Date post: | 12-Mar-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | trinhthuan |
View: | 217 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
ANNEXURE – 2
PROGRESS OF ALL NEW UPCOMING POWER STATIONS
1.0 Expected date of commissioning committed by the contractors during the CS Review meeting on 11.01.2013 is furnished below.
Sl.No Name of the Project
Sector Capacity ( in MW)
Scheduled date
Earlier commitment made by the contractors & indicated in the previous report to TNERC.
Expected date of commissioning.
Contractor
1 Mettur Thermal Power Project - Stage 3 ( MTPP) ( 1x 600 MW)
State 600 23/09/11 Dec 2012 March 2013 M/s.BGRESL
2 North Chennai Thermal Power Project – Stage-II ( 2x600 MW)
State 1200 Unit–II -16/11/11 Unit –I -18/05/11
Unit-II Dec 2012 Unit-I March 2013
Unit-II March 2013(FL) (COD - April 2013) Unit-I April 2013(FL) (COD- May 2013)
M/s.BHEL
3 NTPC TNEB JV Project (NTECL) at Vallur (3x 500MW) ( Share 75 % )
Joint Venture
1500 (Share-1125)
Unit-I –12/10/10 Unit-II-12/03/11 Unit-III-27/09/12
Unit-I Nov 2012 Unit-II Jan 2013 Unit III July 2013
Unit-I - COD declared on 29.11.2012 Unit-II February 2013 Unit III October 2013
NTPC TNEB JV ( NTECL) Sub- Contractor – for NTPC -M/s. BHEL
4 NLC TNEB JV Project (NTPL) at Tuticorin (2 X 500 MW) (Share 38.7 %)
Joint Venture
1000 (Share 387)
Unit-I – 28.03.March’12 Unit –II – Aug’12
Unit-I June 2013 Unit II July 2013
Unit-I December 2013 Unit II March 2014
NLC TNEB JV( NTPL) Sub- Contractor- for NLC -M/s. BHEL
2
2.0 The Present status of power plants where the anticipated date of commissioning was
committed as November 2012 & December 2012 in the previous report submitted to
Hon’ble TNERC is detailed below:
2.1 Mettur Thermal Power Station Stage 3 (1 x 600 MW)
The EPC cost of the project is Rs.3100.06 crores. The work was awarded to M/s
BGR Energy Systems Ltd and commenced on 25.06.2008. The project is to be
commissioned by September 2011 as per the Contract Schedule. However, there is a
slippage. Due to the delay in Coal handling, Ash Handling, Milling System and Bunkers
Erection, etc., the commissioning is delayed. In order to facilitate the Commissioning,
the Contract has been extended up to 23.12.2012 and further extension upto 31.3.13 is
underway.
So far 87% of works have been completed. Unit Synchronized with oil on
04.05.2012.Full load with 608 MW was achieved on 11.10.12 and the initial operation of
the unit was under progress from 23.11.12 to 04.12.12. Unit load was being maintained
at 350- 500 MW till 04.12.12. The unit was under forced shut down from 04.12.12 to
attend to few technical problems that were encountered during the period of initial
operation. On completion of entire Coal Handling System and Ash Handling system the
unit is expected to be commissioned with full load on sustained basis by March 2013 as
committed by M/s.BGRESL during the Chief Secretary’s review meeting on 11.01.13.
2.2 North Chennai Thermal Power Station stage II (2X600MW) UNIT 2- 600 MW:
The EPC cost of the project is Rs.2175 crores. This work also has been awarded
to M/s.BHEL and commenced on 16.8.2008. The project should have been commissioned
in November 2011 as per Schedule. At present, Coal Handling System, Cooling water
system, Ash handling system etc are under progress.
So far 92% of works have been completed. 400 KV GIS switchyard was commissioned
on 09.12.12. The unit has been synchronized with grid on 17.12.2012 and reached 101
MW (with oil). The boiler has been lit up for coal firing on 19.01.13. Safety valve floating
is under progress. Sustained generation of 250 MW to 300 MW is expected from
30.01.2013. As committed by M/s.BHEL during the Chief Secretary’s review meeting on
11.01.13, sustained full load generation of 600 MW is expected from 31.03.13 after
completion of entire Coal Handling System & Ash Handling System.
3
2.3 1500 MW (3 x 500 MW) thermal power project Joint venture with
National Thermal Power Corporation, at Vallur in Thiruvallur District: Unit I
Total cost of the project (3X 500 MW) is Rs.8444 crores. Works commenced on 13.8.07
for Unit 1. Main plant works for all three units have been awarded to M/s. BHEL. Unit I
was synchronized on 09.03.2012 and full load reached on 28.03.12. COD was declared
on 29.11.12. Unit is generating about 300-350 MW after attending to a few teething
problems that were encountered during trial operation. Sustained generation of 500 MW
could not be achieved in January 2013 due to the problems in cooling water system & ID
fan. Further, sufficient coal stock is also not available since NTECL have not signed Fuel
Supply Agreement with Coal India Limited for want of clearance from NTPC. Generation
of 500 MW on sustained basis is expected to be achieved in February 2013.
Sl.No Name of the Linelength in
C.Kms
Total
Loc Nos.
Stub
setting
Tower
erection
Line stringing
/Total length
in CKM.
Programme for completion
I NCTPS-Stage -II (2x600 MW)
1
Erection of 400 KV MC line from
NCTPS stage II to -Alamathy 400
KV SS (Two circuits to be
terminated at Alamathy SS & the
other two circuits to be
terminated at the tapping point to
SV Chatram near Alamathy SS)
168 114 114 111 128.0
Right of Way issues involved in 3 locations in the
land belonging to M/s Venkatesh Coke & Power
Ltd., The company has filed Writ Petition in the High
Court/Chennai The High Court/Chennai directed
TANTRANSCO to make an application before the
District Majistrate (District Collector/Thiruvallur) with
directions to the District Collector to pass orders on
or before 10.06.011 and the orders passed on
18.5.2012 rejecting the request of TANTRANSCO to
enter upon the petitioners land meaning that the
line has to be deviated from the original approved
route.In this regard,District Collector/Tiruvallur has
been addressed by Chief Secretary to review and
recosider the judgment .Mean while, Writ Appeal
has been filed in the High Court /Chennai against
the Order passed by the District
Collector/Thiruvallur and interim injunction has
been granted for 4 weeks. Also to resolve the issues
in power evacuation lines, a meeting was conducted
by the Chief Secretary to Govt. on 31.08.12 with
TANTRANSCO and concerned District Collectors.
High court case last hearing was held on 16.11.12
and Judgement pronounced in favor of
TANTRANSCO
2
Erection of 400 KV MC from
Alamathy 400 KV SS to
Sunguvarchatram 400 KV SS (Two
circuits from Alamathy SS to SV
Chatram & two circuits from the
tapping point (near Alamathy SS )
to SV Chatram)
188 160 145 123 99.9
Stub setting pending at 17 locations due to Court
case and other ROW issues and tower erection
pending at 19 locations due to Court case and other
ROW issues.
ANNEXURE 3
STATUS & PROGRAMME OF POWER EVACUATION SCHEMES OF GENERATION PROJECTS AS ON 20.11.12
Sl.No Name of the Linelength in
C.Kms
Total
Loc Nos.
Stub
setting
Tower
erection
Line stringing
/Total length
in CKM.
Programme for completion
II MTPS STAGE-III (1x600 MW)
3Erection of 400 KV DC line from
MTPS to ARASUR 400 KV SS280 324 317 315 210.75
Writ Appeal filed in High Court/Chennai, dismiised
on 16.11.12. Court directed TANTRANSCO to
proceed with the work in originally proposed route.
Supreme Court ordered in favor of TANGEDCO
III NTPC Vallur JV (3x500 MW)
4
Erection of 400 KV DC link line on
DC towers from Vallur JV TPS to
NCTPS Stage II.
7.06 14 14 14 7.1 Line work completed.
IVBHAVANI KATTALAI BARRAGE-
II (2x15 MW)
5110KV DC line from Bhavani
Kattalai Barrage-II-common point16.42 69 62 62 7.1 Energised on 23.08.12.
6110KV DC line from common point
to Thiruchenkode SS9.127 40 40 40 9.127 Energised on 23.08.12
7110KV DC line from common point
to Pallipalayam SS2.155 7 7 7 2.16 Energised on 23.08.12
Unit I syncronised and run for 1 hour on partial load of 2 MW on 28.07.11.
Sl.No Name of the Linelength in
C.Kms
Total
Loc Nos.
Stub
setting
Tower
erection
Line stringing
/Total length
in CKM.
Programme for completion
VBHAVANI KATTALAI BARRAGE-
III (2x15 MW)
8
110KV SC line from Bhavani
Kattalai Barrage-III-common
point
5.86 13 13 13 5.86 Energised on 13.08.12
9110KV SC line from common point-
Nallur10.26 36 36 36 10.30 Energised on 13.08.12
10110KV SC line from common point-
BKB-II15.01 30 30 30 15.01 Work under progress.
VIBHAVANI BARRAGE-I (2x5
MW)
11
LILO OF 110 KV Pykara-
Mettupalayam line at Bhavani
Barrage-I
5.5 22 22 22 11/11
Line work completed. Linking with the take off
structure will be taken up on completion of switch
yard works.
VIIBHAVANI BARRAGE-II (2x5
MW)
12
LILO OF 110 KV Mettupalayam -
Irumborai line at Bhavani Barrage-
II
3.87 12 12 12 0.86 Energised on 14.09.12
VIIINLC -THOOTHUKUDI JV
(2x500 MW)
13LILO of 230 KV TTPS-TTN at
NTPL JV0.78 6 6.00 6.00 0.78 Energised on 13.08.12
ANNEXURE 4
ENERGY AUDIT
As per the provisions made available in the EC Act 2001, the State Designated
Agency (SDA) i.e the Tamil Nadu Electrical Inspectorate (TNEI) has been nominated by
Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) in consultation with GoTN to carry out the schemes
on energy Conservation and other allied activities in the state of Tamil Nadu such as
creating Database, Policy formulation, Annual reports review, Awareness creation on
energy conservation and Safety measures, conducting energy audits for Designated
Consumers, capacity building and to co-ordinate, regulate and enforce the provisions of
the Act.
TANGEDCO as such could not insist for energy audit among industries /
commercial establishments on its own.
GoTN had already been addressed in this regard.
However the TANGEDCO Board has initiated all possible steps in all Thermal &
Gas Power Plants of TANGEDCO being a Designated Consumer (DC) to meet out Energy
Consumption (EC) norms and specified standards based on the notifications issued by
the Ministry of Power (MOP), Govt of India on Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT)
scheme and the form I required had been submitted before the dead line of 30.06.2012
as per S.O. 687(E) dt.30.03.2012 and PAT Rules vide GSR No. 269(E) dt.30.03.2012.
ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES:
TANGEDCO have taken all steps on its own in creating wide awareness among
general public on the need for energy conservation and on the methods available as
follows:
The Energy Conservation Day/Week every year during December across the
state is being celebrated in a grand manner by organizing various events.
TANGEDCO have celebrated “Electricity Awareness Week” in all districts across
the state between 21st and 27th of August 2012 to create awareness on Electrical
Safety, Prevention of Electrical Theft and Energy Conservation by disseminating a
Handbook on the same which was released by the Hon’ble Minister for Electricity on
21.08.2012 at Chennai.
TANGEDCO through Hello and Rainbow FM have created awareness among the
general Public on issues related to general in nature, LT billing and Energy
Conservation.
As announced by the GoTN during the Budget Assembly session 2012,
TANGEDCO is taking steps to issue one CFL at free of cost to the Hut Services across
the state and 1 Crore CFLs to metered domestic services at subsidized rate of Rs15/-
per CFL to offset the peak demand.
The TANGEDCO Board has directed to upscale the replacement of 1 Crore CFLs
after implementing in 2 districts. Accordingly Villupuram and Kanyakumari districts were
selected for implementing the scheme. Procurement of CFLs to distribute to Hut and
Metered domestic services is under process.
TANGEDCO has also proposed to use LED lights in the cabin of HODs in all the
TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO offices at Head Quarters for its huge energy saving
potential and owing to the high cost of the bulbs as promotional measures in first
phase.
TANGEDCO also made mandatory the use of EEPs (3 Star and above) for the
new agricultural service connection.
TANGEDCO has initiated the pilot study on the feasibility of implementing the
Renewable Energy (RE) based DSM and Demand Response (DR) Strategy at Tiruppur &
Udumalpet with the help of M/s. Shakthi Sustainable Energy (SSE) Foundation Ltd.
The pilot study on promotion of Energy Efficient appliances in Domestic and
Commercial sectors at Chennai has also been undertaken by TANGEDCO with the help
of M/s.The Energy Resources Institute (TERI).
Apart from the above, the following activities are also being carried out by
TANGEDCO on Energy Conservation measures.
Energy conservation tips along with other suggestions have been displayed in the
web-site of TANGEDCO for wider publicity among the public.
The need for energy conservation is being emphasized in all training programmes /
workshops / seminars conducted by TANGEDCO.
1 2010-11 4,210 132 80 4,422
2 2011-12 9,550 300 181 10,032
3 2012-13 7,563 238 143 7,944
4 2013-14 8,670 273 164 9,107
ANNEXURE 5
TOD CONSUMPTION IN MILLION UNITS
Normal Peak Off PeakSr.No Financial Year Total
ANNEXURE 6
PROGRESS ON QUALITY OF SUPPLY
The report on the present position of erection of Automatic Power Factor
Compensation (APFC) equipments and capacitor banks in order to improve ‘quality of
service’ as directed in ref. are as follows:
I. Provision of APFC panels at the LT side of the Distribution Transformers:
1.0. The Automatic Power Factor Compensation (APFC) Panels are envisaged in
Part-B Scheme of R-APDRP in 87 towns of TANGEDCO that are to be provided at the LT
side of the Distribution Transformer.
2.0. The schedule of provision of APFC panels in 28,022 DTs in 87 towns in 5
slots is as under.
S. No. Slot Capacity wise APFC panels (Nos.) Schedule
of
completion
18
KVAR
27
KVAR
36
KVAR
72
KVAR
1 I (10 towns) 604 199 321 61 18.03.2013
2 II (17 towns) 633 556 317 148 01.06.2013
3 III (34 towns) 2321 407 1796 404 15.08.2013
4 IV (21 towns) 7721 1637 6876 3646 07.12.2013
5 V (5 towns) 181 36 140 18 21.02.2014
Total 11460 2835 9450 4277
3.0. The above work has been entrusted to P&C wing. Accordingly, P&C wing
has processed the tender for procurement and installation of APFC panels and
awarded the LoAs as below.
(i) LoA awarded to M/s Herodex Power Systems Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra
S. No. APFC Panel rating Quantity (Nos.) Amount(Rs. Crores)
1 18 KVAR 11460 50.03
2 27 KVAR 2835 14.40
3 72 KVAR 4277 35.70
Total 100.13
(ii) LoA awarded to M/s Shreem Electric Ltd., Maharashtra
S. No. APFC Panel rating Quantity (Nos.) Amount (Rs. Crores)
1 36 KVAR 9450 50.32
Total 50.32
4.0. The present status of the above tenders, as stated by P&C wing, is as
follows.
(i) The Tender for Procurement of APFC panels has been finalised and the LOAs
have been issued to 2 firms viz M/s Herodex Power systems Pvt Ltd &
M/s. Shreem Electric Ltd, on 2.6.2012.
(ii) M/s. Misha Power private ltd, Chennai have filed a writ petition (W.P No
13183/2012) in the High court of Madras challenging the corrigendum &
clarifications issued in respect of the subject tender.
(iii) In view of the above writ petition, the LOAs were issued stating that this LOA
is issued subject to the outcome of Writ petition. The counter affidavit had
been filed in the High Court of Madras and subsequently arguments were also
held. Meanwhile one of the successful bidder viz. M/s. Herodex Power
systems Pvt Ltd have filed an impleading petition and the same has been
admitted by the Honourable High Court of Madras, but no direction has been
issued in this regard, so far.
(iv) Since the firms were insisting for removal of the condition mentioned in the
LOA as well as requesting to confirm that payment will be made for the
materials supplied prior to the date of judgement, irrespective of the outcome
of the writ petition, detailed P.O could not be issued.
(v) However, the opinion of the standing counsel is being sought to issue
detailed P.O. with the condition that the P.O. is issued subject to the outcome
of writ petition and to proceed with ground works such as survey etc.,
required for the execution of the work so as to complete the project in time.
II. Erection of capacitor banks in Chennai area:
Out of 48 MVAR capacitor bank,26.4 MVAR has been erected and
commissioned in Chennai area and for the balance capacitor erection works are
under progress and the same will be commissioned before Jan-2013. The work
could not be completed as per schedule ,due to delayed supply of indoor breaker.
Presently the breakers have been allotted and erection works are under progress.
III. Erection of RMU in 7 cities:
The provision of fully automated 22/11kv Ring Main Units (RMUs) are
envisaged in Part-B Scheme of R-APDRP in 7 cities (8 Regions of TANGEDCO) are under
progress.
ANNEXURE 7 & 8
Road map for metering in Feeders and Distribution Transformers.
I) 100% Metering in Feeders:
Out of 7968 feeders, 7943 feeders are metered which is 99.69%. All the
remaining feeders will be arranged to be metered and 100% metering could be
achieved within 3 months.
Sl.No Voltage Level
No.Of Feeders
Meters Installed
% Metered
1 230 KV 241 241
2 110 KV 467 463
3 66 KV 3 3
4 33 KV 934 926
5 22 KV 1293 1289
6 11 KV 5030 5021
Total 7968 7943 99.69%
II) 100% metering in Distribution Transformers (DTs) a. Total no. of DTs in service as on 30.09.2012 : 2,17,711Nos.
b. Metering available without AMR facility : 93,101 Nos.*
DTs Covered Under R-APDRP : 40,525 Nos
Dts Covered Under Non R-APDRP area : 1,77,186 Nos.
Proposed Metering Under R-APDRP area : 35,500 Nos.
Meters provided in R-APDRP area : 16,082 Nos.
* It is proposed to replace these meters also with AMR facility, hence not
included in the metered DTs.
Balance meters for DTs under R-APDRP area will be provided before
December 2012.
c. 100% metering in DTs in non R-APDRP areas with AMR facility are
proposed with an expenditure of Rs. 355 Crores for the provision of
1,77,186 Nos. meters as follows:
2013-14 : 50000 Meters
2014-15 : 100000 Meters
2015-16 : 27186 Meters
d. Chief Engineers/Distribution have already been instructed to provide
meters as an when new DTs are Commissioned.
ANNEXURE 9
REPORT ON KVAH BILLING
As per tariff order dated 30th
March 2012, the Hon’ble Commission has directed TANGEDCO
under chapter 11 of “Summary of Directives” as follows:
The Commission directs TANGEDCO to introduce KVAH billing for LT and HT consumers,
as recommended by Forum of Regulators.
However, TANGEDCO would like to submit that there are some practical difficulties for
implementation of kVah billing for the consumers. The issues related to implementation of
kVah are submitted as follows
1. Tri-vector Meter installation
All HT and LT services with connected load of 18.6 kW in TANGEDCO are provided with
meters for KVAh measurement. However KVAh measurement methods differ in different
makes; some meters may be adopting vector summation, some arithmetic and some True
RMS VxI method. Hence, there will be disparity in the billed KVAh energy for the same load
if metered by different makes of meters.
Another issue of major concern is class of accuracy of kvah meter, in absence of any
standards for kvah measurement may lead to dissatisfaction within the consumers which
may result to dispute in billing and legal issues.
2. Accounting Issue
Some of the HT consumer comes under banking arrangements, and also in certain cases LT
consumers are eligible for the same benefits, wherein Power Purchase agreements are
executed based on the KWh and adjustments are also made on KWh only. If the energy
billing is carried out by KVAh for the HT and LT consumers, then there would be a mismatch
in banking adjustments whereby power generated is measure at kWh level and energy
consumed will be at KVAh level. Also, if Power Purchase is made by TANGEDCO from private
or other producers on KVAh basis, it may even result in loss for TANGEDCO as they may
pump more Reactive power and demand the same rate as for active power.
3. Lead + Lag Logic for penalty
All the States, where kVAh tariff has been introduced, the HT meters are capable of
measuring lagging power factor only and leading power factor is blocked (lead as unity).
Where as in Tamil Nadu, the HT meters with lead + lag (lead as lead) logic is being followed.
This will result in increase in the KVAh tariff structure if the consumer supplies reactive
power to the grid.
Proposal of TANGEDCO
It is difficult to implement kVAh billing due to above practical issues and implementation
may kindly be deferred.
Under the above circumstances in order to improve the grid stability, TANGEDCO proposes
that Power Factor penalty limit may be revised from the present 0.9 to 0.95 to HT services
and 0.85 to 0.90 to LT services whose connected load exceeds 25 HP (18.6 KW) by making
suitable amendments in the regulations.
Sr.No Particulars FY 2010-11
1 Power Purchase from Own Generation 23,223
2 Power Purchase from Other Sources 45,513
3 Wheeling Units -
4 Power from Kadamparai 568
5 Supply from Pudducherry -
Total Power Purchase 69,304
6 T&D Loss (in MU's) 15,441
7 T&D Loss (in %) 22.28%
Total Sales 53,863
8 Sales to Consumers 53,251
9 Wheeling Units -
10 Power Supply to Kadamparai 612
11 Power Supply to Pudducherry -
Sr.No Particulars FY 2010-11
1 Power Purchase from Own Generation 23,223
2 Power Purchase from Other Sources 45,513
3 Wheeling Units 5,468
4 Power from Kadamparai 568
5 Supply from Pudducherry 423
Total Power Purchase 75,195
6 T&D Loss (in MU's) 15,725
7 T&D Loss (in %) 20.91%
Total Sales 59,470
8 Sales to Consumers 53,251
9 Wheeling Units 5,195
10 Power Supply to Kadamparai 612
11 Power Supply to Pudducherry 412
Exclusive of Wheeling
Inclusive of Wheeling
ANNEXURE 10
T&D LOSS FOR FY 2010-11 (ENTIRE YEAR)
ANNEXURE 11
Submission of Capital Cost Estimates for Upcoming Thermal Power Stations
TANGEDCO humbly submits that
1) TANGEDCO herein TANGEDCO LTD (Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
Limited), hereinafter called TANGEDCO, is a Government Company within the meaning of the
Companies Act, 1956.
2) TANGEDCO is a subsidiary Company to Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) which came into
existence on 1st July 1957 and has been in the business of generation, transmission and
distribution of electricity in the state of Tamil Nadu.
3) The Electricity Act 2003 mandates unbundling of State Electricity Boards under section 131. In
accordance with the above mandate the Government of Tamil Nadu (GOTN) had given in
principle approval for the re-organization of TNEB by establishing a holding company, named
TNEB Ltd and two subsidiary companies, namely Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited
(TANTRANSCO) and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)
vide G.O.Ms.No.114 Energy (B2) Department dated 8th October 2008 with the stipulation that
the aforementioned companies shall be fully owned by Government.
4) Based on the approval of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of TANGEDCO
and TNEB Limited by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.94 Energy (B2) Department
dated 16th Nov 2009, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO)
and TNEB Limited was incorporated on 1st Dec 2009 with an authorized share capital of Rs. 5.00
Crores and paid up capital of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs each for TANGEDCO and TNEB Limited. The
Certificates of commencement of business have been obtained for the TANGEDCO on 16th
Mar
2010 and for TNEB Ltd on 12th
Mar 2010 respectively.
5) TANGEDCO vide Provisional Transfer Scheme notification dated 19th
October 2010 has been into
existence from 1st
November 2010 and since then TANGEDCO has been in the business of
generation and distribution of electricity in the state of Tamil Nadu.
6) TANGEDCO has mix of the various generating capacities such as 2970 MW of coal based four
thermal stations, 516 MW from the five Gas Turbine Stations and 2223 MW from 39 Hydro
Stations.
7) The present submission is been filed for approval of Capital Cost of three upcoming Thermal
Power Stations namely:-
a. Mettur Thermal Power Station (MTPS) Stage III Unit – I (1x600MW);
b. North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – I (1x600MW);
c. North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – II (1x600MW);
a. Mettur Thermal Power Station (MTPS) Stage III Unit – I (1x600MW);
8) The EPC contract for construction of Mettur Thermal Power Station Stage III Unit – I was
awarded to BGR Energy Systems Ltd (BGRESL) and the works commenced on 25th
June 2008. The
project was to be commissioned during September 2011 but was delayed due to delay in Coal
handling, Ash Handling, Milling System and Bunkers Erection, etc. The contract has been
extended up to 31st
March 2013 in order to facilitate the commissioning.
9) The unit was synchronized with oil on 4th
May 2012 and achieved a full load capacity of 608 MW
on 11th
October 2012. The initial operation of the unit was under progress from 23rd
November
2012 to 04th
December 2012. However the unit was forced shut down from 04th
December 2012
to attend to few technical problems that were encountered during the period of initial
operation.
10) On completion of entire Coal Handling System and Ash Handling system the unit is expected to
be commissioned with full load on sustained basis by March 2013 as committed by M/s.BGRESL
during the Chief Secretary’s review meeting on 11th
January 2013.
b. North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – I & II (2x600MW);
11) The EPC contract for construction of North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – I and
Unit – II was awarded to Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) and the works commenced on 16th
August 2008. The project was to be commissioned during November 2011 but was delayed due
to delay in Coal Handling System, Cooling water system, Ash handling system etc.
12) The works for 400 KV GIS switch yard has been completed and it was commissioned on 09th
December 2012. The unit was synchronized into the grid with a capacity of 101 MW with oil on
17th
December 2012. The boiler has been lit up for coal firing on 19th
January 2013. Therefore
sustained generation of 250 MW to 300 MW is expected from 30th
January 2013.
13) On completion of entire Coal Handling System and Ash Handling system the unit is expected to
be commissioned with full load capacity on sustained basis by April 2013 as committed by M/s.
BHEL during the Chief Secretary’s review meeting on 11th
January 2013.
14) It is submitted that power generated from these Thermal Power Stations shall be supplied to
TANGEDCO for retail supply of power to its consumers.
15) The investment approval of Mettur Thermal Power Station Stage III Unit – I was accorded by
TANGEDCO board at its board meeting held on 22nd
October 2008 at the project cost of Rs.
3,550 Crores.
16) The investment approval of North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – I was accorded
by TANGEDCO board at its board meeting held on 24th
April 2008 at the project cost of Rs.
3,095.28 Crores.
17) The investment approval of North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – II was accorded
by TANGEDCO board at its board meeting held on 13th
October 2008 at the project cost of Rs.
2,718.75 Crores.
18) The copy of board approval for all the three Thermal Power Station namely Mettur Thermal
Power Station Stage III Unit – I, North Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – I and North
Chennai Thermal Power Station Stage II Unit – II is enclosed at Annexure A.
19) The Hon’ble Commission under Regulation 18 of TNERC Terms and Condition of Tariff is vested
with the jurisdiction to determine/approve capital cost of upcoming power plants of generating
stations of TANGEDCO.
20) The table below shows the installed capacity and the expected COD of all the four Hydro
Stations.
Name of Power
Plant
Installed Capacity
(in MW)
Expected COD Board
Approved Cost
Cost as on
COD
Mettur Thermal
Power Station
Stage III Unit – I
1 x 600 MW 1st
March 2013 3,550 Crores 3,550 Crores
North Chennai
Thermal Power
Station Stage II
Unit – I
1 x 600 MW 1st
May 2013 3,095.28
Crores
3,095.28
Crores
North Chennai
Thermal Power
Station Stage II
Unit – II
1 x 600 MW 1st
April 2013 2,718.75
Crores
2,718.75
Crores
21) TANGEDCO is filing the present submission for approval of capacity cost up to COD and the cost
of additional capitalization which is estimated to be incurred in the ensuing years.
22) In terms of Tariff Regulations 2005, TANGEDCO has filled in the formats provided in Appendix 1
of Tariff Regulations 2005 as notified by Hon’ble TNERC including that in regards to estimated
capital expenditure from a period from date of commercial operation up to 31st
March 2016.
The formats are enclosed as Annexure I and are based on anticipated date of COD as mentioned
in the table above.
23) The projected estimated capital expenditure claim made by TANGEDCO is based on expected
capitalization as on COD of the respective units of the station. The projected additional capital
expenditure up to cut off date is on works within the original scope of work and is in accordance
with Regulation 18 of TNERC Terms and Conditions of Tariff Regulations, 2005. The capital
expenditure is the actual expenditure incurred up to the cutoff date and in case of additional
expenditure to be incurred after the cutoff date, the same shall be submitted at the time of
truing up before the Hon’ble Commission in respect to the instant station.
24) It is submitted by TANGEDCO that there has been no foreign loans taken for funding of the
capital expenditure for project execution. Therefore there are no details of foreign loans
submitted in the prescribed formats. Also there has been no extra rupee liability with respect to
foreign exchange fluctuation towards interest payment and loan repayment in the relevant
years.
25) In line with TNERC Terms and Conditions of Tariff equity in excess of 30% of the fund deployed
has been considered as normative loan and notional IDC. The return on equity is considered at
normative rate of 14% as specified in the Regulations.
26) It is further submitted that the levies, taxes, duties, service tax etc, levied by various authorities
on TANGEDCO in accordance with the law shall be billed to beneficiaries additionally.
27) It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to take the above
details/computations for determination of capital cost.
PRAYERS
In light of the above submission TANGEDCO, therefore prays that the Hon’ble Commission may
be pleased to:
i. Approve Capital Cost for all three upcoming Thermal Power Stations up to the
anticipated date of Commercial Operation.
ii. Allow TANGEDCO to claim the cost of the respective thermal stations in the ARR of
TANGEDCO as per this submission.
iii. Allow the recovery of filing fees as and when paid to the Hon’ble Commission and
publication expenses from beneficiaries.
iv. Pass any other order as it may deem fit in the circumstances mentioned above.
ANNEXURE 12
Submitted By
ENERGY DIVISION
TECHNICAL PAPER ON CATEGORY-WISE COST OF SERVICE
STUDY
(DELIVERABLE [4 (1)])
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 COMPANY PROFILE OF TANGEDCO ............................................................................... 1
1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT ...................................................................................... 2
2. NEED OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 4
2.1 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................. 4
2.2 KEY ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 5
3. STATUTORY & LEGAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 7
3.1 ELECTRICITY ACT 2003 ................................................................................................. 7
3.2 NATIONAL TARIFF POLICY .............................................................................................. 8
3.3 NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POLICY ....................................................................................... 9
3.4 TNERC TARIFF REGULATIONS ........................................................................................ 9
3.5 TNERC ORDER DATED 30TH MARCH 2012 .................................................................... 10
3.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION ON THE APPLICABLE LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ....................... 11
4. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE .................................... 13
4.1 LINKAGE OF TARIFFS WITH COST OF SUPPLY ..................................................................... 13
4.2 FUNCTIONALISATION OF COSTS: .................................................................................... 15
4.3 CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS: .......................................................................................... 16
4.4 ALLOCATION OF COSTS: .............................................................................................. 19
4.5 APPROACH FOR SEGREGATION OF COST ........................................................................... 23
4.6 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF COST TO SERVICE .............................................................. 24
5. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................ 27
5.1 SYSTEM PEAK DEMAND (RESTRICTED) ............................................................................ 27
5.2 CO-INCIDENT PEAK DEMAND ....................................................................................... 27
5.3 NON CO-INCIDENT PEAK DEMAND ................................................................................ 27
5.4 CONNECTED LOAD ..................................................................................................... 27
5.5 CONTRACTED DEMAND ............................................................................................... 27
5.6 SYSTEM LOAD FACTOR ................................................................................................ 28
5.7 CATEGORY LOAD FACTOR ............................................................................................ 28
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
5.8 DIVERSITY FACTOR ..................................................................................................... 28
6. CALCULATION OF EXPENSES ..................................................................................... 29
6.1 CLASSIFICATION OF POWER PURCHASE EXPENSES ............................................................. 29
6.2 CLASSIFICATION OF OTHER DISTRIBUTION EXPENSES ......................................................... 29
6.3 ALLOCATION OF DEMAND RELATED COST ......................................................................... 31
6.4 ALLOCATION OF ENERGY RELATED COST .......................................................................... 34
6.5 ALLOCATION OF CUSTOMER RELATED COSTS.................................................................... 38
7. COST OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 41
7.1 COST OF SERVICE OF EACH CATEGORY ............................................................................ 41
7.2 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 42
8. WAY FORWARD ....................................................................................................... 44
8.1 WAY FORWARD ......................................................................................................... 44
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
List of Table
Table 1: Cost Classification and Functionalisation ................................................................ 18
Table 2: Profit & Loss Statement for FY 2010-11 .................................................................. 25
Table 3: Consumer Category of TANGEDCO ......................................................................... 26
Table 4 – Classified Power Purchase Expenses for FY 2010-11 ............................................. 29
Table 5: Classified Distribution Expenses ............................................................................. 30
Table 6: Category-wise Average & Excess Demand (MW) .................................................... 31
Table 7 - Allocation Factors for Demand Related Power Purchase Costs .............................. 31
Table 8 - Allocation factors for Demand Related Other Distribution Costs ........................... 33
Table 9 - Allocation factors for Demand Related Total Distribution Costs ............................ 34
Table 10 – Losses at TANGEDCO for FY 2010-11 .................................................................. 35
Table 11 – Allocation of Commercial Losses ........................................................................ 36
Table 12 – Allocation of Technical Losses............................................................................. 36
Table 13 – Allocation of Losses to categories ....................................................................... 37
Table 14: Allocation Factors for Energy Related Costs.......................................................... 38
Table 15: Category wise Customer Weightage ..................................................................... 39
Table 16 – Allocation Factors for Customer related Costs .................................................... 40
Table 17 - Category wise Total Cost of Service (Rs. Crs) ....................................................... 41
Table 18 – Category wise per unit Cost of Service ................................................................ 41
Table 17 – Cost of Service against Average Realisation ........................................................ 43
List of Figures
Figure 1: Computation of Cost of Supply.............................................................................. 24
Figure 2 - Category Wise COS and Average Realization ........................................................ 43
List of Annexure
ANNEXURE A - Category Wise Non Coincident Demand....................................................... 45
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 1
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Company Profile of TANGEDCO
1.1.1 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, a State Electricity Board was constituted under section
5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and was in the business of Generation,
Transmission and Distribution of Electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu.
1.1.2 The Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O Ms No 114 dated 08.10.2008, accorded in-
principle approval for the re-organization of TNEB by establishment of a holding
company, by the name TNEB Ltd and two subsidiary companies, namely Tamil Nadu
Transmission Corporation Ltd (TANTRANSCO) and Tamil Nadu Generation and
Distribution Corporation Ltd (TANGEDCO).
1.1.3 The first provisional Transfer Scheme was notified by the State Government vide
G.O. (Ms.) No.100, Energy (B2) department, dated 19th Oct 2010 issued under Tamil
Nadu Electricity (Reorganization and Reforms) Transfer Scheme, 2010 for the
purpose of transfer and vesting of property, rights and liabilities of the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Board in the State Government and re-vesting thereof by the State
Government into corporate entities and also for the transfer of personnel of the
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to corporate entities and for determining the terms and
conditions on which such transfer and vesting will be made.
1.1.4 Based on the above G.O. the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
Ltd (TANGEDCO) was registered on 01.12.2009. The Certificate of commencement of
business was obtained for the TANGEDCO on 16.03.2010.
1.1.5 The second provisional transfer scheme was notified by the State Government vide
G.O. (Ms.) No.2, Energy (B2) department, dated 2nd January 2012 with amendment
in the restructuring of Balance Sheet of TNEB for the successor entities i.e.
TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO, considering the audited balance sheet of TNEB for FY
2009-10.
1.1.6 The opening balances of assets and liabilities are transferred based on the FY 2009-
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 2
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
10 audited balances, which was the latest available data at that point of time.
TANGEDCO started functioning independently from 1st November 2010 onwards. As
per clause 9(1) of the transfer scheme the assets transfer is provisional for a period
of one year and employees transfer is provisional for a period of three years from
the effective date of transfer, i.e. 1st November 2010.
1.1.7 Subsequently, as per the request of TNEB Limited, the second provisional transfer
scheme was notified by the State Government vide G.O. (Ms.) No.2, Energy (B2)
department, dated 2nd
January 2012 with amendment in the restructuring of Balance
Sheet of TNEB for the successor entities i.e. TANGEDCO and TANTRANSCO,
considering the audited balance sheet of TNEB for FY 2009-10 and have extended
the provisional time for final transfer of assets and liabilities to the successor entities
of erstwhile TNEB upto 31.10.2012.
1.1.8 The TNEB limited in its 22nd
Board meeting held on 27.09.2012, has approved the
proposal to seek 6 months time extension i.e up to 30.04.2013 for final transfer of
assets and liabilities to successor entities of erstwhile TNEB and the same has been
addressed to the GoTN for approval and notification.
1.1.9 Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited has installed generating
stations of capacity 10,380 MW which includes State, Central share and Independent
power producers and has achieved a consumer base of about 223.44 lakh consumers
at the end of FY 2010-11
1.2 Background of the concept
1.2.1 With the advent of the Electricity Act 2003 and various policy initiatives thereof, it
has now become mandatory for the Electrical utilities to gradually reduce the cross
subsidy and move the tariffs in the State towards the “Cost of Supply”. Traditionally,
in the Indian context, tariffs for domestic and agricultural consumers have been
heavily subsidised either by the state through subsidies and subventions or through
cross subsidisation by other consumer categories, primarily the consumers using
electricity at high voltages.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 3
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
1.2.2 A basic principle that has been widely accepted in electricity sector regulation is that
the tariffs for various categories of customers should be, as far as practicable, equal
to the costs imposed by that category of customers on the system. This is what is
currently understood as Cost of Service (CoS).
1.2.3 With the focus now shifting to cost- reflective tariffs, it has now become necessary
to compute the cost to serve to individual consumer categories and the gradual
reduction of the cross subsidies existing between the consumer categories today. A
basic principle that has been widely accepted in electricity sector regulation is that
the tariffs for various categories of customers should be, as far as practicable, equal
to the costs imposed by that category of customers on the system.
1.2.4 The focus of the reforms envisaged by the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA 2003) is to
establish competitive environment for economical and financial viability of the
power sector. The prices at every stage of the value chain of the sector should reflect
marginal cost. Cross subsidy which is another form of subsidy affect economic
efficiency and environmental performance.
1.2.5 The estimation of cost to supply to category of consumers enables the calculation of
cross subsidy. The obligation to reduce cross subsidy comes from the legal, policy
and regulatory framework of the power sector. The Electricity Act 2003 requires the
Distribution Licensee to reduce cross subsidy and if the State Government requires
tariff of any consumer category to be subsidized then it would be required to provide
subsidy in advance equivalent to the subsidized amount.
1.2.6 In relation to this, TANGEDCO will be submitting the best possible methodology to
be adopted for determining cost of supply taking into account various constraints
and various other conditions to the Hon’ble Commission for approval.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 4
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
2. NEED OF THE STUDY
2.1 Objective of the Study
2.1.1 Cost of service study seeks to allocate all the costs of a utility to each of the
customer classes it serves. Such allocation reflects the costs attributable to electricity
supplied and related services provided to categories. The costs can then be used as
an input into tariff design or to determine cross subsidy, if any, existing in tariffs. The
determination of cost of service for each of customer categories requires
disaggregating the utility’s costs into functions, services and categories.
2.1.2 In setting tariffs, cross-subsidies have been retained with the ostensive objective of
balancing the effect of price increase on certain categories of consumers who have
been paying lower tariffs historically. Efforts to make the reforms successful in
power sector will have to take note of the need to reduce and eventually phasing out
cross-subsidies.
2.1.3 Objectives of the Cost of Service study:
- Formulate a long-term tariff strategy;
- Establish cross subsidy reduction path;
- Provide right signals for efficient use of energy;
- Provide price signals for rendering specific services especially in the competitive
markets;
- Facilitate directed and transparent administration of subsidies to the deserving
classes;
2.1.4 There is a need that the tariff of all subsidized categories of consumers would need
to be rationalised in phased manner, such that the consumers who are enjoying
subsidy for years accept the tariff increase supplemented with improved quality of
supply. It will also have to be ensured that there is no disparity in quality & quantity
of power supply amongst all the consumers, including these subsidized category
consumers. Consumers shall be liable to bear the cost of supply and the loss levels
expressing the efficiency of the respective consumer category only. Cost of Supply
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 5
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
shall be determined on the actual cost to supply to each of the consumer class
without subsidies and cross subsidies. Such determination of actual costs requires
apportionment of a utility’s costs to the various customer classes it serves.
2.1.5 Therefore, to achieve the objectives, Study of Cost needs to be carried out for the
following purposes:
• To attribute costs to different categories of customers based on how those
customers cause costs to the utility;
• To provide a comparison of the allocated costs with revenues from existing
tariff;
• To illustrate the Extent of existing cross-subsidisation between consumer
categories;
2.2 Key issues
2.2.1 The key issues which is required to undertake the study of CoS and reduction of
Cross Subsidies are as follows:
• Initially, the category wise tariff was decided after taking cognizance of socio-
economic consideration in line with state government policy.
• Cost of Service (CoS) for agricultural consumers in isolation is not feasible as it
involves many other issues like allocation of cost of supply i.e. cheap and costly
power purchased by utility;
• The prevailing levels of electricity tariff contain a large degree of cross subsidy,
with some categories of consumers paying well above the economic cost of
supply. It has to be recognised that low and subsidised tariff inflict inefficient
high demand for power, which puts pressure on the system capacity and the
quality of service.
• The slab rates are so designed that the affluent customers are paying more and
economically weaker consumers paying less for their consumption. The paradox
often faced is that while efficiency criterion calls for a cost based tariff, the social
criteria may at times call for relief to certain consumer’s e.g. low-income group.
•
2.2.2 It is a well known fact that supplying electricity at tariffs less than the actual cost, to
various categories of consumers leads to financial losses for Utilities. It is also a well
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 6
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
know fact that the State Utilities have to make the electricity, a basic necessity,
available to all poorer citizens who are unable to pay for it at affordable cost price.
The following concerns need to be addressed
• Categories of consumers who should be subsidized;
• Quantum of Subsidy including the government subsidy;
• Ability of State Government to bear the burden of Cross Subsidy;
• Mechanism of flow of subsidy from State Govt to Utility
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 7
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
3. STATUTORY & LEGAL PROVISIONS
The current treatment of cross subsidies by State Electricity Regulatory Commission and
other options available to address the cross subsidy reduction issue have to be in
consonance with the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003, the National Electricity Policy,
Tariff Policy and the decisions of Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (ATE). In the following
sections the various provisions of the Act, Policies, Regulations, Tariff order and the
decisions of the Appellate Tribunal have been quoted and interpreted in order to develop
an understanding of the framework which will form the basis for the development of the
Methodology for carrying out Cost to Service Calculation.
3.1 Electricity Act 2003
3.1.1 Subsection (g) of Section 61 of EA 2003 stipulates that the tariff should progressively
reflect cost of supply of electricity and also reduces cross subsidies in the manner
specified by the Appropriate Commission;
3.1.2 Section 62(3) provides for the factors on which the tariffs of the various consumers
can be differentiated. Some of these factors like load factor, power factor, voltage,
total electricity consumption during any specified period or time or geographical
position also affects the cost of supply to the consumer. Due weightage can be given
in the tariffs to these factor to differentiate the tariffs;
3.1.3 As per the Section 62 of the EA 2003, the SERC is required to determine the retail
tariff to be charged by the Distribution Licensees from its consumers. The
Commission while determining the tariffs is required to give considerations to the
factors (load factor, power factor, voltage, total consumption of electricity during
any specified period or the time at which the supply is required or the geographical
position of any area, the nature of supply and the purpose for which the supply is
required.) listed in Section 62(3), 61(c) and 61(e) of the EA 2003, which are
essentially cost determinants and economically efficient tariffs should consider the
cost impact of these factors only without providing for any cross subsidies.
3.1.4 The Tariff may be fixed as per the consumer’s load factor, power factor, voltage,
total consumption of electricity and should reflect the Cost of Supply to the
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 8
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
concerned consumer category.
3.1.5 The EA 2003 recognizes the fact that tariffs of some consumer categories are
presently below cost of supply and tariff shock due to abrupt elimination of subsidy
may not be in the interest of such consumers therefore it provides for progressive
reduction in cross subsidy. As said earlier, the tariffs must reflect the underlying cost
of supply and if the State Government wishes that any particular consumer category
is to be charged lower than the cost of supply then as per Section 65 of the EA 2003
the State Government has to provide subsidy to such consumers. The EA 2003 has
preferred direct subsidy over cross subsidy. However the amendment to the section
61 replacing the word elimination with reduction provides for some amount of
continued cross subsidy.
3.2 National Tariff Policy
3.2.1 The National Tariff Policy (NTP) prescribes the principles to be adopted by the
Commission for determining tariffs for generation, transmission, distribution and
retail consumers. The clauses dealing with the issue of Cost to Supply are given in the
table below:
3.2.2 Section 8.3 (2) reads -
For achieving the objective that the tariff progressively reflects the cost of supply
of electricity, the SERC would notify roadmap within six months with a target that
latest by the end of year 2010-2011 tariffs are within ± 20 % of the average cost
of supply. The road map would also have intermediate milestones, based on the
approach of a gradual reduction in cross subsidy;
3.2.3 The NTP provides that tariffs is required to reflect efficient costs and gradual
reduction of cross subsidy inherent in existing tariffs but consumers below poverty
line (BPL) for life line consumption can have cross subsidized tariff rates. Also, a
direct subsidy support by the State Government to the other poorer categories of
consumers for pre-identified level of consumption is allowed.
3.2.4 The clause 8.5 which defines cross subsidy charge as the difference between the (i)
tariff applicable to the relevant category of consumers and (ii) the cost of the
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 9
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
distribution licensee to supply electricity to the consumers of that category provides
an indication how to compute cross subsidy.
3.2.5 The NTP recognizes data and other issues in the determination of cost of supply
consumer category wise and alternatively provides that tariff should be within ± 20
% of the average cost of supply.
3.3 National Electricity Policy
3.3.1 The Commission while discharging its functions as required by the Electricity Act
2003 is to be guided by the National Electricity Policy (NEP). The NEP provides
guidance and clarifications on issues which either have not been or have been
inadequately addressed in the EA 2003. The relevant clauses in the context of this
study are:
3.3.2 Clause 5.5.1 reads that there is an urgent need for ensuring recovery of cost of
service from consumers to make the power sector sustainable;
3.3.3 Clause 5.5.2 stipulates that consumers below poverty line, who consume below a
specified level, say 30 units per month, may receive a special support through cross
subsidy. Tariffs for such designated group of consumers will be at least 50% of the
average cost of supply. This provision will be re-examined after five years;
3.3.4 Further, the National Electricity Policy provides for reducing the cross subsidies
progressively and gradually. The gradual reduction is envisaged to avoid tariff shock
to the subsidized categories of consumers. It also provides for subsidized tariff for
consumers below poverty line for minimum level of support. Cross subsidy for such
categories of consumers has to be necessarily provided by the subsidizing consumers
3.3.5 The thrust of the NEP is that the tariffs should reflect cost and existing cross
subsidies should progressively and gradually reduce. However there can be cross
subsidy support for very poor categories of consumers.
3.4 TNERC Tariff Regulations
3.4.1 Clause 23(e) of MYT Regulations 2009 reads that application for determination of
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 10
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Tariff under MYT framework shall be accompanied with –
a statement showing cost to supply for electricity to different category of
consumers at different voltage level with the allocation of Transmission and
Distribution loss and consumer wise cross subsidy at the existing tariff
3.4.2 As per the Tariff Regulation 7 (c) (iii) of the State Commission, it stipulates that the
cross subsidy has to be computed as difference between cost-to-serve a category of
consumer and average tariff realization of that category;
3.5 TNERC Order dated 30th March 2012
3.5.1 As highlighted in the Tariff order dated 30th
March 2012, the Cost to serve, Average
Cost of supply and Cross Subsidy are inter-related issues which are extensively
covered in the Order of the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity dated 11th
January2012 in Appeal Nos. 57 of 2008, 155 of 2007, 125 of 2008, 45 of 2010, 40 of
2010, 196 of 2009, 199 of 2009, 163 of 2010, 6 of 2011 and 144 of 2010.
3.5.2 Following is the opinion of the APTEL on the issue related to Cost to Serve and
Average Cost of Supply:
• If strict commercial principles are followed, then the tariffs have to be based on
the cost to supply a consumer category. However, it is not the intent of the Act
after the amendment in the year 2007 (Act 26 of 2007) that the tariff should be
the mirror image of the cost of supply of electricity to a category of consumer.
• The cross subsidies may gradually be reduced but should not be increased for a
category of subsidizing consumer.
• APTEL has advised to initiate a simple formula which could take into account the
major cost element to a great extent reflecting the cost of supply. There is no
need to make distinction between the distribution charges of identical
consumers connected at different nodes in the distribution network. It would be
adequate to determine the voltagewise cost of supply taking into account the
major cost element which would be applicable to all the categories of consumers
connected to the same voltage level at different locations in the distribution
system.
• As segregated network costs are not available, all the costs such as Return on
Equity, Interest on Loan, depreciation, interest on working capital and O&M costs
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 11
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
can be pooled and apportioned equitably, on pro-rata basis, to all the voltage
levels to determine the cost of supply.
• Segregating Power Purchase cost taking into account voltage-wise transmission
and distribution losses will be a major step in the right direction for determining
the actual cost of supply to various consumer categories.
• All consumer categories connected to the same voltage will have the same cost
of supply.
3.5.3 Based on the above points as specified in APTEL order, it is very clear, that the cross
subsidies needs to be reduced and not to be eliminated. Also, even though the
accurate data is not available, a simple formulation based on certain assumption can
be carried out to calculate Cost to Serve of different categories of consumers.
However, there is no clarity that the Cost to serve and Cross subsidy impact to be
calculated needs to be at macro level or at micro level, i.e. to be determined at
category of consumers level or at sub-category level also.
3.5.4 Also, Clause 2.1.46 of Issue 6 (Cost of Supply) of the Tariff Order for TANGEDCO
dated 30.03.12 reads-
“The Tariff may be fixed as per the consumer’s load factor, power factor, voltage,
total consumption of electricity and should reflect the Cost of Supply to the concerned
consumer category”
3.5.5 Further, Clause 2.1.47 of Issue 6 (Cost of Supply) of the Tariff Order for TANGEDCO
dated 30.03.12 reads-
“TANGEDCO should furnish a statement showing the Cost to Serve for each category
of consumers at different voltage level with allocation of Transmission & Distribution
loss and consumer wise cross subsidy at the existing tariff while submitting ARR.”
3.6 Summary conclusion on the Applicable Legal and Policy Framework
3.6.1 Following conclusions can be drawn from the above discussion on the legal and
policy framework applicable to cross subsidy determination and its reduction
• Consumer tariffs to reflect efficient cost of supply but can be differentiated only
on grounds specified in Section 62(3).
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 12
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
• Cross subsidies to reduce gradually with out tariff shock to consumers
• SERC is required to notify a road map along with intermediate milestones for
cross subsidy (reduction) to be within ± 20 % of the average cost of supply.
• The cross subsidies can exist for BPL categories of consumers for life line
consumption but consumption in excess of this lifeline consumption is to be
charged at full cost. Paying capacity can be one of the factors for determination
of tariff payable by BPL categories. The tariffs payable for this lifeline
consumption should be 50% of the average cost of supply.
• The State Government can provide subsidy to any disadvantaged consumer
groups for increased access to electricity provided that this subsidy amount is
provided in advance as per the Section 65 of the EA 2003.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 13
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
4. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF COST OF SERVICE
4.1 Linkage of Tariffs with Cost of Supply
4.1.1 The amount of cross subsidy received/contributed by various consumer categories is
dependent on the way the cost of supply is defined. Accordingly Cost of supply can
be defined as:
• Average cost of supply;
• Cost of supply voltage wise; and
• Cost of supply to various consumer categories
4.1.2 Depending upon the definition adopted for cost of supply, the cross subsidy
reduction may accordingly be different. The EA 2003, the NEP and the NTP requires
the tariffs to reflect efficient cost of supply and while determining tariff as required
by section 61(c) of the EA 2003 the SERC needs to consider factors which would
encourage competition, promote efficiency, economical use of the resources, good
performance and optimum investments section.
4.1.3 Though the term Cost of Supply has not been defined explicitly in the legal and policy
framework but from the simultaneous reading of the Electricity Act 2003, NEP and
particularly the clause 8.5 of the TP, the cost of supply can be construed to mean the
cost of supply to the relevant consumer category. It has also been proven in
economic theory that tariffs that reflect the cost of supply to the consumer category
provide economic signals for the optimum use of electricity and investment in the
sector. Further cost reflecting prices will be fair to consumers receiving the supply at
higher voltages as the cost of supply at higher voltages is lower than the cost of
supply at lower voltages, on account of higher distribution losses at lower voltages,
and the incidence of costs getting passed on to the lower voltages since energy flows
from higher to lower voltages.
4.1.4 The cost of supply to consumer categories can be determined either on the
Embedded (Historical) cost or marginal cost approach basis. Usually, the approach
adopted by many SERC’s and utilities is to consider the average cost of supply
method to calculate the Cross Subsidy as the data required to calculate the cost of
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 14
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
supply category wise and voltage wise is not available. However, the average cost of
supply is not the efficient way of determination of cost of supply.
4.1.5 Every approach has its Pros and Cons whereby the Embedded cost based
methodology uses the historical accounting information for cost determination
whereas the marginal cost based methodology uses the future costs to determine
tariffs. The first methodology ensures that all the prudent costs of the Licensees are
allocated but does not provide any economic signal to the consumers of the future
costs. The second methodology based on marginal cost provides economic signal for
economically efficient investments and optimum use of electricity but it does not
ensure the recovery of entire costs (particularly when the past costs are higher than
the future costs) and may require some adjustment in the tariffs for recovery of the
actual cost.
4.1.6 Given the current regulatory regime (MYT framework is based on historical cost),
lack of reliable information and generation & system planning studies, it would be
desirable to use historical costs for cost of supply determination in the near future.
The interim period (during the period embedded cost approach is used) to conduct
studies so that marginal cost can latter be used. The switch from embedded cost to
marginal cost approach will be easier as the two approaches have similar cost
allocation principles.
4.1.7 It is submitted that for calculation of voltage wise cost it is important that the
accounting system of the Licensees are sufficient enough to capture the costs
voltage wise at the point of origin as and when these are incurred. However, since at
current stage it is not possible, an assumption is considered for the allocation of
expenses and calculation of diversity factor.
4.1.8 To determine the cost of supply voltage wise, getting voltage wise cost right is the
first step in determining consumer wise costs. However, the availability of voltage
wise accurate data is one of the key issues and again a certain assumption has been
carried out.
4.1.9 Usually, the traditional approach adopted for calculation of cost of supply is using
Embedded Cost Method. The embedded cost based approach allocates the total
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 15
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
revenue requirement to various categories of consumers based on an analysis of the
embedded or historic costs of the utility. In such an analysis, the revenue
requirement is allocated to classes of service to fix tariff based on various allocation
factors. The factors can be the contribution of classes to the peak demand, the
energy purchased by each class as a percentage of total sales, the number of
consumers in the class etc.
4.1.10 The advantage of the embedded cost approach is that embedded costs and
allocation factors can be measured based on data that is recorded in the books of
the utility. However, it suffers from the lacunae of not accounting for the inflation
and also true economic cost of the electricity delivered to consumer.
4.1.11 Considering the above highlighted issues, a systematic approach to the CoS study
shall involve three steps of functionalisation, classification and allocation of costs to
various customer categories.
4.2 Functionalisation of Costs:
4.2.1 The first stage of a cost of service study shall involve functionalisation of all the costs
of the TANGEDCO to various functions such as power generated, purchased and
distribution (termed as “Functionalisation”).
4.2.2 It is relatively easy to capture these costs from the books of accounts as the chart of
accounts maintained by the company would provide for capture of these
assets/costs separately. Within the assets and costs it is however, difficult to capture
the voltage class wise assets and costs as the accounts of company does not capture
this information. But TANGEDCO has carried out the assessment of the fixed assets
voltage wise and therefore a data will be collected on a sample basis based on the
information available. This will enable TANGEDCO to bifurcate its assets and costs as
relating to LT network and HT network. This logic has been largely used for
functionalization of assets and costs for this exercise
4.2.3 The power purchase costs include the costs of transmission of power from the
generating stations to the transmission-distribution interface point. Also, though
TANGEDCO is carrying the generation and distribution function, the expenses related
to State own Generating station such as Fuel is considered as variable charges in
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 16
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
power purchase cost and the other cost has been added with the expenses of
distribution. Also, the transmission cost has been considered in the fixed cost of
power purchase for last 5 months of FY 2010-11 and an initial expense during the
time of erstwhile TNEB has been considered in the respective head of account.
4.3 Classification of Costs:
4.3.1 The costs are classified as being demand, energy or customer/service related. Such a
classification is done on the basis of the cause of such costs, as specified below:
• Costs which are triggered by peak demands imposed on the system are classified
as “demand related”;
• Cost related to level of power purchase as “energy related” and
• Cost related to number and type of customers as “customer related”.
4.3.2 Classification of Generation and Power Purchase Costs
4.3.2.1 Generation Costs and Power Purchase cost are identified to be energy as well as
demand related as TANGEDCO shall not only supply the energy required over a
period of time but shall generate or purchase sufficient capacity to meet the
peak demand of the system.
4.3.2.2 Power purchase cost generally will have two elements i.e., fixed cost and variable
cost. The fixed cost include costs associated with the plant capacity i.e.
depreciation, interest relating to capital investment for the plant, income tax,
rate of return etc. They are treated as demand related. Fuel cost, fuel related
costs are treated as variable or energy related costs.
4.3.2.3 The method to be adopted for generation cost classification is explained below:
o System Load Factor Approach - treats all the generation costs in
proportion to the system load factor as energy related and the remaining
as demand related.
o Average Approach - classifies fixed costs of generation into demand and
energy related using an arbitrary ratio, say 50:50. The variable costs are
classified as energy costs.
o Marginal Cost Approach - usually takes into account market prices of
capacity and energy to classify fixed as well as variable costs.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 17
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
o Specific Resource Approach - uses different classification approach for
each resource (or plant); say 100% demand related for peaking units.
o Specific Expenditure Approach - classifies each expenditure item using
one of the above methods.
4.3.2.4 However, the method to be adopted will be finalised based on the availability
and the quality of the data.
4.3.3 Classification of Transmission Costs
4.3.3.1 The transmission system is designed to handle certain peak demand and as such
the costs are fixed in nature & as such they can be entirely treated as demand
related. the methods of classification are as follows –
o 100% Demand Related – Simple but ignores that some of the
transmission investment is made partly to facilitate energy transfer from
generating stations or import/export of energy ;
4.3.4 Classification of Distribution Costs
4.3.4.1 The distribution system apart from serving the demand also provides various
services to the customers such as metering, billing, break down repair etc.
Hence, distribution costs need to be classified as partly demand related and
partly customer related;
o Distribution related components like meters could be considered 100%
consumer related;
o Distribution assets that are used by a single consumer (e.g., Service Lines)
and cost associated with it could be classified as entirely consumer
related;
o 100% Demand Related - classifies all other costs as entirely demand
related on the rationale that distribution networks are set up to meet the
local maximum demands;
o Partly Demand and Customer Related - attempts to work out appropriate
ratios for each component of distribution costs for classification into
demand related and customer related costs;
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 18
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
4.3.4.2 The distribution system apart from serving the demand also provides various
services to the customers such as metering, billing, break down repair etc.
Hence, other distribution costs need to be classified as partly demand related
and partly customer related.
4.3.4.3 The distribution costs such as repair and maintenance, employee cost &
administrative and general expenses have been equally apportioned (50:50) into
customer cost and demand related costs, as these vary with the number and the
type of customer as well as with their demand. Rest of the distribution expenses
are classified into demand related as they are only dependent on how much
demand needs to be cater and not on number of consumers.
Table 1: Cost Classification and Functionalisation
Cost Classification Explanation Functions Cost Classification
Demand
Triggered by peak
demands and Fixed
in nature
Power Purchase Demand Related
Energy Related
Energy Vary with volume of
energy increased
Transmission Demand Related
Customer
Depend on number
and type of
consumer served
Distribution Demand Related
Consumer Related
4.3.5 Demand related costs will include a major portion of deprecation, interest on capital
borrowings, income tax, RoR etc. Customer related costs generally include R&M
expenses, Employee costs, A&G expenses, Bad debts, interest on consumer security
deposits & other debits that are directly attributable to consumers.
4.3.6 Unless a detailed study of each these costs and their relation to demand, energy and
customer functions are identified, true classification of costs may not possible.
However, for the purpose this study, given the constraints, an effort has been made
to properly classify the costs. Classification of fixed assets is generally made on the
basis of nomenclature of the fixed assets and judgement.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 19
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
4.3.7 It is submitted that there are no set of prescribed rules for functionalisation and
classification of costs. It depends on the experience and judgement of the utility to
classify costs in the best manner possible.
4.4 Allocation of Costs:
4.4.1 The functionalised and classified costs are then allocated to various customer classes
of the utility based on allocation factors derived from demand, consumption of
energy and number of customers such as Energy usage and a measure of demand
(peak, average etc.), Load Pattern, etc. Such allocation arrives at the cost of service
for each customer class.
4.4.2 The classified costs may be allocated on the basis on time differentiated allocation
factors. The energy and demand related costs are split into several costing periods.
The energy usage and a measure of demand (peak, average etc.) within such periods
form the basis for allocation of costs.
4.4.3 The total revenue from each of the customer classes together with the cost of
service so derived reflects upon the adequacy of current tariffs and the level of cross
subsidies between classes existent in the utility’s system.
4.4.4 Load profile of each category of consumers
4.4.4.1 In developing the profile, the following activities are required to be considered:
o Identification of typical load curves for each consumer category across
the company. This will be done on the basis of selection of statistically
significant samples to eliminate geographical bias. This would be used to
analysis the load curves, duration and consumption pattern, which can
then be extrapolated to the population.
o Based on load curves, load duration and consumption of particular
feeder, a profile of a particular consumer category is assessed.
o Determination of coincident peak demands for various categories will be
carried out. This is a method wherein the coincidences of the consumer
category peak demand to that of TANGEDCO coincident demand at the
time of system peak for the State as a whole.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 20
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
4.4.5 Diversity Factor
4.4.5.1 Diversity factor is the ratio of peak demand to connected/contracted load.
4.4.5.2 The sample feeders need to be identified for arriving at diversity factors for
Residential, LT Industrial, Public Water Works and Agricultural categories. The
diversity factor has been assumed for many categories based on the number of
hours of consumption and the power supply position.
4.4.6 Allocation of Demand Related Costs
4.4.6.1 The choices for allocation criteria for demand related costs presents a number of
options that may have significant impact on the cost allocation to various classes.
The choice will depend upon data availability, characteristics and constraints
associated with TANGEDCO and the objectives of the study. The following are the
allocation criteria for demand related costs –
4.4.6.2 Range of Methods-
• Co-incident Peak Contribution
The category coincident demand or contribution to the system peak demand
may be defined as the demand in MW for each category of customer that occurs
at the time of the system’s peak demand. The sum of all such demand for every
customer category plus losses will be equal to the peak demand of the system.
• Non-Coincident Peak
The non - coincident demand may be defined as the demand in MW for each
category of customer regardless of when it happens. This non-coincident
demand will be greater than or equal to the category’s contribution to the
system’s maximum demand. Thus, the sum of all such demand for every
customer category will be greater than the peak demand of the system.
• Average and Excess
This method allocates demand related cost to the customer category using
factors that combine the category average demand and excess demand. Excess
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 21
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
demand for a category is defined as –Category Excess Demand = Non-Coincident
Demand – Average Demand The method uses two factors for allocation. The first
component, or contribution to average, is the proportion of category’s average
demand to the system average demand times the system load factor.
Contribution to Average = (Category Average Demand/System Average
Demand) * System Load Factor.
The second component, or contribution to excess, reflects the proportion of the
excess demand (non coincident peak demand minus the average demand) of the
category to the sum of excess demand of all categories. The advantage of the
said approach is that coincident peak demand for a category is not required.
Contribution to Excess = (Category Excess Demand/ S Category Excess
Demand) * (1 – System Load Factor)
4.4.6.3 Choice of Methods
• All energy related costs have been allocated on the basis of the class-wise energy
consumption. All customers’ related costs have been allocated on the basis of
number of customers with category wise weights. The appropriate allocation
criteria for demand related costs are as follows –
Demand related power purchase costs
• The power purchase, serves the entire system and further investments are
triggered by increase in the peak demand of the system as a whole. Hence,
category co-incident peak demand is the appropriate criteria for allocation of
such costs. However, in case the data with regards to the category co-incident
peak are not available, the Average and Excess method as discussed earlier will
be considered as a suitable alternative.
Demand related other distribution costs
• The distribution network services local maximum demands and investments are
triggered by the local (in other words, non co-incident) peaks in demand.
Therefore, the category non co-incident peak demand for each class is the most
appropriate basis for allocation of demand related other distribution costs.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 22
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Demand related Total Distribution costs
• Allocation factors for demand related total distribution costs will be worked out
based on weightages of power purchase and other distribution costs.
4.4.7 Allocation of Energy Related Costs
Energy related costs shall be allocated in the ratio of energy consumed by the
customer classes. The energy consumed shall include sales to categories and
allocated losses to such categories.
4.4.7.1 Allocation of Losses
Though sales to each of the classes shall be easily available, but allocation of losses
shall require considerable judgment. The allocation of technical losses is largely
dependent upon the voltage at which a customer category is connected. However,
before allocating technical losses, commercial losses shall be allocated to various
categories. The technical losses shall then be allocated in the ratio of sales plus
commercial losses for a category.
Determination of Technical & Commercial Losses
The total transmission and distribution losses of TANGEDCO for FY 2010-11 were
20.91% including both technical and commercial losses. Distribution Losses (Total
Losses -Transmission Losses) shall be broken up into technical and commercial
losses. Technical Losses shall be further broken up into HT and LT level losses.
Allocation of Commercial Losses
Commercial losses are determined as the difference between total losses and
technical losses. The commercial losses shall be allocated to the customer categories
in ratio of sales. Thus, no commercial losses shall be allocated to the energy
transferred at lower voltage level as the consumers using such energy are not
responsible for commercial losses at the higher voltage.
Allocation of Technical Losses
Technical losses at HV and LV levels are allocated to the categories in ratio of sales to
customer categories connected at that voltage and energy transferred to the
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 23
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
immediate lower voltage level.
The above method for allocation of technical losses shall be done in two steps.
• Firstly, the losses shall be allocated to various voltages levels in the ratio
of voltage level sales and transfer (to next category).
• Then, the losses allocated to various voltage levels shall be allocated to
the respective categories in the ratio of category sales.
4.4.8 Allocation of Customer related Costs
Customer related costs, primarily, include the costs of providing servicing other than
supply of electricity, namely – metering, billing, collection, fault repair etc. These
costs, though directly relate to the number of customers in a particular category,
vary significantly with across categories. For instance, the per customer servicing
costs for HT Industrial category will be much higher than that for a Residential
category customer.
Category-wise Customer Weightages
4.4.8.1 To address the variance in per customer service costs across categories, category
wise weight-ages shall be derived to determine allocation factors for customer-
related costs.
4.4.8.2 The weight-ages shall be a function of two parameters - Sales per Customer and
Load per Customer.
4.4.8.3 The average of these two ratios for each category shall give the ‘Category Wise
Customer Weightage’.
4.4.8.4 The minimum & maximum limit for such ratios will be set at 1 and 200
respectively. The average of these two ratios for each category gives the
‘Category Wise Customer Weightage’.
4.5 Approach for segregation of cost
4.5.1 Cost of service study may also be conducted using forecasts for costs, customer data
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 24
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Allocation
Demand Related
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Allocation
Energy Related
Classification
Generation
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Allocation
Demand Related
Classification
Transmission
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Allocation
Demand Related
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Allocation
Customer/Service Related
Classification
Distribution
Functionalisation
Costs
and load patterns. The cost of service so derived may provide an input into tariff
design. Together with the desired level of tariffs for each category, cost of service
can clearly define the level of subsidies required for each category and the system as
a whole.
4.5.2 The methods for functionalisation, classification and allocation of costs are as varied
as there are utilities each producing a different result. The fact that there is no set
methodology requires careful selection and regular update of the same in line with
the changing characteristics of the utility and objectives of the study.
4.5.3 The Figure given below indicates the flowchart for Cost of Service study;
Figure 1: Computation of Cost of Supply
4.6 Basis for determination of Cost to Service
4.6.1 Cost for FY 2010-11
4.6.1.1 Even though TANGEDCO has come into existence from 1st
November 2010 due to
segregation of erstwhile TNEB and as per the provisional transfer scheme
notified by GoTN on 19th
October 2010 and 2nd
January 2012, for calculation of
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 25
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Cost of Supply, the financial data related to whole FY 2010-11 is considered by
clubbing Profit & Loss account for 7 months and 5 months.
4.6.1.2 Costs as per audited accounts of FY 2010-11 shall be taken as the base for
determination of category wise cost of service for TANGEDCO;
4.6.1.3 The revenue from sale of power to other States and Puducherry has been
adjusted in the variable cost of power purchase and therefore the Revenue from
such sale of power to Other States and Puducherry has been deducted from
variable cost to determine the exact cost to be allocated to consumers.
4.6.1.4 Such costs shall be broken up into Generation, Power Purchase, Transmission
and Distribution costs. The details of the cost to be allocated for FY 2010-11 has
been identified as below:
Table 2: Profit & Loss Statement for FY 2010-11
PROFIT & LOSS STATEMENT
(Rs. in Crores)
INCOME
1 Revenue 58,446.15 20,644.42
2 Non-Tariff Income 544.29
3 Other Income 452.33
4 Sale to Other States and Puducherry
Total Income 58,446.15 21,641.04
EXPENDITURE
5 Cost of Power Purchased 73,961.57 25,143.15
'- Fixed Power Purchase Cost 3,453.91
'- Variable Power Purchase Cost 21,901.43
Less: Sales to Other States and Puducherry (212.18)
6 Other Expenditure 8,914.53
Operation & Maintenance Expenses 4,495.89
Depreciation 786.14
Interest and Financial Charges 3,591.15
Provision for bad debt 41.34
Income Tax
Expenses Capitalized 351.17
7 Total EXPENDITURE (4+5) 33,706.51
8 Return on Equity 356.69
Net prior period charges/Credit 848.66
9 Profit/Loss before tax (6-11) (13,270.82)
MUs 2010-11ParticularsSr. No.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 26
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
4.6.2 Category wise sales and revenue
4.6.2.1 The tariff categories wise sales have been regrouped in the following categories –
Table 3: Consumer Category of TANGEDCO
Particulars
HT Category
I-A Industries
I-B Railway Traction
II-A Govt. Educational Institution etc.
II-B Private Educational Inst. Etc
II-C Place of Worship
III Commercial
IV Lift Irrigation
LT Category
I-A Domestic
I-C LT bulk supply
II-A Public Lighting and Water Supply
II-B-1 Govt. & Govt. Aided Education Institutions etc.
II-B-2 Private College etc
IIC Places of Public Worship
IIIA 1 Cottage and Tiny Industries
IIIA 2 Power Looms
IIIB L.T. Industries
V L.T. Commercial
VI Temporary supply
4.6.3 Transmission and Distribution Losses
4.6.3.1 Transmission and Distribution losses will be bifurcated into technical and
commercial losses as explained in para 4.4.7.1.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 27
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
5. DEFINITIONS
5.1 System Peak Demand (Restricted)
Maximum demand (MW), in the utility’s system, during a period measured as the
sum of generation from all the sources.
5.2 Co-incident Peak Demand1
Co-incident peak demand or contribution to system peak demand is the demand for
a customer category (Domestic, Industrial etc) occurring at the time of system peak
demand. The sum of co-incident peak demands of all customer categories is equal to
the system peak demand.
5.3 Non Co-incident Peak Demand2
Non co-incident peak demand is the peak demand for a category during a period.
Such a peak may or may not occur at the time of system peak demand. Hence, the
non-coincident peak demand may be greater than or equal to the co-incident peak
demand for a category.
5.4 Connected Load
Connected load is the sum of all the electricity consuming items (Appliances,
machines, motors etc) connected to the distribution system of the utility. Connected
load may be defined for the entire system, a particular unit of the utility or for
customer categories.
5.5 Contracted Demand
Contracted demand is agreed upon by the buyer as the maximum demand that the
buyer will have at any point in time during the contract period. The seller agrees to
make power available to serve such demand.
1 Coincident Peak Demand for each category – TANGEDCO serves the customers through feeders with mixed load, i.e., a feeder may
serve customers from various categories. Such a situation makes it difficult to determine Coincident peak demand (Contribution to system
peak demand). 2 Non-coincident peak demand can be estimated applying the diversity factor to the connected load for each category. Calculations are
provided in Annexure 2
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 28
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
5.6 System Load Factor
The ratio of the average demand to system peak demand, it is calculated as the ratio
of total number of units consumed in the system during a period to that had the
demand been at system peak throughout the same period.
5.7 Category Load Factor
The ratio of the average demand to non co-incident peak demand, it is calculated as
the ratio of total number of units consumed by the category during a period to that
had the category demand been at non co-incident peak throughout the same period.
5.8 Diversity Factor
Usually measured at the feeder level, it is the ratio of non co-incident peak to
connected load.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 29
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
6. CALCULATION OF EXPENSES
Classification of costs involves identification of costs as demand related, energy related and
customer related, based on some notion of cost causation. Demand-related costs are those
triggered by peak demands imposed on the system. Energy-related costs are related to the
level of energy production. Customer costs vary according to the number and type of
customers.
6.1 Classification of Power Purchase Expenses
Power purchase costs are identified to be energy as well as demand related as the utility
should not only be able to supply the energy required over a period of time but must also
install or purchase sufficient capacity to meet the peak demand of the system. The power
purchase cost of TANGEDCO comprises of fixed and variable charges whereby the cost of
generation of own generating station as specified in the profit & loss account has been
considered as variable cost. Also, the power purchase cost has been segregated in variable
cost and the fixed cost of the total power purchase cost3. The fixed cost is classified as
demand related whereas the variable as energy related.
Table 4 – Classified Power Purchase Expenses for FY 2010-11
Rs. in Crores
Particulars
Power
Purchase
Cost
Demand
Related
Energy
Related
Customer
Related
Power Purchase Cost
- Fixed Cost 3,454 3,454 - -
- Variable Cost 21,689 - 21,689 -
Classified Power
Purchase Costs
25,143 3,454 21,689 -
6.2 Classification of Other Distribution Expenses
Other distribution costs are classified as either demand related or customer related or a
combination of the two. Other distribution related components like meters and Distribution
assets that are used by a single customer (e.g., Service Lines) could be classified as 100%
customer related. The costs associated with such items can also be classified as entirely
3 The power purchase is classified as demand and energy based on the structure of fixed charges and energy
charges in power purchase bill of FY 2010-11.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 30
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
customer related.
Distribution costs other than those entirely customer related may be classified using the
following methods –
� 100% demand related approach classifies all other costs as entirely demand related
on the rationale that distribution networks are set up to meet the local maximum
demands.
� Partly demand and partly customer related approach attempts to work out
appropriate ratios for each component of distribution costs for classification into
demand related and customer related costs. The rationale for this approach is that
the extent of distribution lines, especially in a Universal Service Obligation scenario,
depends upon the location and number of customers. Hence, a component of
customer related distribution cost exists.
The distribution system apart from serving the demand also provides various services to the
customers such as metering, billing, break down repair etc. Hence, other distribution costs
need to be classified as partly demand related and partly customer related.
Table 5: Classified Distribution Expenses
Demand
Related
Energy
Related
Customer
related
Low Tension
Operation & Maintenance Expenses 4,495.89 2,247.95 - 2,247.95
Depreciation 786.14 786.14 -
Interest and Financial Charges 3,591.15 3,591.15 -
Provision for bad debt 41.34 41.34 -
Income Tax 0.00 0.00 -
Total Expenditure (1 to 5) 8,914.53 6,666.58 - 2,247.95
Return on Equity 356.69 356.69
Expenses Capitalized 351.17 175.59 - 175.59
Classified Distribution Costs 8,920.05 6,847.69 - 2,072.36
Classification
Rs. in Crores
2010-11Categories
The distribution costs such as repair and maintenance, employee cost & administrative and
general expenses have been equally apportioned (50:50) into customer cost and demand
related costs, as these vary with the number and the type of customer as well as with their
demand. Rest of the distribution expenses are classified into demand related as they are
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 31
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
only dependent on how much demand needs to be catered and not on number of
consumers
6.3 Allocation of demand related cost
6.3.1 Demand related power purchase costs
The power purchase, serves the entire system and further investments are triggered
by increase in the peak demand of the system as a whole. Hence, category co-
incident peak demand is the appropriate criteria for allocation of such costs.
However, due to non-availability of the data with regards to the category co-incident
peak, the Average and Excess method as discussed earlier is a suitable alternative.
Table 6: Category-wise Average & Excess Demand (MW)
MW
Categories
Non
Coincident
Demand
Average
Demand
Excess
Demand
Low Tension 22,333.46 5,862.21 16,471.25
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 11,240.84 2,495.43 8,745.41
LT I B-Huts services 72.22 54.52 17.70
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 2.73 2.28 0.45
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 336.52 247.16 89.37
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 44.09 31.33 12.76
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 94.49 47.00 47.49
LT II C-Place of public worship 48.04 15.11 32.93
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 116.04 104.03 12.01
LT III A(2)-Power loom 289.53 126.29 163.24
LT III B- Industries 3,981.21 623.81 3,357.40
LT IV-Agriculture 2,688.84 1,445.10 1,243.74
LT V-Commercial 3,414.01 667.09 2,746.93
LT VI-Temporary supply 4.89 3.07 1.82
High Tension 5,387.76 2,575.18 2,812.58
Industries 4,374.69 2,116.83 2,257.86
HT I B-Railway Traction 186.58 47.32 139.27
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 49.65 45.99 3.67
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 173.78 107.30 66.48
Worship 5.71 4.53 1.18
HT III - Commercial 591.76 251.00 340.77
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 5.58 2.22 3.36
Total 27,721.22 8,437.39 19,283.83
Based on the above allocation of category-wise average and excess demand, the
allocation factor has been determined for demand related power purchase costs as
outlined in the following table:
Table 7 - Allocation Factors for Demand Related Power Purchase Costs
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 32
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Categories
Average
Demand
Component
for Allocation
(%)
Excess
Demand
Component
for Allocation
(%)
Total
Allocation
Factor (%)
Low Tension 56.78% 15.62% 72.39%
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 24.17% 8.29% 32.46%
LT I B-Huts services 0.53% 0.02% 0.54%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 0.02% 0.00% 0.02%
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 2.39% 0.08% 2.48%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 0.30% 0.01% 0.32%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 0.46% 0.05% 0.50%
LT II C-Place of public worship 0.15% 0.03% 0.18%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 1.01% 0.01% 1.02%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 1.22% 0.15% 1.38%
LT III B- Industries 6.04% 3.18% 9.22%
LT IV-Agriculture 14.00% 1.18% 15.18%
LT V-Commercial 6.46% 2.60% 9.07%
LT VI-Temporary supply 0.03% 0.00% 0.03%
High Tension 24.94% 2.67% 27.61%
Industries 20.50% 2.14% 22.64%
HT I B-Railway Traction 0.46% 0.13% 0.59%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 0.45% 0.00% 0.45%
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 1.04% 0.06% 1.10%
Worship 0.04% 0.00% 0.04%
HT III - Commercial 2.43% 0.32% 2.75%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 0.02% 0.00% 0.02%
Total 81.72% 18.28% 100.00%
6.3.2 Demand related other distribution costs
The distribution network services local maximum demands and investments are
triggered by the local (in other words, non co-incident) peaks in demand. Therefore,
the category wise non co-incident peak demand
for each class is the most
appropriate basis for allocation of demand related other distribution costs. The same
is outlined in Table 8.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 33
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table 8 - Allocation factors for Demand Related Other Distribution Costs
Low Tension 80.56%
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 40.55%
LT I B-Huts services 0.26%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 0.01%
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipal ity &corporation) 1.21%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 0.16%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 0.34%
LT II C-Place of public worship 0.17%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 0.42%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 1.04%
LT III B- Industries 14.36%
LT IV-Agriculture 9.70%
LT V-Commercial 12.32%
LT VI-Temporary supply 0.02%
High Tension 19.44%
Industries 15.78%
HT I B-Rai lway Traction 0.67%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 0.18%
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 0.63%
Worship 0.02%
HT III - Commercial 2.13%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 0.02%
Total 100.00%
ParticularsAllocation
Factors
6.3.3 Demand related Total Distribution costs
Allocation factors for demand related total distribution costs is worked out based on
weightages of power purchase and other distribution costs. The allocation factors for
demand related total distribution costs are as given in Table 9.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 34
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table 9 - Allocation factors for Demand Related Total Distribution Costs
Particulars
Demand
Related
Allocation
Low Tension 77.93%
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 37.94%
LT I B-Huts services 0.35%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 0.01%
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 1.62%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 0.21%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 0.39%
LT II C-Place of public worship 0.17%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 0.61%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 1.15%
LT III B- Industries 12.71%
LT IV-Agriculture 11.46%
LT V-Commercial 11.27%
LT VI-Temporary supply 0.02%
High Tension 22.07%
Industries 17.99%
HT I B-Railway Traction 0.65%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 0.27%
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 0.78%
Worship 0.03%
HT III - Commercial 2.33%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 0.02%
Total 100.00%
6.4 Allocation of Energy related cost
Energy related costs are allocated in the ratio of energy consumed by the customer classes.
The energy consumed includes sales to categories and allocated losses.
Allocation of Losses
Though sales to each of the classes are easily available, allocation of losses requires
considerable judgement. The allocation of technical losses is largely dependent upon the
voltage at which a customer category is connected. However, before allocating technical
losses, commercial losses are allocated to various categories. The technical losses are then
allocated in the ratio of sales plus commercial losses for a category.
6.4.1 Determination of Technical and Commercial Losses
The total distribution loss of TANGEDCO is 20.91% including both technical and commercial
losses which are considered in line with the tariff petition and includes transmission and
distribution loss. The technical losses of TANGEDCO distribution system are 18.12%. The
technical losses on the basis of actual network data are broken up into HT and LT level
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 35
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
losses whereby balance LT technical loss is considered as 80% of the balance loss and
accordingly the HT losses are 6.95% and LT losses are 11.17%. The remaining losses are
taken commercial distribution losses. The breakup of the same is as below –
Table 10 – Losses at TANGEDCO for FY 2010-11
Total Technical Losses 18.12%
HT 6.95%
LT 11.17%
Total Commercial Losses 2.79%
Total Losses in the system 20.91%
6.4.2 Allocation of Commercial Losses
Commercial losses are determined as the difference between total losses and
technical losses. The commercial losses are allocated to the customer categories in
ratio of the number of units assessed in theft (category wise). In other words, no
commercial losses are allocated for the energy transferred to the lower voltage level,
as the consumers using such energy are not responsible for commercial losses at the
higher voltage.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 36
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table 11 – Allocation of Commercial Losses
Categories Sales (MU)
Allocation
Factor for
Commercial
Losses
Commercial
Losses (MU)
Low Tension 38,173 65.31% 1,348.71
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 16,249 27.80% 574.12
LT I B-Huts services 355 0.61% 12.54
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 15 0.03% 0.53
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 1,609 2.75% 56.86
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 204 0.35% 7.21
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 306 0.52% 10.81
LT II C-Place of public worship 98 0.17% 3.48
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 677 1.16% 23.93
LT III A(2)-Power loom 822 1.41% 29.06
LT III B- Industries 4,062 6.95% 143.52
LT IV-Agriculture 9,410 16.10% 332.47
LT V-Commercial 4,344 7.43% 153.48
LT VI-Temporary supply 20 0.03% 0.71
High Tension 20,273 34.69% 716.30
Industries 16665 28.51% 588.80
HT I B-Railway Traction 372.5 0.64% 13.16
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 362.037 0.62% 12.79
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 844.753 1.45% 29.85
Worship 35.65 0.06% 1.26
HT III - Commercial 1976 3.38% 69.82
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 17.47 0.03% 0.62
Total 58446.15 100.00% 2,065.01
6.4.3 Allocation of Technical Losses
Technical losses at HV and LV levels are allocated to the categories in ratio of sales to
customer categories connected at that voltage and energy transferred to the
immediate lower voltage level. For instance, if at HV level sale to HV Industry is 20
MU while the sales to other categories at HV level is 5 MU and the transfer to LV
level is 75 MU – 20% of the losses at HV level will be allocated to HV Industry
category.
The above method for allocation of technical losses is done in two steps. Firstly, the
losses are allocated to various voltages levels in the ratio of voltage level sales and
transfer (to next category). Then, the losses allocated to various voltage levels are
allocated to the respective categories in the ratio of category sales.
Table 12 – Allocation of Technical Losses
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 37
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
MUs
Particulars HT LT Total
Percent 6.95% 11.17% 18.12%
Losses to be allocated 5,140.33 8,260.03 13,400.36
LT System
Sales 0.00 38,172.74 38,172.74
Commercial losses 0.00 1,348.71 1,348.71
Technical losses 0.00 8,260.03 8,260.03
Input to LT System 0.00 47,781.48 47,781.48
Allocation of LT Technical Losses 0.00 8,260.03 8,260.03
HT System
Sales 20,273.41 0.00 20,273.41
Commercial losses 716.30 0.00 716.30
Input to LT System 0.00 47,781.48 47,781.48
Input to HT System 20,989.71 47,781.48 68,771.19
Technical losses in HT system 5,140.33 0.00 5,140.33
Allocation of HT Technical Losses 1,568.88 3,571.45 5,140.33
-
Technical Losses Allocated to Customer Categories 1,568.88 11,831.47 13,400.36
Based on the above allocation of technical and commercial losses, the detailed
allocation of losses to each category of consumers is outlined below:
Table 13 – Allocation of Losses to categories
Categories Sales (MU)Commercial
Losses (MU)
Technical
Losses (MU)
Total Energy
Input into the
system (MU)
Low Tension 38,172.74 1,348.71 11,831.47 51,352.93
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 16,249.41 574.12 5,036.43 21,859.96
LT I B-Huts services 355.00 12.54 110.03 477.57
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Rai lway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 14.86 0.53 4.61 19.99
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 1,609.40 56.86 498.83 2,165.09
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 204.02 7.21 63.24 274.47
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 306.04 10.81 94.85 411.70
LT II C-Place of public worship 98.36 3.48 30.49 132.32
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 677.42 23.93 209.96 911.32
LT III A(2)-Power loom 822.35 29.06 254.88 1,106.29
LT III B- Industries 4,062.06 143.52 1,259.02 5,464.60
LT IV-Agriculture 9,410.00 332.47 2,916.59 12,659.06
LT V-Commercial 4,343.84 153.48 1,346.35 5,843.67
LT VI-Temporary supply 19.98 0.71 6.19 26.88
High Tension 20,273.41 716.30 1,568.88 22,558.59
Industries 16,665.00 588.80 1,289.64 18,543.45
HT I B-Rai lway Traction 372.50 13.16 28.83 414.49
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 362.04 12.79 28.02 402.85
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 844.75 29.85 65.37 939.97
Worship 35.65 1.26 2.76 39.67
HT III - Commercial 1,976.00 69.82 152.92 2,198.73
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 17.47 0.62 1.35 19.44
Total 58,446.15 2,065.01 13,400.36 73,911.52
6.4.4 Allocation of Energy Related Costs
Energy related costs are allocated to categories in the ratio of energy consumed. The
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 38
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
energy consumed includes not only the sales but also the losses allocated to the
respective categories.
Table 14: Allocation Factors for Energy Related Costs
2010-11
Allocation
Factors
Low Tension 69.48%
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 29.58%
LT I B-Huts services 0.65%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 0.03%
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 2.93%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 0.37%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 0.56%
LT II C-Place of public worship 0.18%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 1.23%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 1.50%
LT III B- Industries 7.39%
LT IV-Agriculture 17.13%
LT V-Commercial 7.91%
LT VI-Temporary supply 0.04%
High Tension 30.52%
Industries 25.09%
HT I B-Railway Traction 0.56%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 0.55%
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 1.27%
Worship 0.05%
HT III - Commercial 2.97%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 0.03%
Total 100.00%
Particulars
6.5 Allocation of Customer Related Costs
Customer related costs, primarily, include the costs of providing servicing other than
supply of electricity, namely – metering, billing, collection, fault repair etc. These
costs, though directly relate to the number of customers in a particular category,
vary significantly with across categories. For instance, the per customer servicing
costs for HT Industrial category will be much higher than that for a Residential
category customer.
6.5.1 Category Wise Customer Weightages
To address the variance in per customer service costs across categories, category
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 39
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
wise weight-ages have been derived to determine allocation factors for customer-
related costs. The weight-ages are a function of two parameters - Sales per Customer
and Load per Customer. Category wise parameters have been divided by average of
such parameter for arrive at a ratio. The minimum & maximum limit for such ratios
has been set at 1 and 200 respectively. The average of these two ratios for each
category gives the ‘Category Wise Customer Weightage’.
Table 15: Category wise Customer Weightage
Categories
Connected
Load
(MW)
Consumers Sales
Weight
(sales/
consumer)
Weight
(load/
consumer)
Average
Weight
Low Tension 39,395.13 22,611,491 38,173 -
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 18,734.74 15,056,087 16,249 1.00 1 1.00
LT I B-Huts services 120.36 1,467,708 355 1.00 1 1.00
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 4.56 1,010 15 5.69 1 3.35
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 807.65 466,024 1,609 1.34 1 1.17
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 151.18 45,973 204 1.72 1 1.36
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 226.77 68,960 306 1.00 1 1.00
LT II C-Place of public worship 144.12 131,869 98 1.00 1 1.00
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 198.93 57,077 677 4.59 1 2.80
LT III A(2)-Power loom 496.33 124,026 822.3518 2.57 1 1.78
LT III B- Industries 5,308.29 359,819 4062.064 4.37 1 2.68
LT IV-Agriculture 8,066.53 1,999,237 9409.997 1.82 1 1.41
LT V-Commercial 5,121.02 2,820,301 4343.84 1.00 1 1.00
LT VI-Temporary supply 14.66 13,400 19.98068 1.00 1 1.00
High Tension 6,612.52 6,940 20273.41
Industries 5,146.70 5,091 16665 200.00 1 100.50
HT I B-Railway Traction 219.51 21 372.5 200.00 1 100.50
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 99.30 127 362.037 200.00 1 100.50
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 231.71 297 844.753 200.00 1 100.50
Worship 14.26 6 35.65 200.00 1 100.50
HT III - Commercial 887.64 1,387 1976 200.00 1 100.50
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 13.39 11 17.47 200.00 1 100.50
Total 46,007.65 22,618,431 58446.15
6.5.2 Allocation of Customer Related Costs
Customer related as arrived at after Classification of Distribution Cost is allocated as
per the weight-ages derived.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 40
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table 16 – Allocation Factors for Customer related Costs
Low Tension 97.21%
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 60.14%
LT I B-Huts services 5.86%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 0.01%
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 2.17%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 0.25%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 0.28%
LT II C-Place of public worship 0.53%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 0.64%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 0.88%
LT III B- Industries 3.86%
LT IV-Agriculture 11.27%
LT V-Commercial 11.27%
LT VI-Temporary supply 0.05%
High Tension 2.79%
Industries 2.04%
HT I B-Railway Traction 0.01%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 0.05%
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 0.12%
Worship 0.00%
HT III - Commercial 0.56%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 0.00%
Total 100.00%
ParticularsAllocation
Factors
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 41
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
7. COST OF SERVICE
7.1 Cost of Service of each Category
Based on the above allocation factors, the cost of service each category has 3
elements, namely –
1. Demand Related Costs;
2. Energy Related Costs; and
3. Customer Related Costs;
Table 17 - Category wise Total Cost of Service (Rs. Crs)
Demand
Related
Energy
Related
Customer
RelatedTotal
Low Tension 7,764.75 15,701.35 1,807.41 25,273.51
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 3,481.62 7,040.30 810.42 11,332.34
LT I B-Huts services 58.43 118.16 13.60 190.20
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 2.42 4.89 0.56 7.87
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 265.84 537.57 61.88 865.29
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 33.85 68.44 7.88 110.17
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 53.65 108.49 12.49 174.63
LT II C-Place of public worship 19.04 38.50 4.43 61.98
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 109.29 221.00 25.44 355.74
LT III A(2)-Power loom 147.79 298.85 34.40 481.05
LT III B- Industries 989.44 2,000.78 230.31 3,220.53
LT IV-Agriculture 1,627.68 3,291.39 378.88 5,297.96
LT V-Commercial 972.31 1,966.15 226.33 3,164.79
LT VI-Temporary supply 3.37 6.82 0.79 10.98
High Tension 2,961.18 5,987.90 689.28 9,638.35
Industries 2,428.62 4,911.00 565.31 7,904.94
HT I B-Railway Traction 63.31 128.03 14.74 206.08
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 48.15 97.36 11.21 156.71
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 118.23 239.08 27.52 384.83
Worship 4.82 9.75 1.12 15.70
HT III - Commercial 295.39 597.33 68.76 961.48
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 2.65 5.35 0.62 8.62
Total 10,725.93 21,689.24 2,496.69 34,911.86
Particulars
2010-11
The above provides the total cost of service of each category. However for
calculation of Cost to Serve per consumer, the same is derived on the basis of Per
unit (energy, demand or customer as unit) cost of service for each category as under.
Table 18 – Category wise per unit Cost of Service
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 42
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Demand
Related
(Rs/Kwh)
Energy
Related
(Rs/Kwh)
Customer
Related
(Rs/Kwh)
Total Cost
(Rs/Kwh)
Low Tension
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 2.14 4.33 0.50 6.97
LT I B-Huts services 1.65 3.33 0.38 5.36
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 1.63 3.29 0.38 5.29
LT II A- Local body(Vil lage panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 1.65 3.34 0.38 5.38
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 1.66 3.35 0.39 5.40
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 1.75 3.55 0.41 5.71
LT II C-Place of public worship 1.94 3.91 0.45 6.30
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 1.61 3.26 0.38 5.25
LT III A(2)-Power loom 1.80 3.63 0.42 5.85
LT III B- Industries 2.44 4.93 0.57 7.93
LT IV-Agriculture 1.73 3.50 0.40 5.63
LT V-Commercial 2.24 4.53 0.52 7.29
LT VI-Temporary supply 1.69 3.41 0.39 5.49
High Tension
Industries 1.46 2.95 0.34 4.74
HT I B-Railway Traction 1.70 3.44 0.40 5.53
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 1.33 2.69 0.31 4.33
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 1.40 2.83 0.33 4.56
Worship 1.35 2.74 0.31 4.40
HT III - Commercial 1.49 3.02 0.35 4.87
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 1.52 3.06 0.35 4.93
2010-11
Particulars
7.2 Conclusion
The cost of service study seeks to establish the adequacy of tariffs, category wise
cross subsidy in the system and provide a path for elimination of the same. The
results of the study also establish the cross subsidy surcharge applicable to open
access consumers. The table below compares the cost of service and average
realisation.
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 43
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
Table 19 – Cost of Service against Average Realisation
ParticularsCost of Service
(Rs/Kwh)
Average Realisation
(Rs/Kwh)
Gap
(Rs/Kwh)Gap %
Low Tension
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 6.97 2.50 4.47 178.67%
LT I B-Huts services 5.36 0.50 4.85 961.17%
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 5.29 3.85 1.44 37.45%
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 5.38 3.44 1.94 56.51%
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 5.40 4.75 0.65 13.72%
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 5.71 4.75 0.96 20.18%
LT II C-Place of public worship 6.30 4.20 2.10 49.94%
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 5.25 2.72 2.53 93.28%
LT III A(2)-Power loom 5.85 2.05 3.80 185.16%
LT III B- Industries 7.93 4.88 3.05 62.36%
LT IV-Agriculture 5.63 0.29 5.34 1814.85%
LT V-Commercial 7.29 6.62 0.67 10.08%
LT VI-Temporary supply 5.49 9.86 (4.37) -44.29%
High Tension
Industries 4.74 4.86 (0.11) -2.32%
HT I B-Railway Traction 5.53 4.81 0.72 14.97%
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 4.33 4.69 (0.36) -7.68%
HT II B-Privat+B2e EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 4.56 4.69 (0.13) -2.84%
Worship 4.40 3.30 1.10 33.38%
HT III - Commercial 4.87 6.88 (2.01) -29.28%
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 4.93 0.51 4.42 858.16%
The graph below shows category-wise cost of service and average realisation of
TANGEDCO for FY 2010-11.
Figure 2 - Category Wise COS and Average Realization
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 44
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
8. WAY FORWARD
8.1 Way forward
Considering the study undertaken to determine the Cost to Serve categorywise and
voltagewise, the following conclusion will be able to be derived:
• Result into a movement towards the actual cost to serve pricing principle and will
introduce transparency in rate designing and hence in subsidy/ cross subsidy
assessment;
• Special attention may be shifted for allocating power purchase costs;
• Modify the total cost of power purchase on account of agriculture consumers
considering the average voltage deviations beyond permissible limit
• Aggregating the penalty levied on licensees due to poor quality supply and,
thereby, moderating the power purchase cost
• Will be useful for use of appropriate load curves and load research study for
assessment of power demand of consumer class
• Need to change the assets/expenditure accounting practices whereby Utilities
will have to maintain the voltage wise inventory of assets
ENERGY DIVISION
February 2013 Page 45
Methodology for Carrying out
Cost to Serve Model
ANNEXURE A - Category Wise Non Coincident Demand
The diversity factors derived from the sample of feeders and from available records are
applied to the total connected load of the respective categories to arrive the non-coincident
peak.
Table A1 – Category Wise Non-coincident Demand
CategoriesConnected
Load (MW)
Diversity
Factor
(%)
Non
Coincident
Peak Demand
Low Tension 39,395.13 22,333.46
LT I A- Domestic, handloom,Nutirition centres etc. 18,734.74 60.00% 11,241
LT I B-Huts services 120.36 60.00% 72.22
LT I C -LT Bulk supply,Railway colonies, Defence colonies etc. 4.56 60.00% 2.73
LT II A- Local body(Village panchayat,town panchayat, Muncipality &corporation) 807.65 41.67% 336.52
LT II B(1)-Govt.Educational Instititions 151.18 29.17% 44.09
LT II B(2)-Private Educational Institutions 226.77 41.67% 94.49
LT II C-Place of public worship 144.12 33.33% 48.04
LT III A(1)-Cottage &tiny Industries 198.93 58.33% 116.04
LT III A(2)-Power loom 496.33 58.33% 289.53
LT III B- Industries 5,308.29 75.00% 3,981.21
LT IV-Agriculture 8,066.53 33.33% 2,688.84
LT V-Commercial 5,121.02 66.67% 3,414.01
LT VI-Temporary supply 14.66 33.33% 4.89
High Tension 6,612.52 5,387.76
Industries 5,146.70 85.00% 4,374.69
HT I B-Railway Traction 219.51 85.00% 186.58
HT II A-Govt.educational Institutions 99.30 50.00% 49.65
HT II B-Private EducationalInstitutions, Hostels 231.71 75.00% 173.78
Worship 14.26 40.00% 5.71
HT III - Commercial 887.64 66.67% 591.76
HT IV- Lift Irrigation and cooperative societies 13.39 41.67% 5.58
Total 46007.65 27,721.22