Long Term Electricity Demand Forecasting Report PDF
Long Term Electricity Demand Forecasting Report PDF
Long Term Electricity Demand Forecasting Report PDF
ELECTRICITY DEMAND
FORECASTING
Disclaimer and Notice to Reader
No one should act on the contents herein or information herein without appropriate
professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. Views
expressed in the paper are not binding on any person, entity, authority or Court, and
hence, no assurance is given that a position contrary to the opinions expressed
herein will not be asserted by any person, entity, authority and/or sustained by an
appellate authority or a court of law. This report has been prepared under the
Technical Assistance titled “Supporting Structural Reforms in the Indian Power
Sector” funded by UK aid from the UK government; however the views expressed do
not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, KPMG in India does not assume any responsibility and will not
accept any liability in respect of this Report to any party other than its Client. KPMG
thus disclaims all responsibility or liability for any costs, damages, losses,
liabilities, expenses incurred by such third party arising out of or in connection with
the report or any part thereof. By reading this Report, the reader of the Report shall
be deemed to have accepted the terms mentioned hereinabove.
Contents
Executive summary 7
1. Introduction 17
Background
Projection of electricity demand is a prerequisite for power sector planning. A periodic Electric Power Survey (EPS)
of the country is conducted by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) to assess the state-wise/union territory (UT)-
wise/region-wise and all-India electricity demand on medium- and long-term basis. So far, 19 Electric Power
Surveys have been conducted. The 19th Electric Power Survey (EPS) Committee, constituted by the CEA in June
2015, decided that the 19th EPS would be brought out in four volumes, as detailed below:
Volume I: Discom-wise, state/UT-wise, region-wise and all-India electricity demand projection by partial end use
method (PEUM).
Volume II: Electric Power Survey of National Capital Region (NCR).
Volume III: Electric Power Survey of Mega Cities.
Volume IV: Electricity demand projection by econometric method.
The Volume I of the 19th EPS Report, covering electricity demand projection of Discoms, states, UTs, regions and
the all-India electricity demand using Partial End Use Method (PEUM) of electricity demand forecasting, was
brought out in January 2017. Now, in line with 19th EPS Committee recommendations, the CEA and KPMG India,
has carried out electricity demand forecasting by the econometric method.
Data used
The data set for the econometric analysis comprises data on key drivers of electricity demand for all the Indian
states and UTs from 2002-03 to 2015-16. Such a cross-sectional (for all states and UTs) data over multiple time
periods is called a panel data set.
Panel data analysis help by blending the inter-state differences and intra-state dynamics and this has several
advantages over cross-sectional or time-series data. It improves the efficiency of econometric estimates by
considering more degrees of freedom and by capturing the impact of variables those might be unobservable.
Also, in a time-series model, any factor would typically be strongly correlated with its lagged value that leads to
a restricted forecast. This problem may be overcome with the panel data.
The panel data set considered in this analysis has both the dependent variable i.e. electricity
demand/requirement, and a set of independent variables such as state-level gross domestic product (GDP)and
weather data for all the states and UTs, except Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Dadar and Nagar Haveli,
Sikkim, Daman and Diu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep. For these states/UTs, as weather data
This inertia in demand is captured by including lagged dependent variables in the model which helps in
computing dynamic impacts of key drivers on electricity demand and hence improve upon static models where
such impacts are not captured. Such an economic model which distinguishes between short-run and long-run
electricity responses to its key drivers is known as Partial Adjustment Model (PAM). This model is dynamic as
it does not assume an instantaneous adjustment to new equilibrium values when any independent variable (such
as price or income) changes. It is assumed that the household can change the rate of utilisation of the existing
stock of appliances, but not the existing capital stock with variations in prices or income, so that the short-run
and long-run elasticities are not same. These adjustments, however, can vary by regions in India and partial
adjustment framework at the regional level provides useful insight into how demand would grow in various
regions. The partial adjustment framework has been widely applied in the past for estimating short-run and long-
run electricity demand elasticities as well as for obtaining future forecasts of electricity demand.
The PAM model estimates electricity demand (in MU and MW) within regional panel framework which assumes
that all the states within a region will have same response for key socio-economic variables included in the model.
Thus to estimate differential response of each state with respect to change in key drivers, the state-specific model
is also estimated using regional seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) model. This model estimates state-
specific regression model but takes advantage of the panel data structure to improve overall efficiency of state-
level parameter estimates. It pools panel data observations within a region and accounts for correlation in the
errors across states within a region.
Although, it is found that the partial adjustment model (PAM) has a better forecasting accuracy at all-India level
with a relatively lower mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) in out-of-sample data and lower average deviation
in two recent years as compared to the seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) model, but for few states, electricity
requirement forecasts in the long-run seemed better from the SUR model as compared to the PAM model and
thus electricity demand forecasts are obtained from both these models for comparison and better understanding
of the future scenario under state-specific demand transitions.
The independent variables include logarithm of state electricity requirement lagged by one and 12 months
respectively, logarithm of GDP lagged by 12 months, logarithm of real electricity prices, cooling degree days
(CDD), heating degree days (HDD), rainfall, state by month fixed effect (accounting for factors particular to a state
that are distinct in every month) and dummies for incorporating structural break between time periods.
The partial adjustment model describes change in electricity requirement from one month to the next as some
proportion of the difference between the current level of monthly demand and desired/equilibrium long-run
monthly demand. The key assumption of the model is that consumers try to bring their actual level of monthly
consumption in line with the equilibrium level but they are only partially successful in every period to close this
gap. The estimated speed of adjustment of short-run deviation from the long-run equilibrium path is about 31%
per annum at the all-India level. This implies that the short-run will converge to the long-run equilibrium in 3.2
1
Error is defined as a difference between actual and forecasted electricity requirement/demand.
The PAM model distinguishes between short-run and long-run, and thus estimates both short-run and long-run
income elasticity (as measured by GDP elasticity). The long-run income elasticity of Electrical Energy
Requirement at the all-India level is 0.74, which is more than three times the short-run elasticity. As expected,
the elasticity turns out to be lowest for developed region of western India (0.48), which comprises two developed
and big states of India - Gujarat and Maharashtra. The elasticity is the highest in the relatively less-developed
eastern region (0.91). The relatively slower growth in electricity demand has been observed in developed states
and relatively faster growth in electricity demand has been observed in developing states, indicating convergence
in demand and living standards over time.
As in the case of income, the model estimates both short-run and long-run price elasticity of electricity demand.
A 1% increase in real electricity price results in a small 0.02% decrease on an average in the state Electrical Energy
Requirement in the short-run at the all-India level. The long-run price elasticity of -0.06 at the all-India level is
three times the short-run elasticity. This reinforces that electricity price increase will have much greater impact on
electricity demand in the long-run. This is expected as people are likely to adjust more to electricity price increases
over time by switching to alternate sources of energy, primarily renewables. An examination of the coefficients
of region-specific partial adjustment model shows that the price elasticity is relatively higher than the all-India
average in the southern region (-0.12 in the short-run and -0.38 in the long-run) and western region (-0.07 in the
short-run and -0.26 in the long-run). This can possibly be explained by relatively higher average real price in
western region and the greater captive generation in the industrial sector in western and southern regions,
making utility electricity requirement to be more sensitive to price changes.
The estimated long-run impact of CDDs at the all-India level is about 0.19% increase in Electrical Energy
Requirement per one-degree Celsius increase in the CDD. The short-run impact of the CDD is about 0.06% increase
in Electrical Energy Requirement per one-degree Celsius increase in the CDD. The long-run impact is estimated to
be higher in relatively hot and developed regions in India — west (0.26%) and south (0.22%).
In the short-run, a one unit (100 mm) increase in rainfall results in 6% reduction in Electrical Energy Requirement
when rainfall is between 0-50 mm, 4% reduction when rainfall is between 50-100 mm, 3% reduction when
rainfall is between 100-150 mm and 2% reduction when rainfall is above 200 mm. In India, higher rainfall
generally occurs during summer when temperature and humidity are high. While higher rainfall in summers brings
down temperature and electricity demand but the associated increase in humidity dampens the impact of rainfall
on electricity demand to some extent. As the humidity effect is absent in winters, an increase in rainfall during
summer may reduce demand (in percentage terms) lesser as compared to winter. Also in winter, the agricultural
demand is very high in many states. Higher rainfall in winter can significantly reduce the agricultural load due to
pumps. The estimated impact of rainfall turns out to be the highest in the northern region due to high agricultural
load. The estimated average long-run impact at the all-India level in all four rainfall categories is 12% reduction
in electricity demand with one unit (100 mm) increase in rainfall.
The BAU case assumes that GDP at the all-India level will continue to grow at the average compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of about 7.3% obtained during 2000-01 to 2017-18 and there will be no significant deviations
from these past trends. In the optimistic growth scenario, the all-India GDP is assumed to grow at 8% for all
future years during 2018-19 to 2036-37. In the pessimistic growth scenario, the all-India GDP is assumed to
grow at 6.5% for all future years during FY 2018-19 to FY 2036-37.
An overview of Electrical Energy Requirement (BU) and CAGR (%) for various scenarios is shown in Table 1 and
Table 2 respectively:
In the BAU scenario of 7.3% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
4.86% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU in
In the optimistic scenario of 8% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
5.2% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU in
2016-17 to 1905.5 BU in 2026-27, 2458.9 BU in 2031-32 and 3175.4 BU in 2036-37. Under the optimistic
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.75 times between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
In the low growth scenario of 6.5% growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
4.33% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU in
2016-17 to 1776.9 BU in 2026-27, 2186.7 BU in 2031-32 and 2691.07 BU in 2036-37. Under the low growth
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.33 times between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
An overview of Peak Electricity Demand (MW) for various future periods is shown in Table 3:
An overview of Electrical Energy Requirement (BU) and CAGR (%) for various scenarios is shown in Table 4 and
Table 5:
In the BAU scenario of 7.3% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
5.58% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1188.2 BU in
2016-17 to 2056.4 BU in 2026-27, 2685.1 BU in 2031-32 and 3517.4 BU in 2036-37. Under the baseline scenario,
Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.96 times between FY 2016-17 and FY 2036-37.
In the optimistic scenario of 8% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
6.09% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1188.2 BU in
2016-17 to reach 2095.7 BU in 2026-27, 2836.8 BU in 2031-32 and 3878.2 BU in 2036-37. Under the optimistic
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 3.26 times between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
In the low growth scenario of 6.5% growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
4.86% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1188.2 BU in
2016-17 to reach 1884.5 BU in 2026-27, 2395.4 BU in 2031-32 and 3066.8 BU in 2036-37. Under the low growth
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.58 times between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
An overview of Peak Electricity Demand (MW) for various future periods is shown in Table 6:
Figure 1 Comparison of Electrical Energy Requirement under PAM with PEUM (FY 2017 – FY 2037)
3000
2500
PEUM
2000
1500 Actual
1000 Base
500 Optimistic
0 Pessimistic
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
Financial year
An analysis of the differences between the econometric forecasts under PAM and the 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM
yields that the 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM are higher than both the BAU and the higher GDP growth scenario till
the year 2031-32. The implied GDP growth rate in BAU is 7.3% whereas in the optimistic scenario it is around
8%. For the years beyond 2031-32, the econometric method forecasts under the BAU and the higher growth
scenario compare favourably to the 19th EPS forecast by PEUM.
The econometric method forecasts from SUR are higher than the actual Electrical Energy Requirement in FY 2016-
17 (by 3.96%) and in FY 2017-18 (by 2.43%).
1
1. Introduction
India has witnessed profound social, economic, cultural and demographic changes, most of which have
accelerated in the last decade. In the past decade, Electrical Energy Requirement in India increased steadily at a
CAGR of 5.42% from 546 BUs in 2002-03 to 1,143 BUs in 2016-17. During the same period, the Indian economy
experienced rapid modernisation and economic development with GDP increasing with a CAGR of 7.78% and
population increasing with a CAGR of 1.45%. Figure 1.1 shows that India’s GDP Index increased 2.8 times from
the year 2002-03 to 2016-17 with a corresponding increase in Electrical Energy Requirement of approximately
2.1 times. Apparently, there is a strong positive relationship between income and Electrical Energy Requirement.
However, the historical trends depicted in Figure 1.1 imply that the income elasticity of electricity requirement is
falling over time. Between the years 2013-14 and 2016-17, the CAGR for GDP was almost double the CAGR for
Electrical Energy Requirement. According to the annual report of the Planning Commission on the working of
State Power Utilities & Electrical Departments (2014), the elasticity of electricity consumption vis-à-vis GDP has
declined from 5.04 in the period 1960-61 to 1965-66 to 1.04 in the period 2006-07 to 2011-12. 2
The varying relationship between income and Electrical Energy Requirement further highlights the need to
understand the causes of these trends in the past, which, forms the basis of the future trajectory of Electrical
Energy Requirement.
Figure 1.1 Trends in all-India GDP and Electrical Energy Requirement (utility)
In addition to rapid growth and development, many other macroeconomic factors, climatic factors, technological
2
Report: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_arpower0306.pdf
Central Electricity Authority (CEA) has been carrying out periodic electricity demand forecast for India by
conducting National Electric Power Surveys. The basic objective of electricity demand forecasting has been to
provide reliable inputs for carrying out long-term generation expansion planning along with commensurate
transmission and distribution facilities. Many government and private organisations have been using the
electricity demand forecast for various purposes.
Several methods of forecasting are available which vary from simple extrapolation of the past demand to
sophisticated econometric models involving a number of variables and parameters. The earliest indicators used
for energy forecasting were simple measures such as growth rates, elasticities, and energy intensity (ratio of
Energy requirement to GDP). Over time, sophisticated techniques have been developed to determine electricity
demand ranging from econometric models, time series co-integration models, end-use models, hybrid models
(that combine features of economic and engineering models), systemic dynamic models, semi-parametric models,
scenario approaches, decomposition models, process models, input-output models and artificial neural networks.
Table 1.1 summarises different models that have been used in past studies for forecasting long-term electricity
demand.
Time series A forecasting model is developed based on the previously observed values of
demand. Models for time series data represent different stochastic processes —
autoregressive models, integrated models and moving average models.
Non-parametric/Semi- Model structure is not fixed as in case of parametric models but determined from
parametric analysis data. Extensively used in the past to study the non-linear relationship between
electricity demand and its key explanatory variables such as temperature, income
and price. A common method used is generalised additive model.
Panel data analysis A panel data set is one where there are repeated observations on the same unit
such as states, households and countries. Fixed effect model allows for unit-
specific unobserved factors that are constant over time.
A dynamic panel, through inclusion of lagged electricity demand terms, can allow
for a dynamic adjustment process of electricity demand when there is a change in
the determinants of electricity demand. The adjustment process arises as there is
inertia which slows adjustment process in response to changes in economic
variables such as GDP. A dynamic panel can also enable us to distinguish between
short- and long-term elasticities of electricity demand.
Co-integration analysis These models are used due to non-stationary nature of electricity consumption,
real energy prices and income variables. If the variables are found to be co-
integrated, the electricity demand is modelled using the vector error-correction
(VECM) framework to estimate short-run and long-run income, price and
temperature elasticities.
End-use approach The end-use approach focusses on end uses or final needs at a disaggregated
level. The method aggregates the electricity demand in the economy by consumer
categories — residential, industrial, commercial and agriculture. The electricity
demand for each category is calculated on the basis of the use of various electric
appliances.
Hybrid approach These models attempt to reduce the methodological divergence between the
econometric and engineering models by combining the features of the two
traditions.
Input-output models These models provide a framework that is able to capture the direct as well as
indirect energy demands through inter-industry transactions. This approach is
highly data-intensive.
Machine learning Artificial intelligence-based techniques include neural networks, support vector
machine, wavelet networks and fuzzy logic.
Scenario approach This approach involves the development of plausible scenarios that could capture
structural changes, emergence of new economic activities or disappearance of
activities.
CEA uses the PEUM to forecast the electricity demand. PEUM is a ‘bottom-up’ approach focusing on end uses or
final electrical energy needs of different categories of consumers such as domestic, commercial, irrigation,
industries and railway traction. In addition to this method of demand forecasting, CEA has been using
simple/multiple regression techniques to validate the forecast of various electric power surveys from time to time.
CEA, in its 18th EPS report in collaboration with Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), had published the forecast of
electricity demand using econometric method in April, 2014. The forecast was made using multiple regression
techniques on panel data through selection of independent econometric variables with state fixed effect technique
using past data. The projection of the future had been made by selecting appropriate growth rates for various
independent variables and through a set of scenarios. In literature, there exist numerous studies that applied
different variants of panel data models to estimate long-term electricity demand at the national/international
level.
Electricity demand forecasting models have typically been developed using its key drivers. While electricity
demand can be explained by past trends alone (univariate analysis), it is also typically influenced by a combination
of drivers that may be broadly categorised as economic, demographic, behavioural and meteorological factors.
Some factors have a greater impact on annual electricity demand, while others on monthly electricity demand.
GDP, population, and urbanisation are some socio-economic factors that impact electricity demand at an annual
level. At a monthly level, the effect of changes in temperature on electricity demand can be significant. Other
climate variables such as rainfall, wind and cloud cover also play a role in determining electricity consumption,
especially in states where majority of the load is used for domestic and agricultural purposes. These latter
variables are typically used in short-term demand forecast (typically day ahead or intra-day forecasts). Some of
these drivers are listed in Table 1.2 from past studies.
2 The effect of Gupta, 2005-2009 Daily 28 Indian Log of daily • Gross domestic
development Eshita electricity states electricity product per capita
on the climate demand demand • Population
sensitivity of • HDD and CDD
electricity • Sector-wise
demand in electricity price
India (2016) • Pump sets
• Rainfall
4 18th Electric Central 1980-2010 Annual All Indian Log of • Real State
Power Survey Electricity electricity states electricity Domestic Product
Authority demand demand per capita
and Indian • State population
Statistical rate of
Institute urbanisation
• Percentage of
population
electrified
In the current study, the long-term electricity demand has been forecast both at the state and all-India level. The
model has been estimated based on the monthly electricity demand data of 25 states and three UTs during the
period 2002-03 to 2015-16, within panel framework for each of the five regions — north, south, east, west and
north-east. The states included in different regions for estimating regional panel data models are listed in Table
1.3. The key advantage of using regional panel data analysis is that it allows to control for heterogeneity across
differentiated Indian states within a given region and enables to account for state-specific unobserved factors
Electricity demand forecast of Telangana is included in the forecast of Andhra Pradesh as its substantial data was
not available separately for the past years.
Table 1.3 States selected in different regions for regional panel data analysis
Region States
North Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Jammu and Kashmir,
Punjab, Chandigarh
South Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry
Others (forecast on Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Dadar and Nagar Haveli, Sikkim, Daman
the basis of all-India and Diu, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep
average rate of
growth of 5% per
annum)
3
In case of Lakshadweep, while Electricity Requirement has been obtained at 5% growth as done for other states but Peak Demand has been considered
constant during our forecasting period because almost constant Peak Demand was observed during period FY2011-FY2016.
2
2. Methodology for econometric forecasting
This chapter discusses the modelling techniques used for electricity demand forecasting by econometric method
using panel data.
2.1 Methodology
2.1.1 Panel data
Panel data typically refers to data containing time-series observations of a number of states. Therefore,
observations in panel data involve at least two dimensions; a state-level or cross-sectional dimension and time
dimension. Panel data blends the inter-state differences and intra-state dynamics. This leads to several
advantages over only cross-sectional or time-series data. Important benefits of panel data estimation are:
2.1.1.1 It is a more accurate inference of model parameters. Panel data usually contains more degrees of
freedom and more sample variability than cross-sectional data which may be viewed as a panel of
only one-time period, or time-series data for only one state, hence improving the efficiency of
econometric estimates.
2.1.1.2 Panel data controls for omitted variables. A panel model can control for the state-specific, time-
invariant factors through the use of state-specific intercepts or “fixed effect”. These fixed effects, in
essence, capture the impact of variables that are time-invariant and unobservable to the
econometrician (such as, the innate preferences of the consumers regarding restricted use of
electricity demand. These intrinsic tendencies of consumers would not be expected to change during
the time span of roughly 15 years over which the analysis is conducted.)
2.1.1.3 The fixed-effect estimation method is carried out by demeaning each of the variables i.e. the variable
is transformed by subtracting the mean value of the variable over time (the temporal dimension).
Demeaning the variables along the temporal dimension would eliminate the heterogeneous fixed
effects (idiosyncrasies that are assumed to be stable). Demeaning variables ‘within-subject’ implies
that the mean value for each variable (over time) is subtracted from each observed value of the
variable. Hence, within each subject, all the demeaned variables have a mean of zero. For time-
invariant variables, the demeaned variables will have a value of zero for every case, and since they
are constants, they will drop out of any further analysis. This removes all the between-subject
variability (which may be diluted by the presence of omitted variable bias) and leaves only the
within-subject variability to analyse.
2.1.1.4 In a time-series model, any factor would typically be strongly correlated with its lagged value. With
panel data, we can rely on the inter-state differences to reduce the collinearity between current and
lag variables to estimate unrestricted time-adjustment patterns.
Two variants of fixed effect model, the long panel model (adopted in 18th EPS) and partial adjustment model
(PAM), are estimated. In addition to the two fixed effect models, one state-specific model is estimated using
seemingly unrelated regression estimation (SURE) approach. All three models are discussed below in detail.
The most commonly used method of panel data is ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation. OLS is a statistical
technique for estimating changes in a dependent variable (such as electricity demand) which is in linear
relationship with independent variables (such as GDP, real electricity price etc.). It is named so because, in its
computation, the sum of the squared deviations of the predicted values from the observed (past) values of the
variables is minimised.
The long time-series-cross-section data may have correlation in electricity demand across states in the same
period (known as contemporaneous correlation) as these cross-sectional units are subject to spill overs from
economy wide shocks. In addition, there is a correlation of electricity demand with its lagged values within states
(known as serial correlation) and non-constant variance of the electricity demand (known as heteroscedasticity)
across the ranges of values of the independent variables (that predict it). However, OLS regression requires that
there is no contemporaneous correlation in electricity demand across states and no serial correlation within states,
and that electricity demand should have constant variance across different ranges of independent variables.
The long-panel fixed effect model transforms the error term associated with the data using the Prais-Winsten 4
regression, so that the assumption requiring no serial correlation in electricity demand or errors is not violated.
In this method, coefficient of correlation between the error terms (called rho), is estimated from the data by
regressing the OLS residuals on the lagged residuals. This estimated rho is then used to transform both electricity
demand and all the independent variables such that the correlation in electricity demand and its one period
lagged value is accounted in the estimation.
It also estimates panel-corrected standard errors (PCSE) to account for correlation across units (year-specific
shocks) and non-constant variance of the electricity demand. The fixed effect panel data model is estimated in
4
This methodology is explained in the appendix in detail.5 The theory of partial adjustment model is explained in detail in the appendix.
The dependent variable is the monthly state Electrical Energy Requirement between 2002-03 and 2015-16. The
independent variables used include GDP lagged by 12 months, real electricity prices, CDDs, HDDs, rainfall, state
by month fixed effect (accounting for factors particular to a state that are distinct in every month) and dummies
for incorporating structural break between time periods.
Electricity demand is a derived demand that arises from demand of energy services such as space conditioning,
cooking and lighting, for which we require investment in electric equipment. However, adjustment takes time as
investment in electric equipment is not immediate. The dynamics arise as a result of the demand stickiness
prevalent in electricity consumption because of its capital-intensive nature.
Specifically, the partial adjustment model has been used in a fixed effects framework to incorporate the dynamics
of electricity demand behaviour and hence improve upon simple “long panel” static models where such impacts
are not captured. This inertia in demand is captured by including lagged dependent variables in the model5.
Thus, this model is dynamic as it does not assume an instantaneous adjustment to new equilibrium values (as in
the long panel model) when any independent variable (such as price or income) changes. It is assumed that the
household can change the rate of utilisation of the existing stock of appliances, but not the existing capital stock
with variations in prices or income, so that the short-run and long-run elasticities are not same. While the long
panel model only estimates long-run elasticities, the partial adjustment model estimates both short-run and long-
run elasticities. These adjustments vary by regions in India and this provides a useful insight into how demand
would grow in various regions. As in the case of the long panel model, the fixed effect PAM has been estimated
using data for 25 states and three UTs in all the five regions — north, south, east, west and north-east. The
estimated model is:
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆,𝑡𝑡 = 𝛽𝛽1 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸)𝑡𝑡−1 + 𝛽𝛽2 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸)𝑡𝑡−12 + 𝛽𝛽3 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺)𝑡𝑡−12 + 𝛽𝛽4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅) + 𝛽𝛽5 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 𝛽𝛽6 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻
+ ∑ 𝛽𝛽7 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 + ∑ 𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠, 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + ∑𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠,𝑚𝑚 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷+ 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠,𝑡𝑡
The dependent variable is the monthly state Electrical Energy Requirement or Peak Electricity Demand between
the years 2002-03 and 2015-16. The independent variables used include electricity demand lagged by one and
12 months, respectively, GDP lagged by 12 months, real electricity prices, CDDs, HDDs, rainfall, state-specific time
dummies in order to account for structural breaks over time and state-specific month dummies to account for
state-specific seasonality.
The SUR model estimates a state-specific model for electricity demand. But instead of estimating each state
equation separately, as in the case of OLS, it exploits the additional information from the error structure of other
states that are linked by the fact that their disturbances or the error terms are correlated in the same period. The
correlation among the equation disturbances can come from many sources like correlated shocks to the macro
economy.
As it is reasonable to expect contemporaneous correlation in electricity demand of different states within a region,
pooling temporal cross-sectional observations in the form of Zellner’s SUR model help to improve the efficiency
of the estimates of state-specific parameters. As a first step, presence of contemporaneous correlation is checked
using the Breusch-Pagan test. There was evidence of strong correlation between the error terms of states at the
regional level (i.e. between states in each of the five regions considered). Thus, the region-specific model allows
to obtain state-specific coefficients adjusted for inter-dependencies in electricity demand, in the same time-period
among states in each region. The model is estimated as a system of equations for all states (s) within each region
with stacking of observations over’s’:
For s = 1……M. M is the number of states in each region. 𝑌𝑌𝑆𝑆 and 𝜀𝜀𝑠𝑠 are N-vectors and 𝑋𝑋𝑠𝑠 is N x Ks matrix,
where Ks =dim (𝛽𝛽𝑠𝑠 ). The dependent variable is the monthly state Electrical Energy Requirement between 2002-
03 and 2015-16. X represents the set of independent variables used for explaining electricity demand such as
GDP, price, rainfall, population etc. The chosen specific independent variables vary across states according to
what variables best explain as electricity demand in each state (for example: HDD has been considered for states
that experience winters such as northern states while dropped for states that do not experience winters such as
southern states).
The model assumes that, within each state, the error terms can be dependent on each other over time (electricity
demand in a state at any given period will be closely related to previous period values because of the inertia in
electricity demand). The error terms across states can be related only in the same year and not over time.
Therefore, the errors can be serially correlated within each cross-sectional unit but allows only contemporaneous
correlation across cross-sectional units. Furthermore, the magnitude of this contemporaneous correlation across
states does not change over time 6.
6
There is no time heterogeneity, i.e. E(EitEjt)= σij
The dependent variable in all the models is monthly Electrical Energy Requirement or Peak Electricity Demand in
a state/India depending on the model under consideration. The monthly Electrical Energy Requirement is
measured in Million Units (MU) and monthly Peak Electricity Demand is measured in Megawatts (MW). Key
explanatory variables in the proposed forecasting models are categorised into two groups — weather variables
i.e. temperature and rainfall, and socio-economic variables i.e. GDP (in billion rupees), population (in numbers),
per capita income (in rupees) and sector’s share of GDP (in %). All the weather-related variables are available at
the monthly or daily level. These monthly driver variables are captured either at a monthly frequency or
constructed by taking monthly totals or averages over daily level data. Annual variables, on the other hand, are
those variables captured at the end of every financial year.
A key summary of the variables used in the analysis is given in Table 2.1:
All the variables listed in Table 2.1 were tested in the model. However, only those variables that were statistically
significant and that improved the fit of the model were included in the final model. To reiterate, the variables that
were statistically insignificant or not improving the explanatory power of the model were dropped. Some of the
primary reasons for dropping these variables were:
Collinearity of variables with GDP: Some variables such as population, rate of urbanisation and rate of poverty
were highly correlated with GDP. This is because higher level of economic growth measured by higher GPD values
is positively related with the rate of urbanisation and rate of poverty. In a way, one predictor variable can be
used to predict the other and this introduced redundant information in the model. Because of the inter-
relationships of these variables with GDP, the inclusion of these variables in the model, along with GDP, would
affect how GDP singularly affects the electricity demand (by altering the coefficient of the GDP term by making it
insignificant or negative). Therefore, to avoid the problem of collinearity, all collinear variables have been
removed from the model, except GDP.
Issues of changes in data methodologies: Complete data was available for variables such as village
electrification and total pump sets used in agriculture. The data methodology adopted for calculation of village
electrification was changed multiple times during the period of analysis. Due to change in computation
methodologies, the data could not be relied upon as there appeared to be arbitrary fluctuations in the estimates.
Insignificance of variables: As discussed above, variables that did not improve fit of the model were excluded
to keep the model parsimonious, i.e. to maximise explanatory power of the model using the minimum amount
of data. Variables such as the index of industrial production (IIP), structure of the economy, gross irrigated area
and gross unirrigated area were statistically insignificant when introduced in the model and were, thus, excluded
from our analysis.
3
3. Historical trends of variables
Overall, India has seen a rise in Electrical Energy Requirement and electrical energy met over the years. Figure
3.1 maps the change in the country’s Electrical Energy Requirement and electrical energy met during the years
2002-03 to 2016-17. The electrical energy not met as measured by the gap between these two electricity
measures has been decreasing over the years.
Figure 3.1 Trends in electrical energy requirement and electrical energy met
The CAGR of electricity energy requirement over this period has been 5.4%. Growth over the period may be
attributed to factors such as economic development, growing population, rise in standard of living coupled with
greater electrical appliance penetration, poverty alleviation, urbanisation etc.
Figure 3.2 presents state-wise CAGR of total Electrical Energy Requirement between 2002-03 and 2015-16. Some
less developed states with low base Electrical Energy Requirement in the year 2002-03, such as Bihar, Arunachal
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, have witnessed a significant rate of growth during the period 2002-03 to 2015-16.
Figure 3.3 plots each state’s share in total Electrical Energy Requirement of India. It is observed that 17 states —
Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Punjab, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh & Telangana (bifurcated on a 49:51 basis), West Bengal, Haryana, Delhi, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Bihar and
Kerala account for 92.4% of Electrical Energy Requirement in FY 2015-16.
However, states with lower initial per capita electricity demand in the year 2002-03 seem to be growing faster
when compared to states with higher initial per capita electricity demand in the year 2002-03. Figure 3.5 indicates
that all states are converging towards the same equilibrium in terms of electricity demand per capita and growth
rate, which is known as beta convergence.
7
Sigma convergence refers to a decline in relative difference or ’dispersion‘ over time of per capita values of any variable (such as income or electricity
demand) across economies.
Furthermore, electrical energy not met or electricity shortage is mapped at an all-India level and at a state level
(Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7). The country’s prevailing trend over the years is declining shortage over the years
2008-09 to 2016-17. Relatively less developed states such as Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar seem
to record greater shortage during the year 2016-17. This may be on account of development seen in these states
during the same period; higher pace of development is likely to put additional pressure on requirement for
electrical energy.
8
6
4
2
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Financial Year
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Meghalaya
Jharkhand
Jammu and Kashmir
Manipur
Mizoram
Puducherry
Tripura
Arunachal Pradesh
Bihar
Kerala
Goa
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Chattishgarh
Maharashtra
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
Nagaland
Rajasthan
Telangana
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Assam
Himachal Pradesh
Gujarat
Orissa
Chandigarh
Delhi
Haryana
Karnataka
Figure 3.8 presents the data on annual Peak Electricity Demand at the all-India level. Annual Peak Electricity
Demand in India has seen a consistent rise over the period 2002-03 to 2016-17. At the same time, Peak Electricity
Demand not met has shown a downward trend. Figure 3.9 shows that states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh,
Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh have the highest Peak Electricity Demand in the year 2016-17.
3.2.1 GDP
As seen in Figure 3.10, India’s GDP has more than doubled during FY 2002-03 to FY 2016-17. Figure 3.11 presents
data at the state level.
At the state-level, it is observed that the states such as Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Gujarat, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Rajasthan account for the major
portion of the country’s GDP.
A likely shift in the position of states when compared on the basis of electricity demand growth rate and GDP
shares is anticipated to take place. The GDP share of relatively less developed states is expected to increase in
future with relatively faster growth as compared to the more developed states. This shift can be attributed to
development, rising standards of living and latent demand that are likely to exist in many states on account of
insufficient T&D infrastructure, technology penetration, among other factors.
3.2.2 Population
As seen in Figure 3.12, India’s population has increased by a CAGR of 1.45% during the period 2002-03 to 2016-
17. Some states with relatively lower population are seen to have greater electricity demand as compared to
states with larger populations. Delhi, Haryana and Punjab have higher electricity demand as compared to states
such as Jharkhand, Kerala and Odisha. This difference in state demands can be attributed to the consumer-
segment break-up, industrialisation and per capita income. States such as Haryana and Punjab have a greater
segment of their demand arising from the industrial and agricultural consumers, while Kerala and Odisha have a
consumption pattern skewed towards domestic consumption.
In theory, the electricity price is expected to impact electricity demand negatively. Unlike other goods, consumers
of electricity do not face a single price, but rather a price schedule that specifies block pricing across different
segments of usage- Agriculture, Commercial, Domestic, Industrial (Large, Medium and Small industries.)
While the nominal electricity prices across all usage segments have consistently increased over time (Figure 3.13),
there is a declining trend for the average real price movement (Figure 3.14). This indicates that the effective price
that the consumer pays for electricity, after the adjustment for inflation, has decreased between FY 2002-03 to
FY 2015-16. But during FY 2011-12 to 2013-14, it is observed that there was a sharp increase in nominal prices
for all the categories. The real price during this period increases as the percentage increase in the nominal price
is greater than the percentage increase in the price index during this period.
For our analysis, we have divided the time period between FY 2002-03 to FY 2015-16 into four distinct time
periods, according to the political scenario. It was observed from the data that a distinct pattern of growth seemed
to emerge in the year 2015-16. There was a general increasing electricity demand trend for all states prior to the
year 2014-15. However, the change of government at the centre in the year 2014-15 coincided with a change in
pattern of electricity demand — there was very high growth for states such as Bihar, Goa and the north-eastern
states compared to stagnant growth for states such as Delhi or Haryana.
It seems that a change of government at the centre brings about a change in policy regime and can be perceived
as a structural time break. Therefore, the time periods of structural change have been defined on the basis of
election years as: FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04, FY 2004-05 to FY2008-09, FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-
15 to FY 2016-17.
The year-on-year growth rates for Electrical Energy Requirement, GDP and population during these periods are
shown in the graph below:
Figure 3.15 Growth rates of Electrical Energy Requirement, GDP and population
It is important to note that our model used for analysis in this report is at the level of the state and electricity is a
state subject. While changes at the centre do influence electricity demand, equally critical would be the changes
at the state level. Thus, the econometric model estimated in this study allows for a different response of electricity
demand for different time periods for each state. This has been incorporated in the model by including state-
specific time period dummies.
As regards rainfall, electricity demand is expected to have a negative relationship with rainfall, i.e. as rainfall
increases, demand is likely to fall. This is because we would expect rainfall to create more favourable weather
conditions in most states, thereby reducing demand of electricity for cooling. In agricultural states, rainfall would
reduce the use of irrigation pumps.
As can be observed in Figure 3.16, the monsoon months of June–Sept consistently receive the highest levels of
rainfall, with the maximum rainfall being received particularly in July in terms of an all-India average.
The impact of rainfall on electricity demand varies by season, temperature, humidity and the level of rainfall.
Figure 3.17 plots normalised electricity demand and monthly rainfall in Delhi as an illustrative case. The Electrical
Energy Requirement is normalised by subtracting the yearly minimum observed value of demand in the respective
year and dividing it by the observed yearly range (maximum demand minus minimum demand) of the Electrical
Energy Requirement.
For rainfall levels less than 50 mm, the relationship seems relatively weak with high rainfall associated with both
high and low electricity demand. At higher levels of rainfall, the relationship seems to be negative. In India,
generally, higher rainfall is experienced during summer and thus associated with higher temperature and
humidity. To estimate the non-linear impact of rainfall on electricity demand, rainfall variable is categorised into
four different groups: rainfall between 0-50 mm, 50-100 mm, 100-200 mm and above 200 mm. The estimated
electricity demand model discussed in the next chapter estimates different electricity demand responses for these
categories.
To capture the non-linear impact of temperature on electricity demand, degree day approach has been adopted.
Monthly HDDs/CDDs represent the number of days in a month on which the temperature is respectively
below/above the threshold cooling/heating point and by how many degrees. The threshold is a point over or
under which the heating or cooling appliances will be switched on. HDD, CDD and threshold points are all
measured in degree Celsius. It is important to note that electricity equipment penetration is an important factor
for the impact of high HDD/CDD to translate into higher electricity demand. If there is minimal penetration such
that heating or cooling equipment are not available to the people during low and high temperature, respectively,
then electricity demand will not be very sensitive to these weather variables.
Where, d is a specific day in a particular month, T* is the threshold temperature of cold or heat, and Tt the
observed temperature on day t. This provides the sum of daily HDD and CDD in a given month. Monthly HDD
and CDD, which represents the number of days in each month where the temperature is below or above the
threshold, are computed as follows:
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 =Σ𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴 =Σ𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪m
All references to CDD and HDD here forth will imply monthly HDD and CDD (MHDD and MCDD).
Table 3.1 shows that there is a significant difference in mean CDD across states. While Andhra Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Telangana have mean monthly CDD above 200, other states such as
8
Gupta, E., 2016. The effect of development on the climate sensitivity of electricity demand in India. Climate Change Economics, 7(02),
p.1650003.
HDD, on the other hand, also varies across states; however, the mean and variance, in this case, are as
anticipated lower than CDDs. Jammu and Kashmir has the highest mean HDD in India. Variance, in this case,
was also noted as significant. Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana also record HDD above 50 on average.
Table 3.1 State-wise trends in HDD, CDD and rainfall (FY 2003 - FY 2016)
State HDD (degree Celsius) Rainfall (mm) CDD (degree Celsius)
Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard
deviation deviation deviation
Andhra 0.00 0.00 74.95 72.31 228.31 76.08
Pradesh
Arunachal 201.43 175.33
Pradesh
Assam 22.51 41.96 188.81 177.09 122.10 95.19
Bihar 27.61 55.51 93.71 117.52 179.47 128.15
Chhattisgarh 9.87 20.36 104.01 137.00 150.65 109.92
Chandigarh 69.96 105.01 39.97 54.99 144.33 133.33
Delhi 45.30 76.92 39.97 54.99 181.64 148.29
Goa 0.00 0.00 265.24 395.10 195.99 41.87
Gujarat 3.01 8.59 69.48 118.07 196.92 98.58
Himachal 84.96 82.05
Pradesh
Haryana 53.95 89.42 39.97 54.99 186.99 157.56
Jharkhand 21.09 39.51 98.01 117.48 147.39 108.43
Jammu and 244.95 205.14 94.05 68.99 20.02 34.37
Kashmir
Karnataka 0.02 0.14 147.91 168.69 126.38 55.65
Kerala 0.00 0.00 241.89 236.78 209.15 30.51
Maharashtra 0.37 1.32 122.53 170.59 176.13 83.75
Meghalaya 22.51 41.96 188.81 177.09 122.10 95.19
Manipur 56.49 78.52 145.74 132.89 68.09 61.30
Madhya 24.30 46.57 85.19 126.84 165.73 132.17
Pradesh
Mizoram 18.56 38.89 145.74 132.89 145.91 91.54
Nagaland 56.43 78.55 145.74 132.89 68.04 61.31
Orissa 4.54 11.03 125.03 147.21 185.29 106.70
Punjab 69.96 105.01 43.32 53.66 144.33 133.33
Puducherry 0.00 0.00 80.45 76.22 217.31 61.09
Rajasthan 28.15 53.77 39.49 63.06 207.92 153.34
For the entire period FY 2003 to FY 2016, the national CDD average stands around 160 while the HDD average
is about six.
The above degree-day approach estimates the non-linear relationship between electricity demand and
temperature by a piece-wise linear function using two segments: one for the summer where the temperature
is above the predetermined threshold temperature, and another one for winter where the temperature is below
the same threshold temperature. This non-linear relationship between weather variables (CDD, HDD) and
electricity demand is illustrated using the data for Delhi in Figures 3.20 and 3.21. The Electrical Energy
Requirement is normalised by subtracting the yearly minimum observed value of demand in the respective year
and dividing it by the observed yearly range (maximum demand minus minimum demand) of the Electrical
Energy Requirement.
Figure 3.20 Normalized Electrical Energy Requirement and CDD (degree Celsius) for Delhi
4
4. Choice of model for forecasting electricity
4.
demand and estimation of results
The details of estimation results of the various models estimated in Chapter 2 are discussed in this chapter. The
most appropriate model is selected based on the criterion of out-sample prediction.
The estimated coefficients and associated standard errors for different electrical energy forecasting models (long
panel, PAM and SUR) are shown in Tables (A3.1) – (A3.5) of Annexure 3. For long panel and PAM, six equations
are estimated, one for each region and one for the all-India level. For the SUR model, 28 equations are estimated,
one for each state.
R-square or coefficient of determination represents the proportion of the variance for a dependent variable
explained by all the independent variables. It is a commonly used measure of goodness of fit of a linear model.
The R-square of all the estimated models is high indicating that selected independent variables well explain
electricity demand. All independent variables have expected signs (i.e., the impact of any variable to
increase/decrease of the overall Electrical Energy Requirement or Peak Electricity Demand is as expected) and turn
out to be statistically significant in all models except HDD. A change in one unit of the log of a variable 9 is
approximately equal to a 1% change in its value. It is observed that the impact of different variables varies over
time, regions and states. The impact of different variables on electricity demand from all models is discussed
below.
Both electricity demand lagged by period one and electricity demand lagged by period 12 have positive and
significant impact in PAM models. According to PAM for the total electricity requirement (Table A3.1), at the all-
India level, the coefficient of electricity requirement lagged by period one is 0.61 and the coefficient of
requirement lagged by period 12 is 0.08. This means that a 1% increase in the previous period Electrical Energy
Requirement increases Electrical Energy Requirement in the current period by 0.61% while a 1% increase in
Electrical Energy Requirement lagged by 12 periods increases Electrical Energy Requirement by 0.08%. The speed
of adjustment for the model is obtained using the two coefficients corresponding to Electrical Energy Requirement
lagged by 1 and 12 months. The short-run and long-run elasticities are related according to the following
equation:
𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝐸𝐸𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
𝐸𝐸𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = =
1 − 𝛽𝛽1 − 𝛽𝛽12 Λ
9
The logarithmic form of the variables have been used as the dependent variable and explanatory variables to run the model
The estimated speed of adjustment of short-run deviation from the long-run equilibrium path is about 31% per
annum at the all-India level. This implies that the short-run demand values will converge to the long-run
equilibrium in 3.2 years. The speed of adjustment turns out to be the highest for the northern region at 42% per
annum or 2.4 years and the lowest for the eastern region at 22% per annum or 4.5 years.
According to PAM for all-India Peak Electricity Demand (Table A3.5), at the all-India level, the coefficient of Peak
Electricity Demand lagged by period one is 0.62. This means that a 1% increase in the previous period Peak
Electricity Demand increases Peak Electricity Demand in the current period by 0.62%.
This result is very close to the result obtained for the total Electrical Energy Requirement. The estimated speed of
adjustment of short-run deviation from the long-run equilibrium path is about 38% per annum at the all-India
level. This implies that the short-run demand values will converge to the long-run equilibrium in 2.6 years.
Income has a positive sign in all models and has a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable (at
1% level of significance in all models). According to PAM model estimated for all-India panel for Electrical Energy
Requirement, a 1% increase in the previous year's gross state domestic product results in about 0.23% increase
in state’s Electrical Energy Requirement in the current period on an average. Since the short-run GDP elasticity is
well below unity, GDP growth, just by itself, with everything else held constant, results in a much less than
proportional increase in electricity demand. As expected, the elasticity turns out to be the lowest for western
India, which comprises two rich and big states of India — Gujarat and Maharashtra. The elasticity in all other
regions vary between 0.2 and 0.3.
The long-run elasticity level at all-India turns out to be same from both panel data models — PAM and long
panel. The long-run elasticity of GDP at the all-India level is 0.74, which is more than three times the short-run
elasticity of GDP. The elasticity is the lowest in the western region (0.48–0.49) and the highest in the eastern
region (0.91–0.92).
Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 show that the state-level income (as measured by GDP or GDP per capita in SUR model)
elasticities as estimated from the SUR model are in line with the above estimates from the two panel data models.
High income elasticity of over 1 has been found in states such as Bihar, West Bengal and Chhattisgarh. As
discussed in Chapter 3, relatively slower growth in electricity demand per capita has been observed in developed
states and relatively faster growth in electricity demand per capita has been observed in developing states,
indicating convergence in living standards over time. Figures A4.1–A4.4 in the appendix plot sectoral shares of
electricity consumption for all states over time. For all the states with high income elasticity of demand, the share
of the domestic consumption has increased significantly over time due to electrification of new households. Thus,
the higher growth in electricity demand (due to expansion of rural electrification in the past) relative to growth in
income during the same period resulted in high income elasticity for these states. In most of these states,
commercial sectors such as, real estate and hotels have further contributed significantly to the increased demand
over the period of analysis.
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Figure 4.2 Income (GDP per Capita) Elasticity of Electrical Energy Requirement
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
According to PAM for all-India Peak Electricity Demand (Table A3.5), the coefficient of GDP is 0.25. This means
that a 1% increase in GDP increases Peak Electricity Demand by 0.25% in the short-run. The estimated long-run
Peak Electricity Demand elasticity at 0.66 is 2.6 times the short-run elasticity. As per state-level regional PAM
(Table A3.4), the short-run GDP elasticity of Peak Electricity Demand at 0.09 turns out to be the lowest for the
western region. For all other regions, it is between 0.17 and 0.21.
As expected, real electricity price has a negative impact on electricity demand in all models. A 1% increase in real
electricity price results in a small 0.02% decrease in the Electrical Energy Requirement at 15% level of significance
in the short-run at the all-India level as estimated from PAM (Table A3.1). The long-run price elasticity at the all-
India level at 0.06% is more than three times the short-run elasticity. A 1% increase in real electricity price results
in about 0.06% decrease in Electrical Energy Requirement in the long-run vis-à-vis 0.02% in the short-run. This
reinforces that electricity price increases will have much greater impact on lowering electricity demand in the
long-run. This is expected as people are likely to adjust more to electricity price increases over time by switching
to more energy efficient alternatives, alternative sources of energy (primarily renewables) and captive generation.
Electricity demand is typically price inelastic for residential, small and medium industrial and commercial
consumers; however, agriculture consumers and large industrial consumers would shift to solar-based pumps
and captive generation, respectively.
Investments in solar pumps/captive generation are long-run decisions and impact grid electricity demand in the
long-run — hence long-run elasticities are higher than short-run elasticities (the consumers are not able to
respond very systematically to changes in retail electricity prices in the short-run).
Relatively small estimated impact of electricity price can be further inferred from the fact that electricity retail
prices are ‘regulated’ and not discovered through a market mechanism, hence, the typical strong negative relation
between price and demand may not be observed – the marginal utility from consumption of electricity by most
consumers may be greater than the regulated prices (this is expected because electricity has typically served social
objectives of the various governments). The negative and ’low’ value of elasticity seems to be driven not so much
by the ‘response’ to real electricity price by each state individually, but the model seems to be inferring it from
the relationship across states. This is illustrated in Figure 4.3:
3500
GA
3000
Per Capita Electricity Demand (Kwh per
2500
Capita)
2000
PY HR PB
GJ DL
1500
CH
TN HP
JK UP MH
AP
1000 KA
CG RJ
MP
KL
SKJH OR
500 ML WB
UK
AR
MZ NL
MN AS TR
BR
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Electricity Price (Paise/Kwh)
An examination of the coefficients of region-specific models show that the price elasticity in short run is relatively
higher than the all-India average in the southern (0.12) region and western region (0.07). This can possibly be
explained by the relatively higher average real price in the western region (Figure 4.4). In addition, the greater
captive generation in the industrial sector in the western and southern regions makes utility electricity demand
more sensitive to price changes.
500
400
300
200
100
0
Bihar
Meghalaya
Manipur
Arunachal Pradesh
Kerala
Tripura
Jharkhand
Chhattishgarh
Andhra Pradesh
Mizoram
Tamil Nadu
Sikkim
Goa
Puducherry
Jammu and Kashmir
Maharashtra
Punjab
Uttarakhand
Himachal Pradesh
Assam
West Bengal
Madhya Pradesh
Nagaland
Rajasthan
Odisha
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat
Chandigarh
Haryana
Delhi
Karnataka
Note: Base year for real price calculation is FY 2012
As in the case of short-run price elasticities, the long-run elasticities also vary across regions (0.02–0.38) and
states.
The state-level long-run price elasticities as estimated from the SUR model are plotted in Figure 4.5. High price
elasticity has been found in states such as Bihar (-0.6), Jharkhand (-0.75), Karnataka (-0.61), Goa (-0.89).
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Orissa Punjab Kerela Gujarat Jammu and Pondicherry Bihar Karnataka Jharkhand Goa
Kashmir
The impact of CDD is positive and significant in most models. The estimated coefficient is 0.06 in short run. This
implies that Electrical Energy Requirement increases by 6% per 100-degree Celsius increase in CDD in the short-
run at the all-India level as per PAM (Table A3.1). The impact estimated is higher in relatively hot and rich regions
in India — North (7%), West (7%) and South (7%).
According to PAM for all-India Peak Electricity Demand (Table A3.5), the coefficient of CDD is 0.04 in short run.
This means that Peak Electricity Demand increases by 4% in the short-run and 10% in the long-run every 100-
degree Celsius increase in CDD. As per regional PAM (Table A3.4), the CDD impact on Peak Electricity Demand
vary between 4% and 5% in the short-run for every 100-degree Celsius increase in CDD across different regions.
4.1.6 Rainfall
The impact of rainfall is negative and significant in most models. At the all-India level, the estimated impact of
rainfall varies across different rainfall categories (as discussed in Chapter 2). It is observed that the reduction in
electricity demand is higher when the level of rainfall is lower. A one unit (100 mm) increase in rainfall results in
6% reduction in demand when rainfall is in the range of 0–50 mm, 4% reduction when rainfall is in the range of
50–100 mm, 3% reduction when rainfall is in the range of 100–150 mm and 2% reduction when rainfall is above
The estimated average long-run impact at the all-India level in all four categories is 12% reduction in electricity
demand with one unit (100 mm) increase in rainfall. The impact of rainfall varies across states (Figure 4.7). The
results from the SUR model confirms the above findings as the highest impact of rainfall is observed in the
northern agricultural states such as Rajasthan (13% per 100mm), Punjab (7% per 100mm) and Haryana (7% per
100mm).
According to PAM for all-India Peak Electricity Demand (Table A3.5), a one unit (100 mm) increase in rainfall
results in 5% reduction when rainfall is in the range of 50–100 mm, 5% reduction when rainfall is in the range
of 100–150 mm and 4% reduction when rainfall is above 200 mm.
In the section above, the relationships between different variables are reported. However, a forecasting exercise
is not just about explaining relationships but models also need to be tested on whether they are good in terms
of using historical relationships to project into the future. One method to do this is to assume that one has data
till, for example, FY 2014-15 and estimate the models using data from FY 2002-2003 to FY 2014-2015. Thereafter,
forecasts for the period FY 2015-16 are made based on the estimated model and the one that fits the actual data
for the period best, is the best model used for forecasting beyond FY 2015-16. It is found that PAM gives the
lowest mean absolute percentage error at the all-India level and thus forecasts obtained from this model are the
most recommended scenario (see Figure 4.8). Two versions of PAM were estimated — all-India panel model and
Figure 4.8 Comparing MAPEs at All-India for all Estimated Models (%)
7.00 6.73
5.91
6.00
5.00
MAPES (%)
4.00
3.00
2.06 1.95
2.00
1.00
0.00
SURE (Regional) PAM (Regional) Long Panel (Regional) PAM ALL India Long Panel ALL India
Figure 4.9 Comparison of All-India forecasts (PAM All India, PAM Region) with Actual
Comparison of All-India forecasts (PAM All India, PAM Region) with Actual
1.4
% Deviations from Actual Values
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
2017 2018
For each state, two forecasts are obtained — one from regional PAM and another from the SUR model. While
PAM estimates the future demand assuming regional convergence in the standard of living over time, the SUR
model estimates state demand based on state-specific path observed in the previous period under study. Figure
4.11 shows that for many states PAM at the regional level outperforms the SUR model in terms of out sample
MAPE for 2016. However, for some states/UTs such as Chandigarh, Delhi, Punjab and Maharashtra, the SUR
model has lower MAPE as compared to PAM.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
and SUR
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Chandigarh
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Jharkhand
Jammu & Kashmir
Karnataka
SUR (Regional)
61
Kerala
Maharashtra
Meghalaya
Manipur
Madhya Pradesh
PAM (Regional)
Mizoram
Nagaland
Orissa
Punjab
Puducherry
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Figure 4.11 State-level Annual MAPE of Electrical Energy Requirement for 2016 from PAM
Electricity
demand forecasts
from FY 2016-17
to FY 2036-37
5
5. Electricity demand forecasts from
5.
2016-17 to 2036-37
In this chapter, India’s electricity demand (in terms of Electrical Energy Requirement and Peak Electricity Demand)
is projected under three different GDP scenarios (Business As Usual, Optimistic and Pessimistic) and 14 different
weather scenarios from Regional PAM (henceforth termed as “PAM” only) & SUR model.
In all future scenarios, it has been assumed that real electricity prices will remain constant at the 2015-16 level.
On one hand, future electricity prices are expected to fall with increasing supply from renewables. On the other
hand, prices are expected to increase with expected increase in transmission and distribution costs associated
with renewables. Overall, the two effects in opposite direction are likely to offset each other and hence constant
real prices have been assumed in future.
In all the future scenarios, population at the all-India level are expected to grow as per the medium growth
scenario of the United Nations Development program (UNDP) (see Table A5.1 in the Annexure 5).
In all scenarios, for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18, the actual or provisional estimates of GDP are used. For FY 2016-
17, the actual GDP (at constant prices) growth rate of 7.1% is obtained from the Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation (MOSPI). For FY 2017-18, the provisional estimate of GDP (at constant prices) growth
rate of 6.6% is obtained from the MOSPI. For subsequent years, a different rate of growth for GDP has been
assumed for different scenarios.
The BAU case assumes that GDP at the all-India level, used in the above model to forecast the future Electrical
Energy Requirement and Peak Electricity Demand till the year 2036-37, will continue to grow at the average
CAGR of about 7.3% obtained during FY 2000-01 to FY 2017-18, and there will be no significant deviations from
these past trends. This may be considered as the most likely scenario. Under this scenario, for FY 2018-19, the
expected growth rate of 7.5% in GDP has been taken from Niti Aayog. It is assumed that GDP rises gradually
from 7.5% in FY 2018-19 to 8% till FY 2022-23, declines slowly to 7% in FY 2029-30 and thereafter grows at 7%
per annum till FY 2036-37 (See Table A5.1 in the Annexure 5 for year-specific growth rate assumptions).
Niti Aayog aims to achieve relatively faster growth of 8% as compared to 7.3% achieved during FY 2000-01–FY
2017-18. Attaining the growth rate of 8% per annum on the sustained basis in the future would require concerted
internal reforms to transform the structure of India’s economy as well as favourable global environment. Policy
reforms such as ‘Make in India’ can increase the stagnant share of the manufacturing sector and provide
employment to a large pool of unskilled labour who are currently unemployed or partially employed.
The low growth scenario assumes that GDP rises by 6.5% every year between FY 2018-19 and FY 2036-37. In
the recent years, there has been deceleration in the growth rate of GDP below 7%. The low growth scenario
assumes this lower growth rate 6.5% to continue in future.
In the BAU scenario for PAM, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of 4.86% for the
period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU in 2016-17 to
1886.9 BU in 2026-27, 2378.7 BU in 2031-32 and 2976.3 BU in 2036-37. Figure 5.1 and Table A5.2 present the
total electricity requirement forecast for India from FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Under the baseline scenario,
Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.58 times between FY 2016-17 and FY 2036-37.
In the optimistic scenario of 8% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
5.2% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU in
2016-17 to 1905.5 BU in 2026-27, 2458.9 BU in 2031-32 and 3175.4 BU in 2036-37. Under the optimistic
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.75 times between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
In the pessimistic scenario of 6.5 % GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR
of 4.33% for the period FY 2016-17 to FY 2036-37. Energy Requirement is projected to increase from 1152.4 BU
in 2016-17 to 1776.9 BU in 2026-27, 2186.7 BU in 2031-32 and 2691.07 BU in 2036-37. Figure 5.1 and Table
A5.4 present the total electricity demand forecast for India during FY 2016-17–FY 2036-37. Under the low growth
scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.33 times between FY 2016-17 and FY 2036-37.
An overview of Electrical Energy Requirement (MU) and its CAGR for various scenarios are summarized in Table
5.1a and 5.1b below:
3000000
2500000
2000000
Actual
1500000 Base
Optimistic
1000000
Pessimistic
500000
0
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
Financial Year
In the BAU scenario, all-India Peak Electricity Demand is projected to increase at an average annual rate of 4.7%
from 158.9 GW in 2016-17 to reach 255.9 GW in 2026-27, 319.7 GW in 2031-32 and 398.1 GW in 2036-37.
Figure 5.2 and Tables (A5.5–A5.7) present Peak Electricity Demand forecast for India during FY 2016-17–FY 2036-
37. Under the baseline scenario, all-India Peak Electricity Demand is likely to increase 2.5 times between FY 2016-
17 and FY 2036-37.
An overview of Peak Electricity Demand (MW) for various future periods is shown in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.2
below:
300000
250000 Actual
200000 Base
150000 Optimistic
100000 Pessimistic
50000
0
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
Financial Year
*All forecasts are reported for average weather conditions. See details of each scenario
All-India electricity demand forecasts as based on the regional SUR model under three different GDP scenarios-
baseline or business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, optimistic scenario and pessimistic scenario are discussed below:
An overview of Electrical Energy Requirement (Billion Units (BU)) and CAGR (%) for various scenarios is shown in
Table 5.3 and Table 5.4 below:
*All forecasts are reported for average weather conditions. See details of each scenario.
In the BAU scenario of 7.3% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
5.58% from 1188.2 BU in 2016-17 to reach 2056.4 BU in 2026-27, 2685.1 BU in 2031-32 and 3517.4 BU in
2036-37. Under this baseline, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.96 times between FY 2016-17
and FY 2036-37.
In the optimistic scenario of 8% GDP growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
over 6.09% from 1188.2 BU in 2016-17 to reach 2095.7 BU in 2026-27, 2836.8 BU in 2031-32 and 3878.2 BU
in 2036-37. Under this optimistic, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 3.26 times between 2016-
17 and 2036-37.
In the low growth scenario of 6.5% growth, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at a CAGR of
over 4.86% from 1188.2 BU in 2016-17 to reach 1884.5 BU in 2026-27, 2395.4 BU in 2031-32 and 3066.8 BU
in 2036-37. Under this low growth scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is likely to increase 2.58 times
between 2016-17 and 2036-37.
An overview of Peak Electricity Demand (Megawatt (MW) for various future periods is shown in Table 5.5 below:
*All forecasts are reported for average weather conditions. See details of each scenario.
Figure 5.3 Comparison of forecast Electrical Energy Requirement (19th EPS using PEUM vs PAM forecast)
3000000
2500000
PEUM
2000000
1500000 Actual
1000000 Base
500000
Optimistic
0
Pessimistic
Financial Year
The table below shows the difference in percentage between 19th EPS forecast by PEUM and econometric forecast
from PAM.
An analysis of the differences between the econometric forecasts and the 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM vis-à-vis
PAM forecasts yields that 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM are higher than both the BAU and the higher GDP growth
scenario till FY 2031-32. For the years beyond 2031-32, the econometric method forecasts under the BAU scenario
and the higher growth scenario compare favourably to the 19th EPS forecast by PEUM.
An analysis of the differences between the econometric forecasts under SUR and the 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM
yields that the 19th EPS forecasts by PEUM compare closely to the BAU till FY 2031-32. For the years beyond 2031-
32, the econometric method forecasts by SUR under the BAU and the higher growth scenario diverge significantly
from the 19th EPS forecast by PEUM and forecasts under pessimistic scenario compare favourably with the 19th
EPS forecast by PEUM.
The difference in the forecast of Electrical Energy Requirement by PEUM and econometric method forecast from
SURE for FY 2016-17–FY 2036-37 is shown in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 Comparison of forecast Electrical Energy Requirement (19th EPS using PEUM vs SURE forecast)
3500000
3000000
EPS
2500000
2000000 Actual
1500000 Pessimistic
1000000 Base
500000
Optimistic
0
Financial Year
Table 5.7 Difference in percentage between 19th EPS forecast by PEUM and SURE forecast (Electrical
Energy Requirement)
Year 7.3% GDP (BAU 8% GDP 6.5% GDP
scenario) (Optimistic Scenario) (Pessimistic Scenario)
Figure 5.5, Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7 compare econometric forecasts under BAU scenario and the forecasts by
PEUM with the actual Electrical Energy Requirement in India in FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. It is observed that
econometric forecasts are closer to the actual Electrical Energy Requirement observed during both these years.
The 19th EPS forecasts using PEUM are higher than the actual Electrical Energy Requirement in both these years
(1.5% in FY 2016-17 and 2.2% in FY 2017-18). The econometric forecasts from PAM are higher than the actual
Electrical Energy Requirement in FY 2016-17 (by 0.7%) and almost equal to the actual Electrical Energy
Requirement in 2017-18 (with deviation of -0.06%). At the state level, it is observed that for some states
econometric method forecasts are closer to the actual values of Electrical Energy Requirement, while EPS forecasts
by PEUM are closer to the actual Electrical Energy Requirement (for example: Tamil Nadu and Haryana). The
econometric method forecasts from SUR are higher than the actual Electrical Energy Requirement in FY 2016-17
(by 3.96%) and in FY 2017-18 (by 2.43%).
Figure 5.5 Comparison of forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (19th EPS using PEUM vs econometric
method forecasts)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
PAM SUR PEUM
2016-17 2017-18
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Andhra Pradesh
Telangana
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Requirement in 2016-17
Chandigarh
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Jharkhand
Jammu
Karnataka
Kerala
PAM
Maharashtra
Meghalaya
71
Manipur
PEUM
Madhya Pradesh
State
Mizoram
Nagaland
SUR
Odisha
Punjab
Puducherry
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Tripura
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
State-wise comparison of 2016-17 forecasts (PEUM, PAM, SUR)
West Bengal
Himachal
Sikkim
ArunachalPradesh
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
Meghalaya
Jharkhand
Bihar
Kerala
Manipur
Mizoram
Goa
Jammu
Puducherry
Tripura
Punjab
Tamil Nadu
Himachal
Sikkim
ArunachalPradesh
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Nagaland
Odisha
Lakshadweep
Telangana
Assam
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Andaman
Chandigarh
Delhi
Haryana
Karnataka
State
It is observed that the relatively economically less developed states such as Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, Rajasthan,
Mizoram, Tripura and Nagaland are likely to grow at a rate higher than the all-India compound annual average
rate of about 4.86% during FY 2016-17—FY 2036-37. However, for few developing states such as Chhattisgarh
and Madhya Pradesh, the CAGR from the PAM (which is the most preferred model at all-India) turns out to be
much lower relative to their past observed growth rates. Both these states belong to the western region which
also includes two most developed States-Maharashtra and Gujarat. The western region PAM results are
dominated by these two states and thus depresses future growth rates of these two developing states. To address
this issue, state-specific forecasts are obtained from the SUR model (See Figure 5.8 and Table A5.8). For both
Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, the future rate of growth is higher than the all-India average from the SUR
model and it is also aligning with their past growth rates.
10
Meghalaya
Jharkhand
Bihar
Kerala
Manipur
Mizoram
Puducherry
Tripura
All India
Goa
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Maharashtra
Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
Nagaland
Rajasthan
Telangana
Uttarakhand
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
Assam
Gujarat
Orissa
Chandigarh
Delhi
Haryana
Karnataka
CAGR (%) (2003-2016) CAGR (%) (2017-2037) PAM CAGR (%) (2017-2037) SUR
For each future year, electricity demand is forecast under 14 different weather scenarios (CDD, HDD and rainfall).
Each weather scenario corresponds to a weather pattern observed during FY 2002-03-FY 2015-16. Figure 5.9
plots forecasts of electricity demand from PAM under all 14 weather scenarios for the baseline GDP growth case.
It is observed that the future demand turns out to be the highest for the weather scenario corresponding to the
year FY 2009-10 and the lowest for the weather scenario corresponding to the year FY 2013-14. The year FY
2009-10 is the hottest year with the highest monthly average state-level CDD of 167.5 degree days (6.23% higher
than average CDD) and the lowest monthly average state-level rainfall of 97.8 mm (14% lower than average
rainfall) during FY 2002-03 and FY 2015-16.
On the other hand, the year FY 2013-14 experienced the lowest monthly average state-level CDD of 150 degree
days (4.36% lower than average CDD) and average monthly state-level rainfall of 115 mm which is 2.6% higher
than the average monthly state-level rainfall during FY 2002-03–FY 2015-16.
In the FY 2009-10 weather scenario, Electrical Energy Requirement is projected to increase at an average annual
rate of 4.9% from 1173.5 BU in 2016-17 to reach 3054.87 BU in 2036-37. As compared to the Electrical Energy
Requirement obtained under the PAM baseline GDP scenario (which is the average of the forecast demand under
all 14 scenarios), Electrical Energy Requirement is about 2.63% higher in this weather scenario in 2036-37 for the
2009-10 weather scenario.
Figure 5.9 Annual Electrical Energy Requirement under 14 past weather scenarios
Second, the strength of correlation in errors at various lags is studied using the autocorrelation function (ACF)
plot. The ACF plot is a visual way to see serial correlation in time-series data. ACF gives a summary of
correlation at different periods of time. The plot shows the correlation coefficient for the series lagged by one
delay at a time. From the ACF plot, it was observed that the error terms exhibit serial correlation for AR (1). This
implies that the error term in time period `t’ is dependent on the error term of the previous period. As expected,
error terms were also dependent on lags of 12 (error of the same month in the previous year) as electricity demand
is bound to have a high degree of seasonality.
The estimation technique called Prais-Winsten regression is used to account for serial correlation in errors within
each state. It allows for state-specific AR (1) model for the error over as
u it = ρ i u i (t −1) + ε it ,
where are serially uncorrelated and is coefficient of autocorrelation for state . It applies a Cochrane -
-Orcutt transformation for all observation (except the first observation 10) in a way to eliminate the serial correlation
in the error term uit so that we can work with serially uncorrelated error in the model:
Applying this transformation to all variables, we obtain the final equation for the model for each state:
Where Eit is the electricity demand of state `I’ in time period `t’, represents all the independent variables other
than the constant term (such as GDP, electricity prices, rainfall etc.), is the vector of parameters and α is a
state-specific constant.
Panel data typically displays both contemporaneous correlation across states and state-level heteroskedastic. This
10
For the first observation, it makes a transformation in the following way:
The equilibrium energy demand of the economy that is expected to prevail in the long-run has been modelled by
Q*. At any point of time, the actual electricity demand prevailing in the economy is denoted as Qt. The actual
consumption varies from the desired consumption levels as the capital stock is not at the long-run equilibrium
levels. In every time period, consumers try to reduce a part of the gap between their actual consumption and the
long-run equilibrium level.
To model the equilibrium-desired level of electricity demand, we have assumed a Cobb Douglas relationship
between equilibrium energy demand Q* and its drivers (i.e. price, income and other covariates).
Consumers try to bring their actual level of consumption in line with the equilibrium level. However, they are only
partially successful in every period to close this gap.
As capital is not immediately mobile, we use habitual parameters to model energy demand behaviour — that
capture the constrained capacity of consumers to immediately adjust to the long-run equilibrium level of
consumption in response to a change in price, rainfall, weather or other factors.
This habitual response of consumers is captured through two parameters. The parameter θ1 captures the strength
of month-to-month behavioural inertia based on the monthly rate of capital turnover for equipment that is
operated in all months (e.g. refrigerators). The parameter θ12 captures the strength of year-on-year behavioural
inertia based on the rate of capital turnover that has a seasonal usage pattern (e.g. air conditioners).
These parameters take a value between 0 and 1, according to which 0 reflects a situation whereby consumers
are completely unable to adjust their energy consumption towards the long-run equilibrium level and 1 reflects
a situation whereby the capital stock can adjust immediately and no behavioural inertia exists. In reality, we
expect a value between 0 and 1 to give a true picture of reality.
Using the above two models, the final specification of the model is specified as:
1. State GDP
The GDP data is used for every state on an annual level from FY 2002-03 to FY 2015-16. The complete data has
been sourced from the Central Statistical Office (CSO), MOSPI. The GDP data between FY 2002-03 and FY 2016
was not at the same base year. The base years corresponding to the data obtained from MOSPI were as
follows:
To bring all the data on the same base year, the GDP values for all years were converted to the base year of FY
2012 as on 01.01.2018.
a) The all-India growth rate for FY 2016-17 was taken as 7.1% based on actual data from MOSPI. Similarly,
the all-India growth rate for FY 2017-18 was taken as 6.6% based on the provisional estimate of GDP
from the MOSPI. For subsequent years, different rate of growth for GDP has been assumed for different
scenarios.
b) After FY 2017-18, the growth pattern of all-India GDP is assumed to change according to three possible
scenarios — baseline or BAU, pessimistic and optimistic scenario. The BAU case assumes that GDP at
the all-India level will continue to increase at about 7.3% CAGR obtained during FY 2000-01 and FY
2017-18, and there will be no significant deviations from these past trends. The growth rate is varied
over time but the CAGR of 7.3% is achieved during FY2018-19 and FY 2036-37. The growth rate is
assumed to rise for the next five years until FY 2022-23 and then allowed to taper from FY 2023-24
according to the following:
In the pessimistic growth scenario, the all-India GDP is assumed to grow at 6.5% for all future years from FY
2018-19 to FY 2036-37. In the optimistic growth scenario, the all-India GDP is assumed to grow at 8% for all
future years from FY 2018-19 to FY 2036-37.
c) After obtaining all-India GDP, it is allocated at the state level. First, the future GDP share of all states was
forecast till FY 2025-26. This was done using a regression framework. The dependent variable used was
the existing state GDP shares from FY 2002-03 to FY 2015-16. The only independent variable used was
time. The state-wise GDP forecasts were obtained by multiplying the state shares obtained from the
above regression with the values of all-India GDP. State-wise GDP obtained is normalised, so that it
totals to All-India GDP.
d) After FY 2025-26, states are assumed to grow at the rate of FY 2025-2026 till FY 2036-37. Under this
approach, all-India GDP (sum of state-wise forecasts) and state-wise shares in all-India GDP are obtained
for all future years. These state-wise shares are then used to allocate all-India GDP forecasts obtained
under different scenarios to different states. This ensures that the sum of state-wise GDP forecasts sum
to the all-India GDP forecasts obtained under different scenarios in every future year.
2. Population
The population statistics for every state for FY 2000-01 and FY 2010-11 are obtained from the census data.
For every state, we have used the population data for FY 2000-01 and FY 2010-11 to construct the population
statistics from FY 2002-03 to FY 2015-16. This is done using a two-step procedure — in the first step, the
state-wise population CAGR was calculated from 2000-01 to 2010-11; in the second step, the calculated
CAGR was used to fit a population trend for all states till FY 2015-16.
a. The all-India population data for FY 2020-21, FY 2030-31 and FY 2040-41 was obtained from the UNDP
website.
b. This data was used to calculate the all-India population CAGR between 2010-11 and 2020-21. This CAGR
was applied to compute the all-India population figures for FY 2016-17, FY 2017-18, FY 2018-19 and FY
2019-20.
c. The following steps were performed to estimate the state-wise population figures for FY 2020-21:
• Using the all-India population figures between FY 2011 (census) and FY 2021 (UNDP), the all-India
population growth rate was computed as 15.47% between FY 2011 and FY 2021. The all-India
population for FY 2021 is then allocated to different states assuming that the same population
growth rate relationship between a given state and national estimates for FY 2000-01-FY 2010-11
(as observed in Step1) will continue in the future between FY 2010-11 and FY 2020-21. For example,
in case of Maharashtra the growth rate of population of 14.02% during FY 2011 and FY 2021 was
obtained by multiplying 15.47% all-India growth rate by the past ratio of population growth rate of
Maharashtra to all-India growth rate (15.47*15.99/17.64). This process is repeated for all other
states and state-level population estimates are obtained for FY 2021. Under this approach, the all-
India population (sum of individual state-wise forecasts) will be close to the UNDP forecasts but not
exactly same. Thus, state-wise shares in the all-India population (as obtained by the sum of
individual state-wise forecasts) are obtained for FY 2021. These state-wise shares are then used to
allocate all-India population forecasts obtained from the UNDP to different states for FY 2021. This
ensures that the sum of state-wise population forecasts sum to the all-India population forecasts
obtained from the UNDP.
d. Given the state population values of 2010-11(census) and 2020-21(computed), the state-wise population
CAGR is computed for FY 2010-11–FY2020-21. This CAGR is applied to estimate the state-wise population
values for FY 2011-12–FY 2019-20. The same process has been repeated for population figures for FY 2021-
FY 2031 and FY 2031-FY 2041.
3. Price
Price data is obtained at the annual level for every state for the period FY 2002-03–FY 2015-16. The complete
data on prices is obtained from the report on ‘Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average rates of electricity supply
in India’ published by the Central Electricity Authority, Government of India. Furthermore, the consumer price
index for industrial workers (CPI-IW) is used to adjust the nominal prices for inflation. The complete CPI data
is obtained from the Labour Bureau, Ministry of Labour and Employment.
The CPI-IW (CPI for industrial workers) figures were used as these figures are available state-wise for the
period of analysis. The entire CPI-IW data was available on two base years — the base year for CPI-IW data
after January 2006 is FY 2001 and the base year for CPI-IW data from January 2003 to December 2005 is FY
1983. The data was used after transforming the data on a common base year. For the purpose of our analysis,
The electricity price tariff for every state is available for five categories — domestic, agriculture, commercial,
small industries, medium industries and large industries. Within each category, electricity tariffs are further
divided according to multiple sub-categories. A price variable was constructed to obtain an average annual
price for every state across different consumer categories. The construction of this price variable was
implemented using a two-step averaging process:
a) Under each category of Domestic, Agriculture, Commercial, Small Industries, Medium Industries and Large
Industries, electricity tariffs are further divided according to multiple sub-categories according to the amount
of consumption. A simple average was taken across all subcategories to obtain a representative figure of that
category.
b) A weighted average value was taken to combine the six categories of Agriculture, Commercial, Small
Industries, Medium Industries and Large Industries to obtain a single electricity price value for every state.
The weights were used according to the respective shares of Agriculture, Commercial, Industry (Small,
Medium and Large) in the overall state electricity consumption.
c) The obtained value for nominal price was converted to real price (adjustment for inflation) through division
by the state-wise CPI-IW.
4. Rainfall
Rainfall data is obtained state-wise for every month from FY 2002-03 to FY 2015-16. The source of the
complete data is https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/india.html.
Two primary assumptions have been made to account for the missing values of rainfall in the data set
obtained. When less than 15 days in the month are missing, the rainfall value of the previous day available
was used. For missing values in a month of more than 15 days, the rainfall values for the same month in the
previous year were used. This is because rainfall is assumed to follow a similar trend for a given month over
time.
The variables used for HDD and CDD were computed based on the deviation of threshold value of 21
degree Celsius. Details of computation are explained in Chapter 3 on ‘Historical Trends of Data’.
State Station
Andaman and Nicobar Port Blair
Andhra Pradesh Cwc Vishakhapatnam
Andhra Pradesh Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh Machilipatnam
Andhra Pradesh Nellore
Andhra Pradesh Pbo Anantapur
Assam Dibrugarh / Mohanbari
Assam Guwahati
Assam Tezpur
Bihar Bhagalpur
Bihar Gaya
Bihar Patna
Chhattishgarh Jagdalpur
Chhattisgarh Pbo Raipur
Chhattisgarh Pendra Road
Delhi New Delhi / Palam
Delhi New Delhi / Safdarjung
Goa Goa/Panjim
Gujarat Ahmadabad
Gujarat Bhuj-Rudramata
Gujarat Rajkot
Gujarat Surat
Gujarat Veraval
Haryana Hissar
Jammu and Kashmir Srinagar
For forecasting the temperature variables, the 14 available weather scenarios for the past years were used
(FY 2002-03–FY 2015-16).
6. Structural breaks
Dummy variables were constructed to allow for structural breaks between defined periods: FY 2003–FY 2005;
FY 2006–FY2009; FY 2010 to FY 2014 and FY 2015–FY2017.
In the model, an interaction of the structural break dummy variable was introduced with the state. Therefore,
for every state, the dummy allows for a level difference in the electricity demand (through a different
intercept) across each of the specified structural time periods. This is done by capturing state-specific factors
that influence electricity demand but are unobservable to the modeller.
For forecasting this variable, it was assumed that the future structural change will follow the structural
change value for FY 2015-16.
============================================
All India
--------------------------------------------
(Intercept) 0.48 ***
(0.11)
log(Peak_Demand_lag_1) 0.62 ***
(0.06)
log(GDP) 0.25 ***
(0.04)
HDD_Avg_Temp 0.04
(0.02)
CDD_Avg_Temp 0.04 **
(0.01)
Rain_1:Rainfall -0.04
(0.02)
Rain_2:Rainfall -0.05 **
(0.01)
Rain_3:Rainfall -0.05 ***
(0.01)
Rain_4:Rainfall -0.04 ***
(0.01)
--------------------------------------------
R^2 0.99
Adj. R^2 0.99
Num. obs. 167
RMSE 0.02
============================================
Year GDP Base (%) GDP Pessimistic (%) GDP Optimistic (%) Population (%)
2017 7.1 7.1 7.1 1.44
2018 6.6 6.6 6.6 1.45
2019 7.5 6.5 8 1.45
2020 7.8 6.5 8 1.45
2021 8 6.5 8 1.45
2022 8 6.5 8 0.87
2023 8 6.5 8 0.87
2024 7.8 6.5 8 0.87
2025 7.6 6.5 8 0.87
2026 7.5 6.5 8 0.87
2027 7.4 6.5 8 0.87
2028 7.3 6.5 8 0.87
2029 7.2 6.5 8 0.87
2030 7.1 6.5 8 0.87
2031 7 6.5 8 0.87
2032 7 6.5 8 0.56
2033 7 6.5 8 0.56
2034 7 6.5 8 0.56
2035 7 6.5 8 0.56
2036 7 6.5 8 0.56
2037 7 6.5 8 0.56
Table A5.2: CAGR of Forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (PAM Baseline Scenario)
State/Region FY 2016-17 to FY FY 2021-22 to FY 2016-17 to FY 2026-27 to FY 2016-17 to
2021-22 FY 2026-27 FY 2026-27 FY 2036-37 FY 2036-37
Delhi 6.18 6.31 6.25 5.76 6
Haryana 6.37 6.19 6.28 5.64 5.96
Himachal 5 5 5 5 5
Pradesh
Jammu & 3.24 3.51 3.38 2.83 3.1
Kashmir
Punjab 4.63 4.56 4.59 3.98 4.29
Rajasthan 6.02 5.9 5.96 5.36 5.66
Uttar Pradesh 4.41 4.59 4.5 4.01 4.26
Uttarakhand 8.39 7.54 7.96 6.89 7.42
Chandigarh 4.49 4.64 4.57 4.07 4.32
Northern 5.33 5.36 5.35 4.87 5.11
Region
Goa 3.31 3.6 3.45 3.24 3.35
Gujarat 3.82 4.43 4.12 4.05 4.09
Chhattisgarh 3.55 3.88 3.71 3.52 3.62
Madhya 3.58 3.79 3.69 3.43 3.56
Pradesh
Maharashtra 3.64 3.88 3.76 3.52 3.64
Table A5.3: Forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (PAM Optimistic Scenario) in MUs
Table A5.3: CAGR of Forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (PAM Optimistic Scenario)
State/Region FY 2016-17 to FY 2021-22 to FY FY 2016-17 to FY 2026-27 to FY 2016-17 to
FY 2021-22 2026-27 FY 2026-27 FY 2036-37 FY 2036-37
Delhi 6.28 6.44 6.36 6.39 6.38
Haryana 6.46 6.33 6.39 6.28 6.34
Himachal 5 5 5 5 5
Pradesh
Jammu & 3.34 3.64 3.49 3.44 3.46
Kashmir
Punjab 4.73 4.69 4.71 4.61 4.66
Rajasthan 6.12 6.04 6.08 5.99 6.04
Uttar Pradesh 4.51 4.72 4.61 4.64 4.62
Uttarakhand 8.49 7.68 8.08 7.53 7.8
Chandigarh 4.59 4.77 4.68 4.69 4.69
Northern 5.42 5.49 5.46 5.48 5.47
Region
Goa 3.37 3.69 3.53 3.66 3.59
Gujarat 3.88 4.52 4.2 4.47 4.33
Chhattisgarh 3.61 3.97 3.79 3.94 3.86
Table A5.4: Forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (PAM Pessimistic Scenario) in MUs
Table A5.4: CAGR of Forecasted Electrical Energy Requirement (PAM Pessimistic Scenario)
State/Region FY 2016-17 to FY 2021-22 to FY 2016-17 to FY 2026-27 to FY 2016-17 to
FY 2021-22 FY 2026-27 FY 2026-27 FY 2036-37 FY 2036-37
Delhi 5.72 5.36 5.54 5.3 5.42
Haryana 5.9 5.24 5.57 5.18 5.38
Himachal Pradesh 5 5 5 5 5
Jammu & Kashmir 2.79 2.58 2.69 2.38 2.53
Punjab 4.18 3.62 3.9 3.53 3.71
Rajasthan 5.56 4.96 5.26 4.91 5.08
Uttar Pradesh 3.96 3.65 3.8 3.57 3.69
Uttarakhand 7.92 6.57 7.24 6.42 6.83
Chandigarh 4.05 3.7 3.87 3.62 3.74
Northern Region 4.89 4.44 4.66 4.43 4.55
Goa 3 2.98 2.99 2.95 2.97
Gujarat 3.51 3.8 3.65 3.75 3.7
Chhattisgarh 3.24 3.25 3.25 3.22 3.24
Madhya Pradesh 3.27 3.17 3.22 3.13 3.18
Maharashtra 3.33 3.26 3.29 3.22 3.26
Table A5.5: CAGR of forecasted Peak Electricity Demand (PAM Baseline Scenario)
Table A5.6: CAGR of Forecasted Peak Electricity Demand (PAM Optimistic Scenario)
Table A5.7: CAGR of Forecasted Peak Electricity Demand (PAM Pessimistic Scenario)
Table A5.8: Forecasted Total Electrical Energy Requirement (SUR Model Baseline) in MUs
Table A5.8: CAGR of Forecasted Total Electrical Energy Requirement (SUR Model Baseline)
State/Region FY 2016-17 to FY 2021-22 to FY 2016-17 to FY 2026-27 to FY 2016-17 to
FY 2021-22 FY 2026-27 FY 2026-27 FY 2036-37 FY 2036-37
Delhi 1.62 1.63 1.63 1.5 1.57
Haryana 7.13 7.18 7.15 6.59 6.87
Himachal Pradesh 5 5 5 5 5
Jammu & Kashmir 4.18 3.92 4.05 3.27 3.66
Punjab 4.28 4.25 4.27 3.77 4.02
Rajasthan 6.3 6.36 6.33 5.82 6.07
Uttar Pradesh 6.06 6.03 6.04 5.35 5.7
Uttarakhand 9.66 9.45 9.55 8.74 9.15
Chandigarh 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.16 2.29
Northern Region 5.71 5.83 5.77 5.44 5.6
Goa 0.81 0.82 0.82 0.75 0.78
Gujarat 3.19 3.41 3.3 3.21 3.26
Chhattisgarh 6.2 6.89 6.54 6.45 6.5
Madhya Pradesh 4.99 5.5 5.24 5.13 5.19
Maharashtra 3.53 3.81 3.67 3.54 3.6
D. & N. Haveli 5 5 5 5 5
Daman & Diu 5 5 5 5 5
Western Region 3.92 4.3 4.11 4.11 4.11
Andhra Pradesh 6.53 6.92 6.72 6.38 6.55
Telangana 6.53 6.92 6.72 6.38 6.55
Karnataka 3.77 4.08 3.92 3.77 3.84
Kerala 5.49 5.64 5.57 5.07 5.32
Tamil Nadu 6.92 7.4 7.16 6.9 7.03
Puducherry 3.52 4.05 3.79 3.81 3.8
Southern Region 5.99 6.45 6.22 6.06 6.14
Table A5.9: Forecasted Total Electrical Energy Requirement (SUR Model Optimistic) in MUs
Table A5.9: CAGR of Forecasted Total Electrical Energy Requirement (SUR Model Optimistic)
State/Region FY 2016-17 to FY 2021-22 to FY 2016-17 to FY 2026-27 to FY 2016-17 to FY
FY 2021-22 FY 2026-27 FY 2026-27 FY 2036-37 2036-37
Delhi 1.65 1.7 1.67 1.68 1.68
Haryana 7.25 7.47 7.36 7.4 7.38
Himachal Pradesh 5 5 5 5 5
Jammu & Kashmir 4.3 4.21 4.25 4.05 4.15
Punjab 4.37 4.49 4.43 4.42 4.42
Rajasthan 6.41 6.63 6.52 6.57 6.54
Uttar Pradesh 6.19 6.36 6.28 6.26 6.27
Uttarakhand 9.79 9.77 9.78 9.63 9.71
Chandigarh 2.48 2.56 2.52 2.52 2.52
Northern Region 5.82 6.1 5.96 6.21 6.09
Goa 0.83 0.86 0.84 0.85 0.85
Gujarat 3.25 3.55 3.4 3.6 3.5
Table A5.10: Forecasted Total Electrical Energy Requirement (SUR Model Pessimistic) in MUs