Mauritius Power Sector RAS Report Part 1

Report No: ACS13923
Republic of Mauritius
Mauritius Energy Sector
Reimbursable Advisory Services
Assessment of electricity demand forecast and
generation expansion plan with focus
on the 20152017 period
.
May, 2015
.
GEE01
AFRICA
.
Standard Disclaimer:
.
This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank. The findings,
interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World
Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The
boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The
World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
.
Copyright Statement:
.
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a
violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank encourages dissemination of
its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance
Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, http://www.copyright.com/.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank,
1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.
Table of Contents
Part I. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Part II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Part III.
ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND FORECASTS
Initial electricity demand forecasts

1.1
1.2
1.3
Forecasts of electricity sales

Forecasts of energy sent out
Forecasts of peak demand
17
18
18
22
23
Comparison with recent forecasts from CEB
25
Sensitized electricity demand forecasts
29
Conclusions and recommendations
32
Part IV.
5
ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE
Assessment of supply to peak demand
34
34
5.1
Input data and assumptions
35
5.1.1
Current installed generation capacity
35
5.1.2
Programmed retirements and termination of contracts
39
5.1.3
Programmed capacity additions and redevelopment of generating units
40
5.1.4
Contribution of hydro plants to supply of peak demand
43
5.1.5
Scheduled maintenance of generation fleet
44
5.2
Methodology
46
5.3
Assessment of supply to peak demand under currently programmed additions
and retirements to the generation system
49
5.3.1
Results of the quantitative assessment
49
5.3.2
Summary of recommendations for the short and long terms
51
5.4
Recommendations for the short term (20152017)
52
5.4.1
Detailed short-term recommendations
53
5.4.2
Simulation of implementation of recommendations for the short term
58
5.5
Recommendations for the long term (20182022)
61
5.5.1
Detailed long-term recommendations
62
5.5.2
Simulation of implementation of the long-term recommendations
67

6.1
6.2
69
Ensuring the adequacy of the supply to peak power demand in the short term
69
Firm capacity additions in the long term
71
Part V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN CAPACITIES TO

UNDERTAKE POWER SECTOR EXPANSION PLANNING
75
Methodologies and procedures for power system planning
75
Institutional aspects and planning of the power sector
78
REFERENCES
84
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
86
Annex I. ASSESSMENT OF GENERATION PLAN DEVELOPED AND

EVALUATED WITH THE WASP PACKAGE BY MAURITIAN
INSTITUTIONS
9
88
Assessment of generation plan DEVELOPED and evaluated with WASP 88

9.1
9.2
Factual observations
Annex II.
10
DETAILED SIMULATIONS OF SUPPLY TO PEAK DEMAND 98
Detailed results of simulations of section 5.3.1
10.1 Initial set of demand projections

10.1.1 Low demand scenario
10.1.2 Base demand scenario
10.1.3 High demand scenario
10.2 Sensitized set of demand projections
11

12
88
92

98
98
98
101
104
107
107
110
113
116
116
116
119
122
125
125
128
131
134
134
134
137
140
143
143
146
149
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR
PART I.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The Republic of Mauritius is an island nation in the Indian Ocean. It comprises the main island
of Mauritius and the island of Rodrigues, the outer islands of Agalga, and the archipelago of
Saint Brandon.
In the Republic of Mauritius, the Ministry of Public Utilities is responsible for the power sector
(as well as the water and wastewater sectors) and for the design and implementation of energy
policy.
The Ministry oversees the power utility, the Central Electricity Board (CEB), which is
statutorily responsible for the control and development of electricity supply. CEB, which is also
a generator and supplier of electricity, currently acts as the electricity regulator. The Electricity
Act of 1939 (amended in 1991), the Electricity Regulations of 1939, and the Central Electricity
Board Act (1964) comprise the legislative framework for the electricity sector and CEBs
operations. According to the 1964 act [1], CEB is empowered to prepare and carry out
development schemes with the objective of promoting, coordinating and improving the
generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity throughout Mauritius as required.
The governmental policy for the power sector seeks to encourage a greater use of sources other
than oil for the generation of electricity, through the optimization of the use of local and
renewable energy sources. It also seeks to encourage proper management in energy
utilizationthe Government of Mauritius (GoM) is joining efforts with private and public
institutions to achieve energy savings and implement energy efficiency practices.
CEB is currently able to meet peak electricity demand in the Republic of Mauritius. However,
the increase in demand, coupled with possible delays in the implementation of new projects and
the aging of the existing generation plants, have posed concerns regarding CEBs ability to
meet electricity demand reliably in the next few years. Depending on the combination of the
load growth and materialization of delays, the security of supply may be at risk already in the
short term. A supply shortage would trigger the need to install new capacity on an emergency
basis.
Taking this into account, the GoM requested technical assistance from the World Bank (WB),
comprising an independent evaluation of electricity demand forecasts and the assessment of the
existing power generation system and the plans for its expansion. For the execution of these
assessments, the period 20152017 is emphasized, because this mid-term horizon presents
particular challenges to the maintenance of adequate generation supply in Mauritius, as will be
seen further in this document. Yet, the analysis also includes the years until 2022a horizon
compatible with CEBs Integrated Electricity Plan 20132022 [IEP] [2], though with less detail
on the interval between 2018 and 2022.
This document consists of the preliminary report of the activities carried by the WB team, and
is organized as follows:
Following this introduction, the executive summary in Part II presents the main
findings and recommendations arising from the work.
The evaluation of electricity demand forecasts for the island of Mauritius is presented
in Part III, which also contains recommendations for improving the process of demand
forecasting and the use of the demand projections in the planning activity.
Part IV deals with the assessment of the generation system in the island of Mauritius,
presenting recommendations on how to proceed with addressing the identified
difficulties in meeting demand with the currently existing and planned generation
systems.
Recommendations for strengthening the capacity of Mauritian institutions to undertake

power sector planning, including methodological and institutional aspects, are
presented in Part V.
Bibliographical references and technical annexes follow Part V.
After the delivery of the initial version of this report, the WB team received and was
requested to analyze the outcomes of planning studies conducted by CEB, in which
generation expansion plans were prepared and evaluated with help of the Wien
Automatic System Planning (WASP) Package. Annex I presents an assessment of the
results and the technical procedures adopted for these planning studies.
Annex II contains detailed results referring to simulations of supply to peak demand.
PART II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The objective of this document is to assess the ability of the generation system in the island of
Mauritius to meet the demand for electricity, and to recommend measures to ensure the
adequacy of supply in this island in the short and long terms. The recommendations refer both
to actions to be taken by Mauritian institutions to improve the security of electricity supply in
the short and long terms, and to actions to strengthen the capacity of these institutions to
undertake power sector planning.
In short, the key recommendations of this report are:
(1) Due to time constraints, ensuring security of supply in the short term (2015-2017)
requires measures not involving capacity additions.
These measures refer to enhancing the operation of the existing system, fast tracking
generation projects already in the pipeline, and extending the operation either of
existing generation assets that are scheduled for decommissioning or of independent
power producers (IPPs) whose contract is scheduled for termination.
The efforts to implement these measures, which are detailed in section 5.4 of the report,
ought to be initiated as soon as possible.
(2) In the long term, new capacity generation additions (i.e., those not referring to projects
already under consideration or implementation) are needed already in 2018.
Given the typical times required to incorporate new capacity, avoiding supply shortages
in 2018 requires actions from Mauritian institutions in the very short term, to be
completed by January 2016. The procurement process for the incorporation of new
generation capacity should be initiated in January 2016 at the latest.
The time available between June 2015 and January 2016 would allow for some
adjustments of the generation capacity expansion alternative for 2018. By
implementing in 2015 the recommendations presented in this report on improvement of
the methodologies and procedures for power system planning, the Mauritian
institutions will be able to optimize the amount of new generation capacity actually
needed and the related timing.
If no improved planning methods and procedures are implemented in Mauritius before
January 2016, it is recommended to proceed with the procurement of gas turbines (to
run initially on diesel) in the amount the currently applied planning methodology
indicates is needed (2 36 megawatts [MW]), since no other formal and consolidated
assessment methodology will be available to support expansion planning decisions.
(3) For the period between 2019 and 2022, the recommended firm capacity additions are
those indicated in Table ES 1.1. The determination of the exact technology
corresponding to those capacity additions should be the result of detailed planning
efforts, which need to be executed under consideration of the recommendations of this
report on how to strengthen the capacity of Mauritian institutions to undertake planning

for power sector expansion.
Table ES 1.1 Capacity additions recommended for Mauritius in the long term: 20192022
Year
Capacity additions [MW]
Accumulated capacity additions [MW]
2019
90.0
90.0
2020
90.0
2021
45.0
135.0
2022
45.0
180.0
(4) Strengthening the capacity of Mauritian institutions to plan for power sector expansion
involves institutional and methodological aspects.
From an institutional point of view, the most critical recommendation is to embrace
public consultation mechanisms as part of decision-making processes for the expansion
of the power sector. The WB team believes formal public consultation is the right
approach to address, in a realistic and transparent manner, environmental and socially
sensitive issues related to the power sector, as well as concerns about diversification
and security of supply. A proper public consultation process conducted in all stages by
the Government of Mauritius will make it possible to define the options for expansion
of the power sector actually available for the country in terms of primary resources
(imported fossil fuels, renewables) for power generation, environmental, and other
conditions to be met for their effective use.
It is of utmost importance that policies on the mix of domestic and imported energy
resources and the diversification and security of supply, as well as environmental
constraints and other requirements deriving from social acceptability, are considered
for the definition of scenarios for expansion at the planning stage, and that the costs of
meeting those policies, constraints, and requirements for each scenario are realistically
assessed by planners. Public consultation processes on those scenarios will make it
possible to define those actually viable for Mauritius, as well as to inform the society
on the related implementation costs for the country. For this reason, the WB team
believes starting this process should be seen as an immediate priority in Mauritius.
(5) From a methodological standpoint, it is recommended that Mauritian institutions
conclude as soon as possibleideally before the end of 2015the implementation of
a program to consolidate the modernization of methodologies, procedures, and
computational tools used for power system planning in the country. This modernization
process has already been initiated, and there is an ongoing initiative with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This report contains specific
recommendations on how to strengthen and consolidate the modernization program.
The current planning methodologies seem to point toward significant capacity
additions in coming years. Thus, assessing these requirements with the help of modern
methodologies and procedures can significantly impact the costs and reliability of
supply in Mauritius.
In the context set by the preceding key recommendations on the way forward, a more detailed
description of the main findings and recommendations of this report is presented in the
following sections of this executive summary.
Generating electricity demand forecasts for the island of Mauritius
Forecasts of the demand for electricity (energy consumption and peak load) are an essential
input for the assessment of the adequacy of a generation system. For this reason, the WB team
generated such forecasts for the island of Mauritius for the period 20152022. For this task, the
team adopted a top-down econometric approach, projecting demand for the island as a function
of the expected growth in gross domestic product (GDP) in the Republic of Mauritius. Demand
projections were generated:
For three scenarios of GDP growth: low growth, the base case, and high growth.
For two sets of assumptions on how energy efficiency and energy savings programs,
as well as structural changes in the Mauritian economy and energy consumption habits,
may impact the demand for electricity in the long term. This resulted in two sets of
projections: the initial set (not taking into consideration any relevant effects of these
phenomena), and the sensitized set (in which these phenomena result in lower growth
of demand for electricity in the long term, after 2018).
The peak power demands determined for these two sets of projections and three growth
scenarios are indicated in Figure ES 1.1. The procedure utilized for generating the sensitized
set of projections was based on the reproduction of the behavior of recent demand projections
made available by CEB [6], in which it is considered that energy efficiency and energy savings
programs, as well as structural changes in the Mauritian economy and energy consumption
habits, affect the demand for electricity significantly in the long term.
750
750
700
450
Historical peak demand [MW]
Projected peak power demand [MW] Low scenario
Projected peak power demand [MW] Base case
Projected peak power demand [MW] High scenario
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
300
2011
350
300
2010
350
2015
400
2014
400
500
2013
450
550
2012
500
600
2011
550
2010
600
Sensitized projections
650
2009
Peak power demand [MW]
Initial projections
650
2009
700
Figure ES 1.1 Peak power demand projections for the island of Mauritius: 20042022
The process of constructing these electricity demand projections, as well as comparing the
projections with those generated by CEB, led to the following conclusions and
recommendations:
The bottom-up, end-use procedure adopted by CEB resulted in projections for the base
case scenario that are consistent with the projections developed by the WB team for
the short term (2015-2017). The procedure adopted by CEB for generating the base
case projections for this horizonin which the effects of energy efficiency and energy
savings programs, as well as of structural changes in the economy and the electricity
consumption habits of Mauritius, are not expected to strongly affect demand
forecastsis deemed as adequate by the WB team.
The recent projections by CEB [6] obtained for the low growth and the high growth
scenarios for the period 20152017 were respectively above and below those generated
by the WB team for the low growth and the high growth scenarios. The difference was
significant for the low growth scenario, and less so for the high growth one.
The WB team had access to a document developed by CEB [9], which served as the
support material for a presentation before National Energy Commission (NEC), in
which the peak supply simulations and analyses are conducted exclusively for the base
case demand forecast scenario. This alone cannot be considered as evidence that the
low growth and high growth scenarios developed in the IEP 20132022 have not been
used for the planning activity. However, the WB team stresses the need to define
credible demand projection scenarios that are actually used by decision makers to
develop robust expansion plans.
As for the demand projections for the period 20182022, the intrinsic incomeconsumption elasticities embedded in the recent projections by CEB [6] are rather low
(hovering around 0.7). While the WB team understands that this may be the result of
energy efficiency and energy savings programs that are expected to be developed in
the future, as well as of expected structural changes to the economy and the electricity
consumption habits in the Republic of Mauritius, these low values deserve particular
attention. Establishing the socioeconomic conditions that allow attaining such low
elasticities in a country with a developing economy, even when the growth of this
economy is heavily based on the services sector, is a challenging task.
Therefore, the WB team recommends that the evolution of the structural changes and
the energy efficiency and energy savings programs that are expected to allow attaining
such low elasticity values be continuously monitored, and that demand forecasts be
periodically adjusted based on the results of this monitoring. Furthermore, the WB team
recommends that long-term strategies for expanding the supply side of the power
system (generation, transmission, and distribution systems) be flexible enough to allow
for rapid response to any failure in achieving the expected effects of future structural
changes in the economy and energy consumption habits.
In light of the previous recommendations, the assessment of the ability of the generation system
in the island of Mauritius to meet the demand for electricity was conducted both for the initial
and for the sensitized demand projections developed by the WB team and shown above.
Ensuring the security of electricity supply in the short term (20152017)
The results of simulations of the energy supply to peak demand in the island of Mauritius
carried out by the WB team1 revealed significant capacity gaps for the period 20152017. The
term capacity gap is used in reference to a situation in which the existing or planned installed
generation capacity is insufficient for meeting peak demand under the supply reliability criteria
currently adopted in Mauritius.
If the current expansion plan for the generation system of the island of Mauritiusi.e., the
currently programmed additions, redevelopments, and retirements of generators, as well as the
currently programmed termination of contractsis considered for the assessment of supply to
peak power demand, the capacity gaps indicated in Table ES 1.2 are identified. Results of
analyses for the low growth scenario are not presented in this summary for the sake of
conciseness, but are available in following sections of the report.
Table ES 1.2 Capacity gap to meet target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand
scenario, under the current generation expansion plan
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High
Capacity gap to meet target reserve capacity margin [MW] in year

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
50.7
71.8
4.8
63.7
92.6
35.3
51.2
65.2
79.4
93.8
42.9
67.1
90.1
114.1
139.0
64.1
88.8
111.3
134.4
158.1
72.2
106.1
138.9
173.4
209.7
In the short term, time constraints would very likely prevent any additions to the generation
installed capacity in the island of Mauritius that are not already planned and under development.
Therefore, the measures recommended by the WB team to eliminate the capacity gaps in this
horizon refer to enhancing the operation of the existing system, fast tracking generation projects
already in the pipeline, and extending the operation either of existing generation assets that are
scheduled for decommissioning or of IPPs whose contract is scheduled for termination.
Specifically, the recommended measures are:
The data available for the execution of the quantitative analyses by the WB team constrained the choice of
the methods and procedures used for the assessment of peak demand supply. Basically, the analysis approach
refers to a scenario-based evaluation of adequacy of supply to peak demand, employing procedures
analogous to those used in Mauritius for the development of the Integrated Electricity Plan 2013-2022. As
will be seen further in this document, after the delivery of the initial version of this report the WB team
received the results of planning studies conducted by CEB, in which generation expansion plans were
prepared and evaluated with help of the Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP) Package and using
probabilistic methods. A critical appraisal of the analysis with WASP is found in Annex I of this report.
(1) Optimizing the maintenance schedules of CEBs plants and IPPs, with the main goal
of reducing the volume of generation capacity under maintenance during the off-crop
summer season.
(2) Negotiating a new power purchase agreement (PPA) with IPP CEL Beau Champ, to
ensure that it contributes to the supply of peak power demand until 2018, since the
plants original PPA is expiring in the second semester of 2015. Mauritian institutions
recently advised the WB team that negotiations for the extension of this PPA are
already under way, and that these negotiations refer to a bridge PPA, whose duration
would be three years.
(3) Fast tracking the addition of new heavy fuel oil (HFO) units of the Saint Louis power
station, to enable the commissioning of four new generating units, each with 15 MW
of injectable capacity, until the second semester of 2017.
(4) Implementing emergency voltage reduction in 2016 and 2017, to reduce peak power
demand at times of low reserve capacity margins, by reducing the operating voltages
in the electricity grid. Detailed studies should be carried out as soon as possible to
determine a realistic value for the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result
of emergency voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius,2 since the possibility of
achieving reductions higher than those corresponding to the conservative assumption
adopted in this report may eliminate3 the necessity of implementing recommendation
(1), above.
(5) Extending the operation of the Pielstick engines of the Saint Louis power station
through 2016, such that these units are retired only in the second semester of 2017.
Mauritian institutions should consider the measures recommended above as priorities to
ensure the security of electricity supply in the island of Mauritius in the short term.
The equivalent increments in the injectable generation capacity of the island of Mauritius
corresponding to the implementation of the above-mentioned measures are summarized in
Table ES 1.3. The effects of implementing these measurements are detailed in Part IV and
Annex II of this report.
Mauritian institutions recently advised the WB team that, according to estimates of their technicians, the
maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result of emergency voltage reduction in the island of
Mauritius would be of MW [12]. The WB team understands that this may be a very conservative assumption.
The team also understands that the potential for demand reduction attainable as a result of emergency voltage
reduction is more properly expressed as a percentage of demand, rather than as an absolute value in
megawatts.
3
The WB team understands that Mauritian institutions are currently concerned about the availability of spare
parts for the Pielstick engines and the physical integrity of the equipment, due to its advanced age. This
justifies the perception that Mauritian institutions may seek to avoid implementing recommended measure
(1).
Year
Calendar season
2015
Summer Winter
Summer
2016
Winter
Summer
Crop/off-crop season
Off-crop
Crop
Off-crop
Crop
(1) Optimizing
Not yet implemented
11.4
-12.0
-10.7
mantenance
Equivalent
(2) "Bridge" PPA with
Not yet
increase in
12
12
22
12
12
implem.
IPP CEL Beau Champ
injectable
(3) Fast tracking of new
capacity due to
Not yet implemented
units of St. Louis plant
implementaion
(4) Emergency
of measurement
Not yet implemented
5.5
5.5
5.5
voltage reduction
[MW]
(5) Extending operation
Not yet implemented
25
25
25
of Pielstick units of St.L.
2017
Winter Summer
Off-crop
Crop
Comment
Table ES 1.3 Equivalent increments in the injectable generation capacity corresponding

to the implementation of previously described measures
16.9
-12.4
-12.4
(a)
22
12
12
(b)
60
30
(c)
5.5
5.5
5.5
(d)
25
Measure no
longer active
(e)
(a)
Reported values correspond to the incremental effect of the measure. Incremental effect is calculated by assuming all
other measures (2)(5) were implemented, and simulating the subsequent implementation of measure (1). Effects vary with
time, due to the assumption of proportionality of the capacity under maintenance with respect to the injectable capacity of the
system, with different proportionality factors for the crop and off-crop seasons. A decrease in the capacity out due to
maintenance in the off-crop season is assumed to lead to an increase in the capacity out due to maintenance during the crop
season, which explains the negative values in the table. Refer to section 5.4.1 for further clarification on this topic.
(b)
The original PPA with IPP CEL Beau Champ is assumed to be active until the first
semester of 2015 in the reference scenario. Therefore, the effect of entering the new "bridge"
PPA will be felt starting in the second semester of 2015. The "bridge" PPA would expire only
at the second semester of 2018.
(c)
The results of fast tracking these units are the following: the first set of new units of the St. Louis power
plant (30 MW of injectable capacity) would be operational at the second semester of 2017, instead of just at
the very end of this year (2017); the second set of new units of the St. Louis power plant (30 MW) would be
operational at the second semester of 2017, instead of the beginning of 2018. Refer to section 5.4.1 for further
clarification.
(d)
Values reported are reductions in peak demand multiplied by 110%, since a reduction of % in demand would result in a
demand of (1+10%)% in generation requisites due to the 10% spinning reserve criterion. A reduction in demand is not
rigorously equivalent to an increase in the available capacity for the purposes of the calculation of the reserve capacity
margin (RCM), as the RCM is defined as the quotient of the available capacity by 110% of the demand, as detailed further in
this report. However, the simplification of reporting the reduction of demand as an increase in generation capacity is made
here to simplify the presentation of results. For simulations of the full effect of the emergency demand reduction, refer to the
tables of Annex I. The results of the tables of this report that indicate the aggregate effect of all measures do not consider any
simplification of the results and were taken directly from the full simulations of Annex II.
(e)
Though the units would be kept operable through 2016, there are concerns about the physical integrity
of the equipment, due to the advanced the age of the engines.
As indicated in Table ES 1.4, implementing these recommendations in the short term is

expected to significantly relieve the capacity gaps identified in the island of Mauritius for the
base case projections of demand growth. The capacity gaps verified for the base case demand
projections are sensibly reduced, but still result in violations to the 5 percent reserve capacity
margin that are of 2.5 percentage points in 2016 and 2.1 percentage points in 2017, as detailed
in Chapter 5. These correspond to a capacity gap of 13.5 MW and 11.5 MW in 2017, as shown
in Table ES 1.4. This means that the remaining capacity gaps can be eliminated by running the
system under stricter operating conditionsi.e., slightly violating the existing supply reliability
criterion. Alternatively, the technicians in Mauritius might seek to obtain a demand decrease
via emergency voltage reduction that is above the very conservative estimates of 5 MW recently
made available to the WB team. The implementation of higher levels of voltage reductions,
aiming to reduce a larger portion of the load and therefore avoid even these violations of up to
2.5 percentage points for the base case demand, is an emergency measure that can be adopted
if its feasibility is confirmed.
Table ES 1.4 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in 20152017, per demand scenario (with
recommendations for period implemented)
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
13.5
11.5
26.5
32.2
32.5
48.4
62.4
76.6
91.0
40.1
64.3
87.3
111.3
136.2
61.3
86.0
108.5
131.7
155.4
69.4
103.3
136.1
170.6
206.9
From Table ES 1.4, it is clear that the island of Mauritius may face capacity shortages in the
short term if the demand grows as indicated in the high growth scenario, even if all of the abovementioned measures are implemented.
Ensuring the security of electricity supply in the long term (20182022)
Values in Table ES 1.4 indicate that capacity additions are required to ensure the adequacy of
electricity supply for the island of Mauritius during 20182022.
In the long term, new capacity additions (i.e., those not referring to projects already under
consideration or implementation) to the electricity generation system of the island of Mauritius
are needed from 2018. Given the time typically required for the installation and commissioning
of new generating units, meeting capacity gaps expected to occur in 2018 requires actions from
Mauritian institutions in the very short term. In particular, the procurement process for the
incorporation of new generation capacity should be initiated at the latest in January 2016.
Planning for subsequent years of the horizon is important to devise long-term strategies for the
power system in the island of Mauritius, but these indicative plans should be adjusted in
accordance with any future updates of demand projections.
The WB team recommends the following measures to ensure the adequacy of supply to peak
demand in the island of Mauritius in the long term:
(1) Implementing in 2015 the recommendations presented in this report on improvement
of the methodologies and procedures for power system planning. By doing this, the
Mauritian institutions will be able to optimize the amount of new generation capacity
actually needed and the related timing.
(2) Procuring additional firm generation capacity to be commissioned at the beginning of
2018. The island of Mauritius is expected to experience capacity gaps in 2018, partly
as a result of the cancelation of the CT Power project. Installation of new generation
capacity is needed to prevent these capacity gaps from materializing.
Given the time frame required for the implementation of generation projects, two
technological alternatives for the capacity additions were analyzed in this document
(both with 70 MW of injectable capacity): (a) a 2 36 MW gas turbine thermal plant
running initially on diesel; (b) a 3 24 MW HFO-fired internal combustion engine
plant.
These alternatives were compared based on their performance regarding the annual
capacity utilization costs (in United States dollars (USD) per MW installed per year).
10
Considering the results of this analysis and on other considerations detailed in section
5.5, the alternative recommended for the additional firm generation capacity to be
commissioned at the beginning of 2018 is the 2 36 MW gas turbine thermal plant
running initially on diesel.
Although gas turbines are by design dual-fuel (natural gas and diesel) machines, it is
recommended that the detailed specifications of the generating units of the new plant
be prepared to ensure the quick conversion of the gas turbines for operation on natural
gas at a later point in time, such that these units can be considered as the gas-turbine
phase of a combined-cycle, gas-fired thermal plant in the future.
Given the typical times required to incorporate new capacity, the procurement process
of the new power plants needs to be initiated at the latest in January 2016. If no
improved planning methods and procedures are implemented in Mauritius until January
2016, it is recommended to proceed with the procurement of gas turbines (to run
initially on diesel) in an amount (2 x 36 MW) that the currently applied planning
methodology indicates is needed, since no other formal and consolidated assessment
methodology will be available to support expansion planning decisions.
(3) Continuously monitoring structural determinants for electricity demand, and updating
demand forecasts for the long term. Insight on the importance of this measure may be
gained by verifying the significant difference in the capacity gaps reported in Table ES
1.4 for the initial and the sensitized demand projections. As explained in detail in
Chapter 3, these sets of projections differ in that the effects of energy efficiency and
energy savings programs, as well as the effects of structural changes in the economy
and the energy consumption habits, result in significantly lower demand growth in the
island of Mauritius in the sensitized demand projections. In fact, the analyses of Chapter
3 indicate that the current assumptions of Mauritian institutions about the effects of
these phenomena are very ambitious, with a significant decrease in the implied
elasticity of electricity consumption with respect to GDP growth starting in 2018.
Therefore, it is recommended that the evolution of the Mauritian economy and
consumption habits, as well as of the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings
programs, be continuously monitored, and that the projections of demand growth be
periodically updated to account for reasonable and quantifiable effects of these
variables over demand growth.
(4) Considering the ambitious nature of the assumptions regarding energy conservation
and structural changes that underlie the sensitized set of demand projections, as well as
the significant drop in the implied elasticities of demand to GDP for the demand
projected in the long term, the WB team considers the initial set of demand projections
as the reference scenario for determination of the new firm capacity additions required
from 2019 onward. The resulting recommended schedule of new capacity additions is
indicated in Table ES 1.5.
11
Table ES 1.5 Capacity additions (projects not currently under consideration or

under development) recommended for Mauritius in the long term: 20192022
Year
2019
90.0
90.0
2020
90.0
2021
45.0
135.0
2022
45.0
180.0
The determination of the exact technology needed to correspond to these capacity

additions should be the result of detailed planning efforts that take into account the
recommendations of Part V of this report.
If the schedule of firm capacity additions indicated in Table ES 1.5 is implemented, the
capacity gaps in the long term are practically eliminated, as indicated in Table ES 1.6.
Table ES 1.6 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand scenario (with
recommendations for the period implemented)
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
0
13.5
26.5
11.5
32.2
6.2
It is worth emphasizing that the choice of methods and procedures for the assessment of supply
to peak demand adopted in this report was constrained by the data made available to the WB
team. With the information at hand, the team opted to adopt a deterministic planning procedure,
analogous to that currently used by Mauritian institutions. Nevertheless, the team identified
important recommendations about the improvement of the methodologies and procedures used
for generation system expansion planning in Mauritius, which are presented at the end of this
executive summary.
Another specific aspect of the planning criteria used for the development of the Integrated
Electricity Plan 2013-2022 in Mauritius deserves some comments. Under the methods and
procedures adopted for generation system expansion planning in Mauritius in the context of the
elaboration of the IEP 2013-2022, the contribution of renewable power plants with intermittent
output to the supply of peak power demand is considered to be strictly nil. Continuing to use
this practice may lead to an underevaluation of the attractiveness of this class of generators as
alternatives for generation system expansion planning, with the possible consequence of
limiting the future participation of renewable generators, such as wind and solar power plants,
in the countrys electricity matrix to suboptimal levels.
Probabilistic analyses carried out by Mauritian institutions were made available to the WB team
after the delivery of the initial version of the report. Yet, the modeling of renewable power
plants and of system operation for the purposes of these analyses also requires improvements,
as indicated in Annex I of this report.
These findings support the recommendations on the necessity to consolidate the modernization
of planning methods and procedures in Mauritius, in order to properly account for the
contribution of renewable generation technologies to the supply of peak power, without
12
disregarding the uncertainty and variability of their output. These topics are analyzed in the
following section of this executive summary.
Improving the methodologies and tools for power sector planning in Mauritius
As the power system of Mauritius grows in scale and complexity, ensuring the security of
electricity supply requires that planners have access to adequate methodologies and
computational tools, and that the planning procedures are adapted to support the increased
complexity of the decision-making process.
The WB team has identified several items of the generation planning methodology currently
adopted in Mauritius that require improvement. These are particular instances of the broader
phenomenon of constraints to power system operation and expansion planning that arise as a
consequence of the set of methodologies, procedures, and computational tools currently
adopted in the country.
The WB team specifically recommends that the institutions of Mauritius consolidate the
modernization of the methodologies, procedures, and computational tools used for power
system planning in the country.
This modernization program can have the following steps:
(1) Identification of minimum requisites for methodologies, procedures, and computer
tools used for power system operation and expansion planning in the Republic of
Mauritius, given the current state of the system and the alternatives for its future
evolution.
(2) Incorporation of the following products and services:
a. Computational tools that allow the implementation of the methodologies and
procedures identified in item (1), above; and
b. Training of the CEB staff in the use of these methodologies and computational
tools, in the context of updated planning procedures.
(3) Construction of thorough databases to allow the use of the methodologies, procedures,
and computational tools indicated above.
Guidelines for identifying the requisites for the methodologies and tools to be adopted in the
island of Mauritius are presented in detail in Chapter 7. These guidelines are summarized
below:
(1) Methodologies and tools that support decision making under uncertainty should be
adopted. Given the uncertainty in factors that range from consumer behavior to the
variability of energy resources for renewable generators, engineers must have the right
instruments at their disposal to ensure that power system expansion is planned to
minimize riskse.g., risks of extreme costs, of severe blackouts, of sustained capacity
shortages, of very poor performance related to emissions, etc.
13
(2) The stochastic behavior of all variables in the system should be adequately modeled,
with particular attention to spatial and temporal correlations among them.
(3) Finally, methodologies and tools should be adopted that support integrated decision
making, considering all links of the chain of power system expansion and operation
activities. Assessing the impacts of decisions on the entire chain of expansion and
operation activities, including unit commitment, allows planners to balance the
structural reinforcements and operational flexibility and ensure the expansion plans
result in flexibility levels that allow maintaining reliability of supply cost-effectively.
Improving institutional aspects of the Mauritian power sector
In the WB teams view, the improvement of certain institutional aspects of the power system
planning activityparticularly of expansion planningis of utmost importance to meet the
expectations of Mauritian society regarding electricity supply.
The recommendations of the WB team presented in this section refer to three main topics: (1)
the introduction of public consultation mechanisms as part of decision-making processes in the
electricity sector; (2) during the planning activities, the thorough and realistic consideration of
resource diversification, security of supply, and the environmental and other socially sensitive
dimensions of power system expansion and operations; and (3) the creation of proper
institutional conditions for the consideration of energy policy guidelines during the execution
of power system planning activities by CEB, and for achieving these policy goals as a result of
these planning activities.
Ensuring that the stakeholders of other sectors of societyelectricity consumers, generation
project developers, communities in the vicinity of planned projects, etc.are heard and have
their points of view considered both in the process of setting energy policy goals and in the
development of power system expansion planning activities based on those goals is also key to
ensuring that the development of the power sector meets the expectations of Mauritian society.
In fact, the numerous submissions of different stakeholders to the NEC, in the context of the
process of elaboration of its report Making the Right Choice for a Sustainable Energy Future
[15], indicate the eagerness of different segments of Mauritian society (as well as of
international institutions) to contribute to the decisions on the development of the countrys
electricity sector.
The WB team recommends that formal public consultation processes be organized and held by
Mauritian institutions to define the energy policy goals, as well as during the process of
elaboration of power sector development plans (IEP) or development of documents stating the
countrys energy policy, and that the contributions of different stakeholders presented in the
context of these public consultations be duly evaluated by the competent entities. The obligation
to hold these consultations should be formally included in legal or regulatory instruments
defining the mandate and attributions of CEB and of the governmental bodies responsible for
the definition of Mauritian energy policy. From an organizational point of view, it is important
that public consultation processes are given adequate publicity, that they are executed within a
time window that allows the participation of all stakeholders interested in the energy planning
14
activities, and that the procedures for the submission of contributions from these stakeholders
are simple and effective, to encourage participation.
The WB teams believes that formal public consultation is the right approach to address
realistically and transparently environmental and all other socially sensitive issues with direct
impact on the options for expanding the power sector in Mauritius. The GoM should promote
and conduct a formal public consultation process to discuss key energy policy issues, such as
(1) mix of primary energy resources (firm and nonfirm, domestic resources and imported fossil
fuels, etc.) providing adequate levels of security of supply for the country; (2) policies and rules
to be met for the use of lands and location of facilities for power generation, transmission, and
distribution; and (3) standards to be met for all types of emissions produced by electricity
infrastructure in all segments (generation plants of all technologies, transmission and
distribution networks, etc.).
The definition of those issues is a fully sovereign decision of any country, involving all
segments of its society. There are no right or wrong options in those matters, and any
organization external to the country has no say on them. What really matters is to have an open
and transparent public discussion on those topics. The GoM should promote and conduct that
public consultation process, starting with the preparation of a draft document identifying and
describing the options (scenarios) available for the country, and an assessment of the costs
related to the eventual adoption of each of them.
It is of utmost importance that all constraints to the expansion of the power system are
considered for the definition of energy policy goals and at the expansion planning stage, as well
that the costs for the country of addressing those constraints are realistically assessed and
presented at that stage, to allow the proper comparison of different power system expansion
alternatives and avoid cost overruns and delays during the implementation stage of power
system expansion.
Clear and preferably standardized protocols should support decision makers in the tasks of
comparing alternatives for power system expansion. These protocols should establish clear
criteria for the assessment of the costs and benefits of a project, considering all potential
environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The assessment should cover all stages of a
projects lifecycle: conception, implementation, operation, and dismantlement. Guidelines
prepared by multilateral institutions, offering countries the possibility of customization to their
particular requirements, are available to assist in the creation of such protocols.
From an institutional point of view, this task may require close cooperatione.g., for the
exchange of information and the understanding of environmental constraints to power system
expansionbetween the planning authorities and the governmental bodies responsible for
environmental licensing. Nonetheless, particular attention should be directed to avoiding that
the consideration of environmental dimension within the power system expansion planning
activity is reduced to obtaining environmental licenses as just another planning task. That is to
say, the main goal should not be merely obtaining the environmental licenses and permits for
projects already at the planning stage. Rather, the main goal is to ensure (1) that power system
expansion plans adhere to social expectations regarding the environment, and (2) that the costs
15
of compliance with these expectations are properly assessed, in order to allow meaningful
comparisons of expansion alternatives under consideration of all of the relevant costs
including, but not limited to, the costs of mitigation of environmental impacts.
Regarding the third topic, the recommendations of the WB team to the GoM are the following:
Implement mechanisms to allow governmental bodies (including the Ministry of Public

Utilities) to regularly monitor the compliance of the power system expansion process
with energy policy goals.
Increase the frequency of update and publication of energy policy goals, taking into
account not only the status of compliance of current plants with long-term goals, but
also any conjuncture constraints that may delay the achievement of these goals.
Enhance the preparedness of CEB to carry out actions required to meet policy goals,
through workforce capacity building.
Establish clear differentiation between the attributions of setting the energy policy (by
governmental bodies directly reporting to the central government) and of executing
power system expansion and operation under the guidelines of this policy (by CEB).
Make sure that other governmental policies (fiscal, industrial, environmental,

infrastructure development, etc.) are consistent with the objectives of the energy policy
and enable the achievement of its goals.
16
PART III.
ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND FORECASTS
Electricity demand forecasts are a key input for the process of power system expansion
planning. For this reason, the technical analyses of this report begin with this topic.
This third part of the report is organized as follows:
In Chapter 1, the WB team presents its independent electricity demand forecasts. These
forecasts are termed initial forecasts, as they do not take into account the effects of
energy efficiency and energy savings programs expected to be carried out in Mauritius
in the longer term, nor do they take into account structural changes in the economy or
energy consumption habits that are relevant for demand forecasts.
In Chapter 2, these initial forecasts are compared with the most recent demand
forecasts indicated by CEB in [6]. This comparison reveals a possible strategy to
incorporate the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings programs in the initial
forecasts.
In Chapter 3, the WB team presents an approximate approach to factor the effects of

energy efficiency and energy savings programs, as well as those of structural changes
in the economy and energy consumption habits, on the initial forecasts, in the absence
of primary data that allow a thorough evaluation of the effects of these phenomena. The
forecasts obtained under this approach are termed sensitized forecasts in the remainder
of this document.
Recommendations on the topic of demand forecasting are presented in Chapter 4.
The following quantities are relevant for the forecasts:

(1)
Energy sales refers to the amount of electrical energy sold in a given year to end
consumers in the island of Mauritius.
(2)
Energy sent out is defined as the energy effectively injected into the electricity grid of
the island of Mauritius by CEB, IPPs, and continuous power producers (CCPs4), and
takes into account technical losses in the electricity grid.5
(3)
Peak power demand forecasts, also referred to simply as peak demand or peak load
forecasts, refers to the maximum power demand in the electricity grid, also taking
technical losses into account.
According to the following definition of [2]: In Mauritius, CPPs refers to sugar factories which generate
electricity from bagasse during the crop season and export it to the CEBs grid.
4
No references to commercial losses are made in [2]. For this reason, the WBs team assumes that they are
not relevant in the island of Mauritius.
5
17
1 INITIAL ELECTRICITY DEMAND FORECASTS

In this chapter, the WB team presents the initial electricity demand forecasts for 20142022.
These forecasts are termed initial forecasts, as they do not take into account the effects of
energy efficiency and energy savings programs expected to be carried out in Mauritius in the
longer term.
1.1 Forecasts of electricity sales

The forecasts of the electricity sales in the island of Mauritius will be based on a traditional
econometric model [3], which relates electricity consumption to GDP levels according to the
following equation:
= ( )
where:
Et
GDPt
= electricity sales (in gigawatt-hours [GWh]) in year t;

= gross domestic product (in international dollars6) in year t;
= linear coefficient;
= exponent of power function.
The model above is a constant elasticity model, which accounts exclusively for the income
elasticity of electricity demand (sales). In the method above, the income elasticity of demand
is constant and given by , since the elasticity is given by:
The income elasticity of the electricity sales is the explanatory economic phenomenon
considered in the model above. Also, in this model this elasticity does not change with time,
which is due to the parameters and being obtained by fitting the function to historical data,
and then kept constant for the whole projection horizon.
The use of a top-down aggregate forecast model, such as the one described above, is determined
mainly by constraints on the data available for the forecasting activities, and should not be
interpreted as a recommendation to use this model specifically or this class of models. In fact,
there are many benefits in using bottom-up end-use forecasting models, such as the possibility
to better estimate the effects of changes in the patterns of electricity consumption in time. For
GDP figures are presented considering purchasing power parity (PPP), which explains the reference to
international USD. An international dollar has the same purchasing power over GDP as the USD has in the
United States. Therefore, we often refer to international dollars simply as USD in this document, for the
sake of conciseness of notation.
18
this reason, end-use forecast methods may be preferred over aggregate econometric models,
such as the one described above, whenever reliable data are available to be used as inputs for
them.
To select the historical data on electricity sales and on GDP to be used for the fitting of the
above model, we may consider the information displayed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Electricity sales in the island of Mauritius and GDP (PPP)
of the Republic of Mauritius7: historical data (20042014)
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total sales
[GWh]
1,682.0
1,752.2
1,855.1
1,950.5
2,028.4
2,043.2
2,147.5
2,201.4
2,266.8
2,354.9
2014
2,422.0
Electricity sales
Composition by sector [%]
Res
Com
Ind
Other
33%
30%
33%
4%
34%
31%
31%
4%
33%
31%
33%
4%
32%
31%
33%
4%
31%
33%
32%
3%
33%
34%
30%
3%
32%
34%
30%
3%
32%
36%
30%
3%
33%
36%
29%
3%
32%
36%
29%
3%
GDP, PPP
GDP, PPP [Billion
Composition by sector of origin [%]
USD@2011]
Agriculture
Industry
Services
15.47
6%
29%
64%
15.66
6%
28%
66%
16.28
5%
26%
69%
17.24
4%
26%
69%
18.19
4%
27%
69%
18.73
4%
27%
69%
19.50
4%
26%
70%
20.26
4%
25%
71%
20.91
3%
25%
72%
21.58
3%
24%
72%
N/A(a)
N/A(b)
Sources: [4], [5], [6]

(a)
Total sales for 2014 are provided in [6]. The reference did not contain the composition of sales by sector.
(b)
GDP PPP data for 2014 were not available in [4] as the time of the elaboration of this report.
Not surprisingly, Table 1.1 reveals that the growth of the participation of the services sector in
the composition of the GDP has been accompanied by a growth of the share of the commercial
consumption segment in the total electricity sales in the island of Mauritius. The data reveal
that the economy (and the electricity consumption) of Mauritius is dynamically changing,
suggesting that the income elasticity of electricity consumption will also be changing
continuously. Since the econometric model used for the demand forecasts of this section does
not account for changes in the income elasticity of demand, we opt to adjust the model with
basis solely in the data for the last three years of the historical series for which data are available
on both total sales and GDP (20112013), to at least capture the trend corresponding to a more
recent stance of the economic and physical data.
Fitting the model to the data of this period results in the following values for the parameters:
= 87.83 and = 1.070.8 Therefore, the resulting electricity sales forecast model is:
The GDP for the Republic of Mauritius is used as a proxy for that of the island of Mauritius (for which the
projections of electricity sales are executed), as no separate data of the GDP of the island of Mauritius are
available.
8
The reader will notice that the income elasticity implicit in this model is 1.070. Developing countries tend
to have slightly higher income elasticities of electricity demand; however, the lower value for Mauritius is
generally compatible with the preponderance of the services sector in the structure of the countrys economy.
19
= 87.83 ( )1.070
Using this model to obtain forecasts of electricity sales for 20152022 requires projections of
the GDP of the Republic of Mauritius for the same time horizon. We adopt the projections of
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which are available for the period 201420199 [7]. The
corresponding projections of the annual GDP growth of the Republic of Mauritius, and the GDP
in constant 2011 international dollars corresponding to these projections for 20142019, are
indicated in Table 1.2.10 The growth rate used to obtain GDP estimates for 20202022
corresponds simply to the average growth during 20142019.
Table 1.2 Projected GDP and GDP growth rates (base scenario): 20142022
Biennium
2014-2013
2015-2014
2016-2015
2017-2016
2018-2017
2019-2018
2020-2019
2021-2020
2022-2021
Projected GDP (PPP)

growth rate
[%/year]
3.02%
3.66%
3.88%
3.92%
3.96%
4.12%
3.76%
3.76%
3.76%
Year
Projected GDP, PPP

[Billion USD@2011]
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
22.23
23.05
23.94
24.88
25.86
26.93
27.94
28.99
30.08
For the analyses of this report, we are interested in obtaining electricity demand projections for
three scenarios: base case (or simply base projection), and high growth and low growth
scenarios (or simply high and low projections). The data in Table 1.2 will be used to obtain the
base projections. To obtain the high and low projections, we refer to [8], in which the IMF
presents projections of long-term economic growth for Mauritius for three scenarios: baseline,
optimistic, and pessimistic. The projected growth rates presented in [8] are sensitized with
respect to several items, but for each sensitivity analysis, projections are presented for the
baseline, optimistic, and pessimistic scenarios. Also, the difference in projected growth rates
between the pessimistic and the baseline scenarios, and between the optimistic and the baseline
scenarios, is approximately 3033 percent for all sensitivity analyses. Therefore, to construct
the projections of GDP to be used in our electricity demand projections, we adopt the
assumption that the growth rates in the low growth scenario will be one-third lower than those
of the base case, and that those of the high growth scenario will be one-third higher than those
9
A consultation of traditional sources, such as the WB, the IMF, and The Economist Intelligence Unit,
revealed that no projections are available for the period until 2022.
10
The quantity originally projected by the IMF was the GDP based on PPP valuation in current international
dollars. Projections of the U.S. inflation, from the same source, were used to convert the original data from
current to constant international dollars. The growth rates reported in Table 1.2 are those implicit in these
projections converted to constant international dollars. The GDP values in constant 2011 international dollars
indicated in the table were obtained by applying the projected growth rates to the value of GDP (PPP) verified
in 2013, according to the WB database [4].
20
of the base case. The resulting GDP and GDP growth rates for 20142022 are indicated in
Table 1.3. It is worth emphasizing that we do not assume any modification in the mathematical
model relating GDP and electricity sales across the scenarios.
Table 1.3 Projected GDP and GDP growth rates (low and high growth scenarios): 20142022
Projected GDP (PPP)
growth rate [%/year]
Low scenario
High scenario
2.02%
4.02%
2.45%
4.87%
2.60%
5.16%
2.62%
5.21%
2.65%
5.27%
2.76%
5.48%
2.52%
5.00%
2.52%
5.00%
2.52%
5.00%
Biennium
2014-2013
2015-2014
2016-2015
2017-2016
2018-2017
2019-2018
2020-2019
2021-2020
2022-2021
Projected GDP, PPP

[Billion USD@2011]
Low scenario
High scenario
22.02
22.45
22.56
23.54
23.14
24.76
23.75
26.04
24.38
27.42
25.05
28.92
25.69
30.36
26.33
31.88
27.00
33.48
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
The effects of applying the previously presented model results in the low, base, and high
projections of the electricity sales in the island of Mauritius are indicated in Table 1.4 and
Figure 1.1.
Table 1.4 Projected electricity sales in the island of Mauritius
(low, base, and high projection scenarios): 20152022
Projected electricity sales [GWh]
Year
Low scenario
2,485.64
2,554.85
2,626.63
2,701.31
2,781.15
2,856.17
2,933.21
3,012.33
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Base case
2,517.03
2,621.68
2,731.66
2,847.63
2,973.31
3,093.06
3,217.64
3,347.23
High scenario
2,548.44
2,689.42
2,839.54
2,999.95
3,176.13
3,346.33
3,525.66
3,714.59
4,000
Electric energy sales [GWh]
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Historical sales [GWh]
Projected electricity sales [kWh] Low scenario
Projected electricity sales [kWh] Base case
Projected electricity sales [kWh] High scenario
2020
2021
2022
21
Figure 1.1 Historical and projected electricity sales in the island of Mauritius (low, base, and high
projection scenarios)
1.2 Forecasts of energy sent out

With the projections of electricity sales at hand, we proceed to the projections of energy sent
out. As previously mentioned, the energy sent out is energy effectively injected into the
electricity grid of the island of Mauritius by CEB, IPPs, and CCPs. Therefore, this quantity
differs from the electricity sales due to the technical losses in the electricity grid. As there are
no references to commercial losses in [2], the WB team assumes that these losses are not
relevant in the island of Mauritius.
The historical figures of levels of energy losses in Figure 1.2 (in percentage of the energy sent
out11) in Mauritius are provided in [2]:
Source: [2]
Figure 1.2 Historical levels of technical energy losses in the electricity grid: 20012011
Figure 1.2 is succeeded by the following excerpt in [2]:

It can be observed that the network losses of the country are continuously improving.
However, there is a limit to which the system losses can be reduced. For the planning
period, CEB has assumed a network loss of around 8%.
This assumption of the maintenance of the levels of technical losses in the electricity network
at 8 percent is adopted for the analyses of this report. Considering this level of technical losses,
the projections of energy sent out for the three scenarios are indicated in Table 1.5.
11
That is to say, the losses level is defined as:
Losses [%] = [(total energy sent out total energy sales) / (total energy sent out)] 100%.
22
Table 1.5 Projected energy sent out in the island of Mauritius (low, base, and high projection scenarios):
20152022
Projected energy sent-out [GWh]
Year
Low scenario
2,701.79
2,777.01
2,855.03
2,936.21
3,022.99
3,104.53
3,188.27
3,274.27
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Base case
2,735.90
2,849.65
2,969.19
3,095.25
3,231.86
3,362.02
3,497.43
3,638.29
High scenario
2,770.04
2,923.28
3,086.46
3,260.81
3,452.31
3,637.32
3,832.24
4,037.60
1.3 Forecasts of peak demand

Finally, the forecasts of peak power demand in the island of Mauritius are approached. The data
for the calculation of the load factor of the power system in the island of Mauritius, presented
in Table 1.6, are relevant for these forecasts.
Table 1.6 Data for calculation of the load factor in the island of Mauritius: 20042014
Year
Peak power demand and date of

Technical losses in
Electricity
occurrence
electricity network
sales [GWh]
[%]
Peak demand [MW] Date of occurrence
Electricity
sent-out
[GWh]
Number of
Electricity
Load factor
hours in
sent-out
[%]
year [h] [average MW]
2004
1,682
10.5%
332.6
23-Nov-2004
1,879
8,784
214.0
64.33%
2005
1,752
11.1%
353.1
27-Dec-2005
1,971
8,760
225.0
63.72%
2006
1,855
9.5%
367.3
20-Dec-2006
2,050
8,760
234.0
63.71%
2007
1,951
9.7%
367.6
29-Nov-2007
2,160
8,760
246.6
67.08%
2008
2,028
9.5%
378.1
20-Mar-2008
2,241
8,784
255.2
67.48%
2009
2,043
8.6%
388.6
18-Feb-2009
2,235
8,760
255.2
65.67%
2010
2,148
8.2%
404.1
2-Mar-2010
2,339
8,760
267.0
66.08%
2011
2,201
7.9%
412.5
20-Dec-2011
2,390
8,760
272.9
2012
2,267
430.0
Not Available
2,464
8,784
280.5
65.23%
441.1
Not Available
2,560
8,760
292.2
66.24%
446.0
Not Available
2,633
8,760
300.5
67.38%
2013
2014
2,355
2,422
8.0%
8.0%
8.0%
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
66.15%
(b)
(b)
(b)
Assumed data. Compatible with assumptions of [2].
Assumed data on technical losses required for the calculation of the load factor.
Sources: [2], [5], [6]
It is clear from Table 1.6 that the load factor in the island of Mauritius has grown significantly
since 2004, even though with fluctuations (an increase to levels over 67 percent in 2007 and
2008, followed by a decrease to 65.67 percent and then a subsequent increase). This trend is
consistent with the increasing participation of the commercial segment in the consumption of
electricity, and with the typical load profile of consumers of this segment, with a significant use
of air-conditioning devices during all working hours during the summer season. Therefore, it is
fair to expect that the continuing growth of the participation of the services sector in the
economy of Mauritius, and the associated growth of the participation of the commercial
23
segment in electricity consumption, will continue to increase the load factor in the island of
Mauritius.
For the projection of peak demand, the WB team opts to assume that the load factor of the
Mauritian system will remain constant at the value estimated for 2014 (67.38 percent)
throughout the horizon. This is a conservative assumption, since no improvement (increase) of
the load factor within the projection horizon (2015-2022) is assumed. Given a set of projections
of energy sent out, adopting a lower load factor for the projection of peak demand results in a
higher projection of this latter quantity, which is why we characterize the assumption of
maintenance of the load factor verified in 2014 for the whole projection horizon as conservative.
Given the projections of energy sent out indicated in Table 1.5, and considering the fixed load
factor of 66.15 percent for the horizon 20142022, the resulting forecasts of peak demand for
the three scenarios of interest of this analysis are those shown in Table 1.7 and Figure 1.3.
Table 1.7 Projected summer peak demand in the island of Mauritius
Projected peak power demand [MW]
Year
Low scenario
457.74
470.48
483.70
497.45
512.16
525.97
540.16
554.73
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Base case
High scenario
463.52
469.30
482.79
495.26
503.04
522.91
524.40
552.45
547.54
584.89
569.59
616.23
592.54
649.26
616.40
684.05
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Figure 1.3 Historical and projected summer peak demand in the island of Mauritius
(low, base, and high projection scenarios)
24
The instant power demands reported above in Table 1.7 and Figure 1.3 correspond to the
summer peak in the island of Mauritius. The winter peak (Table 1.8) is determined by
considering historical data provided in [9], in which a ratio of the winter to the summer peak
demand is reported as being 89 percent. This information seems to refer to the most recent
year2012for which data were available as of the elaboration of [9].
Table 1.8 Projected winter peak demand in the island of Mauritius
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Projected winter peak power demand [MW]

Low scenario
407.39
418.73
430.49
442.73
455.82
468.11
480.74
493.71
Base case
High scenario
412.53
417.68
429.68
440.78
447.71
465.39
466.71
491.68
487.31
520.55
506.94
548.45
527.36
577.84
548.60
608.80
In this document, references to peak demand, without specification of the season in which this
demand occurs, allude to the summer peak demand.
2 COMPARISON WITH RECENT FORECASTS FROM CEB

In this chapter, the initial electricity demand forecasts elaborated by the WB team and presented
in the previous chapter are compared with the most recent demand forecasts indicated by CEB
in [6].
The comparison focuses on the forecasts of electricity sales and peak demand, and will facilitate
a discussion on a possible way of incorporating the effect of energy efficiency and energy
savings programs into the initial forecasts presented in Chapter 1, in order to obtain the
sensitized forecasts.
Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2 indicate, respectively, the forecasts for electricity sales and peak
demand [6] for 20152022, as well as the historical values until 2014.
25
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Historical elec. sales [MW]
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [MW] Low scenario
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [MW] Base case
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [MW] High scenario
2022
Figure 2.1 Electricity sales in the island of Mauritius projected by CEB and historical data
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

Recently projected peak power demand (CEB) [MW] Low scenario
Recently projected peak power demand (CEB) [MW] Base case
Recently projected peak power demand (CEB) [MW] High scenario
Figure 2.2 Peak demand in the island of Mauritius projected by CEB and historical data
Figure 2.3 compares the initial projections of the previous section with the demand forecasts
of the IEP 20132022.
26
4,000
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
4,000
4,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
500
500
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
1,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
1,000
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Historical elec. sales [GWh]
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [GWh]

High scenario
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [GWh]

Base case
Initial projections of electricity sales [GWh] High

scenario
Initial projections of electricity sales [GWh] Base

case
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [GWh] Low

scenario
Initial projections of electricity sales [GWh] Low
scenario
Figure 2.3 Comparison of initial forecast of electricity sales and recent forecasts by CEB,
for high (left), base (center), and low (right) growth scenarios
The comparison of Figure 2.3 for the base scenario reveals that the growth rates of the initial
projections are very similar to those of the recent projections by CEB in the period 20152017.
However, starting in 2018, the electricity sales growth rates for the initial projections become
significantly higher than those recently forecasted by CEB [6]. Table 2.1, taken from [2], and
the excerpt of this reference reproduced following this table, alludes to the main reason for this
difference.
Table 2.1 Annual growth rates for electricity sales forecasts of [2]:
note the difference in the annual growth rates forecasted for 2011-2016 and 2016-2022
Source: [2]
In [2], Table 2.1, above, is followed by the excerpt below:

The estimated comparative lower growth rate of 3.43% can be explained by a number
of factors, such as:
The heightened importance attached to energy efficiency and savings;

The penetration of substitutes (Solar Water Heaters & SSDGs [small-scale
distributed generators]);
27
The reduction in the marginal propensity to consume of households;

The saturation in the development of commercial complexes;
The potential increase in prices of energy sources;
The structural changes in economic activities, where investments will be more
concentrated in less energy intensive sectors.
The nature of the model used for obtaining the initial projections of the previous chapter does
not allow accounting for the above-mentioned phenomena. In fact, the choice of the model used
in Chapter 1 was justified by the absence of data that allow taking the above-mentioned
phenomena into account. In Chapter 3, the WB team presents an approximate approach to factor
the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings programs, as well as those of structural
changes in the economy and energy consumption habits, on the forecasts, in the absence of
primary data that allow a thorough evaluation of the effects of these phenomena.
As for the projections of the low growth and high growth scenarios, the comparison of the
section of curves of Figure 2.3 corresponding to 20152017 reveals that the electricity growth
rates are essentially different in the two scenarios: the yearly growth rates are more significant
in the high scenario in the recent projections by CEB [6] and are less significant in the low
scenario. As the growth rates between 2015 and 2017 (in which the effect of energy savings
and energy efficiency programs, as well as those of structural changes in the economy and
energy consumption habits of Mauritius are not heavily affected by the phenomena listed in the
excerpt above) are compatible with the historical relationship between the GDP and demand
growth, and as the projections of the GDP for the period were based on data of renowned
institutions [4], [7], [8], the WB team finds no necessity of incorporating any changes to these
projections.
After the projections of electricity sales have been compared, we may proceed to the projections
of peak power demand, aided by Figure 2.4. This figure indicates that the same general
qualitative comments presented for the case of electricity sales apply to the projections of peak
power demand.
28
700
600
600
600
500
400
Projected peak demand [MW]
700
Projected peak demand [MWh
700
500
400
500
400
300
200
200
200
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
300
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
300
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Historical peak dem. [MW]
Projected electricty sales of IEP 2013-2022 [MW]

High scenario
Projected electricty sales of IEP 2013-2022 [MW]

Base case
Initial projections of electricity sales [kWh] Base
case
Recent projected peak demand (CEB) [MW] Low

scenario
Initial projections of electricity sales [kWh] High

scenario
Initial projections of peak demand [MW] Low

scenario
Figure 2.4 Comparison of initial forecast of peak demand and recent forecasts by CEB,
for high (left), base (center), and low (right) growth scenarios
3 SENSITIZED ELECTRICITY DEMAND FORECASTS

As mentioned in the previous section, the growth rates of the initial projections of electricity
sales and peak demand are very similar to those of the projections of the IEP 20132022 for
20152017. However, starting in 2018, the electricity sales growth rates for the initial
projections become higher than those recently forecasted by CEB [6].
This difference is presumably explained by such phenomena as energy efficiency and energy
savings programs, as well as structural changes to the economy of Mauritius and the drivers of
energy consumption. The data required to factor these phenomena into a bottom-up, end-use
projection procedure are not available to the WB team for the execution of this project.
Therefore, the WB team proposes adopting a pragmatic approach to consider these phenomena
in the electricity demand forecasts. The functional form of the mathematical model used for the
projections of electricity sales, to be used only in the period 20182022, will be modified, and
the new parameters introduced in the mathematical model will be fitted to more closely match
the electricity growth rates of the projections by CEB, for the base scenario, in the horizon
20182022. The assumption underlying this pragmatic approach is that CEBs modeling of the
phenomena of interest results in satisfactory projections of growth rates of the electricity
consumption in the period 20182022.
The functional form chosen by the WB team for the projections of electricity sales in the period
20182022, after empirical investigation of numerous alternatives, is the following:
= 87.83 ( ){1.070[1(2017)]}
29
The modification of the exponent of the power function results in the exponent decreasing as
the years pass. As we discuss further in this section, in this new functional form, the exponent
does not correspond to the elasticity of electricity demand in each year of the period 2018
2022, as a different exponent will be used for each year.
A fitting of the above-mentioned functional form revealed that = 0.004 is an adequate value
for the newly introduced parameter, since it allows a satisfactory reproduction of the growth
rates of the projections by CEB [6] in the base case scenario, for the horizon 20182022.
The projections obtained with the new model for 20182022, referred to as sensitized
projections in this document, are indicated in Table 3.1. Though the projections for 20152017
are not altered, they are also indicated in the table, for the convenience of the reader.
Table 3.1 Sensitized projections of electricity sales in the island of Mauritius
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

Low scenario
2,485.64
2,554.85
2,626.63
2,664.54
2,705.33
2,739.29
2,773.09
2,806.70
Base case
2,517.03
2,621.68
2,731.66
2,808.28
2,890.70
2,963.66
3,037.49
3,112.18
High scenario
2,548.44
2,689.42
2,839.54
2,957.87
3,086.25
3,203.30
3,323.40
3,446.56
Given the above results, the sensitized projections of energy sent out and of peak demand are
obtained with the same procedures described in Chapter 1. These sensitized projections are
indicated in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3.
Table 3.2 Sensitized projections of energy sent out in the island of Mauritius
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Projected energy sent-out [GWh]

Low scenario
2,701.79
2,777.01
2,855.03
2,896.24
2,940.58
2,977.49
3,014.23
3,050.77
Base case
2,735.90
2,849.65
2,969.19
3,052.48
3,142.07
3,221.37
3,301.62
3,382.80
High scenario
2,770.04
2,923.28
3,086.46
3,215.08
3,354.62
3,481.85
3,612.39
3,746.26
30
Table 3.3 Sensitized projections of summer and winter peak demand in the island of Mauritius
Year
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Projected summer peak power demand [MW]

Low scenario
457.74
470.48
483.70
490.68
498.19
504.45
510.67
516.86
Base case
463.52
482.79
503.04
517.15
532.33
545.76
559.36
573.11
High scenario
469.30
495.26
522.91
544.70
568.34
589.90
612.01
634.69
Projected winter peak power demand [MW]

Low scenario
407.39
418.73
430.49
436.71
443.39
448.96
454.50
460.01
Base case
412.53
429.68
447.71
460.26
473.77
485.73
497.83
510.07
High scenario
417.68
440.78
465.39
484.78
505.82
525.01
544.69
564.88
The adherence of the growth rates of the sensitized projections of electricity sales with the
recent projections by CEB [6] for the base case scenario is indicated in Figure 3.1.
4,000
3,500
3,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
1,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
500
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
500
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
3,000
Projected electricty sales of IEP 2013-2022 [GWh]

High scenario
Projected electricty sales of IEP 2013-2022 [GWh]

Base case
Sensitized projections of electricity sales [GWh]

High scenario
Sensitized projections of electricity sales [GWh]

Base case
Recently projected electricty sales (CEB) [GWh] Low

scenario
Sensitized projections of electricity sales [GWh] Low
scenario
Figure 3.1 Comparison of sensitized projections of electricity sales and recent forecasts by CEB, for high
(left), base (center), and low (right) growth scenarios
Before moving on to the next chapter, it is worth investigating the intrinsically assumed income
elasticities of electricity consumption (sales) embedded in the sensitized projections and in the
recent projections from CEB [6] for the period 20182022. As previously mentioned, due to
the exponent of the power function used for obtaining the sensitized projections changing as
the years pass (during 20182022), this exponent no longer equals the elasticity of electricity
consumption with respect to GDP. To provide the reader with insight on the values of elasticity
embedded in the projections of this period, we provide in Table 3.4 estimates t of the elasticity
for each year t, with the elasticities being approximated with basis on the relative increments in
GDP and electricity sales, as per:
31
1
= (
1 )
1
1
1
1
Table 3.4 Estimates of elasticities t of electricity consumption (sales) to GDP embedded in sensitized
projections and in the recent projections by CEB (base case projection scenarios): 20152022
Year [-]
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Projected GDP, PPP

[Billion USD@2011]
23.0
23.9
24.9
25.9
26.9
27.9
29.0
30.1
Sensitized
Recent projections
Elasticity implicit in
projections of
of electricity sales Elasticity implicit in
sensitized
electricity sales
(CEB) [GWh] (base
recent proj. t [-]
projections t [-]
[GWh] (base case)
case)
2,517.0
1.071
2,521.0
1.116
2,621.7
1.071
2,619.0
1.002
2,731.7
1.071
2,720.0
0.985
2,808.3
0.708
2,797.0
0.714
2,890.7
0.713
2,877.0
0.694
2,963.7
0.671
2,957.0
0.740
3,037.5
0.663
3,035.0
0.702
3,112.2
0.654
3,116.0
0.710
Table 3.4 also displays estimates of the embedded elasticities t for the recent projections by
CEB [6] (these are calculated with basis on the values of GDP indicated in the table, which are
current estimates from [7]). Table 3.4 reveals that the elasticities of electricity consumption to
the GDP of the Republic of Mauritius embedded in the recent electricity sales projections from
CEB [6] for the period 20182022 are significantly lower than the elasticities of the previous
yearsand also low in absolute terms, hovering between 0.69 and 0.74. As the sensitized
projections were adjusted to reproduce the growth rates of the forecasts of the IEP 20132022,
they also display significantly low elasticities. Establishing the socioeconomic conditions that
allow attaining such low elasticities in a country with a developing economy, even when the
growth of this economy is heavily based on the services sector, is challenging, as discussed in
the following chapter.
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analyses presented in the previous chapters result in the following conclusions and the
recommendations of Part III of this report:
The bottom-up, end-use procedure adopted by CEB for its demand forecasts [6]
resulted in projections for the base case scenario that are consistent with the projections
developed by the WB team in the short term (horizon comprising the years 20152017).
The procedure adopted by CEB for generating the base case projections for this
horizonin which the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings programs, as
well as of structural changes in the economy and the electricity consumption habits of
Mauritius, are not expected to strongly affect demand forecastsis thus deemed as
adequate by the WB team.
32
The recent projections by CEB [6] obtained for the low growth and the high growth
scenarios for the period 20152017 were respectively above and below those generated
by the team for the low growth and the high growth scenarios. The difference was
significant for the low growth scenario, and less so for the high growth one.
The WB team had access to one document developed by CEB, reference [9], in which
the peak supply simulations and analyses are conducted exclusively for the base case
demand forecast scenario. This alone cannot be considered as evidence that the low and
high growth scenarios developed in the IEP 20132022 have not been used for the
planning activity, since the WB team understands that reference [9] consists of the
support material for a live presentation. The need to present technical matters in a
simplified manner in live presentations may have resulted in analyses that had been
made for the low and high growth scenarios not being presented. However, the WB
team stresses the need to develop credible scenarios that are actually used by decision
makers to develop robust expansion plans.
As for the demand projections for the period 20182022, the intrinsic elasticities
embedded in the recent projections by CEB [6] are rather low, as discussed in Chapter
3. While the WB team understands that this may be the result of energy efficiency and
energy savings programs that are expected to be developed in the future, as well as of
expected structural changes to the economy and the electricity consumption habits in
the Republic of Mauritius, these low values deserve particular attention. Establishing
the socioeconomic conditions that allow attaining such low elasticities in a country
with a developing economy, even when the growth of this economy is heavily based
on the services sector, is a challenging task.
Therefore, the WB team recommends that the evolution of the structural changes and
the energy efficiency and savings programs that are expected to allow attaining such
low elasticity values be continuously monitored, and that demand forecasts be
continuously adjusted with basis on the results of this monitoring. Furthermore, the
WB team recommends that long-term strategies for the expansion of the supply side of
the power system (generation, transmission, and distribution systems) be flexible
enough to allow for responding to any frustration of the expected effects of future
structural changes in the economy and energy consumption habits.
In light of the previous recommendations, the analyses of Part IV of this report will be
conducted both for the initial and for the sensitized demand projections elaborated in
this Part III.
33
PART IV.
ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE
Once the demand forecasts are available, the WB team proceeds to the evaluation of the supply
and demand balance in the island of Mauritius. This fourth part of the report assesses the ability
of the generation system to meet the demand for electricity, with particular focus on the years
20152017. In this short-term horizon, particularly in its first two years, time constraints would
very likely prevent any additions to the electricity generation park of the island of Mauritius
that are not already planned and under development.
This fourth part of the report is organized as follows:
In Chapter 5, the WB team assesses the ability of the generation system of the island
of Mauritius to meet peak power demand. Capacity gapsi.e., situations in which the
currently or planned installed generation capacity is insufficient for meeting peak
demand under the reliability planning criteria currently adopted in Mauritiusare
identified, and measures for managing the power system in the face of these gaps are
recommended.
The main conclusions and recommendations of Part IV are summarized in Chapter 6.
5 ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLY TO PEAK DEMAND

This chapter assesses the ability of the generation system of the island of Mauritius to meet
peak power demand. Capacity gaps are identified, and it is seen that additional capacity would
be required to meet the peak demand in the short and the long terms. However, time constraints
prevent any additions to the generation fleet in the short term. Therefore, the recommended
measures for managing the power system in the face of these gaps include actions ranging from
optimization of the scheduling of maintenance of existing generators to the implementation of
emergency voltage reduction to manage peak demand.
The data available for the execution of the analyses of this chapter constrain the choice of the
methods and procedures used for the assessment of peak demand supply. Basically, the analysis
approach refers to a scenario-based evaluation of adequacy of supply to peak demand,
employing procedures analogous to those used in Mauritius for the development of the
Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) 2013-2022. As discussed in further detail in the
recommendations of this Part IV, though the deterministic analysis of peak supply has a long
history of application in the Mauritian power system, stochastic (i.e., probabilistic) analyses
may be required for improving the planning activities in the island. The importance of
probabilistic methods becomes greater in the presence of renewable energy with intermittent
production, such as wind and solar power.12
12
As will be seen further in this document, after the delivery of the initial version of this report the WB team
received the results of planning studies conducted by CEB, in which generation expansion plans were
prepared and evaluated with help of the Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP) Package and using
probabilistic methods. A critical appraisal of this analysis with WASP software is provided further in Annex
34
5.1 Input data and assumptions

In this section, the WB team presents the input data and the assumptions adopted for the
analyses of this chapter. The methodology and the results of the quantitative assessment are
presented in subsequent sections, and are followed by recommendations for managing the
generation system in the island of Mauritius.
5.1.1 Current installed generation capacity
This section describes the generation capacity existing in the island of Mauritius as of the end
of 2014. The description reflects the WB teams understanding of the current stance of the
generation facilities in the island of Mauritius, based on the information available for the
development of the analyses.
5.1.1.1
CEBs generation facilities
The power plants owned and operated by CEB in the island of Mauritius as of the end of 2014
are indicated in Table 5.1.
I of this document. As this appraisal will indicate, the modeling of renewable power plants and of system
operation for the purposes of these analyses requires improvements.
35
Table 5.1 CEBs generation fleet as of the end of 2014

Power station
Unit
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G11
G12
G1
G2
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Fuel
Champagne
Ferney
Tamarin
Le Val
Rduit
La Ferme
Ccile
Magenta
La Nicolire
Midlands Dam
(a)
Manufact.
Sulzer
HFO 380 cSt

(heated)
Thermal, plant,
diesel engine,
slow speed
HFO 180 cSt
Thermal, plant,
diesel engine
Pielstick
HFO 180 cSt
Thermal, plant,
diesel engine,
medium speed
Wartsila
HFO 180 cSt
Thermal, plant,
diesel engine,
medium speed
Mitsui/
Hyundai
Wartsila
MAN
Jet A1
(c) (kerosene)
G3
Hydro plant
-
Nicolay
Technology
Thermal, plant,
open-cycle
gas turbine
GE
Hydro plant, francis turb.

Hydro, turgo/pelton turb.
N/A
Hydro plant, francis turb.
(b)
Date
commis. [-]
Capacity [MW]
Rated
Effective
1992
1993
1997
1999
2000
1978
1978
1979
1979
1981
1981
2006
2006
2006
2010
2010
2012
2012
2012
2012
1989
1989
1988
1991
24
24
30
30
30
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
11.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
15
15
15
15
15
15
9.8
9.8
21.8
21.8
22
22
30
30
30
5
5
5
5
5
5
13.8
13.8
13.8
15
15
15
15
15
15
8.5
8.5
21
21
1995
33.9
33
1984
1971
1945-1987
1961
1984
1959
1963
1960
2010
2013
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
10
9.3
4
1
1.2
1
0.9
0.35
0.35
Injectable
(a)
127.0
25.0
40.0
28.0
56.0
16.0
72.0
(d)
Data in this column entitled Injectable capacity refer to capacity that can be injected into the electricity grid and
contribute to peak power supply. See explanation further in this section.
(b)
The effective capacity of each of the Pielstick units of the Saint Louis power plant is reported as
6 MW in [10] and 5 MW in [2]. The value reported in [2] is used as a reference in this document.
(c)
The effective capacity of unit G3 of the Nicolay power plant is reported as 32 MW in [10]
and 33 MW in [2]. The value reported in [2] is used as a reference in this document.
(d)
See discussion below.
Three capacity values are informed in Table 5.1, which are defined in the following:
The rated capacity is the nameplate capacity of the generator.
The effective capacity is defined, in accordance with the definition used in [2], as the
derated capacity of a generator, due to ageing and/or mechanical/electrical constraints
inherent to the generator system.
While evaluating the peak supply analyses presented in [9], the WB team has noticed
that the capacity contributions of several of CEBs plants to the peak supply were
below the effective capacity values reported in [2]. The WB team assumes that this
difference is due to the effective capacity values not taking into account the auxiliary
36
(i.e., internal) consumption of the thermal plants, or the power losses verified up to the
point of coupling of the plants to the electrical grid. As the capacity values relevant for
the peak supply analyses are those that can be effectively fed into the grid, it is
necessary to account for deductions over the effective capacity due to auxiliary
consumption of the power plants and the internal losses to obtain the capacity
effectively injectable to the gridor injectable capacityusing the expression of the
last column of Table 5.1. Furthermore, the injectable capacity is that which can
effectively contribute to peak power supply,13 and must therefore take into account the
availability of primary energy resources for renewable generators, such as hydro plants
and wind and solar generators. The values reported in the peak supply assessments of
[9] are considered in this section as the injectable capacity of each group of CEBs
generators.
A few words on the definition of the injectable capacity of generators are in order at this point.
Ideally, the capacity with which generators can contribute to the supply of peak power (or to
the supply of electricity in conditions of scarcity, in general) should be defined based on
probabilistic simulations that aim at capturing the capacity value with which the generator
including renewable generators for which there is uncertainty and variability in the availability
of primary energy resourcescan contribute to the supply of electricity in conditions of
scarcity, under a supply risk criterion. In the technical literature, this is often termed firm
capacity.13 Yet, the calculation of firm capacity of generation resources does not seem to be a
practice currently adopted in Mauritius, which is to a great extent attributable to the historical
use of deterministic analyses for the assessment of peak supply. As a consequence, data that
allow the calculation of the injectable capacity of renewable generators are not currently
available to the WB team for the execution of the peak supply analyses.
This limits not only the choice of the methodology used for the assessment of supply to peak
demand to a deterministic procedure similar to that used in the IEP 2013-2022, but also the
determination of the values of injectable capacity of renewable generators (including hydro,
wind, and solar plants) that are used in this assessment. In fact, the procedures used in Mauritius
for the elaboration of the IEP 2013-2022, considering that the injectable capacity of solar and
wind plants is nil and that the capacity of hydro plants reflects what seems to be expected values
of generation during peak load hours in each season, are adopted in the assessments of this
chapter. Nevertheless, the recommendations of this Part IV include adopting probabilistic
methods to assess the adequacy of supply to peak power demand, and to appropriately define
the value of injectable capacity of renewable generators to be used in such probabilistic
evaluations. These topics will become increasingly important in Mauritius as the share of
renewable generators in the electricity generation matrix increases.
13
The capacity that can effectively contribute to the supply of peak demand (or, more generally, to the supply
of electricity in periods of scarcity) is often termed effective capacity or firm capacity in the technical
literature. (There are often subtle differences between effective and firm capacity, when both terms are used.)
However, as the term effective capacity is used with a different meaning in [2], we opt to use the term
injectable capacity in this report.
37
Specifically for CEBs hydro plants, the injectable capacity should be ideally defined to reflect
not only the instantaneous availability of the primary energy resources, but also the ability to
store water in hours of lower demand and turbine it in hours of peak load, for those plants with
reservoirs with at least intra-hourly regulation capacity. As the information required for such
evaluations is not available for the WB teams use, alternative and simplified methods will be
used to define the injectable capacity of these plants, as indicated in section 5.1.4.
5.1.1.2
Independent and continuous power producers
IPPs and CPPs account for a significant part of the installed capacity in the island of Mauritius
as of the end of 2014. Table 5.2 describes the main data of generators of this class.
Table 5.2 Existing IPPs and CPPs as of the end of 2014
Power station
Fuel
Technology
Date
commis. [-]
Injectable capacity [MW] per operating mode

Operating on
(a)
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
Coal or
bagasse
Coal or
bagasse
Coal or
bagasse
CEL
(Beau Champ)
Coal or
bagasse
Spreader-stoker
CTDS
Coal
Spreader-stoker
Bagassse
N/A
N/A -
Landfill gas
N/A
2011-2013 -
End of 2013 -
(d)
CTSav
CTBV
(c)
CPP bagasse only

Mare Chicose
(Storavic landfill gas)
Sarako PV farm
Solar PV
Spreader-stoker
Spreader-stoker
Spreader-stoker
N/A
Coal
Bagasse
Coal
Jun-2000
Bagasse
Coal
Aug-1997
Bagasse
Coal
Aug-1998
(b)
Bagasse
Sep-2005 -
Injectable
Aug-2007
74
65.5
62
46
27
20
22
12
30
4
(a)
The term Injectable capacity was defined previously in this section. For most IPPs and CPPs, no data that allow
differentiating between effective and injectable capacity are available. Therefore, the values considered for the peak
supply analyses of [9] have been considered as injectable capacity.
(b)
The capacity of CEL when operating on bagasse has been reported as 11 MW in [2] and 12 MW in [9]. The value
reported in [9] is used as a reference in this document.
(c)
In [11], it is reported that the group of CPPs generated 6.5 GWh in 2014. In [9], it is seen that CEB considers that
the group of CPPs will contribute 4 MW to the supply of peak demand in 2014 (and also in subsequent years). The
WB team assumes that the CPP that corresponds to these two data entries is the same, and that there was effectively a
CPP operating in Mauritius in 2014. As will be seen in section 5.1.2, this CPP is assumed to have its contract
terminated in 2015.
(d)
As the analyses of this section refer exclusively to the supply of peak demand, and as the data available on the
solar photovoltaic (PV) plants do not allow the calculation of any contribution of this class of projects to the supply of
peak demand, the conservative assumption of considering that the contribution of any generator of this technology to
the supply of peak demand is nil is adopted in this document. Refer to Chapter 7 for comments on the calculation of
the contribution of solar PV plants to the supply of peak demand.
The team understands that most CPPs have been required to stop operations in Mauritius, as
reported in [2]. Yet, it is reported in [11] that the group of CPPs generated 6.5 GWh in 2014,
which suggests that at least one of these generators of this class was operational in this year.
Although the capacity of this CPP is not provided in this reference, it is seen in [9] that CEB
considers that the group of CPPs would contribute 4 MW to the supply of peak demand in 2014.
The WB team assumes that the CPP that corresponds to these two data entries is the same, and
38
that there was effectively a CPP operating in Mauritius in 2014. As will be seen in section 5.1.2,
this CPP is assumed to have its contract terminated in 2015.
The documentation made available to the WB team did not allow determining the current
installed capacity of small-scale distributed generators (SSDGs, which can be small
independent power producers [SIPPs]) in the island of Mauritius, despite the reference to the
fact that, as of the elaboration of [2], an installed capacity of 4.8 MW of such generators was
under consideration or under implementation.14 The SSDGs are assumed to be solar
photovoltaic (PV) plants for the analyses of this document. As the analyses of this section refer
exclusively to the supply of peak demand, and as the data available on the SSDGs do not allow
the calculation of the contribution of this class of projects to the supply of peak demand, the
conservative assumption of considering that the contribution of these generators to the supply
of peak demand is nil is adopted in this document. The recommendations of this Part IV contain
comments on the determination of the contribution of solar PV plants to the supply of peak
demand.
5.1.2 Programmed retirements and termination of contracts
This section enumerates retirements of generating units scheduled for the short to medium term,
as well as the IPP contracts to be terminated in this same horizon, in the island of Mauritius.
Table 5.3 reflects the WB teams understanding of the currently scheduled retirements and
contract terminations, based on the information available for the development of the analyses
in this chapter.
Table 5.3 Already planned retirements and contract terminations
Power station Unit Owner

G1
G2
G3
Saint-Louis
G4
G5
G6
CEL
N/A
(Beau Champ) N/A
CPP bagasse
N/A
only
CEB
CEB
CEB
CEB
CEB
CEB
IPP
IPP
CPP
Injectable capacity [MW]

Date
per operating mode
Manufact. commis.
[-]
Operating on Injectable
Fuel
HFO 180 cSt Pielstick
Coal or
bagasse
Bagassse
1978 1978 1979 1979 1981 1981 Aug-1998 Coal

Aug-1998 Bagasse
N/A -
25
Date of programmed retirement

or contract termination [-]
Retirement scheduled for

beginning of 2016
22 Contract termination scheduled

12 for second semester of 2015
Contract termination scheduled
4
for beginning of 2015
The contract for the CPP indicated in Table 5.3 is assumed to be terminated in 2015, as at least
one generator of this class is shown contributing to the energy supply in [11], but not in any of
14
According to the following excerpt of [2]:
The promotion of renewable energy sources to produce electricity under the SSDG project. As at today,
around 473 individual projects, which will culminate to about a total capacity of 4.8 MW in Mauritius and
200 kW in Rodrigues, are under consideration and partly implemented.
39
the subsequent years. It is worth mentioning that, in [12], Mauritian institutions mention that
there are already ongoing discussions to extend the PPA of CEL (Beau Champ)the WB team
understands that such an extension is already a response to a recommendation of the WB and
was not included in the base assumptions for previous analysis carried out by CEB and indicated
in [2] or [9]. Therefore, the extension of this PPA will be considered as one of the
recommendations listed in the following sections of this chapter, but will not be taken as
pertaining to the currently programmed retirement and contract termination schedule.
5.1.3 Programmed capacity additions and redevelopment of generating units
This section identifies capacity additions already scheduled and under implementation for the
short to medium term, as well as the already scheduled redevelopments of generating units, in
the island of Mauritius.
Table 5.4 reflects the WB teams understanding of the currently scheduled additions and
redevelopments, based on the information available for the development of the analyses in this
chapter.
Power plant
Unit
Owner
Table 5.4 Already planned capacity additions and redevelopment of generating units
Capacity [MW]
Fuel
Technology
Rated
Injectable
(a)
Medine New
NewG1
NewG2
CEB HFO
NewG3
NewG4
N/A
IPP Bagasse
N/A
> 15
> 15
> 15
> 15
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
N/A
IPP
Wind
N/A
Curepipe Point Wind Farm
N/A
IPP
Wind
N/A
29.4
New 10-MW PV Farm
N/A
IPP
Solar PV N/A
10
Small- and medium-scale DG, solar PV
N/A
SIPP Solar PV N/A
15
New HFO units

of Saint-Louis
power station
Thermal plant,
diesel engine,
medium-speed
15
15
15
15
4
0
Reference COD [-]

Second semester 2017
Beginning of 2018
Beginning of 2015
(b)
Beginning of 2016
(b)
Second semester of 2015
(b)
Second semester of 2015
(b)
In 2016 and 2017
(a)
The term Injectable capacity was defined previously in this section. For most IPPs and CPPs, no data that allow
differentiating between effective and injectable capacity are available. Therefore, the values considered for the peak
supply analyses of [9] have been considered as injectable capacity.
(b)
As the analyses of this section refer exclusively to the supply of peak demand, and as the data available on the
wind and solar PV plants do not allow the calculation of any contribution of these classes of projects to the supply of
peak demand, the conservative assumption of considering that the contribution of any generator of these technologies
to the supply of peak demand is nil is adopted in this document. Refer to Chapter 7 for comments on the calculation of
the contribution of wind and solar PV plants to the supply of peak demand.
The following considerations were relevant for the determination of the reference commercial
operations date of the generation capacity corresponding to the additions and redevelopments
indicated in Table 5.4:
New HFO units of Saint-Louis power station:

The WB team understands that there are ongoing activities to install new HFO units in
the same terrain of the existing Saint Louis power station. In fact, it is reported in [10]
that:
40
The old Pielstick Power House [] will be demolished. A new power house
shall be constructed to house 4 new 15 MW dual fuel units (LNG [liquefied
natural gas] and HFO 180 Cst) medium speed diesel engines in 2016.
However, assuming that these new units at the Saint Louis power station would be
commissioned by 2016 does not seem to be reasonable, given information from other
sources. The WB team understands that the GoM recently held a tender for procuring
the design, supply, and installation of two of these new HFO units of the Saint Louis
power station, but this tender was unsuccessful.
A more reasonable assumption would be that, if a new tender for two units is held by
the beginning of the second trimester of 2015, and if this new tender is successful, the
first of these new HFO units would be operational in the second semester of 2017. This
would allow about 3 months for the execution of any required post-tender commercial
and permitting arrangements, and 24 months for the implementation of the units.
Though the actual implementation time of the HFO units may range from 18 to 24
months, the WB team understands that it is more conservative to adopt an assumption
corresponding to the high end of this interval, at least for the reference scenario.
The WB team also assumes that a new tender for the remaining two units will be held
by the beginning of the second trimester of 2015, and that similar times would be
required for commercial arrangements and effective implementation, resulting in the
last two units being operational at the beginning of 2018.
Though these new units are reported as being able to operate on LNG and HFO in the
excerpt above, the current lack of LNG supply options in Mauritius would lead to the
use of HFO as the primary fuel, at least for the short and medium terms.
Medine New:
Little information is available on the Medine New bagasse-fired thermal plant in the
documentation made available to the WB team.
In the energy balance provided in [11], the projects output is considered from 2015
onward. For this reason, the WB team assumes that the Medine New plant is expected
to be operational at the beginning of 2015.
Aerowatt Wind Farm:

The Aerowatt Wind Farm is mentioned in [2], but the information on the expected
commercial operation date (COD) of this project contained in this reference is
considered to be outdated.
In the energy balance provided in [11], the projects output is considered from 2016
onward. For this reason, the WBs team assumes that the Aerowatt Wind Farm is
expected to be operational at the beginning of 2016.
Curepipe Point Wind Farm:
41
The Curepipe Point Wind Farm is mentioned in [2], but the information on the expected
COD of this project contained in this reference is considered to be outdated, given that
the document presumably dates from 2012.
In the energy balance provided in [11], the projects output is assumed to start in the
2015, but the fact that the total production (in GWh) of this assumption is significantly
lower than that assumed for 2016 seems to suggest that the project will not be
operational for the first months of 2015. Therefore, we assume that the Curepipe Point
Wind Farm will be operational only in the second semester of 2015.
New 10-MW PV Farm:

This unnamed New 10-MW PV Farm is mentioned in [2], but the information on the
expected COD of this project contained in this reference is considered to be outdated.
In the energy balance provided in [11], the projects output is assumed from 2015
onward. However, the total energy production (in GWh) of this assumption is
significantly lower than that assumed for 2016, which suggests that the project will not
be operational for the first months of 2015. Therefore, the WB team assumes that the
unnamed New 10-MW PV Farm will be operational only in the second semester of
2015.
Small- and medium-scale distributed generation (DG), solar PV:

In [2], which is presumably dated from 2012, it is reported that Mauritius already has
programs for incentivizing the installation of small-scale DG projects, and that an
aggregated capacity of 4.8 MW of these generators was under consideration and partly
implemented as of the publication of the IEP 20132022. It is also mentioned that the
GoM was considering implementing programs incentivizing medium-scale DG.
Yet, the most recent information on the electric energy supply and demand balance in
the island of Mauritius, contained in [11], makes no reference to the output of these
small- and medium-scale DGs. Therefore, it is assumed that these projects are yet to be
developed. A total aggregate capacity of 15 MW of these projects is assumed to be
coming online during 2016 and 2017. The reference installed capacity of 15 MW has
been obtained from [14]. These projects are assumed to be solar PV plants.
CT Power coal power station:

The WB team understands that the original PPA with the developers of the CT Power
project was signed in 2008, but several issues related to environmental licensing 15
resulted in the project being severely delayed. The project was ultimately cancelled.
New 100-MW coal power plant:
15
It is also understood that the environmental license for the CT Power project was granted in January 2013
[13], but this license included clauses that required the adjustment of the technical design of the project,
which resulted in the project developer not initiating the construction as of the drafting of this document.
42
In [2], reference is made to a new 100-MW coal project to be installed in Mauritius.

According to the reference schedule presented in [2], the first unit of 50 MW would be
commissioned in 2017, and the second unit of 50 MW in 2021.
These expected commissioning dates reported above are assumed to be outdated.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the decision of whether to install a new 100-MW coal
project in the island of Mauritius has been questioned, and that this decision should
therefore not be considered as firm for the purposes of this report.
5.1.4 Contribution of hydro plants to supply of peak demand
In the analyses of [9], the set of hydro plants owned by CEB and operating by the date of
publication of the document16 is assumed to contribute 25 MW to the supply of peak demand,
irrespective of the season (summer or winter) for which the analysis is made. However, this
procedure is criticized by NEC in [15], in which it is assumed that the hydro plants are able to
contribute 35 MW to the peak supply in January through April of each year and 15 MW from
May through December of each year, as indicated in Figure 5.1.
Source: [15]
Figure 5.1 Identification of the monthly profile of contribution of hydro plants owned by CEB to the
supply of peak demand (with the vertical axis corresponding to the injectable capacity in MW) (comparison
of values assumed by CEB and values reported by NEC in [15])
The WB team does not have data to confirm or refute any of the assumptions above, as the
ability of a hydro plant to contribute to peak supply is determined not only by its injectable
capacity and the average water inflows in a given month, but also by the existence of
possibilities to store water (even very small reservoirs, that allow only intra-daily regulation of
turbined outflows) and use it during times of highest instantaneous demand.
One striking characteristic of both CEBs [9] and NECs [15] assumptions is that they do not
account for any kind of uncertainty in hydrological conditions or short-term variability in water
inflows. The latter can be of particular importance for hydro plants that are purely run-of-river
plants (i.e., with no storage capacity whatsoever, such as for hydro plants with bulb turbines
16
Presumably not including the Midlands Dam plant that became operational in 2013, since reference [9] is
dated from February 2013.
43
located directly in river beds). The following excerpt from [2] suggests that hydrological
uncertainty is relevant for Mauritius, at least on an annual resolution:
CEB has currently nine hydroelectric power stations in operation . They account
for approximately 9% of the islands total effective capacity. In a good season (rainy),
these stations can meet 10% to 12% of the electricity demand in Mauritius, while in a
less favorable season (drought), such as in 1999, the energy produced can be as low as
2%.
Also, graphical data provided in [16] show that the profile of the production of hydro plants
can vary significantly from day to day. However, the data do not allow determining if the
variation in the production is a result solely of the variability in the instantaneous availability
of primary energetic resources, of if the reservoirs allow any inter-daily regulation capacity and
can be actively managed by CEB. The fact that the generation of hydro plants appears, in at
least one of the graphics of [16], concentrated in hours of high system loading, suggests that at
least some intra-daily regulation capacity is available, but does not allow its quantification.
The WB team does not have sufficient data to corroborate or refute either CEBs [9] or NECs
[15] assumptions. Therefore, the assumption adopted for the analysis of this report corresponds
simply to that used in the most current among the references [9] and [15].17 Therefore, it is
assumed that:
The contribution of hydro plants to the peak demand supply is 35 MW in the off-crop
season.
The contribution of hydro plants to the peak demand supply is 15 MW in the crop
season.
Yet, it is important to emphasize that the results of the peak load supply analyses are highly
sensitive to the contributions of hydro plants, especially in case these generators have reservoirs
that allow storing water in times of low demand and generating electricity during peak load
hours. This issue will be further explored in the recommendations of this Part IV.
Finally, if this production profile of the hydro plants is confirmed, there is a production
complementarity between hydro and biomass plants in Mauritius, which has an economic value
for the country in terms of resource utilization.
5.1.5 Scheduled maintenance of generation fleet
Assumptions on the programmed, preventive maintenance of the generation fleet are of utmost
importance for analyses of the supply during peak demand.
17
The possibility of using the data reported in the excerpt of [2] reproduced in this section to create scenarios
for the possible contribution of hydro plants for the peak power supply may appear, at first sight, to be a
feasible procedure. However, the data reported in this excerpt refer exclusively to the supply of energy during
a season, and as already seen, the actual contribution of hydro plants to the supply of peak power is more
closely related to the short-term variability of inflows and the storage capacity of reservoirs in the short term.
44
Divergences among the assumptions of CEB [9] and NEC [15] on the generation capacity
considered to be under scheduled maintenance for the assessment of peak supply have also been
reported in the references made available to the WB team. However, unlike the case of the
assumptions on the contribution of hydro plants to generation at peak hours, there is direct
evidence suggesting that the assumptions of [15], which indicate that the capacity considered
as under maintenance for peak supply assessments in the off-crop period is higher than that in
the crop supply period, are more adequate and should be used in this document. This evidence
is presented in Figure 5.2, in a reproduction of a figure of [2]:
Source: [2]
Figure 5.2 Capacity out due to maintenance: 20092011
While Figure 5.2 confirms that the capacity out due to maintenance in the off-crop season is
historically higher than that in the crop season, it also indicates that the values of capacity under
maintenance vary widely from month to month. It is the capacity out due to maintenance at the
instant when the power peak demand occurs that is relevant for an analysis of peak supply. As
for the case of the contribution of hydro plants to the supply of peak power, we stress that there
are differences between an average value during a crop or off-crop season and the
instantaneous value of capacity out due to maintenance. For a deterministic approach to the
analysis of the adequacy of generation capacity for the supply of peak power, such as that
currently adopted in Mauritius, it would in principle be adequate to choose a realistic, but severe
scenario for the analysis of the instantaneous value of capacity out due to maintenance. Yet, it
would be even better to use probabilistic procedures for the evaluation of the supply of peak
power demand, as discussed in Chapter 7.
The data in Table 1.6 of this report indicate that the peak demand from 2004 through 2011 has
occurred in February (2009), March (2008, 2010), November (2004, 2007), or December (2005,
2006, 2011). Figure 5.2 may be interpreted in light of this information. In 2010, the month with
the highest capacity out due to maintenance was the same month when the peak demand
occurred. The realization of the necessity of optimizing the scheduling of programmed
maintenance that arose from this event may have been the reason for the shifting of the peak of
45
the curve of capacity out due to maintenance to May, verified in the curve of 2011. The lack of
data on the time of occurrence of peak demand and on the profile of the capacity out due to
management for the years 2012 and 2013 does not allow the WB team to evaluate whether the
shape of the curve of capacity out due to maintenance changed further in these years.
It is unclear to the WB team to what extent CEB is able to optimize the scheduling of
maintenance of each asset in the generation fleet in the island of Mauritius. While the company
can certainly manage the assets of its own fleet, the WB team does not have a clear
understanding of the contractual or regulatory instruments CEB has to influence the decisions
of IPPs and CPPs.
Due to all of these uncertainties, the WB team adopts for its analysis an assumption on the
amount of capacity out due to maintenance that was clearly declared in the documentation made
available for the execution of the work. Again, the assumption adopted for the analysis will
correspond to that used in the most current references [9] and [15] in which peak supply
analyses are made. This will be done despite the fact that the values considered in the analyses
of peak supply in both references seem to be average values across different periods: average
values throughout the year in the case of [9], and average values within the crop and the offcrop seasons in the case of [15]. The most current among these references is [15], dated October
2013. Therefore, the following assumptions will be adopted for the analyses of the reference
case in this report:
The amount of capacity not available due to maintenance during the off-crop season is
90 MW.
The amount of capacity not available due to maintenance during the crop season is 30
MW.
It is worth emphasizing that the assumptions of [15] seem to have been presented to the IPPs,
since it is reported in this reference that the IPPs confirmed the possibility of reducing the
scheduled maintenance average from 90 MW to 75 MW in the off-crop season. As there is no
evidence that this reduction has already been achieved, the value of 75 MW will not be adopted
for the reference case (though it will be recommended that a value of 75 MW be sought to
ensure the security of supply in the short term, as indicated in section 5.4).
Furthermore, the values of capacity out due to maintenance are assumed to vary proportionally
to the total injectable capacity in the system, as the years evolve. For instance, if the capacity
out due to maintenance was 90 MW in the off-crop summer season of 2014, when the total
injectable capacity was 617 MW, a decrease of the injectable capacity during the off-crop
summer season to 570 MW in a subsequent year would result in the assumed value of
generation out due to maintenance reducing to 83.1 MW.
5.2 Methodology
Historically, it has been a common practice to use deterministic procedures for evaluating peak
supply adequacy in small-scale power systems predominated by thermal plants, and in which
the size of the larger generating units represents a relevant share of the total installed capacity.
46
The implementation of such deterministic procedures is generally straightforward, with

comparatively lower requisites on input data and computational tools.
However, deterministic assessment procedures increasingly lose their applicability as the sheer
scale of a power system increases, and/or as the share of renewable generators in a given system
increases. This is the case not only for more recently maturing renewable generation
technologies, such as wind or solar power, but also for traditional technologies, such as
hydropower with or without regulation reservoirs. The discussion about hydro plants in section
5.1.4 clearly illustrates the need to use stochastic methods to assess the adequacy of supply of
peak power demand. Or, in a system in which hydro plants are the only source of uncertainty
and variability in the short term, at the very least stochastic methods should be used to define
the value of their contribution to the supply of electricity under predefined reliability criteria,
and then use these values within a deterministic assessment.
Yet, as previously stated, the data available for the execution of the analyses of the WB team
constrain the choice of the methods and procedures used for the assessment of supply to peak
demand. With the information at hand, the WB team opts to execute a scenario-based
deterministic procedure, analogous to that used by Mauritian institutions for the elaboration of
the IEP 2013-2022. Therefore, the methodology used for the analysis of peak supply in this
report is that described in the following excerpt of [2]:
"The present [i.e., used for the IEP 20132022] generation planning methodology
adopts a deterministic approach. A demand-supply balance matrix, which forms
the basis to determine the need for capacity addition, takes into consideration:
(1) The updated effective capacities of existing plants; and
(2) The N minus 2 criterion, that is, one of the largest generators is assumed to
be on maintenance, while the second largest generator is assumed to be on
breakdown.
In the demand-supply matrix, the peak demand forecast is inflated by 10% to cater
for spinning reserve.
Then, the Reserve Capacity Margin (RCM), which determines the need for
capacity addition in a particular year, is calculated as per the formula below:
(n
i=1 Effective Capacityi )(Capacity Out)MTCE (Capacity Out)BDOWN
(Forecasted Peak Power+10% Spinning Reserve)
where,
n is the total number of generating units connected to the grid;
(Capacity Out)MTCE is the maximum capacity that is assumed to be unavailable
due to maintenance;
(Capacity Out)BDOWN is the largest generating unit assumed to be unavailable due
to breakdown.
47
If the RCM is below a threshold value (say, 5%), it triggers the addition of new
plant(s) in the system."
Reference [9] indicates that the currently adopted threshold value for the RCM is indeed 5
percent. The adequacy of this criterion is not discussed in this report.
A relevant aspect of the operationalization of the deterministic methodology described above
is the definition of the operating conditions for which the supply-balance matrix mentioned in
[2] is constructed. In recognition of the differences in the peak power demand between the
summer and winter seasons, of the fact that new capacity additions may happen during a given
year and not only at its beginning, and of the distinction of the generation profile of the crop
and off-crop seasons, three operating conditions are considered for the assessment of peak
supply in this report. Those operating conditions (referred to simply as conditions in the
remainder of the report) are indicated in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5 Operating conditions considered for the assessment of peak supply
Season\Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Summer or
winter
Summer:
Summer peak demand.
Winter:
Winter peak demand.
Crop or
off-crop
Off-crop season:
IPPs with dual technologies running on coal.
Bagasse-only plants not operating.
Capacity out dur to maintenace: 90 MW.
Contribution of hydro plants to peak supply: 35 MW.
Crop season:
IPPs with dual technologies running on bagasse.
Bagasse-only plants operating.
Capacity out dur to maintenace: 30 MW.
Contribution of hydro plants to peak supply: 15 MW.
Summer
Off-crop
Winter
Crop
Condition:
Nov
Dec
Summer:
Summer peak
demand.
Summer
Crop
The need to analyze scenarios in which the summer peak happens both at the beginning and at
the end of the year is defined not only by the historical dates of occurrence of the summer peak
indicated in Table 1.6, but also by Figure 5.3, which indicates the monthly peak power demands
in the island of Mauritius for 20042008. The figure shows that, historically, the summer peaks
during the off-crop season can be as high as those during the summer crop season. This situation
is likely to be maintained in the future, when the air-conditioning load of the commercial sector
is expected to remain significant.
48
390
380
Peak demand [MW]
370
360
2004
350
2005
340
2006
330
2007
2008
320
310
300
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: [17]
Figure 5.3 Monthly peak power demands in the island of Mauritius for 20042008
The input data and assumptions described in section 5.1 determine the supply side of the balance
matrix for each of the previously mentioned conditions. Naturally, IPPs and CPPs contribute to
the supply of peak demand with their injectable capacity, for each of the operating modes (coal
or bagasse, if applicable).
Individual analyses of supply to peak power will be made for the initial and sensitized demand
projections of Part I of this report, and in each case for the low, base, and high demand
projection scenarios. Based on the analyses, recommendations for the management of the power
sector in Mauritius will be presented, taking into account the initial and sensitized demand
projections. Because these projections do not differ for the years between 2015 and 2017, the
same recommendations apply to both sets of projections, initial and sensitized, for this initial
horizon. It will also be seen that the recommendations for 2018 are equivalent in practice. Yet,
the capacity gaps identified for the period between 2019 and 2022 differ between the two sets
of projections, which would lead to different schedules of new capacity additions in both
scenarios. This topic will be discussed further in section 5.5.
5.3 Assessment of supply to peak demand under currently programmed additions

and retirements to the generation system
This section presents the results of the assessment of the adequacy of supply to peak demand,
considering the currently programmed additions, redevelopments, and retirements of generators
in the island of Mauritius, as well as the currently programmed termination of contracts. This
current schedule of events is described in detail in section 5.1.
5.3.1 Results of the quantitative assessment
The tables of this section summarize results, and Chapter 10 of Annex II shows the
corresponding detailed supply and demand balance matrices.
The reserve capacity margins obtained for each year from 2015 through 2022, operating
condition, and demand projection scenario are shown in Table 5.6. Values that comply with the
minimum 5 percent capacity reserve margin criterion are shown in light gray, to facilitate the
49
identification of the values that do not comply with this criterion, and thus require actions from
Mauritian institutions.
Table 5.7 indicates the capacity that would be required in the island of Mauritius from 2015
through 2022 and operating condition to meet the criterion of a minimum 5 percent capacity
reserve margin currently applied in Mauritius. As expected, the results for the initial and
sensitized demand projections are identical for the 20152017 horizon, but the differences
between the years start in 2018 and grow as the years pass.
Table 5.6 Reserve capacity margin in 20152022 and condition, per demand scenario
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months
2015
Reserve capacity margin [%] in year and condition

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low
Summer Off-Crop Jan-May

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
8.4%
-3.6%
-12.3%
0.3%
-10.8%
-14.7%
-2.5%
-7.8%
-7.7%
6.5%
-5.2%
-10.3%
3.5%
-7.9%
-12.7%
0.8%
-10.3%
-15.0%
-1.9%
-12.7%
-17.2%
-4.5%
-15.0%
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
7.0%
-4.8%
-14.5%
-2.3%
-13.0%
-18.0%
-6.2%
-11.4%
-12.4%
1.1%
-10.1%
-16.1%
-3.2%
-13.9%
-19.4%
-7.0%
-17.2%
-22.5%
-10.6%
-20.4%
-25.5%
-14.0%
-23.5%
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
5.7%
-5.9%
-16.7%
-4.7%
-15.2%
-21.1%
-9.8%
-14.8%
-16.9%
-4.1%
-14.6%
-21.5%
-9.4%
-19.4%
-25.5%
-14.0%
-23.5%
-29.3%
-18.4%
-27.4%
-32.9%
-22.5%
-31.0%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
8.4%
-3.6%
-12.3%
0.3%
-10.8%
-14.7%
-2.5%
-7.8%
-6.4%
8.0%
-3.9%
-7.8%
6.4%
-5.3%
-9.0%
5.1%
-6.5%
-10.1%
3.8%
-7.6%
-11.2%
2.5%
-8.7%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
7.0%
-4.8%
-14.5%
-2.3%
-13.0%
-18.0%
-6.2%
-11.4%
-11.2%
2.5%
-8.8%
-13.7%
-0.4%
-11.4%
-15.9%
-2.9%
-13.6%
-17.9%
-5.3%
-15.7%
-19.9%
-7.5%
-17.7%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
5.7%
-5.9%
-16.7%
-4.7%
-15.2%
-21.1%
-9.8%
-14.8%
-15.7%
-2.7%
-13.4%
-19.2%
-6.8%
-17.0%
-22.2%
-10.2%
-20.0%
-25.0%
-13.4%
-22.9%
-27.7%
-16.5%
-25.7%
Table 5.7 Capacity gap to meet target reserve margin in 20152022 and condition, per demand scenario
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months
Capacity gap to meet target reserve capacity margin [MW]

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
37.8
0
29.8
51.6
0
15.1
14.7
0
1.0
30.1
0
16.4
44.5
0
30.8
59.4
0
45.6
74.6
0
60.8
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
50.7
0
42.7
71.8
6.0
35.3
42.9
0
29.1
67.1
0
53.3
90.1
10.9
76.4
114.1
32.2
100.4
139.0
54.4
125.3
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
4.8
63.7
0
55.7
92.6
24.5
56.1
72.2
0
58.5
106.1
25.1
92.4
138.9
54.3
125.1
173.4
85.0
159.6
209.7
117.4
196.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
37.8
0
29.8
0.0
51.6
0
15.1
0.0
7.7
0
0
0.0
15.5
0
1.8
0.0
22.0
0
8.3
0.0
28.5
0
14.8
0.0
35.0
0
21.3
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
50.7
0
42.7
0.0
71.8
6.0
35.3
0.0
35.3
0
21.6
0.0
51.2
0
37.4
0.0
65.2
0
51.5
0.0
79.4
1.4
65.7
0.0
93.8
14.2
80.1
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
4.8
63.7
0
55.7
92.6
24.5
56.1
64.1
0
50.4
88.8
9.7
75.1
111.3
29.8
97.6
134.4
50.4
120.7
158.1
71.4
144.4
50
Table 5.8 summarizes the previous results, indicating the maximum capacity gap verified in
each year. Separate results are shown for the sensitized and initial set of demand projections
for the years after 2018. Also, results are shown for the base case and the high growth forecast
scenarios in Table 5.8. Naturally, any capacity additions that suffice to meet demand in the base
case forecast scenario also suffice to cover the needs of the low growth scenario. For the sake
of conciseness, the WB team opts to omit the results of the low growth scenario in Table 5.8.
One of the reasons for indicating the results for the base case and the high growth scenario is
that, as will be seen in section 5.4, even with the implementation of emergency measures to
ensure adequate capacity in the short term (20152017), if demand grows vigorously as
projected in the high growth scenario, there may be capacity shortages in the island of Mauritius
in the short term.
Table 5.8 Capacity gap to meet target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand scenario
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
50.7
71.8
4.8
63.7
92.6
35.3
51.2
65.2
79.4
93.8
42.9
67.1
90.1
114.1
139.0
64.1
88.8
111.3
134.4
158.1
72.2
106.1
138.9
173.4
209.7
5.3.2 Summary of recommendations for the short and long terms

In the face of the capacity gap indicated in Table 5.8, the WB team makes the following general
recommendations, which will be further detailed in later sections:
Recommendations for the short term (20152017):

In the short term, time constraints would very likely prevent any additions to the
generation park of the island of Mauritius that are not already planned and under
development.
Therefore, the recommendations to meet the capacity gaps in the period 20152017
refer to enhancing the operation of the existing system, fast tracking generation projects
already in the pipeline, and extending the operation of existing generation assets that
are scheduled for decommissioning or of IPPs whose contract is scheduled for
termination.
Even if these measures are implemented, the island of Mauritius may face capacity
shortages if the demand grows as indicated in the high growth scenario.
The recommendations for the short term are further developed in section 5.4 of this
chapter. The effect of their implementation is simulated in this section.
Recommendations for the long term (20182020):

For the long term, new capacity additions to the generation park of the island of
Mauritius are possible.
51
Furthermore, projections of the rate of demand growth and expectations about the
effects of energy efficiency and energy savings programs can be adjusted as time
passes, which can lead to revisions of the schedule of necessary additions to the
generation fleet.
However, it is prudent to evaluate at present actions needed to ensure generation
adequacy in the first year of this horizon (2018). This is due to the simulation results
indicating that a significant capacity gap would occur already in the initial months of
2018, especially in the high demand growth scenarios, for both the initial and the
sensitized sets of demand projections.
For the period 20192022, the firm capacity additions required to meet the criterion of
reserve capacity margin differ significantly if the initial and the sensitized sets of
demand projections are used. Since these two sets differ with respect to assumptions
about the evolution of the Mauritian economy and consumption habits, as well as of
the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings programs, the WB team
recommends that these factors be continuously monitored, and that the projections of
demand growth be continuously updated to account for reasonable and quantifiable
effects of these variables over demand growth.
The recommendations for the long term are further developed in section 5.5 of this
chapter. The effect of their implementation is simulated in that section.
For both the short and the long terms, it is recommended that Mauritian institutions improve
the methodologies and procedures used for planning an expansion of the generation system. In
particular, the penetration of renewable generators, such as wind and solar power plants, is
expected to grow significantly in the island of Mauritius already in the years until 2017.
Therefore, updating planning methodologies to adequately consider the contribution of these
plants to the supply of peak power demand is an indispensable measure that can even
significantly affect the recommendations presented above. Recommendations on updating and
adjusting planning procedures and methodologies are presented in Chapter 7. These
recommendations are based not only on the findings of this Part IV of the report, but also on
the findings of Annex I, in which recent probabilistic assessments conducted by CEB with help
of the WASP software are appraised.
Having summarized these general recommendations, we proceed to discussing them in detail
and simulating their effect on the adequacy of supply to peak demand.
5.4 Recommendations for the short term (20152017)

As previously mentioned, time constraints very likely prevent any short-term additions to the
generation park of the island of Mauritius that are not already planned or under development.
Therefore, the recommendations to meet the capacity gaps in 20152017 refer to enhancing the
operation of the existing system, fast tracking generation projects already in the pipeline, and
extending the operation of existing generation assets that are scheduled for decommissioning
or of IPPs whose contract is scheduled for termination. These recommendations are detailed in
52
section 5.4.1, and the effects of their implementation are indicated with the help of the results
from numerical simulations in section 5.4.2.
5.4.1 Detailed short-term recommendations
The recommendations for the short term presented in section 5.3.2 are discussed in detail in this
section.
(1) Optimizing maintenance schedules from CEBs plants and IPPs:
The analysis of section 5.1.5 shows that the amounts of generation capacity not
available for production due to outage vary widely across the months of the year. In
fact, at least for the period 20092011, there was a tendency for the capacity out due to
maintenance in the off-crop period to be significantly higher than the capacity out
during the crop period.
This is partly attributable to the maintenance of IPPs that can operate both on coal and
on sugarcane bagasse, which account for a significant share of the installed capacity in
the island of Mauritius. As these generators operate continuously during the crop
season, under comparatively lower unitary costs of production with bagasse,
maintenance is required during the off-crop season. However, the off-crop season refers
to the initial months of the year, in which demand is particularly high due to summer
temperatures and energy consumption from air conditioning. Therefore, the periods
with the most capacity out due to maintenance tend to coincide with the period of
highest demand in the island of Mauritius, which is clearly not an optimal situation.
For this reason, optimizing the maintenance schedules from CEBs plants and from
IPPs can strongly contribute to the adequacy of generation supply in the island of
Mauritius. The WB team recommends that particular emphasis be put into achieving
an optimized maintenance schedule.
CEB can directly control the scheduling of the maintenance of its generation fleet, and
the optimization of this parcel of the installed capacity in Mauritius can presumably be
achieved with comparatively little effort. Yet, the WB team did not have access to
information that allows determining what contractual or regulatory instruments would
allow CEB to influence the maintenance scheduling decisions of IPPs. Assuming that
the remuneration of IPPs that can choose among alternative fuels does not depend on
the time of the year (crop or off-crop season) or the fuel used in their plants (bagasse
or coal), these agents have incentives to produce more energy simply when their unitary
cost of production is loweri.e., during the crop season, using bagasse as a fuel. This
would explain why the maintenance of these plants is scheduled for the off-crop season.
If there are not contractual mechanisms to incentivize IPPs to schedule their
maintenance during the crop season, and no regulatory mechanisms of any other sort
53
that would allow CEB to guide its maintenance decisions,18 the potential of
optimization of maintenance schedules for the Mauritian generation park as a whole
may be severely limited.
The WB team does not have access to information that allows evaluating to which
extent the phenomena listed in the previous paragraph are relevant. Therefore, to
determine the simulated effect of the recommended optimization of maintenance
schedules, the WB team resorts to [15], which reports that the possibility of reducing
the amount of generation capacity out due to maintenance during the off-crop season
to 75 MW was confirmed by the IPPs before NEC. Assuming that optimizing
maintenance schedules would reduce the capacity out due to maintenance by only 16.7
percent (from 90 MW to 75 MW) in the off-crop season is a conservative assumption,
Mauritian power sector institutions should seek to further optimize their maintenance
schedules.
Considering this, the simulated effect of optimizing maintenance schedules, for the
quantitative analyses of this section, will be as follows:
In 2015: The WB team assumes that the IPPs have operated continuously with
bagasse during the crop season of 2014, and so no changes to the maintenance
profile of the off-crop season of 2015 are possible.
In 2016 and subsequent years: The WB team assumes that 75 MW of

generation capacity will be out due to maintenance during the off-crop season
of 2016 and all subsequent years (a value that has already been confirmed as
feasible by IPPs before the NEC, as indicated in [15]). As a result, the average
maintenance during the crop period would increase to 40.7 MW.19 Optimizing
the maintenance during 2015 and all subsequent years results in the greater
capacity under preventive maintenance during the off-crop season.
We stress that the assumptions above deal only with average maintenance values during
the crop and off-crop seasons. The relevant quantities would be the maintenance values
at the instant of occurrence of the peak demand, but data are not currently available to
estimate these values.
A further optimization of the maintenance of plants, with maintenance concentrated at
the time after the summer peak, is also important. Mechanisms to allow this further
optimization should be sought in Mauritius. For instance, new PPAs signed with IPPs
may contain incentives that allow maintenance to be scheduled, considering what is
optimal for the system of the island of Mauritius as a whole. Also, CEB should seek to
18
For instance, rules in the grid code specifying that CEB has to approve the preventive maintenance
schedules of generators in advance, subject to constraints that ensure no harm to the physical integrity of the
generation equipment.
19
40.7 MW = [ (90 MW 5 months + 30 MW 7 months) 75 MW 5 months ) / (7 months) ].
54
optimize the scheduling of maintenance of its own generation fleet, considering

whatever constraints may exist for the scheduling of the maintenance of IPPs.
(2) Negotiating a new PPA with IPP CEL Beau Champ for 2015 and 2016:
CEBs existing PPA with the IPP CEL Beau Champ is expected to terminate in the
second semester of 2015, as reported in section 5.1.2.
Assuming the operation of this plant is still technically feasible, the WB team
recommends the negotiation of a new PPA with this generatorat least a bridge
PPA to ensure supply from the second semester of 2015. Mauritian institutions recently
advised the WB team that negotiations for the extension of this PPA are already under
way, and that these negotiations refer to a bridge PPA whose duration would be 3
years [12]. Considering this, the PPA would expire only at the second semester of 2018.
Better contractual conditions in the PPA with CEL Beau Champ may be sought, but
CEB may have to be prepared for a difficult negotiation with this IPP, since this
negotiation would occur during a time of a scarcity of capacity.
(3) Fast tracking the addition of new HFO units of Saint Louis power station:
As indicated in section 5.1.3, there are ongoing plans to install four new HFO units in
the same terrain of the existing Saint Louis power station. The recently held tender for
procuring the design, supply, and installation of two of these new 15-MW HFO units
was unsuccessful, but Mauritian institutions are assumed to hold a new tender by the
end of the first trimester of 2015.
The WB team recommends fast tracking the efforts to add new HFO units to the Saint
Louis power station. This would require the following:
The new tender for the new HFO units would aim at procuring the four new
15-MW units all together.
The tender is to be held by the end of the first trimester of 2015.
The post-tender commercial and permitting arrangements should be fast

tracked, requiring a maximum of 3 months.
The tender documentation should have a clause indicating that the units will
be commissioned by the second semester of 2017.20 This would allow 18 to 24
months for the implementation of the units, after post-tender commercial
arrangements are taken care of.
With these measures, the new HFO units of the Saint Louis power station, totaling 60
MW of injectable power, would be operational by the second semester of 2017.
20
In a previous version of the report, the WB team recommended seeking the commissioning of these
generating units already in the beginning of 2017. However, Mauritian institutions recently advised the WB
team that a commissioning of these units before the second semester of 2017 is unlikely to be achieved [12].
55
(4) Implementing emergency voltage reduction in 2016 and 2017:

The WB team recommends the implementation of emergency voltage reduction in
2016 and 2017.
Emergency voltage reduction refers to the procedure of operating the electricity grid at
voltages lower than usualfor instance, considering the lower bound of interval of
allowable voltages at the transmission grid as 0.90 per unit (p.u.), instead of 0.95 p.u.,
if this is the range typically used in a given jurisdiction. This allows a reduction of the
total active power demand in the system in consequence of the physical dependence of
active and reactive power requirements of loads with respect to voltages. The
emergency voltage reduction can be implemented such that voltagesand therefore
active power demandare reduced only during peak hours.
The exact reduction of the active power load as a response to the reduction of voltages
in the electricity grid depends on several factors. These include the nature of the
equipment consuming electricity in the island of Mauritius, the losses in the electricity
grid, and the exact profile of voltages throughout the transmission and distribution
network.
In a previous version of this report, the WB team assumed that the emergency voltage
reduction will suffice to reduce the instant power demand at peak hours by 5% in the
island of Mauritius. Given the predominance of commercial loads in the island, this
was relatively a conservative assumption, as data from the technical literature suggest
that higher reductions in load can be achieved with 5% reductions of the voltage
levels.21 The WB team also advised that detailed studies should be carried out as soon
as possible to determine the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result of
emergency voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius, since the effects of emergency
voltage reduction depend on several technical characteristics of each power system
(and detailed information on these characteristics, specifically for the power system of
the island of Mauritius, was not made available to the WB team).
However, Mauritian institutions recently advised the WB team that, according to
estimates of their technicians, the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result
of emergency voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius would be 5 MW [12]. The
WB team understands that this may be a very conservative assumption. The team also
understands that the potential for demand reduction attainable as a result of emergency
voltage reduction is more properly expressed as a percentage of demand, rather than as
an absolute value in MW. Yet, due to the lack of detailed technical information on the
power system of Mauritius, the WB team opts to represent the effects of emergency
21
For instance, reference [18] reports that empirical data on the relationship of the active power load of
commercial consumers during summer days led to the fitting of the following model: P = P0 (V/V0)1.25,
where P is the active power load, V is the voltage, and the subindex 0 indicates the nominal values of both
quantities. With this model, reducing the operating voltage from 0.96 per unit (p.u.) to 0.92 p.u. would result
in a reduction of 5.18 percent in the active power load.
56
voltage reduction as informed by Mauritian institutions. The WB team stresses its

recommendation that detailed studies should be carried out as soon as possible to
determine realistic estimates of the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result
of emergency voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius, since the possibility of
adopted in this report may eliminate22 the necessity of implementing recommended
measure number (1) above, and alleviate possible difficulties in meeting peak demand
in the island of Mauritius.
The WB team recommends that Mauritian institutions evaluate the possibility of
adopting a commercial solution for emergency voltage reduction, and that priority be
given to the implementation of this procedure, such that it can be put in place in the
first months of 2016.
Naturally, the equipment, computational tools, and expertise required to implement
emergency voltage reduction would be available for Mauritian institutions for the use
in other situations after 2017, once this solution is deployed. However, the WB team
does not recommend considering emergency voltage reduction as a long-term solution
to meet capacity gaps. Such a solution should preferably be adopted only in times of
emergency. Rather, the equipment and the expertise resulting in the implementation of
emergency voltage reduction may be adopted in the island of Mauritius to optimize
voltages for operation within the traditional allowable range, under normal operating
conditions.
(5) Extending the operation of the Pielstick engines of the Saint Louis power station:
Furthermore, the WB team recommends extending the operation of the Pielstick
engines of the Saint Louis power station through 2016 and the first semester of 2017,
such that these units are retired only at the second semester of 2017 (and not at the
beginning of 2016, as indicated in section 5.1.2).
The extension of the operation of these units during 2016 is of particular relevance for
the analyses. In fact, even if all of the previous recommendations of this sectioni.e.,
(1) to (4)are implemented, the quantitative simulations indicate that there would still
be a relevant capacity gap in 2016 and the first semester of 2017. Maintaining the
Pielstick units of the Saint Louis thermal plant in operation would help overcome this
capacity gap, since these units have an aggregate injectable power of 25 MW.
If extending the operation of these units is not possible, it may be necessary to further
reduce voltages in the summer crop season of 2016, in order to achieve a reduction in
peak load, via the emergency voltage reduction procedure described in the previous
recommendation, much higher than the 5 MW currently estimated by Mauritian
22
The WB team understands that Mauritian institutions are currently concerned about the availability of
spare parts for the Pielstick engines and the physical integrity of the equipment, due to its advanced age.
This justifies the perception that Mauritian institutions may seek to avoid implementing recommendation
(1).
57
technicians. As previously mentioned, if technical studies still to be carried out

determine that the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result of emergency
voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius is significantly higher than that
corresponding to the conservative assumption adopted in this report, extending the
operation of the Pielstick engines of the Saint Louis plant may not be required.
These recommendations apply for both sets of demand projection presented beforethe initial
and sensitized setssince these projections do not differ for the years from 2014 through 2017.
5.4.2 Simulation of implementation of recommendations for the short term
Simulations of the supply to peak demand of the island of Mauritius have been executed under
consideration of the implementation of all the recommendations of the WB team for the short
term (20152017). Summarized results of the simulations are presented in the tables of this
section. The corresponding supply and demand balance matrices are shown in Chapter 11 of
Annex II.
The results of simulations show that implementing the recommendations for the short term is
expected to significantly relieve the capacity gaps identified in the island of Mauritius for the
base case projections of demand growth. However, the island may face capacity shortages if
the demand grows as indicated in the high growth scenario, even if all of the above-mentioned
measures are implemented.
Table 5.9 shows the reserve capacity margins obtained for each year from 2015 through 2022,
operating condition, and demand projection scenario, after the implementation of the
recommendations of section 5.4.1. Again, values that comply with the minimum 5 percent
reserve capacity margin criterion are shown in light gray, to facilitate the identification of the
values that do not comply with this criterion.
The results of these and other tables of this section are shown not only for 20152017, but also
for subsequent years. This is to provide insight on the long-term effects of optimizing the
maintenance schedules in the island of Mauritius (which is the only recommendation indicated
in section 5.4.1 that would affect the supply and demand balance matrices in the years after
2017).
58
Table 5.9 Reserve capacity margin in 20152022 and conditions, per demand scenario (with
recommendations for 2015-2017 period implemented)
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months
2015

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
10.8%
-1.4%
0.0%
-0.6%
6.7%
-5.1%
0.0%
-3.3%
10.8%
-1.6%
0.0%
-1.4%
4.3%
-7.2%
0.0%
-7.6%
1.3%
-9.8%
0.0%
-10.1%
-1.4%
-12.2%
0.0%
-12.4%
-4.0%
-14.5%
0.0%
-14.7%
-6.5%
-16.8%
0.0%
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
9.4%
-2.6%
0.0%
-3.2%
4.0%
-7.6%
0.0%
-7.1%
6.5%
-5.4%
0.0%
-6.4%
-1.1%
-12.0%
0.0%
-13.6%
-5.3%
-15.7%
0.0%
-16.9%
-8.9%
-18.9%
0.0%
-20.2%
-12.4%
-22.1%
0.0%
-23.2%
-15.8%
-25.1%
0.0%
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
8.1%
-3.8%
-5.6%
1.3%
-9.9%
-10.7%
2.4%
-9.0%
-11.2%
-6.1%
-16.4%
-19.1%
-11.3%
-21.1%
-23.2%
-15.8%
-25.1%
-27.1%
-20.1%
-28.9%
-30.8%
-24.2%
-32.5%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
10.8%
-1.4%
0.0%
-0.6%
6.7%
-5.1%
0.0%
-3.3%
10.8%
-1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
5.7%
-5.9%
0.0%
-5.0%
4.1%
-7.3%
0.0%
-6.2%
2.8%
-8.5%
0.0%
-7.4%
1.6%
-9.6%
0.0%
-8.5%
0.4%
-10.7%
0.0%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
9.4%
-2.6%
0.0%
-3.2%
4.0%
-7.6%
0.0%
-7.1%
6.5%
-5.4%
0.0%
-5.1%
0.3%
-10.7%
0.0%
-11.1%
-2.5%
-13.3%
0.0%
-13.3%
-4.9%
-15.4%
0.0%
-15.4%
-7.3%
-17.5%
0.0%
-17.4%
-9.5%
-19.4%
0.0%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
8.1%
-3.8%
-5.6%
1.3%
-9.9%
-10.7%
2.4%
-9.0%
-9.9%
-4.8%
-15.2%
-16.8%
-8.7%
-18.8%
-19.8%
-12.1%
-21.7%
-22.7%
-15.2%
-24.6%
-25.5%
-18.3%
-27.3%
Table 5.10 indicates the capacity that would be required in the island of Mauritius from 2015
through 2022, and the operating condition to meet the criterion of a minimum 5 percent reserve
capacity margin currently applied in Mauritius.
Table 5.10 Capacity gap to meet target reserve margin in 20152022 and condition, per demand scenario
(with recommendations for the 20152017 period implemented)
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.6
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
11.9
0.0
14.8
0
27.3
0.0
29.2
0
41.7
0.0
44.0
0
56.6
0.0
59.3
8.0
71.8
0.0
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
13.5
0.0
11.5
0
2.1
0.0
8.2
0
40.1
0.0
51.8
1.3
64.3
0.0
74.8
21.9
87.3
0.0
98.8
43.2
111.3
0.0
123.7
65.4
136.2
0.0
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
3.3
0
26.5
32.2
0
22.8
37.6
5.9
69.4
90.8
36.1
103.3
123.5
65.2
136.1
158.1
95.9
170.6
194.4
128.3
206.9

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.6
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
4.9
0.0
0.2
0
12.7
0.0
6.7
0
19.2
0.0
13.2
0
25.8
0.0
19.7
0
32.2
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
13.5
0.0
11.5
0
2.1
0.0
0.7
0
32.5
0.0
35.9
0
48.4
0.0
49.9
0
62.4
0.0
64.1
12.3
76.6
0.0
78.5
25.1
91.0
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
3.3
0
26.5
32.2
0
22.8
29.5
0
61.3
73.5
20.7
86.0
96.0
40.7
108.5
119.1
61.3
131.7
142.8
82.4
155.4
each year. Separate results are shown for the sensitized and initial sets of demand projections
for the years after 2018. Also, results are shown for the base case and the high growth forecast
59
scenarios. As in section 5.3.1, results for the low demand growth scenario are omitted from the
table with summarized results, for the sake of conciseness.
Table 5.11 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand scenario (with
recommendations for the 20152017 period implemented)
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
13.5
11.5
26.5
32.2
32.5
48.4
62.4
76.6
91.0
40.1
64.3
87.3
111.3
136.2
61.3
86.0
108.5
131.7
155.4
69.4
103.3
136.1
170.6
206.9
The results indicate that the capacity gaps verified for the base case demand projections are
sensibly reduced, but still result in violations to the 5 percent reserve capacity margin that are
2.5 percentage points in 2016 and 2.1 percentage points in 2017, as seen in Table 5.9. These
correspond to a capacity gap of 13.5 MW in 2016 and 11.5 MW in 2017, as shown in Table
5.11. This means that the remaining capacity gaps can be eliminated by operating the system
under stricter operating conditionsi.e., slightly violating the existing supply reliability
criterion. Alternatively, the technicians in Mauritius might seek to obtain a demand decrease
via emergency voltage reduction that is above the very conservative estimates of 5 MW
indicated in [12]. The implementation of higher levels of emergency voltage reductions, aiming
to reduce a larger portion of the load and therefore avoid even these violations of at most 2.5
percentage points, is an emergency measure that can be adopted if its feasibility is determined.
However, Table 5.11 shows that, if demand grows vigorously as projected in the high growth
scenario, there may be more significant capacity shortages in the island of Mauritius in the short
term, even with the implementation of the emergency measures to ensure capacity adequacy in
the interval between 2015 and 2017.
Finally, equivalent increments in the injectable generation capacity corresponding to the
implementation of the measures indicated in section 5.4.1 are summarized in Table 5.12. Due
to its summarized nature, the table implicitly contains several simplifications, indicated in the
comments in the far-right column. For instance, the results of the emergency voltage reduction
are only shown for the base case scenario of the sensitized demand projections. The effects of
implementing these measures have been presented in detail in section 5.4.1, above, and the
complete numerical results of their implementation are presented in the tables of Annex II of
this report.
60
Year
Calendar season
2015
Summer Winter
Summer
2016
Winter
Summer
Crop/off-crop season
Off-crop
Crop
Off-crop
Crop
(1) Optimizing
Not yet implemented
11.4
-12.0
-10.7
mantenance
Equivalent
(2) "Bridge" PPA with
Not yet
increase in
12
12
22
12
12
implem.
IPP CEL Beau Champ
injectable
(3) Fast tracking of new
capacity due to
Not yet implemented
units of St. Louis plant
implementaion
(4) Emergency
of measurement
Not yet implemented
5.5
5.5
5.5
voltage reduction
[MW]
(5) Extending operation
Not yet implemented
25
25
25
of Pielstick units of St.L.
2017
Winter Summer
Off-crop
Crop
Comment
Table 5.12 Equivalent increments in the injectable generation capacity corresponding

to the implementation of previously described measures
16.9
-12.4
-12.4
(a)
22
12
12
(b)
60
30
(c)
5.5
5.5
5.5
(d)
25
Measure no
longer active
(e)
(a)
Reported values correspond to the incremental effect of the measure. Incremental effect is calculated by assuming all
other measures (2)(5) were implemented, and simulating the subsequent implementation of measure (1). Effects vary with
time due to the assumption of proportionality of the capacity under maintenance with respect to the injectable capacity of the
system, with different proportionality factors for the crop and off-crop seasons. A decrease in the capacity out due to
maintenance in the off-crop season is assumed to lead to an increase in the capacity out due to maintenance during the crop
season, which explains the negative values in the table. Refer to section 5.4.1 for further clarification on this topic.
(b)
The original PPA with IPP CEL Beau Champ is assumed to be active until the first
semester of 2015 in the reference scenario. Therefore, the effect of entering the new "bridge"
PPA will be felt starting in the second semester of 2015. The "bridge" PPA would expire only
at the second semester of 2018.
(c)
The results of fast tracking these units are the following: the first set of new units of the St. Louis power
plant (30 MW of injectable capacity) would be operational at the second semester of 2017, instead of just at
the very end of this year; the second set of new units of the St. Louis power plant (30 MW) would be
operational at the second semester of 2017, instead of the beginning of 2018. Refer to section 5.4.1 for further
clarification.
(d)
Values reported are reductions in peak demand multiplied by 110%, since a reduction of % in demand would result in a
demand of (1+10%)% in generation requisites due to the 10% spinning reserve criterion. A reduction in demand is not
rigorously equivalent to an increase in the available capacity for the purposes of the calculation of the RCM, as the RCM is
defined as the quotient of the available capacity divided by 110% of the demand, as detailed further in this report. However,
the simplification of reporting the reduction of demand as an increase in generation capacity is made here to simplify the
presentation of results. For simulations of the full effect of the emergency demand reduction, refer to the tables of Annex I.
The results of the tables of this report that indicate the aggregate effect of all measures do not consider any simplification of
the results and were taken directly from the full simulations of Annex II.
(e)
Though the units would be kept operable through 2016, there are concerns about the physical integrity
of the equipment, due to the advanced the age of the engines.
5.5 Recommendations for the long term (20182022)

After presenting the recommendations to ensure the adequacy of the supply to peak power in
the island of Mauritius in the short term, the WB team proceeds to discussing the details of the
recommendations for the period 20182022.
In the long term, new capacity additions to the generation park of the island of Mauritius are
possible. However, given the time typically needed for the construction of new capacity,
meeting the capacity gaps expected to occur in 2018 will require Mauritian institutions to take
actions in the short term. While planning for subsequent years of the horizon is important to
devise long-term strategies for the power system in the island of Mauritius, these indicative
plans should be adjusted in accordance with the updated demand projections.
61
The recommendations summarized in section 5.3.2 are presented in detail in the following
section, and the effects of their implementation are indicated with the help of the results from
numerical simulations in section 5.5.2.
5.5.1 Detailed long-term recommendations
The long-term recommendations presented in section 5.3.2 are discussed in detail in this
section.
(1) Procurement of additional firm generation capacity to be commissioned in the
beginning of 2018:
It is prudent to evaluate the actions needed to ensure generation adequacy in the first
year of this horizon (2018). As seen in Table 5.11, the island of Mauritius is expected
to suffer significant capacity gaps in 2018, partly as a result of the cancelling of the CT
Power project. If demand grows vigorously in the coming years (i.e., if the high demand
growth scenario materializes), the capacity gap would reach high values in 2018, even
with energy savings and energy efficiency programs, as well as structural changes in
the Mauritian economy and energy consumption habits.
To prevent the occurrence of these capacity gaps in 2018, it is crucial to initiate actions
in the short term. As will be seen in the following paragraphs, even if a technology with
a relatively short implementation time is considered as the alternative to cover the
capacity gaps by the beginning of 2018, the latest possible date for the procurement
process to start is January 2016.
Table 5.11 indicates that the highest capacity gap verified in 2018, before the adoption
of the measures introduced in this section, is 69.4 MW. To prevent this capacity gap
from materializing, the WB team recommends the procurement of additional
generation capacity.23
Given the time frame required for the implementation, two technological alternatives
for the capacity additions are analyzed in this document (both with 70 MW of injectable
capacity):
a. A 2 36 MW gas turbine thermal plant, running initially on diesel;
b. A 3 24 MW HFO-fired internal combustion engine.
23
The reader will notice that the simulations that resulted in the capacity gaps reported in Table 5.11 were
executed considering that the optimization of maintenanceone of the measures recommended in section
5.4.1will have long-term impacts that continue in 2018 and the following years. The other measurements
cannot, with the information currently at hand, be considered as long-term solutions. In 2018, the new units
of the St. Louis power plant will be already operational, and therefore a solution involving the advancement
of their operation simply does not apply. The WB team assumes that the extension of the operation of the
aged Pielstick units of the St. Louis power plant beyond 2017 is not physically possible, nor is the further
extension of the PPA with the IPP CEL Beau Champ beyond 2017. Considering emergency voltage reduction
as a measure to deal with capacity gaps in the long term is not a recommended practice.
62
Gas turbines are designed to run on natural gas, and have the best performance (high
thermal efficiency, low operating and maintenance costs) burning this fuel. They can
run on high quality diesel when gas is not available. It is recommended that the exact
specifications of the equipment in alternative (a) be made to ensure the quick
conversion of the gas turbines for operation on natural gas at a later point in time, such
that these units can be seen as the gas-turbine phase of a combined-cycle gas-fired
thermal plant in the future.24
The comparison of both alternatives is based on a screening of their performance
regarding the annual capacity utilization costs (in USD per MW installed per year). It
is worth mentioning that, again, the data available for the analysis constrain the choice
of the methodology. Ideally, more formal expansion-planning and decision-making
methodologies should be used, in line with the discussions of Chapter 7 of this report,
but this is not possible at this point in time.
The assumptions adopted for the screening of the annual capacity utilization costs of
the two candidate technologies are indicated in Table 5.13.
Table 5.13 Assumptions for screening of annual capacity utilization costs of candidate technologies
Diesel-fired gas
turbine
Item
Installed capacity [MW]
Capital expenditures [USD/kW installed]
Internal losses and internal consumption up to point of injection to the grid [%]
Forced outage rate [%]
Average unavailability due to scheduled maintenance [%]
Variable O&M costs [USD/MWh]
Fixed O&M costs [USD/kW installed/year]
Heat rate [MJ/MWh]
Average fuel costs during lifetime [USD/GJ] (fuel in plant)
Implementation schedule
Licensing, contracting, land acquisition, engineering
[months] (parcel of capex [%]) From notice to proceed to completion
Plant lifetime [years]
Accounting depreciation rate [%/y]
Equity costs [%/y]
Debt to asset ratio [%]
Debt costs (in real terms) [%]
Debt
Amortization period [years]
Grace period [years]
Income taxes [%]
2 36 (= 72)
980
2.50%
2.50%
5.00%
2.85
15
11,500
17.21
6 months (20%)
15 months (80%)
25
4%
15%
80%
5%
10
1
15%
HFO-fired internal
combustion engine
3 24 (= 72)
1,140
2.50%
2.50%
5.00%
3
20
10,425
14.27
6 months (20%)
20 months (80%)
25
4%
15%
80%
5%
10
1
15%
Assumptions based on best estimates of the WB team for the relevant variables, taking into account
specific characteristics of Mauritius and with basis on the processing of data from several references,
including [2], [5], [9], [10], [14], [15] and [17].
24
Nonetheless, an alternative for the procurement of the additional generation capacity to come online by
2018 involving the immediate procurement of a natural gas-fired gas turbine is not considered in this
document, since issues related to the scale of the long-term demand for natural gas in Mauritius have to be
carefully factored into the assessment. This requires a more formal long-term planning analysis, under full
consideration of the recommendations of Part V of this document.
63
Besides the times for the implementation of the power plants indicated in Table 5.13,
it is assumed that the procurement process would involve an additional period of 4
months at the very least for administrative procedures, such as the organization of a
tender. Considering this, the WB team understands that, to ensure that the plants are
operational by January 2018, the procurement process would need to be initiated:
a. In January 2016, in the case of the gas turbine thermal plant; and
b. In August 2015, in the case of the HFO-fired internal combustion engine.
The results of the screening of the capacity utilization costs of the two candidate
technologies are indicated in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 Screening of capacity utilization costs for two candidate technologies
From the figure, it is clear that the costs of the gas-turbine plant running on diesel are
lower than these of the HFO-fired internal combustion engine for all plant utilization
factors below approximately 7 percent.
Considering the results of this analysis, the alternative recommended for the additional
firm generation capacity to be commissioned at the beginning of 2018 is the 2 36
MW gas-turbine thermal plant, running initially on diesel. This recommendation is
based on the following observations:
The contracting of the additional capacity to be commissioned by 2018 is

essentially an emergency action to secure reliability of supply in Mauritius,
and the amount of capacity to be commissioned is determined under the
currently available planning criteria and methodologies.
64
Further detailed generation expansion planning exercises, taking into account

the recommendations of Chapter 7 of this report, should be carried out as soon
as possible to determine the most economical capacity additions considering
the detailed operational and economic requirements of the power system of the
island.
Given the emergency feature of this capacity addition to be commissioned by
the beginning of 2018 and the fact that the analyses substantiating the choice
of the technology are simplified in nature, the WB team understands it is
convenient to choose the technology with the lowest levels of fixed investment
costs, which is the gas turbine.
The capacity additions to be determined by further, more detailed planning

exercises are likely to consist of base-load or mid-merit power plants, meaning
that they will account for a significant parcel of the generation requirements in
Mauritius.
Therefore, it is expected that the emergency capacity to be commissioned by
the beginning of 2018 will have a relatively low plant utilization factor in the
long term. A possible benchmark for this plant utilization factor is the Nicolay
power plant, which is currently a peaking thermal generation unit in the island
of Mauritius, whose typical plant utilization factor is approximately 3 percent
[2].
Figure 5.4 indicates that for such low plant utilization factors the gas-turbine
running on diesel is the most competitive technology.
Assuming that Mauritian institutions observe the recommendation that the

exact specifications of the equipment in alternative (a) be made to ensure the
quick conversion of the gas turbines for operation on natural gas at a later point
in time, these units may be used as the gas-turbine phase of a combined-cycle
gas-fired thermal plant in the future, if and when the supply of natural gas,
most likely in the form of LNG, becomes a feasible option for Mauritius.
Considering the estimates of the WB team about the time required for the
implementation of the gas turbine plant and the execution of the stages of the
procurement process that precede this implementation, the procurement
process for the gas turbine plant would need to be initiated by January 2016 at
the latest.
On the other hand, the procurement process of the HFO-fired internal
combustion engine would need to be initiated by August 2015 at the latest.
The longer time available between the present date and the latest date at which
the procurement process of the gas turbine alternative would have to be
initiated may allow adjustments of the generation capacity expansion
alternative for the year 2018, as indicated in the following paragraphs.
65
The fact that the procurement process can start at the latest by January 2016 for the gas
turbine plant results in there being a period of time available for Mauritian institutions
to improve the methodologies and procedures for power system planning, as indicated
in Chapter 7 of this report, and eventually reassess the recommendation of the gas
turbine. If this improvement is made within this time window and it includes the
adoption of a methodology that, among other items indicated in Chapter 7, allows the
correct determination of the contributions of wind and solar plants to the supply of peak
demand, the recommendations on the amount of capacity to be procured as an
emergency action to prevent the occurrence of capacity gaps in 2018 may be revised
and adjusted.
The WB team stresses, however, that if such an improvement does not occur within this
time frame, the recommended action is to proceed with the procurement of additional
generation capacity, as indicated in this section. That is to say, if no new and improved
planning methods and procedures are implemented in Mauritius up until the critical
date for the starting of the procurement process, it is recommended to proceed with the
procurement of the amount of generation capacity that the currently applied planning
methodology indicates is needed to prevent problems with reliability of supply in 2018,
since no other formal and consolidated assessment methodology will be available to
support expansion planning decisions.
(2) Continuously monitoring the structural determinants for electricity demand and
updating demand growth:
The results of Table 5.11 indicate that the capacity additions required to meet the -5
percent criterion of reserve capacity margin differ significantly between the initial and
the sensitized sets of demand projections.
As seen in Chapter 3, these sets of projections differ in that the effects of energy
efficiency and energy savings programs, as well as the effects of structural changes in
the economy and energy consumption habits, result in significantly lower demand
growth in the island of Mauritius from 2018 onward, in the sensitized demand
projections. In fact, the analyses of Chapter 3 indicated that the current assumptions of
Mauritian institutions about the effects of these phenomena are rather ambitious, with
a significant decrease in the implied elasticity of electricity consumption with respect
to GDP growth starting in 2018.
consumption habits, as well as of the effects of energy efficiency and energy savings
programs, be continuously monitored, and that the projections of demand growth be
continuously updated to account for reasonable and quantifiable effects of these
variables over demand growth.
(3) Firm capacity additions in the long term:
Considering the ambitious nature of the assumptions about energy conservation and
structural changes that underlie the sensitized set of demand growth projections, as well
66
as the significant drop in the implied elasticities of demand to GDP for the demand
projected in the long term, the WB team uses the initial set of demand projections as
the reference scenario for determining the new capacity additions required from 2019
onward.
Therefore, Table 5.14 presents recommendations for long-term firm capacity additions,
starting in 2019. For the assessments on which the table is based, it is assumed that the
2 36 MW gas-turbine thermal plant indicated in item (1) of this list was commissioned
in the beginning of 2018.
The determination of the exact technology to correspond to the capacity additions of
Table 5.14 should be the result of detailed planning efforts that take into account the
Table 5.14 Firm capacity additions (projects not currently under consideration or development)
recommended for Mauritius in the period 20192022
Year
2019
90.0
90.0
2020
90.0
2021
45.0
135.0
2022
45.0
180.0
5.5.2 Simulation of implementation of the long-term recommendations

The simulations of the supply to peak demand of the island of Mauritius in the long term assume
the implementation of all the long-term recommendations of the WB team (20182022)
presented in the previous section. The starting conditions for the simulations of this section
correspond to the results of section 5.4.2i.e., the short-term recommendations are considered
to be implemented as well.
Summarized results of the simulations are presented in the tables of this section. The
corresponding supply and demand balance matrices are shown in Chapter 12 of Annex II.
The simulations show that implementing the long-term recommendations is expected to result
in the practical elimination of the capacity gaps identified in the island of Mauritius for the base
case and the high growth projections of demand growth. The capacity additions are determined
based on the initial set of demand projections, which do not take into account the effects of
energy efficiency and energy savings programs or the effects of structural changes in the
Mauritian economy or consumption habits that result in lower demand growth during 2018
2022 in the sensitized set of projections. Therefore, the elimination of capacity gaps is also
verified for the sensitized set of projections.
The reserve capacity margins obtained for each year, operating condition, and demand
projection scenario, after the implementation of the recommendations of section 5.5.1, are
shown in Table 5.15 and Table 5.16. The results indicate the capacity that would be required in
the island of Mauritius in each year and operating condition to meet the criterion of a minimum
5 percent reserve capacity margin currently applied in this system.
67
Table 5.15 Reserve capacity margin in 20152022 and conditions, per demand scenario (with
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months
2015

2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
10.8%
-1.4%
0.0%
-0.6%
6.7%
-5.1%
0.0%
-3.3%
10.8%
-1.6%
0.0%
9.5%
17.3%
4.4%
0.0%
15.2%
28.6%
14.5%
0.0%
12.2%
25.3%
11.5%
0.0%
15.9%
29.9%
15.6%
0.0%
19.3%
34.2%
19.4%
0.0%
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
9.4%
-2.6%
0.0%
-3.2%
4.0%
-7.6%
0.0%
-7.1%
6.5%
-5.4%
0.0%
3.9%
11.2%
-1.0%
0.0%
7.7%
20.3%
7.1%
0.0%
3.6%
15.7%
2.9%
0.0%
5.6%
18.4%
5.4%
0.0%
7.4%
20.8%
7.5%
0.0%
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
8.1%
-3.8%
-5.6%
1.3%
-9.9%
-10.7%
2.4%
-9.0%
-1.4%
5.6%
-6.0%
0.9%
12.6%
0.2%
-4.3%
6.9%
-4.8%
-3.6%
8.1%
-3.8%
-3.2%
8.8%
-3.1%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-1.9%
10.8%
-1.4%
0.0%
-0.6%
6.7%
-5.1%
0.0%
-3.3%
10.8%
-1.6%
0.0%
11.0%
18.9%
5.8%
0.0%
18.4%
32.2%
17.7%
0.0%
17.0%
30.6%
16.2%
0.0%
22.6%
37.4%
22.3%
0.0%
28.1%
44.0%
28.2%
0.0%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-3.1%
9.4%
-2.6%
0.0%
-3.2%
4.0%
-7.6%
0.0%
-7.1%
6.5%
-5.4%
0.0%
5.3%
12.8%
0.4%
0.0%
10.8%
23.8%
10.1%
0.0%
8.1%
20.7%
7.4%
0.0%
11.9%
25.4%
11.6%
0.0%
15.5%
29.9%
15.6%
0.0%

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
-4.3%
8.1%
-3.8%
-5.6%
1.3%
-9.9%
-10.7%
2.4%
-9.0%
0.0%
7.1%
-4.7%
3.8%
15.9%
3.2%
0.0%
11.7%
-0.6%
2.3%
14.6%
2.0%
4.3%
17.3%
4.4%
Table 5.16 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in year and condition, per demand scenario
(with recommendations for the 20152017 period implemented)
Dem. proj.
scenario
Operating
condition
Months

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Initial,
low

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.6
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
Initial,
base

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
13.5
0.0
11.5
0
2.1
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
Initial,
high

Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
3.3
0
26.5
32.2
0
22.8
0
0
6.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
low
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0.6
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
base
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
13.5
0.0
11.5
0
2.1
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
0.0

Sensitiz.,
Winter Crop
Jun-Oct
high
Summer Crop
Nov-Dec
0
0
0
3.3
0
26.5
32.2
0
22.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
each year. The table shows that the capacity gap verified in the high growth scenario of the
initial set of projections is slightly more than 6 MW for 2018. This corresponds to a violation
of the reserve capacity margin criterion of 1.0 percentage point, which is deemed as allowable
by the WB team, given the conservative character of the high growth, initial projections and
the time constraints for the implementation of new generation.
68
Table 5.17 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in year, per demand scenario (with
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High
2014

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
13.5
11.5
26.5
32.2
2022
6.2
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter assesses the supply and demand balance in the island of Mauritius, with particular
emphasis on the years between 2015 and 2017.
The main conclusions and recommendations arising from this analysis can be grouped in two
categories: (1) recommendations to ensure adequacy of the supply to peak power demand in
the short term (20152017), and (2) recommendations regarding firm capacity additions in the
long term (20182022). Recommendations on how to strengthen capacities to undertake power
sector planning in Mauritius, including those referring to methodological aspects of planning,
are indicated in the following chapters of the report.
The following sections of this chapter summarize the conclusions and recommendations of each
category. The previous chapters of Part IV present details on the conclusions and
recommendations.
6.1 Ensuring the adequacy of the supply to peak power demand in the short term
The results of simulations of the supply to peak demand in the island of Mauritius revealed
important capacity gaps for the period 20152017. The term capacity gap is used here in
reference to a situation in which the existing or planned installed generation capacity is
insufficient for meeting peak demand under the reliability criteria currently adopted for
Mauritius.
Table 6.1 indicates the projected capacity gaps, if the current expansion plan for the generation
system of the island of Mauritiusi.e., the currently programmed additions to, redevelopments
of, and retirements of generators, as well as the currently programmed termination of
contractsis used to assess supply to peak power demand.
Table 6.1 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand
scenario, under the current generation expansion plan
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
50.7
71.8
4.8
63.7
92.6
35.3
51.2
65.2
79.4
93.8
42.9
67.1
90.1
114.1
139.0
64.1
88.8
111.3
134.4
158.1
72.2
106.1
138.9
173.4
209.7
69
In the short term, time constraints would very likely prevent any additions to the generation
park of the island of Mauritius that are not already planned and under development. Therefore,
the measures recommended by the WB team to eliminate the capacity gaps in this horizon refer
to enhancing the operation of the existing system, fast tracking generation projects already in
the pipeline, and extending the operation of existing generation assets that are scheduled for
decommissioning or of IPPs whose contract is scheduled for termination. Specifically, these
measures are:
(1) Optimizing maintenance schedules from CEBs plants and IPPs, with the main goal of
reducing the volume of generation capacity under maintenance during the off-crop
summer season.
(2) Negotiating a new PPA with IPP CEL Beau Champ, to ensure that this plant contributes
to the supply of peak power demand until 2018, since the plants original PPA is
expiring in the second semester of 2015. Mauritian institutions recently advised the
WB team that negotiations for the extension of this PPA are already under way, and
that these negotiations refer to a bridge PPA whose duration would be of 3 years.
(3) Fast tracking the addition of new HFO units of the Saint Louis power station, to enable
the commissioning of four new generating units, each with 15 MW of injectable
capacity, until the second semester of 2017.
(4) Implementing emergency voltage reduction in 2016 and 2017, to reduce peak power
demand at times of low reserve capacity margins, by reducing the operating voltages
in the electricity grid. Detailed studies should be carried out as soon as possible to
determine a realistic value for the maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result
of emergency voltage reduction in the island of Mauritius,25 since the possibility of
adopted in this report may eliminate26 the necessity of implementing recommendation
(1), above.
(5) Extending the operation of the Pielstick engines of the Saint Louis power station
through 2016, such that these units are retired only at the second semester of 2017.
As indicated in Table 6.2, implementing these recommendations in the short term is expected
to significantly relieve the capacity gaps identified in the island of Mauritius for the base case
projections of demand growth. The capacity gaps verified for the base case demand projections
25
Mauritian institutions recently advised the WB team that, according to estimates of their technicians, the
maximum reduction in demand attainable as a result of emergency voltage reduction in the island of
Mauritius would be 5 MW [12]. The WB team understands that this may be a very conservative assumption.
The team also understands that the potential for demand reduction attainable as a result of emergency voltage
reduction is more properly expressed as a percentage of demand, rather than as an absolute value in
megawatts.
26
The WB team understands that Mauritian institutions are currently concerned about the availability of
spare parts for the Pielstick engines and the physical integrity of the equipment, due to its advanced age.
This justifies the perception that Mauritian institutions may seek to avoid implementing the recommended
measure (1).
70
are sensibly reduced, but still result in violations of the 5 percent reserve capacity margin that
are of 2.5 percentage points in 2016 and 2.1 percentage points in 2017, as seen in Table 5.9.
These violations correspond to capacity gaps of 13.5 MW in 2016 and 11.5 MW in 2017, as
shown in Table 5.11. This means that the remaining capacity gaps can be eliminated by
operating the system under stricter operating conditionsi.e., slightly violating the existing
supply reliability criterion. Alternatively, the technicians in Mauritius might seek to obtain a
demand decrease via emergency voltage reduction that is above the very conservative estimates
of 5 MW indicated in [12]. The implementation of higher levels of emergency voltage
reductions, aiming to reduce a larger portion of the load and therefore avoid even these
violations under 3 percentage points, is an emergency measure that can be adopted if its
feasibility is determined. However, the island may face capacity shortages if the demand grows
as indicated in the high growth scenario, even if all of the above-mentioned measures are
implemented.
Table 6.2 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in 20152022, per demand scenario (with
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
0
13.5
11.5
26.5
32.2
32.5
48.4
62.4
76.6
91.0
40.1
64.3
87.3
111.3
136.2
61.3
86.0
108.5
131.7
155.4
69.4
103.3
136.1
170.6
206.9
6.2 Firm capacity additions in the long term

The results of Table 6.2 indicate that capacity additions are required to ensure the adequacy of
electricity supply for the island of Mauritius between 2018 and 2022.
In the long term, new capacity additionsthose not referring to projects already under
consideration or implementationto the generation park of the island of Mauritius are possible.
However, given the time typically required for the construction of new capacity, meeting
capacity gaps expected to occur in 2018 requires actions from Mauritian institutions in the very
short term. While planning for subsequent years of the horizon is important to devise long-term
strategies for the power system in the island of Mauritius, these plans should be adjusted in
accordance with updated demand projections.
The WB team recommends the following measures to ensure the long-term adequacy of supply
to peak demand in the island of Mauritius:
(1) Procuring additional firm generation capacity to be commissioned in the beginning of
2018. The island of Mauritius is expected to experience capacity gaps in 2018, partly
as a result of the cancelling of the CT Power project. The analyses of section 5.4.2
indicate that the highest capacity gap verified in 2018, before the adoption of the
measures introduced in this section, is 69.4 MW. To prevent this capacity gap from
71
materializing, the WB team recommends the procurement of additional firm generation

capacity.
Given the time frame required for the implementation, two technological alternatives
for the capacity additions were analyzed in this document (both with 70 MW of
injectable capacity):
a. A 2 36 MW gas-turbine thermal plant, running initially on diesel;
b. A 3 24 MW HFO-fired internal combustion engine.
These alternatives were compared based on a screening of their performance regarding
the annual capacity utilization costs (in USD per MW installed per year). It is worth
mentioning that the data available for the analysis constrained the choice of the
methodology. Ideally, more formal expansion-planning and decision-making
methodologies should be used, in line with the discussions of Chapter 7 of this report,
but this is not possible at this point in time.
Based on the results of this analysis and on other considerations detailed in section
5.5.1, the technology alternative recommended for the additional firm generation
capacity to be commissioned in the beginning of 2018 is the 2 36 MW gas-turbine
thermal plant.
Gas turbines are designed to run on natural gas, and have the best performance (high
thermal efficiency, low operating and maintenance costs) burning this fuel. They can
run on high quality diesel when gas is not available. It is recommended that the exact
specifications of the equipment in alternative (a) be made to ensure the quick
conversion of the gas turbines for operation on natural gas at a later point in time, such
that these units can be seen as the gas-turbine phase of a combined-cycle gas-fired
thermal plant in the future.
Considering the estimates of the WB team about the time required for the procurement
and implementation of the gas turbine plant, the procurement process would need to be
initiated by January 2016 at the latest. The time available between the present date and
the latest date at which the procurement process would have to be initiated would allow
for some adjustments of the generation capacity expansion alternative for 2018, if
Mauritian institutions are able to improve the methodologies and procedures for power
system planning before January 2016, considering the recommendations of Chapter 7
of this report. The WB team stresses, however, that if such an improvement does not
occur within this time frame, the recommended action is to proceed with the
procurement of additional generation capacity as indicated in this section. That is to
say, if no new and improved planning methods and procedures are implemented in
Mauritius up until the critical date for the starting of the procurement process, it is
recommended to proceed with the procurement of the amount of generation capacity
that the currently applied planning methodology indicates is needed to prevent
problems with reliability of supply, since no other formal and consolidate assessment
methodology will be available to support expansion planning decisions.
72
(2) Continuously monitoring the structural determinants for electricity demand, and
updating demand forecasts for the long term. Insight on the importance of these items
may be gained by verifying the significant difference in the capacity gaps reported in
Table 6.2 for the initial and the sensitized demand projections. As explained in detail
in Chapter 3, these sets of projections differ in that the effects of energy efficiency and
energy savings programs, as well as the effects of structural changes in the economy
and energy consumption habits, result in significantly lower demand growth in the
island of Mauritius in the sensitized demand projections. In fact, the analyses of Chapter
3 indicate that the current assumptions of Mauritian institutions about the effects of
these phenomena are rather ambitious, with a significant decrease in the implied
elasticity of electricity consumption with respect to GDP growth starting in 2018.
consumption habits, as well as of the effects of energy efficiency and savings programs,
be continuously monitored, and that the projections of demand growth be continuously
updated to account for reasonable and quantifiable effects of these variables on demand
growth.
(3) Considering the ambitious nature of the assumptions about energy conservation and
structural changes that underlie the sensitized set of demand growth projections, as well
as the significant drop in the implied elasticities of demand to GDP for the demand
projected in the long term, the WB team utilized the initial set of demand projections
as the reference scenario for determining the new capacity additions required from
2019 onward. Table 6.3 presents the resulting recommended schedule of new, firm
capacity additions.
Table 6.3 Capacity additions (projects not currently under consideration or
under development) recommended for Mauritius in the long term: 20192022
Year
2019
90.0
90.0
2020
90.0
2021
45.0
135.0
2022
45.0
180.0
The determination of the exact technology to correspond to the capacity additions of

Table 5.14 should be a result of detailed planning efforts that take into account the
Implementing the above recommendations will practically eliminate the capacity gaps in the
long term, as indicated in the table below. The capacity gap verified in the high growth scenario
of the initial set of projections is only slightly more than 6 MW for 2018. This corresponds to
a violation of the reserve capacity margin criterion of 1.0 percentage point, which is deemed as
allowable by the WB team, given the conservative character of the high growth, initial
projections and the time constraints for the implementation of new generation.
73
Table 6.4 Capacity gap to meet the target reserve margin in year, per demand scenario (with
Dem. projection
scenario
Sensitiz.
Base
Initial
Base
Sensitiz.
High
Initial
High
2014
0
0

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0
0
13.5
26.5
11.5
32.2
2022
6.2
The choices of methods and procedures for the assessment of supply to peak demand adopted
in this report were constrained by the data available to the WB team. With the information at
hand, the WB team opted to execute a scenario-based deterministic procedure, analogous to
that used by Mauritian institutions for the elaboration of the IEP 2013-2022. Nonetheless, there
are important recommendations about improving the methodologies and procedures used for
planning expansions to the Mauritian generation system. These recommendations are presented
in the following chapters.
A few words on a specific aspect of the planning criteria used in Mauritius are in order at this
point. Under the methods and procedures adopted for generation system expansion planning in
Mauritius in the context of the elaboration of the IEP 2013-2022, the contribution of renewable
power plants with intermittent output to the supply of peak power demand is considered to be
strictly nil. Continuing to use this practice may lead to an underevaluation of the attractiveness
of this class of generators as alternatives for generation system expansion planning, with the
possible consequence of limiting the future participation of renewable generators, such as wind
and solar power plants, in the countrys electricity matrix to suboptimal levels.
Probabilistic analyses carried out by Mauritian institutions were made available to the WB team
after the delivery of the initial version of the report. Yet, the modeling of renewable power
plants and of system operation for the purposes of these analyses also requires improvements,
as indicated in Annex I of the report.
These findings support the recommendations on the necessity to consolidate the modernization
of planning methods and procedures in Mauritius, in order to properly account for the
contribution of renewable generation technologies to the supply of peak power, without
disregarding the uncertainty and variability of their output. These topics are addressed in
Chapter 7.
74
PART V.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN CAPACITIES TO
UNDERTAKE POWER SECTOR EXPANSION PLANNING
Part V of the report deals with general recommendations on how to strengthen the capacity of
Mauritian institutions to plan the expansion of the power sector.
While Chapter 7 presents recommendations on methodological and procedural aspects of
generation expansion planning, the recommendations of Chapter 8 refer to institutional aspects
that are related to the planning activities.
7 METHODOLOGIES AND PROCEDURES FOR POWER SYSTEM

PLANNING
As the power system of Mauritius grows in scale and complexity, ensuring the security of
electricity supply requires that planners have access to adequate methodologies and
computational tools, and that the planning procedures are adapted to support the increased
complexities of the decision-making process.
The growth of the scale of the Mauritian power system presents various challenges to power
system planners. For instance, after the number of generating units exceeds a certain threshold,
the deterministic criteria of assessing the adequacy of supply to peak power demand under the
single forced outage of the largest generating unit may no longer reflect severe conditions with
which the system may be faced, due to the increase in the probability of having more than one
forced outage simultaneously. Also, the absolute values of yearly increments in the electricity
demand of a larger system pose additional complexities to determining the schedule of
generation capacity addition.
Furthermore, the complexity of decision making for operation and expansion planning may call
for modern methodologies and computational tools, even in small-scale systems. Such
complexity may arise, for instance, from the need to make decisions in the face of the
uncertainty about the future availability of primary energy resources, which can be a relevant
factor when the share of renewable energy in the generation matrix grows. Another source of
complexity refers to physical constraints to the generation scheduling and dispatch problem,
including the intertemporal balance of water inflows for hydro plants, unit commitment
constraints, and transmission bottlenecks, which can be more effectively and efficiently dealt
with by planners using modern computational tools, even in small-scale systems.
Throughout this report, direct reference was made to several items of the generation, operation,
and expansion planning methodologies and procedures currently adopted in Mauritius that can
be improved:
The capacity with which renewable generators whose output is highly intermittent in
the short term, such as wind and solar plants, are assumed to contribute to the supply
of peak power is considered as nil in the simulations of the IEP 2013-2022. This
assumption may lead to an underevaluation of the attractiveness of this class of
generators as alternatives for generation system expansion planning. The modeling of
75
these plants with the WASP software also presents important limitations, as discussed
in Annex I.
Evidence of [16] suggests that the scheduling of Mauritian hydropower plants can be
managed, at least on an intra-daily basis, to maximize the contribution of these plants
to the supply of peak power demand. However, the evidence does not seem to take into
account the assessments of supply to peak power demand used in the construction of
the IEP 2013-2022. Also, the modeling of hydro plants with the WASP software is
limited (though these limitations are far less significant than the limitations on the
modeling of solar and wind plants), as discussed in Annex I.
It is unclear to what extent the scheduling of the maintenance of CEBs plants is

optimized, considering the seasonal patterns of electricity demand and the availability
of IPP generation capacity. Optimizing maintenance scheduling with the help of
computational tools can have relevant impacts on system operation and expansion
costs.
Evidence of [9] seems to suggest that, though demand forecasts for different growth
scenarios are generated in Mauritius, assessments of adequacy of supply to peak power
demand focus exclusively on the base scenario, resulting in lost opportunities to ensure
the robustness of the balance of supply and demand in the long term.
The items above are particular instances of the broader phenomenon of constraints to power
system operation and expansion planning that arise from the set of methodologies, procedures,
and computational tools currently adopted in Mauritius. Therefore, the WB team recommends
that the institutions of Mauritius conduct a program to consolidate the modernization of the
methodologies, procedures, and computational tools used for power system planning in the
country. This program can include the following steps:
(1) Identifying minimum requisites for methodologies, procedures, and computer tools
used for power system operation and expansion planning in the Republic of Mauritius,
given the current state of the system and the alternatives for its future evolution.
(2) Contracting for the following products and services:
a. Computational tools that allow the implementation of the methodologies and
procedures identified in item (1), above; and
b. Training of the staff of CEB in the use of these methodologies and
computational tools, in the context of updated planning procedures.
(3) Constructing thorough databases to allow the use of the methodologies, procedures,
and computational tools indicated above.
In the following, the WB team presents three general recommendations for identifying
minimum requisites for the methodologies, procedures, and computational tools to be used by
Mauritian power system expansion and operation planners.
76
(4) Methodologies and tools that support decision making under uncertainty should be
adopted. Given the uncertainty in factors that range from consumer behavior to the
variability of energy resources for renewable generators, not to mention the availability
of transmission and generation equipment, engineers must have the right instruments
at their disposal to ensure that power system expansion is planned to minimize
numerous risksof extreme costs, severe blackouts, sustained capacity shortages, very
poor performance related to emissions, etc. Thus, it is essential to have tools that allow
applying best practices in decision making under uncertainty, such as tools that
optimize metrics as the (conditional) value at risk of costs and reliability, min-max
regret techniques, etc.
(5) The stochastic behavior of all variables in the systemagain, ranging from load to
primary energetic resources for renewable generatorsshould be adequately modeled,
with particular attention to spatial and temporal correlations among them. This allows
planners to capture complementarities and supplementarities in the behavior of these
variables, and ensure that what is simulated during the planning stage will adhere to
the situations faced in real time. Computational tools whose functionalities include
modules for the creation of scenarios that capture such statistical relationships are
evidently an essential asset for planners. Data requirements for these modeling tasks
can be significant, as well as the efforts required for data gathering.
(6) Finally, methodologies and tools should be adopted that support integrated decision
making, considering all links in the chain of power system expansion and operation
activities. For instance, alternatives for capacity expansion should be evaluated
considering all links in the hierarchical chain of planning decisions, with the technical
feasibility and economic performance of capacity expansion alternatives being
assessed under consideration of the impacts on operation costs. Assessing the impacts
of decisions on the entire chain of expansion and operation activities allows planners
to balance the structural reinforcements and operational flexibility of the power system,
and ensure the expansion plans result in operational flexibility levels that allow
maintaining the security and reliability of supply cost-effectively.
Box 7.1 (1) explains the importance of observing the three recommendations above, (2)
identifies the minimum requisites for methodologies and computational tools used in power
system expansion and operations planning, and (3) describes the general requisites for
methodologies to determine the contribution of renewable generators with intermittent output
to the ability of a system to reliability meet peak power demand.
Box 7.1 Requisites for methodology to determine the
contribution of renewable generators to the supply of peak demand
Ideally, the three requisites mentioned above should be met by a methodology and a computational
tool that aim at determining the contribution of the renewable generator to the ability of the system to
reliably meet power demanda quantity referred to as the firm capacity of the generator. In a
simplified explanation, one can think of the firm capacity of a renewable generator as its effective
capacity in a situation of systemic stress. The primary emphasis is generally on the technical stress of
77
the power systemi.e., on a situation in technical conditions, such as the unavailability of generating
units, and/or of transmission capacity, and/or of primary renewable resources, such as windthat
makes it difficult to meet the demand in the power system. Obviously, such a situation also generally
implies economic stress, as the cost of meeting demand would be higher and there may even be some
unmet demand under these conditions.
By considering the above definition, it becomes clear why the three previously mentioned requisites
support for decision making under uncertainty, capturing of spatial and temporal correlations
between different energy resources, and correct valuation considering all chains of expansion and
operation activitiesshould ideally be observed in the calculation of the firm capacity value of a
renewable generator:
First, the phenomena that determine the stress conditions of the system (availability of generating
or transmission equipment, transmission capacity, and primary renewable energy resources for
generators other than that whose capacity is calculatedand even the behavior of power demand)
are stochastic in nature, and the contribution of the renewable generator to the ability of the system
to meet demand under these stress conditions is also uncertain, due to its intermittency. The firm
capacity value is calculated for a process that has relevant consequences for the system. For
instance, it may be used as a billing determinant for capacity payments, or it may be adopted in
the process of determinative generation capacity expansion planning. As such, it is crucial to
evaluate the firm capacity value with the help of the same procedures that support decision
making under uncertainty for generation expansion, in order to ensure minimizing the operational
and economic risks resulting from the process in which the capacity value is used.
Also, only by capturing spatial and temporal correlations among the relevant stochastic variables
can one ensure that the scenarios used in the calculation for representing the stress conditions of
the system will represent the actual system behavior. That is to say, that the quality of the
estimation of the contribution of the renewable generation to the ability of the system to reliably
meet demand depends on the correct modeling of the statistical relationships between load,
availability of transmission and generation equipment, and primary renewable energy resources,
and that all of the processes that determine the behavior of these quantities often result in relevant
correlations in time and space between them.
Finally, the only effective way to evaluate the reliability in the supply of power demand is by
simulating the actual operation of the system, representing the short-term phenomena that affect
the ability of the whole supply chain to meet load in real time.
8 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS AND PLANNING OF THE POWER

SECTOR
In the WB teams view, improving certain institutional aspects of the power system planning
activityparticularly, expansion planningis of utmost importance to meet the expectations
of Mauritian society regarding reliable electricity supply.
The recommendations of the WB team presented in this section refer to three main topics: (1)
the introduction of public consultation mechanisms as part of decision-making processes in the
electricity sector; (2) the thorough and realistic consideration of the environmental and other
socially sensitive dimensions of power system expansion and operations during the planning
activities; and (3) the creation of proper institutional conditions for CEBs consideration of
energy policy guidelines during the execution of power system planning activities, and for
achieving these policy goals as a result of these planning activities.
78
Ensuring that the stakeholders of other sectors of societyelectricity consumers, generation

project developers, communities in the vicinity of planned projects, etc.are heard and have
their points of view considered, both in the process of setting energy policy goals and in the
development of power system expansion planning activities based on those goals, is also key
to ensuring that the development of the power sector meets the expectations of Mauritian
society. In fact, the numerous submissions of different stakeholders to the NEC, in the context
of the process of elaboration of the report Making the Right Choice for a Sustainable Energy
Future [15], indicate the eagerness of different segments of Mauritian society (as well as of
international institutions) to contribute to the decisions regarding the development of the
countrys electricity sector.
The WB team recommends that formal public consultation processes be organized and held by
Mauritian institutions to define the countrys energy policy goals. The team also recommends
that during the process of elaboration of power sector development plans (IEP) or documents
stating the countrys energy policy, the contributions of different stakeholders presented in the
context of these public consultations be duly evaluated by the competent entities. The obligation
to hold these consultations should be formally included in legal or regulatory instruments
defining the mandate and attributions of CEB and of the governmental bodies responsible for
the definition of the energy policy.
The WB teams believes that formal public consultation is the right approach to address
realistically and transparently environmental and all other socially sensitive issues with direct
impact on the options for expansion of the power sector in Mauritius. The GoM should promote
and conduct a formal public consultation process to discuss key energy policy issues, such as
(1) mix of primary energy resources (firm and nonfirm, domestic and imported, etc.) providing
adequate levels of security of energy supply for the country; (2) policies and rules to be met for
the use of lands and location of facilities for power generation, transmission, and distribution;
and (3) standards to be met for all types of emissions produced by electricity infrastructure in
all segments (generation plants of all technologies, transmission and distribution networks,
etc.).
The definition of those issues is a fully sovereign decision of any country, involving all
segments of its society. There are no right or wrong options in those matters, and any
organization external to the country has no say on them. What really matters is to have an open
and transparent public discussion on those topics. The GoM should promote and conduct that
public consultation process, starting with the preparation of a draft document identifying and
describing the options available for the country, and an assessment of the costs related to the
eventual adoption of each option.
It is of utmost importance that all constraints to the expansion of the power system are
considered for the definition of energy policy goals and at the expansion planning stage, and
that the costs of mitigating those constraints are realistically assessed already at those stages,
in order to allow the proper comparison of different power system expansion alternatives and
avoid cost overruns and delays during the implementation stage of power system expansion.
79
Clear and preferably standardized protocols should support decision makers in the tasks of
comparing alternatives for power system expansion. These protocols should establish clear
(and ideally measurable) criteria for the assessment of the costs and benefits of a project,
considering all potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The assessment should
cover all stages of a projects lifecycle: conception, implementation, operation and, in specific
cases, dismantlement. Guidelines prepared by several multilateral institutions, offering
countries the possibility of customization to their particular requirements, are available to assist
in the creation of such protocols. Examples of such guidelines, for the specific case of
hydropower plants, are presented in [22] and [23].
From an institutional point of view, this task may require close cooperatione.g., for the
exchange of information and the understanding of environmental constraints to power system
expansionbetween the planning authorities and the governmental bodies responsible for
environmental licensing. Nonetheless, particular attention should be directed to avoiding that
the consideration of the environmental dimension within the power system expansion planning
activity is reduced to the objective of obtaining environmental licenses as just another planning
task. That is to say, the main goal should not be merely obtaining the environmental licenses
and permits for projects already at the planning stage, but to ensure that power system
expansion plans are coherent with the expectations of society regarding the environment, and
that the costs of compliance with these expectations are properly assessed. As a result, this goal
will allow a meaningful and comprehensive comparison of expansion alternatives under
consideration of all of the relevant costsincluding, but not limited to, the costs of mitigation
of environmental impacts. In fact, such a thorough and complete comparison may even reveal
the competitiveness of expansion alternatives that could result in some environmental impacts,
but whose impacts can be mitigated at relatively low costs.
The public consultation processes can provide valuable inputs for the consideration of the
environmental dimension of power system expansion, as it is a channel for the expression of
the preferences of the society regarding the environment.
From an organizational point of view, it is important that public consultation processes are
given adequate publicity, that they are executed within a time window that allows the
participation of all stakeholders interested in the energy planning activities, and that the
procedures for the submission of contributions from these stakeholders are simple and effective,
to encourage participation. Public consultations should be held with enough antecedence with
respect to the publication of the electric system expansion plans, to allow for the processing of
contributions from all sectors of Mauritian society and the execution of any modifications to
the plans eventually required as a result of accepting the contributions. Draft versions of the
electric system expansion plans should be made available when the public consultation process
takes place, and the time window between the official call for initiating the public consultation
process and the end of the period for receiving contributions from the public should be sufficient
to allow for the processing of the information of these draft plans by interested stakeholders.
Regarding the third topic, the main guidelines of the Mauritian energy policy are indicated in
the Long-Term Energy Strategy20092025 [19]. Yet, it has been verified that important
80
policy goals indicated in this document, including the targets for renewable energy and the
higher participation of modern coal plants with efficiencies of 4045 percent,27 have not been
achieved. With this in mind, the WB team presents the following recommendations for the
GoM regarding the creation of proper conditions for the consideration of energy policy
guidelines during the execution of planning activities by CEB, and for meeting these policy
goals as a result of these planning activities:
Implement mechanisms to allow governmental bodies (including the Ministry of Public

Utilities) to regularly monitor the compliance of the power system expansion activity
with energy policy goals.
Increase the frequency of updating and publishing energy policy goals,28 taking into
account not only the status of compliance of current plants with long-term goals, but
also any conjuncture constraints that may delay the attainment of these goals.
Enhance the preparedness of CEB to carry on actions required to meet policy goals,
through workforce capacity building.
Establish clear differentiation between the attributions of setting the energy policy (by
governmental bodies directly affiliated with the state government) and of executing
power system expansion and operation under the guidelines of this policy (by CEB).
Make sure that other governmental policies (e.g., fiscal and industrial, for infrastructure
development, environmental protection) are consistent with the objectives of the
energy policy and enable the achievement of its goals.
A few comments on the two last recommendationsthe need to differentiate the attributions
of setting the energy policy and executing power system expansion and operation, and the
assurance of consistency between the energy policy and other governmental policiesare in
order at this point.
The very fact that the energy policy needs to be inserted within a coherent set of governmental
policies, including those mentioned in the last bullet of the previous list, is one of the most
relevant drivers for the need to clearly separate policymaking and execution of power system
expansion and operation. Naturally, the technical evaluations of the governmental body in
charge of executing the expansion and operation of the system (CEB, in the case of Mauritius)
are valuable inputs for the decisions of the institutions in charge of policymaking. But these
decisions require the consideration of the insertion of the energy policy within a more
comprehensive range of strategic national goals, which is a topic under the competence of
entities reporting directly to the nations government.
27
It is important to emphasize that all of the IPPs operating on coal in the island of Mauritius predate the
Long-Term Energy Strategy20092025, according to the data on the commissioning dates reported in [2].
28
Reference [19], the last document to which the WB team had access that contains energy policy guidelines
and goals, is dated from 2009.
81
Box 8.1 provides the reader with an overview of the institutional organization of the
governmental bodies in charge of setting the energy policy in Brazil, highlighting the need to
ensure the coordination of different governmental attributions while defining the energy policy.
Box 8.1 Overview of the institutional organization of the governmental bodies
in charge of setting energy policy in Brazil
The National Council for Energy Policy (CNPE), and the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) are
responsible for setting Brazils energy policy. The CNPE is a cabinet-level advisory board to the
President. It is coordinated by the Minister of Mines and Energy, with the participation of several
ministers, presidents of regulatory agencies, and other chief officials, including, in hierarchical order:
The Minister of Mines and Energy (which coordinates the CNPE);

The Minister of Science and Technology;
The Minister of Planning, Budget and Administration;
The Minister of Finance;
The Minster of the Environment;
The Minister of Development, Industry and International Trade;
The Minister of National Integration;
The Minister of Agriculture;
The Chief of Staff of the Federal Government;
A representative of the Brazilian states;
A representative of the civil society with notable specialization in energy;
A representative of the Brazilian universities with notable specialization in energy;
The president of the Brazilian Energy Research Agency;
The Chief Directors of the Electricity Regulatory Agency; the Oil, Gas and Biofuels
Regulatory Agency; and the Independent System Operator.
The CNPE ensures consistency of energy policy with several other governmental policies. Its
responsibilities include (1) proposing the national energy policy to the Brazilian President for
approval; (2) proposing the generation supply reliability criterion (risk of rationing) for the country;
and (3) approving the auction of certain power projects that are not strictly competitive economically,
but that are considered to be strategic for the country. The CNPE meets ad hoc and sets the general
strategic guidelines to be observed by the MME in its daily activities.
The MME is responsible for formulating and detailing the countrys energy policy and implementing
the directives approved by the CNPE. This ministry is also in charge of energy sector planning via the
Energy Research Agency (ERA), a governmental body subordinate to the MME that provides it with
technical support for planning studies.
Before the reform of the Brazilian electricity industry, these planning studies were carried out by stateowned utilities. After the reform, planning studies could no longer be executed by state-owned
utilities, since they started to compete with new entrants in various segments of the electricity industry.
The planning responsibilities were then transferred to ERA.
An example of the administrative arrangements and institutional attributions regarding a public

consultation process preceding the publication of an energy system expansion plan is indicated
in Box 8.2.
Box 8.2 Public consultation for issuing Brazils official Decennial Energy Expansion Plan
82
In Brazil, MME is responsible for elaboratingvia the ERAand approving the Decennial Energy
Expansion Plan (DEP). The DEP is an official document that specifies the indicative plan for
expanding Brazils generation system and the determinative plan for expanding its transmission
system for the next 10 years. The generation expansion plan is indicative, since the actual system
expansion will be determined via competitive market forces.
Each year, a draft of the DEP is published by the MME, and a public hearing, aiming at gathering
contributions from all sectors of Brazilian society, is called for by the ministry. Typically, the public
hearing is called for in September or October, and the time window for the presentation of official
contributions from all stakeholders, after the publication of the draft DEP, is approximately 1 month.
The draft DEP is made available on the MMEs website, such that it can be readily downloaded by
any interested stakeholder. The MME and other governmental and paragovernmental bodies, such as
the Brazilian regulator, give extensive publicity to the public hearingfor instance, by placing
banners on their Web sites. The official call for the public hearing is also registered in the official
journal of the federal government of Brazil.
The MME establishes a dedicated e-mail account for receiving contributions from any natural or legal
person regarding the draft DEP. All contents sent to this dedicated e-mail account are dully processed
by the MME and ERA, and responses to these contributions (also in the case of rejections of the
proposals) are provided by the MME and ERA, in accordance with Brazilian law #9784/1995.
This example illustrates possible strategies to ensure that public consultation processes are given
adequate publicity, that they are executed within a time window that allows for the participation of all
stakeholders interested in energy planning activities, and that the procedures for the submission of
contributions from these stakeholders are simple and effective.
83
REFERENCES
[1]
Government of Mauritius. 1964. Central Electricity Board Act of 25 January 1964.
[2]
Central Electricity Board. Undated (presumed 2012). Integrated Electricity Plan 2013
2022. Port Louis, Mauritius.
[3]
Bhattacharyya, S. C., and G. R. Timilsina. 2009. Energy Demand Models for Policy
FormulationA Comparative Study of Energy Demand Models. Policy Research
Working Paper. Washington, DC: World Bank.
[4]
World
Bank.
World
Bank
Data.
Accessed
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.KD.
[5]
Republic of Mauritius. November 2014. Digest of Energy and Water Statistics2013.

Port Louis.
[6]
Mukoon, M. S. 2015. RE: VC held on Wednesday 25 February (e-mail sent on Friday,

February 27, 2015).
[7]
International Monetary Fund. 2014. World Economic Outlook Database, October

2014. Accessed March 2015. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/
02/weodata/index.aspx.
[8]
Svirydzenka, K., and M. Petri. July 2014. Mauritius: The Drivers of GrowthCan the
Past be Extended? IMF Working Paper. Washington, DC: International Monetary
Fund.
[9]
Central Electricity Board. 2013. Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) 20132022:

Presented to the National Energy Commission on 27th February 2013. Ebne,
Mauritius: CEB.
[10]
WorleyParsons. August 2014. Pre-Feasibility Study Report: Assessing the Potential of

Using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Electricity Generation in Mauritius.
[11]
World Bank. November 2014. Terms of ReferenceSupport to the World Bank Team
for Provision of Technical Assistance to Government of Mauritius in the Energy Sector.
Washington, DC.
[12]
Bikoo, R. 2015. VC held on Wednesday 25 February (e-mail sent at Friday, February

27, 2015).
[13]
Ministry of Environment & Sustainable Development. January 2013. EIA Licence: The
(Mauritius) CT Power Ltd.
[14]
AF-Mercados EMI and Effergy Energia. October 2014. Determination of the Grid
Absorption Capacity of Mauritius and Preparation of a Grid Code, Feed-in Tariffs and
Model Energy Supply Purchase Agreements for Renewable Energy Systems Up to 2
MW. Volume 1: Final Report RES Grid Absorption Capacity.
March
2015.
84
[15]
National Energy Commission. October 2013. Making the Right Choice for a
Sustainable Energy Future: The Emergence of a Green Economy. Port Louis,
Mauritius.
[16]
Central Electricity Board. Undated (presumed 2012). Annual Report 2011: Powering
a Sustainable Energy Future. Port Louis, Mauritius.
[17]
Hafeezahmed, S. February 2010. Pre-Feasibility Study for a 100 MW Open Technology

IPP.
[18]
IEEE Task Force on Load Representation for Dynamic Performance. 1995.

Bibliography on Load Models for Power Flow and Dynamic Performance
Simulation. IEEE TPWRS 10 (1, February).
[19]
Republic of Mauritius. 2009. Long-Term Energy Strategy20092025. Port Louis.
[20]
International Atomic Energy Agency. 2006. Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP)
PackageA Computer Code for Power Generating System Expansion Planning,
Version WASP-IV with User InterfaceUsers Manual. Vienna: IAEA.
[21]
Mukoon, M. S. 2015. RE: VC held on Wednesday 25 February (e-mail sent on

Wednesday, March 11, 2015).
[22]
International Energy Agency. 2010. Hydro published Hydropower and the

Environment: Present Context and Guidelines for Future Action. Paris: IEA.
[23]
International Hydropower Association. 2010. IHA Hydropower Sustainability

Assessment Protocol. London: IHA.
85
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CEB
Central Electricity Board
CNPE National Council for Energy Policy

COD
commercial operation date
CPP
continuous power producer
cst
centistokes
DEP
Decennial Energy Expansion Plan
DG
distributed generation
ERA
Energy Research Agency
GDP
gross domestic product
GoM
Government of Mauritius
GWh
gigawatt-hour
hour
HFO
heavy fuel oil
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IEP
Integrated Electricity Plan
IMF
International Monetary Fund
IPP
independent power producer
kW
kilowatt
kWh
kilowatt-hour
LNG
liquefied natural gas
LOLP loss-of-load probability

MJ
megajoule
MW
megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
MME Ministry of Mines and Energy
NEC
National Energy Commission
PPP
purchasing power parity
p.u.
per unit
86
PV
photovoltaic
RCM
reserve capacity margin
SIPP
small independent power producer
SSDG small-scale distributed generator

USD
United States dollar
WB
World Bank
WASP Wien Automatic System Planning Package

y
year
87
ANNEX I. ASSESSMENT OF GENERATION PLAN DEVELOPED AND

EVALUATED WITH THE WASP PACKAGE BY MAURITIAN
INSTITUTIONS
After the delivery of the initial version of this report, the WB team received and was requested
to assess the results of planning studies conducted by CEB, in which generation expansion plans
were developed and evaluated with help of the Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP)
Package. In Part IV of this report, the WB team performs an assessment of the results and the
technical procedures adopted for these planning studies.
In this section, the WB team refers to the WASP Package simply as WASP. Chapter 9 describes
this assessment in detail.
9 ASSESSMENT OF GENERATION
EVALUATED WITH WASP
PLAN
DEVELOPED
AND
The assessment is based on information sent to the WB team in February and March 2015 [6],
[21]. The information made available to the WB team involves results of the planning studies
carried out by CEB, including raw outputs of WASP [6], and replies to queries of the WB team
regarding the methodology and modeling choices used in the quantitative simulations executed
with WASP [21].
Section 9.1 indicates the main factual observations resulting from the evaluation of the
information made available to the WB team, while section 9.2 contains conclusions and
recommendations regarding these findings.
9.1 Factual observations

In [6], CEB reports the results from the quantitative evaluations performed with WASP
indicated in Table 9.1. The results were sent in an MS Excel table attached to the electronic
message of which reference [6] consists. The third column of the table indicates the loss-ofload probability (LOLP) expressed as a percentage, while this same quantity is expressed in
hours per year and minutes per year, respectively, in the fourth and fifth columns of Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Results from the quantitative evaluations performed with WASP, reported by CEB
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Peak demand
[MW]
486
503
515
528
541
LOLP [%]
0.0013%
0.0055%
0.0155%
0.0362%
0.0100%
LOLP expressed in
Hours/year [h/y]
Minutes/year [min/y]
0.114
6.833
0.482
28.91
1.358
81.47
3.171
190.3
0.876
52.56
Source: [6].
88
A first finding is that the yearly peak demands for 2016-2020 reported by CEB in the MS
Excel table do not match the most current projections of yearly peak demand reported in the
text of the same electronic message [6]. As indicated in Table 9.2, the peak demand projections
reportedly used for the simulations with WASP are slightly above those of the base scenario
produced by CEB, but below those of the high demand scenario. The WB team understands
that a single peak demand scenario (and associated load profile scenario) was used for the
evaluations with WASP.
Table 9.2 Comparison of most current peak demand projections reported by CEB and peak demand
values used for planning studies with WASP
Year
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Most current peak demand projections declared by CEB, per scenario [MW]
Low
Base
High
452
479
498
459
495
520
466
508
543
472
521
567
479
534
592
Peak demand used for

LOLP calculations [MW]
486
503
515
528
541
Source: [6].
Comments about the quantitative results of Table 9.1, regarding the LOLP, are presented further
in this section.
Queries made by the WB team regarding the modeling of hydro, solar, and wind generators
were answered by CEB in [21]. CEB indicated the following:
Modeling of hydropower plants.

CEB constructed three scenarios, corresponding to dry, average, and wet hydrological
conditions. These scenarios refer to monthly energy inflows to hydro plants, and were
constructed based on historical measurement records.29 Probabilities were attributed to
each of these scenarios.
Consultations of plain text files generated by WASP and made available to the WB
team in [6] reveal that, though the scenarios differ according to the monthly energy
inflows to the plants, the average capacity of the hydro plants in all monthly periods
of all scenarios corresponded to the quantity declared as the installed capacity of the
generators. It is worth mentioning that, according to the WASP User Manual [20], the
generation equipment of hydro plants is assumed to be 100% reliable in WASP and,
because of that, the available capacity in the period should be calculated taking into
account the reliability of these plants [20]. This recommendation does not seem to
have been taken into account while generating the input data for the quantitative
assessments made by CEB.
29
The exact statistical treatment of historical measurement records used for obtaining these three scenarios
was not revealed by CEB.
89
According to [20], WASP defines a capacity sufficiency constraint30 in the generation

expansion planning optimization problem by bounding the available generating
capacity in the critical period (monthly period, considering the time discretization used
by CEB) of each year of the planning horizon within an interval, defined by the peak
demand of this critical period plus a minimum reserve margin, and the peak demand
plus a maximum reserve margin. The users of WASP can specify which hydrological
scenario is considered for the definition of this critical period and of the capacity
sufficiency constraint. In fact, the WASP user manual states that the hydrological
scenario used for the definition of the constraint is usually, the driest of the defined
hydro-conditions [20]. Yet, the plain text files generated by WASP and made available
to the WB team in [6] suggest that only the average hydrological scenario has been
used for the definition of this capacity sufficiency constraint.
The hydroelectric generation fleet of the island of Mauritius was modeled via four
generators, which seem to refer to (1) the Champagne plant; (2) the Ferney plant; (3)
the Tamarind Falls plant; and (4) an aggregated representation of the other, smallerscale plants.
The Champagne and Ferney hydropower plants were modeled as plants of the
conventional typeaccording to the nomenclature used in [20]with some reservoir
capacity. Both of these plants were modeled as seasonal regulation plants, as indicated
by the identification of the key parameter for these plants with the digit 4. The
WASP User Manual made available to the WB Team does not specify the exact
modeling corresponding to the identification of hydro plants as of the seasonal
regulation type.31 Yet, the plain text files generated by WASP to which the WB team
had access seem to indicate that the reservoir storage capacity of the Champagne and
Ferney plants are, respectively, 2.0 GWh and 0.5 GWh. If these are indeed the reservoir
storage capacities of these plants, the WB team recommends that their classification as
being seasonal regulation plants be evaluated with care.
The Tamarind Falls plant and the other, smaller-scale hydro plants seem to have been
modeled as run-of-river generators.
Modeling of wind and solar plants:

According to [21], wind and solar power plants have been modeled as equivalent
thermal power plants, with high forced outage rates and minimum loading constraints.
30
Described by equation (1.4) of [20].
31
The WASP User Manual merely mentions that the modeling of hydro plants of the seasonal regulation
type, as well as other types of hydro plants, can be found in the following reference, to which the WB team
did not have access:
International Atomic Energy Agency, Wien Automatic System Planning (WASP) PackageA Computer
Code for Power Generating System Expansion Planning, Version WASP-III Plus Users Manual, Volume I:
Chapters 1-11, Volume II: Appendices, IAEA Computer Manual Series No. 8, IAEA, Vienna (1995).
90
The forced outage rates of these equivalent thermal plants have been adjusted such that
their average availability would equal the expected dispatch capacity factor of the
corresponding wind power plants. For instance, a wind plant with an expected capacity
factor of 20 percent within the year was simply modeled as a thermal plant with a forced
outage rate of 80 percent.
Also, the minimum loading of the equivalent thermal plants was set to 10 percent.
According to [20], WASP allows for the consideration of constraints on reliability of supply
and the costs of unreliability through three main mechanisms, when the computational model
is used to generate an optimum generation expansion plan:
(i) The user can define hard constraints regarding maximum levels of the LOLP for every
year of the analysis horizon and every period (monthly period, considering the time
discretization used by CEB) of each year.
(ii) Costs of unserved energy can be directly considered as one of the components of the
objective function of WASP. Since the expansion plan obtained by the model
minimizes this objective function, the costs of unserved energy would be one of the
cost components to be minimized.
(iii) The model allows for the definition of a capacity sufficiency constraint, ensuring that
the available generating capacity in the critical period of each year of the horizon will
be within an interval defined by the peak of this critical period demand plus a minimum
reserve margin, and the peak demand plus a maximum reserve margin.
Answering a query from the WB team, CEB revealed that the input parameters specified for
the executions of WASP resulted in mechanisms (i) and (ii) above not affecting the expansion
plan obtained with WASP. First, CEB did not specify any maximum levels of LOLP, resulting
in the default values of WASP being used. Yet according to [20], these default values
correspond to an LOLP of 100 percent. Since the LOLP is a probability, it cannot exceed 100
percent in any case. Therefore, using the default value means that no practical upper bound is
being imposed on this reliability metric. Second, CEB did not specify any values for the
coefficient of the polynomial function of the incremental costs of unserved energy, meaning
that the default option to consider all of these coefficients as zero was used. Thus, in practice,
the minimization of the costs of energy not supplied was not considered for the planning study.
Therefore, mechanism (iii) was the only mechanism practically affecting reliability of supply
in the simulations. However, as already seen, the users of WASP can specify which
hydrological scenario is considered for the definition of the critical period of the capacity
sufficiency constraint. Yet, the plain text files generated by WASP and made available to the
WB team in [6] suggest that only the average hydrological scenario has been used for the
definition of this capacity sufficiency constraint in the simulations conducted by CEB.
In the MS Excel file made available to the WB team in [6], the only system reliability
indicator provided by CEB was the expected value for the yearly LOLP of the system across all
evaluated hydrological scenarios. It is worth mentioning that, according to [20], WASP
91
provides the users with other metrics regarding system reliability. For instance, the program
provides as outputs (1) the yearly LOLP per hydrological scenario, and (2) the expected yearly
amount of unserved energy (or energy-not-served, using the terminology of [20]) per
hydrological scenario and the expected value across the scenarios.
Given the values of expected LOLP reported in Table 9.1, the WB team asked CEB which
criteria were used to decide whether the values obtained for these reliability indicators were
adequate or inadequate for the Mauritian system. CEB did not provide the WB team an answer
to this query, simply stating that the the [WASP] model attempts to keep LOLP to 0% (which
is the default value) [21]. This answer suggests that:
No clear criteria are currently defined for deciding whether the results of probabilistic
simulations are adequate or inadequate for the Mauritian power system. This is
corroborated by the fact that CEB does not seem to have taken advantage of the
functionality of WASP that allows binding the LOLP within any given year (or any
given month) of the analysis horizon to acceptable levels.
The exact functioning of WASP does not seem to be thoroughly understood by CEB.
Given that the user did not specify upper bounds for the LOLP, and given that the costs
of unserved energy were defined as zero for the objective function of WASP, the model
will not attempt to keep LOLP at 0%, as suggested by CEB.
9.2 Conclusions and recommendations

Based on the factual observations described in section 9.1, the WB team wishes to present the
following conclusions and recommendations regarding the methodology and the modeling
choices used in the quantitative simulations executed with the help of WASP:
(1) The simulations executed with WASP have an optimistic bias and do not justify the
abandonment of the recommendations presented by the WB team in Part IV of this
report.
With the information at hand, the WB team understands that: (i) the simulations of
reliability of supply executed with WASP have an optimistic bias, and (ii) the values of
LOLP made available to the WB team in [6] for the years between 2016 and 2020 cannot
be understood as unchallengeable evidence that adequate levels of secure supply are
verified in the Mauritian system in this period.
This is mainly due to the following factors:
The unavailability of generating equipment of hydroelectric plants does not seem

to have been taken into account while defining the average available capacity of
hydro plants, as the available capacity for each hydro condition and each monthly
period of the year seems to have been equaled to the value defined as the installed
capacity of each hydroelectric plant.
92
The simulations seem to have been executed considering a single demand

scenario, in which demand is lower than that of the high demand growth scenario
projected by CEB and made available to the WB team in [6].
The modeling of wind and solar power plants is too simple and does not capture
temporal generation profiles that may be relevant for the assessment of the
reliability of supply in Mauritius. If the output of these plants is lower during times
of the highest demand, this phenomenon would not be captured in the simulations.
Also, the simplified representation of the system operation does not allow taking
into account any eventual constraints regarding the flexibility of dispatch of the
Mauritian generation fleet that may affect reliability indices.
The only reliability indicator that seems to have been evaluated by CEB in the MS
Excel table made available to the WB team refers to the yearly LOLP for the
horizon 2016-2020. The LOLP is an indicator that conveys information only about
the expected duration of supply interruptions within a year (according to a
frequentist interpretation of probabilities). Therefore, it conveys no information
on several characteristics of supply interruptionsincluding their costs for the
Mauritian economy. These costs may be very relevant for Mauritius, given that
economic sectors that are highly sensitive to supply reliabilitysuch as tourism
and financial servicesgenerate significant income in the country. Also, this
indicator does not seem to have been compared with any threshold reflecting
predefined reliability criteria, in order to indicate whether the results are
acceptable for the island of Mauritius.
Considering that the 20162020 values of LOLP obtained with the simulation with WASP
cannot be understood as unchallengeable evidence that adequate levels of secure supply
are verified in the Mauritian system in this period, the WB team understands that these
values do not justify the abandonment of the recommendations presented by the WB team
in Part IV of this report.
Therefore, the WB team endorses the recommendations presented in Part IV of this report.
As indicated in Part IV, priority should be given to the implementation of the
recommendations for ensuring supply adequacy until 2018, given that these require
immediate actions from Mauritian institutions. Recommendations for ensuring supply
adequacy from 2019 onward should also be observed, but Mauritian institutions may
enhance their capacities to undertake power sector expansion planning and conduct new
planning studies to determine the expansions required from 2019 onward.
(2) Explore the available functionalities of WASP.
Despite some limitations of WASP, which will be discussed in items (5) and (6) of this
list, this computational tool offers features that were not fully explored in the simulations
whose output data and results were made available to the WB team.
93
For instance, WASP has features that allow a more meaningful treatment of constraints on
minimum levels of reliability of supply and of costs of unreliability than the approach
adopted in the simulations whose results were made available to the WB team. By
specifying meaningful upper bounds to the LOLP and by considering nonzero costs for
unserved energy in the objective function of the model, Mauritian institutions can more
properly explore the functionalities of WASP for generation expansion planning.
Since WASP has already been acquired by Mauritian institutions and it is readily and
immediately available to planners, deepening the knowledge of planning authorities about
the methodological aspects of WASP and about the procedural aspects of its use can be a
cost-effective way of increasing generation expansion planning capacity in the country in
the very short term. Yet, as discussed in items (5) and (6) of this list, the adoption of more
sophisticated planning tools may be required to appropriately tackle challenges that will
be presented to Mauritian power system planners with the growing penetration of
renewable generation.
(3) Define clear reliability criteria for (probabilistic) generation expansion planning.
As indicated in section 9.1, the supply reliability indicators obtained as a result of the
simulations with WASP do not seem to have been compared with any reference values to
define whether the results were adequate for the Mauritian system.
Furthermore, no meaningful values for the standard WASP inputs regarding minimum
reliability thresholds (maximum LOLP levels) or costs of unserved energy have been used
for the simulations. This also alludes to the lack of clearly defined reliability criteria for
probabilistic generation expansion planning studies.
A clear definition of reliability criteria for generation expansion planning is essential to
provide planners with quantifiable and measurable goals for their studies, functioning as
guidelines for the planning activity. In a country such as Mauritius, where branches of
economic activities that are highly sensitive to supply reliabilitysuch as tourism and
financial servicesgenerate significant income, reliability criteria ought to be defined in
such a way to ensure that the reliability standards required by these activities are met
economically. Costs of unserved energy ought to take into consideration the costs incurred
by these economic sectors in case of supply interruptions and energy deficits, and
minimum constraints on reliability metrics should take account the disruptive potential of
supply interruptions to these kinds of economic activities.
In fact, the very nature of the reliability indicators used in the simulations should be
defined taking into account the requirements of these industries. For instance, if financial
services and tourism are affected not only by the average duration of interruptions, but
also the frequency of their occurrence,32 reliability indicators that measure such frequency
32
To allow how the frequency of interruptions matters as much as the duration, the reader may consider the
case of a business for which two supply interruptions of 1 hour each cause more distress than one supply
interruption with a duration of 2 hours.
94
should be evaluated and compared with acceptable threshold values as part of the
generation planning studies.
Clearly defined reliability criteria should be taken into account while performing
quantitative assessments of generation expansion plans, including probabilistic ones.
(4) Ensure methodological accuracy in the treatment of uncertainties.
An inadequate representation of uncertain variables and the use of overly optimistic
techniques for decision making under uncertainty can be extremely harmful for
probabilistic simulations. Some subpar methodological choices have been detected while
assessing the simulations CEB conducted with WASP.
The representation of wind plants as equivalent thermal plants with zero operation costs
and high unavailability rateswith these unavailability rates constant in timecan be
considered as an example of an inadequate modeling of an uncertain variable. At the very
least, the temporal generation patterns of wind plants cannot be correctly captured in
probabilistic simulations when equivalent thermal plants with a constant forced outage
rate are used. Since peak demand tends to occur in specific times of the year and the day,
this subpar modeling choice can result in an inadequate modeling of the contribution of
wind generators to the supply of the maximum load in the system. The WB team
understands that this modeling choice is somehow determined by the available feature of
the current version of the WASP software; this is discussed further in another topic of this
list.
An example of an overly optimistic decision-making technique may refer to the choice of
the average hydrology scenario for the definition of the capacity sufficiency constraint of
the WASP model. According to the understanding of the WB team, based on the treatment
of raw text files generated by WASP [6] and indicated in section 9.1, CEB defined the
capacity sufficiency constraint solely based on the average hydrology scenario. However,
the dry hydrology scenario represents a more severe operating condition to the system.
Ensuring that capacity is sufficient to meet demand under this more severe operating
condition is criticaleven more so when one considers that other mechanisms to treat
reliability constraints within the WASP model, such as establishing upper bounds on the
LOLP or considering nonzero costs of unserved energy as part of the objective function,
have not been used. It is worth mentioning that the consideration of a relatively large
reserve margin (20 percent, according to [6]) for the capacity sufficiency constraint can
partly mitigate problems referring to an optimistic bias regarding reliability and related to
the capacity sufficiency constraint, depending on the exact procedure used by CEB to
define this 20 percent reserve margin.
It is recommended that special attention be given to the representation of stochastic
variables for the probabilistic simulations over which generation expansion planning
studies are based. It is also recommended that the use of overly optimistic decision-making
techniques be avoided for these simulations.
95
(5) The current version of WASP has limitations regarding the representation of
physical and economic phenomena relevant for the Mauritian power system.
Though the adoption of WASP represents the possibility of factoring probabilistic
assessments of generation expansion plans, within an optimization framework, the current
version of this software [20] has important limitations regarding the representation of
some physical and economic phenomena that will become increasingly relevant as the
participation of renewable energy resources grows in the Mauritian power system.
A first structural limitation of the current version of WASP refers to the representation of
intermittent generation resources, such as solar and wind power plants. The limits of the
representation as equivalent thermal power plants with adjusted forced outage rates have
already been illustrated in the previous items of this list. It is naturally also possible to
represent these resources as equivalent hydropower plants, determining the hydrological
scenarios to reflect temporal generation patterns of the intermittent generation resources.
Yet, the short-term variability of these resources is of chief importance for the evaluation
of reliability of supply (notably, supply to peak demand in a thermal-dominated system,
such as Mauritius). This short-term variability cannot be properly represented, given the
limitations of WASP regarding the time resolution within each year of the planning
horizon.33 Also, according to [20], WASP allows at most the representation of five
hydrological conditions, which can be insufficient for the representation of the
intermittency of wind and solar plants.
Another major limitation of WASP refers to the modeling of time-coupling and unitcommitment constraints for the simulations of the operation of the generation system. The
WB team understands that the model does not allow the representation of these constraints,
nor does it allow the direct modeling of the commitment costs (start-up costs, shut-down
costs, etc.). In a predominantly thermal system, such as Mauritius, phenomena related to
unit commitment can affect the costs of counteracting the short-term variability of
intermittent generation resources with thermal plants. Also, physical constraints related to
the commitment of thermal plants can even impose technical limits on the scaling up of
renewable energy resources.
Therefore, to ensure technically and economically sound quantitative support to
generation system expansion planning in a system that is committed to increase the
participation of renewable generation in its electricity matrix, a move toward more
computational tools that allow a more accurate modeling of the above-mentioned
phenomena may be required. If the available versions of WASP do not allow the accurate
modeling of these phenomena, the adoption of more sophisticated planning tools may be
required.
(6) The current version of WASP has limitations regarding techniques for decision
making under uncertainty.
33
According to [20], the intra-yearly time discretization of WASP is limited to 12 periods within each year,
which allows at most a monthly discretization.
96
The current version of WASP [20] has important features that support decision making
under uncertainty. These include (i) establishing bounds on the LOLP, for each year and
each period within the year; (ii) minimizing expected values of all uncertain cost
components of the objective function; and (iii) establishing capacity sufficiency
constraints for a given hydrological scenario (typically the most severe one).
Yet, depending on the reliability criteria established for a given power system, planners
may wish to adopt more sophisticated techniques for decision making under uncertainty.
For instance, planners may require a given generation expansion plan to comply with riskbased constraints. These constraints may refer, for instance, to the limitation of the amount
of the unserved energy within the tail of the probability distribution of this variable.
Furthermore, decision making that ensures the minimization of the maximum regret within
expansion planning may also be required. As the current version of WASP does not
directly support these more advanced techniques, the adoption of alternative
computational tools may be required.
It is worth emphasizing that the limitations of WASP regarding the topics described in this
item (6) are comparatively less relevant than those discussed in the previous item (5).
97
ANNEX II.
DEMAND
DETAILED SIMULATIONS OF SUPPLY TO PEAK
10 DETAILED RESULTS OF SIMULATIONS OF SECTION 5.3.1

Table 10.1 Simulation of supply to peak demand for conditions {summer, off-crop season}
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Total IPP, CPP, SIPP
Total injectable capacity [MW]
Largest plant under forced outage [MW]
Capacity under maintenance [MW]
Injectable capacity available [MW]
10% Spinning reserve [MW]
Generation requisite [MW]
Reserve capacity margin [%]
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station
Contribution to supply of peak demand [MW]

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
470.5
47.0
517.5
-12.3%
37.8
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
483.7
48.4
532.1
-14.7%
51.6
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
497.5
49.7
547.2
-7.7%
14.7
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
512.2
51.2
563.4
-10.3%
30.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
526.0
52.6
578.6
-12.7%
44.5
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
540.2
54.0
594.2
-15.0%
59.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
554.7
55.5
610.2
-17.2%
74.6
98
Table 10.2 Simulation of supply to peak demand for conditions {winter, crop season}
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
407.4
40.7
448.1
8.4%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
418.7
41.9
460.6
0.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
430.5
43.0
473.5
-2.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
442.7
44.3
487.0
6.5%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
455.8
45.6
501.4
3.5%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
468.1
46.8
514.9
0.8%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
480.7
48.1
528.8
-1.9%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
493.7
49.4
543.1
-4.5%
0.0
99
Table 10.3 Simulation of supply to peak demand for conditions {summer, crop season}
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
457.7
45.8
503.5
-3.6%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
470.5
47.0
517.5
-10.8%
29.8
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
483.7
48.4
532.1
-7.8%
15.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
497.5
49.7
547.2
-5.2%
1.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
512.2
51.2
563.4
-7.9%
16.4
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
526.0
52.6
578.6
-10.3%
30.8
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
540.2
54.0
594.2
-12.7%
45.6
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
554.7
55.5
610.2
-15.0%
60.8
100

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
482.8
48.3
531.1
-14.5%
50.7
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
503.0
50.3
553.3
-18.0%
71.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
524.4
52.4
576.8
-12.4%
42.9
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
547.5
54.8
602.3
-16.1%
67.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
569.6
57.0
626.6
-19.4%
90.1
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
592.5
59.3
651.8
-22.5%
114.1
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
616.4
61.6
678.0
-25.5%
139.0
101
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
412.5
41.3
453.8
7.0%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
429.7
43.0
472.6
-2.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
447.7
44.8
492.5
-6.2%
6.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
466.7
46.7
513.4
1.1%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
487.3
48.7
536.0
-3.2%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
506.9
50.7
557.6
-7.0%
10.9
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
527.4
52.7
580.1
-10.6%
32.2
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
548.6
54.9
603.5
-14.0%
54.4
102
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
463.5
46.4
509.9
-4.8%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
482.8
48.3
531.1
-13.0%
42.7
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
503.0
50.3
553.3
-11.4%
35.3
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
524.4
52.4
576.8
-10.1%
29.1
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
547.5
54.8
602.3
-13.9%
53.3
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
569.6
57.0
626.6
-17.2%
76.4
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
592.5
59.3
651.8
-20.4%
100.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
616.4
61.6
678.0
-23.5%
125.3
103

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
495.3
49.5
544.8
-16.7%
63.7
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
522.9
52.3
575.2
-21.1%
92.6
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
552.4
55.2
607.7
-16.9%
72.2
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
584.9
58.5
643.4
-21.5%
106.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
616.2
61.6
677.9
-25.5%
138.9
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
649.3
64.9
714.2
-29.3%
173.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
684.1
68.4
752.5
-32.9%
209.7
104
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
417.7
41.8
459.4
5.7%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
440.8
44.1
484.9
-4.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
465.4
46.5
511.9
-9.8%
24.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
491.7
49.2
540.8
-4.1%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
520.6
52.1
572.6
-9.4%
25.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
548.4
54.8
603.3
-14.0%
54.3
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
577.8
57.8
635.6
-18.4%
85.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
608.8
60.9
669.7
-22.5%
117.4
105
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
469.3
46.9
516.2
-5.9%
4.8
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
495.3
49.5
544.8
-15.2%
55.7
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
522.9
52.3
575.2
-14.8%
56.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
552.4
55.2
607.7
-14.6%
58.5
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
584.9
58.5
643.4
-19.4%
92.4
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
616.2
61.6
677.9
-23.5%
125.1
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
649.3
64.9
714.2
-27.4%
159.6
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
684.1
68.4
752.5
-31.0%
196.0
106

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
470.5
47.0
517.5
-12.3%
37.8
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
483.7
48.4
532.1
-14.7%
51.6
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
490.7
49.1
539.7
-6.4%
7.7
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
498.2
49.8
548.0
-7.8%
15.5
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
504.4
50.4
554.9
-9.0%
22.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
510.7
51.1
561.7
-10.1%
28.5
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
516.9
51.7
568.5
-11.2%
35.0
107
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
407.4
40.7
448.1
8.4%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
418.7
41.9
460.6
0.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
430.5
43.0
473.5
-2.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
436.7
43.7
480.4
8.0%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
443.4
44.3
487.7
6.4%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
449.0
44.9
493.9
5.1%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
454.5
45.4
499.9
3.8%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
460.0
46.0
506.0
2.5%
0.0
108
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
457.7
45.8
503.5
-3.6%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
470.5
47.0
517.5
-10.8%
29.8
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
483.7
48.4
532.1
-7.8%
15.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
490.7
49.1
539.7
-3.9%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
498.2
49.8
548.0
-5.3%
1.8
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
504.4
50.4
554.9
-6.5%
8.3
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
510.7
51.1
561.7
-7.6%
14.8
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
516.9
51.7
568.5
-8.7%
21.3
109

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
482.8
48.3
531.1
-14.5%
50.7
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
503.0
50.3
553.3
-18.0%
71.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
517.2
51.7
568.9
-11.2%
35.3
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
532.3
53.2
585.6
-13.7%
51.2
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
545.8
54.6
600.3
-15.9%
65.2
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
559.4
55.9
615.3
-17.9%
79.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
573.1
57.3
630.4
-19.9%
93.8
110
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
412.5
41.3
453.8
7.0%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
429.7
43.0
472.6
-2.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
447.7
44.8
492.5
-6.2%
6.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
460.3
46.0
506.3
2.5%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
473.8
47.4
521.2
-0.4%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
485.7
48.6
534.3
-2.9%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
497.8
49.8
547.6
-5.3%
1.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
510.1
51.0
561.1
-7.5%
14.2
111
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
463.5
46.4
509.9
-4.8%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
482.8
48.3
531.1
-13.0%
42.7
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
503.0
50.3
553.3
-11.4%
35.3
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
517.2
51.7
568.9
-8.8%
21.6
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
532.3
53.2
585.6
-11.4%
37.4
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
545.8
54.6
600.3
-13.6%
51.5
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
559.4
55.9
615.3
-15.7%
65.7
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
573.1
57.3
630.4
-17.7%
80.1
112

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
495.3
49.5
544.8
-16.7%
63.7
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
374
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
570.0
33.0
83.1
453.9
522.9
52.3
575.2
-21.1%
92.6
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
544.7
54.5
599.2
-15.7%
64.1
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
568.3
56.8
625.2
-19.2%
88.8
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
589.9
59.0
648.9
-22.2%
111.3
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
612.0
61.2
673.2
-25.0%
134.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
91.9
505.1
634.7
63.5
698.2
-27.7%
158.1
113
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
417.7
41.8
459.4
5.7%
0.0
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
440.8
44.1
484.9
-4.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
465.4
46.5
511.9
-9.8%
24.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
484.8
48.5
533.3
-2.7%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
505.8
50.6
556.4
-6.8%
9.7
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
525.0
52.5
577.5
-10.2%
29.8
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
544.7
54.5
599.2
-13.4%
50.4
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
564.9
56.5
621.4
-16.5%
71.4
114
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
547.5
33.0
28.9
485.6
469.3
46.9
516.2
-5.9%
4.8
2016
127
0
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
354
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
522.5
33.0
27.6
461.9
495.3
49.5
544.8
-15.2%
55.7
2017
127
0
40
30
0
28
56
16
72
15
384
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
552.5
33.0
29.1
490.4
522.9
52.3
575.2
-14.8%
56.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
544.7
54.5
599.2
-13.4%
50.4
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
568.3
56.8
625.2
-17.0%
75.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
589.9
59.0
648.9
-20.0%
97.6
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
612.0
61.2
673.2
-22.9%
120.7
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
30.7
518.8
634.7
63.5
698.2
-25.7%
144.4
115

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
127.0
CEB
HFO
All units
25.0
Pielstick
40.0
Wartsila
CEB
HFO
30.0
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
28.0
Wartsila G1-G2
CEB
56.0
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
16.0
MAN
72.0
Kerosene CEB
All units
35.0
CEB
Hydro
N/A
Total CEB
74
Coal
IPP
N/A
65.5
Bagasse
62
Coal
IPP
N/A
46
Bagasse
27
Coal
IPP
N/A
20
Bagasse
22
Coal
IPP
N/A
12
Bagasse
30
IPP
Coal
N/A
4
CPP
Bagasse
N/A
3
Landfill gas IPP
N/A
0
IPP
Solar
N/A
4
IPP
Bagasse
New plant
0
IPP
Wind
New plant
0
IPP
Wind
New plant
0
IPP
Solar PV
New plant
0
SIPP
Solar PV
New plant
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
465.5
46.5
512.0
-0.6%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
478.7
47.9
526.6
-3.3%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
497.5
49.7
547.2
-1.4%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
512.2
51.2
563.4
-7.6%
14.8
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
526.0
52.6
578.6
-10.1%
29.2
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
540.2
54.0
594.2
-12.4%
44.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
554.7
55.5
610.2
-14.7%
59.3
116
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
407.4
40.7
448.1
10.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
413.7
41.4
455.1
6.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
425.5
42.5
468.0
10.8%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
442.7
44.3
487.0
4.3%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
455.8
45.6
501.4
1.3%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
468.1
46.8
514.9
-1.4%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
480.7
48.1
528.8
-4.0%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
493.7
49.4
543.1
-6.5%
8.0
117
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
465.5
46.5
512.0
-5.1%
0.6
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
478.7
47.9
526.6
-1.6%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
497.5
49.7
547.2
-7.2%
11.9
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
512.2
51.2
563.4
-9.8%
27.3
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
526.0
52.6
578.6
-12.2%
41.7
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
540.2
54.0
594.2
-14.5%
56.6
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
554.7
55.5
610.2
-16.8%
71.8
118

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
477.8
47.8
525.6
-3.2%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
498.0
49.8
547.8
-7.1%
11.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
524.4
52.4
576.8
-6.4%
8.2
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
547.5
54.8
602.3
-13.6%
51.8
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
569.6
57.0
626.6
-16.9%
74.8
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
592.5
59.3
651.8
-20.2%
98.8
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
616.4
61.6
678.0
-23.2%
123.7
119
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
412.5
41.3
453.8
9.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
424.7
42.5
467.1
4.0%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
442.7
44.3
487.0
6.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
466.7
46.7
513.4
-1.1%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
487.3
48.7
536.0
-5.3%
1.3
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
506.9
50.7
557.6
-8.9%
21.9
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
527.4
52.7
580.1
-12.4%
43.2
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
548.6
54.9
603.5
-15.8%
65.4
120
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
463.5
46.4
509.9
-2.6%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
477.8
47.8
525.6
-7.6%
13.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
498.0
49.8
547.8
-5.4%
2.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
524.4
52.4
576.8
-12.0%
40.1
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
547.5
54.8
602.3
-15.7%
64.3
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
569.6
57.0
626.6
-18.9%
87.3
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
592.5
59.3
651.8
-22.1%
111.3
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
616.4
61.6
678.0
-25.1%
136.2
121

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
490.3
49.0
539.3
-5.6%
3.3
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
517.9
51.8
569.7
-10.7%
32.2
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
552.4
55.2
607.7
-11.2%
37.6
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
584.9
58.5
643.4
-19.1%
90.8
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
616.2
61.6
677.9
-23.2%
123.5
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
649.3
64.9
714.2
-27.1%
158.1
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
684.1
68.4
752.5
-30.8%
194.4
122
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
417.7
41.8
459.4
8.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
435.8
43.6
479.4
1.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
460.4
46.0
506.4
2.4%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
491.7
49.2
540.8
-6.1%
5.9
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
520.6
52.1
572.6
-11.3%
36.1
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
548.4
54.8
603.3
-15.8%
65.2
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
577.8
57.8
635.6
-20.1%
95.9
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
608.8
60.9
669.7
-24.2%
128.3
123
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
469.3
46.9
516.2
-3.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
490.3
49.0
539.3
-9.9%
26.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
517.9
51.8
569.7
-9.0%
22.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
552.4
55.2
607.7
-16.4%
69.4
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
584.9
58.5
643.4
-21.1%
103.3
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
616.2
61.6
677.9
-25.1%
136.1
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
649.3
64.9
714.2
-28.9%
170.6
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
684.1
68.4
752.5
-32.5%
206.9
124

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
465.5
46.5
512.0
-0.6%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
478.7
47.9
526.6
-3.3%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
490.7
49.1
539.7
0.0%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
498.2
49.8
548.0
-5.0%
0.2
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
504.4
50.4
554.9
-6.2%
6.7
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
510.7
51.1
561.7
-7.4%
13.2
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
516.9
51.7
568.5
-8.5%
19.7
125
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
407.4
40.7
448.1
10.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
413.7
41.4
455.1
6.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
425.5
42.5
468.0
10.8%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
436.7
43.7
480.4
5.7%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
443.4
44.3
487.7
4.1%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
449.0
44.9
493.9
2.8%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
454.5
45.4
499.9
1.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
460.0
46.0
506.0
0.4%
0.0
126
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
465.5
46.5
512.0
-5.1%
0.6
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
478.7
47.9
526.6
-1.6%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
490.7
49.1
539.7
-5.9%
4.9
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
498.2
49.8
548.0
-7.3%
12.7
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
504.4
50.4
554.9
-8.5%
19.2
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
510.7
51.1
561.7
-9.6%
25.8
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
516.9
51.7
568.5
-10.7%
32.2
127

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
477.8
47.8
525.6
-3.2%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
498.0
49.8
547.8
-7.1%
11.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
517.2
51.7
568.9
-5.1%
0.7
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
532.3
53.2
585.6
-11.1%
35.9
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
545.8
54.6
600.3
-13.3%
49.9
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
559.4
55.9
615.3
-15.4%
64.1
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
573.1
57.3
630.4
-17.4%
78.5
128
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
412.5
41.3
453.8
9.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
424.7
42.5
467.1
4.0%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
442.7
44.3
487.0
6.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
460.3
46.0
506.3
0.3%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
473.8
47.4
521.2
-2.5%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
485.7
48.6
534.3
-4.9%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
497.8
49.8
547.6
-7.3%
12.3
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
510.1
51.0
561.1
-9.5%
25.1
129
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
463.5
46.4
509.9
-2.6%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
477.8
47.8
525.6
-7.6%
13.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
498.0
49.8
547.8
-5.4%
2.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
517.2
51.7
568.9
-10.7%
32.5
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
532.3
53.2
585.6
-13.3%
48.4
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
545.8
54.6
600.3
-15.4%
62.4
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
559.4
55.9
615.3
-17.5%
76.6
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
573.1
57.3
630.4
-19.4%
91.0
130

Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
490.3
49.0
539.3
-5.6%
3.3
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
517.9
51.8
569.7
-10.7%
32.2
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
652.0
33.0
79.3
539.7
544.7
54.5
599.2
-9.9%
29.5
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
568.3
56.8
625.2
-16.8%
73.5
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
589.9
59.0
648.9
-19.8%
96.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
612.0
61.2
673.2
-22.7%
119.1
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.0
630.0
33.0
76.6
520.4
634.7
63.5
698.2
-25.5%
142.8
131
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
417.7
41.8
459.4
8.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
435.8
43.6
479.4
1.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
460.4
46.0
506.4
2.4%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
484.8
48.5
533.3
-4.8%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
505.8
50.6
556.4
-8.7%
20.7
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
525.0
52.5
577.5
-12.1%
40.7
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
544.7
54.5
599.2
-15.2%
61.3
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
564.9
56.5
621.4
-18.3%
82.4
132
Fort George
Saint-Louis
Fort Victoria
Nicolay
Hydro plants
CTSav
CTBV
FSPG
(F.U.E.L.)
CEL
(Beau Champ)
CTDS
CPP (bagasse)
Mare Chicose
Sarako PV Farm
Medine New
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New 10-MW PV Farm
SSDG & MSDG
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
20
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
12
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
469.3
46.9
516.2
-3.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
490.3
49.0
539.3
-9.9%
26.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
517.9
51.8
569.7
-9.0%
22.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
544.7
54.5
599.2
-15.2%
61.3
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
568.3
56.8
625.2
-18.8%
86.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
589.9
59.0
648.9
-21.7%
108.5
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
612.0
61.2
673.2
-24.6%
131.7
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
168.5
582.5
33.0
41.6
507.9
634.7
63.5
698.2
-27.3%
155.4
133

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
127.0
CEB
HFO
All units
Fort George
25.0
Pielstick
40.0
Wartsila
CEB
HFO
Saint-Louis
30.0
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
28.0
Wartsila G1-G2
CEB
Fort Victoria
56.0
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
16.0
MAN
72.0
Kerosene CEB
All units
Nicolay
35.0
CEB
Hydro
N/A
Hydro plants
Total CEB
74
Coal
IPP
N/A
CTSav
65.5
Bagasse
62
Coal
IPP
N/A
CTBV
46
Bagasse
27
Coal
FSPG
IPP
N/A
20
Bagasse
(F.U.E.L.)
22
Coal
CEL
IPP
N/A
12
Bagasse
(Beau Champ)
30
IPP
Coal
N/A
CTDS
4
CPP
Bagasse
N/A
CPP (bagasse)
3
Landfill gas IPP
N/A
Mare Chicose
0
IPP
Solar
N/A
Sarako PV Farm
70
TBD
236 MW units Diesel
Diesel-fired gas turbine
180
TBD
445 MW units TBD
Additional capacity after 2019
4
IPP
Bagasse
New plant
Medine New
0
IPP
Wind
New plant
Aerowatt Wind Farm
0
IPP
Wind
New plant
0
IPP
Solar PV
New plant
New 10-MW PV Farm
0
SIPP
Solar PV
New plant
SSDG & MSDG
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
465.5
46.5
512.0
-0.6%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
478.7
47.9
526.6
-3.3%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
497.5
49.7
547.2
9.5%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
512.2
51.2
563.4
15.2%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
526.0
52.6
578.6
12.2%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
540.2
54.0
594.2
15.9%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
554.7
55.5
610.2
19.3%
0.0
134
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
407.4
40.7
448.1
10.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
413.7
41.4
455.1
6.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
425.5
42.5
468.0
10.8%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
442.7
44.3
487.0
17.3%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
455.8
45.6
501.4
28.6%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
468.1
46.8
514.9
25.3%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
480.7
48.1
528.8
29.9%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
493.7
49.4
543.1
34.2%
0.0
135
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
465.5
46.5
512.0
-5.1%
0.6
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
478.7
47.9
526.6
-1.6%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
497.5
49.7
547.2
4.4%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
512.2
51.2
563.4
14.5%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
526.0
52.6
578.6
11.5%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
540.2
54.0
594.2
15.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
554.7
55.5
610.2
19.4%
0.0
136

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
477.8
47.8
525.6
-3.2%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
498.0
49.8
547.8
-7.1%
11.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
524.4
52.4
576.8
3.9%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
547.5
54.8
602.3
7.7%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
569.6
57.0
626.6
3.6%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
592.5
59.3
651.8
5.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
616.4
61.6
678.0
7.4%
0.0
137
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
412.5
41.3
453.8
9.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
424.7
42.5
467.1
4.0%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
442.7
44.3
487.0
6.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
466.7
46.7
513.4
11.2%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
487.3
48.7
536.0
20.3%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
506.9
50.7
557.6
15.7%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
527.4
52.7
580.1
18.4%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
548.6
54.9
603.5
20.8%
0.0
138
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
463.5
46.4
509.9
-2.6%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
477.8
47.8
525.6
-7.6%
13.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
498.0
49.8
547.8
-5.4%
2.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
524.4
52.4
576.8
-1.0%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
547.5
54.8
602.3
7.1%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
569.6
57.0
626.6
2.9%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
592.5
59.3
651.8
5.4%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
616.4
61.6
678.0
7.5%
0.0
139

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
490.3
49.0
539.3
-5.6%
3.3
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
517.9
51.8
569.7
-10.7%
32.2
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
552.4
55.2
607.7
-1.4%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
584.9
58.5
643.4
0.9%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
616.2
61.6
677.9
-4.3%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
649.3
64.9
714.2
-3.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
684.1
68.4
752.5
-3.2%
0.0
140
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
417.7
41.8
459.4
8.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
435.8
43.6
479.4
1.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
460.4
46.0
506.4
2.4%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
491.7
49.2
540.8
5.6%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
520.6
52.1
572.6
12.6%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
548.4
54.8
603.3
6.9%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
577.8
57.8
635.6
8.1%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
608.8
60.9
669.7
8.8%
0.0
141
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
469.3
46.9
516.2
-3.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
490.3
49.0
539.3
-9.9%
26.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
517.9
51.8
569.7
-9.0%
22.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
552.4
55.2
607.7
-6.0%
6.2
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
584.9
58.5
643.4
0.2%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
616.2
61.6
677.9
-4.8%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
649.3
64.9
714.2
-3.8%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
684.1
68.4
752.5
-3.1%
0.0
142

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.9%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
465.5
46.5
512.0
-0.6%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
478.7
47.9
526.6
-3.3%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
490.7
49.1
539.7
11.0%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
498.2
49.8
548.0
18.4%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
504.4
50.4
554.9
17.0%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
510.7
51.1
561.7
22.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
516.9
51.7
568.5
28.1%
0.0
143
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
407.4
40.7
448.1
10.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
413.7
41.4
455.1
6.7%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
425.5
42.5
468.0
10.8%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
436.7
43.7
480.4
18.9%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
443.4
44.3
487.7
32.2%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
449.0
44.9
493.9
30.6%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
454.5
45.4
499.9
37.4%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
460.0
46.0
506.0
44.0%
0.0
144
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
457.7
45.8
503.5
-1.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
465.5
46.5
512.0
-5.1%
0.6
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
478.7
47.9
526.6
-1.6%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
490.7
49.1
539.7
5.8%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
498.2
49.8
548.0
17.7%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
504.4
50.4
554.9
16.2%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
510.7
51.1
561.7
22.3%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
516.9
51.7
568.5
28.2%
0.0
145

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
463.5
46.4
509.9
-3.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
477.8
47.8
525.6
-3.2%
0.0
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
498.0
49.8
547.8
-7.1%
11.5
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
517.2
51.7
568.9
5.3%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
532.3
53.2
585.6
10.8%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
545.8
54.6
600.3
8.1%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
559.4
55.9
615.3
11.9%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
573.1
57.3
630.4
15.5%
0.0
146
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
412.5
41.3
453.8
9.4%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
424.7
42.5
467.1
4.0%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
442.7
44.3
487.0
6.5%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
460.3
46.0
506.3
12.8%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
473.8
47.4
521.2
23.8%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
485.7
48.6
534.3
20.7%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
497.8
49.8
547.6
25.4%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
510.1
51.0
561.1
29.9%
0.0
147
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
463.5
46.4
509.9
-2.6%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
477.8
47.8
525.6
-7.6%
13.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
498.0
49.8
547.8
-5.4%
2.1
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
517.2
51.7
568.9
0.4%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
532.3
53.2
585.6
10.1%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
545.8
54.6
600.3
7.4%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
559.4
55.9
615.3
11.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
573.1
57.3
630.4
15.6%
0.0
148

Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
90.0
494.0
469.3
46.9
516.2
-4.3%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
490.3
49.0
539.3
-5.6%
3.3
2017
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
35
399
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218.0
617.0
33.0
75.0
509.0
517.9
51.8
569.7
-10.7%
32.2
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
22
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
288.0
722.0
35.0
87.8
599.2
544.7
54.5
599.2
0.0%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
568.3
56.8
625.2
3.8%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
0
0
0
0
0
356.0
790.0
45.0
96.0
649.0
589.9
59.0
648.9
0.0%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
0
0
0
0
0
401.0
835.0
45.0
101.5
688.5
612.0
61.2
673.2
2.3%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
35
434
74
0
62
0
27
0
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
0
0
0
0
0
446.0
880.0
45.0
107.0
728.0
634.7
63.5
698.2
4.3%
0.0
149
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
417.7
41.8
459.4
8.1%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
435.8
43.6
479.4
1.3%
0.0
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
460.4
46.0
506.4
2.4%
0.0
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
484.8
48.5
533.3
7.1%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
505.8
50.6
556.4
15.9%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
525.0
52.5
577.5
11.7%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
544.7
54.5
599.2
14.6%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
564.9
56.5
621.4
17.3%
0.0
150
Specification
Fuel
Owner
Injectable
capacity
[MW]
Fort George
All units
HFO
CEB
127.0
Pielstick
25.0
Wartsila
40.0
Saint-Louis
HFO
CEB
New units ph. 1
30.0
New units ph. 2
30.0
Wartsila G1-G2
28.0
Fort Victoria
CEB
Wartsila G3-G6 HFO
56.0
MAN
16.0
Nicolay
All units
Kerosene CEB
72.0
Hydro plants
N/A
Hydro
CEB
35.0
Total CEB
Coal
74
CTSav
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
65.5
Coal
62
CTBV
N/A
IPP
Bagasse
46
FSPG
Coal
27
N/A
IPP
(F.U.E.L.)
Bagasse
20
CEL
Coal
22
N/A
IPP
(Beau Champ)
Bagasse
12
CTDS
N/A
Coal
IPP
30
CPP (bagasse)
N/A
Bagasse
CPP
4
Mare Chicose
N/A
Landfill gas IPP
3
Sarako PV Farm
N/A
Solar
IPP
0
236 MW units Diesel
TBD
70
445 MW units TBD
TBD
180
Medine New
New plant
Bagasse
IPP
4
Aerowatt Wind Farm
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New plant
Wind
IPP
0
New 10-MW PV Farm
New plant
Solar PV
IPP
0
SSDG & MSDG
New plant
Solar PV
SIPP
0
Power station

2015
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
30.0
496.5
469.3
46.9
516.2
-3.8%
0.0
2016
127
25
40
0
0
28
56
16
72
15
379
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
559.5
33.0
40.7
485.8
490.3
49.0
539.3
-9.9%
26.5
2017
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
12
30
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
180.5
594.5
33.0
43.1
518.4
517.9
51.8
569.7
-9.0%
22.8
2018
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
0
4
0
0
0
0
238.5
652.5
35.0
46.4
571.1
544.7
54.5
599.2
-4.7%
0.0
2019
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
568.3
56.8
625.2
3.2%
0.0
2020
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
90
4
0
0
0
0
328.5
742.5
45.0
52.5
645.0
589.9
59.0
648.9
-0.6%
0.0
2021
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
135
4
0
0
0
0
373.5
787.5
45.0
55.6
686.9
612.0
61.2
673.2
2.0%
0.0
2022
127
0
40
30
30
28
56
16
72
15
414
0
65.5
0
46
0
20
0
0
30
0
3
0
70
180
4
0
0
0
0
418.5
832.5
45.0
58.7
728.8
634.7
63.5
698.2
4.4%
0.0
151

Mauritius Power Sector RAS Report Part 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Mauritius Power Sector RAS Report Part 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Report No: ACS13923

ASSESSMENT OF DEMAND FORECASTS

Initial electricity demand forecasts

Forecasts of electricity sales

Comparison with recent forecasts from CEB

Sensitized electricity demand forecasts

Conclusions and recommendations

ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND BALANCE

Assessment of supply to peak demand

Conclusions and recommendations

Part V. RECOMMENDATIONS TO STRENGTHEN CAPACITIES TO

Methodologies and procedures for power system planning

Institutional aspects and planning of the power sector

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Annex I. ASSESSMENT OF GENERATION PLAN DEVELOPED AND

Assessment of generation plan DEVELOPED and evaluated with WASP 88

DETAILED SIMULATIONS OF SUPPLY TO PEAK DEMAND 98

Detailed results of simulations of section 5.3.1

10.1 Initial set of demand projections

Detailed results of simulations of section 5.4.1

11.1 Initial set of demand projections

Detailed results of simulations of section 5.5.1

12.1 Initial set of demand projections

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Recommendations for strengthening the capacity of Mauritian institutions to undertake

Bibliographical references and technical annexes follow Part V.

Annex II contains detailed results referring to simulations of supply to peak demand.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

report on how to strengthen the capacity of Mauritian institutions to undertake planning

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Historical peak demand [MW]

Historical peak demand [MW]

Projected peak power demand [MW] Low scenario

Projected peak power demand [MW] Low scenario

Projected peak power demand [MW] Base case

Projected peak power demand [MW] Base case

Projected peak power demand [MW] High scenario

Projected peak power demand [MW] High scenario

Peak power demand [MW]

Peak power demand [MW]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Capacity gap to meet target reserve capacity margin [MW] in year

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Table ES 1.3 Equivalent increments in the injectable generation capacity corresponding

As indicated in Table ES 1.4, implementing these recommendations in the short term is

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Capacity gap to meet target reserve capacity margin [MW] in year

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Table ES 1.5 Capacity additions (projects not currently under consideration or

The determination of the exact technology needed to correspond to these capacity

Capacity gap to meet target reserve capacity margin [MW] in year

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR

Implement mechanisms to allow governmental bodies (including the Ministry of Public

Make sure that other governmental policies (fiscal, industrial, environmental,

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO GOVERNMENT OF MAURITIUS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR