Dear Editor,
A recent published account in the newspaper (Power Company asks homeowners for notice of increased demand for CWC, SN: 2007.01.12) puts GPL’s capacity at 88 MW (peak power demand of 77 MW plus surplus or reserve capacity of 11 MW). This latest statistic is inconsistent with previously published data, and information currently posted on GPL’s website. The latter shows a peak demand of 98 MW in 2002. Power demand on average increases 4 – 8% annually in developing countries like Guyana. This raises the question then of how do we go from a peak demand of 98 MW in 2002 to 77 MW in 2007? This is a decline of 21 MW or a loss of 5% annually and surely the opposite trend. Line loss recovery (39-40%), plant heat rate (efficiency) improvements, and abatement of other losses (theft, etc), are reasonable explanations, but there is no information in the public arena on these matters, except for the conservation measure to replace incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent ones.
Putting that discrepancy aside, and focusing solely on the low reserve margin of 14%, GPL is operating in a high risk environment, a practice anathema to utility business generally. Perhaps this is due to a lack of a standard for reliability/availability and reserve margin – two mutually dependent facets of utility planning. One could also question the oversight that the Public Utility Commission is providing. Reserve margin of 30% was the norm in the 70s for utilities in developed countries. Here in North America, in New York State for instance, the level has been reduced to 18% because of wide inter-connection and high availability (usually around 98%). For an isolated utility like GPL, with inadequate, aging and unreliable plants, the margin should be a lot higher to cover a full spectrum of forced outage conditions. (A standard for Caricom countries is sorely needed, but this is a matter for future discussion.)
With two months to go before the big event of CWC, GPL missed the opportunity to add capacity and should now ratchet up efforts to institute cooperative power purchases (from customers with self generation capability) and curtailment programmes, what I referred to as tier 1 and tier 2 contingency plans. These options were presented in a previous letter (GPL must be prepared for Cricket World Cup, SN: 2006.12.21).
GPL may skate by with its current “do-nothing” plan, but that is like playing Russian roulette. Risk mitigation with solid executable plans in place for contingency management should be mandated by those charged with oversight responsibilities. Ad-hoc response in the event of a major power outage could lead to a debacle, and a huge setback.
Yours faithfully,
Chetram Singh
Editor’s note
We are sending a copy of this letter to Guyana Power and Light for any comments they may wish to make.
