Kathmandu,Nepal
As we approach the winter months, both the dwindling supply of water in Nepal´s rivers, and the growing demand for electricity as the days get shorter and colder, has resulted in the inevitable: A new and expanded loadshedding schedule.
Loadshedding- a euphemism for planned power outages- is a pretty simple process: Operators in each of the feeder stations look at their watches and flip a switch at the appointed time to turn off (and on) the power. Without these planned shut-offs, ´the system would collapse´ explains Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) director Sher Singh Bhat, until recently a key player in of the load dispatch office of the NEA´s System Operation Department. If not for loadshedding, he explains, we would have blackouts throughout the country and the electricity system- such as it is- would collapse.
Loadshedding affects every consumer connected to the grid (with the exception of government hospitals, the blood transfusion center, Singha Durbar, the Kathmandu International Airport, and, until 2008, the former Royal Palace.) We´ve had loadshedding in Nepal, on and off, since the late 1970s when demand first began to outstrip supply. It is similar to a game of catch-up, as the NEA’s attempts to develop additional sources of electricity lag behind runaway consumer demand. There have been temporary respites following the construction of new hydro projects, like Khulekani in 1982, and the Kali Gandaki in 2002 when additional capacity actually exceeded demand. But loadshedding has become a fact of life in Nepal over the last few years, and even according to the NEA´s own predictions, it will be with us for at least another few. This winter, the NEA is saying that we’ll experience “at least” 14 hours per day of outages.
There is no law or regulation governing the NEA´s decisions to impose loadshedding, apart from the requirement that they publish any power outage lasting more than 2 hours. The schedule itself is the product of forecasting; a comparison of supply and demand based on historical data and consumer growth. How close are the actual outages to the posted schedule? The NEA vigorously defends the reliability of the schedule: Any variances, it claims, must be based on local maintenance issues. But customers agree: Power outages do occur outside the schedule.Loadshedding- a euphemism for planned power outages- is a pretty simple process: Operators in each of the feeder stations look at their watches and flip a switch at the appointed time to turn off (and on) the power. Without these planned shut-offs, ´the system would collapse´ explains Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) director Sher Singh Bhat, until recently a key player in of the load dispatch office of the NEA´s System Operation Department. If not for loadshedding, he explains, we would have blackouts throughout the country and the electricity system- such as it is- would collapse.
Loadshedding affects every consumer connected to the grid (with the exception of government hospitals, the blood transfusion center, Singha Durbar, the Kathmandu International Airport, and, until 2008, the former Royal Palace.) We´ve had loadshedding in Nepal, on and off, since the late 1970s when demand first began to outstrip supply. It is similar to a game of catch-up, as the NEA’s attempts to develop additional sources of electricity lag behind runaway consumer demand. There have been temporary respites following the construction of new hydro projects, like Khulekani in 1982, and the Kali Gandaki in 2002 when additional capacity actually exceeded demand. But loadshedding has become a fact of life in Nepal over the last few years, and even according to the NEA´s own predictions, it will be with us for at least another few. This winter, the NEA is saying that we’ll experience “at least” 14 hours per day of outages.
In the absence of any legislative guidelines, the NEA has developed its own criteria for dealing with system overloads. It aims to ´save energy’ (read: Reduce demand on the system) in an ‘equitable’ manner. Equity between customers is achieved by ensuring that all customers, no matter where they live, how much power they consume, or what their circumstances are, experience identical restrictions on their access to electricity.
Consumer demand is increasing at a rate of 10 percent per year or 100 MW last year, largely as a result of growth in the residential sector. This demand peaks in the morning and evening, as people wake up or arrive home and turn on their lights, rice cookers and other appliances. January 19th is the day of the year that planners at the NEA must dread: When peak winter demand meets dwindling dry season supply. On this day last year, consumer demand was estimated at twice the electricity supply. Stated another way, we would need a 100 percent increase in supply to fully meet current peak demand. This year that gap will grow by 10 percent. For five months of the year the NEA reports a 24 hour per day system deficit – when there is never enough power, even during non-peak hours – to meet demand.
This is one of the reasons why the NEA is opposed to the use of inverters. The NEA doesn´t know how many inverters are out there or how much energy they are sucking out of the system, making it difficult to plan a loadshedding schedule that will work in reducing demands on the system. Those who can afford the cost of an inverter, will get more access to electricity then those who cannot. This undermines the ´equity´ of the loadshedding system, if some consumers are in a position to hoard more than their ´fair share´. During the winter months, electricity supply is a zero sum game; meaning that if I use an inverter, I effectively increase the number of hours of loadshedding for my neighbor without an inverter.
Last winter, the NEA was successful in lobbying with government to discourage inverter use. A ban on the importation of inverters was put in place, and customs reports indicate no additional official imports, but the sale and use of inverters continues unabated and given the open border with India, it is hard to know how effective the ban has been. A ban on the use (as opposed to importation) of inverters would not reduce loadshedding; but would make the NEA´s job in managing the system easier—and more equitable.
Loadshedding is a symptom not the disease: The real problem lies when demand outstrips supply. The answer thus far has been to increase supply – but lately this hasn´t been enough; a new 70 MW power station in Middle Marsyangdi won´t even meet the annual increase in demand, much less reduce power outages. And, based on current infrastructure limits we are at the max, technically, in the amount of power that we can import from India who supplies on average about 16 percent of Nepal’s needs.
What about reducing the ´non technical´ system losses we have heard so much about? The amount of electricity the NEA supplies that no one pays for is variously estimated between 10-14 percent of the total electricity supply. The ´notorious feeders’, where over 50 percent of the electricity the NEA delivers is not paid for, are easily identifiable- their names appear in the NEA annual report; this year’s prize goes to the feeder substation in the hamlet of Sanga in Bhaktapur where almost 85 percent of the electricity delivered is not paid for. The NEA explains at least part of the problem this way: Homeowners refuse to grant access to their electricity meters, and without access, the NEA can neither verify the accuracy of the payments, nor disconnect the power. Thus, the NEA loses revenue, further increasing the need to increase tariffs, but it’s worth noting, not necessarily inflating demand. If those same customers were forced to pay for the power they actually used, would it decrease their demand? Perhaps somewhat, but not enough to save us from loadshedding.
Another solution to the loadshedding dilemma, is to reduce demand, or shift it from peak to non peak hours. Electricity efficiency, sometimes referred to as ´demand side management´ is popular with utilities in other countries as a way of reducing demand thereby avoiding the need for costly capital projects, while keeping tariffs and rates low, and meeting environmental objectives. In Nepal, average household electricity consumption is low, but there are large differences between urban and rural consumption – where urban dwellers consume three times the amount of rural households. While we share the pain of loadshedding equally throughout the country, those who are driving the disconnect between supply and demand are generally more affluent, city dwellers. The NEA has recently formed a “demand side management” bureau, and a pilot project funded by the Asian Development Bank has distributed CFL lightbulbs, but in the absence of legislative objectives, regulatory oversight, or independent goal setting, it is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to expect a power producer to look for ways to discourage use of its own product.
Source: CLAIRE MCNEIL, www.myrepublica.com
This is one of the reasons why the NEA is opposed to the use of inverters. The NEA doesn´t know how many inverters are out there or how much energy they are sucking out of the system, making it difficult to plan a loadshedding schedule that will work in reducing demands on the system. Those who can afford the cost of an inverter, will get more access to electricity then those who cannot. This undermines the ´equity´ of the loadshedding system, if some consumers are in a position to hoard more than their ´fair share´. During the winter months, electricity supply is a zero sum game; meaning that if I use an inverter, I effectively increase the number of hours of loadshedding for my neighbor without an inverter.
Last winter, the NEA was successful in lobbying with government to discourage inverter use. A ban on the importation of inverters was put in place, and customs reports indicate no additional official imports, but the sale and use of inverters continues unabated and given the open border with India, it is hard to know how effective the ban has been. A ban on the use (as opposed to importation) of inverters would not reduce loadshedding; but would make the NEA´s job in managing the system easier—and more equitable.
Loadshedding is a symptom not the disease: The real problem lies when demand outstrips supply. The answer thus far has been to increase supply – but lately this hasn´t been enough; a new 70 MW power station in Middle Marsyangdi won´t even meet the annual increase in demand, much less reduce power outages. And, based on current infrastructure limits we are at the max, technically, in the amount of power that we can import from India who supplies on average about 16 percent of Nepal’s needs.
What about reducing the ´non technical´ system losses we have heard so much about? The amount of electricity the NEA supplies that no one pays for is variously estimated between 10-14 percent of the total electricity supply. The ´notorious feeders’, where over 50 percent of the electricity the NEA delivers is not paid for, are easily identifiable- their names appear in the NEA annual report; this year’s prize goes to the feeder substation in the hamlet of Sanga in Bhaktapur where almost 85 percent of the electricity delivered is not paid for. The NEA explains at least part of the problem this way: Homeowners refuse to grant access to their electricity meters, and without access, the NEA can neither verify the accuracy of the payments, nor disconnect the power. Thus, the NEA loses revenue, further increasing the need to increase tariffs, but it’s worth noting, not necessarily inflating demand. If those same customers were forced to pay for the power they actually used, would it decrease their demand? Perhaps somewhat, but not enough to save us from loadshedding.
Another solution to the loadshedding dilemma, is to reduce demand, or shift it from peak to non peak hours. Electricity efficiency, sometimes referred to as ´demand side management´ is popular with utilities in other countries as a way of reducing demand thereby avoiding the need for costly capital projects, while keeping tariffs and rates low, and meeting environmental objectives. In Nepal, average household electricity consumption is low, but there are large differences between urban and rural consumption – where urban dwellers consume three times the amount of rural households. While we share the pain of loadshedding equally throughout the country, those who are driving the disconnect between supply and demand are generally more affluent, city dwellers. The NEA has recently formed a “demand side management” bureau, and a pilot project funded by the Asian Development Bank has distributed CFL lightbulbs, but in the absence of legislative objectives, regulatory oversight, or independent goal setting, it is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse to expect a power producer to look for ways to discourage use of its own product.
Source: CLAIRE MCNEIL, www.myrepublica.com
Writer is a Canadian national living and working in Kathmandu
No comments:
Post a Comment