabilitation of the units and bringing in highly trained and
experienced senior managers capable of using state-of-the-art management tools and
industry standard O&M procedures. The O&M contractor may be given extended
authority to reward and motivate employees and to take disciplinary action and adjust the
size of the work force. This approach will help in establishing and expanding the O&M
industry and in improving the efficiency of the power sector in the country.
7.3
Detailed Technical Assessment of GENCOs
7.3.1
TPS Jamshoro
Reasons for the degradation of performance of each unit at TPS Jamshoro are listed in
Exhibit 7.10. Significant among these are summarized below:
All the units have too many leaking points and need nearly 8-10% make up water
per day for generation of steam in the boiler. Such high leakages not only
increase the operating cost of the plant but also result in heat losses in the form of
leaking steam and injection of cold make up water.
The water treatment facilities and other chemical plants are in poor condition and
require complete rehabilitation. The situation becomes critical if the treatment
facilities come under stress. An example of this is the significant increase in the
level of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the fresh water supply of the plant from
the Indus River following the floods in July 2010. The comparison of the
recommended quality and the actual water received during the month of
January 2011 are shown below in Exhibit 7.9 below. This severely affected the
availability of plant during the period of October 2010 to January 2011 period.
High levels of TDS in water significantly reduced the purification capacity of
demineralization plant and substantially increased the consumption of chemicals
adding to the O&M cost of the plant. The demineralization plant could not
produce enough water to operate even two out of four installed power generation
units simultaneously.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-10
Exhibit 7.9: River Water Quality Supplied at TPS Jamshoro in January 2011
pH
T.H
(ppm)
Chloride
(ppm)
Conductivity
(S/cm)
Total Desolved Solvents

(TDS)
(ppm)
7.5-8.5
96-120
40-80
350-500
320
900
514
3,260
2,445
A common reverse osmosis (RO) plant needs to be installed to meet the

requirements of demineralized water.
The Units 2-4 show a general pattern of decline in output and efficiency while
running on RFO due to deposit of soot on heat exchange metal surfaces of heaters
and gradual chocking of air pre-heater. Most of the soot blowers are not
operational and cleaning of soot cannot be carried out. This results in eventual
shut down of unit for cleaning when output reaches the minimum loading limits
of the units. The use of chemical additives (magnesium) should be allowed at all
units to covert vanadium to magnesium vanadium pentoxide to avoid vanadium
deposits on tube and element surfaces. So far, the budget for chemicals additives
of only one unit has been included in FARA. The funds for other three units
should be provided for reliable and continuous operation of these units on RFO
The High Pressure (HP) heaters have become non-functional since long and need
replacement after thorough review of design and metallurgy of the tubes.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-11
Exhibit 7.10: Reasons for Drop in Performance of the PlantTPS Jamshoro

Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Boiler
Detailed Inspection of boiler needs Detailed Inspection of boiler needs Detailed Inspection of boiler needs Detailed Inspection of boiler needs
to be carried out. Last carried out to be carried out. Last carried out to be carried out. Last carried out to be carried out. Last carried out
in 2000
in 2002-2003
in 2002-2003
in 2002-2003
Total of 38 soot blowers are
installed, but mostly inoperative
and need replacement



Final super heater coils are

damaged and need immediate
replacement

replacement
(Included in FARA)
Inal super heater coils are

replacement
(Included in FARA)

replacement
(Included in FARA)
3-way burner valves are damaged 3-way burner valves are damaged 3-way burner valves are damaged
(Included in FARA)
Furnace Safety Supervisory

System (FSSS) along with furnace
flame monitoring are damaged
(Included in FARA)
Actuators of boiler feed pumps are Actuators of boiler feed pumps are Actuators of boiler feed pumps are
damaged and need replacement
(Included in FARA)
(Included in FARA)
(Included in FARA)

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
FSSS along with furnace flame

monitoring are damaged and need
replacement
(Included in FARA)
FSSS along with furnace flame

monitoring are damaged and need
replacement
(Included in FARA)
Spares are required for

overhauling of steam turbine
7-12
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Turbines
Spares reqquired for overhauling
of turbine
(Included in FARA)
High pressure feed water (HP) are HP are bypassed due to severe
bypassed due to severe leakages leakages in heater tubes. Needs
in heater tubes. Needs tube
tube replacements
replacements
HP are bypassed due to severe

leakages in heater tubes. Needs
tube replacements
HP are bypassed due to severe

leakages in heater tubes. Needs
tube replacements
Unit does not have electronic

hydraulic governor (EHG) are
missing aand turbine is presently
manually operated. EHG along
with data acquisition system need
to installed to automated unit
output controls
(Included in FARA)
Unit does not have EHG and is

presently manually operated.
EHG along with data acquisition
system need to installed to
automated unit output controls
(Included in FARA)

(Included in FARA)

(Included in FARA)
Digital recorder/event recorder

system needs to be installed



Auto control on turbine needs to

be installed

be installed

be installed
Temperature scanners on turbine

need to be installed


Data loggers and data plotter on

turbine need to be installed




R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-13
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Air pre-heater elements and seals

are damaged and need
replacement

replacement

replacement
Induced draft (ID) fans dampers

are damaged

are damaged

are damaged
ID fan Impellers are damaged

(Included in FARA)

(Included in FARA)
Cooling tower fans need

All 12 cooling tower fans need
redundance and require additionla overhauling
bank
(Included in FARA)

overhauling
(Included in FARA)

overhauling
(Included in FARA)
Air Handling System

Flue gas duct & air-preheater
bottom hoppers needs repair &
maintenance
(Included in FARA)
replacement
(Included in FARA)
Cooling System
Drive shafts of cooling tower fans

need replacement
(Included in FARA)

need replacement
(Included in FARA)

need replacement
(Included in FARA)
Gear stystem for cooling tower

fans needs to be added



R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-14
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Miscellaneuos
Last major overhauling was
carried out in Y1999 and is long
overdue since 2007. Supervisory
experts needed for overhaul ($2-3
million)
Drain valve (high pressure & high

temperature), safety, by-pass
spray control valves need
replacement.
Off-line efficiency monitoring

system and training need to be
provided
(Included in FARA)

provided
(Included in FARA)

provided
(Included in FARA)

replacement.

replacement.

replacement.
Steam convertor needs repair and maintenance
A common steam convertor unit with condensate recirculation needs

to be installed for Units 2-4
Clorination plant for treatment of

water for boiler use is not
functional and needs complete
rehabilitation.

rehabilitation

rehabilitation
Demineralization/ deionization
plan needs complete
rehabilitation.
plan needs complete
rehabilitation.
plan needs complete
rehabilitation.
plan needs complete
rehabilitation.
Instrumentation and auto

operating system of
Demineralization plant is not
functional and needs rehabilitation

operating system of Demi
neralization plant is not functional
and needs rehabilitation

operating system of

operating system of

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-15
7.3.2
TPS Guddu
Reasons for the degradation of performance at TPS Guddu are given in Exhibit 7.13.
Like other GENCOs, poor maintenance of the plant has resulted in damage to key plant
components. Significant problems are summarized below:
The CCP Block 1 is facing significant load reduction as it requires major over
hauling. The units are run in safe mode as inspection of hot gas path components
has not been carried out since 2002. The management apprehends break down of
hot gas path components if run on full load.
On CCP Block 2, the auxiliary supply is not secured in case of total plant shut
down (black out). This can cause damage to plant and excessive outage in case of
black out. Black start capability for auxiliaries needs to be ensured through
installation of a diesel generator and connection with grid.
Silting of intake water structure at Begari Sindh Feeder Canal reduces the supply
of condenser cooling water for all units that results in drop in plant output and
efficiency. Problem can be solved with dredger or remodeling of intake water
channel.
The Kandhkot and Mari gas pipeline need to be re coated as its coating has
deteriorated at places and the pipeline is exposed to corrosion. Gas leakage from
rupture in the pipeline can result in extended outage at the plant.
Exhibit 7.11 shows pictures of the damaged airpreheater of Unit 4 due to fire resulting
in an outage of nearly three months for the unit. Exhibit 7.12 shows inadequate cooling
of the turbine section of Unit 3
Exhibit 7.11: Damaged Air Pre-heater due to Fire of Unit No. 4 at TPS Guddu

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-16
Damaged Air Pre-heater Elements due to Fire of Unit No. 4 at TPS Guddu
Melted Air Pre-heater due to Fire of Unit No. 4 at TPS Guddu

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-17
Exhibit 7.12: Poor Cooling of Turbine Section of Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu
Poor Cooling of Unit No. 3 at TPS Guddu

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-18
Exhibit 7.13: Reasons for Drop in Performance of the Steam UnitsTPS Guddu
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
CCP Block 2-A and 2-B
CCP Block 1
Boiler
All of the boiler tubes are
week and cannot sustain
full temperatures and
pressures. All boiler tubes
should be replaced.
The performance of
Boiler insulation is very
operation feed water pump poor and damaged
has dropped significantly
due to impellor damage and
need repair/replacement
HRSG by-pass and

Isolation damper have
leakages, need to be
replaced
(Only Block 2A Included in
FARA)
Boiler feed pumps

performance reliability has
significantly dropped and
therefore need replacement
for the safe and continuous
operation of the boiler.
The performance of
operation condensate pump
has dropped significantly
due to damaged impellor
and inter-stage seals and
need repair/replacement.
Their respective regulating
valves are also not
functioning properly and
Super heater and reheater

temperature control
injection regulators are not
working resulting in
temperature variations at
the inlet of turbine.
Feed water controllers not

functioning and need to be
replaced
FARA)
High pressure (HP) heaters

are out of service since
long and require
replacement after modified
metallurgy of tubes. If
replaced, it can significantly
reduce the fuel
consumption
Inlet/outlet motorized valves

of feed water and
condensate lines are not
functioning properly and
Safety valves of boiler

drum, super heaters and reheater have leakage and
HRSG drum insulation has

deteriorated and need to
replaced
FARA)

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-19
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Refractory of boiler is badly No analyzers for exhaust

damaged causing heat loss gases are present resulting
and need rebuilding.
in ineffective control on
combustion.
Drums level transmitter

malfunction and causing
tripping, and need to be
replaced.
FARA)
Hydraulic seal of boiler is

damaged since long
resulting in heat loss and
needs to be reinstalled.
HP heaters are out of

service since long and
require replacement after
modified metallurgy of
tubes. If replaced, it can
significantly reduce the fuel
cost.
Flue gas leakages due to

damage in Heeat recovery
staem generator (HRSG)
bypass dampers and
isolation damper
controllers, damage control
system, need to be
replaced.
FARA)
HP heaters are out of

service since long and
require replacement after
modified metallurgy of
tubes. If replaced, it can
significantly reduce the fuel
cost.
No analyzers for exhaust

gases are present resulting
combustion.
CCP Block 1
Soot blowing system is not

effective both in furnace
and air pre-heaters need
rehabilitation.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-20
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
CCP Block 1
Super heater tubes are

week and cannot sustain
full temperatures and
pressures. The tubes need
to be replaced.
Boiler safety valves are
leaking and needs repair.
Periodic blow-down valves
of the boiler are leaking and
needs replacement.
Boilers burners are
chocked and need
replacement.
combustion.

combustion.
Turbine
Control cable deterioration
because of overheating
from flue gases
FARA)
The present instruments

and controls system is
obsolete and spare parts
are no more available.
The complete system
need to be replaced.
SSS clutch vibration on gas

turbines, need rebalancing

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-21
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
CCP Block 1
GT lift oil pumps dont build

required pressure. Need to
be replaced
Air Handling System
GRC fans are out of order
and need replacement to
reduce fuel consumption.
Flue gas ducts on both

sides is leaking and needs
repair.
Both regulators of flue gas

recirculation fan (GRC) fans
are not working thereby
affecting the performance
of boiler and need
replacement
Steam inlet air-heater
(calorifier) are not working
resulting in entry of cold air
in the boiler and need
replacement.
Cooling System
Circulating cooling water
pumps are not delivering
water at the full output
resulting into low vacuum
and hence lower turbine
output

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
20% condenser tubes have

been plugged due to
leakages and need
replacement to improve the
condenser vacuum to
increase output and
efficiency of turbine
The filer screens at the inlet

of CW pumps are damaged
due to which the debris
flows into the condenser
and causes tube chocking
resulting in load reduction
and stoppage of unit. The
screens need replacement.
Evaporator cooler not

functioning, filling material
needs to be replaced
FARA)
Silting of intake water

structure at Begari Sindh
Feeder results in
reduction in the quantity
of condenser cooling
water. Problem can be
solved with dredger or
remodelling of intake
water channel
7-22
Unit 1-2
Reverse flow valves of
condenser cooling are not
functioning therefore
backwashing of the
condenser ids not carried
out. These valves require
replacement.
Unit 3
Cooling Water (CW)pumps
are not providing sufficient
water for the condenser
cooling. Also the fine
screens installed ion the
inlet of CW pumps are
damaged.
Unit 4
CCP Block 1
One bay of cooling towers

need to be added for Unit 5
& 6 to improve condenser
vacuum
The RCC structure of

cooling towers has
developed cracks, Need
to be reinforced
Impellers of cooling water

(CW) pumps have been
eroded and need
replacement.
The reliability of 6 kV
Motors of CW pumps,
condensate pumps, ID/FD
fans, feed pumps, cooling
tower pumps has
significantly dropped due to
local rewinding and need
replacement of an
appropriate rewinding
solution.
At Unit 1, a number of
condenser tubes need
replacement due to
leakage.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-23
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
CCP Block 1
Leakage of acidic water

from demi-water plant
seeped into cable trenches
and damaged control
cables resulting in
excessive nuisance tripping
The air filters get

clogged in fog resulting
in reduction of load or
shut down of the gas
turbines. A solution
such as use of protective
cover at KAPCO power
plant may be able to
solve the problem.
Cooling tower structure is

completely damaged and
result in closure of the plant
during canal closure and
floods.
Generator
Generators are not able to
take maximum load due
drop in hydrogen supply
from Hydrogen generation
plant. Hydrogen generation
plant needs transformer
replacement to get to its full
capacity.
Miscillenous
AUX Standby auxiliary
transformer (6/0.4 kV) T7
requires replacement to
ensure standby
arrangements.
Reduction in amp-hour of
station battery bank due to
aging, needs replacement

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-24
Unit 1-2
Unit 3
Unit 4
CCP Block 1
Overhead crane bus bar

deforms in hot weather.
Needs to be replaced
The governing system of
Diesel generator for black is
not functioning therefore
DG set is no more in
service. Need
repair/replacement
Work is under progress at
Unit No. 9 and stat of the
art controlling and
monitoring system is being
installed by G.E. The unit
is not being completed due
to trouble in its exciter.
Performance to be
evaluated after the
completion of work.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-25
7.3.3
TPS Muzaffargarh
Major reasons for the degradation of performance at TPS Muzaffargarh are listed in
Exhibit 7.15. Significant problems are summarized below:
Soot blowers of Unit 5 and 6 are not functional and cause significant degradation
in plants output and efficiency with continuous operation. The use of chemical
additives (magnesium) should be allowed to avoid vanadium deposits on tube and
element surfaces. The budget for chemicals additives has been included in FARA.
Nearly 50% of the cooling tower fans of Units 2, 3 and 6 are not functioning
thereby significantly affecting the condenser operations of these units due to
lower vacuum. The immediate replacement/repair of the damaged fans of all the
units is needed as lower efficacy of cooling tower results in drop of output and
efficiency of the turbine to back pressure at the condenser end.
Cooling water treatment needs to be improved with modifications in the treatment

systems to avoid damage to cooling water system components from scaling. The
up-gradation has been included in FARA for all units of TPS Muzaffargarh.
The calorifiers of Units 2, 3, 5 and 6 are not fully operational due to damage to
headers resulting in loss in efficiency for these units.
Unit 1 requires major overhaul and has been out of service since November
2011due to non-availability of experts from the manufacturer of the equipment
(OEM). The unit is expected to be back in service around end March 2011.
Exhibit 7.14 show the under repair induced draft (ID) fan of Unit 1.
Exhibit 7.14: View of Under Repair Induced Draft Fan of
Unit No. 1 at TPS Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-26
Under Repair Induced Draft Fan of Unit No. 1 at TPS Muzaffargarh

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-27
Exhibit 7.15: Unit-wise Reasons for Drop in Performance of the Steam UnitsTPS Muzaffargarh
Unit 1-3
Unit 4
Unit 5 & 6
Frequent leakages in boiler super-heater

tubes, causing load restriction and also forced
shut downs. The ends of super-heater tubes
need to be replaced
(Included in FARA)
Formation of scale deposits on heating

surfaces is a frequent phenomenon. Fuel
additive system for the fuel oil is required to be
launched
Soot-blowing system is defective.

Rehabilitation of soot-blowers installed at
superheaters, reheaters and regenerative
airheaters is required urgently
Performance of boiler feed water pumps is not Steam coil air heaters are deteriorated. The
upto the mark. Major overhauling of feed
air heaters are required to be
water pumps is required to be carried out
repaired/replaced
Formation of scale on heat transfer surfaces

including superheaters and reheaters is a
common phenomenon. Fuel additive system
is required to be launched
(Included in FARA)
FSSS system is not functioning effectively and FSSS system is not functioning effectively and
needs to be up-graded.
needs to be up-graded.
(Included in FARA)
(Included in FARA)
Boiler
Soot blowing system is non-functional.

Rehabilitation of furnace soot blowers and
regenerative air preheater is essentially
required
Frequent economizer tubes leakages occur

causing load restriction beyond 100 MW. The
rehabilitation of economizer tubes is required
(Included in FARA)
Formation of scale on heating surfaces is too
frequent. Fuel additive system is required to
be introduced

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-28
Unit 1-3
Unit 4
Unit 5 & 6
Feed water pumps hydraulic coupling problem
is experienced. The hydraulic coupling
problem is required to be set right
(Included in FARA)
HP Heaters tubes are damaged. Damaged
tubes are required to be replaced/repaired
Turbine

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Low Pressure turbine rotor blades of last stage

were removed after damages. The blades
need to be reinstalled with new ones and
balancing of turbine is essentially required
(Included in FARA)
Intermidiate Pressure (IP) and Low Pressure

(LP) turbine rotors are badly deteriorated. The
replacement of rotors is needed urgently
(Included in FARA)
Turbine Supervisory Instrumenttaion (TSI)

needs upgradation
(Included in FARA)
Gland seals of HP/IP turbines are

deteriorated. Replacement is required
DEH system needs to be replaced.

(Included in FARA)
The performance of turbines DEH-III and data

acquisition systems DAS-100 is not funtioning
in a satisfatory manner. Installation of a
complete distribution control system (DCS),
including sensors, transmitters, and actuators
ffor Turbiner governing system DEH-III and
boiler tuurbine auto regulation system needs
to be installed.
(Included in FARA)
7-29
Unit 1-3
Unit 4
Unit 5 & 6
Air Handling System

Flue gas ducts are worn-out & damaged at
several points. The affected areas of flue gas
ducts should be repaired/replaced
Air preheater elements are deteroated.

Elements of pre-heater need to be replaced
with new ones
(Included in FARA)
GRC motor is defective. The Motor needs

replacement.
(Included in FARA)
Regeneraytive airheater (RAH) elements are
badly deteriorated. Cold & hot elements are
required to be replaced
(Included in FARA)
ID fans (both sides A & B) are badly damaged.
The major components of ID fans need to be
replaced
ID fans impellers, its casing and inlet dampers

are badly deteriorated. The deteriorated
components of ID fans require replacement.
(Included in FARA)
GRC fans impellers are defective. The
defective components GRS fans require
replacement.
(1 set Included in FARA)
Flue gas duct is worn out and damaged. The

flue duct is in bad shape hence its
rehabilitation is essentially required
Air flue duct is damaged and leaking at

several points. Rehabilitation of flue gas duct,
air plennum and expansion joints is required
(Included in FARA)
Air pre-heater hot and cold elements are
damaged. The calorifiers have also
deteriorated. Replacement of air preheater
with the new one is required, Calorifiers aso
need to be repaired/replaced
(Included in FARA)
Cooling System
Condenser Vacuum system is faulty. The
condenser Vacuum system and allied cooling
water system need to be rectified

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Working of gooling tower is not satisfactory.

Gear boxes of cooling water fans & blades are
Special cooling water treatment system should worn out. Replacement of damaged parts is
be introduced
required
(Included in FARA)
7-30
Unit 1-3
Unit 4
Cooling tower fans are defective. Existing

fans of cooling towers need to be replaced
with new ones and chemical treatment system
is to be managed on regular basis
(Cost of Electric motor is included in FARA)
Unit 5 & 6
Water showering louvers and their fittings are
deteriorated. Rehabilitation of these
components is needed
Generator
Performance of excitation system is not
satisfactory. Modification of excitation system
need to be carried out.
(Included in FARA)
Generator Hydrogen coolers of unit no. 6 are

defective. Replacement of hydrogen coolers
is required to be done urgently
The Bearings of TURBO genmerator are
damaged and need replavcement.
(Included in FARA)`
The generator excitation system needs
modifications. Protection relays of genertor
also need to be replaced.
(Included in FARA)
Miscillenous

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
AVR system is not functioning properly. Its

modification is required
(Included in FARA)
Boiler ingnition system needs to be converted

from natural gas to HSD/furnace oil ddue to
absence of gas
(Included in FARA)
Uninterupted power supply (UPS) for control

systems system is not working properly.
Existing UPS system need to be replaced
(Included in FARA)
6.6 kV motors of cooling water pumps, CP, ID

fans, FD Fans and Boiler Feed pumps are
damagaed and ned replacement
(Included in FARA)
7-31
Unit 1-3
Unit 4
Unit 5 & 6
Technical problems on turbine and generators 0.4 kV motors of cooling towers are damaged
are being faced. Major overhauling and
and need to be replaced.
balancing of turbines is essentially required
(Included in FARA)

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
7-32
8. Usage of High Viscosity Fuel Oil in GENCO

Power Plants
RFO is used in dual fuel power stations when natural gas is not available. RFO is
available in several grades with kinematic viscosity ranging from 30 centistoke (cst) to
700 cst. In Pakistan, power plants use RFO with kinematic viscosity of 180 cst during
summer and 120 cst during winter. Generally the price of RFO decreases as its viscosity
increases. A suggestion was made to assess the potential of using RFO having the
viscosity of 380 cst and above in GENCO power stations as a cost saving measure.
Higher viscosity fuel oils tend to have a higher ash and metals content compared to those
with lower viscosity. Oils with higher viscosity also require additional heating to make
them pump-able and transportable through the piping systems in cold weather.
The ToRs for the study required an investigation of the technical feasibility of using fuel
oils with kinematic viscosity of 380 cst (referred to as heavier RFO in this section) in the
GENCO power stations to reduce the cost of fuel for power generation in the country.
This section discusses the major factors that need to be considered for switching to fuel
oils with higher viscosity.
8.1
Fuel Oil Standards
In Pakistan power stations and industrial plants are designed to operate on 180 cst during
summer and 120 cst during winter. The country as such does not have any experience of
using more viscous fuel oil to date. Pakistan Standards for Quality Control Authority
(PSQCA) therefore does not have any reference to the more viscous fuel oil grades.
Internationally, residual fuel oil is also referred to as marine fuel and its specifications are
guided by ISO 8217: 2010Classification of marine fuels. Exhibit 8.1 shows the
specifications of various grades of Marine Residual Fuel Oil. The specifications indicate
an increasing trend of vanadium, metals, and ash contents with increasing viscosities.
Increasing concentrations of these parameters lead to a decline in performance of steam
plants and increase in operations and maintenance (O&M) cost.
8.2
Potential for use in Power Generation in Paksitan
Heavier fuel oils of 380 cst and above are used in power generation in many countries
including India and Brazil. The following is a summary of factors that could limit their
usage in the power plants in Pakistan.
Steam Plants
Heavier residual fuel oils can be used with greater flexibility in steam power plants than
in diesel sets due to the external combustion mode of firing and minimal retrofits of oil
burners to burn fuels of varying viscosities. Steam power plants can therefore be
designed to use heavier grades of fuel oil. However, in existing steam power stations, use
of heavier fuel oils can affect the output and operational efficiency due to the limitations
of the installed oil handling system.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Usage of High Viscosity Fuel Oil in GENCO Power Plants
8-1
Diesel Engines
In addition to modification of the oil storage and handling system, the fuel injection
systems of the power plants using diesel engine technology would require replacement.
In addition, presence of higher concentration of vanadium will cause hot corrosion at the
exhaust valves thereby increasing the operational and maintenance cost of the plant.
The use of heavier RFO in existing diesel engine plants therefore should be considered
only after careful assessment of the economics of operations on such RFO grades.
Gas Turbines
The experience of use of RFO being marketed in Pakistan in gas turbines in Pakistan at
the KAPCO and Rousch CCGT power stations show a significant 10-15% degradation of
power output and loss of thermal efficiency of the plant and about 8-10% additional shut
down time required for periodic washing of turbine blade due to deposition of vanadium.
Due to these problems, Rousch power plant switched to gas firing for reliable operation
of the plant. The use of even heavier grades of RFO in gas turbines with substantially
higher vanadium content (higher by a factor of three) and 50% higher ash content will not
be feasible.
The above discussion indicates that the steam power stations are the only units where use
of RFO of higher viscosity of the order of 380 cst could be considered.
8.3
Modifications Required in Fuel Oil Handling at the Power Plants
Significant modifications can be required at the oil handling system of steam power
stations right from decanting from railway or road tankers to final consumption at the
boiler.
Decanting time: Due to higher viscosity, decanting will take much longer time
especially during winter as the oil will have to be heated to its pour point to permit
pumping.
Up-gradation of decanting facilities: The capacity of the decanting facility may have to
be enhanced to accommodate larger number of tankers at a time to decant desired amount
of oil in a day.
Modification in oil heating system: The heating system would need modification to
provide higher amount of heat to raise the temperature of the oil. Besides additional heat
input, heat losses in the oil storage and handling system would also increase, which will
have a negative impact on the overall thermal efficiency of the plant.
Pumping requirements: In order to flow more viscous oil, the capacity of fuel oil filling
pumps from decanting stations to storage tanks and oil feed pumps from storage tanks to
boilers will need replacement or revamping.
8.4
Modification and Adjustments Required in the Boilers
Heavier oils have different physical properties that may require modifications in the
boiler components to attain optimal efficiencies for the plants.
Burner design: Burner design may need modifications to allow for adequate fuel
atomization and combustion in the furnace.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
8-2
Soot blowing frequency: With nearly 50% higher ash contents in the oil, the frequency
of the soot blower operations is likely to increase. The GENCO power plants have
manually operated soot blowers and majority of them are not even operational. In such
conditions, the plants may need more frequent shut downs for washing of heater elements
and tubes in the boiler.
Oil additives/chemical usage: The higher concentration of vanadium in heavier fuel oil
will increase the rate of depositions on heat exchanging surfaces of boiler needing
frequent washing causing frequent shutdowns. These depositions can be reduced through
use of fuel additives that will add to the existing O&M costs.
Emissions: Due to higher concentration of micro carbon residue in the oil, the overall
emissions from the plant may increase.
All of the above factors would require capital investment at the plant to modify the oil
handling system and plant O&M procedures to accommodate the usage of high viscous
oil and will cost additional O&M expenses on recurring basis.
8.5
Fuel Oil Procurement and Supply
RFO of 120 cst and 180 cst kinematic viscosity is produced by local refineries which
meets nearly 50% of the country demand. GENCOs power stations contribute nearly
25-30% in the total demand of RFO in the country. Pakistan State Oil Company (PSO)
manages the fuel oil supply in the country through oil imports from the Middle East on a
regular basis to meet the domestic deficit. Since the specifications of local and imported
oil are similar, PSO maintains a uniform infrastructure for storage, handling, and
transport of RFO for the market in the country.
Fuel oil availability: PSO will need to develop special tendering mechanism for import
of heavier grade of RFO. In the absence of firm quantity contracts with GENCOs, it will
always be a challenge for PSO to estimate the order size and frequency of supply to
minimize its market risks.
Modification of port handling facilities: Modification of decanting facilities from ships
to port storage and onward handling of oil to depots will be required on the lines similar
to that of fuel oil handling systems at the power plants.
Dedicated storage: PSO will have to maintain dedicated storage for heavier RFO and
will have to modify oil handling systems at their depots.
PSO may not be willing to serve the market of heavy heavier grade RFO within the
prevailing pricing mechanisms and may look for premiums to cover the risks. Such
premiums will add to the delivered price of the heavier grade RFO, which may eliminate
the advantage offered by the lower international market price.
Use of Heavier Grade Fuel Oil in GENCOs
Switching to heavier grade RFO will require capital investment in the infrastructure for
storage, handling, transportation, and utilization of RFO. A detailed feasibility study
including the infrastructure analysis of PSO and required modifications at the steam
turbine and diesel engine based power plants and the assessment of resulting cost savings
is recommended to ascertain the economics of burning heavier grade fuel oils.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
8-3
Exhibit 8.1: RFO Specifications ISO 8217: 2010

Paramenter
Unit
2
Viscosity at 50 C
mm /s
3
Limit
RMA
RMB
RMD
RME
RMG
RMK
10
30
80
180
180
380
500
700
380
500
700
Max
10
30
80
180
180
380
500
700
380
500
700
Max
920
960
975
991
991
1010
10
14
15
18
20
Density at 15 C
kg/m
Micro Carbon
Residue
% mm
Max
2.5
Aluminium + silicon
mg/kg
Max
25
40
50
60
Sodium
mg/kg
Max
50
100
50
100
Ash
% mm
Max
0.04
0.070
0.10
0.15
Vanadium
mg/kg
Max
50
150
350
450
CCAI
Max
850
860
0.30
Water
870
% V/V
Max
Max
30
Max
30
Min
60
% m/m
Max
Statutory requirements
Total Sediment, aged % m/m
Max
0.10
Acid Number*
Max
2.5
Pour point (Upper)

Summer
Pour Point (Upper)

Winter
Flash Point
Sulphur
mgKOH/g
Used Lubricating Oils mg/kg

1
(ULO)
1
Calcium and Zinc
or Calcium and
Phosphorus

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Max
0.50
The fuel shall be free from ULO, and shall be considered to contain ULO when either one of the following
conditions is met:
Calcium >30 and Zinc >15 or
Calcium >30 and phosphorus >15
8-4
Appendix A: Fuel Oil Analysis Results

See following pages.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix A
A-1
ATTOCK REFINERY LIMITED

QUALITY CONTROL LABORATORY
FURNACE FUEL OIL TEST REPORT
Sample Report #: C-HBP-2
Sample Source:
Date Received: 07-01-11
Time Received:
1600 Hrs
Date Reported: 19-01-11
Time Reported:
1200 Hrs
No.
5
6
7
8
Test
Method
PSQCA5
Specifications
Results
JT-16
(1-E02962)
JT-2
(2-E02963)
JT-3
(3-E02964)
JT-4
(4-E02965)
GT-17
(6-E02966)
GT-3
(7-E02967)
0.9703
0.9710
0.9691
0.9851
0.9739
0.9722
1.
ASTM D12988 0.970 Max
2.
Flash Point, PMCC, C
ASTM D93
66 Min
83
80
85
82
95
85
3.
Pour Point, C
ASTM D97
24 Max
4.
ASTM D95
0.5 Max
0.2
1.8
1.2
1.2
8.0
4.2
5.
ASTM D4294
3.5 Max
3.1196
3.1467
2.8299
3.0688
2.8608
2.9092
6.
Ash Content, % Wt.
ASTM D482
0.1 Max
0.303
0.759
1354
0.272
0.014
0.505
7.
Clorific Value, Gross, BTU/Ib
ASTM D240
18,200 Min
18,208
17,844
17,981
17,929
16,813
17,438
PSQCA=Pakistan Standards for Quality Control Authority

JT=Jamshoro Storage Tanks
GT= Guddu Storage Tanks
ASTM=American Society for Testing And Materials

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix A
A-2
Sample Source:
Time Received:
1600 Hrs
Time Reported:
1200 Hrs
Method
PSQCA
Specifications
No.
Test
Results
GT-5
(7-E02968)
GT-8
(8-E02969)
GT-9
(9-E02970)
0.9699
0.9626
0.9503
MT9-2
(10-E02971)
MT-3
(6-E02972)
MT-A (Unit-4)
(7-E02973)
0.9749
0.9655
0.9700
1.
ASTM D1298 0.970 Max
2.
ASTM D93
66 Min
81
71
88
89
52
52
3.
Pour Point, C
ASTM D97
24 Max
4.
ASTM D95
0.5 Max
5.6
5.8
2.8
2.4
2.4
5.
ASTM D4294 3.5 Max
2.5506
2.7017
2.5465
2.8807
2.7814
2.7327
6.
Ash Content, % Wt.
ASTM D482
0.1 Max
0.032
0.004
0.018
2.942
1.365
4.202
7.
Clorific Value, Gross, BTU/Ib
ASTM D240
18,200 Min
16,860
17,364
17,428
17,678
17,229
17,123
MT= Muzaffargarh Storage Tanks

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix A
A-3
Sample Source:
Time Received:
1600 Hrs
Time Reported:
1200 Hrs
No.
Test
Method
PSQCA
Specification
s
Results
MT-B
(Unit-4)
(13-E02974)
MT-1
(14-E02975)
MT-2
(15-E02976)
MT-4
(16-E02977)
MT-5
(17-E02978)
MT-6
(18-E02979)
0.9713
0.9699
0.9690
0.9710
0.9663
0.9683
1.
ASTM D1298 0.970 Max
2.
ASTM D93
66 Min
58
54
66
68
67
68
3.
Pour Point, C
ASTM D97
24 Max
4.
ASTM D95
0.5 Max
2.6
1.6
1.4
2.8
5.
ASTM D4294 3.5 Max
3.0092
3.0396
3.0688
2.7182
2.8471
2.8318
6.
Ash Content, % Wt.
ASTM D482
0.1 Max
3.989
3.153
0.025
0.025
0.022
0.034
7.
Clorific Value, Gross,

BTU/Ib
ASTM D240
18,200 Min
17,076
17,350
18,014
18,089
17,803
17,826
Remarks: All eighteen samples does not comply Pakistan Standard and Quality Control Authority (PSQCA) specifications for Furnace Fuel Oil (FFO) in one or more tests.
High specific gravity values are obtained due to higher water contents. Moreover, the low calorific value is obtained due to high specific gravity, water and ash
contents. This report shall not be produced/made part of any investigation/inquiry/ or used for any litigation purpose. Samples were collected by M/s Hagler Bailly
Pakistan (HBP) and received at room temperature.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix A
A-4
Appendix B: Data and Results of the GENCOs

Capacity Test
Exhibit B.1: Results of the Capacity Test of TPS Jamshoro
Unit 1
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
21/01/2011
11:00
200
16
184
12:00
200
16
184
13:00
187
15
172
14:00
187
15
172
11:00
187
15
172
12:00
187
15
172
13:00
187
15
172
14:00
187
15
172
11:00
200
16
184
12:00
200
15
185
13:00
187
15
172
14:00
187
15
172
191
15
176
22/01/2011
23/01/2011
Average
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Unit 2
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
21/01/2011
11:00
125
118
12:00
125
119
13:00
125
119
14:00
125
118
11:00
125
119
12:00
122
116
13:00
122
115
14:00
110
103
11:00
102
96
12:00
112
106
13:00
117
110
14:00
113
107
119
112
22/01/2011
23/01/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-1
Unit 3
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
17/02/2011
11:00
132
12
120
12:00
130
11
119
13:00
125
12
113
14:00
124
11
113
10:00
124
12
112
11:00
125
11
114
12:00
124
12
112
13:00
124
12
112
10:00
124
12
112
11:00
118
12
106
12:00
125
12
113
13:00
125
12
113
125
12
113
18/02/2011
19/02/2011
Average
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Unit 4
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
17/02/2011
11:00
152
13
139
12:00
150
13
137
13:00
150
13
137
14:00
152
13
139
10:00
146
13
133
11:00
150
13
137
12:00
148
13
135
13:00
149
13
136
10:00
145
13
132
11:00
130
13
117
12:00
138
13
125
13:00
141
12
129
146
13
133
18/02/2011
19/02/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-2
Exhibit B.2: Results of the Capacity Test of TPS Guddu

CCP Block 2-A (GT7, GT8, ST5)
GT 7
GT 8
ST5
Date
Time
Gross
Output
(MW)
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
30/12/2010
1000
95
0.37
95
85
0.35
85
68
1100
95
0.37
95
85
0.38
85
1300
95
0.38
95
85
0.34
1500
80
0.40
80
85
1700
80
0.40
80
0900
95
0.36
1100
95
1300
31/12/2010
01/01/2011
02/01/2011
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
67
248
246
69
68
249
247
85
71
70
251
249
0.36
85
72
71
237
235
85
0.35
85
72
71
237
235
95
85
0.34
85
72
71
252
250
0.39
95
85
0.34
85
72
71
252
250
1600
90
0.39
90
85
0.34
85
73
72
248
246
1700
90
0.39
90
85
0.34
85
73
72
248
246
0900
95
0.37
95
85
0.35
85
67
66
247
245
1100
95
0.37
95
85
0.37
85
67
66
247
245
1300
95
0.36
95
85
0.37
85
68
67
248
246
1600
95
0.36
95
85
0.35
85
71
70
251
249
0900
95
0.38
95
85
0.36
85
72
71
252
250
1100
95
0.37
95
85
0.35
85
72
71
252
250
1300
95
0.38
95
85
0.36
85
69
68
249
247
1600
95
0.40
95
85
0.36
85
72
71
252
250
93
0.38
92
85
0.35
85
71
69
248
246
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
CCP Block 2-A

Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-3
CCP Block 1 (GT11, GT12, ST13)

GT 11
03/01/2011
0900
1100
80
80
80
80
83
80
243
239
1300
80
80
80
80
83
80
243
239
1600
81
81
80
80
84
81
245
241
0900
80
80
80
80
84
81
244
240
1100
80
80
80
80
84
81
244
240
1300
80
80
80
80
84
81
244
240
1600
80
80
80
80
85
82
245
241
0900
80
80
80
80
83
80
243
239
1100
80
80
80
80
84
81
244
240
1300
80
80
80
80
83
80
243
239
1600
80
80
80
80
83
80
243
239
0900
80
80
80
80
86
83
246
242
1100
80
80
80
80
86
83
246
242
1300
80
80
80
80
87
84
247
243
1600
80
80
80
80
87
84
247
243
80
80
80
80
84
81
244
240
06/01/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
CCP Block 1
Time
05/01/2011
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
ST 13
Date
04/01/2011
Gross
Output
(MW)
GT 12
Net Output
(MW)
Gross
Output
(MW)
Auxiliary
Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-4
Exhibit B.3: Results of the Capacity Test of TPS Muzaffargarh

Unit 2
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
09/01/2011
10:00
160
11
149
11:00
170
11
159
12:00
170
11
159
13:00
170
10
160
10:00
170
11
159
11:00
170
11
159
12:00
170
11
159
13:00
170
11
159
10:45
170
12
158
11:45
170
12
158
14:45
160
12
148
15:00
160
12
148
168
11
156
10/01/2011
11/01/2011
Average
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Unit 3
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
09/01/2011
11:00
140
13
127
12:00
140
13
127
13:00
140
13
127
14:00
140
13
127
10:00
140
13
127
11:00
140
13
127
12:00
140
13
127
13:00
140
13
127
10:45
140
14
126
11:45
140
14
126
14:45
140
14
126
15:00
140
14
126
140
13
127
10/01/2011
11/1/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-5
Unit 4
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
05/01/2011
14:55
202
21
181
15:55
202
21
181
16:55
202
21
181
17:55
203
22
181
10:15
201
21
180
11:15
202
21
181
12:!5
204
22
182
13:15
202
21
181
9:30
202
21
181
10:30
201
21
180
11:30
202
20
182
12:30
202
21
181
202
21
181
06/01/2011
07/01/2011
Average
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Unit 5
Date
Time
Gross Output
(MW)
02/01/2011
12:00
100
11
89
13:00
100
11
89
14:00
100
12
87
15:00
95
86
10:40
98
11
87
11:40
98
11
86
12:40
97
12
85
13:40
98
12
86
9:45
96
11
85
10:45
96
11
85
11:45
96
11
85
12:45
95
11
84
97
11
86
03/01/2011
04/01/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-6
Unit 6
Date
Time
02/01/2011
10:30
71
61
11:30
71
62
12:30
70
61
13:30
71
10
61
10:30
74
65
11:30
77
68
12:30
76
10
67
13:30
75
10
65
21:30
74
10
64
10:30
74
10
64
11:30
73
10
63
12:30
73
64
73
10
64
03/01/2011
04/01/2011
Average

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Gross Output
(MW)
Auxiliary Load
(MW)
Net Output
(MW)
Appendix B
B-7
Appendix C: Testing Procedures for Measurment

of GENCOs Gross and Net Heat
Rates
C.1 TPS Jamshoro
All of the four units at TPS Jamshoro have similar instrumentation arrangement for
measurement of fuel input and electrical output. Exhibit C.1 shows the energy
measurement system at TPS Jamshoro. The diagram indicates the ideal location of the
measuring instruments for appropriate measurement input and output energy of the plant
along with the actual instrumentation on ground at each unit. As can be seen from the
diagram, RFO received from the tank lorry is measured with dipstick because of the
absence of RFO flow meters at the oil receiving terminal. The separate RFO pipelines
feed each unit through a dedicated service tank (day tank) through a flow meter. The
calibration status of the flow meter however was not available and therefore the readings
of flow meters were not considered for the testing purpose.
The power station has arrangements to measure gross generation and auxiliary
consumption at each unit but have no meter at the sent-out of each unit within the power
station premises. The sent-out electrical energy meters for each unit are located at the
adjoining NTDC 500 kV grid station.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-1
Exhibit C.1: Schematic Diagram Show Status of Measurement of Fuel Input and Electrical Output TPS Jamshoro Unit 1-4

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-2
C.1.1
Power Testing Procedure and Data Collected
TPS Jamshoro has net sent-out meters at each unit located at the incoming busbar of the
NTDC switchyard. These meters are at the premises of the nearby NTDC grid station
and record energy sent-out at the scale of GWh. It is therefore, recommended that gross
heat rates and efficiency should be used for the benchmarking purpose in future. The
detailed procedure for calculation of heat rate for each unit is given below. The input and
output measurement arrangement is same for all the four units of this power station.
1. Heat rate tests were conducted in two (2) sessions (in morning and in evening) for
a duration of 3 hours.
2. These units have their individual service tanks where the RFO consumption was
measured using dip-tape during the test period. Flow meters were present on all
the units but calibration records of the flow meters were not available. The
readings from flow meters were noted for record purposes but not used in the heat
rate analysis.
3. The fuel feeding tank was isolated by closing respective valves of supply and
recirculation.
4. Each unit has gross energy generation meter and a unit auxiliary meter. Some of
the auxiliaries were fed from other sources such as starting transformer through a
separate meter. All units have independent net sent-out energy meters for energy
delivered at the busbar of the NTDC switchyard. However, the measurement
scale of the sent-out meter at the busbar of the NTDC switchyard was in GWh
and therefore it was not possible to accurately capture the variations in KWh.
Therefore, net generation was calculated at the unit output point by subtracting
total auxiliary consumption from gross generation. The step-up transformer and
cable losses for the units from generator terminal up to NTDC switchyard could
not be calculated.
5. The readings of all the input and output measurement points were taken
concurrently in the presence of station staff:
a. Unit fuel input: The RFO consumption volume (in kilo or 000 liters) was
measured at the service tank of the unit by using dip-tape and calibration
charts for the service tanks. Temperature at the service tank was also recorded
simultaneously. RFO consumption in metric tonnes was calculated after
applying corrections for temperature and specific gravity of RFO.
b. Unit energy output: Readings from gross energy meters, station auxiliary
meters and other meters of auxiliary consumption through starting
transformers were taken to measure the gross and net output of the plant after
applying appropriate multiplying factors for respective meters.
The detailed procedures for calculation of heat rates for TPS Jamshoro Units 1-4 are
presented in Appendix D.2.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-3
C.2 TPS Guddu

All the units at TPS Guddu have similar instrumentation arrangement for measurement of
fuel input and electrical output for its steam and CCP blocks. Only Steam Unit 3 of the
steam block could be tested. Steam unit 3 and 4 are dual fired units capable of both
natural gas and RFO firing.
RFO received from the tank lorry is measured with dipstick because of the absence of
RFO flow meters at the oil-receiving terminal. The RFO is fed to Unit 3 and 4 through a
common pipeline directly from main storage tanks. Both units have separate flow
meters, however, the calibration status of the flow meter was not available and therefore
the readings of flow meters were not considered for the testing purpose.
Guddu receives medium calorific value raw gas from Kandhkot, Mari and Chachar. Gas
meters are not present to measure the gas received at the power station. Since the
pipelines are owned by Guddu power station, gas suppliers bill the power station from the
meters installed at gas fields nearly 70-80 kilometers away from the power station. No
gas flow meters are present at Steam Units 1 and 2. The gas flow meters at Steam unit 3
and Block 2B were either not functional or not calibrated.
station premises. The sent-out electrical energy meters for each unit are located at the
adjoining NTDC 500 kV grid station.
Exhibit C.2 shows the energy measurement system at the steam block Units 3 and 4
whereas Exhibit C.3 shows the energy measurement system at the CCP block of TPS
Guddu.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-4
Exhibit C.2: Schematic Diagram Show Status of Measurement of Fuel Input and Electrical Output
Steam Block Unit 3-4

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-5
Steam Unit 1-2 and Steam Unit 4
Steam Units 1 and 2 were not tested due to absence of gas flow meters. Unit 4 could not
be tested due to long shutdown due to breakdown of air pre-heater.
Steam Unit 3
The detailed procedure for calculation of heat rate for Unit 3 is given here under:
1. The unit was running on mixed firing. The unit has operational gas and RFO flow
meters. The consumption of gas was noted from gas flow meters at the specified
time intervals.
2. These units do not have their individual service tanks and RFO is directly fed
from main storage tanks through a common line for Units 3 & 4. RFO Flowmeters were present on both the units but calibration status of the flow meters was
not available. Since Unit 4 was on prolonged shutdown, RFO was measured
directly at the feeding (main storage) tank using the dip-tape.
3. Since feeding tank did not require frequent refills, heat rate tests were conducted
in one session in the morning for duration of 6 hours.
4. The feeding tank was isolated by closing respective valves of supply and
recirculation.
5. The Unit has gross energy generation and sent-out meters with no discrete
measurement of auxiliary consumption.
a. Unit fuel input: The readings of flow-meters installed in respective units were
noted down concurrently with the dip measurement at the feeding tank.
Temperatures at storage tanks were also recorded simultaneously.
b. Unit energy output: The measurements were taken from gross energy and sent
out meters. The auxiliary consumption and losses in step-up transformer and
cables/lines up to sent-out busbar of the power station were calculated by
subtracting the sent-out energy from the gross energy generation.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-6
TPS CCP Block 2-A and CCP Block 1

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-7
CCP Blocks
The detailed procedure for calculation of heat rate for Block 1 and Block 2-A is given
here under:
1. Due to availability of functional flow meters for gas measurement, heat rate tests
were conducted in single session over the day for the duration of 8 hours.
2. The gas consumption was measured at the gas flow meters installed at the inlet of
each gas turbine.
3. The unit has meters for gross energy generation, auxiliary consumption and
energy sent-out at all units.
a. Unit fuel input: The reading of flow-meters installed in respective control
rooms were noted down.
b. Unit energy output: The measurements were taken from gross energy,
auxiliary supply, and sent out meters.
The detailed procedures for calculation of heat rates for TPS Guddu CCP Block are
C.3 TPS Muzaffargarh
TPS Muzaffargarh was constructed in three phases and each phase has its own
arrangements for input and output of energy. Phase 1 consists of Units 1-3, Phase
2consists of Units 5 and 6 whereas Unit 4 is managed as separate entity in the power
station.
Exhibit C.4, C.5 and C.6 present energy measurement system at Phase 1, Phase 2 and
Phase 3 of TPS Muzaffargarh. The diagram indicates the ideal location of the measuring
instruments for appropriate measurement input and output energy of the plant along with
the actual instrumentation on ground at each unit. Similar to arrangements at other
GENCO power stations, RFO received from the tank lorry is measured with dipstick
because of the absence of RFO flow meters at the oil receiving terminal. Although power
station has dedicated storage facilities for each phase, these facilities were interconnected
and are now used as common storage facilities for units. Units 1-4 do not have service
tanks are instead fed directly from main storage tanks. Units 5-6 have dedicated service
tanks. RFO flow meters are present on all units but these were either not functional or
their calibration status was not known and therefore the readings of flow meters were not
considered for the testing purpose.
station premises. A number of units did not have discrete sources for their auxiliary
consumption and were sharing the sources with other units. The sent out electrical
energy meters for the power station are located at the adjoining NTDC grid stations.

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-8
TPS Muzaffargarh Unit 2-3

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-9
C.3.1
Unit 1
This unit was not available for testing due to an extended shut down.
Units 2 and 3
duration of 3 hours.
2. These units do not have their individual service tanks and RFO is directly fed
from main storage tanks through a common line for Units 1-3. Flow-meters were
present on both the units but calibration records for the meters were not available.
Prior to running main heat rate tests on the units, the flow meters were manually
adjusted to bring their readings in close proximity to the oil consumption
measured through the dip method from the main storage tank feeding oil to these
units.
3. The feeding tank was isolated by closing respective valves of supply and
recirculation
4. This unit has gross energy generation meter and station auxiliary meters. Some of
the auxiliary requirement was fed from other sources such as starting transformers
through a separate meter. This unit does not have an independent net output
energy meter so net output was calculated by subtracting total auxiliary
consumption from the gross generation. The losses in step-up transformer and
cables/lines up to sent-out busbar of the power station could not be calculated due
to absence of sent-out meter at the unit.
a. Unit fuel input: The reading of flow-meters installed in respective control
rooms were noted down concurrently with the dip measurement at the feeding
tank. Temperatures at storage tanks and flow meters were also recorded
simultaneously.
b. Unit energy output: Readings from gross energy meters, station auxiliary
meters and other meters of auxiliary consumption through starting
transformers were taken to measure the gross and net output of the plant after
The detailed procedures for calculation of heat rates for Units 2-3 TPS Muzaffargarh are

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-10
TPS Muzaffargarh Unit 4

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-11
Unit 4
2. Unit 4 does not have its individual service tanks and RFO is directly fed from a
dedicated main storage tanks. Flow-meter was present but calibration status of
the meter was not available. The actual RFO consumption was directly measured
through dip method from the main storage tank feeding to the unit.
3. The feeding tank was isolated by closing respective valves of supply, recirculation
and condensate etc.
4. The Unit has gross energy generation meter and station auxiliary meters. The
Unit does not have an independent net output energy meter so net output was
calculated by subtracting total auxiliary consumption from the gross generation.
The losses in step-up transformer and cables/lines up to sent-out busbar of the
power station could not be calculated due to absence of sent out meter at the Unit.
5. The readings of all the input and output measurement points were taking
a. Unit fuel input: The RFO consumption was measured at the feeding tank with
the dip-tape. Temperature at storage tank was also recorded simultaneously.
b. Unit energy output: Readings from gross energy meters and station auxiliary
meters were taken to measure the gross and net output of the plant after
The detailed procedures for calculation of heat rates for Unit 4 TPS Muzaffargarh are

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-12
TPS Muzaffargarh Unit 5-6

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-13
Units 5 and 6
2. The Units have their individual service tanks. Flow-meters were present but were
not functional at these units so the actual RFO consumption was directly
measured through dip method from the service tank feeding to the unit.
3. The feeding tank was isolated by closing respective valves of supply, recirculation
and condensate etc.
4. The Unit has gross energy generation meter and station auxiliary meters. The
Unit does not have an independent net output energy meter so net output was
calculated by subtracting total auxiliary consumption from the gross generation.
The losses in step-up transformer and cables/lines up to sent-out busbar of the
power station could not be calculated due to absence of sent out meter at the Unit.
5. The readings of all the input and output measurement points were taking
a. Unit fuel input: The RFO consumption was measured at the feeding tank with
the dip-tape. Temperature at storage tank was also recorded simultaneously.
b. Unit energy output: Readings from gross energy meters and station auxiliary
meters were taken to measure the gross and net output of the plant after
The detailed procedures for calculation of heat rates for Units 2-3 TPS Muzaffargarh are

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix C
C-14
Appendix D: Calculation of GENCOs Gross and

Net Heat Rates

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
Appendix D
D-1
Exhibit D.1: Calculation of Gross and Net Heat Rate and Efficiency TPS Jamshoro
Gross
Generation
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter Readings
Aux. Consumption
000' kWh
000' kWh
0.922
150.5
32,399
0.922
0.922
54.8
39,881
3,816
32,788
59.00
0.931
0.931
188.3
35,776
1.690
61.00
0.930
0.930
65.3
39,881
4,902
36,267
1515
4.540
61.00
0.930
0.930
176.0
36,795
1715
2.060
58.00
0.931
0.932
79.8
39,881
3,837
37,196
1000
4.715
58.00
0.931
0.932
183.1
40,535
1200
2.195
59.50
0.931
0.932
85.1
39,881
3,910
40,932
1430
4.370
59.50
0.931
0.932
169.6
41,402
1630
2.000
62.00
0.922
0.922
76.6
39,881
3,709
41,771
1015
4.333
64.00
0.928
0.928
167.6
45,159
1215
1.996
65.00
0.927
0.928
77.0
39,881
3,614
45,529
1515
4.115
48.00
0.937
0.938
160.8
46,088
1715
1.820
61.00
0.930
0.930
70.4
39,881
3,604
46,458
1430
3.918
62.00
0.922
1630
1.430
62.00
1000
4.850
1230
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/27/11
95.7
122.9
96.2
98.0
93.0
90.6
90.4
687
27,392
389
491
401
397
369
370
370
2,787
184,644
184,675
184,936
185,017
185,313
185,383
185,684
185,759
185,789
22,713
40
33
22,743
33
22,756
22,759
33
22,741
22,758
30
22,729
22,754
30
22,726
22,742
30
185,714
22,739
31
185,413
000' kWh
22,728
32
185,345
000'
kWh
22,724
39
185,048
000' kWh
22,712
32
184,974
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
Gross
Generation
Meter Readings
000' kWh
Aux. Feed
through Startup Tr.
Total Heat Input
000' kWh
Aux. through
start-up
transformer
meter Readings
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
MMBtu
Meter
s
RFO Specific
Gravity @
1
0.55% Water
Contents
MBtu/
Tonne
RFO Specific
Gravity
Tonnes
Tank Temperature
Tonne
s
Time
Dip-Tape
Readings
RFO
Consumption
22-1-2011
21-1-2011
20-1-2011
19-1-2011
Date
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
Calculations of Gross and Net Heat Rates and Efficiency Unit 1 TPS Jamshoro
31
31
31
232
Appendix D
D-2
Total Fuel Input
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
27,392
2,787
9,829
MMBtu
Gross Efficiency
34.7%
Auxiliary Consumption
232
000 kWh
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
2,555
10,720
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
Net Efficiency
31.8%
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
1. Standard RFO specific gravity was adjusted for water contents in RFO. The RFO
present at the TPS Jamshoro had average water contents of 1.1% at the main storage
tanks. It was assessed to reduce by 50% at temperature range of 55-65 Co at the
service tank. A water content of 0.55% was therefore assessed for be present at
service tank stage. In future, however, a sample for RFO analysis should be taken
from service tank instead of storage tank to calculate the exact concentration of water
contents.
2. RFO volume converted to weight by using calibration charts of the service tanks.
3. The RFO present at the TPS Jamshoro had average heating value of 40,103
MMBtu/Tonne at water contents of 1.1% at the main storage tanks. The heating
value was also corrected for the water contents of 0.55% at service tank stage which
worked out to be 38,881 MMBtu/Tonne.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-3
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
457,286
82,265
226
82,278
82,294
226
82,307
82,421
225
82,434
82,450
230
82,463
82,574
230
82,588
82,601
226
82,614
21-1-2011 1030
4.010 62.00
0.922
0.922
175.8
1230
2.195 62.00
0.922
0.922
105.1
70.7 39,881
1500
4.060 63.00
0.929
0.929
179.1
1700
2.335 65.00
0.927
0.928
111.4
67.7 39,881
22-1-2011 1030
4.025 68.00
0.926
0.926
177.1
1230
2.333 68.00
0.926
0.926
111.1
66.0 39,881
1500
3.667 61.00
0.930
0.930
163.9
1700
1.997 61.00
0.930
0.930
98.4
23-1-2011 1000
3.535 57.00
0.932
0.932
159.1
1200
1.884 57.00
0.932
0.932
94.2
1400
3.915 56.00
0.933
0.933
174.1
1600
2.245 56.00
0.933
0.933
108.5
65.7 39,881
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
65.5 39,881
64.9 39,881
400.5
2,820 457,512
457,795
2,698 458,021
460,016
2,633 460,241
460,517
2,612 460,747
462,700
2,589 462,930
463,157
2,618 463,383
15,971
1,362
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
000'
kWh
Aux. through
start-up
transformer meter
Readings
Aux. Feed through
Start-up Tr.
MMBtu
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
MBtu/
Tonne
Total Heat Input
Aux. Consumption
Tonnes Tonnes
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
RFO Consumption
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
RFO Specific
1
Gravity @ 0.55%
Water Contents
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter Readings
Gross Generation
Meters
RFO Specific
Gravity
Time
Tank Temperature
Date
Dip-Tape
Readings
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
7,227
13
7,228
7,229
13
13
13
7,249
14
14
7,247
7,248
7,239
7,246
14
7,238
7,239
13
7,229
7,237
13
14
14
14
83
Appendix D
D-4
Total Fuel Input
15,971
MMBtu
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
1,362
11,727
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
Gross Efficiency
29.1%
83
000 kWh
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
1,279
12,492
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
Net Efficiency
27.3%
tanks. It was assessed to reduce by 50% at temperature range of 55-65 C at the
contents.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-5
17-2-2011 1130 3.870 64.00
0.928
0.928
185.3
1330 1.995 64.00
0.928
0.928
111.5
73.9
39,881
MMBtu
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
Aux. through startup transformer

meter Readings
Aux. Consump-tion
Auxiliary
Consumption Meter
Readings
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
908,168
164,906
2,946
908,418
250 164,929
000'
kWh
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
MBtu/
Tonne
Gross Generation
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
Total Heat Input
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
RFO Consumption
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
RFO Specific
1
Gravity @ 0.55%
Water Contents
Tonne Tonne
s
s
Aux. Feed through

Start-up Tr.
Meter
s
RFO Specific
Gravity
Tank Tempe-rature
Dip-Tape Readings
Time
Date
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
35,505
23
35,507
25
1500
1700
39,881
18-2-2011 1000 4.160 67.00
0.926
0.927
196.4
1200 2.260 67.00
0.926
0.927
121.7
74.7
39,881
1330 3.970 63.00
0.929
0.929
189.4
1530 2.065 63.00
0.929
0.929
114.3
19-2-2011 1000 4.105 57.00
0.932
0.932
1200 2.260 56.00
0.933
1330 4.050 58.00

1530 2.190 58.00
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
910,948
165,170
2,980
911,193
245 165,193
23
35,535
26
911,380
165,210
35,536
75.1
39,881
2,995
911,636
256 165,235
25
35,539
27
195.4
913,950
165,170
35,562
0.933
122.5
72.9
39,881
2,908
914,194
244 165,193
23
35,564
26
0.931
0.932
193.1
914,378
165,499
35,566
0.931
0.932
119.6
73.5
39,881
2,933
914,626
248 165,522
24
35,568
26
370.1
14,761
1,243
35,532
130
Appendix D
D-6
Total Fuel Input
14,761
MMBtu
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
1,243
11,879
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
Gross Efficiency
28.7%
Sent Out Energy
7
8
130
000 kWh
Net Heat Rate
1,113
13,262
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
Net Efficiency
25.7%
contents.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-7
Total Heat Input
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
Gross Generation
Auxiliary
Consumption Meter
Readings
Aux. Consump-tion
Aux. through startup transformer

meter Readings
Aux. Feed through

Start-up Tr.
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
MMBtu
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
000' kWh
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
000'
kWh
980,414
162,654
162,947
295
162,973
26
984,264
162,992
3,299 984,557
293
163,018
26
25
19
63.00
0.929
0.929
203.9
1400
2.200
66.00
0.927
0.927
119.4
84.5
1500
1700
39,881
18-2-2011 1030
4.330
67.00
0.926
0.927
203.1
983,751
1230
2.200
67.00
0.926
0.927
119.3
83.8
39,881
3,340 984,045
1400
4.370
61.00
0.930
0.930
205.4
1600
2.280
64.00
0.928
0.928
122.7
82.7
19-2-2011 1030
4.370
57.00
0.932
0.932
205.9
1230
2.370
60.00
0.930
0.931
126.5
79.4
1430
4.140
59.00
0.931
0.931
196.6
1600
2.650
59.00
0.931
0.931
137.7
58.9
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
RFO Consumption
4.338
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
17-2-2011 1200
RFO Specific
1
Gravity @ 0.55%
Water Contents
RFO Specific
Gravity
Meters
Date
Time
Tank Tempe-rature
MBtu/
Tonne
Dip-Tape Readings
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
Tonnes Tonnes
389.2
39,881
39,881
39,881
39,881
3,370 980,766
987,219
3,165 987,495
987,775
2,348 987,981
15,521
352
277
206
1,423
162,680
163,260
26
26
26
163,285
163,310
163,329
25
19
26
122
Appendix D
D-8
Total Fuel Input
15,521
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
Gross Efficiency
1,423
10,909
31.3%
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
1,301
11,935
Net Efficiency
28.6%
122
MMBtu
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
000 kWh
000 kWh
Btu/kWh
contents.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-9
Exhibit D.2: Calculation of Gross and Net Heat Rate and EfficiencyTPS Guddu
CCP Block 2-A: GT 7
Date
1000
MCF
801,690
MWh
83,904
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
5,503
2.
1100
803,240
84,000
5,504
3.
1300
806,290
84,189
5,505
4.
1500
809,210
84,370
5,507
1700
811,840
84,530
5,508
900
834,350
85,935
5,518
7.
1100
837,360
86,122
5,519
8.
1300
9.
1600
844,750
86,583
5,522
10.
1700
846,110
86,670
5,523
1.
Time
30-12-2010
5.
6.
11.
31-12-2010
01-01-2011
Gas Flow
Gross Generation
900
869,830
88,162
5,533
12.
1100
872,800
88,350
5,534
13.
1300
875,850
88,542
5,535
14.
15.
16.
02-01-2011
17.
18.
88,822
5,537
900
905,150
90,435
5,547
1100
909,170
90,623
5,548
1300
20.
912,220
1600
916,820
Initial Gas Meters Reading
801,690
MCF
2.
Final Gas Reading
916,820
MCF
3.
Difference
115,130
MCF
4.
Gas Calorific Value
802.11
Btu/Scf
5.
Total Fuel Input
92,347
MMBtu
6.
Intial Gross Generation Reading
83,904
MWh
7.
Final Gross Generation Reading
91,096
MWh
8.
Difference
7,192
MWh
9.
Gross Generation
7,192,000
kWh
10.
Gross Heat Rate
12,840
11.
Gross Efficiency
27%
12.
Intial Auxiliary Consumprion Reading
5,503
13.
Final Auxiliary Consumprion Reading
5,552
14.
Difference
15.
Mutliplying Factor
16.
17.
Sent Out Energy
18.
Net Heat Rate
12,896
19.
Net Efficiency
26%
R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
90,811
1.
880,430
19.
1600
5,550
91,096
5,552
Btu/kWh
49
640
31,360
kWh
7,160,640
kWh
Btu/kWh
Appendix D
D-10
CCP Block 2-A: GT 8

Date
Time
Gas Flow
Gross Generation
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
6,559
1000
MCF
891,530
MWh
41,323
2.
1100
892,980
41,408
6,560
3.
1300
895,890
41,581
6,561
4.
1500
898,780
41,751
6,562
5.
1700
901,580
41,922
6,563
900
924,220
43,286
6,572
7.
1100
927,120
43,460
6,573
8.
1300
9.
1600
934,270
43,887
6,575
10.
1700
935,630
43,973
6,576
900
958,290
45,334
6,585
12.
1100
961,070
45,502
6,586
13.
1300
963,960
45,672
6,587
14.
15.
1600
968,300
45,928
6,589
900
992,330
47,358
6,598
17.
1100
995,220
47,529
6,609
18.
1300
998,090
47,699
6,600
19.
20.
1600
1.
6.
11.
16.
30-12-2010
31-12-2010
01-01-2011
02-01-2011
1.
2.
Final Gas Reading
891,530
MCF
1,002,440
MCF
3.
Difference
4.
Gas Calorific Value
110,910
802.11
MCF
Btu/Scf
5.
Total Fuel Input
88,962
MMBtu
6.
41,323
MWh
7.
47,956
MWh
8.
Difference
6,633
MWh
6,633,000
kWh
9.
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
13,412
11.
Gross Efficiency
25%
12.
6,559
13.
6,601
14.
Difference
15.
Mutliplying Factor
16.
17.
Sent Out Energy
18.
Net Heat Rate
13,467
19.
Net Efficiency
25%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
1,002,440
10.
47,956
6,601
Btu/kWh
42
640
26,880
kWh
6,606,120
kWh
Btu/kWh
Appendix D
D-11
CCP Block 2-A: ST5

Date
1.
Time
30-12-2010
Gas Flow
MCF
1000
Gross
Generation
MWh
15,623
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
4,157
2.
1100
15,694
4,157
3.
1300
15,828
4,158
4.
1500
15,975
4,158
5.
1700
16,104
4,159
900
17,109
4,160
7.
1100
17,243
4,161
8.
1300
9.
1600
17,578
4,162
10.
1700
17,650
4,162
900
18,690
4,164
12.
1100
18,821
4,164
13.
1300
18,955
4,165
6.
11.
31-12-2010
01-1-2011
14.
1600
19,159
4,165
900
20,276
4,167
17.
1100
29,400
4,167
18.
1300
20,533
4,168
15.
16.
02-1-2011
19.
20.
1600
1.
MCF
2.
Final Gas Reading
MCF
3.
Difference
MCF
4.
Gas Calorific Value
5.
Total Fuel Input
6.
15,623
MWh
7.
20,739
MWh
8.
Difference
5,116
MWh
9.
Gross Generation
5,116,000
kWh
10.
Gross Heat Rate
11.
Gross Efficiency
12.
4,157
13.
4,168
14.
Difference
15.
Mutliplying Factor
16.
17.
Sent Out Energy
18.
Net Heat Rate
19.
Net Efficiency

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
20,739
4,168
Btu/Scf
-
MMBtu
Btu/kWh
11
10,000
110,000
kWh
5,006,000
kWh
Btu/kWh
Appendix D
D-12
CCP Block 2-A

1.
Total Fuel Input
2.
Gross Generation
3.
Gross Heat Rate
4.
Gross Efficiency
5.
6.
Sent Out Energy
7.
Net Heat Rate
8.
Net Efficiency

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
181,309 MMBtu
18,941,000 kWh
9,572 Btu/kWh
36%
168,240 kWh
18,772,760 kWh
9,658 Btu/kWh
35%
Appendix D
D-13
CCP Block 2-A: GT 11

Date
1100
MCF
256,005
MWh
952,690
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
729,322
3.
1300
256,713
952,855
730,200
4.
1.
2.
03-01-2011
Time
5.
Gas Flow
Gross Generation
1600
257,770
953,102
731,538
900
1100
263,804
264,533
954,502
954,672
738,999
739,908
8.
1300
265,225
954,832
740,757
9.
10.
1600
266,288
955,079
742,077
900
1100
272,323
273,034
956,481
956,646
749,434
750,322
956,811
751,225
6.
7.
11.
12.
04-01-2011
05-01-2011
13.
1300
14.
15.
1600
274,805
957,058
752,576
900
1100
1300
280,832
281,542
282,214
958,458
958,623
958,789
760,040
760,877
761,706
16.
17.
18.
06-01-2011
19.
20.
1600
273,743
283,328
1.
256,005
HCM
2.
Final Gas Reading
283,328
HCM
3.
Difference
27,323
HCM
4.
Unit conversion
5.
Gas Consumption
96,490
MCF
6.
Gas Calorific Value
802.11
Btu/Scf
7.
Total Fuel Input
77,396
MMBtu
8.
952,690
MWH
9.
959,036
MWH
10.
Difference
6,346
MWH
11.
Gross Generation
12.
Gross Heat Rate
12,196
13.
Gross Efficiency
28%
14.
729,322
15.
763,007
16.
17.
Sent Out Energy
18.
Net Heat Rate
12,261
19.
Net Efficiency
28%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
3.53
6,346,000
959,036
763,007
HCM to MCF
kWh
Btu/kWh
33,685
kWh
6,312,315
kWh
Btu/kWh
Appendix D
D-14
CCP Block 2-A: GT 12

Date
1.
03-01-2011
Time
Gas Flow
Gross Generation
MCF
MWh
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
2.
1100
873,114
476,780
326,176
3.
1300
873,818
476,944
326,672
4.
5.
1600
874,899
477,193
327,448
900
880,922
478,579
331,606
7.
1100
881,632
478,743
332,118
8.
1300
882,360
478,910
332,639
9.
10.
1600
883,437
479,158
333,401
900
889,480
480,550
337,454
12.
1100
890,178
480,711
337,939
13.
1300
890,901
480,878
338,454
14.
15.
1600
891,941
481,119
339,193
900
897,970
482,515
343,244
17.
1100
898,684
482,678
343,689
18.
1300
899,413
482,845
344,145
19.
20.
1600
6.
11.
16.
04-01-2011
05-01-2011
06-01-2011
900,414
1.
2.
Final Gas Reading
3.
Difference
4.
Unit conversion
5.
Gas Consumption
96,409
MCF
6.
Gas Calorific Value
802.11
Btu/Scf
7.
Total Fuel Input
77,331
MMBtu
8.
476,780
MWH
9.
483,100
MWH
10.
Difference
6,320
MWH
11.
Gross Generation
12.
Gross Heat Rate
12,236
13.
Gross Efficiency
28%
14.
326,176
15.
344,877
16.
17.
Sent Out Energy
18.
Net Heat Rate
12,272
19.
Net Efficiency
28%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
873,114
HCM
900,414
HCM
27,300.00
HCM
3.53
6,320,000
483,100
344,877
HCM to MCF
kWh
Btu/kWh
18,701
kWh
6,301,299
kWh
Btu/kWh
Appendix D
D-15
CCP Block 2-A: ST13

Date
1.
2.
03-01-2011
Time
Gas Flow
MCF
1100
Gross Generation
MWh
675,538
Auxiliary
Consumption
Reading
344,914
3.
1300
675,703
4.
5.
1600
675,956
344,931
900
1100
677,382
677,551
344,990
344,997
8.
1300
677,721
345,004
9.
10.
1600
677,975
345,015
900
1100
679,402
679,571
345,074
345,081
13.
1300
679,739
345,088
14.
15.
1600
679,989
345,099
900
1100
681,409
681,583
345,157
345,164
18.
1300
681,758
345,171
19.
20.
1600
682,020
6.
7.
04-01-2011
11.
12.
16.
17.
05-10-2011
06-01-2011
1.
MCF
2.
Final Gas Reading
MCF
3.
Difference
MCF
4.
Gas Calorific Value
Btu/Scf
5.
Total Fuel Input
MMBtu
6.
675,538
MWH
7.
682,020
MWH
8.
Difference
6,482
MWH
9.
Gross Generation
6,482,000
kWh
10. Gross Heat Rate
Btu/kWh
11. Gross Efficiency
0%
12. Intial Auxiliary Consumprion Reading
344,914
MWh
13. Final Auxiliary Consumprion Reading
345,181
MWh
267
MWh
14. Difference
15. Mutliplying Factor
16. Auxiliary Consumption
kWh
6,215,000
kWh
18. Net Heat Rate
Btu/kWh
19. Net Efficiency
0%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
345,181
1,000
267,000
17. Sent Out Energy
344,920
Appendix D
D-16
CCP Block 1
1.
Total Fuel Input
2.
Gross Generation
3.
Gross Heat Rate
4.
Gross Efficiency
5.
6.
Sent Out Energy
7.
Net Heat Rate
8.
Net Efficiency

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
154,727 MMBtu
19,148,000 kWh
8,081 Btu/kWh
42%
319,386 kWh
18,828,614 kWh
8,218 Btu/kWh
42%
Appendix D
D-17
Exhibit D.3: Calculation of Gross and Net Heat Rate and Efficiency TPS Muzaffargarh
Calculations of Gross and Net Heat Rates and Efficiency Unit 2 TPS Muzaffargarh
9-01-2011
1015
12.888
81.00
0.918
14,794
1415
12.608
80.00
0.919
14,482
1530
12.514
80.00
0.919
14,374
1730
12.368
80.00
0.919
14,206
11.217
81.00
0.918
12,876
1345
10.947
80.00
0.919
12,574
1500
10.861
80.00
0.919
12,475
1900
10.584
79.00
0.919
12,165
11-01-2011 1045
9.507
82.00
0.918
10,906
1445
9.232
80.00
0.919
10,604
1500
9.214
80.00
0.919
10,583
1900
8.932
80.00
0.919
10,260
10-01-2011 945
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
Total Heat Input

for Unit 2
Gross
Generation
Meter Readings
Gross
Generation
Total Auxiliary
Consumption
from Table B
Tonnes
Total RFO
Consump-tion
for Unit 2
Tonnes
Proportion of
RFO attributed
2
to Unit 2
Total RFO
Consump-tion
for Unit 2 and 3
Co
RFO Weight in
1
Tank
Meters
RFO Specific
Gravity
Time
Tank Temperature
Date
Dip-Tape
Readings
Table A
Tonnes
MBtu/ Tonne
MMBtu
000' kWh
kWh
kWh
5,277,770
312.4
55%
171.6
39,278
6,740
5,278,445
675,000
41,976
340,000
21,780
680,000
42,240
672,000
42,134
668,000
47,784
630,000
50,160
3,665,000
246,074
5,278,655
167.7
55%
92.5
39,278
3,634
5,278,995
5,281,765
302.1
55%
166.3
39,278
6,534
5,282,445
5,282,660
310.6
56%
172.6
39,278
6,779
5,283,332
5,286,002
302.3
54%
164.5
39,278
6,460
5,286,670
5,286,710
323.9
1,719.1
53%
171.2
938.7
39,278
6,724
36,870
5,287,340
Appendix D
D-18
11-01-2011
8,993
1415
8,994
1530
8,994
1730
8,994
945
8,998
1345
8,999
1500
8,999
1900
9,000
1045
9,003
1445
9,004
1500
9,004
1900
9,005
22,704
11,088
6,565
0.68
17,952
22,440
6,566
0.35
9,240
6,570
21,938
6,570
0.70
18,480
21,648
0.71
18,744
21,384
1,320
41,976
0.11
2,904
1,452
21,780
0.10
2,640
1,320
42,240
0.11
2,904
1,452
42,134
0.48
12,672
6,336
47,784
0.58
15,312
7,656
50,160
Difference
Aux. through
start-up
transformer meter
Readings
2,640
6,574
6,575
3,182
3,182
3,182
5,142
0.75
19,800
6,574
0.81
0.10
3,182
6,574
0.82
3,182
3,181
6,570
0.83
kWh
3,182
6,569
0.85
kWh
3,181
6,566
0.42
kWh
kWh
6,565
0.86
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
10-01-2011
1015
Aux. Feed through

Start-up Tr. For
Unit 2
9-01-2011
Aux. Feed through

Start-up Tr.
kWh
Aux. Consumption Side B
Aux. Consumption Side B4
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter B Readings
Aux. Consumption Side A4
Time
Aux. ConsumptionSide A
Date
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter A Readings
Table B
5,142
5,142
0.80
21,120
5,143
Total
246,074
Appendix D
R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
D-19
Total Fuel Input
36,870
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
3,665,000
10,060
Gross Efficiency
33.9%
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
Net Efficiency
246,074
3,418,926
10,784
MMBtu
kWh
Btu/kWh
kWh
kWh
Btu/kWh
31.6%
1. RFO volume converted to weight by using calibration charts of the storage tanks
using the conversion of 1,250 Tonnes/meter.
2. Unit 1-3 are supplied RFO from a common storage tank. The total supply from the
storage tank was divided on the basis of proportion of the consumption recorded by
RFO flow meters installed at each of these units. Unit 1 was not operational so total
consumption was divided between Unit 2 and 3 accordingly
3. The RFO present at the TPS Muzaffargarh had average heating value of 39,278
MBtu/Tonne at the main storage tank feeding Unit 2 and 3.
4. Auxiliary consumption of Sides A and B and start-up Transformer converted to kWh
by using the multiplying factor of 26,400 for Auxiliary Meters. The start-up
transformer was shared between Unit 2 and 3 so its total supply was divided equally
between Units 2 and 3.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-20
10-01-2011
11-01-2011
12.608
80.00
0.919
14,482
1530
12.514
80.00
0.919
14,374
1730
12.368
80.00
0.919
14,206
945
11.217
81.00
0.918
12,876
1345
10.947
80.00
0.919
12,574
1500
10.861
80.00
0.919
12,475
1900
10.584
79.00
0.919
12,165
1045
9.507
82.00
0.918
10,906
1445
9.232
80.00
0.919
10,604
1500
9.214
80.00
0.919
10,583
1900
8.932
80.00
0.919
10,260
Total Auxiliary
Consumption
from Table B
1415
Gross
Generation
14,794
Gross
Generation
Meter
Readings
0.918
Total Heat
Input for Unit 2
81.00
RFO Average
4
Heating Value
12.888
Total RFO
Consump-tion
for Unit 2
1015
Proportion of
RFO attributed
3
to Unit 2
Total RFO
Consump-tion
for Unit 2 and 3
Co
RFO Specific
Gravity
Meters
Time
Total
R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Tonnes
Tank Temperature
9-01-2011
Tonnes
Dip-Tape
Readings
Date
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
Table A
Tonnes
MBtu/ Tonne
MMBtu
000' kWh
kWh
kWh
6,055,416
312.4
45%
140.8
39,278
5,532
6,055,974
558,000
41,712
280,000
21,648
560,000
40,656
570,000
40,841
555,000
46,728
560,000
45,936
3,083,000
237,521
6,056,155
167.7
45%
75.2
39,278
2,953
6,056,435
6,058,735
302.1
45%
135.8
39,278
5,334
6,059,295
6,059,465
310.6
44%
138.0
39,278
5,422
6,060,035
6,062,240
302.3
46%
137.9
39,278
5,415
6,062,795
6,062,830
323.9
1,719.1
47%
152.7
780.5
39,278
5,999
30,655
6,063,390
Appendix D
D-21
11-01-2011
9,815
1415
9,816
1530
9,816
1730
9,816
945
9,819
1345
9,820
1500
9,820
1900
9,821
1045
9,824
1445
9,825
1500
9,825
1900
9,826
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
19,800
10,164
9,577
0.78
20,592
19,536
9,578
0.38
10,032
9,582
19,325
9,583
0.75
19,800
19,272
0.76
20,064
19,272
1,320
41,712
0.11
2,904
1,452
21,648
0.10
2,640
1,320
40,656
0.11
2,904
1,452
40,841
0.48
12,672
6,336
46,728
0.58
15,312
7,656
45,936
Difference
Aux. through
start-up
transformer
meter Readings
2,640
9,586
9,587
3,182
3,182
3,182
5,142
0.80
21,120
9,587
0.73
0.10
3,182
9,586
0.73
3,182
3,181
9,582
0.73
kWh
3,182
9,581
0.74
kWh
3,181
9,577
0.39
kWh
kWh
9,576
0.75
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
10-01-2011
1015
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr. For Unit 2
9-01-2011
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr.
kWh
Aux. Consumption Side B
Aux. Consumption Side B4
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter B
Readings
Aux. Consumption Side A5
Time
Aux. Consumption Side A
Date
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter A
Readings
Table B
5,142
5,142
0.72
19,008
5,143
237,521
Appendix D
D-22
Total Fuel Input
30,655
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
3,083,000
9,943
Gross Efficiency
34.3%
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
Net Efficiency
237,521
2,845,479
10,773
MMBtu
kWh
Btu/kWh
kWh
kWh
Btu/kWh
31.7%
using the conversion of 1,250 Tonnes/meter.
2. Unit 1-3 are supplied RFO from common storage tank. The total supply from storage
tank was divided on the basis of proportion of the consumption recorded by RFO
flow meters installed at each of these units. Unit 1 was not operational so total
consumption was divided between Unit 2 and 3 accordingly
4. Auxiliary consumption of Sides A and B and start-up Transformer converted to kWh
by using the multiplying factor of 26,400 for Auxiliary Meters. The start-up

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-23
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter Readings
Gross Generation
Gross Generation
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
499,933
51,219
0.936
0.937
13,749
39,278
500,079
51,293
50.00
0.936
0.937
13,739
500,087
51,297
10.455
50.00
0.936
0.937
13,551
369.4
39,278
14,509
500,234
301.0
1,444,800
51,373
154.0
154,000
900
10.025
51.00
0.935
0.936
12,986
500,696
51,610
1230
9.888
52.00
0.935
0.936
12,801
39,278
500,843
51,683
1245
9.877
52.00
0.935
0.936
12,786
500,853
51,688
1645
9.717
52.00
0.935
0.936
12,579
406.6
39,278
15,972
501,022
326.0
1,564,800
51,775
165.0
165,000
910
9.060
53.00
0.934
0.935
11,722
501,707
52,126
1310
8.900
53.00
0.934
0.935
11,515
39,278
501,877
52,209
1520
8.805
54.00
0.934
0.934
11,385
501,968
52,254
1850
8.672
54.00
0.934
0.934
11,213
508.8
39,278
19,986
502,118
411.0
1,972,800
52,328
202.0
202,000
0.936
1830
10.608
50.00
1840
10.600
2210
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
RFO Specific
Gravity
50.00
1,284.9
MBtu/
Tonne
MMBtu
50,468
kWh
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
10.740
Time
Aux.
Consumption
5-01-2011 1500
7-01-2011
Total Heat Input
RFO
Consumption
13,921
Co
6-01-2011
RFO Average
3
Heating Value
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
0.937
Tank Temperature
Tonnes
Dip-Tape
Readings
Tonnes
Meters
Date
RFO Specific
1
Gravity @ 0.55%
Water Contents
kWh
4,982,400
521,000
Appendix D
D-24
Total Fuel Input
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
Gross Efficiency
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
Net Efficiency
50,468
4,982,400
10,129
MMBtu
kWh
Btu/kWh
33.7%
521,000
4,461,400
11,312
kWh
kWh
Btu/kWh
30.2%
using the conversion of 1,384.74 Tonnes/meter.
MBtu/Tonne at the main storage tank feeding Unit 4.
3. Auxiliary consumption converted to kWh by using the multiplying factor of 1,000 for
Auxiliary Meters.

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-25
4-01-2011
RFO Average
4
Heating Value
Total Heat Input

for Unit 2
Tonnes
MBtu/ Tonne
MMBtu
1230
5.345
38.00
0.943
0.943
197
1530
3.050
41.00
0.941
0.942
112
1630
5.135
38.00
0.943
0.943
189
1930
3.105
39.00
0.942
0.943
114
1030
4.990
36.00
0.944
0.945
184
1400
2.985
36.00
0.944
0.945
110
1530
5.545
36.00
0.944
0.945
204
1900
3.100
36.00
0.944
0.945
114
915
5.415
35.00
0.945
0.945
200
1245
2.925
36.00
0.944
0.945
108
1605
5.540
37.00
0.943
0.944
204
1935
3.130
37.00
0.943
0.944
115
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
kWh
kWh
0.8
287,280
35,151
0.7
275,940
35,151
0.6
245,700
30,615
0.8
317,520
41,010
0.8
317,520
39,593
0.8
313,740
40,065
1,757,700
221,585
Difference
Total RFO
Consump-tion for
Unit 2
Tonnes
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
RFO Specific
Gravity @ 1.08%
Water Contents
RFO Specific
Gravity
Co
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
from Table B
3-01-2011
Meters
Gross Generation
2-01-2011
Time
Tank Temperature
Date
Dip-Tape
Readings
Table A
5,827
84.6
39,707
3,361
5,827
5,828
74.8
39,707
2,969
5,828
5,832
73.9
39,707
2,933
5,833
5,833
90.1
39,707
3,577
5,834
5,838
91.8
39,707
3,647
5,838
5,839
88.7
503.9
39,707
3,523
20,010
5,840
Appendix D
D-26
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr.
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr. For Unit 5
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
kWh
kWh
kWh
0.01
2,263
1,131
35,151
0.01
2,263
1,131
35,151
0.01
2,640
1,320
30,615
0.01
2,640
1,320
41,010
0.01
2,640
1,320
39,593
0.01
2,640
1,320
40,065
Difference
Aux. through
start-up
transformer meter
Readings
Aux.
5
Consumption
Aux.
Consumption
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter Readings
Table B
kWh
19,929
1,314
19,929
0.72
34,020
19,930
1,314
1,314
19,930
0.72
34,020
19,934
1,314
1,314
19,935
0.62
29,295
19,335
1,314
1,314
19,336
0.84
39,690
19,940
1,314
1,314
19,940
0.81
38,273
19,941
1,314
1,314
19,942
0.82
38,745
1,314
Total
221,585
Total Fuel Input
20,010
MMBtu
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
1,757,700
11,384
kWh
Btu/kWh
Gross Efficiency
30.0%
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
Net Efficiency
221,585
kWh
1,536,115
13,026
kWh
Btu/kWh
26.2%
1. RFO volume converted to weight by using calibration charts of the service tanks
using the conversion of 39 Tonnes/meter.
2. The RFO present at the TPS Muzaffargarh had an average heating value of 39,278
3. Auxiliary consumption was converted to kWh by using multiplying factor of 47,250
for Auxiliary Meters. In addition, reading of start-up Transformer was converted to
kWh by using the multiplying factor of 264,000 for transformer Meters. The start-up

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-27
RFO Average
4
Heating Value
Total Heat Input

for Unit 2
40.00
0.942
0.942
173
1405
2.730
41.00
0.941
0.942
100
1540
4.710
39.00
0.942
0.943
173
1840
2.955
40.00
0.942
0.942
109
1045
4.435
38.00
0.943
0.943
163
1400
2.445
40.00
0.942
0.942
90
1600
4.790
38.00
0.943
0.943
176
1930
2.705
38.00
0.943
0.943
100
900
4.840
37.00
0.943
0.944
178
1230
2.795
39.00
0.942
0.943
103
1500
4.535
37.00
0.943
0.944
167
1830
2.455
39.00
0.942
0.943
90
Total

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
kWh
kWh
0.6
226,800
33,450
0.5
204,120
28,461
0.6
238,140
32,505
0.7
253,260
34,395
0.6
241,920
33,922
0.7
245,700
34,395
1,409,940
197,128
Difference
Total RFO
Consump-tion for
Unit 2
4.710
RFO Specific
Gravity
1035
Gross Generation
Meter Readings
RFO Weight in
2
Tank
MMBtu
Co
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
Table B
4-01-2011
MBtu/ Tonne
Meters
Time
Gross Generation
3-01-2011
Tonnes
Tank Temperature
2-01-2011
Tonnes
Dip-Tape
Readings
Date
RFO Specific
Gravity @ 1.08%
Water Contents
Table A
3,650
72.8
39,707
2,892
3,651
3,651
64.6
39,707
2,565
3,651
3,654
73.3
39,707
2,912
3,655
3,655
76.7
39,707
3,046
3,656
3,659
75.4
39,707
2,995
3,659
3,660
76.7
439.6
39,707
3,045
17,455
3,661
Appendix D
D-28
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr.
Aux. Feed
through Start-up
Tr. For Unit 5
Total Aux.
Consump-tion
kWh
kWh
kWh
0.01
2,640
1,320
33,450
0.01
2,112
1,056
28,461
0.01
2,640
1,320
32,505
0.01
2,640
1,320
34,395
0.01
2,640
1,320
33,922
0.01
2,640
1,320
34,395
Difference
Aux. through
start-up
transformer
meter Readings
Aux.
5
Consumption
Aux.
Consumption
Auxiliary
Consumption
Meter Readings
kWh
17,297
17,298
1,314
0.68
32,130
17,298
17,299
1,314
0.58
27,405
17,302
17,302
0.66
31,185
0.70
33,075
1,314
1,314
0.69
32,602
17,307
17,308
1,314
1,314
17,306
17,307
1,314
1,314
17,303
17,304
1,314
1,314
1,314
0.70
33,075
1,314
Total
197,128
Total Fuel Input
17,455
MMBtu
2
3
Gross Generation
Gross Heat Rate
1,409,940
12,380
kWh
Btu/kWh
Gross Efficiency
27.6%
6
7
Sent Out Energy

Net Heat Rate
Net Efficiency
197,128
kWh
1,212,812
14,392
kWh
Btu/kWh
23.7%
1. RFO volume converted to weight by using calibration charts of the service tanks
using the conversion of 39 Tonnes/meter.
3. Auxiliary consumption was converted to kWh by using multiplying factor of 47,250
for Auxiliary Meters. In addition reading of start-up Transformer was converted to
kWh by using the multiplying factor of 264,000 for transformer Meters. The start-up

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix D
D-29
Appendix E: Power Plant Availability


R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-1
Exhibit E.1: Power Plant Availability-TPS Jamshoro

Steam Unit 1
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
250 MW
187 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
135
100
85
52
739
744
99%
Aug, 09
150
125
67
46
152
592
744
80%
Sep, 09
165
125
77
57
91
629
720
87%
Oct, 09
165
63
78
58
38
706
744
95%
Nov, 09
150
125
58
39
216
504
720
70%
Dec, 09
744
744
0%
Jan, 10
200
63
12
11
632
112
744
15%
Feb, 10
200
125
85
77
29
643
672
96%
Mar, 10
180
140
80
65
114
630
744
85%
Apr, 10
187
63
88
75
40
680
720
94%
May, 10
180
125
90
74
744
744
100%
Jun, 10
187
125
51
43
266
454
720
63%
Jul, 10
180
63
84
69
63
681
744
92%
Aug, 10
180
63
87
71
744
744
100%
Sep, 10
160
70
77
56
28
692
720
96%
Oct, 10
180
65
56
46
83
98
564
744
76%
Nov, 10
150
63
34
23
370
84
266
720
37%
Total FY2010
200
63
64
50
1,592
737
6,431
8,760
73%
Total FY2011 YTD*
180
63
68
53
481
245
2,946
3,672
80%
* Data available till November 2010

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-2
Steam Unit 2
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
160 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor (%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
180
100
79
81
116
628
744
84%
Aug, 09
180
100
62
66
180
564
744
76%
Sep, 09
165
90
84
81
716
720
99%
Oct, 09
170
100
75
75
105
639
744
86%
Nov, 09
175
100
61
63
208
512
720
71%
Dec, 09
170
140
82
82
61
683
744
92%
Jan, 10
170
120
80
80
10
734
744
99%
Feb, 10
120
120
69
69
108
564
672
84%
Mar, 10
170
100
76
76
78
666
744
90%
Apr, 10
165
90
88
85
720
720
100%
May, 10
165
90
64
63
140
599
744
81%
Jun, 10
160
100
85
80
15
705
720
98%
Jul, 10
140
100
94
77
744
744
100%
Aug, 10
140
100
86
71
21
723
744
97%
Sep, 10
130
100
60
46
134
586
720
81%
Oct, 10
110
110
27
17
527
217
744
29%
Nov, 10
170
100
31
31
279
162
279
720
39%
Total FY2010
180
90
75
75
140
889
7,731
8,760
88%
Total FY2011 YTD*
170
100
60
49
806
318
2,549
3,672
69%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-3
Steam Unit 3
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
160 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor (%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
130
100
72
55
142
602
744
81%
Aug, 09
135
120
90
71
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
140
100
90
74
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
130
100
66
50
216
528
744
71%
Nov, 09
175
100
38
39
398
322
720
45%
Dec, 09
180
100
68
72
164
580
744
78%
Jan, 10
170
100
74
74
744
744
100%
Feb, 10
170
100
63
63
157
48
467
672
70%
Mar, 10
170
100
85
85
25
719
744
97%
Apr, 10
160
100
91
86
720
720
100%
May, 10
160
100
65
62
193
551
744
74%
Jun, 10
170
150
94
94
720
720
100%
Jul, 10
170
100
91
91
744
744
100%
Aug, 10
170
100
48
48
320
25
399
744
54%
Sep, 10
170
100
58
58
156
564
720
78%
Oct, 10
170
100
47
47
316
428
744
57%
Nov, 10
544
176
720
0%
Total FY2010
180
100
75
69
770
572
7,417
8,760
85%
Total FY2011 YTD*
170
49
49
864
673
2,134
3,672
58%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-4
Steam Unit 4
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
160 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor (%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
165
130
86
83
24
720
744
97%
Aug, 09
160
140
63
59
226
518
744
70%
Sep, 09
150
100
84
74
73
647
720
90%
Oct, 09
170
100
78
78
86
658
744
88%
Nov, 09
175
100
94
97
720
720
100%
Dec, 09
175
100
94
97
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
170
100
86
86
58
686
744
92%
Feb, 10
170
100
62
62
141
531
672
79%
Mar, 10
170
100
91
91
744
744
100%
Apr, 10
165
100
81
79
62
658
720
91%
May, 10
160
150
90
85
744
744
100%
Jun, 10
150
100
69
60
159
561
720
78%
Jul, 10
155
100
60
55
253
491
744
66%
Aug, 10
170
100
57
57
235
502
744
67%
Sep, 10
170
100
17
17
125
595
720
83%
Oct, 10
170
100
79
79
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
140
100
62
51
166
554
720
77%
Total FY2010
175
100
81
79
141
688
7,931
8,760
91%
Total FY2011 YTD*
170
100
55
52
488
298
2,886
3,672
79%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-5
Exhibit E.2: Power Plant Availability-TPS Guddu

Steam Unit 1
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
60 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
50
15
83%
44%
101
643
744
86%
Aug, 09
50
10
73%
43%
172
572
744
77%
Sep, 09
50
25
88%
43%
42
678
720
94%
Oct, 09
50
25
97%
44%
740
744
100%
Nov, 09
55
30
80%
46%
91
629
720
87%
Dec, 09
60
10
87%
48%
10
734
744
99%
Jan, 10
60
10
85%
48%
29
715
744
96%
Feb, 10
55
50
97%
49%
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
55
30
92%
48%
34
710
744
95%
Apr, 10
55
35
41%
41%
361
359
720
50%
May, 10
50
20
73%
43%
162
582
744
78%
Jun, 10
50
25
72%
40%
133
587
720
82%
Jul, 10
50
20
47%
34%
268
476
744
64%
Aug, 10
50
20
88%
42%
10
735
744
99%
Sep, 10
50
20
92%
43%
11
709
720
98%
Oct, 10
55
50
39%
47%
434
310
744
42%
Nov, 10
720
720
Total FY2010
60
10
81%
45%
361
777
7,622
8,760
87%
Total FY2011 YTD*
55
20
53%
33%
1,154
289
2,229
3,672
61%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-6
Steam Unit 2
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
60 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Schedld.
Factor @ DC Outage (Hrs.)
(%)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
50
10
70%
44%
204
540
744
73%
Aug, 09
50
10
92%
43%
25
719
744
97%
Sep, 09
50
10
74%
43%
717
720
100%
Oct, 09
50
10
96%
49%
60
684
744
92%
Nov, 09
70
30
75%
56%
106
614
720
85%
Dec, 09
70
50
93%
60%
738
744
99%
Jan, 10
70
50
93%
62%
30
714
744
96%
Feb, 10
70
50
77%
62%
138
534
672
79%
Mar, 10
70
10
81%
59%
96
648
744
87%
Apr, 10
65
20
77%
51%
84
636
720
88%
May, 10
60
10
87%
53%
78
666
744
90%
Jun, 10
60
40
79%
45%
20
700
720
97%
Jul, 10
50
50
93%
42%
741
744
100%
Aug, 10
55
15
64%
43%
744
744
100%
Sep, 10
55
15
43%
38%
149
571
720
79%
Oct, 10
65
25
57%
46%
18
726
744
98%
Nov, 10
65
40
85%
56%
81
639
720
89%
Total FY2010
70
10
83%
52%
850
7,910
8,760
90%
Total FY2011 YTD*
65
15
68%
45%
251
3,421
3,672
93%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-7
Steam Unit 3
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
210 MW
170 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Schedld.
Factor @ DC Outage (Hrs.)
(%)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
140
60
51%
67%
325
40
380
744
51%
Aug, 09
140
50
58%
65%
233
65
446
744
60%
Sep, 09
140
30
68%
66%
70
650
720
90%
Oct, 09
140
30
81%
69%
165
579
744
78%
Nov, 09
155
50
92%
73%
47
673
720
93%
Dec, 09
170
100
94%
76%
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
170
100
74%
75%
151
593
744
80%
Feb, 10
160
140
98%
75%
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
160
20
83%
73%
100
644
744
87%
Apr, 10
150
40
83%
69%
97
623
720
87%
May, 10
150
50
79%
68%
125
619
744
83%
Jun, 10
140
20
66%
60%
197
523
720
73%
Jul, 10
120
30
79%
45%
740
744
99%
Aug, 10
100
20
19%
45%
393
91
259
744
35%
Sep, 10
130
10
9%
43%
32
688
720
96%
Oct, 10
130
100
98%
61%
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
130
80
56%
61%
720
720
100%
Total FY2010
170
20
77%
70%
558
1,057
7,145
8,760
82%
Total FY2011 YTD*
130
10
52%
51%
393
128
3,151
3,672
86%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-8
Steam Unit 4
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
150 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Schdld.
Factor @ DC Outage Hours
(%)
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
110
20
81%
43%
738
744
99%
Aug, 09
120
40
62%
45%
169
575
744
77%
Sep, 09
100
20
6%
36%
666
54
720
7%
Oct, 09
100
20
63%
63%
387
357
744
48%
Nov, 09
150
20
88%
66%
36
684
720
95%
Dec, 09
150
130
99%
71%
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
150
130
81%
69%
116
628
744
84%
Feb, 10
150
30
73%
65%
137
535
672
80%
Mar, 10
150
30
92%
68%
26
718
744
96%
Apr, 10
150
10
60%
57%
178
542
720
75%
May, 10
150
110
92%
66%
744
744
100%
Jun, 10
140
20
77%
56%
64
656
720
91%
Jul, 10
120
20
32%
39%
391
353
744
47%
Aug, 10
120
50
17%
51%
744
744
100%
Sep, 10
0%
0%
720
720
100%
Oct, 10
0%
0%
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
150
10
56%
0%
717
720
100%
Total FY2010
150
10
73%
59%
1,786
6,974
8,760
80%
Total FY2011 YTD*
150
10
21%
18%
394
3,278
3,672
89%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-9
Block 2-A: GT Unit 7

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
90 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
85
10
94
81
13
731
744
98%
Aug, 09
85
10
98
83
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
85
80
78
85
719
720
100%
Oct, 09
85
80
102
88
741
744
100%
Nov, 09
90
25
100
90
715
720
99%
Dec, 09
90
70
102
92
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
90
60
99
91
17
727
744
98%
Feb, 10
90
80
100
90
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
90
42
78
88
149
595
744
80%
Apr, 10
90
42
92
85
13
707
720
98%
May, 10
92
55
83
77
738
744
99%
Jun, 10
80
60
88
73
24
696
720
97%
Jul, 10
90
70
79
82
96
648
744
87%
Aug, 10
94
80
90
86
13
731
744
98%
Sep, 10
97
90
93
92
10
710
720
99%
Oct, 10
99
75
91
90
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
103
50
81
86
14
706
720
98%
92
10
93
85
149
81
8,530
8,760
97%
103
50
87
87
133
3,539
3,672
96%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD*

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-10
Block 2-A: GT Unit 8

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
90 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
80
40
91
74
735
744
99%
Aug, 09
75
40
102
77
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
75
75
80
77
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
75
75
97
81
28
716
744
96%
Nov, 09
85
80
99
85
716
720
99%
Dec, 09
85
40
101
87
12
732
744
98%
Jan, 10
85
40
99
86
16
728
744
98%
Feb, 10
85
80
101
86
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
90
65
91
82
744
744
100%
Apr, 10
90
65
83
76
10
710
720
99%
May, 10
85
55
72
67
60
684
744
92%
Jun, 10
70
60
100
70
718
720
100%
Jul, 10
80
70
88
70
741
744
100%
Aug, 10
75
70
89
71
744
744
100%
Sep, 10
70
70
102
71
720
720
100%
Oct, 10
80
42
59
76
282
462
744
62%
Nov, 10
85
65
96
82
715
720
99%
Total FY2010
90
40
93
79
142
8,618
8,760
98%
Total FY2011 YTD*
85
42
87
74
282
3,382
3,672
92%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-11
Block 2-A: Steam Unit 5

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
82 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
72
10
76
57
31
713
744
96%
Aug, 09
70
10
82
59
14
730
744
98%
Sep, 09
68
30
70
61
717
720
100%
Oct, 09
68
30
94
68
23
721
744
97%
Nov, 09
80
20
88
72
13
707
720
98%
Dec, 09
78
34
90
70
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
78
10
86
69
22
722
744
97%
Feb, 10
82
65
87
72
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
79
23
82
65
744
744
100%
Apr, 10
79
23
68
56
29
691
720
96%
May, 10
68
12
72
49
743
744
100%
Jun, 10
66
74
49
712
720
99%
Jul, 10
70
10
71
53
56
688
744
93%
Aug, 10
67
36
74
51
32
712
744
96%
Sep, 10
54
45
86
47
716
720
99%
Oct, 10
48
74
36
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
51
22
79
41
10
710
720
99%
Total FY2010
82
81
62
144
8,616
8,760
98%
Total FY2011 YTD*
70
77
46
102
3,570
3,672
97%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-12
CCP Block 2-A (GT7, GT8, ST5)

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
300 MW
262 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
237
60
88
71
18
726
744
98%
Aug, 09
230
60
94
73
739
744
99%
Sep, 09
228
185
76
74
719
720
100%
Oct, 09
228
185
98
79
18
726
744
98%
Nov, 09
255
125
96
82
713
720
99%
Dec, 09
253
144
98
83
740
744
99%
Jan, 10
253
110
95
82
18
726
744
98%
Feb, 10
257
225
96
83
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
259
130
84
78
50
694
744
93%
Apr, 10
259
130
82
72
17
703
720
98%
May, 10
245
122
76
64
22
722
744
97%
Jun, 10
216
125
88
64
11
709
720
98%
Jul, 10
240
150
79
69
52
692
744
93%
Aug, 10
236
186
85
70
15
729
744
98%
Sep, 10
221
205
94
70
715
720
99%
Oct, 10
227
124
76
67
94
650
744
87%
Nov, 10
239
137
86
70
10
710
720
99%
Total FY2010
259
60
89
76
50
122
8,588
8,760
98%
Total FY2011 YTD*
240
124
84
69
94
81
3,497
3,672
95%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-13
Block 2-B: GT Unit 9

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
90 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
70
44
101
71
740
744
99%
Aug, 09
70
44
94
71
53
691
744
93%
Sep, 09
70
16
101
71
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
70
16
24
72
559
13
172
744
23%
Nov, 09
720
720
Dec, 09
744
744
Jan, 10
744
744
Feb, 10
672
672
Mar, 10
744
744
Apr, 10
720
720
May, 10
744
744
Jun, 10
720
720
Jul, 10
744
744
Aug, 10
90
80
76
693
51
744
7%
Sep, 10
100
80
39
84
383
337
720
47%
Oct, 10
100
80
61
78
160
584
744
78%
Nov, 10
100
20
23
76
169
549
720
76%
70
16
27
24
6,367
70
2,323
8,760
27%
100
20
26
63
913
1,237
1,521
3,672
41%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD*

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-14
Block 2-B: GT Unit 10

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
90 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
75
45
90
72
50
694
744
93%
Aug, 09
75
60
100
75
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
75
10
89
75
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
75
10
33
80
503
241
744
32%
Nov, 09
720
720
Dec, 09
744
744
Jan, 10
744
744
Feb, 10
672
672
Mar, 10
744
744
Apr, 10
720
720
May, 10
744
744
Jun, 10
108
10
47
77
244
476
720
66%
Jul, 10
90
20
80
79
72
672
744
90%
Aug, 10
105
60
67
77
64
680
744
91%
Sep, 10
100
70
78
88
82
638
720
89%
Oct, 10
100
50
64
81
153
591
744
79%
Nov, 10
100
10
18
63
250
28
443
720
61%
Total FY2010
108
10
30
32
5,591
294
2,875
8,760
33%
Total FY2011 YTD*
105
10
62
78
250
399
3,023
3,672
82%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-15
Block 2-B: Steam Unit 6

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
100 MW
82 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
65
52
54
278
466
744
63%
Aug, 09
66
82
54
741
744
100%
Sep, 09
67
26
83
56
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
67
26
25
52
503
240
744
32%
Nov, 09
720
720
Dec, 09
744
744
Jan, 10
744
744
Feb, 10
672
672
Mar, 10
744
744
Apr, 10
720
720
May, 10
744
744
Jun, 10
720
720
Jul, 10
744
744
Aug, 10
744
744
Sep, 10
720
720
Oct, 10
744
744
Nov, 10
720
720
67
20
18
6,311
281
2,167
8,760
25%
3,672
3,672
0%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD*

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-16
CCP Block 2-B (GT9, GT10, ST6)

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
300 MW
262 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
210
95
82
66
111
633
744
85%
Aug, 09
211
109
92
67
19
725
744
97%
Sep, 09
212
52
91
67
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
212
52
27
68
522
218
744
29%
Nov, 09
720
720
Dec, 09
744
744
Jan, 10
744
744
Feb, 10
672
672
Mar, 10
744
744
Apr, 10
720
720
May, 10
744
744
Jun, 10
108
10
47
26
480
81
159
720
22%
Jul, 10
90
20
80
26
496
24
224
744
30%
Aug, 10
195
140
39
51
248
252
244
744
33%
Sep, 10
200
150
59
57
240
155
325
720
45%
Oct, 10
200
130
63
53
248
104
392
744
53%
Nov, 10
200
30
20
46
380
10
331
720
46%
Total FY2010
212
28
24
6,090
215
2,455
8,760
28%
Total FY2011 YTD*
200
20
52
47
1,612
545
1,515
3,672
41%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-17
Block 1: GT Unit 11
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
136 MW
90 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
80
60
101
60
744
744
100%
Aug, 09
80
80
102
60
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
80
16
88
59
718
720
100%
Oct, 09
80
16
103
61
744
744
100%
Nov, 09
80
80
101
60
715
720
99%
Dec, 09
100
60
84
62
742
744
100%
Jan, 10
100
60
80
59
10
734
744
99%
Feb, 10
80
80
101
60
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
80
80
91
60
88
657
744
88%
Apr, 10
80
80
100
60
713
720
99%
May, 10
80
80
101
60
740
744
99%
Jun, 10
80
20
99
59
712
720
99%
Jul, 10
80
60
102
60
743
744
100%
Aug, 10
80
30
91
59
744
744
100%
Sep, 10
80
40
102
60
720
720
100%
Oct, 10
80
20
99
60
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
80
70
100
60
720
720
100%
100
16
96
60
126
8,634
8,760
99%
80
20
99
60
3,671
3,672
100%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD*

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-18
Block 1: GT Unit 12
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
136 MW
80 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
80
13
101
60
742
744
100%
Aug, 09
80
80
102
60
744
744
100%
Sep, 09
80
70
100
59
720
720
100%
Oct, 09
80
70
102
60
741
744
100%
Nov, 09
80
80
102
60
720
720
100%
Dec, 09
80
80
92
61
80
664
744
89%
Jan, 10
80
80
102
61
10
734
744
99%
Feb, 10
80
80
102
60
672
672
100%
Mar, 10
80
80
103
61
744
744
100%
Apr, 10
80
80
101
60
720
720
100%
May, 10
80
40
101
59
743
744
100%
Jun, 10
80
60
101
59
720
720
100%
Jul, 10
80
80
102
60
744
744
100%
Aug, 10
80
20
91
58
740
744
99%
Sep, 10
80
20
58
53
720
720
100%
Oct, 10
80
50
101
59
744
744
100%
Nov, 10
80
70
100
60
717
720
100%
Total FY2010
80
13
101
60
96
8,664
8,760
99%
Total FY2011 YTD*
80
20
90
58
3,665
3,672
100%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-19
Block 1: Steam Unit 13

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
143 MW
98 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
91
38
82
53
16
728
744
98%
Aug, 09
90
11
97
62
11
733
744
99%
Sep, 09
92
38
90
58
717
720
100%
Oct, 09
92
38
99
64
744
744
100%
Nov, 09
95
41
97
64
720
720
100%
Dec, 09
98
43
90
62
744
744
100%
Jan, 10
98
43
89
63
28
716
744
96%
Feb, 10
65
54
142
65
668
672
99%
Mar, 10
94
42
92
61
744
744
100%
Apr, 10
91
38
54
48
205
515
720
72%
May, 10
43
38
95
29
742
744
100%
Jun, 10
83
38
60
35
720
720
100%
Jul, 10
42
35
90
28
31
713
744
96%
Aug, 10
40
28
95
28
32
712
744
96%
Sep, 10
40
20
79
28
158
562
720
78%
Oct, 10
82
30
47
43
285
459
744
62%
Nov, 10
84
38
89
52
720
720
100%
Total FY2010
98
11
91
55
269
8,491
8,760
97%
Total FY2011 YTD*
84
20
80
36
507
3,165
3,672
86%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-20
CCP Block 1 (GT11, GT12, ST13)

Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
415 MW
268 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Schdld.
Outage
Hours
Forced
Outage
Hours
Available
Hours
Total Hours
of Month
Availability
Factor
(Time Base)
Jul, 09
251
111
94
57
738
744
99%
Aug, 09
250
171
100
60
740
744
100%
Sep, 09
252
124
93
59
718
720
100%
Oct, 09
252
124
101
62
743
744
100%
Nov, 09
255
201
100
61
718
720
100%
Dec, 09
278
183
88
61
27
717
744
96%
Jan, 10
278
183
89
61
16
728
744
98%
Feb, 10
225
214
113
61
671
672
100%
Mar, 10
254
202
95
61
29
715
744
96%
Apr, 10
251
198
84
56
73
647
720
90%
May, 10
203
158
100
49
742
744
100%
Jun, 10
243
118
86
51
717
720
100%
Jul, 10
202
175
99
49
11
733
744
99%
Aug, 10
200
78
92
48
12
732
744
98%
Sep, 10
200
80
80
47
54
666
720
92%
Oct, 10
242
100
82
54
98
646
744
87%
Nov, 10
244
178
96
57
719
720
100%
Total FY2010
278
111
95
58
165
8,595
8,760
98%
Total FY2011 YTD*
244
78
90
51
177
3,495
3,672
95%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-21
Exhibit E.1: Power Plant Availability-TPS Muzaffargarh

Steam Unit 1
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
210 MW
160 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
155
110
86
66
51
744
100%
Aug, 09
155
110
78
61
46
65
679
91%
Sep, 09
145
110
80
58
44
37
683
95%
Oct, 09
160
130
86
69
52
78
666
90%
Nov, 09
160
110
99
79
60
717
100%
Dec, 09
160
110
76
61
46
166
578
78%
Jan, 10
160
130
86
69
53
64
680
91%
Feb, 10
150
110
89
67
51
55
617
92%
Mar, 10
150
110
58
44
33
122
622
84%
Apr, 10
140
130
98
69
52
720
100%
May, 10
140
115
61
43
32
242
502
68%
Jun, 10
130
110
71
46
35
22
698
97%
Jul, 10
110
105
69
38
29
118
626
84%
Aug, 10
110
100
37
21
16
187
557
75%
Sep, 10
100
95
80
40
30
101
619
86%
Oct, 10
100
65
80
40
30
69
675
91%
Nov, 10
100
65
31
16
12
40
680
94%
Total FY2010
160
110
81
61
46
852
7,908
90%
Total FY2011 YTD
110
65
59
31
23
515
3,157
86%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-22
Steam Unit 2
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
210 MW
200 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
180
110
95
85
81
744
100%
Aug, 09
180
110
99
89
85
744
100%
Sep, 09
180
110
98
88
84
11
709
98%
Oct, 09
180
170
99
89
85
744
100%
Nov, 09
165
120
29
24
23
498
223
31%
Dec, 09
200
175
53
53
51
206
91
447
60%
Jan, 10
180
140
93
84
80
56
680
91%
Feb, 10
150
110
82
74
70
95
577
86%
Mar, 10
150
110
90
81
77
71
673
90%
Apr, 10
140
130
100
90
86
719
100%
May, 10
140
115
96
86
82
744
100%
Jun, 10
130
110
82
74
70
54
666
93%
Jul, 10
110
105
74
66
63
471
273
37%
Aug, 10
110
100
62
48
46
31
713
96%
Sep, 10
100
95
61
54
52
39
681
95%
Oct, 10
100
65
82
74
70
86
658
88%
Nov, 10
100
65
85
77
73
720
100%
Total FY2010
200
110
85
76
73
703
378
7,671
88%
Total FY2011 YTD
110
65
73
64
61
471
155
3,046
83%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-23
Steam Unit 3
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
210 MW
160 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
150
110
86
64
49
744
100%
Aug, 09
160
110
71
57
43
102
642
86%
Sep, 09
140
105
82
57
44
38
682
95%
Oct, 09
160
110
73
58
44
66
678
91%
Nov, 09
160
80
89
71
54
36
684
95%
Dec, 09
160
70
37
30
23
194
550
74%
Jan, 10
90
50
68
31
23
131
613
82%
Feb, 10
80
65
57
23
18
261
412
61%
Mar, 10
130
70
61
39
30
Apr, 10
130
110
83
54
41
720
100%
May, 10
110
80
94
52
39
738
99%
Jun, 10
130
110
52
34
26
66
654
91%
Jul, 10
160
145
34
28
21
742
100%
Aug, 10
160
110
83
66
51
67
677
91%
Sep, 10
160
110
78
62
47
14
706
98%
Oct, 10
160
100
83
67
51
81
663
89%
Nov, 10
160
100
54
43
33
720
100%
Total FY2010
160
50
71
47
36
899
7,117
81%
Total FY2011 YTD
160
100
66
53
41
163
3,509
96%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-24
Steam Unit 4
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
320 MW
250 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
230
130
86
80
63
742
100%
Aug, 09
235
145
87
83
65
741
100%
Sep, 09
235
130
96
92
72
720
100%
Oct, 09
245
215
82
82
64
91
653
88%
Nov, 09
250
160
78
79
62
99
621
86%
Dec, 09
250
160
96
98
77
19
725
97%
Jan, 10
250
160
98
100
78
739
99%
Feb, 10
250
220
88
100
78
672
100%
Mar, 10
245
160
90
90
70
14
730
98%
Apr, 10
235
160
89
88
69
720
100%
May, 10
230
160
90
85
66
738
99%
Jun, 10
220
160
87
78
61
720
100%
Jul, 10
200
110
30
28
22
442
301
40%
Aug, 10
185
140
37
28
22
333
102
310
42%
Sep, 10
195
160
76
60
47
120
601
83%
Oct, 10
205
165
75
63
49
145
14
886
119%
Nov, 10
205
160
28
24
18
183
210
109
15%
Total FY2010
250
130
89
88
69
240
8,520
97%
Total FY2011 YTD
205
110
49
41
32
1,222
327
2,205
60%

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-25
Steam Unit 5
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
120 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
80
80
57
31
18
161
583
78%
Aug, 09
100
20
45
30
18
252
492
66%
Sep, 09
90
40
34
20
12
425
295
41%
Oct, 09
110
25
16
12
603
141
19%
Nov, 09
120
110
22
17
10
424
111
185
26%
Dec, 09
115
70
24
19
11
380
161
204
27%
Jan, 10
110
50
79
58
35
98
646
87%
Feb, 10
110
35
80
59
35
71
601
89%
Mar, 10
110
25
30
22
13
351
393
53%
Apr, 10
45
45
20
559
161
22%
May, 10
100
20
647
97
13%
Jun, 10
95
95
38
24
14
897
323
45%
Jul, 10
95
30
70
44
27
15
729
98%
Aug, 10
75
50
60
30
18
253
491
66%
Sep, 10
75
20
72
36
22
718
100%
Oct, 10
80
30
71
38
23
166
578
78%
Nov, 10
80
80
16
593
127
18%
120
20
38
25
15
3,426
1,712
4,121
47%
95
20
58
31
19
436
593
2,643
72%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-26
Steam Unit 6
Installed Capacity
Derated Capacity
Month
200 MW
135 MW
Max. Load
(MW)
Min. Load
(MW)
Load Factor
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ DC
(%)
Utilization
Factor @ IC
(%)
Schedld.
Outage
(Hrs.)
Forced
Outage
(Hrs.)
Availablity
(Hrs.)
Availability
Factor
(Time-base)
Jul, 09
135
110
84
76
51
744
100%
Aug, 09
120
40
64
51
35
169
575
77%
Sep, 09
120
40
45
36
25
233
487
68%
Oct, 09
100
20
72
48
32
162
743
100%
Nov, 09
100
100
35
23
16
374
70
276
38%
Dec, 09
100
25
53
35
24
250
15
479
64%
Jan, 10
90
20
38
23
15
446
298
40%
Feb, 10
105
20
66
46
31
180
492
73%
Mar, 10
100
40
84
56
38
50
695
93%
Apr, 10
95
95
92
59
40
720
100%
May, 10
95
30
67
43
29
182
562
76%
Jun, 10
95
60
80
51
34
62
658
91%
Jul, 10
95
90
76
48
32
48
696
94%
Aug, 10
90
30
56
34
23
174
570
77%
Sep, 10
85
20
36
15
10
511
209
29%
Oct, 10
85
30
75
44
30
74
670
90%
Nov, 10
80
25
70
37
25
720
100%
135
20
65
46
31
624
1,568
6,729
77%
95
20
63
35
24
807
2,865
78%
Total FY2010
Total FY2011 YTD

R1V02TAG: 04/23/11
Appendix E
E-27

Technical Audit of GENCOs - Final Report April 27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Audit of GENCOs - Final Report April 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical, Management, and Economic Counsel

Associated with PA Consulting Group

Technical Audit Study of

April 27, 2011

Advanced Engineering Associates International

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

TPS Jamshoro, or the Jamshoro Power Company Ltd., commonly referred to as

TPS Guddu, which is a part of Central Power Generation Company Ltd.

TPS Muzaffargarh, which is a part of Northern Power Generation Company

Lack of availability of accurate and calibrated instrumentation in the power

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Units Not Tested

Reasons for Not Testing

Energy input could not be

Energy input could not be

On prolonged shutdown from

TPS Guddu CCP

Energy input could not be

On prolonged shutdown from

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Total Block 2-A

Total Guddu CCP

TPS Guddu CCP Block

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

No uniform standards are followed for measurement of energy output. Auxiliary

Lack of Preventive Maintenance

Refusal of shut-down time by the system operator (NTDC) due to shortages in

Delay in payments to GENCOs against power sales, and

Delay in procurements of parts and services for plants major overhauling.

A number of critical plant components are not operating at their optimal

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Plant management is generally oblivious to environmental conservation and

Lack of Performance Evaluation, Monitoring, and Reporting

The absence of performance evaluation standards and an on-line integrated

Limited Financial and Administrative Autonomy

Managements of GENCO plants have limited financial autonomy to take independent

Payments to GENCOs are not made on time which results in deferment of

Approval process for procurement of spare parts and services through

Management is not empowered to initiate a performance-based human resource

Occupational health, safety, and environmental management system and

A standard measurement and testing protocol needs to be devised for GENCOs

A third party RFO testing mechanism should be established on regular basis to

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

supplier should include penalties or correction in price for supply of substandard

A detailed management study is required to prescribe key performance indicators

On-line analyzers and instruments with communication channels to a central

The capacity of in-house repair and maintenance workshops should be enhanced

There is a need to establish an R&D or a Technical Services section to carryout

Switching to heavier grade RFO will require capital investment in the

The government is currently implementing a Generation and Transmission Improvement

Hagler Bailly Pakistan

Technical Audit Study of GENCO Power Plants

Methodology .................................................................................... 2-1

Fuel Supply Arrangements ...................................................................... 3-1