kVAh metering: magic solution or an aberration

by Surendra Jhalora

Synopsis
Synopsis

The search for innovative solutions has lead to the concept of kVAh metering.
The search for innovative solutions has lead to the concept of kVAh
Measurement
of kVAh and
tariffs
aretariffs
expected
to help in
reducing
metering. Measurement
of related
kVAh and
related
are expected
to help
in
reactive
currents
in
the
system
by
commercially
motivating
consumers
reducing reactive currents in the system by commercially motivating to
consumers
install reactive
compensation
their premises.
install
reactivetocompensation
at their
premises. at
A changeover
from Athe
changeoverkWh
frommetering
the conventional
kWh metering
to kVAh
is a
conventional
to kVAh metering
is therefore
seenmetering
by a few as
therefore seen by a few as a magic solution for the Indian power sector.
magic solution for the Indian power sector. This paper examines the less
This paper examines the less visible and less magical aspects of kVAh
visible and less magical aspects of kVAh metering. The paper looks at the kVAh
metering. The paper looks at the kVAh in totality by examining the
in totality by examining the commercial aspects, regulatory aspects, legal
commercial aspects, regulatory aspects, legal aspects, technical aspects
aspects,
technical
aspects
the controversies
it ispaper
likelyconcludes
to generate.
The
and the
controversies
it and
is likely
to generate. The
that
paper
that there
is an
aberration
in the
concept
ofakVAh
metering
thereconcludes
is an aberration
in the
concept
of kVAh
metering
and
changeover
to akVAh
metering
bring real
butreal
cause
unnecessary
and
changeover
to will
kVAhnot
metering
willbenefits
not bring
benefits
but cause
expense to expense
unsuspecting
consumersconsumers
and distribution
utilities. utilities.
unnecessary
to unsuspecting
and distribution

every year to install capacitors in the system. It is

seen that even after two decades of capacitor
installation programs it is found that still more
capacitors are required by the system. It appears as
if the requirement that can never be fulfilled.
The source of most reactive currents is the poor
power factor loads connected at consumer
premises. Each of these loads could have been
compensated by appropriate capacitor
installations, had the brunt of capacitor
installation shifted from Utilities to endconsumers. This is not happening today because
there is no commercial inducement for consumers

Introduction

to care for the reactive energy drawl by them. Many

The advent of electronics has opened new avenues for creative thinkers and

countries have legislation that prevents electrical

manufacturers to invent innovative metering solutions for the power sector.

equipment and devices with low power factors

This is evident from electronic meters, which are now available with a host of

from being sold.

load survey and tamper recording features. Innovative thinking leads us to

conceptual issues as well to imagine metering solutions, overlooking basic
electrical concepts and ignoring legal, commercial and practical aspects.

Introduction of kVAh metering and kVAh tariffs is

therefore seen as a commercial inducement on
consumers to ensure a smaller electricity bill by

It is important that new concepts are carefully examined from a totality. One

ensuring that they do not draw reactive power. It is

such new concept sweeping the length and breadth of this country is kVAh

imagined that these consumers will in turn

metering.

purchase electrical devices with power factor

correctors, or install capacitors at their premises.

kVAh metering
kVAh metering is a concept mooted to replace the conventional kWh metering.
It suggests that consumers must be billed as per the kVAh (apparent energy)
drawl, and not as per the kWh (active energy). Implementation of the concept
will mean that at each consumer premise a new type of meter will have to be
installed, one which records kVAh.

A magic solution
It is all too well known that abnormal voltages, typically low voltages, plague
distribution systems in India. Reactive power flows in the network cause a
reactive drag in the inter-connected transmission system and reduce the
system stability. This in turn requires a reactive compensation in the system.
The transmission and distribution utilities invest a large amount of money

Page 1 of 6

If this is achieved, it is easy to see how a large

amount of precious energy will be saved due to
reduction of technical loss in the system due
accrued from a reduction in reactive currents. It is
also easy to see imagine a large amount of money
will be saved by utilities, who need not invest
money for capacitors for compensation or voltage
improvement. It is easy to see imagine how
changing over from kWh metering to kVAh
metering will bring about a nation wide revolution
in energy efficiency, and therefore this appears to
be a magic solution for the country.

Fundamentals of commercial measurement

kVAh tariffs are never equitable

The fundamentals of any commercial measurement are, measurement of the

Reactive power (and resultant reactive energy

commodity being sold (i) in a transparent manner (ii) using a controversy-free

which is a component of apparent energy) is a

and accurate measurement tool. For electricity, the commodity being sold is

locally generated phenomena. It is a necessity for

active energy (kWh).

flow of electricity in any system, but not something

that is generated by generators and transferred

This commodity (active electrical energy) is generated from non-electrical

over the lines to end consumers. The kVAh drawl by

energy resources (like coal, gas, renewable energy sources etc.) by electrical

a consumer for the same connected load will vary

generators and purchased by end consumers to be used for operating

depending on the voltage at consumer premises. As

electrical devices to do mechanical work , heating, lighting etc for them. The

voltage at which power is delivered to consumers is

distribution companies are transporters of this electrical energy and therefore

under control of the distribution company and not

bill the consumers as per energy consumed by each consumer. This is the

consumers, it is unethical and unequitable to bill

arrangement today, and that is why the kWh metering has been accepted as the

consumers as per their kVAh drawl. Well, kWh

proper measurement tool.

drawl by consumers are also affected by voltages,

but a consumer does not have to adjust or

Apparent energy, which is kVAh, contains a component called reactive energy

compensate his consumption when voltages are

(kVArh) whose generation is not directly related to conversion of energy

poor and still land himself or herself at a financial

resources. This reactive energy component may be necessary to support

disadvantage.

delivery of active energy, but it is not useful to the end consumer for conversion
to any active work or output. Hence it may be said that apparent energy (kVAh)

Reactive power is necessary to support the voltage

is not a commodity that the user wants to use and nor it is a commodity that

of the system, and uncontrolled use of reactive

transporters (i.e. distribution companies) transfer from generating stations.

power adversely affects the system voltage. Though

To have commercial measurements and tariffs solely based on such a

reactive power cannot strictly be called a saleable

commodity (kVAh) is simply irrelevant.

commodity, its over-drawl (or over-use) can at

Electricity is metered to meet two objectives (i) To account for active energy

Hence it is appropriate to view poor power factor as

transmittals, that is, energy accounting (ii) For commercial metering, that is,

a violation and not as a consumption. As this is

times be seen as a violation by the consumer.

to make a consumer pay for the electricity he or she has consumed. There

not a consumption, there is no justification to

needs to be accounting at every stage, and hence kWh is accounted for, right

base tariffs on apparent energy. A penalty can at

from the generating stations, through the transmission and distribution lines,

best be levied for any violation. It is therefore

and as delivered to end consumers, through the present kWh meters. All this is

inappropriate to replace the tariff for the

not possible if kVAh meters were used.

commodity being sold (kWh) with a tariff for kVAh

just because we want to deter violations.

Accounting of kVAh is not possible in any scale, as all apparent energies do

not add to give the total apparent energy. More so, sum of three apparent
energies in each of the three phases does not add up to give the three phase
apparent energy. This exposes the vulnerability of the term apparent energy
which is nothing more than electrical engineers' jargon rather than a
definable energy tariff parameter in the scientific lexicon, which can be legally
used for tariff purposes. Remember the law of conservation in physics governs
energy where all input energies must add up to be equal to the sum of output
energies and losses.
The kWh metering presently in use provides the mechanism to monitor the
quantum of energy purchased and sold, so that (i) the distribution utility can
maintain an account for the energy it has purchased, sold and lost, and (ii)
fair tariffs can be formulated with allowances for losses and fixed

poor
power
(or overshoot)
demand
AA
poor
power
factorfactor
penaltypenalty
(or demand
is more than
appropriate
than kVAh
isovershoot)
more appropriate
kVAh based
tariffs
based
tariffs
because
penalties
generally
have
because penalties generally have two very
fair
two
very
fair
components
(i)
a
limit
for
which
components (i) a limit for which there is no penalty
there is no penalty a warning factor (ii) a
a warning factor (ii) a penalty for violations
penalty for violations beyond the allowable
beyond the allowable limit that is a penal
limit that is a penal component. A kVAh tariff
component. A kVAh tariff on the other hand does
on the other hand does not give any allowable
not give any allowable limit as a warning. It
limit as a warning. It operates like Shylock,
operates like Shylock, demanding its pound of
demanding its pound of flesh for every single
flesh for every single moment of drawl beyond the
moment of drawl beyond the almost
almost impossible to maintain magic figure of a
impossible to maintain magic figure of a
perfect
unity
power
factor.
perfect
unity
power
factor.

charges/overheads. A change to kVAh disturbs these objectives without giving

Once kVAh tariffs are in place, excessive reactive

any great over-riding advantages.

drawls can no longer be considered as a violation.

Consumers who do not care to reduce their reactive

Page 2 of 6

drawls will have no qualm paying a little more. They may leave their capacitors
connected during off peak hours and force the voltage to increase at night
hours affecting the system and other consumers connected to the system. It is
equally possible that consumers may not connect capacitors at all and draw
reactive power heavily from the system pulling down voltages.
And, who suffers ? The commercially conscious consumer who invests to
compensate his loads perfectly, is the sufferer. He spends money to install
switched capacitors so that he may not pay higher kVAh bills. Yet he is forced
to consume a higher kVAh because he can never maintain his power factor at
unity, simply because the distribution utility cannot maintain the voltage at
his supply point. That happens because the power factors of loads are
influenced by voltage.
Reactive drawl or injection can be useful depending on the prevailing voltage

In case the kVAh tariff is implemented, there will be

only a few consumers who understand power
factor. Maybe, these few will try to economize on
kVAh drawls. It is for sure that the majority will find
kVAh hard to comprehend. In the Indian scenario
where we cannot educate consumers to save
electricity and conserve energy, how can we
educate them kVAh management. In a scenario
where we are plagued with abnormally high losses
(mostly non technical) of more than 50%, it looks
too out of place to ignore these problems and be
bothered about changing the commercial metering
from kWh meters to kVAh meters at a phenomenal
cost to the exchequer, just to save maybe 1% or so of
energy.

conditions. When the voltage is low a reactive injection helps the system;
when the voltage is high a reactive drawl helps the system. The kVAh tariff does
not encourage this to happen.
For these and many more reasons, kVAh tariffs can never be considered fair or
equitable for either consumer or the utility. A deeper thought will explain why
the kVAh tariff will not be much useful for the utility as well once we
understand whether it will deter poor power factors and whether the power
factor problem is really that serious.

WillKvah
Kvahtariff
tariffprovide
provideaacommercial
commercialdeterrent
deterrentfor
forpoor
poorpfpf
Will
Yes.kVAh
kVAhtariffs
tariffswill
will always
always tend
tend to
Yes.
to provide
provide aacommercial
commercialdisincentive
disincentivefor
for
reactiveindiscipline
indisciplinefor
foraafew
few consumers,
consumers, but
but just
reactive
just aaminiscule
minisculefew
fewwho
whocan
can
understandthe
theconcept
conceptof
ofPF
PF and
and have
understand
have intention
intention to
tokeep
keeptheir
theirbills
billsunder
under
control.
The
habits
of
the
masses
are
more
likely
to
remain
unaffected.
control. The habits of the masses are more likely to remain unaffected.The
The
average
consumer,
who
might
intend
to control
hisalso
PF also
would
beto
average
consumer,
who
might
intend
to control
his PF
would
not benot
able
tohe
dohas
so as
has no
of monitoring
what his
power
factor
is. Anof
doable
so as
nohe
means
of means
monitoring
what his power
factor
is. An
example
example
of
problems
that
may
be
encountered,
in
case
a
change
over
is
problems that may be encountered, in case a change over is planned from kWh
from
kVAh,
may be seen
from thelinked
example
of frequency
toplanned
kVAh, may
bekWh
seen to
from
the example
of frequency
availability
tariffs
linked
availability
tariffs

an
ideal
example
of
providing
commercial
an ideal example of providing commercial signals for a disciplined
inter
signals
for
a
disciplined
inter
utility
operation.
utility operation.
In availability tariffs, maintenance of MW drawl schedules, generation
schedules, drawls from the grid etc. are to be paid based on pre-decided
contracts. The deviation from schedules is to be measured and charged at rates
which are related to the incremental cost of generation in the system, such
incremental cost being determined from the grid frequency. So perfect and
simple a proposition, but so hard to gain unanimous acceptability. It may be
noted that here also, the stress (or commercial deterrent) is based on kWh and
not kVAh. The voltage linked reactive drawls (in the proposed inter-utility
tariffs) are more in nature of a penalty than a tariff.
The availability tariffs has not found unanimous acceptance with just a few
Indian power utilities, in spite of it being based on sound techno-commercial
principles. If this be the case with just a few utilities, how do we expect
millions of end consumers to accept a change-over to a clearly faulty kVAh
metering and tariff system.
Page 3 of 6

Is there clarity and consistency in

principles of kvah measurements
It is necessary that consumers are educated on
what kVAh metering means, its benefits and how it
will be put in use. It is the duty of the promoters of
kVAh metering to explain how kVAh is defined and
how it can be measured in an unambiguous
manner. That is because there is little clarity and
much disagreement on even the definitions of
kVAh. Unlike kWh, for which there is little
argument or debate, there are different ways of
measuring kVAh, each of which will lead to a
differing value.
Is kVAh the Pythagorous sum of kW and kVAr
integrated over time, or is kVAh a product of root
mean square voltage and current integrated over
time. These different methods would give different
results in case of unbalanced loading in three
phase systems.
How does one define the RMS value for kVA, and
how do we treat harmonics. How do we define and
distinguish between fundamental and
harmonic for kVAh. What kVAh value must be
measured, and what must be the measurement
principles. How do we test for metrology and which
standards to follow.
What happens when one phase draws a lagging
current (say 0.5 lag), the second phase draws a
leading current (say 0.5 lead) and the third phase
draws a current at unity power factor. How do we
measure the kVAh for a three phase with
unbalanced power factors using 3 phase 3 wire
measurements. The kVAh itself is shrouded with

ambiguity and inconsistency, at least for the majority of power sector

engineers. Educating consumers on such aspects will always remain a far cry.
One might be inclined to think that it is easy to define any one principle as
the correct but this proposition is beset with problems as there are serious
inconsistencies that such measurements may have. Take for example the
following:
1.

While active energy is a vector quantity, it has a direction and can be

conveniently added, the apparent energy is a scalar quantity and can not
be added under varying PF conditions. This will lead to varying bills by
two otherwise perfectly legal apparent meters, just because their
integration periods were different !!!

There is also no unanimity as to whether kVAh

computed must consider lagging kVArh alone or
both lag and lead kVArh. Different engineers
suggest different methods. Some engineers suggest
that kVAh is to be computed considering only the
lag value of kVArh. Others insist that both the lag
and lead values are to be considered. In the former
method any leading power factor is considered as
unity. As the debate rages, no unanimity seems to
be in sight and unless a decision is reached no
kVAh tariff can be implemented.

S2 = (VI) 2 = (Vf + Vh) 2 * (If +Ih) 2 = (Vf x If) 2 + (Vf x Ih) 2 + (Vh x If) 2 + (Vh x Ih) 2

Let us not be carried away with definitions issues

alone. Definitions may be sorted out in course of
time, technically compromised or even mutually
agreed. It is not only these definitions but other
important issues as well, like commercial and legal
issues, the financial repercussions, ethical issues,
practical issues, whether at all there is a dire
necessity for a change, and issues relating to
impossibility of energy accounting etc. that taken
together warns us against any change from kWh to
kVAh. Surely, the changeover is going to have a
phenomenal impact on a number of such aspects,
and that is why we must treat with utmost care.

Where

kWhversus
versuskVAh
kVAh
kWh

2.

A windmill that generates active energy and draws reactive from the
system, it will get more money for drawing more reactive energy from the
system !!

3.

Many people take recourse to the IEEE study group's definition of

apparent energy, not withstanding the fact that these definitions were
evolved with the intention of measuring pollution and determining
factors for penalizing pollution rather than defining energy supply
tariff based on them. The IEEE definition for apparent power is :

Vf =Vfundamental Vh =Vharmonic
If = Ifundamental Ih =Iharmonic

It then goes on to define a fundamental apparent power Sf and a non

fundamental power Sn as follows:

Whena consumer
a consumer
for electricity,
the
When
payspays
for electricity,
the effective
effective electricity
rate he
pays comprise
of
electricity
rate he pays
comprise
of three
three components,
which
not be in
visible
in
components,
which may
notmay
be visible
the final
the final
unitary
tariffs.
These components
are
unitary
tariffs.
These
components
are
Energy purchased from the generating stations

or grid (kWh)
Energy loss incurred by the distribution utility

S f = V f x I f, the product of the fundamental components of the voltage and

current.
Sn = {(V f x Ih) 2 + (Vh x If) 2 + (Vh x Ih) 2 }
Sn/Sf being considered the ideal figure of merit for determining harmonic
pollution and penalizing.
It is not difficult to see from this analysis that if a consumer is consuming unity
power factor load and purely sinusoidal current, presence of harmonics in
voltage itself increases his apparent energy consumption. As concepts remain
hazy, it shall be hard for most manufacturers (barring just a few market leaders
of electronic meters of today), to comprehend technical requirements and
manufacture suitable kVAh meters.
So, can kVAh be computed by the multiplication of the RMS values of Voltage
and Current. As emphasized above, the issues of power factor and kVAh under
harmonic conditions will have to be kept in view and there is no clear solution
to the problem. If so, how do we define kVAh under harmonics?
Page 4 of 6

(kWh)
Annual charges for the distribution system (this

includes ROE, O&M etc.)

The last part (annual charges) are linked to the
system kVA capacity. This kVA capacity determines
the total demand that can be sanctioned to
consumers (after considering appropriate diversity
factor).
That is why it is appropriate to have a tariff based on
kWh and not on kVAh. Exceeding the sanctioned
kVA demand value means that the system is
utilized beyond its design. This should invite a
penalty as is already the case in most tariffs, and
not legitimized through a kVAh tariff. This penalty
can, if necessary, be extended to domestic sector as
well and this will appropriately address the poor
power factor problem.

There is one more aspect, particularly in end consumer tariffs, and that is cross
compensation in tariffs between two or more consumer categories. This
aspect needs to be kept in consideration while examining the viability of kVAh
metering. The cross compensation can be worked out only if the exact
quantity of energy consumed by each category is known. In case the meters of
all consumers were to be changed from kWh to kVAh it will be difficult to work
out cross subsidies in a transparent manner.
Imagine a scenario where consumer meters do not register any active energy.
For such a scenario it would become impossible to account for energy and loss
in the system, particularly the loss in the highly-loss-prone LT system. It
would also become difficult to arrive at reasonable figures for cross
compensation in tariffs as energy delivered to each category of consumers
cannot be determined in an unambiguous manner.
One of the foremost problems of our power supply and distribution system is
losses. In order to address this problem, we have to resort to energy accounting
at every level. Introduction of a kVAh based metering scheme will completely
seal the possibility of energy accounting by conventional methods.

Why penalties and not kvah metering

There are two things catered for by the distribution utility (i) capacity (ii)
energy. Every consumer is sanctioned a particular capacity based on which the
distribution system has been constructed. Violation of the capacity is an
offence on the design of the system, and hence deserves a penalty, like demand
over-shoot penalties. The consumer is expected to draw electricity within the
sanctioned demand limit, and a kWh metering is appropriate to measure his
drawl.
kVAh
measuring system
system which
whichgives
givesa a
kVAhmetering
meteringon
onthe
theother
other hand
hand is a measuring
commercial
warning
consumerstotouse
useelectricity
electricityatatunity
unitypower
powerfactor.
factor. It
commercial
warning
totoconsumers
It does
not directly
measure
the electricity
consumed
by consumers.
It is
does
not directly
measure
the electricity
consumed
by consumers.
It is never
never
the
case
anywhere
in
the
world
that
all
electrical
devices
the case anywhere in the world that all electrical devices are supposed to are
have
to have
a unity
is notelectrical
denied that
electrical
a supposed
unity power
factor.
It ispower
not factor.
deniedIt that
devices
need
devices need compensation. But kVAh metering tends to imply that
compensation. But kVAh metering tends to imply that consumers are to have a
consumers are to have a perfect compensation. This as such is not only an
perfect compensation. This as such is not only an anti-customer but
anti-customer but impractical proposition. This puts forth a technical
impractical
This puts
forth amasses
technical
which or
the
condition proposition.
which the unaware
common
justcondition
cannot fathom
unaware
common
masses
just
cannot
fathom
or
comply,
however
good
their
comply, however good their intention may be. Hence it is both unethical
intention
may be. Hence it is both unethical and anti-customer.
and anti-customer.
It is also anti-customer because it implies that the distribution utility
commercially denies the customer the right to freely draw electricity (within
his sanctioned limit). It is fair to tell the customer not to draw power at poor
power factors and even penalize violations, but it is not in line with fair
business ethics to have a commercial system in place, which the customer just
cannot put in practice for his best benefit.
Why not look at a similar issue facing the distribution companies, who in turn
are customers of generating companies. The distribution companies often ask
(at times demand) the load centre generating stations to supply VARs, for
which they do not pay. The generating stations in turn sacrifice their active
generation to generate VARs to meet the reactive demand in the grid. Pit head
Page 5 of 6

stations with long transmission lines have to

operate at leading power factors often sacrificing
their stability. If at all kVAh is to be paid in form of
tariffs, will at all the distribution utilities agree to
pay generating stations based on their reactive
generation. In the other extreme, if at all kVAh
tariffs were applicable for generating stations, they
would possibly be too happy to save their coal
consumption and raise bills on distribution
utilities based on kVAh delivered. In proposed
inter-utility tariffs there is a penal component
linked to reactive drawls which is linked to
voltages, with a band of voltage for which there is
no reactive energy penalty. However, a kVAh
metering has no such band. How can we have
double standards, one between the generating
companies and distributors, and other between
distributors and end consumers. How do we deal
with end consumers who are directly supplied
power from generating companies needs also to be
kept in consideration. That is why kVAh metering
will sooner or later lead to controversies and
serious commercial aberrations.
In case poor power factors are becoming a problem,
a rational approach is to introduce a well judged,
voltage linked penalties for poor power factors
rather than have kVAh tariffs.

A legal aspect not to be overlooked

There may be a legal angle in case kVAh tariffs are
introduced. A distribution utility cannot charge for
something it has not generated or purchased. The
kVAh neither represents the value of supply, as
required by the Act nor does it represent any
energy. In case kVAh metering is proposed, it is
easy to visualize how the Regulatory Commission
might view the concept and react to it.
A second legal aspect shall be controversy in the
technical method in which kVAh is to be measured.
Addressing all these is not an easy task.

kVAh metering may lead to abnormal

voltages in the system
kVAh metering and tariffs shall tend to legitimize
reactive drawls and may lead to an uncontrollable
voltage situation and high loss in the distribution
system.
There will always be consumers who care too little
about power factors and higher energy bills. There

will be a few consumers who may connect fixed capacitors causing high
voltage in the system, affecting all other consumers. There may be a few
consumers who care too little and draw high reactive currents causing poor
voltage in the system. kVAh metering can do little to deter such consumers,
other than bill them a bit more.

per legal metrology norms. Again there is no

standard definition and no standard equipment to
test and measure kVAh available today. Such an
equipment will have to be qualified as per the
norms of kVAh measurement set herewith.

How serious is the problem we want to tackle

We have all seen how the present 100% metering

drive is far from completion. If all meters were to be
replaced to kVAh meters we can well imagine how
time taking it will be to change/replace all meters
(which is far more in numbers than that covered
under 100% metering drive).

kVAh metering is targeted to improve the reactive current flow in the Indian
distribution systems. It is worth examining how wide-spread or serious is this
problem.
Those who have experience on transmission systems will know that the
transmission lines carry a substantial reactive current. This is fortunately not
the case for most radially operated distribution feeders. Our study shows that
for a good number of distribution feeders we have selected at random from
different parts of the country, the power factor is better than 0.9 lag !. A surprise
finding indeed, indicating that there may be a few only with ailment that need
the kVAh metering medicine .
We have also seen that most semi-urban and rural domestic loads in India have
a good power factor. We have observed that voltage drops in distribution
feeders are caused by long lines of low conductor sizes and not due to high
reactive power flow. It needs to be recognized that distribution lines have a
high resistance, and that in Indian conditions we come across HT:LT ratios of
1:5 and 1:6. Our problem lies there, and the priority lies in improving such
systems, not in planning to introduce kVAh tariffs.
Rural feeders are the only ones which may have a power factor of 0.8 or less.
More than 35% of the energy is consumed by this sector, and this is a sector
where kVAh metering could have possibly helped (other feeders have too good
a power factor). In the rural sector, with highly subsidized agriculture tariffs,
what sense will a kVAh meter make.
Possibly the problem of high reactive loss has been over-imagined, which has
lead the thinkers to think of kVAh metering. It is believed that technical loss in
Indian distribution systems are very high. Yes, they are high compared to other
countries, but much less than common perceptions about it. We have made
technical loss studies throughout the country and we can separately tell you
what the range of losses are. We have observations to indicate that even if
reactive drawls are reduced, the saving in energy will be barely noticeable.
There are many more avenues where energy can be saved with relatively little
investment. kVAh metering is not the magic solution.

How practical is the kvah proposition

Notwithstanding all the above problems, even if it is finally decided that the
country must shift over from the kWh system to the kVAh system of metering, it
is easy to see that thousands of crores of rupees will be required for the
transition. A part-transition will not do; it has to be a complete changeover as
tariffs itself will need to be changed not at all an easy proposition.
Since kVAh meters will be tariff metering devices they will have to be tested as
Page 6 of 6

If at all this is so difficult a transition, if at all it will

mean such a huge investment, if at all there is so
much of technical ambiguity, if at all the kVAh
system is neither legally or commercially sound,
and if the very ailment which kVAh professes to
address is not that wide-spread, kVAh metering is
simply not a practical proposition.

Conclusion
Conclusion

We need not imagine from where this huge sum of

We need not imagine from where this huge sum
capital
for changing
kWh kWh
meters
to kVAh
meters
of capital
for changing
meters
to kVAh
will
comewill
from.
Wefrom.
needWe
notneed
comment
whether
meters
come
not comment
such
a
huge
sum
of
money
could
have
been
whether such a huge sum of money could have
gainfully
utilizedutilized
for other
purposes
and and
more
been gainfully
for other
purposes
important
improvement
of
the
power
sector.
more important improvement of the powerAs
sector. As manufacturers
of energy
manufacturers
of energy meters,
all wemeters,
see hereall
is a
we seeofhere
is a bounty
of business
bounty
business
opportunity
for usopportunity
and we see it
and we see
as anmoney
opportunity
make
asfor
anus
opportunity
toitmake
if at all to
this
kVAh
money if
at all is
this
kVAh metering concept is
metering
concept
implemented.
implemented.

But as citizens of this country we also see this as an

But as citizens
of technically
this countryincorrect
we also see
this as
unnecessary
and
move.
We
an unnecessary and technically incorrect move.
see this as an inappropriate method to address a
We see this as an inappropriate method to
problem, and we can see how much it will cost this
address a problem, and we can see how much it
poor country. As market leaders in metering in
will cost this poor country. As market leaders in
India,
all weinsuggest
metering
be a
metering
India, is,
allthe
wekVAh
suggest
is, themay
kVAh
great
idea,
but
seriously
aberrated
both
technically
metering may be a great idea, but seriously
and
commercially,
and against
conceivable
aberrated
both technically
and all
commercially,
technical
and commercial
intereststechnical
of consumers,
and against
all conceivable
and
utilities
and theinterests
country. of consumers, utilities
commercial
and the country.