Report of Indian Institute of Public Administration ... - Ministry of Power

Maharashtra
12 26 Sept. 2005
13 26 Sept. 2005
Performance Parameters
Grid failure event
Tripping 220 kV Kalwa-
Padgha ckts. reduced 400
and 220 kV transmission
network
Tripping 220 kV Kalwa-
Padgha ckts. reduced 400 and
220 kV transmission network
10.43
10:33 13:00 2:27
14:29 17:30 3:01
The quantitative and qualitative performance of MSEB and MSEDCL (as available) is
given below in various tables along with the highlights of important aspects seen from
these. It may however be kept in mind that it is only a year since restructuring and
some data may not be available. However, wherever possible, efforts being made by
MSEDCL to improve the performance in future are highlighted. Also areas where
more focus is required are mentioned at the end of this chapter under the heading
'Way Forward' for consideration of MSEDCL.
Table: Quantitative and Qualitative Supply of Power:
Particulars 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Assessed/Unrestricted
demand (MU)
47,533 50,033 50,910 50,477 57,876 65,274 69,544 87,968 96,459
Assessed total demand
(MW)
10,473 10,119 11,425 11,357 12,749 14,061 15,646 17,332 19,243
Peak load met (MW) 8,651 9,103 9,004 9,315 9,704 9,856
Peak load shortage
(MW)
-1822 -1016 -2421 -2042 -3045 -4205*
Energy met (MU) 45930 49018 48379 50277 51124
Energy shortage (MU) 1603 1015 2531 200 6752
Power Transformer
failure rate (%)
4.4 4.0 3.5 3.0
DTs failure rate (%) 15.95 14.67 18.52 13.07** 11 9 7
*As on 28.12.2005, however the maximum deficit was 4622MW on 9 th Feb 2006 although it was not a peak demand day
** up to November 2005
The percentage of failures of DTs could not be derived from the number of
transformers failed and the number of transformers in the system. In discussions, the
reason for increase in percentage of failures of DTs in 2004-05 was indicated to be
due to overload.
DISTRIBUTION LOSSES
The year-wise distribution losses are given in the following table. Though attempts are
made to reduce the distribution losses, the reduction achieved is not significant. A