Chapter - 6: Load Forecast

MYT for 3 rd control
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

period (FY14 FY16)
CHAPTER 6
LOAD FORECAST
The Commission has issued guidelines for preparation of Load

Forecast,
Power
Procurement
Plan
&
Power
Procurement
procedure through regulations:
KERC (Conditions of License for ESCOMs) Regulations, 2004
dated 28.0.2004
KERC (Load Forecast) Regulations, 2009 dated 02.04.2009
As per the Technical Conditions prescribed by the Commission

under Chapter III of the first regulation,
The Licensee shall on an annual basis:
(a) forecast the demand for electricity within the Area of Supply in
each of the next succeeding 10 years;
(b)prepare and submit such forecasts to the Commission in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Commission from
time to time; and
(c) Co-operate with the STU in the preparation of electricity demand
forecasts for the state of Karnataka.
The Commission vide above Load Forecast regulations has
directed the Distribution Licensees to follow the Forecast
methodology adopted by CEA from time to time, so as to have a
consistent methodology. Further, it is also stated that the
forecast as per the latest available EPS (Electric Power Survey of
India), under fulfillment of CEAs obligation under Section 73(a)
of Electricity Act, 2003 would be the reference point.
Chapter 6 Load Forecast
Page 73

period (FY14 FY16)
The latest available CEA forecast is 17 th EPS. Some of the

Objectives and Methodology of Forecast of 17 th EPS brought out
by CEA during March 2007 of the document is listed below:
Objectives: Page No: 27
Access to electricity: Available for all house-holds in next
five years.
Availability of Power: Demand to be fully met by 2012.
Energy and peaking shortages to be overcome and
adequate spinning reserve (at least 5%) to be available.

Per capita availability of electricity to be increased to over
1000 units by 2012.

In order to reduce the requirement for capacity addition,
the difference between electrical demand during peak
periods and off peak periods would have to be reduced.
Suitable load management technique should be adopted
for this purpose.

High voltage distribution system is an effective method for
reduction
of
technical
losses,
prevention
of
thefts,
improved voltage profile & better consumer service. It

should be promoted to reduce LT/HT ratio keeping in view
the techno- economic consideration.
Methodology: Page Nos: 31 -34
Partial end use methodology ie., time series and end use
method is made use of.

For domestic and commercial category estimate is made
on the basis of number of electricity consumers (Mid year)
and their specific electrical energy consumption.( Average
electricity consumption per consumer)

The forecast of consumption for Public lighting and Public
water works has been made on estimated connected
Page 74

period (FY14 FY16)
electric load(kW) and average electricity consumption per
kW of connected load(kWh/kW).
IP sets: The average capacity of pumpsets has been
worked out by studying the growth trend of midyear figures
for both connected electric load and the number of pumps
sets in the past years. Based on these trends, the growth in
average capacity of pump set for future determined.

Industrial Category: The electricity requirement for the
industrial sector has been estimated for LT industries, HT
industries each with a demand less than 1 MW and HT
industries each with a demand of 1 MW & above.
In the light of the above, an attempt has been made to forecast

the energy sales under four different scenarios. The 4 scenarios
are based on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Per capita consumption

18th draft EPS
Circle wise energy sales
Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
Scenario 1:
Energy Forecast on per Capita Electricity
Consumption.
Under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003,
the Central Government has prepared the National Electricity
Policy for development of the power sector based on optimal
utilization of resources. The Policy has been evolved after
extensive consultations with the States, other stake holders, the
Central Electricity Authority and after considering the advice of
the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
The National Electricity Policy is one of the key instruments for
providing
policy
guidance
to
the
Electricity
Regulatory
Commissions in discharge of their functions and to the Central

Page 75

period (FY14 FY16)
Electricity Authority for preparation of the National Electricity

Plan. The Policy aims at accelerated development of the power
sector, providing supply of electricity to all areas and protecting
interests of consumers and other stakeholders keeping in view
availability of energy resources, technology available to exploit
these
resources,
economics
of
generation
using
different
resources, and energy security issues.

Objectives of the Policy:
Access to Electricity Available for all households in next five
years.
Supply of Reliable and Quality Power of specified standards

in an efficient
manner and at reasonable rates.
Financial Turnaround and Commercial Viability of Electricity

Sector.
Protection of consumers interests.

Per capita consumption of various countries is depicted in the
table below.
Globally, in Asian continent China is placed one
notch higher to that of India on the list with per capita power
Sl.
No
.
consumption
Country
1 Canada
2 USA
3 Australia
4 Japan
5 France
6 Germany
7 Korea
8 UK
9 Russia
10 Italy
11 South Africa
12 6Brazil
Chapter
Load Forecast
13 China
14 India
15 World
kWh
1705
3
1364
7
1117
4
8072
7703
7148
8853
6067
6443
5656
4770
2232
2471
778*
2782
Indias
of
per
consumption
2,471
capita
is
778.71
kWh.
power
kWh,
three times lower than that of

China.
Per capita electricity
consumption in 2010:
Page 76

period (FY14 FY16)
States / UTs
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Delhi
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Maharashtra
Goa
Daman & Diu
D & N Haveli
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Pondicherry
Lakshadweep
Bihar
Jharkhand
Orissa
West Bengal
A & N Islands
Sikkim
Assam
Manipur
Meghalaya
Nagaland
Tripura
Arunachal Pradesh
Mizoram
Total(All India)
kWh
1222.2
1
1379.9
9
952.02
1526.8
6
736.2
348.37
1112.2
9
1340
1651.2
6
1615.2
4
602.07
1546.9
4
1028.2
2
2263.6
3
7118.2
3
11863.
64
966.99
903.24
525.25
1131.5
8
1743.3
7
418.14
122.11
880.43
874.26
550.16
493.98
850
204.8
240.22
675.19
218.03
335.47
470
376.99
778.71
(Source:
Press
Information
Bureau
of
Government of India, Ministry of Power dated

12.08.2011)
Per capita availability of electricity for

the year 2009-10 within the country
as published is as under;
State wise per capita electricity

consumption in 2009-10
(Source: Press Information Bureau of
Government of India, Ministry of Power dated
12.08.2011)
From the above table, Delhi ranks the top

with per capita consumption of 1,651.26
kWh, and Gujarat follows with 1,615.24
kWh. The State of Karnataka, in comparison,
stands at 12th place with 903.24 kWh.
Adjacent States Andhra Pradesh with 966.99
kWh and Tamil Nadu with 1131.58 kWh are
much better than that of Karnataka.
Page 77

period (FY14 FY16)
Per capita GDP rising by about 8 percent per year during 2000
2010 and it is expected to grow by 7.59 % during 20102020
based on 2011census report. Contribution of electricity, water
and gas to the GDP which is now at 2.25% is expected to reach
4% and with this expansion, it is predicted that the existing
Indian per capita consumption would be doubled by 2020.
Analysis of figures of 2011 published in the provisional
Census of Karnataka at glance is as under:
POPULATION:
Persons
6,11,30,704
Males
3,10,57,742
Females
3,00,72,962
DECADAL POPULATION GROWTH 2001-2011
Absolute persons
Percentage
Males
Female
Density of Population per
sq. km
Sex Ratio (females per
1000 males)
82,80,142
15.67
41, 58,824
(15.46%)
41, 21,318
(15.88%)
319
968
BESCOM has jurisdiction to distribute Electricity in 8 districts of

Karnataka. As per the Census, BESCOM constitutes 33.93% of
population in Karnataka. Percentage of population of Districts in
BESCOM to that of total population of the State is as under.
Page 78

period (FY14 FY16)
Kolar; 2.52
Davanagere; 3.18
Chitradurga; 2.72
Ramanagara;
1.77
Bangalore
Rural;2.05
1.61
Chikkaballapura;
Bangalore; 15.69
Tumkur; 4.39
Sl.
N
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
District
BangaloreUrban
BangaloreRural
Tumkur
Kolar
Chikkaballapur
Ramanagaram
Chitradurga
Davanagere
Total
Populatio
n as per
2011
census
Percentage
decadal growth
rate of population
19992000
20002011
Projected
growth
rate of
population
2012-2020
9588910
35.09
46.68
42.01
987257
2681449
1540231
1254377
1082739
1660378
1946905
2,07,42,2
46
18.6
12.1
14.46
14.33
7.84
15.63
14.86
16.02
3.74
11.04
9.17
5.06
9.39
8.71
14.42
3.37
9.94
8.25
4.55
8.45
7.84
Census data analysis states that the percentage decadal growth

of population in the inter-censual period 2001 - 2011 varied from
a negative rate of -0.28 percent in Chikkamagaluru district to the
highest of 46.68 % in Bangalore district. The average decadal
growth rate for the States stands at 15.67%. There are seven
districts including Bangalore, which have registered growth rate
Page 79

period (FY14 FY16)
above the Karnataka State average, whereas in the remaining 23

districts, the decadal population growth rate is below the State
average of 15.67%. The change in percentage decadal growth
rates between the decades 1991 - 2001 and 2001 - 2011
establishes the declining trend (except Bangalore) in the decadal
growth rates over the previous decade. It is stated that the
decadal growth rate for the Karnataka State has declined by 1.84
%.
Considering the growth rate of the districts of BESCOM as
depicted in the above table, the population for the next period
ie., from FY12 to FY 20 is projected and the energy is projected
by aiming per capita at 2112 units for the year 2020
(Approximately double the per capita of 1055 units for 2010).
Detailed calculations are as under based on the following points.
Average growth rate of the population of each district is
considered for projecting the population.

Per capita consumption is considered
as
the
energy
requirement at the generating points. It means the energy

requirement is inclusive of Transmission, Distribution and
Commercial losses.
Per capita consumption of BESCOM for 2010 and 2011 is
computed as 1055.64 units and 1110.72 units based on the
actual
consumption
and
the
population
of
BESCOM
jurisdictional area for the respective years. The growth in per

capita consumption for the future years is projected at the rate
of 7.4% per annum to reach the targeted 2111 units for FY
2020.
For FY 11
2,07,42,24
Total Population
6
Page 80

period (FY14 FY16)
Energy Input in
MU
Per capita
Consumption in
Units
23039
1110.72
The peak loading of the system for the past two years as
verified from the past data is between 74% to 78%.
It is
presumed that the load factor for the future years will be in
ascending trend and considered at an average of 80% for
projecting the peak load.
District
BangaloreUrban
BangaloreRural
Tumkur
Kolar
Chikkaballap
ur
Ramanagara
m
Chitradurga
Davanagere
Total
Population
Growth
2012
100365
20
100307
3
269147
8
155723
5
126588
0
108821
8
167596
9
196386
3
212822
35
2.60%
Projected
Per capita
consumption in
units
Energy input in
MU
Energy
consumption in
MU per day
MW projected
2013
1048413
1
1018889
2701506
1574239
1277382
1093696
1691560
1980820
2182222
3
2.54%
Expected Population for the period

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
109317
113793 1182696
1227457
1272218
41
51
2
2
2
103470
105052
1066336
1082152
1097968
5
0
271153
272156
2731592
2741621
2751649
5
3
159124
160824
1625252
1642256
1659260
3
8
128888
130038
1311890
1323393
1334895
5
8
109917
110465
1110132
1115611
1121090
5
4
170715
172274
1738333
1753924
1769515
1
2
199777
201473
2031693
2048650
2065608
8
5
223622
229022 2344219
2398217
2452216
12
01
0
8
7
2.47%
2.41%
2.36%
2.30%
2.25%
2019
131697
93
111378
4
276167
8
167626
4
134639
8
112656
8
178510
6
208256
5
250621
56
2.20%
201
2
201
3
2014
201
5
2016
201
7
2018
201
9
1193
2635
8
1281
2823
0
1376
3104
9
1478
3412
0
1587
3747
4
1705
4113
6
1831
4513
3
1966
4949
4
54251
72
3779
77
4047
85
4452
93
4892
103
5373
113
5898
124
6471
136
7096
149
7778
The following is opined by the experts:
Page 81
2020
2112
2020
1361740
3
1129600
2771707
1693268
1357901
1132047
1800697
2099523
2560214
5
2.15%

period (FY14 FY16)
Business Monitor International's India Power Report provides

industry professionals and strategists, corporate analysts, power
associations, government departments and regulatory bodies
with independent forecasts and competitive intelligence on
India's power industry.
BMI View: India has all options open to it in terms of meeting
rising power demand. As a result, capacity and supply growth will
be spread among coal- and gas-fired thermal, hydro-power,
nuclear
and
wind/solar
power.
There
is
no
shortage
of
international investment to support the efforts of domestic

companies.
During the period 2011-2015, Indias overall power generation is
expected to increase by an annual average of 6.63%, reaching
1,217TWh. Driving this growth is an annual 16.7% gain in gasfired
generation
accompanied
by
and
annual
24.6%
increases
rise
in
in
nuclear
excess
of
energy,
20%
for
renewable-based supply.
India is actively promoting nuclear power as a clean and efficient
source of electricity generation. Many of the major developments
taking place in the Indian electricity sector recently involve
nuclear power. Independent sources forecast that India will add
up to 11GW of new nuclear energy capacity by 2020. Hydroelectric power represents some 17% of Indias total installed
generating capacity, with the country currently ranked sixth in
the world in terms of hydro-power. There is plenty of hydroelectric capacity in the construction and planning stages,
according to the Indian government. In particular, hydro-power
development in the Brahmaputra river basin in eastern India is
Page 82

period (FY14 FY16)
expected to result in several large power plants, which could add

nearly 30GW to capacity.
India's theoretical solar potential is said to be about 5,000TWh
per annum, or some 600GW of potential installed capacity. This
far exceeds forecast demand, but solar generating costs are
currently too high for rapid expansion. However, solar is likely to
form a key part of longer-term energy policy. There is also wind
power potential and some scope for biomass. India hopes to
double wind power generation capacity over the next decade. By
2022, the government is planning to have more than 20GW of
wind generating capacity.
Following an increase in 2011 real GDP of an estimated 7.56%,
BMI forecasts average annual growth of 7.65% between 2011
and 2020. The population is expected to rise from the current
level of 1.19bn to 1.32bn during the period 2011-2020, and net
power consumption looks set to increase from 730TWh to
945TWh by 2015, rising further to 1,321TWh by 2020. During the
period 2011-2015, the average annual growth rate for electricity
demand is forecast at 6.63%, but accelerating somewhat later in
the decade to an average 6.94% in 2016-2020.
According to the Indian government, massive energy investment
is required to achieve targeted economic expansion. To deliver
sustained GDP growth of 8% until 2031-2032, primary energy
supply needs to grow to up to four times current consumption,
installed electricity generating capacity needs to increase six or
sevenfold and the current coal requirement needs to triple.
(Source: India Power report Q4 2011 Business Monitor
International, dated October 2011)
Page 83

period (FY14 FY16)
Scenario 2: Energy Projection based on Energy Power

Survey (EPS) Report
An attempt has been made to project the sales based on the
draft 18th EPS report duly considering the actual share of
BESCOM for the figures indicated in the 17th EPS report.
The 18th EPS report from CEA is awaited. A draft of the said report
is mentioned in the Shunglu Committee report.
An attempt has been made to compare the figures of 17 th EPS
report with actual figures of Karnataka State and BESCOMs
contribution for the period from FY 04 to
FY 12.
In this context, a table showing the projections 17th Electric

Power Survey of India (EPS) on page 192 of the report and the
actual consumption of Karnataka State for the corresponding
period along with BESCOM contribution is furnished below:
Year
1
200304
200405
200506
200607
200708
200809
2009-
17th EPS
sales
projecti
on for
the
Karnata
ka State
2
23143
24781
26518
28747
31192
34059
37347
Stat
e
Actu
al
Sale
s
State
v/s
EPS
variati
on
BESCO
M
Actual
Sales
BESCOM
Contributi
on in %
age w.r.t
State
Sales
BESCOM
Contribution
in % age
w.r.t EPS
Projections
7=(5/2)*100
2136
7
2316
9
2411
2
2845
4
3007
3
3248
4
3497
-8%
10161
6=(5/3)*1
00
47.55%
-7%
11026
47.59%
44.49%
-9%
11620
48.19%
43.82%
-1%
14126
49.65%
49.14%
-4%
14934
49.66%
47.88%
-5%
16295
50.16%
47.84%
-6%
17222
49.24%
46.11%
Page 84
43.91%

period (FY14 FY16)
10
201011
201112
8
41050
3710
1
-10%
45241
18736
50.49%
21029
45.64%
46.48%
Above table depicts that the Karnataka State actual consumption

is showing a negative trend, compared to the EPS figures. The
BESCOM contribution varies from 47% to 50% with respect to
State sales and the same varies between 44% to 49% with
respect to EPS projections.
In the absence of 18th EPS, draft EPS sales projections indicated

in the Shungulu Committee Report (on page No 35) to estimate
the financial viability of Utilities for the 12 th plan is considered.
The figures pertaining to Karnataka in the draft report is
considered.
Further, actual contribution of BESCOM with respect to the

figures as depicted in the 17 th EPS is reckoned. (Reference table
above) BESCOM energy sales works out an average of 46.146%
when compared to 17th EPS figures for the period from FY 03 to
FY 12. Also in the 18th draft EPS report on page 38 it is indicated
that a growth rate of 8.1% is reckoned for the period from FY 18
to FY 22. These two assumptions are considered in computing
energy sales projections for the period from FY 13 to FY 20. The
same is depicted in the table furnished below:
In MU
Page 85

period (FY14 FY16)
2012-13
Projected
under draft
18th EPS
47770
Projected BESCOM
Sales at 46.14% of
EPS
22041
2013-14
52170
24071
2014-15
56780
26198
2015-16
61290
28279
2016-17
66090
30494
2017-18
71443
32964
2018-19
77230
35634
2019-20
83486
38520
Year
Based on the above, energy input to BESCOM is projected with

the following assumptions:
Sales projection is computed at 46.14% of draft 18th EPS for
the period from FY 13 to FY 17

Distribution loss for FY 13 is considered at 14% as approved
by KERC. A reduction of 0.2% is considered for the subsequent
years.
Transmission loss for FY 13 is considered at 3.96% as
approved by KERC. A reduction of 0.02% is considered for the
subsequent years.
A Load factor of 80% is considered for computing the Peak
load.
2012-13
47770
Projecte
d
BESCOM
Sales at
46.14%
of EPS
22041
2013-14
52170
2014-15
Year
Projected
under
draft
18th EPS
Projected
Dist. Loss
in
percentage
Energy
at IF
Points
Projected
Trans. Loss
in
percentage
Energy at
Gen.
points
14.00
25629
3.96
26686
24071
13.80
27925
3.94
29070
56780
26198
13.60
30322
3.92
31559
2015-16
61290
28279
13.40
32655
3.90
33980
2016-17
66090
30494
13.20
35131
3.88
36549
Page 86

period (FY14 FY16)
2017-18
71443
32964
13.00
37890
3.86
39411
2018-19
77230
35634
12.80
40949
3.84
42584
2019-20
83486
38520
12.60
44256
3.82
46014
Scenario 3:
Energy Forecast based on circle wise sales
growth.
BESCOM
has 3 Zones, one exclusively catering to Metropolitan
Bangalore city and other two are rural zones. There are 2 circles
under Bangalore zone and 2 circles each under rural zones, the
details are tabulated as below:
Zone
Circles
Bangalore Metro Politian Zone

(BMAZ)
Bangalore Rural Area Zone (BRAZ)
Bangalore North
Bangalore- South
Bangalore-Rural
Kolar
Tumkur
Davanagere.
Chitradurga Area Zone (CTZ)
The diagram illustrates the circle wise energy consumption over

the period from FY 01 to FY 11. It is seen that south circle has
registered a maximum growth from 23% to 33% over the years.
North circle has shown a slight decline fron 23% to 21%. The
Rural circle has maintained a constant growth of 17%. The rural
circles have shown a decling trend. Eventhough the percentage
appears to be small, the contribution in respect of MU is quite
significant as shown in the graph below.
Page 87

period (FY14 FY16)
Percentage energy consumption

9%
9%
21%
21%
9%
11%
10%
11%
12%
10%
14%
15%
14%
10%
11%8%
23%
22%
22%
10%
12%
BLR-North
BLR-South
24%
21%
BLR-Rural
11%
24%
15%13%
TKR
KLR
10% 13%
12% 17% 23%23%
11%
10%
26%26%
17%
17%
28%
17%
17%
31% 32%
16%
16%
17%
DVG
33%
The energy consumption pattern in MU of these Circles for the

past three years is as under:
in MU
Circles
FY-10
FY-11
FY-12
NORTH CIRCLE
3614.6
3964
3850
SOUTHCIRCLE
5705.5
6313
7365
RURAL CIRCLE
2834.3
3233
3710
KOLAR CIRCLE
1928.7
2012
2203
TUMKUR CIRCLE
DAVANAGERE
CIRCLE
1881.3
1920
2018
1608.1
17572.
6
1674
1884
19116
21030
Total
Inference:
Page 88

period (FY14 FY16)
Bangalore South Circle is growing fast

Bangalore Rural Circle maintains its share
The other Circles are losing their share
Bangalore Metro consumption constitutes 53% of the total
energy
Other Urban consumption amounts to only 4%
Rural Consumption is about 43%

Circle
Metro
Bangalore
-North
BangaloreSouth
BangaloreRural
Kolar
Tumkur
Davanagere
Total
Urban
Rural
Total
Metr
o
Urba
n
Rural
3783.42
66.60
3850.02
98%
2%
4295.04
26.58
4321.62
99%
1%
3037.52
5.68
3043.21
5%
95%
3517.99
2038.92
1867.75
9163.2
0
3709.73
2202.70
2018.18
21029.9
5
7%
7%
13%
93%
93%
87%
4%
43%
191.74
163.78
150.43
11115.9
8
750.77
53%
Further, energy consumption pattern among metro, urban and

rural is depicted in the above table.
Circle wise growth is calculated and the estimation for the future
years is computed based on the past data.
South Circle:
Consumption and growth rate of South Circle from FY-01 to FY-12
is as under:
Year
Consumptio
n in MU
Growth rate
in %
FY
01
FY
02
FY
03
FY 04
FY
05
FY 06
FY
07
FY
08
FY
09
FY 10
FY
11
FY
12
1739
1974
13.4
7
2222
12.5
5
2617
3037
16.0
8
3639
4248
16.7
4
4974
17.0
8
5403
5705
8.63
5.60
6312
10.6
3
7950
25.9
5
17.79
19.80
Yearly growth rate of this Circle is not uniform.
Economic
slowdown during FY-09 and FY-10 may be the cause for the dip in
growth rate for FY-09 and FY-10.
Page 89

period (FY14 FY16)
CAGR growth rate for the period from FY-2001 to FY-2012.
HT2a; 19%
LT2
HT-1; 3%
LT3
LT4a,b
LT-5
LT-5
LT3; 9%
LT6a
HT2b; 30%
LT6b
HT-1
HT2a
HT2b
ht4; 1%
LT2; 31%
Years
Growth
rate in
%
ht4
11
years
from
2001to
2012
10
years
from
2002to
2012
9
years
from
2003t
o
2012
8
years
from
2004t
o
2012
7
years
from
2005t
o
2012
6
years
from
2006t
o
2012
5
years
from
2007t
o
2012
4year
s
from
2008t
o
2012
3year
s
from
2009t
o
2012
2year
s
from
2010t
o
2012
Yearly
growth
rate
from
2011 to
2012
13
14
14
13
13
12
11
10
10
12
26
Category
HT
HTIndustry
HTComml
LT
LTDomestic
LTComml
Share of
Consump
tion
20%
54%
30%
31%
9%
Page 90
46%

period (FY14 FY16)
LT-Industry
3%
The historical data of South Circle shows 54% of the consumption

is towards HT and 46% towards LT sales.
Major category of consumers are Commercial (both HT and LT)
consuming 39%, Industries consume (both HT &LT) 23% and the
Domestic consumers consume 31% of the total sales.
IT BT installations are engaged in Hardware and Soft ware
development,
Certified
by
the
concerned
Department
of
Karnataka are categorized as Industry and IT enabled services,

BPOs are categorized as Commercial. Principally this installation
belongs to service sector. Any global economic conditions have
major impact in the consumption of this circle.
CAGR growth rate of this Circle is considered as 12% for
the future projections based on the average as depicted
in the above table.
North Circle:
Consumption and yearly growth rate of North Circle from FY-01 to
FY-12 is as under:
Year
Consumpti
on in MU
Growth in
%
FY
01
175
4
FY
02
1851
5.51
FY
03
206
7
11.7
2
FY
04
218
5
FY
05
5.69
9.96
2403
FY
06
266
9
11.0
6
FY
07
285
4
6.93
FY
08
3198
12.0
8
FY
09
339
7
FY
10
FY
11
3615
3964
6.20
6.42
9.67
FY
12
390
4
1.52

Years
11
years
from
2001t
10
years
from
2002t
9
years
from
2003to
8
years
from
2004t
7
years
from
2005t
Page 91
6
years
from
2006t
5
years
from
2007t
4years
from
2008t
o 2012
3years
from
2009t
o 2012
2year
s
from
2010t
Yearly
growth
rate
from

period (FY14 FY16)
o 2012
o 2012
Growth
rate in
%
2012
o 2012
o 2012
o 2012
o 2012
o
2012
4
Combined reading of the yearly growth and the CAGR, we can

say that this region is moving towards saturation. 2 years CAGR
growth of 3% is considered for estimation.
The Consumer Mix of North Circle is as under:
25%
1%
2%
3%
8%
1%
13%
LT2
LT3
LT4a,b
LT-5
LT6a
LT6b
HT-1
1%
10%
36%
Category
HT
HT-Industry
HT-Comml
LT
LT-Domestic
LT- Comml
LT-Industry
Share of
Consumpti
on
25%
8%
36%
10%
33%
67%
13%
Page 92
HT2a
HT2b
ht4
2011 to
2012
0

period (FY14 FY16)
From the historical data of the North Circle it can be seen that,
33% of the consumption is towards HT and 67% towards LT sales.
(Quite reverse of South Circle)
Major categories of consumers are LT- Domestic customers
consuming 36%. It is seen that the area has attained saturation.
The present scenario indicates that the Industrial consumption is
likely to be reduced or stagnated.
consumption
(both
HT
&LT)
However, commercial
may
increase
due
to
renovation/vertical growth.
the future projections based on the 2 years CAGR growth
as depicted in the above table.
Bangalore Rural Circle:
Consumption and yearly growth rate of Bangalore Rural Circle
from FY-04 to FY-12 is as under:
Year
Consumption
in MU
FY
04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
868.5
2
1025.
7
1252.2
3
1999.3
8
2523.
9
2574.
5
2834.
3
3233.3
4
3696.7
3
18
22
60
26
10
14
14
Growth rate in
%
Years
Growth
8
years
from
2004t
o
2012
7
years
from
2005t
o
2012
6 years
from
2006to
2012
5 years
from
2007to
2012
4years
from
2008t
o
2012
3years
from
2009to
2012
2years
from
2010t
o
2012
Yearly
growth
rate from
2011 to
2012
17
17
17
11
14
Page 93

period (FY14 FY16)
rate in
%
Combined reading of the Yearly growth and the CAGR, this Circle has
potential for growth. As the industrial belt is expanding vis-a vis,
Bangalore International Airport, Special Economic Zone projects etc,
the CAGR growth rate of 12.00% is considered for this circle.
The Consumer Mix of Bangalore Rural Circle is as under:
40%
LT1b
4%
0%
1%
8%
2%
LT2
LT3
LT4a,b
LT-5
LT6a
LT6b
HT-1
6%
HT2a
HT2b
5%
Category
HT
HT-Industry
HT-Comml
HT-Water
Supply
LT
LT-Agri
LT-Domestic
LT- Comml
LT-Industry
ht4
31%
Share of
Consumptio
n
40%
4%
50%
6%
31%
8%
2%
5%
50%
Page 94

period (FY14 FY16)
From the above data, the consumption of HT and LT is 50:50%.

HT-Industrial and LT- Agriculture has major share in this circle.

the future projections based on the average as depicted
in the above table
Kolar Circle:
Consumption and yearly growth rate of Kolar Circle from FY-04 to

FY-12 is as under:
Year
Consumption
in MU
FY 04
FY 05
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
286.0
4
310.4
6
562.74
1187.4
6
1744.2
8
1616.5
2
1928.7
3
2011.7
5
2168.7
8
47
-7
19
Growth rate
in %
Years
Growth
rate in
%
5years
from
2007t
o 2012
11
4years
from
2008to
2012
4
3years
from
2009to
2012
2years
from
2010to
2012
Yearly growth
rate from
2011 to 2012
Combined reading of the Yearly and CAGR growth rate, the data
available upto FY-06 is not consistent.
Page 95

period (FY14 FY16)
9%
8%
0%
1%
4%
2%
LT1b
LT2
2%
LT3
LT4a,b
LT-5
LT6a
LT6b
HT-1
HT2a
HT2b
ht4
72%
Category
HT2(a)
LT
LT-Agri
LT-Domestic
LT-Industry
LT-Comml
9%
72
%
8%
2%
2%
Share of
Consumptio
n
9%
91%
The HT and LT sales ratio at 9 : 91.
LT-Agriculture constitutes
72%of the total sales. Any increase in availability of Supply will

have impact on the Circles consumption.
Page 96

period (FY14 FY16)
Tumkur Circle:
Consumption and yearly growth rate of Tumkur Circle from FY-05
to FY-12 is as under:
FY
05
Year
Consumptio
n in MU
268.7
7
FY 06
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
407.51
1031.9
3
1200.
2
1702.5
4
1881.2
7
1920.0
4
1842.0
0
16.31
41.85
10.50
2.06
-4.06
Growth rate
in %
CAGR Growth rate of Tumkur circle is:

Year
4years
from
2008to
2012
3year
s
from
2009t
o
2012
9%
2%
Growt
h in %
2years
from
2010to
2012
Yearly
growth
rate from
2011 to
2012
-1%
4.06
Combined reading of the yearly and CAGR growth rate, the data
available upto FY-06 is not consistent.
CAGR growth depicts the reduction in the growth rate. Hence,
growth rate of CAGR 2% is considered for the estimation for the
future years.
Page 97

period (FY14 FY16)
2%
1%
3% 1%
12%
1%
LT1b
9%
LT2
LT3
LT4a,b
2%
LT-5
LT6a
LT6b
HT-1
HT2a
HT2b
ht4
67%
Category
HT2(a)
12%
Share of
Consumptio
n
12%
LT
LT-Agri
67%
LT-Domestic
9%
LT-Industry
LT-Comml
2%
3%
88%
The ratio of the HT and LT consumption is at 12 : 88.

Predominant consumption is attributable to LT agriculture.
Page 98

period (FY14 FY16)
Davanagere Circle:
Consumption and yearly growth rate of Davanagere Circle from

FY-07 to FY-12 is as under:
Year
FY 07
FY 08
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
Consumpti
on in MU
1121.7
3
1275.5
9
1471.9
9
1608.1
5
1673.5
7
1780.1
7
14
15
Growth
rate in %
CAGR Growth rate:

Year
5year
s from
2007t
o
2012
4year
s from
2008t
o
2012
3year
s
from
2009t
o
2012
8%
7%
5%
Growt
h in %
2years
from
2010to
2012
3%
Yearly
growth
rate
from
2011 to
2012
6%
Combined reading of yearly growth and CAGR, there is

reductions in the growth rate of this circle.
Page 99

period (FY14 FY16)
LT1b; 3%
HT2a; 6%
HT-1; 2%
LT2; 14%
LT-5; 3%
LT3; 4%
LT1b
LT2
LT3
LT4a,b
LT-5
LT6a
LT6b
HT-1
HT2a
HT2b
ht4
LT4a,b; 64%
Category
HT2(a)
HT-1(a)
LT
LT-Agri
LT-Domestic
LT-BJ/KJ
LT-Industry
LT-Comml
Share of
Consumption
6%
1%
7%
63%
14%
93%
3%
3%
3%
About 93% of energy is attributable to LT category , in which 63%

contributes to Irrigation.
Page 100

period (FY14 FY16)
Considering the Circle wise growth rate. Estimated energy sales

and energy requirement upto 2020 is as under:
Sl
.N
o.
Prov.
2012
Growt
h
Rate
(%)
2013
2014
2015
8249
9239
10347
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
4463
1453
7
4597
1628
2
4735
1823
5
4877
Bangalore-South
7365
Bangalore North
3850
3.00
3966
4084
4207
1158
9
4333
3
4
5
Bangaor-Rural
3710
4155
4654
5212
5838
6538
7323
8202
9186
Kolar
Tumkur
Davanagere
2203
2018
1884
12.00
3.00
2.00
2337
2100
1999
2407
2142
2059
24412
26374
13.80
13.60
28321
30526
3.94
3.92
29482
31771
7.57%
7.76%
3395
3647
2479
2184
2120
2854
4
13.40
3296
1
3.9
3429
9
7.96
%
3925
2554
2228
2184
2929
2269
2058
1941
2263
7
14.00
2632
3
3.96
2740
8
6.82
%
3129
4232
2630
2273
2250
3361
0
13.00
3863
2
3.86
4018
3
8.33
%
4571
2709
2318
2317
3656
3
12.80
4193
0
3.84
4360
4
8.51
%
4946
2791
2364
2387
3984
0
12.60
4558
4
3.82
4739
4
8.69
%
5355
3661
3911
4243
4558
4906
5290
5714
6183
6694
Total
7
8
9
10
21030
Distribution loss
In put at IF
Tr. Loss
Energy
requirement.
14.46
24584
4.19
25658
Growth rate
11
12
MW requirement
Peak load
requirement @ LF
of 80% (MW)
12.00
3.00
12980
30947
13.20
35653
3.88
37093
8.15%
It is to state that efforts have been made to collect all the

historical data. It is a fact that there may be some inconsistency
crept in due to the following reasons.
Formation of new subdivisions/divisions/circles.

Change in jurisdictional area of operation of respective
subdivisions/divisions/circles
Monitoring of data at Corporate Office at the level of
divisions/circles.
The data for all the years is not captured, however the
relevant data for depicting the growth rate is duly
considered.
For projection of circle wise sales, relevant data has been
reckoned.
The pictorial representation is done on the data available.

Page 101

period (FY14 FY16)
Scenario 4:
Energy Forecast based on Compounded
Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).

The sales projection for 3rd control period is projected on the
following lines:
The historical data for past years is available. The CAGR for 7yrs,
6 yrs, 5 yrs, 4 yrs, 3 yrs, 2 yrs and one year growth is computed.
Accordingly,
scenarios
of
projections
are
obtained.
An
empherical formula is made use of.

The minima and maxima and most likely of all the CAGR years
are worked out - minima is considered as pessimistic and
maxima is considered as optimistic, the average of the rest is
considered as most likely.
Statistical empirical formula is applied for all the scenarios
Average = (Optimistic+Pessimistic+4X Most Likely)
6
The growth rate in respect of all the four scenarios is shown in
the table below:
The Compounded Annual Growth Rate of energy Consumption
computed is shown below:
Page 102

period (FY14 FY16)
1 year growth
Tariff
category
FY 04
FY 03
FY 05
FY 04
FY 06
FY 05
-4.5%
-14.8%
-8.9%
LT-2(a)
4.7%
11.9%
10.7%
LT-2(b)
4.8%
11.9%
10.7%
17.4%
17.4%
17.2%
3.2%
1.0%
-18.3%
-49.9%
-26.5%
1.6%
LT-4(d)
LT-5
LT-6a(i)WS
9.4%
3.5%
11.4%
34.4%
2.0%
7.7%
13.5%
4.0%
29.3%
LT-6a(ii)SL
-4.3%
13.1%
24.9%
LT-7
34.7%
21.7%
36.7%
LT Total
HT-1
6.0%
14.3%
5.7%
7.3%
-1.5%
5.0%
HT-2(a)
23.1%
21.6%
26.0%
HT-2(b)
23.1%
21.6%
26.0%
HT-3(a)
9.4%
-57.1%
-24.6%
HT3 (b)
HT-4
15.8%
13.1%
7.7%
HT TOTAL
21.4%
19.1%
22.6%
9.6%
9.1%
5.2%
LT-1
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
TOTAL
FY 07
FY
06
5.0%
13.0
%
18.2
%
17.0
%
37.8
%
59.2
%
16.7
%
3.6%
-5.1%
10.0
%
34.1
%
20.7
%
4.8%
25.3
%
26.7
%
-36.%
93.7
%
21.0
%
23.2
%
21.5
%
Min
Max
Most
likely
6.7%
-15%
19%
2.20%
Avg.
growth
rate using
empirical
formula
2.16%
8.3%
9.9%
5%
13%
9.54%
9.31%
6.5%
9.9%
15.3%
3%
18%
9.97%
10.8%
12.8%
11.9%
12.9%
8%
17%
9.71%
14.26
%
13.81%
12.9%
5.4%
4.1%
19.7%
12.3%
-18%
5.00%
6.59%
33.7%
3.7%
40.5%
-4.6%
-28.7%
-50%
38%
153
%
23.71%
60.7%
2.1%
-7.3%
-10.7%
-5.0%
21.8%
41.1%
0.3%
14.8%
14.0%
8.2%
14.4%
27.8%
5.8%
13.1%
12.5%
6.8%
-2.2%
-11%
-5%
-7%
61%
8%
29%
9.86%
21.16
%
3.51%
9.51%
-12.9%
4.7%
1.4%
16.8%
12.5%
2.0%
-13%
25%
7.02%
6.68%
18.4%
-1.1%
-12.8%
1.4%
34.6%
10.1%
-13%
37%
5.00%
7.32%
0.4%
-2.8%
9.2%
0.8%
5.8%
5.8%
7.9%
-1.3%
13.2%
1.9%
10.3%
4.1%
-2%
-3%
21%
14%
8.07%
4.29%
15.3%
7.8%
6.1%
11.7%
11.6%
15.5%
6%
26%
7.30%
3.56%
11.73
%
25.4%
14.7%
5.1%
9.4%
15.1%
5%
73.1%
18.6%
-16.0%
-57%
9.38%
10.68
%
-42.0%
86.4%
55.6%
153.7
%
27%
265
%
11.55%
5.5%
-73.5%
10.9%
264.7
%
130.5
%
-48.7%
-2.5%
-0.1%
5.5%
13.4%
11.5%
4.4%
-3%
21%
9.02%
16.2%
9.4%
5.7%
9.9%
10.8%
14.4%
6%
23%
8.91%
15.49
%
15.15%
5.6%
9.2%
5.8%
8.6%
12.3%
11.8%
5%
22%
9.00%
10.46%
FY 08
FY 07
FY 09
FY 08
FY 10
FY 09
FY 11
FY 10
FY 12
FY 11
FY 13
FY 12
19.0%
18.7%
-2.9%
-0.9%
4.4%
10.2%
8.8%
6.7%
9.8%
13.7%
2.8%
5.0%
14.0%
8.4%
-9.3%
152.7
%
22.45%
2.87%
10.02%
13.16%
41.73%
2 year CAGR
Tariff
category
FY 05
FY 03
FY 06
FY 04
FY 07
FY 05
FY 08
FY 06
LT-1
LT-2(a)
LT-2(b)
-9.8%
8.3%
8.3%
-11.9%
11.3%
11.3%
-2.2%
11.8%
14.4%
11.8%
11.6%
15.9%
LT-3
LT-4(a)
17.4%
2.1%
17.3%
-9.1%
17.1%
6.1%
LT-4( c )
-39.3%
-13.6%
27.2%
15.5%
11.8%
100.6
%
LT-4(d)
LT-5
21.2%
2.7%
23.5%
3.0%
15.1%
3.8%
36.9%
2.8%
FY 09
FY
07
18.8
%
9.5%
8.1%
11.2
%
1.2%
83.8
%
19.8
%
-1.5%
FY 10
FY 08
FY 11
FY 09
FY 12
FY 10
FY 13
FY 11
Min
Max
Most
likely
Avg. growth
rate using
empirical
formula
7.4%
7.8%
3.9%
-1.9%
8.3%
5.7%
1.7%
9.0%
8.2%
5.5%
9.1%
12.6%
-12%
8%
4%
19%
12%
16%
1.78%
9.57%
9.79%
2.34%
9.64%
9.82%
9.6%
9.1%
11.8%
4.8%
12.4%
11.6%
12.4%
16.0%
10%
-9%
17%
16%
13.96%
5.00%
13.81%
4.47%
17.7%
20.7%
15.8%
-17.5%
-39%
101%
19.16%
22.98%
12.3%
-2.4%
26.9%
4.2%
20.7%
7.0%
19.9%
6.3%
12%
-2%
37%
7%
21.00%
3.05%
22.21%
2.80%
Page 103

period (FY14 FY16)
LT-6a(i)WS
LT-6a(ii)SL
LT-7
LT Total
HT-1
9.6%
4.0%
28.0%
5.8%
10.8%
18.0%
18.8%
29.0%
2.0%
6.2%
10.8%
17.2%
35.4%
9.0%
4.9%
-6.2%
-2.1%
26.0%
10.1%
1.0%
HT-2(a)
22.3%
23.8%
25.7%
20.2%
HT-2(b)
22.3%
23.8%
26.3%
26.0%
HT-3(a)
-31.4%
-43.1%
-30.6%
-17.9%
HT3 (b)
HT-4
14.4%
10.4%
14.2%
5.9%
8.6%
HT TOTAL
20.3%
20.9%
22.9%
19.7%
3.9%
-1.3%
12.8
%
9.3%
7.2%
13.1%
13.3%
7.4%
TOTAL
6.3%
-4.5%
8.2%
4.7%
-1.0%
11.5
%
19.9
%
35.1
%
18.2%
3.0%
-7.1%
7.5%
3.3%
14.6%
8.8%
-6.0%
6.8%
2.2%
13.7%
14.6%
16.9%
10.5%
0.3%
5.2%
7.1%
21.8%
11.7%
3.0%
-6%
-5%
-7%
2%
-1%
18%
19%
35%
12%
11%
11.18%
7.54%
5.00%
7.78%
2.97%
9.47%
7.41%
8.05%
7.48%
3.60%
7.0%
8.9%
11.7%
13.5%
7%
26%
11.73%
13.26%
9.8%
7.2%
10.1%
13.0%
7%
26%
9.38%
11.85%
64.1%
117.4
%
2.7%
35.8%
108.0%
75.0%
-43%
108%
18.59%
23.20%
-18.0%
9.4%
-21.9%
12.5%
8.7%
7.9%
-1%
14%
9.37%
8.42%
7.6%
7.8%
10.3%
12.6%
8%
23%
14.90%
15.01%
7.5%
7.2%
10.5%
12.0%
7%
13%
9.57%
9.79%
3 year CAGR
Tariff
category
FY 06
FY 03
FY 07
FY 04
FY 08
FY 05
LT-1
-9.5%
-6.6%
11.8
%
13.5
%
17.2
%
4.4%
11.3
%
14.2
%
16.1
%
-5.2%
28.0
%
18.6
%
4.4%
0.7%
FY 09
FY 06
14.0
%
10.7
%
11.4
%
13.1
%
12.2
%
5.9%
21.2
%
59.9
%
28.6
%
75.2
%
18.8
%
3.2%
3.2%
0.2%
9.8%
15.8
%
30.7
%
4.4%
2.4%
LT-7
3.2%
15.8
%
10.6
%
30.9
%
6.2%
29.5
%
0.1%
16.2
%
LT Total
3.3%
7.9%
6.1%
HT-1
8.8%
23.5
%
5.7%
24.3
%
2.3%
22.1
%
LT-2(a)
9.0%
LT-2(b)
9.1%
17.3
%
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
LT-4(d)
LT-5
LT-6a(i)WS
LT-6a(ii)SL
HT-2(a)
FY
10
FY
07
11.1
%
FY
11
FY
08
FY 12
FY
09
FY 13
FY 10
Min
Max
Most
likely
4.5%
0.2%
3.3%
10%
14%
2.82%
2.64%
8.6%
8.4%
8.3%
8%
12%
9.56%
9.72%
7.0%
11.1
%
4.7%
10.7
%
7.1%
11.8
%
5%
14%
9.66%
11%
17%
9.77%
13.64
%
13.76%
2.6%
7.4%
9.5%
9.3%
10.5
%
12.5
%
11.9
%
-5%
12%
5.00%
4.50%
51.9
%
26.5
%
0.9%
24.9
%
12.9
%
11.6
%
27.2
%
-1.5%
17.9
%
28%
75%
13%
29%
1.0%
16.9
%
4.7%
14.1
%
10.1
%
6.9%
-1%
7%
8.2%
10.3
%
14.6
%
10.4
%
2%
9.1%
2.6%
0.7%
7.4%
4.4%
9.8%
5.1%
7.6%
8.9%
0.9%
15.9
%
1.2%
1.7%
2.1%
9.7%
8.5%
9.8%
Page 104
6.0%
1.5%
12.9
%
25.45
%
21.69
%
Avg. growth
rate using
empirical
formula
24.84%
21.37%
17%
2.58%
10.22
%
2.72%
10.03%
-3%
16%
7.43%
7.16%
-4%
31%
5.00%
7.75%
3%
10%
7.56%
7.33%
1%
9%
3.24%
9%
24%
2.43%
11.73
%
13.29%

period (FY14 FY16)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
23.5
%
29.2
%
24.7
%
40.8
%
26.0
%
20.2
%
22.1
%
14.8
%
9.7%
8.4%
5.3%
41.6
%
47.2
%
88.8
%
39.9
%
7.8%
HT TOTAL
TOTAL
12.1
%
21.1
%
7.9%
13.8
%
21.6
%
11.7
%
8%
26%
9.38%
11.99%
53.7
%
32.1
%
41%
89%
16.40
%
18.92%
9.7%
11.7
%
10.9
%
1%
14%
8%
7%
5.6%
16.1
%
11.9
%
0.9%
10.4
%
6.1%
15.7
%
10.1
%
8.3%
8.8%
6.9%
7.9%
8.9%
FY
09
FY
05
FY
10
FY
06
FY
11
FY
07
FY
12
FY
08
FY
13
FY
09
9.5%
8.0%
4.5%
1.7%
-6%
9.7%
8.9%
8.4%
8.7%
8%
9.7%
12.5
%
10.5
%
53.7
6.9%
11.5
%
6.0%
11.0
%
10.4
%
16.8
9.1%
12.1
%
10.2
%
-
6%
HT3 (b)
HT-4
11.8
%
8.3%
20.6
%
10.5
%
22%
8.66%
14.78
%
8.23%
14.85%
12%
9.64%
9.56%
4 year CAGR
Tariff
category
FY 07
FY 03
FY 08
FY 04
LT-1
-6.1%
-0.8%
LT-2(a)
10.0%
11.4%
LT-2(b)
11.3%
13.6%
LT-3
17.3%
16.4%
7.8%
10.7
%
11.2
%
14.1
%
4.1%
-
0.8%
31.7%
3.6%
52.9
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
3.0%
49.0
Page 105
Min
11%
1%
-12%
Ma
x
10
%
11
%
14
%
17
%
10
%
54
Most
likely
Avg. growth
rate using
empirical
formula
4.25%
3.41%
9.58%
9.69%
9.64%
13.33
%
9.69%
13.59%
5.27%
30.01
5.39%
26.93%

period (FY14 FY16)
12.2%
LT-4(d)
LT-5
18.1%
3.3%
30.0%
2.9%
%
17.4
%
1.1%
%
24.0
%
0.2%
LT-6a(i)WS
10.2%
5.2%
8.5%
5.3%
%
23.3
%
1.3%
10.4
%
%
16.4
%
2.2%
16.0
%
0.2%
23.3
%
5.2%
16%
0%
9.8%
5%
LT-6a(ii)SL
10.4%
7.8%
0.4%
1.9%
8.7%
8.0%
0%
LT-7
LT Total
HT-1
31.7%
7.4%
7.8%
27.5%
6.0%
3.5%
22.0%
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
24.3%
31.0%
24.9%
31.6%
0.9%
5.8%
0.6%
10.2
%
13.4
%
35.5
%
7.0%
9.3%
2.6%
11.2
%
10.1
%
54.2
%
1%
6%
1%
24.0%
8.2%
8.8%
2.1%
13.4
%
17.6
%
16.1
%
4.2%
9.0%
1.8%
HT-2(a)
5.8%
21.1
%
6.8%
1.9%
18.4
%
23.1
%
3.2%
HT-4
14.3%
9.5%
21.6%
20.3%
3.9%
10.3
%
TOTAL
11.2%
10.2%
5.6%
13.4
%
10.4
%
7.5%
HT TOTAL
6.1%
17.7
%
10.2
%
7.3%
9.3%
10.0
%
84.7
%
10%
-32%
4%
8.9%
8.6%
10.2
%
9.0%
9.6%
7%
5 year CAGR
9%
Page 106
9%
%
30
%
5%
16
%
10
%
32
%
9%
8%
24
%
25
%
85
%
14
%
22
%
11
%
%
21.23
%
2.16%
21.90%
2.34%
8.84%
9.43%
6.45%
6.11%
5.00%
7.60%
2.38%
11.73
%
8.76%
7.57%
2.98%
13.37%
9.38%
14.31
%
12.06%
7.46%
14.37
%
8.01%
14.67%
9.86%
9.66%
18.39%

period (FY14 FY16)
FY 08
FY 03
-1.5%
10.1
%
11.8
%
16.6
%
FY 09
FY 04
2.9%
10.9
%
11.3
%
14.8
%
FY 10
FY 05
5.6%
FY 11
FY 06
7.4%
FY 12
FY 07
7.2%
FY 13
FY 08
4.9%
Min
-2%
Max
7%
Most
likely
5.15%
Avg.
growth rate
using
empirical
formula
4.41%
9.9%
9.7%
8.8%
8.7%
9%
11%
9.59%
9.66%
9.9%
13.4
%
9.1%
12.6
%
7.5%
11.6
%
8%
12%
9.57%
11%
17%
9.53%
13.09
%
LT-4(a)
1.3%
9.2%
51.0
%
21.9
%
1.7%
6.5%
8.4%
9.8%
7.1%
6.1%
36.3
%
24.2
%
2.2%
10.9
%
11%
8.5%
25.6
%
3.0%
4.0%
41.5
%
21.8
%
1.0%
1%
LT-4( c )
3.1%
32.1
%
20.6
%
1.3%
7.8%
11.4
%
10.8
%
5.3%
28.9
%
6.0%
5.6%
22.2
%
24.5
%
24.9
%
7.2%
21.2
%
6.6%
3.0%
19.0
%
22.8
%
17.7
%
4.9%
13.4
%
6.6%
2.7%
15.8
%
19.3
%
3.5%
Tariff
category
LT-1
LT-2(a)
LT-2(b)
LT-3
LT-4(d)
LT-5
LT6a(i)WS
LT6a(ii)SL
LT-7
LT Total
HT-1
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
6.5%
HT3 (b)
HT-4
HT TOTAL
TOTAL
5.8%
15.6
%
3.1%
12.1
%
6%
51%
16%
1%
26%
3%
3.88%
29.58
%
22.14
%
2.06%
6%
12%
9.03%
9.11%
4.0%
7.3%
4%
7%
5.35%
5.37%
6.8%
8.6%
1.4%
13.0
%
15.9
%
6.9%
7.2%
0.8%
10.5
%
12.9
%
5.3%
9.2%
2.2%
10.5
%
11.0
%
5%
6%
1%
29%
9%
6%
9.04%
7.38%
2.62%
10%
22%
5.00%
7.26%
2.32%
11.73
%
13.26%
11%
25%
9.38%
12.17%
16.6
%
65.1
%
10.8
%
57.8
%
-25%
65%
15.79
%
17.23%
8.2%
5.4%
10.4
%
6.8%
10.0
%
5%
11%
10%
8.3%
9.5%
8%
7.0%
10.7
%
20.5
%
10.1
%
7.5%
18.0
%
10.0
%
6.0%
15.2
%
9.3%
13.39%
7.1%
12.7
%
10.0
%
Page 107
4.59%
29.17%
21.63%
2.05%
20%
6.86%
14.08
%
7.26%
14.47%
10%
9.71%
9.53%

period (FY14 FY16)
6 year CAGR
Tariff
category
FY 09
FY 03
FY 10
FY 04
FY 11
FY 05
FY 12
FY 06
FY 13
FY 07
LT-1
1.6%
4.5%
6.9%
7.1%
2%
7%
4.40%
4.39%
LT-2(a)
9.9%
10.2
%
15.2
%
1.9%
10.2
%
10.2
%
14.1
%
9.8%
9.4%
9.0%
9%
10%
9.72%
9.67%
9.3%
13.3
%
8.8%
11.8
%
9%
10%
9.56%
12%
15%
9.59%
13.30
%
3.5%
26.8
%
23.8
%
4.0%
41.3
%
20.5
%
7.1%
22.3
%
22.1
%
3%
11%
12%
41%
LT-4(d)
3.1%
12.4
%
18.7
%
9.2%
12.5
%
10.9
%
39.8
%
22.9
%
19%
LT-5
1.7%
1.1%
2.4%
2.9%
1%
LT-6a(i)WS
8.9%
9.4%
2.1%
10.5
%
8.1%
8.6%
LT-6a(ii)SL
6.2%
14.7
%
6.8%
11.3
%
5.0%
11.0
%
3.6%
LT-7
5.2%
23.3
%
LT Total
6.5%
6.5%
6.8%
9.4%
HT-1
4.8%
19.7
%
22.8
%
13.7
%
3.4%
16.7
%
19.6
%
2.0%
15.1
%
17.5
%
-8.5%
8.4%
HT TOTAL
8.8%
18.6
%
7.2%
15.9
%
7.2%
14.3
%
TOTAL
9.9%
9.3%
9.2%
LT-2(b)
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
HT-4
Min
Max
Most
likely
Avg. growth
rate using
empirical
formula
13.37%
28.72%
24%
3.76%
29.67
%
21.84
%
3%
2.06%
2.05%
8%
11%
8.96%
9.07%
4%
7%
5.46%
5.38%
7.4%
7%
23%
5.00%
8.46%
7.7%
6%
9%
7.02%
7.32%
1.5%
12.8
%
15.1
%
1.4%
11.3
%
13.3
%
1%
5%
2.57%
11%
20%
2.31%
11.73
%
12.98%
13%
23%
9.38%
12.27%
41.0
%
47.5
%
-14%
48%
13.64
%
14.73%
7.8%
12.4
%
10.4
%
5.2%
11.0
%
5%
9%
11%
8.9%
9%
Page 108
4.83%
21.65%
19%
7.40%
14.20
%
7.28%
14.40%
10%
9.47%
9.52%

period (FY14 FY16)
7 year CAGR
Tariff
category
LT-1
LT-2(a)
9.4%
FY 11
FY 04
1.5%
10.1
%
LT-2(b)
9.4%
14.6
%
9.7%
13.9
%
9.4%
13.1
%
LT-4(d)
3.5%
11.1
%
21.7
%
3.6%
28.7
%
22.4
%
6.1%
33.6
%
21.5
%
LT-5
1.5%
9.7%
2.6%
10.9
%
3.0%
LT-6a(i)WS
2.1%
10.1
%
LT-6a(ii)SL
LT-7
4.7%
17.4
%
7.7%
12.7
%
LT Total
6.4%
HT-1
4.9%
17.6
%
20.1
%
-6.1%
8.4%
16.6
%
9.3%
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
HT3 (b)
HT-4
HT TOTAL
TOTAL
FY 10
FY 03
0.9%
FY 12
FY 05
4.5%
FY 13
FY 06
6.8%
9.6%
9.5%
10.1
%
12.5
%
11.1
%
27.0
%
21.3
%
Avg. growth rate

using empirical
formula
3.27%
Min
1%
Max
7%
Most
likely
2.96%
9%
10%
9.57%
9.64%
9%
10%
9.63%
13%
15%
9.57%
13.53
%
3%
11%
11%
34%
21%
13.53%
26.02%
22%
4.85%
27.86
%
21.58
%
1%
3%
2.37%
2.33%
6.5%
7%
11%
9.90%
9.51%
7.6%
14.4
%
4.5%
10.9
%
5%
8%
6.12%
6.12%
11%
17%
5.00%
8.04%
6.7%
7.7%
9.5%
6%
9%
7.20%
7.45%
2.8%
16.0
%
18.1
%
1.9%
13.2
%
15.1
%
30.9
%
7.5%
2%
5%
2.71%
13%
18%
2.37%
11.73
%
15%
20%
-5.0%
2.0%
14.6
%
16.6
%
28.9
%
-6%
31%
8.0%
15.0
%
9.2%
7.8%
13.8
%
9.6%
7.3%
12.7
%
10.6
7%
8%
13%
9%
17%
11%
Page 109
5.65%
21.67%
12.96%
9.38%
11.94
%
12.12%
7.92%
14.40
%
9.48%
7.90%
12.10%
14.49%
9.61%

period (FY14 FY16)
8 year CAGR
Tariff
category
LT-1
FY 11
FY 03
0.7%
FY 12
FY 04
1.8%
FY 13
FY 05
4.7%
Min
1%
Max
5%
9.4%
9.1%
14.3
%
9.9%
9.7%
13.7
%
9.7%
10.1%
9%
9%
10%
10%
13.1%
13%
14%
3.5%
14.4
%
20.7
%
5.5%
24.0
%
23.0
%
6.9%
4%
7%
23.5%
14%
24%
20.3%
20%
23%
2.3%
10.3
%
2.6%
10.5
%
3.1%
2%
3%
9.2%
9%
8.3%
15.2
%
6.9%
6%
LT-7
6.1%
15.3
%
13.8%
LT Total
6.6%
7.5%
8.0%
HT-1
4.1%
16.9
%
18.7
%
-3.3%
9.0%
15.8
%
2.6%
15.5
%
17.2
%
12.4
%
8.5%
14.5
%
9.2%
9.6%
LT-2(a)
LT-2(b)
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
LT-4(d)
LT-5
LT-6a(i)WS
LT-6a(ii)SL
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
HT-4
HT TOTAL
TOTAL
Most
likely
1.83%
9.66%
9.73%
13.66
%
5.47%
23.51
%
20.67
%
Avg. growth rate

using empirical
formula
2.13%
9.66%
9.69%
13.68%
5.38%
22.07%
21.01%
10%
2.56%
10.27
%
2.61%
10.12%
8%
6.88%
6.98%
14%
15%
5.00%
8.18%
7%
8%
7.47%
7.42%
2.3%
2%
4%
2.83%
14.7%
15%
17%
2.64%
11.73
%
16.4%
16%
19%
22.2%
7.4%
-3%
7%
22%
9%
13.9%
14%
9.9%
9%
13.08%
12.11%
16%
9.38%
12.37
%
8.46%
14.46
%
10%
9.57%
9.57%
11.39%
8.37%
14.58%
The Comparison of growth in consumption of the above scenarios

are shown below:
Consumer
Category
LT-1
LT-2(a)
LT-2(b)
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( c )
LT-4(d)
LT-5
LT-6a(i)WS
LT-6a(ii)SL
LT-7
LT Total
8 years
CAGR
2.13%
9.66%
9.69%
13.68
%
5.38%
22.07
%
21.01
%
2.61%
10.12
%
6.98%
8.18%
7.42%
7 years
CAGR
3.27%
9.64%
9.63%
13.53
%
5.65%
26.02
%
21.67
%
2.33%
6 years
CAGR
4.39%
9.67%
9.56%
5 years
CAGR
4.41%
9.66%
9.57%
4 years
CAGR
3.41%
9.69%
9.69%
3 years
CAGR
2.64%
9.72%
9.66%
2 years
CAGR
2.34%
9.64%
9.82%
One
year
growth
2.16%
9.31%
9.97%
13.37%
4.83%
13.39%
4.59%
13.59%
5.39%
13.76%
4.50%
13.81%
4.47%
13.81%
6.59%
28.72%
29.17%
26.93%
24.84%
22.98%
23.71%
21.65%
2.05%
21.63%
2.05%
21.90%
2.34%
21.37%
2.72%
22.21%
2.80%
22.45%
2.87%
9.51%
6.12%
8.04%
7.45%
9.07%
5.38%
8.46%
7.32%
9.11%
5.37%
9.04%
7.38%
9.43%
6.11%
8.76%
7.57%
10.03%
7.16%
7.75%
7.33%
9.47%
7.41%
8.05%
7.48%
10.02%
6.68%
7.32%
8.07%
Page 110

period (FY14 FY16)
HT-1
2.83%
13.08
%
12.11
%
11.39
%
0.00%
8.37%
14.58
%
9.57%
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
HT-3(b)
HT-4
HT TOTAL
TOTAL
2.71%
12.96
%
12.12
%
12.10
%
0.00%
7.90%
14.49
%
9.61%
2.57%
2.62%
2.98%
3.24%
3.60%
4.29%
12.98%
13.26%
13.37%
13.29%
13.26%
13.16%
12.27%
12.17%
12.06%
11.99%
11.85%
11.55%
14.73%
0.00%
7.28%
17.23%
0.00%
7.26%
18.39%
0.00%
8.01%
18.92%
0.00%
8.23%
23.20%
0.00%
8.42%
41.73%
0.00%
9.02%
14.40%
9.52%
14.47%
9.53%
14.67%
9.66%
14.85%
9.56%
15.01%
9.79%
15.15%
10.46%
250.00%
200.00%
150.00%
100.00%
50.00%
0.00%
LT-1
LT-2(a)
LT-2(b)
LT-3
LT-4(a)
LT-4( b )
LT-4(c)
LT-5
LT-6WS
LT-6SL
LT Total
HT-1
HT-2(a)
HT-2(b)
HT-3(a)
HT-3(b)
HT-4
A graph depicting the various scenarios is shown above. It is

seen that the various scenarios are showing more or less the
consistent rate of growth. In the event of the graph depicting
consistent growth in all the scenarios, 4 years CAGR growth is
considered for the sales forecast.
The CAGR projections from FY-14 to FY-20 are shown in the table
below:
Consumer
Category
FY-13
4 years
CAGR
FY-14
FY-15
Page 111
FY-16
FY-17
FY-18
FY-19
FY-20

period (FY14 FY16)
LT-1
123.94
3.41%
128.17
132.54
137.06
141.74
146.58
151.58
156.75
LT-2(a)
4976.84
9.69%
5459.04
5987.95
6568.11
7204.48
7902.51
8668.17
9508.01
LT-2(b)
36.32
9.69%
39.84
43.71
47.94
52.59
57.69
63.28
69.41
LT-3
1505.36
13.59%
1709.99
1942.43
2206.47
2506.40
2847.10
3234.12
3673.74
LT-4(a)
6012.17
5.39%
6336.18
6677.65
7037.53
7416.80
7816.51
8237.76
8681.71
4.60
26.93%
5.84
7.41
9.40
11.93
15.14
19.22
24.40
LT-4( c )
LT-4(d)
4.56
21.90%
5.55
6.77
8.25
10.06
12.26
14.94
18.22
1114.74
2.34%
1140.84
1167.55
1194.88
1222.86
1251.49
1280.79
1310.77
LT-6WS
450.40
9.43%
492.87
539.35
590.21
645.86
706.77
773.41
846.34
LT-6SL
409.61
6.11%
434.63
461.17
489.33
519.22
550.93
584.57
620.28
LT-7
139.48
8.76%
151.70
164.98
179.43
195.15
212.25
230.84
251.06
HT-1
511.67
2.98%
526.94
542.66
558.86
575.53
592.70
HT-2(a)
5038.40
13.37%
5711.88
6475.37
7340.93
8322.17
9434.58
610.39
10695.6
9
628.61
12125.3
6
HT-2(b)
3046.46
12.06%
3413.97
3825.81
4287.34
4804.54
5384.13
6033.64
6761.51
HT-3(a)
5.09
18.39%
6.02
7.13
8.44
9.99
11.83
14.00
16.57
HT-3(b)
0.16
0.00%
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
123.38
23503.1
8
8.01%
133.26
25696.8
7
143.93
28126.5
7
155.45
30819.8
0
167.90
33807.3
8
181.34
37123.9
6
195.86
40808.4
2
211.54
44904.4
3
9.3%
9.5%
9.6%
9.7%
9.8%
9.9%
10.0%
14.00
27329.2
8
13.80
29810.7
5
13.60
32553.9
1
13.40
35588.6
8
13.20
38948.6
0
13.00
42671.2
2
12.80
46798.6
4
12.60
51378.0
7
3.96
28456.1
4
3.94
31033.4
7
3.92
33882.0
8
3.90
37032.9
7
3.88
40520.8
1
3.86
44384.4
6
3.84
48667.4
7
3.82
53418.6
6
3248.42
3542.63
3867.82
4227.51
4625.66
5066.72
5555.65
6098.02
4060.52
4428.29
4834.77
5284.38
5782.08
6333.40
6944.56
7622.53
LT-5
HT-4
Total Sales
% Growth
Distribution
Loss
Energy Input
@ IF point
Transmission
Loss
Energy Input
@ Gen point
MW
requirement
Peak MW
requirement
9.66%
The above table depicts the sales projection based on 4 years

CAGR growth.
The energy requirement at IF points and generating points have
been computed as per the projected figures for distribution and
transmission loss respectively. The corresponding peak loads
have been arrived with a Load factor of 80%.
Summary of different scenarios:

Methodolo
gy
Projected
2012
2013
2014
Page 112
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

period (FY14 FY16)
Energy input in
MU
Per Capita
Consumptio
n
EPS
Projections
Circle wise
sales
projections
CAGR
Projections
Avg. MW
projected
Peak MW
projected
Energy input in
MU
Avg. MW
projected
Peak MW
projected
Energy input in
MU
Avg. MW
projected
Peak MW
projected
Energy input in
MU
Avg. MW
projected
Peak MW
projected
25658
2858
5
11.41
31857
11.45
35516
11.49
3961
0
11.53
43156
8.95
47036
8.99
51283
9.03
55911
9.02
2929
3263
3637
4054
4522
4926
5369
5854
6383
3661
4079
2668
6
4546
5068
6158
6712
7318
7978
29070
31559
5652
3398
0
36549
39411
42584
46014
8.93
8.56
7.67
7.56
7.83
8.05
8.05
3046
3319
3603
3879
4172
4499
4861
5253
3808
2741
5
4148
4503
5215
5624
6077
6566
29537
7.74
31888
7.96
4849
3449
4
8.17
37385
8.38
40595
8.59
44163
8.79
48074
8.86
3130
3372
3640
3938
4268
4634
5041
5488
3912
2845
6
4215
4550
5335
5793
6302
6860
31033
9.06
33882
9.18
4922
3703
3
9.30
40521
9.42
44384
9.53
48768
9.88
53640
9.99
3248
3543
3868
4228
4626
5067
5567
6123
4061
4428
4835
5284
5782
6333
6959
7654
25658
25658
Page 113

period (FY14 FY16)
Graphical representation of the Peak load projections under

different scenarios are shown below:
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Per Capita Consumption
EPS Projections
Circle wise sales projections
CAGR Projections
2020
Graphical representation of the energy requirement projections

under different scenarios are shown below:
Page 114

period (FY14 FY16)
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Per Capita Consumption
EPS Projections
Circle wise sales projections
CAGR Projections
2020
Inference:
Per capita consumption: It is proposed to double the per

capita consumption of BESCOM
from 1110 units (FY 11) to
2221units (FY 20), which calls for a growth rate of 7.4%.

Accordingly, the computed energy requirement will be 54251
MU for FY 20, which is more than 100% when compared to the
provisional figures of 26358 MU for FY 12. This appears to be
an ambitious target. The projections computed under this
scenario may be considered as a goal. The stake holders may
plan their investment to reach the goal. The State can plan
for investment in generation sector accordingly. As quoted in
earlier paras, this calls for massive energy investment to
achieve targeted expansion.
EPS Projections: The Commission has directed the Licensee

to follow the CEA guidelines in forecasting the energy
projections. The 18th EPS is still in draft stage. A cursory look
Page 115

period (FY14 FY16)
at the 17th EPS indicates that the estimation is on the higher

side.
The
State
energy
sales
recorded
37101MU
for
FY 11against the estimated EPS figure of 41050 MU (-10%).

The targeted energy projection has not been achieved due to
the occurrence of unpredictable events such as time over run
of the projects, cost overrun of the projects etc. It is to state
that the BESCOMs contribution to the State energy sales is
consistent around 50% and the same has been reckoned for
projections. The draft 18th EPS report is also referred for
estimation of sales. In the absence of final 18th EPS report
and the historical figures not matching with the estimates, it
is difficult to comment on this scenario.
Circle wise Projection: The total circle wise projection

figures are done on similar lines of CAGR projected figures. It
is to state that efforts have been made to segregate the
historical data circle wise, tariff wise to arrive at better
estimation of sales. This exercise gave an indication about the
sales growth attributable to certain categories of consumers
at the circle level. It is noticed that the south circle has a
major portion of service sector (IT BT). Any economic crisis
will have a direct effect on the sales for this circle. The
percentage of agricultural consumption in rural circles is more
than the other categories. Since the agricultural consumption
is assessed, the consumption / sales under this category is
debatable. The percentage of consumption under unmetered
categories is more in rural circles. Hence, projections made on
the basis of circle wise consumption may lead to increase in
estimation of unmetered sales, which may not be realistic.
CAGR projections: It is to state that this is a time tested

scenario. The projections are based on actual historical
Page 116

period (FY14 FY16)
figures. The State in the past has suffered from shortage

power. Most of the time the projections were made on the
restricted hours of power supply to farming community.
Further, the hours of power supply to rural areas was also
restricted as per the directions of the State Government. Even
now, the scenario has not changed much even though many
power projects are envisaged. The demand and supply gap is
yet to be fully met. In the light of all this, it is opined that all
economic conditions, hours of power supply variations etc are
all taken care with CAGR projections. From the past data it can
be seen that the CAGR projections and actual sales values
recorded are nearer to the projections.
In view of the above the CAGR method has been reckoned for
the purpose of sales forecast for the 3 rd control period for FY14 to FY-16.
Limitations:
1. Planning for power system is essentially a projection of how
the system grows over a specific period of time. Any plan can
become technically and economically obsolete when new
inventions in electrical utilization equipments are taken up.
2. Unforeseen industrial, commercial or residential projects can
change the load forecast.
3. Breakthroughs
in
new
generation
and
transmission
technologies and un expected inflation in equipment labor

costs can take the plan in other directions.
Page 117

period (FY14 FY16)
4. Reliability is one of the most important criteria which must be

taken into consideration during all phases of power system
planning, design and operation.
Page 118

Chapter - 6: Load Forecast

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Chapter - 6: Load Forecast

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MYT for 3 rd control

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

The Commission has issued guidelines for preparation of Load

procedure through regulations:

KERC (Conditions of License for ESCOMs) Regulations, 2004

As per the Technical Conditions prescribed by the Commission