Source: USAID/India Flickr

USAID/INDIA GREENING THE GRID (GTG) PROJECT

– FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
FINAL REPORT
Collaborating, Learning & Adapting in India Mechanism
(CLAIM), Task Order No. 1
IDIQ # 72038619D00001
Task Order # 72038620F00003

October 13, 2021

DISCLAIMER: The views of the expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for
International Development or the United States Government.
Contract Title: Collaborating, Learning and Adapting in India Mechanism (CLAIM)

Contract Number: 72038619D00001; TO No. 72038620F00003

Submitted: October 13, 2021

Contractor: Panagora Group

Sub-contractor: Grant Thornton India

Author: Amit Bando (Team Leader), Velimir Lackovic (Energy Specialist), Antony Gerard
(Regulatory Specialist)
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
ANNEXES PROVIDE: .................................................................................................................................................. 8

OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 9
EVALUATION PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................... 9
EVALUATION APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................... 9
THE APPROACH USED BY PANAGORA FOR THE GTG PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS
SUMMARIZED IN THE FOLLOWING FIGURE: ................................................................................................. 9
EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 10

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 13
REMOTE DATA COLLECTION ............................................................................................................................ 13
DOCUMENT REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE INDICATOR ANALYSIS.................................................. 13
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ................................................. 13
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 14
GUIDING PRINCIPLES ............................................................................................................................................. 15
LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL BIASES .......................................................................................................... 16

WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................... 17

TEAM COMPOSITION ............................................................................................................................................. 17

FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................... 21
STATUS OF PILOT PROJECTS .............................................................................................................................. 23
BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY........................................................................................................................ 26
BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY ......................................................................................................................... 28
COAL-BASED FLEXIBLE POWER GENERATION (NATIONAL AND STATE) ...................................... 29
AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL (AGC) ........................................................................................... 30
DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER CONTROL ................... 33
REGIONAL PLATFORM RESERVE SHARING.................................................................................................... 35
STATUS OF CROSS-CUTTING, REGULATORY, AND SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES............................. 38

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 45
RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................. 47
A. PILOT-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: ..................................................................................................... 47
B. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO OVERALL PROGRAM INITIATIVES....................................... 51
C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING ........................................................................ 53

ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 55
ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF GTG PILOT PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED TO DATE...................................... 55
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILOT PROJECTS............................................ 62
ANNEX 3: DATA SOURCES, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS TO BE USED
TO ADDRESS EVALUATION QUESTIONS....................................................................................................... 65
ANNEX 4: RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 66
ANNEX 5: DRAFT DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL AND LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS ........ 78
ANNEX 6: LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED.......................................................................... 87

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS ........................................................................ 9

TABLE 2 TEAM COMPOSITION, LOE AND DELIVERABLES ........................................................................... 16

TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF PILOT FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 23

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ENGAGEMENT............................................................................... 40

TABLE 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PILOT PROJECTS............................................. 57

TABLE 6 SUMMARY EVALUATION MATRIX........................................................................................................ 64

 ACRONYMS

ACEF Asia Clean Energy Forum GOI Government of India

AFC annual fixed charge GSECL Gujarat State Energy Corporation
Limited
AGC automatic generation control
GTG Greening the Grid
AS ancillary services
IAA Inter-Agency Agreement
BESS battery energy storage systems
IAC Industry Advisory Council
BRPL BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
IEC International Electrotechnical
CAPEX capital expenditure
Commission
CEA Central Electricity Authority
INR Indian Rupees
CERC Central Electricity
IP implementing partner
Regulatory Commission
IRENA International Renewable Energy
CLAIM Collaborating, Learning, and
Agency
Adapting in India Mechanism
IT information technology
DERC Delhi Electricity Regulatory
Commission KEC KEC International
DISCOM distribution company KI key informant
DO Development Objective KII key informant interview
DPR Detailed Project Report KPCL Karnataka Power Corporation
Limited
DRPC dynamic reactive power control
KPTCL Karnataka Power Transmission
DSM deviation settlement mechanism Corporation Limited
EQ evaluation question LDC Load Dispatch Centre
EU European Union LOE level of effort
EV electric vehicle MBED Market Based Economic Dispatch
FAT factory acceptance test MEL monitoring, evaluation, and
F&S forecasting and scheduling learning

FGD focus group discussion MOP Ministry of Power

FOR Forum of Regulators MU million units

GENCOS Generation Companies MW megawatt

1
MWh megawatt hour RTM real-time market
NARUC National Association of Regulatory RTU remote terminal unit
Utility Commissioners
SAMAST Scheduling, Metering, Accounting
NLDC National Load Dispatch Centre and Settlement of Transactions in
Electricity
NOAR National Open Access Registry
SAT site acceptance test
NREL National Renewable Energy
Laboratory SAWIE South Asia Women in Energy
NTPC National Thermal Power SCADA Supervisory Control and Data
Corporation Acquisition
OA Open Access SCED Security Constrained Economic
Dispatch
OPEX operating expenses or
expenditures SLDC State Load Dispatch Center
PAC Project Advisory Committee SOW scope of work
PCC Power Control Centre STATCOM Static synchronous Compensator
PF power factor TA technical assistance
PGCIL Power Grid Corporation of India T&D Transmission and Distribution
Limited
TL team leader
POSOCO Power System Operation
Corporation TOC Theory of Change

PPA Power Purchase Agreement TPP thermal power plant

PSSE Power system simulator for U.S. United States

engineering USAID United States Agency for
International Development
PV Photovoltaics
USEA U.S. Energy Association
PX power exchange
USG United States Government
QCA Qualified Coordinating Agency
USISPF US-India Strategic Partnership
RE renewable energy
Forum
RISE Renewable Integration and
Sustainable Energy Initiative VRE variable renewable energy

RLDC Regional Load Dispatch Centers WIP work in progress

2
ABSTRACT

This document reports on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of a final performance
evaluation of the Greening the Grid (GTG) project. GTG is a five-year initiative under the U.S-India
Strategic Clean Energy Partnership (SCEP) that aims to support efforts of the Government of India
(GOI) to manage large-scale integration of renewable energy (RE) into regional and national grids. An
important component of GTG were the pilot projects intended to demonstrate promising technologies
for RE integration. The evaluation was carried out by Panagora Group in February-August 2021, and
uses a mixed-methods approach, combining extensive document review and key informant interviews
with GTG stakeholders. The main conclusions were that several pilots were successfully completed;
other pilots were not yet completed due to delays in implementation; there was insufficient emphasis on
sustainability and replication; and overall GTG had only partially met its main objectives. However, GTG
had successfully engaged the GOI at national and state levels on policy and regulatory issues; this was
reflected in strong buy-in and support from the GOI, which gives USAID a solid foundation for follow-
on work with the GOI. Recommendations for future USAID/India programming include ensuring full
engagement with state-level GOI agencies; ensuring that technology choices have support from all
government and private-sector stakeholders; increasing the emphasis on the building the enabling
environment for RE integration; allowing greater for flexibility and adaptation of activities in response to
changing conditions; and ensuring robust, opportune monitoring and evaluation to inform learning and
adaptive management.

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Greening the Grid (GTG) is a five-year initiative under the U.S-India Strategic Clean Energy Partnership
(SCEP) that aims to support efforts of the Government of India (GOI) to manage large-scale integration
of renewable energy (RE). The theory of change (TOC) for this project is “to build the flexibility of
India’s grid through new market opportunities for the private sector, for ancillary services, better
forecasting, improved operating systems and equipment, and flexible energy services.”

The bulk of GTG activities has focused on pilot projects implemented under the Renewable Integration
and Sustainable Energy Initiative (RISE) that also integrates reforms through public-private partnerships
at the state and regional levels and provides technical assistance (TA). GTG also includes an Interagency
Agreement (IAA) between USAID and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Laboratories to support
power system planning reforms and targeted analysis for pilot programs. Two India addendums (buy-ins)
to the cooperative agreements with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
(NARUC) and the U.S. Energy Association (USEA) support peer exchange for innovation by regulators,
grid operators, and utilities.
The final performance evaluation of the GTG program was conducted between February 25, 2021, and
July 15, 2021. Given the logistical challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, all data collection and
analysis activities were conducted remotely. A three-person technical team was supported by two
logisticians to conduct a comprehensive desk review of over 120 documents supplemented by 40-plus
key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) as well as discussions with
3
implementing partners (IPs). In addition to validating the TOC and assessing the status and effectiveness
of the individual pilots, the purpose of this performance evaluation was to generate learning inputs for
implementing the new Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and to inform similar
mechanisms USAID might design in the future.
The evaluation team conducted a cross-comparison of available documents against the pilots’ scope of
work (SOW) and international best practices. The structured KIIs were developed in consultation with
USAID/India—were used to compare responses from key informants (KIs) with the findings of the desk
review. Given that most of the GTG activities focused on the pilots, the evaluation team necessarily
spent a lot of time assessing the status and effectiveness of pilot activities. Also, the team examined the
status of the cross- cutting and supporting activities (especially those aimed at providing regulatory and
policy support to the pilots) as well as the role of U.S. Government (USG) partners in the design and
implementation of GTG activities. The overall findings and conclusion were developed based on a
triangulation of the compiled data. The resulting recommendations can be grouped as those that are: (A)
pilot specific; (B) related to overall program initiatives; and (C) program focused. Overall findings and
conclusions can be summarized as follows:
Some pilot projects have been successfully completed. This is true of the pilots on Battery Energy
Storage Systems (BESS) and Coal-Based Flexible Power Generation. The pilots have generated useful
and specific learnings; however, given that the pilots were essentially designed as stand-alone initiatives
to demonstrate the effectiveness of individual technologies, guidance on pathways to replicate, scale-up
and sustain similar activities in other geographic locations in India is limited, often requiring different
parameters of operation compared to those at the pilot site(s). It should be noted that the delays in
implementation schedules have prevented meaningful replication and scaling up of successful pilots. For
this reason, on balance, the GTG project has only partially met its overall objectives. The status of the
pilot activities can be summarized as follows:
1. BESS in Transmission Utility – mainly met the original scope even though scalability and
sustainability are not clearly addressed. There are incomplete details on Part A and Part B of the
SOW.
2. BESS in Distribution Utility – while it is now being indicated that this activity was not supposed
to be a separate pilot, it was presented as such to the evaluation team. This activity did not
meet original scope objectives and activities have changed. Results were never clearly presented
- scalability and sustainability cannot be assessed or documented. Changes in the SOW and
failing to meet the original SOW objectives point to design flaws.
3. Coal flexibility – pilot did relatively well.
4. AGC – a lot of problems were noted, particularly for the AGC in PV implementation. At the
time of the evaluation, the pilot was not complete even though there were no major technical
challenges. Part B of the scope has never been completed. There was a design problem with the
pilot.
5. DRPC – original scope was not met. Not a single KII could be scheduled, and documentation is
non-existent. Again, this is a design problem.
6. Regional Platform for Reserve Sharing – mostly complete.

The regulatory, policy and institutional support provided under GTG has been well received.
Institutions such as the Forum of Regulators (FOR) and the Central Electric Regulatory Commission
(CERC) have benefitted from the support provided by GTG, and this support is acknowledged by GOI

4
stakeholders. Several analytical reports have been delivered and the discussions facilitated by GTG have
resulted in moving the agenda forward on the policy and regulatory front. More needs to be done by
USAID as a follow up to GTG-RISE to address key issues such as compensation mechanisms and the
final implementation of the National Open Access Registry (NOAR) to support RE integration. Clearly,
these initiatives have long gestation periods - future USG and GOI programs need to provide necessary
continuing support to build on the momentum provided by GTG.
Several GTG (pilot) initiatives are still underway. Delays have resulted from several factors, including
the need to re-design activities post contract-award, lack of coordination among complementary and
supporting activities, insufficient coordination among stakeholders during project implementation, and
logistical bottlenecks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect, the final project evaluation was
more of a mid-term evaluation and few recommendations could be developed to address future project
design.
Proper documentation is lacking. Even when project activities have been successfully completed,
there is a gap in necessary documentation. This lack of data prevents a thorough evaluation through
triangulation of data gleaned from the KIIs. Furthermore, that lack of complete documentation of the
protocols used, technical specifications and drawings of the equipment procured, economic and financial
analyses of the actions implemented, and other relevant information prevented an in-depth exploration
of the potential for replicating and scaling up project initiatives.
Implementing Partners were “siloed” in their activities. While they were responsible for delivering
on their own pilots’/activities’ results/outcomes, they did not believe that they should be held
accountable for the sustainability of GTG results/outcomes. Clear roadmaps, metrics, and benchmarks
had not been established to link individual activities to overall program success and ultimate validation of
the Theory of Change. The evaluation team concluded that the GTG project has not validated the
project’s TOC.
Project design and implementation efforts were not sufficiently inclusive. In particular, the
pilot activities were initially designed without thorough consultations with stakeholders at the state
level. At project inception, the planned activities had to be vetted with state level stakeholders (e.g., in
Karnataka) – this was time consuming, often involved redesigning activities and significantly delayed
project implementation. In the case of some pilots, these activities reflected the needs and ground-level
realities of the pilot sites. However, given the vastly different needs, resource and skills availabilities, and
infrastructure facilities among Indian states, these successes did not translate into appropriate “lessons
learned” for activities to be replicated at other locations in India. The complementary and support
activities (including those related to certain policy and regulatory support mechanisms) must be adjusted
to reflect the location-specific parameters. This issue was not adequately addressed, resulting in
program shortcomings.
State level involvement in project design and implementation is critical – without this, pilot activities
cannot be scaled and sustained. This coordination with state-level stakeholders was achieved in
Karnataka and Gujarat – however, this may still not be sufficient to ensure scalability. Several KIs have
noted the lack of involvement of state level stakeholders as an impediment to widespread replication
and scalability of pilot initiatives.

5
The role of other GTG partners was quite limited, despite some successes. The evaluation team
examined the activities of other GTG partners, including NREL and USEA. It is noteworthy that during
the KIIs both NREL and USEA stated that they were unaware of any actions resulting from their initial
work, because “Indian counterparts were not interested in the proposed frameworks”.
The work done by NREL with BRPL is mentioned in the annexes to this report (as KII notes); there is
limited information on this activity because additional supporting documents were unavailable. NREL
activities were primarily study related and focused on technical support to the Indian teams. NREL had
also offered to complete additional analyses, but this offer was not accepted by the GOI as there was a
strong push to proceed with the pilot implementation.
In several instances, reports and documents on subjects such as grid-wide integration were not shared
opportunely with the evaluation team. Several reports (such as the flagship reports on national and state
level grid integration - released in 2017 and produced by jointly by NREL, LBNL, POSOCO and USAID)
developed by the GTG program were not made available to the evaluation team until after the desk
review and field work were completed, and for this reason were not included in the analysis. They
were reportedly critical documents in determining the selection of the pilots and the technologies to be
used.
Overall, the non-RISE partners’ contribution to capacity building, development of white papers (e.g., for
CERC/POSOCO), conducting conferences, etc. resulted in “increased awareness” on renewable energy
integration among India stakeholders. These activities have been counted here as partial successes.
USAID has noted that the national and regional integration studies have transferred technical know-how
and capacity to national state modeling teams.
The RISE Secretariat was partially successful. The RISE secretariat successfully organized webinars,
conferences, and capacity building sessions while also coordinating partner activities and communicating
with the GOI. This set of activities led to increased awareness of relevant issues within the broad
stakeholder community – this has been a success. GOI stakeholders praised the quality of
communications provided by the secretariat. During project implementation, the USG partners were
not “kept in the loop” and they felt that their inputs were sought only on an ad-hoc basis. In particular,
there were no clear designation of stakeholders’ roles, resulting in a lot of confusion.
Overall, the GTG program faced several major challenges that limited its success. These can be
broadly divided as:
(a) Design related - includes decisions that should have been made prior to commencing the
projects by understanding the ground level requirements. Instead, projects were started
hurriedly and only then was it realized that the project scope may not be adequate or that
Limited Role of partners were not willing to participate in the pilot under given conditions.
(b) Implementation related - primarily related to the unwillingness of bidders to participate in
certain pilots due to the onerous regulations (US and Indian regulations had to be complied
with) or slow approval processes.

Implementation was also delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it would be unfair to
attribute all delays to the pandemic. The pandemic exacerbated the existing delays. Put another way,
four pilots (Pilots 1, 2, 4, and 5) have had challenges related to design. They are late, incomplete, and
have different deliverables and outcomes compared to those contemplated in the original SOW. As
6
such, 2/3 (67%) of the original SOW of the Pilots has not been met in one way or another because of
design issues. Covid related delays have compounded the problems arising from design flaws.
The report provides further details on the findings and conclusions. These findings and conclusions have
been used to generate a set of recommendations that is included in the report.
Pilot projects should be completed. Clearly, we recommend that key pilot activities be completed as
outlined in the original/modified SOW with a special emphasis on completing all documentation. This is
an essential step toward knowledge sharing and the design of future initiatives based on lessons learned
from GTG activities.
Continued work on the enabling environment is needed. To the maximum extent possible, USAID
and implementing partners should also work with the India stakeholders to ensure that the policies,
regulations, and market mechanisms that have been developed under GTG be adopted so that an
enabling environment is established. This environment can build the flexibility of India’s grid through new
market opportunities for the private sector, for ancillary services, better forecasting, improved
operating systems and equipment, and flexible energy services. In varying degrees, the completed and
continuing activities under GTG have demonstrated the viability of these mechanisms within a pilot.
Widespread adoption of these practices is possible only through continued action (beyond GTG) on
several fronts. Particular attention should be paid to compensation mechanisms, NOAR implementation,
evaluation of appropriate technologies for different locations, and cybersecurity for the grid.
Future programming should emphasize stakeholder involvement. When considering future
program design, special attention should be paid to including all stakeholders (especially those at the
state level). USG partners should be better integrated into program design and implementation with
clear channels of communication established among implementing partners. Greater private-sector
participation should be encouraged by addressing private-sector concerns around cumbersome bidding
conditions and opaque selection criteria.
Future programming should be flexible and adaptable to changes in the operating environment.
We recommend that future projects be designed for greater flexibility to modify specific activities based
on a reading of ground-level realities during project implementation. The feedback loop for learning and
refinement of activities should be tight and strong. Project activities should be linked to each other as
part of an integrated whole with a focused agenda.

Programming should be accompanied by strong monitoring, evaluation and learning frameworks.

Appropriate benchmarks should be established to monitor, evaluate, and learn from progress at the
systems level. Otherwise, we will continue to run the risk of delivering successful pilots that
demonstrate specific technologies and methodologies without addressing the key issues around
replication, scalability, and sustainability of successful project initiatives.

7
INTRODUCTION
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/India contracted Panagora Group
through the Collaborating, Learning and Adapting in India Mechanism (CLAIM) to conduct
a final performance evaluation of the Greening the Grid (GTG) program. GTG is a five-year initiative of
the United States–India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy Deployment. It aims to support the efforts
of the Government of India (GOI) in managing large-scale integration of renewable energy (RE). The
evaluation design and planning as well as the data collection and analysis were conducted remotely with
limited support from the India-based team members.

This Final Report includes a brief background on the GTG program and an overview of this evaluation
that clarifies its purpose, as well as the evaluation questions (EQs) and sub-questions to be used in
conducting the evaluation. It specifies the design and description of the methodology deployed by the
evaluation team, including:

• Descriptions of data collection methods and the methodology for analysis

• Guiding principles under which the team operated
• Limitations and potential biases of the methodology as well as ways in which the evaluation team
attempted to mitigate the perceived limitations and biases

ANNEXES PROVIDE:
• Brief summaries of the five pilots the GTG program has implemented
• A list of research documents that the evaluation team reviewed
• The evaluation matrix listing data sources and methods for data collection and analysis
• The data collection protocol
• A list of key stakeholders who were interviewed.

8
OVERVIEW
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The GTG program aimed to enhance the efforts of Government of India’s to better manage large-scale
integration of RE into the power grid. This goal was designed to be achieved through improved planning
of RE generation, transmission, and system operation, as well as a series of innovation pilots to validate
technologies and solutions that would support integration of RE into the grid. GTG innovation pilots 1
were expected to involve key power-sector stakeholders, including state utilities, regulators, load
dispatch centers, national power sector entities, and the Indian and external private sector. GTG
combined multiple activities that interacted with each other:

● Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy Initiative (RISE) initiative to validate

technologies and solution to support RE integration through innovation pilots and technical
assistance (TA). The RISE Task Order aims to support the design, implementation, and
scaling of pilot initiatives for large-scale integration of RE into the power grid. It also aims to
coordinate and consolidate the services that are provided under the Inter-Agency
Agreement (IAA) with DOE and the buy-ins into the cooperative agreements with NARUC
and USEA. Also, RISE provides monitoring, data collection, and reporting for the overall
GTG program.
● An Interagency Agreement (IAA) between USAID and the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Laboratories to support power system planning reforms and targeted analysis for
pilot programs for large RE parks and RE integration activities.
● Two India addendums (buy-ins) to the cooperative agreements with the National
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) and the U.S. Energy Association
(USEA) to support peer exchange for innovation by regulators and grid operators.

EVALUATION PURPOSE
As per the scope of work (SOW), the purpose of this performance evaluation is to provide monitoring,
evaluation, and learning (MEL) services to generate learning inputs for implementing the new Country
Development Cooperation Strategy. This evaluation will guide USAID/India in identifying lessons
learned from GTG implementation and informing similar mechanisms USAID might design in the future.

EVALUATION APPROACH
The approach used by Panagora for the GTG performance evaluation is summarized in the following
figure:

1
Annex 1 provides a summary of the GTG pilot initiatives.

9
 Cross comparison
of documents
Extensive desk against original Set of structured Cross comparison Findings,
review of available pilots’ scope of KIIs for all pilot of KII responses recommendations
documents work and projects against findings of and conclusions
international desk review
practices

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Through the findings derived from data collected over the course of this final performance evaluation,
the evaluation team sought to provide conclusions and recommendations related to the following EQs
and sub-questions. These questions were derived considering the technical and financial viability,
sustainability, and overall scalability of the implemented pilot projects. The main EQs were developed in
consultation with USAID while finalizing the evaluation SOW. In this report, we have presented a set of
more granular sub-questions that were incorporated into the data collection instruments.

TABLE 1 EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUB-QUESTIONS
1. To what extent has the 1.1. Impacts on VRE integration. In terms of overall impacts, what has been
GTG program achieved the change in VRE integration into power grids compared to the
its objective of assisting baseline situation?
the GOI in integrating
large-scale, variable 1.2. Contributions of pilots. What are the outcomes of the pilots in
renewable energy contributing to the overall objectives of the activity, and what are the
(VRE) into the existing
demonstrable results on the selected utilities?
power grid?

1.3. Impact on regulatory change. How effective has GTG been in supporting
national and state regulatory bodies, in particular, the Forum of
Regulators? What are GTG’s impacts on regulatory changes?

2. To what extent has the 2.1. New market opportunities for the private sector. How effective has GTG
theory of change (TOC) been in identifying and demonstrating these opportunities? What
for this project “to specific GTG actions can you identify—how effective were these
build the flexibility of actions?
India’s grid through
new market 2.2. Ancillary and flexible energy services. How has GTG performed in this
opportunities for the area? What specific program actions contributed to this objective?
private sector, for What could GTG have done better in this area?
ancillary services,
better forecasting, 2.3. Better forecasting. How and what did GTG contribute to better
improved operating forecasting—what added benefits did the program provide to
systems and equipment, stakeholders? Who benefitted and how?
and flexible energy

10
 services” been 2.4. Improved operating systems and equipment. What specific systems and
validated? equipment were improved under GTG and to what extent did this help
provide flexibility in India’s grid?

2.5. Are there signs of measurable flexibility in India’s grid? What has
contributed the most to this improved flexibility?

3. What possibilities and 3.1. Is there evidence that the program outcomes are likely to grow, scale
challenges are there for up and out, past the project period of implementation (sustainability)?
applying, replicating,
and scaling up the GTG 3.2. What are the challenges that pilots have faced and how can these be
interventions—in addressed during similar actions in the future?
particular, the pilot
3.3. What changes/improvements need to be made to make the program
projects? Are they
interventions more scalable and sustainable, and to achieve an
sustainable?
enhanced development impact?

3.4. Have pilots contributed to establishing technical baselines that can be

used to develop technical specifications and standards for equipment?

3.5. Have pilots allowed measurable impact on the existing market and
suggested possible regulatory changes?

3.6. What recommendations can improve geographic selection, sub-sector

identification, beneficiary private company selection, and resource
allocation?

3.7. What additional support is required to make the program interventions

—especially the pilots—sustainable?

4. How has the sector 4.1. Which market/technological/policy/regulatory issues should be the
evolved in the five years focus of future programming?
since GTG was
conceived and 4.2. What should be the approach to pilot projects, integration studies,
designed? Looking at etc.?
this recent evolution
4.3. How can this future work be made relevant for both India and the
and emerging
South Asia region?
technologies for VRE
integration, what 4.4. Which components (pilots, studies, analyses, etc.) should future
should be the focus of activities include so that a more uniform approach can be followed in
follow-on project design and implementation by adjusting and linking program
programming? components?

5. How far has GTG been 5.1. Any lessons learned from the intervention regarding gender equality
successful in and the empowerment of women for future programming in the energy
incorporating gender sector?
into the implementation
of the overall project

11
approach and the
individual
pilots/components?

12
METHODOLOGY
The evaluation team deployed a mixed-methods approach, building on the initial document review. The
approach included both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to derive findings. Data
were collected from multiple sources, and findings triangulated during the data analysis stage. The
evaluation used four data collection methodologies: 1) document review, 2) analysis of GTG
performance indicators and other quantitative data, 3) key informant interviews (KIIs), and 4) focus
group discussions (FGDs). The evaluation team has reviewed more than 120 documents and the
relevant findings, conclusions, and recommendations have been compiled as part of the desk review. Ten
KIIs were completed with the implementing partners (IPs) along with 18 interviews and FGDs with GOI
officials and 21 other KIIs and FGDs.

Data analysis was parallel and sequential to identify emerging themes and trends for probing to
strengthen findings as they emerged and to formulate conclusions as well as to test accuracy following
the conclusion of initial data collection and analysis (see Annex 2).

REMOTE DATA COLLECTION

Given the limitations on travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, the team relied on remote data
collection. Videoconferencing technology was used, and notes recorded for later analysis. The COVID-
19 pandemic prevented all face-to-face interactions. Also, several KIIs need to be rescheduled—often
multiple times—to accommodate the uncertain and unanticipated workload changes of the targeted KIIs.
Delays resulted in conducting the evaluation exercise, and the data-collection effort was adversely
affected. Also, during several KIIs, the team was informed that the pandemic had slowed down or
completely halted GTG activities in certain areas and on certain pilots, adding to existing delays. Several
project activities were still ongoing while this final project evaluation was being conducted.

DOCUMENT REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE INDICATOR ANALYSIS

Document review involved assessing project-related literature to understand the context and underlying
concept of the project, as well as to understand the roles and activities conducted by the different IPs.
We reviewed the contracts/IAA/cooperative agreements; all project reporting including inception,
quarterly, and annual progress reports; as well as work plans and MEL plans, evaluation and strategy
documents, any background research documents on topics related to the project themes and context,
and other technical documents produced by GTG, including assessments, pilot project designs, etc.
Initial document review informed the development of data collection protocols for KIIs. In all, over 120
documents have been reviewed as part of this evaluation.

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

After the document review, the team leader, power grid integration specialist, and regulatory specialist
conduct the KIIs with purposively selected samples of GTG program stakeholder groups. The team used
a pre-existing data collection protocol (guide), while using a subject-driven iterative process in which

13
information was assembled transversely across successive interviews so that it could be aggregated and
analyzed cohesively and consistently. i2 The evaluation team focused on:

• USAID staff members, including staff members at the USAID/India Mission.

• IP staff members, including GTG/RISE/Deloitte field-based and home-office staff members,
NREL, USEA, and NARUC.
• “Pilot Project” staff members, including companies contacted by GTG through road shows
and other outreach stratified by companies contracting and non-contracting with GTG (non-
contracting companies will provide a counter-factual to understand why some interactions
between GTG and companies did not come to fruition as contracts for pilots)
• Partner country staff members, including relevant state and national government officials as
well as staff members of state utilities

The evaluation team developed a provisional list of specific respondents from each stakeholder group
after the kickoff meeting with the full team. The list was shared with USAID/India for review, feedback,
and eventual finalization.

The purpose of the KIIs is to probe results of the document review and indicator analysis for more
specific findings related to the evaluation questions. KII participants were purposively selected according
to the likelihood of significant knowledge of GTG project activities, as well as convenience of access to
the largest number of informants possible over the course of data collection within the limited time
available to the evaluation team.

To guide the KIIs, the team developed data collection protocols (interview guides) for KIIs, following
initial unstructured interviews with USAID and staff of the GTG IPs. Annex 4 includes the protocols
used during this evaluation. We have anonymized the notes from the KIIs and FGDs.

Our initial analysis had identified a universe of 30 stakeholders (however, sometimes several people from
the same organization interacted with GTG in different components/activities). Some KIIs required
follow-up interviews to drill down on issues that emerged during data collection. FGDs were particularly
useful in pilot projects. A list of stakeholder organizations is included in Annex 5.

DATA ANALYSIS METHODS

The team leader, power grid integration specialist, and regulatory specialist participated in a review of
key documents and conducted KIIs with the identified groups. Under the supervision of the team leader,
team members conducted ongoing basic analysis throughout document review to identify any emerging
trends. These analyses were transmitted to the evaluation team as they became available 3 and used to
inform probing questions during subsequent KIIs. When analyses were completed, team members
aggregated all data online and presented the data in a series of visualizations determined in coordination
with the team leader.

2
King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sydney Verba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research, Princeton University Press,
2016.
3
Annex 1 and Annex 3 summarize the results to date; review, data collection, and analysis are ongoing.
14
The evaluation team used methodological triangulation of data obtained initially during document review
and analysis to develop parallel protocols with the same or similar questions across KIIs. Throughout
KIIs overseen by the team leader, evaluation team members recorded data directly into audio recording
software for subsequent transcription by the Panagora support team at Grant Thornton India. Also, the
team members who conducted the interviews will transcribe key notes into Microsoft (MS) Word-based
forms in real time, analyzing feedback daily to identify emerging trends to aggregate findings around
common themes and generate further probing questions (see Annex 2: Evaluation Matrix). The team
used three types of data analysis methods:

• Triangulation: The evaluation team used methodological triangulation to cross-verify and cross-
validate findings that emerged from distinct data sources to identify correlations between findings
related to the five evaluation questions. This method also enabled the evaluation team to
strengthen potential linkages and accuracy of data in cases where results obtained through one
method were less conclusive than another method.

• Content Analysis: The evaluation team conducted an intensive review of KII transcripts and data to
identify and highlight notable examples of GTG successes and challenges that contributed to or
hindered progress against indicator targets identified through the document review and analysis.

• Trend Analysis: Trend analysis enabled the evaluation team to further examine GTG progress
toward targets, beyond the initial indicator analysis, over time to identify how specific exogenous
and endogenous events may have contributed to the final outcomes.

Data were analyzed throughout the course of this evaluation to identify initial findings and conclusions
for a consultative presentation (out-briefing) with USAID/India following development of the interim
evaluation report. Based on feedback during the presentation, analysis continued until submission of the
draft final report. After the final report is submitted, all interview transcripts collected by the evaluation
team will be made available to USAID in a format scrubbed of identifying text to protect respondent
confidentiality. All audio recordings will be destroyed to protect respondent confidentiality.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The evaluation team operated under the following guiding principles:

• Participation, to ensure that those affected by the project can voice their expectations, experience,
learning points, and insights
• Ownership, to ensure that USAID and other key stakeholders own the evaluation process
• Teamwork, to ensure a diversity of approaches and seek consensus on the fundamental issues
• Learning, to ensure that USAID, the evaluation team, and other stakeholders can identify and use
the lessons learned and that the process contributes to clear project improvements over the
remaining implementation period

15
LIMITATIONS AND POTENTIAL BIASES
The evaluation methodology that was used has several potential biases and limitations that have
implications for the types of findings and conclusions that can be drawn from this performance
evaluation. These, and the steps the evaluation team took to mitigate them, include:

• Positive response (“halo”) bias: Probing questions regarding finance issues and development
outcomes may result in positive response bias, i.e., the tendency of respondents to subjectively
focus on positive outcomes. The teams tried to mitigate this bias by probing for both successes
and challenges to develop the most holistic picture possible of GTG program achievements as well
as challenges relative to the evaluation questions. Responses were triangulated against data
collected from the GTG activity documents, including contracts, progress reports, financial
analyses, and other technical documents produced by the IP.

• Selection bias: Selection bias is an inherent risk when implementers help to facilitate contact
with members of some stakeholder groups. The team worked closely with USAID and GTG-RISE
staff members and with project stakeholders to organize KIIs. However, the risk remains that
GTG staff members selected the most active, responsive, or engaged individuals; the team may
have heard only from key informants who reported positive experiences. To mitigate the risk of
selection bias, before launching data collection, the team requested that the GTG-RISE staff
members provide a universal list of stakeholders in advance of the KIIs. Subsequently, the team
identified individuals from this list to contact for KIIs.

• Sampling limitations: Due to restrictions on movement related to the COVID-19 pandemic,

the team could not travel to field sites to conduct in-person observations. Also, due to time and
resource constraints, the evaluation team could conduct KIIs only with a selected sample of each
stakeholder group. While the team worked closely with the GTG staff members to identify a
reasonably representative sample set of interviewees from each stakeholder group, this does not
provide a comprehensive picture of GTG performance and results. This approach best served as a
basis for probing around topics.

• Subjective measurements: Qualitative approaches can result in performance analysis being

dependent on the professional opinions and experience of the evaluation team. This may result in
findings, conclusions, and recommendations being derived from the team’s subjective
interpretations. The team attempted to mitigate this bias through systematic triangulation of
findings across stakeholder groups and methods while drawing evidence-based conclusions and
recommendations based on the data (rather than on their professional experiences). Also, where
possible, the team sought out the professional opinions of relevant skilled personnel to
collaborate and review findings and conclusions with the goal of improving their accuracy and
soundness.

16
WORK PLAN
TEAM COMPOSITION
The evaluation team was comprised of five team members:

Amit Bando, Senior Evaluation Specialist (Team Leader): Mr. Bando was responsible for overall
implementation of the evaluation, including finalizing development of the data collection tools and
ensuring that all expected tasks and deliverables are achieved on time and are of high quality. He
oversaw design of the evaluation framework, including determining the methodology and organizing the
schedule and meetings. He also led interviews and managed other data collection events, supervised and
led data analysis with input from team members, led development of conclusions and recommendations
based on findings derived from the data (using inputs from the other team members), and drafted the
initial presentation of findings and final evaluation report.

Velimir Lackovic, Power Grid Integration Specialist: Mr. Lackovic was responsible for providing
technical contributions to the team for the latest RE integration and development practices. He was also
involved in document review and indicator analysis, and preparation of KIIs and FGDs (as relevant). His
technical contributions included cross-comparisons of the outputs and finding of the completed program
against relevant standards, procedures, and practices. Mr. Lackovic provided independent findings,
conclusions, and recommendations to the team leader, who incorporated them into the draft and final
evaluation report.

Antony Gerald, Regulatory Specialist: Mr. Gerald conducted a detailed review of the background
documents, analyze the information, and provided written assessments of the quality, relevance, and
importance of the data contained in the documents. Based on document review, he identified gaps and
assisted the team leader in finalizing the data collection protocols. He supported the team’s efforts for
the KIIs and FGDs. The regulatory specialist drafted sections of reports and provided comments on
sections written by other team members. Also, he contributed to revising and rewriting sections of each
report as warranted, based on feedback from USAID and other stakeholders.

Rajesh Pamruwal and Tarini Gupta, Logisticians: Under the direction of the team leader, the
logisticians were responsible for scheduling contacts with interviewees. The logistician maintained a
schedule of all interviews by stakeholder group to guarantee the continuity of workflow throughout data
collection (the schedule maintains the anonymity of contacts in line with USAID guidance on interviewee
confidentiality).

TABLE 2 TEAM COMPOSITION, LOE AND DELIVERABLES

POSITION LOE DELIVERABLES

Team Leader (TL) 64 • Develop inception report and work plan

Amit Bando • Design evaluation methodology
• Provide overall supervision of the evaluation team
• Oversee data collection and analysis
• Assume overall responsibility for draft and final evaluation report(s)

17
 Power Grid 51 • Draft summaries of findings from document review as assigned by TL
Integration • Develop list of key informants for interviews
Specialist • Provide review and input for finalizing data collection instruments as
well as inputs for draft and final evaluation report(s)
Velimir Lackovic
• Provide contextual briefings on topics related to interviews
• Provide written summaries of findings from key informant interviews
• Draft sections of consultative presentation as assigned by TL
• Draft sections of evaluation report(s) as assigned by TL

Regulatory Specialist 54 • Draft summaries of findings from document review as assigned by TL

• Develop list of key informants for interviews
Antony Gerald
• Provide review and input for finalizing data collection instruments
• Provide contextual briefings on topics related to interviews (oral)
• Provide written summaries of findings from key informant interviews
• Draft sections of consultative presentation as assigned by TL
• Draft input for sections of evaluation report(s) as assigned by TL

Logisticians 46 • Update and manage interview planner as assigned by TL

• Provide written transcripts and digital recordings of key informant
Rajesh Pamruwal and interviews
Tarini Gupta
• Provide weekly status report to TL on meetings scheduled and
logistics arranged, and record management updates

The evaluation team conducted this work between February 25, 2021, and July 15, 2021. The team
leader and power grid integration specialist initiated the evaluation on February 25, 2021 with the launch
of document review. Implementation milestones began with developing an inception report by March
19, 2021. This activity was followed by a series of remote kickoff meetings with the full evaluation team,
the RISE team, and USAID/India from March through April. Data collection, including KIIs, took place
April 5 through June 15, 2021, with a final out-brief to USAID/India on June 30, 2021. 4

4
The overall schedule was impacted by numerous delays in schedule and cancellations that were related to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
This also resulted in Team LOE being used on additional logistics-related issues.
18
FINDINGS
The findings and conclusions from the desk review of documents and the multiple KIIs can be grouped
into those that (A) answer the evaluation questions (EQs), (B) evaluate the status of the Pilot Projects,
and (C) address the status of the cross-cutting project activities and regulatory support as well as other
supporting initiatives. This section summarizes each set of findings and conclusions.

ANSWERS TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS

EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS

EQ1: To what extent has the • The objectives cannot be considered fully met except for successful
GTG program achieved its demonstration of certain pilots (isolated success 5). Impact on the grid is yet to
objective of assisting the GOI in be determined.
integrating large-scale, variable • Several activates are incomplete 6 (few pilots, market, regulations, etc.).
renewable energy (VRE) into the • All stakeholders have been sensitized; this has led to several ongoing discussions.
existing power grid? • GTG provided positive impacts yet difficult to distinguish from impacts of other
ongoing activities and programs. 7
EQ2: To what extent has the • While progress is seen on individual elements, the TOC is yet to be validated.
theory of change (TOC) for this • GTG provided support to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
project “to build the flexibility of (CERC), Power System Operation Corporation (POSOCO) and Forum of
India’s grid through new market Regulators (FOR).
opportunities for the private • Pilots show that better forecasting and flexible services can be achieved.
sector, for ancillary services, • Draft ancillary services (AS) regulation published for public comments. Real-
better forecasting, improved time market (RTM) established.
operating systems and • Private-sector participation in most pilots, but new market opportunities need
equipment, and flexible energy supporting regulations (e.g., compensatory mechanism).
services” been validated? • Market creation and final regulations are still in process and need time for
completion.
EQ3: What possibilities and • Good potential at pilot level but not proven for all. Single
challenges are there for implementation does not lead to big change at the system level. Coal
applying, replicating, and based flexible power generation pilot has been a success.
scaling up the GTG • The parameters for “success” have not been clearly identified during
8
interventions—in particular, project design and implementation.
the pilot projects? Are they • Pilot projects need to clearly demonstrate the added (incremental) value
sustainable? of the completed work and clearly separate from the added value of

5
This was noted during several KIIs; pilot projects were designed as stand-alone activities that demonstrated new U.S. technologies. Not
enough thought was given to adapting to varying conditions in different parts of India. IPs and GOI KIs noted that overall system issues were
not well integrated into project/pilot design.
6
This has been a key issue with several activities. Not all the delays are COVID-19 related. Many resulted from poor activity design resulting
from adequate discussions with Indian counterparts during the initial phase of GTG. Many contracted activities had to be redesigned after
lengthy discussions with Indian stakeholders, delaying start-up of several activities.
7
The overlap of GTG initiatives with other activities was noted by several GOI KIs.
8
The pilot implementors noted during several KIIs that they were tasked with implementing the specific pilot(s) and were not tasked with
benchmarking, monitoring, and reporting on systems integration issues.
19
 other programs, ongoing activities, and continuous development
processes.
• More focus is needed on strategic planning and technology selection 9.
• Pilots need to clearly demonstrate financial sustainability; otherwise,
their regulatory approval(s) may not be possible.
• U.S.- based partners are not fully integrated in design and
10
implementation; coordination and communications are inadequate.
Same is true for Indian partners, especially those at the state level.
• All stakeholders need to be involved and states needs to be targeted.
• Lack of complete documentation—in many instances (e.g., battery
energy storage system (BESS)—difficult to cross reference findings from
KIIs.
• Available documents do not provide specific data needed for a
comprehensive evaluation of activities.
• KIs are unable to provide documents to support their assertions.
• Largely, Implementing Partners (IPs) have not considered “sustainability”
as a requirement under their SOW.
• No clear way forward on implementation of regulations—regulations
are critical for scalability.
EQ4: How has the sector • Sector has evolved positively and rapidly.
evolved in the five years since • GTG transferred proven technologies but did not introduce new ones.
GTG was conceived and • All stakeholders have been sensitized—a lot of awareness creation and
designed? Looking at this recent documentation.
evolution and emerging • Future focus on sustainability/scalability of existing technologies rather than
technologies for VRE implementing new ones.
integration, what should be the • Policy and regulatory issues need to be implemented before pilots can be scaled
focus of follow-on programming? up.
• Technology should be introduced at different state and regional grid
interconnection points.
• Technologies like hydrogen storage, pumped storage, and EV (Electric Vehicle)
along with cybersecurity should be considered.
EQ5: How has GTG helped to • “Mindset change” has been achieved—a behavioral change.
achieve the overarching • Information sharing/capacity building and consultation papers have helped
objective of better managing discussions.
large-scale integration of RE into
the power grid?

9
A major reason for delays in implementation (and resulting lack of time in replication of the pilot) had to do with the fact that a lot of time
was spent on pilot design and getting partners on board. This points to a flaw in pilot design – a lack of proper mechanisms (e.g. compensation
mechanisms) that would make it attractive for stakeholders to participate in the pilot activities).
10
This was noted during all KIIs with USG and U.S.-based IPs. They were rarely consulted and were often asked to step in after key decisions
had been made; they were not in the communications loop. As such, they “parachuted in and out” with no involvement with GTG outside of
their own specific tasks. Senior GOI KIs complemented the IPs for maintaining good communications with the GOI, keeping them informed on
project progress and status. The lack of communication was felt at the activity implementation level(s).

20
 11
• More work is needed at the state level.
• A lot of overlap with other initiatives and ongoing activities; needs to be avoided.
• Pilots showed that control logics and algorithms along with modelling and
simulation scenarios have been developed.
EQ6: How far has GTG been • Gender charter established under South Asia Women in Energy (SAWIE) with10
successful in incorporating founding members.
gender into implementation of • Good participation from women in the power sector at the webinars.
the overall project approach and • All stakeholder organizations seem to be giving importance to gender issues.
the individual • Female participation has increased at all levels.
pilots/components?

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

GTG had some limited success in supporting GOI in large-scale integration. GTG-RISE has clearly
demonstrated that some pilots can be implemented at a larger scale – these include the work on coal
flexibility. For other, there have been many challenges related to design and actual implementation.
Some of the changes in the pilot scope were not properly addressed or captured - no clear
documentation is in place. From that perspective the pilots had limited success.
From the regulatory perspective, GTG-RISE was supposed to provide inputs, documented business
cases, support decision making processes and help adopt the financial instruments and mechanisms that
could be used in the future. This also includes market compensation mechanisms for ancillary services.
The evaluation team cannot differentiate if any of the changes occurring in the Indian power sector over
the last five years can be attributed to GTG-RISE alone. Instead, many activities are part of the ongoing
POSOCO and GOI efforts. POSOCO was involved in this area even before the start of the GTG-RISE
program. There has been good involvement with POSOCO on the multiple technical discussion papers
and other regulatory activities - RTM market, draft AS regulation, draft report on the QCA/aggregator
concept has been a success. Support to the FOR was well received especially on the SAMAST reports.
On the regulatory component, the seeds have been sown through GTG-RISE and it remains to be seen
how this evolves over a period. Also, the evaluation team could not determine if any of the financial
reforms were completed over the program duration.
From the perspective of the support to the states and capacity building, many workshops were delivered
and are clearly recorded. So, significant awareness-raising can be attributed to GTG-RISE. Nevertheless,
the evaluation team learnt from the KIIs that additional support at the state level is needed, failing which
many of the actions are not fully implemented or sustainable. Also, instead of relying solely on the
expertise of international consultants. better involvement of Indian academia and universities is needed.
Many of the technologies used/introduced under the pilots are well known, but some are
relatively new in Indian power sector. Implementation has shown that pilots for which local expertise
is present (e.g. coal flexibility) did better than others as it was easier to provide confidence on the pilots’

11
KIs from the GOI noted that state-level differences are significant; a successful pilot demonstration in one location cannot be viewed as a
scalable activity in other locations.
21
appropriateness. Pilots that introduced relatively new technologies in the Indian power sector (AGC PV,
BESS, etc.) faced with more challenges during regulatory approval and implementation. Therefore, in the
future it may be advisable to solicit stronger inputs from local stakeholders and understand what is
exactly needed on the ground rather than to select technologies for which there may not be sufficient
interest in the community.
The GOI may not be always the right stakeholder to decide on pilot selection - particularly if it is not
presented with all relevant local needs and requirements. Consultations with generation companies,
regulators, system operators, transmission and distribution companies (particularly at the state level) will
yield better pilot design. These stakeholders should present their needs and program design efforts
should address these problems.

Stakeholder involvement in pilot selection was insufficient at the state level. Several KIs agree that
there was insufficient involvement of involvement of stakeholders at state level. KIs are also concerned
that project activities may not be sustainable and scalable if it is not adopted and approved at state level
(the real strength and core of the system resides with state operators and relevant stakeholders). Given
the federal structure of the Indian system, there are big differences between different states and each
state has specific requirements and needs. Every state has its own regulations and policies - these
differences need to be kept in mind while choosing technologies and pilots. A successful pilot in one
state does not necessarily bode well for successful replication and sustainability in other state(s). This
program could not be expected to address all state specific concerns - however, more effort should
have been put developing a process to customize activities that cater to state-specific needs.

Furthermore, pilots were selected from the NREL study. Pilot implementation considered technologies
which are proven (hydro AGC, coal flexibility, and DRPC) and those that are relatively new (BESS in
Transmission Systems, BESS in Distribution Systems, and AGC for PV). However, there may have been
different levels of technology acceptance and awareness locally. Differences between the technology
status caused different implementation challenges and due to that some of the pilot projects were either
delayed or are still incomplete. Again, this is highly dependent on the pilot selection and design – in
some instances, several obstacles and potential problems were not identified (e.g., no clear technical and
financial criteria that could be used as benchmarks) leading to scope changes (e.g., BESS in Distribution
Systems) and improper documentation. As such, many of the initial program objectives were not
addressed (e.g., sustainability and scalability).

Overall, the GTG program faced several major challenges that limited its success. These can be
broadly divided as:
(a) Design related - includes decisions that should have been made prior to commencing the projects by
understanding the ground level requirements. Instead, projects were started hurriedly and only then
was it realized that the project scope may not be adequate or that partners were not willing to
participate in the pilot under given conditions.
(b) Implementation related - primarily related to the unwillingness of bidders to participate in certain
pilots due to the onerous regulations (US and Indian regulations had to be complied with) or slow
approval processes. Implementation was also delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic. However, it would
be unfair to attribute all delays to the pandemic. The pandemic exacerbated the existing delays.
(c) Coordination related - several KIs stated that the program should not have “reinvented the wheel”
– rather program activities should have been designed to supplement activities that were already
22
 being implemented. KIs were not very specific about the other programs (DFID, GIZ, POSOCO,
etc.) but mentioned that explicit complementarity between activities is one of the potential ways to
improve future work. Also, KIs mentioned that there was inadequate support to state level
stakeholders.

Delays in implementation had multiple causes. Covid may have eventually made movement across
the country difficult, but it remains unclear what has been done over the last four or five years in the
case of pilots without major technical challenges (the evaluation team was informed by several KIs that
there were no major technical challenges related to implementation of hydro AGC, as it is proven
technology used around the world for years). This means that a lot of time was spent on discussion,
pilot design, etc., and just a small amount of time was left for actual pilot implementation.

Several pilots were designed in an ineffective manner, and the pilots suffered from faulty execution. The
evaluation team was informed that the pilot on AGC PV is in the final stages of implementation and that
equipment is at the site waiting for installation. However, this had not happened while the evaluation
team tracked the progress of GTG-RISE. With this approach, the pilots cannot be judged against the
key EQ3 questions related to scalability and sustainability.

It remains unclear why the pilots were not started earlier excessive amounts of time has been spent on
discussion and pilot design – very little time was left for their actual implementation. This clearly
suggests that pilot design was an issue and that Covid-19 (which appeared significantly later) just
contributed to the already existing delay(s). All of this is evidenced by very inconsistent and in some
cases non-existing documentation (e.g., DRPC pilot), which leads the evaluation team to believe that the
EQ questions, particularly those related to sustainability and scalability, cannot be properly addressed.

STATUS OF PILOT PROJECTS

The evaluation team has assessed the pilot projects and compared the achievements against initial
objectives. Findings are summarized in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PROGRESS

1. BESS in - Narrow focus - Considered as complete

Transmission - Not adequately documented - No complete details on Part A
Utility - No indicators of sustainability and scalability and Part B of SOW 12
- No clear policy/market inputs

12
Of the documents provided to the Team, none includes a “modelling study” – in addition, no study discusses cases that could be used in
presentations at the CERC to support the process of decision making on ancillary service for the BESS. The evaluation team repeatedly
requested access to network assessment studies or grid impact studies that could have demonstrated the impact of BESS on the transmission
system (voltage recovery, frequency recovery, peak shifting applications, etc.). However, these have never been provided to the team - so it
remains unclear how this support was provided to the CERC. Information on open-source modelling was not shared nor supported by relevant
documentation. Also, several KIs stated that the work which is completed was done just to establish and use the BESS control algorithm
(mechanism) that can be used for ancillary services, and they were not able to document how the system response improved after BESS
connection. As such, there is a lack of documentation.
23
 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PROGRESS

2. BESS in - Information on testing, commissioning not - Considered as complete

Distribution available - Information was not made
Utility - Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission available (assessment of
(DERC) response is pending technologies, designing
- Regulatory business case needs alignment with framework, deriving tariff for
DERC targets purchase, etc.).
- Clear framework (for design and
implementation) that could be used for similar
projects is missing 13
- Difficult to scale up/sustain—only two feeders
were considered
3. Coal-based - Major achievements in reducing technical - Considered as complete (Phase
Flexible minimums I and Phase II)
Power - Mindset change—success - Regulation is in process
Generation - Joint work with system operators is still needed
- Absence of regulatory business case(s) for
approvals from the respective Board of
Directors and the appropriate Regulatory
Commissions
- Several strategic documents published
- Recommendations for CERC were made
- Financial initiatives (in particular, compensation
mechanisms) are not in place—impediment to
scaling up implementation
4. Automatic - Photovoltaic (PV) AGC is still in the - PV AGC is incomplete
Generation implementation stage (assessment against SOW - Part B (compensation
Control is difficult). framework) of the SOW has
(AGC) – - No technical documents (drawings, not been implemented
Hydro and specifications, studies, etc.) to support future
Solar implementation.
- Not clear if pilot met initial objectives: relevant
documents (technical reports and calculations,
drawings and studies, etc.) were not made
available for evaluation
- AGC Hydro—further work on different
turbine types may be needed

13
Documents finalized after the cut-off date for document submission were not considered during the evaluation.

24
 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PROGRESS

5. Dynamic - Awarded in December 2020 and still not - Mainly incomplete (Parts A, B,
Reactive complete and C)
Power - Insufficient information to determine pilot’s
Compensation achievements relative to the scope of work
(DRPC) for - Incomplete or missing documentation
Large Solar (drawings, studies, technical specifications,
Park etc.)—prevented a complete evaluation
Integration - Items from original SOW need to be addressed
(e.g., Power Quality)
- No KII could be scheduled
6. Regional - Almost complete against the original SOW - Mainly complete (Parts A and
Platform for (Part A and Part B) B)
Reserve - Assisted CERC in AS market regulation
Sharing framework
- RTM has been established
- Only the physical delivery market is available,
no financial market
- No clear contributions from the pilot as Power
System Operation Corporation (POSOCO) is
doing ongoing work; no measurable effects to
date
- National Open Access Registry (NOAR) “go
live” is planned for July 2021—not clear if this
schedule will be met.
- Lack of coordination at the state level, as each
state has its own priorities

Detailed findings on each pilot project are noted below in this sub-section. Each subsection provides
details on the respective pilot, and ends with a summary table of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats (SWOT).

25
BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY 14
Following the tripping of the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Ramagundam power plant,
the Final Report on Evaluation of Battery Energy Storage Systems 15 (submitted in August 2020)
describes reserve requirements in the case of the fault in the system for 2019 and 2020. The study
concludes that frequency deviations can be reduced with BESS in service and quantifies the primary
reserve requirements (from 1,412 MW to 927 MW); however, it does not comment on other key
system quantities such as voltage support. The study summary 16 does not comment on the initial pilot
objectives, part A, which suggest that BESS at the Puducherry plant of Power Grid Corporation of India
Limited (PGCIL) needs to address voltage/reactive power support, load following, peak shaving,
renewable energy capacity firming, and RE time shift. A detailed project report on the BESS pilot 17
provides details on proposed applications, stated above, but does not comment if any of these
applications have been achieved (and to what extent).

Part B of the original scope should have established the stacked value of BESS at the grid level, without
trying to answer all questions regarding the “economic case” for storage. This exercise considers initial
system assessment, capacity expansion optimization, and production cost optimization model with
storage to reach the optimal storage capacity in the system. The report on economic valuation of grid-
connected BESS,18 submitted in February 2019, provides the scope of work but no further information is
given, while the Summary Report on Evaluation of Battery Energy Storage System in Southern India, 19
published in February 2021, briefly mentions that the Python tool was used for financial evaluation and
concludes that “savings of approximately INR3,000 crore” (USD$ 40.2 M) can be generated annually
because of the additional capacity being made available. The methodology used for these calculations,
inputs, and calculation processes for the Python tools that are mentioned has not been made available.
This suggests that it might be challenging to reproduce such analyses for similar projects in the future.
Also, the “Battery Applications and Contacting Considerations 20” presentation that was delivered by
DNV-GL in New Delhi in February 2020 provides international cost ranges but does not mention how
this relates to the BESS pilot at the Puducherry plant.

Estimation of ancillary services for the southern region under varied scenarios of grid-connected BESS
deployment 21 that has been delivered to CERC in May 2020 discusses key findings, with particular focus

14
This was presented as a pilot to the evaluation team, with separate concept notes, implementation plans, etc. This was a separate pilot with
clearly defined SoW (in PIP and Concept Note as well as the annual work plan and recurring integration monthly, quarterly and annual reports
submitted by GTG-RISE. BESS in Distribution Utility had its own SOW (available in the concept note). So, either the technical scope was not
conducted properly or the IP team has completely changed the work objectives/plans. Even if this pilot was supposed to be a set of studies,
there is no clear evidence of the report and the methodologies that were used to conduct the studies. Instead, several documents were shared
with the team such as a “Scalability paper”. This was shared with the team in April 2021 after the team insisted on receiving additional
documents - again this document states the same SOW as the original concept note. It is not clear why after 4 years of project implementation,
the same SOW is being referred to and used. If there was a change in the scope, then this should have been clearly mentioned in the
documents that were provided to the team. Finally, this just supports the statement on the level of confusion and lack and lack of
documentation that should be used as a basis for the future work.
15
Final Report on Evaluation of BESS, Deloitte, August 2020
16
Evaluation of BESS in Southern India – Study Summary
17
DPR on BESS pilot enhancements at Puducherry, Deloitte/GTG, February 2018
18
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable energy (RISE) Initiative – Economic Valuation of Grid connected Battery Energy
Storage Systems, February 2019
19
Evaluation of BESS in Southern India, Summary Report, USAID/MOP, February 2021
20
Battery Applications and Contacting Considerations, February 2020
21
Estimation of ancillary services for the southern region under varied scenarios of Grid-connected BESS deployment, Deloitte, May 2020)
26
on frequency and primary reserve support, while an additional section on value analysis provides two
slides on the levelized annual fixed cost over the 15-year period. Even though the presentation does not
present a methodology, it suggests is a 14 percent post-tax return on equity. Discussion with KIs
revealed that an additional 100 kW PV system was combined with BESS, and it turned out as success;
however, these claims have not been documented,22 indicating that it may not be straightforward to
assess scalability of such activities. The same KI mentioned that completed implementation is sustainable
without providing any documentary evidence that could support the claims.22 Similar assessments have
also not been included in the BESS Pilot Review Board Meeting (USAID GTG-RISE Initiative) held in
New Delhi in February 2019. 23 A webinar on Deploying Cost-Effective Battery Energy Storage Systems
into the Indian Grid 24 held May 12, 2020, provides high-level BESS considerations without focusing on
project implementation or conclusions.

From the implementation perspective, KEC delivered its Inception Report 25 in December 2018,
presenting a high-level evaluation plan. This was followed by a DNV-GL presentation 26 that provided a
high-level discussion on BESS functions but did not comment how any of these functions will be
implemented, used, and monitored at BESS at the Puducherry plant. Pilot implementation has been
followed by development of a technical manual27 provided by KEC in April 2020. This is a concise
document on BESS functions, particularly frequency regulation. However, this document refers to one
function and does not describe all other BESS functions.

Summary SWOT Analysis: BESS in Transmission and Distribution Utilities

Strengths: The pilots clearly demonstrated that BESS connected to transmission and grids can be used to
reduce primary reserves, stabilize frequency, reduce network losses, and potentially defer capital expenditure
(CAPEX) investments. Completed financial analyses clearly demonstrate that such projects should be pursued in
the future.

Weaknesses: The pilot did not follow a clear implementation framework and did not provide sufficient details
on additional ancillary services. No clear methodology was developed for future assessments of similar
projects. 28 Basic technical design specifications for similar equipment were not developed. Testing and
commissioning procedures have not been systematized—if developed, these could be improved and
implemented by similar projects. 29 30

Opportunities: Explore and quantify other ancillary services that can be provided by BESS technology. Establish
clear study procedures and methodologies that can be used for technical and financial evaluation. Develop

22
KII with GOI Stakeholder, April 16, 2021
23
BESS Pilot Review Board Meeting USAID GTG-RISE Initiative, New Delhi Date: February 21, 2019
24
Deploying Cost-Effective Battery Energy Storage Systems into the Indian Grid GTG Webinar #4 May 12, 2020
25
BESS Inception report, KEC, December 2018
26
Requirements for BESS applications for at a pilot site in Puducherry, DNV-GL, February 2019
27
BESS, Technical Manual, KEC, April 2020
28
Electricity Storage Valuation Framework, IRENA, March 2020
29
KII with Grantee, held May 12, 2021
30
In this case, a lack of available documents (delays in implementation) prevented a complete evaluation.
27
 technical specifications and standardized drawings that should be made readily available for those pursuing
similar projects in the future.

Threats: Implementation could be further delayed, and the private sector may be hesitant to pursue similar
projects in the future due to incomplete technical and financial evaluation methodologies as well as an uncertain
regulatory framework.

BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY

System studies should be a basis for BESS development in distribution utilities. Such an approach is
partially mentioned in the “Assessment of Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) along with battery
sizing and evaluating effectiveness in distribution system” 31, 32, a one-page summary discussing impact
deliverables and accolades (dispatch analysis and distribution system modelling, value stack analysis, etc.),
but no additional details are provided. The document, Novel analytical framework, 33 summarizes the
collaboration between National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited
(BRPL) by delivering the framework for two distribution feeders in the BRPL area for various scenarios
of BESS and EV integration. This document sets a solid foundation, investigates a number of technical
indices, and demonstrates that BESS in distribution utilities achieves minimal impact on losses reduction;
selection of BESS system controls decides the value, purpose, and life of the asset; staging of the BESS
deployments can be cost effective; and coupling BESS with EV leads to more system benefits. However,
it is not clear if the conclusions of this study can be applied to any application or are specific only for the
two feeders that were assessed.

The detailed project report 34 provided by BSES gives an analysis of 20 MW/40 MWh BESS at 33/11 kV
Kilokari grid in Delhi. Even though the analyses presented the BESS sizing methodology, the impact on
the distribution grid is only partially addressed. This is because the pilot has not been officially
completed. The lack of impact on the grid is also summarized in the presentation 35 delivered in July
2020. The document provides a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis through value stacking. The report
suggests that “as per the findings, it may be concluded that annual levelized benefits from the project
would be Rs. 63.56 lakh/MW. Therefore, an effective cost to BRPL, thus calculated, would be an annual
fixed charge (AFC) of Rs. 67.44 lakh/MW, which is lower than the AFC of most existing stations in the
power procurement portfolio of BRPL.” In this presentation, GTG did not use the framework for
financial evaluation of the pilot that it had used in 2020. It is not clear which framework should be used
for evaluating this type of project.

31
Assessment of BESS along with battery sizing and evaluating effectiveness in distribution system
32
KII with Pvt. Stakeholder, May 19, 2021
33
Preparing distribution utilities for utility-scale storage and electric vehicles, a novel analytical framework, July 2020
34
Implementation of Distribution Grid-Scale Battery Energy Storage, Detailed Project Report for 20MW/40MWh at 33/11 kV Kilokari Grid,
Delhi
35
Preparing Distribution Utilities for Utility-scale Storage and Electric Vehicles
28
COAL-BASED FLEXIBLE POWER GENERATION (NATIONAL AND STATE)
The pilot implementation plan submitted in August 2018 36 discussed Phase I (techno-economic feasibility
of faster ramp rates and lower technical minimum) and Phase II (implementation of recommended
measures by NTPC and Gujarat State Energy Corporation Limited (GSECL) for achieving flexibility of
units) objectives, while the concept notes for NTPC37 and GSECL 38 discuss possible areas of
interventions, plant configurations (methods to improve control systems), and pilot costs and cost
sharing options. The inception reports that were submitted in September 39 and October 40 2018 provide
details of Ramagundam (Unit 2) and Jhajjar (Unit 1) along with examples of coal power plant cycling
experiences from other countries (U.S., Germany, and United Kingdom). This is also followed by market
compensation and regulation overview from the U.S., Germany, Canada, and Japan. Alternative
approaches are also discussed. This approach is beneficial, as it allows cross-comparison of the
international experiences against existing local practices and the potential for adopting best practices
within the local context. The reports on the cost of cycling for the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power
Project – Unit 141 and Ramagundam Unit 2 42, submitted in April 2019, and reports for GSECL Ukai
Units 4&6, submitted in August 2019, discuss damage modelling and cost of cycling (top-down and
bottom-up analyses), which are important components of the overall analyses. This has been followed by
the publication of a fleet-wide strategy for NTPC coal-based plants43 in August 2019, which discusses
strategies for wide-scale implementation. All of this has also been summarized in the roadmap 44
prepared by the GOI, while the compensation mechanisms for flexible operation of coal thermal power
plants 45 were presented in July 2019. This presentation summarizes flexibilization costs, including
CAPEX and operating expenses or expenditure (OPEX), as well as key recommendations, which include
necessary compensation mechanisms to compensate for additional CAPEX and OPEX in identified units
where unit load is reduced below 55 percent, AS market initiatives with flexible operations of coal
plants, and review of long-term bilateral contracts (Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)) at the national
and state levels for addressing increased cost implications due to units under cycling.

36
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative – Pilot Implementation Plan – Coal Based Flexible Power
Generation Pilot
37
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative – Concept Note NTPC – Coal Based Flexible Power
Generation Pilot
38
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative – Concept Note GSECL – Coal Based Flexible Power
Generation Pilot
39
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative – Inception Report – Coal Based Flexible Power
Generation Pilot, NTPC, September 2018
40
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative – Inception Report – Coal Based Flexible Power
Generation Pilot GSECL, October 2018
41
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative - Cost of cycling Report Indira Gandhi Super thermal
Power Project – Unit 1, April 2019
42
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative - Cost of cycling Report Ramagundam - Unit21, May 2019
43
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative - Fleet wide Strategy for NTPC coal-based plants for
flexible operations, August 2019
44
A Roadmap for Flexible Operation of Thermal, Gas and Hydro Power Stations to Facilitate Integration of Renewable Generation, January
2019.
45
Compensation for Flexible Operations of Coal TPPs Presentation to Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, New Delhi Date: Deloitte,
July 30, 2019 (Tuesday, 12:00 pm – 1pm);
29
 Summary SWOT Analysis: Coal Based Flexible Power Generation (National and
States)
Strengths: Pilot clearly demonstrated that coal flexible operation in India can be achieved and that has
been demonstrated by conducting several tests on several coal generating units46. International
experiences and procedures were collected, and they were adopted to local context. Several strategic
documents that describe technical challenges and key recommendations have been published.

Weaknesses: It is not clear if and to what extent the following have been accomplished: (i) Phase 2 of
the pilot envisages collaborating, (ii) implementing a range of recommended interventions for changes
to O&M procedures/standards and, (iii) required design modifications based on Indian grid
conditions5. Basic technical specifications (including technical drawings, equipment specifications,
datasheets, etc.) have not been defined and updated (along with implementation recommendations) –
prevents replication and scaling up of pilot activities.

Also, it is not clear if regulatory business case(s) have been developed for approvals from the
respective Board of Directors and the appropriate Regulatory Commissions. In turn, this prevents
assistance to the generation utilities in selecting implementing agencies and providing project
management oversight that could be done by outlining pathways for devising suitable and necessary
supporting regulations across India (through providing inputs to CERC/Forum of Regulators)5.

Finally, further assessments of the flexible plant operation could be made by completing state-wide
generation studies, including dynamic system response (frequency assessment). Absence of such
analysis makes impact assessment on the overall system challenging.

Opportunities: Establish compensation mechanisms for ancillary services related to units under
consideration. Establish minimal O&M procedures and standards along with necessary technical
considerations (functional specifications, drawings, etc.) for implementation. Understand impact on
the system by completing generation modeling studies, including dynamic system response (frequency
assessments).

Threats: There are no major threats to this pilot, as it is in the final stages of implementation.
However, CERC/Forum of Regulators still need to establish a clear framework for similar projects in
the future.47

AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL (AGC)

For hydro and solar plants AGC is related to the overall plant integration into the grid and how the
plant needs to participate in frequency regulation (primary, secondary). Depending on the plant’s given

46
KII with GOI stakeholder held April 21, 2021
47
KII with sub-contractor, held May 19, 2021.
30
role, various technical implementations are achieved. 48, 49 Each approach comes with its own advantages
and disadvantages and is affected by low-voltage ride through and active-reactive power requirements
set in the grid code. 50 These can only be understood through a set of dynamic studies that aim to
understand frequency and voltage responses before and after implementing AGC functions. Typically, an
initial assessment needs to be conducted before project implementation. Even though the pre-feasibility
report 51 on AGC at NTPC’s NP Kunta solar plant (published in September 2018) provides descriptions
of the plant and communication network of the plant, little has been said about overall approach and
suggestions on frequency/voltage stabilization. An updated report 52 (July 2019) documents no major
change. There is mention of an algorithm that will be used for AGC purposes but no mention of how
that will be different and what benefits will be introduced for the plant and transmission grid. The
roadmap 53 for AGC that has been presented in August 2017, introduces the challenges of the pilot
(India is a large synchronous area where it is not possible to test the whole AGC functionality). 54 The
importance of AGC for secondary control 55 is fully understood—yet in 2017, the pilot was not at a
stage to provide guidance on any actions since no significant results had been accomplished. 56 The lack
of progress on pilot implementation is also summarized at the pilot overview session (May 2018). 57

Considering the above and the original scope of the pilot that asks for recording of system parameters
and generator response from hydro, solar and wind plants for a duration of three to six months (Part
A), it can be concluded that activities are being delayed and that clear records on the system
performance are not available. 58 This makes assessment of the pilot (and its success) challenging.

Also, under the original scope, Part B was intended to support development of the regulatory
framework for enabling AGC support from various types of generating units used in the country. This
would inform CERC about necessary regulatory actions. Information on the status of the regulatory
setup and the achievements of Part B of the pilot is unavailable. The technical scope for Part B should
have included detailed modelling of the need and analysis of the economic output of the ancillary
services using AGC system at all large-scale RE and conventional generation plants in India. To date, no

48 Active and Reactive Power Control of a PV Generator for Grid Code Compliance, Ana Cabrera-Tobar, Eduard Bullich-

Massagué, Mònica Aragüés-Peñalba and Oriol Gomis-Bellmunt

49 Debs A.S. (1988) Automatic Generation Control. In: Modern Power Systems Control and Operation. The Kluwer

International Series in Engineering and Computer Science (Power Electronics and Power Systems). Springer, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1073-0_6
50 Benchmarking of Power Control Strategies for Photovoltaic Systems under Unbalanced Conditions, Allan F. Cupertino, Lucas

S. Xavierb, Erick M. S. Britob, Victor F. Mendesb, Heverton A. Pereirac.

51 Greening the Grid Pre-Feasibility Report – Pilot on Automatic Generation Control and Dynamic Reactive Control at NP

Kunta Solar Park, Deloitte/GTG.

52 Greening the Grid Pre-Feasibility Report – Pilot on Automatic Generation Control and Dynamic Reactive Control at NP

Kunta Solar Park, Deloitte/GTG, July 2019.

53 Roadmap for Automatic Generation Control (AGC) Pilot, August 2017.
54 Implementation in one control area is not enough to balance the whole synchronous area as the frequency does not return

to the set point. Therefore, the pilot was designed to concentrate only on compensating the Partial Area Control Error of
Karnataka, and the report describes the pilot implementation process.
55 Importance of AGC for secondary control and pilot modalities, August 2017.
56 KII with Grantee, held May 12, 2021
57 AGC for secondary control, Deloitte/GTG, May 2018
58 KII with GOI stakeholder, held April 16, 2021

31
cost- benefit analysis or financial assessments have been provided. It cannot be determined to what
extent this pilot met the original objectives and if this set of activities it will be financially viable for large-
scale implementation.

It should be noted that in India this technology was new – however, Automatic Generation Control
(AGC) and particularly Dynamic Reactive Power Compensation (DRPC) are proven technologies that
are being used all over the world for years. Even though the application of AGC in India could be
limited, there were a number of experiences and practices that could be adopted, and benefits should
have been clearly presented to the original pilot partners so that they did not feel that they had to back
out. This should have been followed with adequate compensation mechanisms that would make the
project worthwhile to the stakeholders. As designed/implemented, the stakeholders’ understanding may
have been limited since they may not have had a clear understanding and financial incentive to participate
in the pilot. This should have been known from the early start (during initial discussions) and pilots
should have been designed in a way that such situations did not happen. Clearly DRPC is designed as a
separate pilot, yet the evaluation team was not able to collect any supporting information and to
schedule a single KII.

Introducing entirely new technologies has its own challenges – it is not clear that any technical
challenges existed. As far as technical implementation is concerned, it was clearly mentioned to the
evaluation team by several KIs that there were no major technical challenges to complete AGC Hydro,
and they have asked that support be provided for the additional turbine types as part of the future
projects. For PV AGC, KIs mentioned that equipment was transported to the site and that it comes
down to completing the installation. This was supposed to be finished in June 2020 but has not been
done until the evaluation team tracked the progress.

The team was interested in understanding how a completed AGC hydro implementation could address
EQ3 related to sustainability and scalability and flexibility of the Indian system. Several suggestions that
came out after discussion with KIs are that additional support may be needed for different turbine types.
Even though there were no major technical challenges during AGC hydro implementation, further work
may be needed so that involved stakeholders are fully capable of replicating similar work at a number of
different sites. A single pilot implementation cannot make a significant change in the system and cannot
make a major contribution unless it is scalable and sustainable. This is also related to compensation and
financial initiatives that need to be adopted. USAID activities need to focus on scalable and sustainable
implementation of the projects rather than to start the project and not take it to completion.

Summary SWOT Analysis: Automatic Generation Control (AGC) for

Hydro and Solar Plants
Strengths: Pilot clearly demonstrated that AGC implementation for hydro and solar plants 59 is possible and that
existing plants can participate in AGC control.

Weaknesses: Pilot did not follow clear implementation framework and did not provide sufficient details that
would allow an understanding of what system parameters (voltage, frequency, reactive power, etc.) are affected

59
Activities at the solar plants are still on-going.
32
 and to what extent. Simulations of the system dynamic performance were not done before and after AGC
implementation; the changes could not be measured. 60

Also, there is no clear methodology that is to be followed for assessment of similar projects. Minimal technical
design specifications for similar equipment, that may have to be deployed at other solar and hydro sites, were
not developed. Testing and commissioning procedures have not been systematized.

Opportunities: Upon completion of the pilot, records on the system response changes (frequency, voltage)
could be developed to establish (i) clear study procedures (dynamic simulations which consider simulation of
frequency changes by the outage of the largest plants or the loads, loss of the important interconnectors, etc.)
and (ii) methodologies that can be used for technical and financial evaluation.

The lack of readily available technical specifications and standardized drawings makes it difficult to pursue similar
projects in the future. Also, complete financial analysis as specified in the original SOW will help fully assess the
viability of this project.

Threats: Implementation could be delayed, and the private sector may not be hesitant to pursue similar
projects in the future due to incomplete technical and financial evaluation methodologies as well as an uncertain
regulatory framework.

DEVELOPMENT AND INTEGRATION OF DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER CONTROL

Successful integration of large solar parks into the grid depends on the adoption of an appropriate
technical methodology. 61 This methodology may include reactive power planning, static and dynamic
system assessments, planning of control (logic) schemes and their adoption for large-scale system
implementation. Several reactive power compensation technologies62 can be used, these include specific
distinctive functions that can be used under given conditions. Reactive power analysis timeframes,
assessment techniques, and reactive power sufficiency coordination 63 need to be considered once these
actions are planned. Even though some of these services have been included in the pilot implementation
plans along with the pilot’s rationale, discussion is insufficient on cost-efficient reactive power
compensation technologies. 64
Similarly, the concept note document 65 briefly discusses the pilot’s background (particularly related to
Part A) and provides high-level cost breakdowns. However, it does not go into further details on the
initial pilot requirements. A detailed project report 66 submitted in March 2018 provides a brief

60
KII with GOI stakeholder, held April 16, 2021
61
Coordinated static and dynamic reactive power planning against power system voltage stability-related problems, Venkat Kumar Krishnan,
Ames, Iowa, 2007
62
“Compensation Devices to Support Grid Integration of Variable Renewable Energy.” ESMAP Technical Guide, World Bank, Washington, DC.
63
(SAMS), NERC System Analysis and Modelling Subcommittee, Industry Webinar – Reactive Power Planning, 2017, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), USA
64
We were unable to conduct any KIIs related to this pilot – the IP concurred with the document findings.
65
Greening the Grid - Renewable Integration and Sustainable energy (RISE) Initiative – Concept Note – Dynamic Reactive Power
Compensation (DRPC)
66
DPR – Pilot on Dynamic Compensation for Large Solar Park Integration, GTG/Deloitte
33
description of the voltage control at the interconnection point through solar inverter along with
inverter control logic and plan for proposed harmonic measurements (scope Part C), as well as
enhancements and retrofits in hardware and software along with the budget estimate. However, the
report does not provide information on the achievements and cross-comparisons with the situation
before implemented actions.
The pre-feasibility report 67 for DRPC at N P Kunta Solar Park that was submitted in April 2019
summarizes software upgrades needed to enhance and facilitate implementation of the DRPC
mechanism at N P Kunta. The document refers to Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
data flow requirements and summarizes necessary system costs. Context setting 68 for the pilot was
presented in September 2017. This suggests that the pilot is broken into four independent stages:

• Stage 1: System studies

• Stage 2: Deployment, including inverter enhancement and STATic synchronous COMpensator
(STATCOM) deployment
• Stage 3: Evaluation STATCOM and inverter operation for reactive power compensation
• Stage 4: Recommendation and scale-up
However, the document does not provide information on pilot achievements to date. The document on
reactive power management and voltage control in RE rich regime 69 was delivered in September 2017. It
discusses the overall approach on reactive power planning, dispatch and control techniques, and control
devices. Case studies are provided presenting results of analyses, but these cannot be related to
implementation at DRPC at N P Kunta Solar Park (one of the case studies mentions implementation for
a wind farm).

Part B of the initial scope asked for testing of inverter capability for providing DRPC that was supposed
to involve carrying out a factory acceptance test (FAT) on a new inverter. The evaluation team could
not collect information on FAT tests for the new inverters, and it remains unclear if this has been
completed. Part C of the initial scope asks for power quality measurements at power of
interconnection, but measurement records, used methodology, records of power quality instruments,
measurement duration, and analyses of collected results were not found.

67
Pre-Feasibility Report (DPR) – Pilot on Dynamic Reactive Power Control at NP Kunta solar park, GTG/Deloitte
68
Pilot Background and Context Setting Location: Vidyut Bhawan, Jaipur, GTG/Deloitte, Date: September 13, 2017
69
Reactive Power Management and Voltage Control in RE rich Regime Location: Jaipur, GTG/Deloitte, Date: September 13, 2017.
34
 Summary SWOT Analysis: Development and Integration of
Dynamic Reactive Power Control
Strengths: Owing to delays in implementation, project strengths cannot be completely evaluated as it
is unclear if the proposed pilot addressed initial SOW and if so, to what extent 70.
Weaknesses: The pilot did not follow a clear implementation framework and may not provide
demonstration of dynamic reactive power support from inverters (Part A). Also, testing of inverter
capability for providing DRPC, which was supposed to carry out a FAT on a new inverter, is not
explained in detail. Similar conclusions can be made for power quality measurements (Part C). Also,
there is no clear DRPC methodology and equipment selection process that could be followed for
assessment of similar projects. Technical design specifications for similar equipment were not
developed while testing and commissioning procedures have not been systematized for use on similar
projects.
Opportunities: There is a need to quantify inverter capability to provide dynamic reactive power
support during normal and dynamic system operation. It is important to understand if inverters can
comply with network low-voltage ride through/high-voltage ride through requirements and if any
additional reactive power compensation devices are needed to comply with the grid code regulations
(leading and lagging power factor operation of the renewable energy source).
No clear procedure has been followed starting with the detailed static and dynamic studies as
suggested by International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers recommendations and those that have been presented in initial pilot context.
Technical specifications and standardized drawings are not readily available for those pursuing similar
projects in the future. These shortcomings could be corrected.
Threats: Lack of DRPC requirements may lead to unclear connection procedure for new inverter
connected projects. Inverter connected generation needs to demonstrate inverter reactive power
capabilities as per the grid code and if necessary, provide dynamic reactive power compensation
devices. This is also highly related to the PPAs that are being signed between off-takers and
developers, which define reactive power exchange at the interconnection point. Absence of such
requirements may expose new developments to risk due to an uncertain regulatory framework.

REGIONAL PLATFORM RESERVE SHARING

Implementation of the pilot depends on the local context in India and on participation and support from
relevant stakeholders but still should follow international practices and experiences. Europe provides a
good example of the practices, such as electricity balancing, 71 regulated by European Network of
Transmission System Operators for Electricity. States can share the resources used by their

70
DRPC Pilot Implementation Plan, published in February 2020, clearly states that scope consists of three major components: Part A –
Demonstration of DRPC; Part B – Testing of inverter capability; and Part C – Power quality assessment. The evaluation team does not have any
documents that suggest that any of the above activities have been completed, which implies that these SOW components are not done. Also,
the evaluation team was not able to schedule a single KII for this pilot.
71
https://www.entsoe.eu/network_codes/eb/
35
transmission system operators. It is also about allowing new players such as those involved in demand
response and renewables to take part in this market.
The pilot implementation plan discusses pilot rationale, technical scope (Part A and Part B), benefits
modelling, process of open access approval, system layers, and preliminary budget estimates. Information
on the actual project implementation is not provided in the document. The summary report, 72 published
in December 2020, mentions that so far assistance has been provided to CERC to select market models
and undertake stakeholder interaction and that the system integrator for implementing the NOAR has
been appointed. The report also mentions that several activities have been completed, including:

• Conducting a study on international examples of market-based procurement of ancillary

services, co-optimization of energy and ancillary services (AS), and drawing lessons for the
Indian context
• Assisting the CERC in drafting AS regulations as well as an explanatory memorandum outlining
market-based procurement, including frequency regulation, modelling, and illustrations of co-
optimization of energy and ancillary services, along with financial settlements in a day-ahead/real-
time horizon
• Designing and illustrating a payment mechanism for resource providers, including opportunity
costs for reserves under various scenarios
• Assisting the CERC in undertaking stakeholder interactions
These points from the summary report were mirrored in the NREL report 73 published in August 2019
and RTM public announcement in June 2020. 74 Details on the regulation or adoption of the international
perspective to the local Indian context have not been provided. The same document mentions NOAR
implementation stages and its benefits and concludes that a system integrator (M/s PwC
(Pricewaterhouse Coopers), M/s CtrlS and M/s Wizertech) has been appointed. It is expected by the
RISE team as well as PwC (the system integrator) that “NOAR Go-Live” will be achieved by July 2021.75
Even though this pilot is not fully implemented (it should have been completed by December 2020),
significant work has been done in supporting CERC (Part A) in evaluating a range of interventions
(market models) to enhance intra-day market operations effectively and efficiently in India and evolving a
consensual way forward. The process that was used to demonstrate benefits (Python tool) has not been
clearly presented or systematized for the evaluation team, but it is understood that the outcomes have
been presented and discussed with CERC. Even though regulation is not publicly available and is still in
process, it is expected to be completed soon and approved by CERC. 76 However, the RTM launch has
exceeded expectations in terms of trading volumes, sizable participation, and with encouraging results.
The Draft AS regulation was published on May 29, 2021, for public comments.
Support to POSOCO on NOAR has been delayed and it is expected that the implementation phase
would be extended beyond the planned 12 months (July 2021). RISE Program Monitoring Support may

72
Greening the Grid – Renewable Integration and Sustainable energy (RISE) Initiative – Summary Report – Regional Platform for Reserve
Sharing.
73
Opening Markets, Designing Windows, And Closing Gates India’S Power System Transition - Insights on Gate Closure, NREL, August 2019.
However, if it did occur, it was after the cut/off date for reception of documents for this evaluation.
74
India’s launch of real-time electricity trading a huge step toward robust grid, efficient power market
75
KII with sub-contractor held May 13, 2021
76
KII with GOI stakeholder held April 22, 2021
36
end before the NOAR Go-Live is achieved. 77 GTG-RISE was supposed to initiate, design and complete
market/compensation mechanisms that would be adopted by the authorities and that could be used as a
basis for scaling up the pilot implementation. However, this has not been done, which eventually makes
pilot implementation difficult. Also, POSOCO is already leading the process in parallel, and it is not clear
how USAID improved or eased the process.
Even though it may be not realistic to achieve complete power market reforms in the given timeframe, it
remains unclear how GTG-RISE contributed to the overall improvement of the existing ecosystem and
how this contribution can be measured. The evaluation team was not provided with clear documentary
evidence nor was it able to understand from KIIs what has been achieved beyond the work being done
by GOI and POSOCO. Work that is being delivered by these programs need to be clearly separated
and identified. Given the lack of a clear set the targets and expectations that can be met during program
delivery, it seems that the points presented in the SOW are not completed (particularly if no clear
documentation is available).
The development of regulations and policies is a continuous and iterative process and may take time for
consensus considering the Indian scenario. Financial market reforms are a major power sector reform
area and needs deliberation. This is not identified as a limitation but as a finding. This can be a follow-up
activity.

Summary SWOT Analysis: Regional Platform Reserve Sharing

Strengths: The pilot clearly demonstrated that intra-day market operation interventions can be
adopted to the Indian local context by following and applying relevant international practices.
Regulations can be adopted and used by all market participants. Also, it has been shown that NOAR
can be implemented.76

Weaknesses: Pilot should have been completed on time by adopting relevant regulation (Part A) and
implementing NOAR (Part B). 78 79

Opportunities: Considering that adoption and use of regulations are a time-consuming and
continuous process it is suggested that regulation application be monitored and updated as needed.
NOAR may come with its own challenges that will be known after its continuous use. Its
implementation needs to be monitored (including the benefits of such an approach) and adjusted.

Threats: Since both parts of the pilot are still in progress, there is a risk that they will not be finished
before program completion and that further tracking and evaluation of the pilot activities along with
their advantages and disadvantages is not done.

77
Integrated quarterly performance report (Jan–Mar 2021)
78
KII with GOI stakeholder held April 27, 2021
79
POSOCO’s approval process was time consuming – this caused initial delays that were exacerbated by COVID-19 related delays.
37
STATUS OF CROSS-CUTTING, REGULATORY, AND SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES
In addition to the pilots described above, several cross-cutting and supporting activities were
implemented under GTG:

FORUM OF REGULATORS (FOR).

The FOR did significant work before GTG/RISE’s initiatives (other than SAMAST). After GTG-RISE
started work, activities of various other parallel initiatives overlapped, so it was difficult to segregate the
specific contributions of GTG/RISE initiatives. Nevertheless, there are some clear findings on activities
under GTG.

GTG-RISE supported the FOR in preparing Forecasting and Scheduling (F&S) Regulations/Deviation
Settlement Mechanism (DSM) Regulations and a Detailed Project Report (DPR) for implementing the
Scheduling, Accounting, Metering and Settlement of Transactions in Electricity (SAMAST) framework.
SAMAST was implemented by GTG-RISE along with Idam Infrastructure Advisory (Pvt. Limited) to
provide a robust, scalable, and transparent framework of scheduling, metering, accounting, and
settlement of energy transactions at intrastate as well as interstate levels. 80 This is an important
requirement with manifold increase in VRE and resulting increases in intrastate, interstate, interregional.
and transnational transactions. Therefore, the load dispatch centers need to be compatible with each
other. 81 With support from GTG/RISE the FOR conducted several activities, including preparing the
DPR, conducting stakeholder workshops, approving the state-specific SAMAST scheme by the State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, applying funding from Power Sector Development Fund,
implementing the recommended IT infrastructure (hardware and software), and completing boundary
metering. 82

GTG-RISE also supported the FOR by facilitating discussions on developing a framework for
Aggregators/Qualified Coordinating Agency (QCA) and drafting support of the QCA report. At the 16th
meeting of FOR, participants deliberated technical committee issues related to QCA and model
contract arrangements; at the 20th meeting, a few QCAs shared their experience of operationalizing
forecasting and scheduling for renewable power projects in various states.

Subsequently, a sub-group was formed with the mandate of examining 1) the feasibility of drafting a
Model Tripartite Agreement between the QCA, State Load Dispatch Center (SLDC), and renewable
energy generators and 2) the generic concept of Aggregator in the Power Sector. The need was
established to introduce aggregator as a new player in the Indian Electricity Market. After a series of
meetings, a draft report 83 was published in June 2019. The following issues were addressed in the
report: legal status of QCA and regulatory oversight, institutional structure, QCA interactions with

80
KII with sub-contractor held May 20, 2021
81
Report on Scheduling, Accounting, Metering, and Settlement of Transactions in Electricity (SAMAST), July 2016
82
1st meeting of reconstituted FOR technical committee – July 1, 2019
83
Report of the Sub-Group on Issues of Aggregators/Qualified Coordinating Agency (QCA) – June 2019
38
SLDC and RE generators, guidelines for model agreement, and regulating QCA and aggregators. Both
technical committees accepted the draft report and recommended it for presentation before the FOR. 84

Even though the FOR Technical Committee meeting presentation, 85 held April 16, 2021, mentions that
the QCA registration process was approved for six states (Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu), there is no clarity on 1) the approval process, 2) what was
accepted, and 3) the status of the other states. This is also confirmed by the KII.

NARUC PARTNERSHIP.
NARUC along with the E3 team interacted with various stakeholders, such as CERC, Gujarat Electricity
Regulatory Commission, Central Electrical Authority (CEA), POSOCO, SLDCs, DISCOMs, generators,
and academicians, to identify concerns that could be addressed in the Regulatory and Market Guidelines
report 86 and the Regulatory Primer report. 87 These reports were published by NARUC in January and
February 2020. respectively. The reports were shared by the GOI and provided a U.S. perspective on
priority areas for improving the forecasting, scheduling, and balancing of renewable energy in India (given
that many emerging regulatory challenges in India have parallels in the U.S.).

SUMMARY STATUS OF THE REGULATIONS

States SAMAST DPR F&S Regulations DSM Regulations

Region Proposal Under WIP*/Yet Others Notified Draft WIP/Yet Notified Draft WIP/
approved examination to Published to Published Yet to
Prepare Initiate initiate

North 4 1 - 2 4 - 3 7 - -

West 1 1 1 2 4 - 1 3 - 2

South 4 1 - - 4 - 1 1 1 3

East 2 2 1 - 3 - 1 1 2 2

Northeast 7 - - - 5 1 2 2 - 5

Union - - 7 - - - 7 - - 7
Territories

TOTAL 18 5 9 4 20 1 15 14 3 19

84
Report of Sub-Group on Framework Issues of Aggregators/ Qualified Coordinating Agency (QCA), 69th meeting of FOR, September 20,
2019 – Presentation
85
5th Meeting of Reconstituted FOR Technical Committee (Group-I and Group-II) April 2021– Presentation
86
Regulatory and market guidelines on key insights and considerations of priority areas for renewable integration in India – January 2020
87
Regulatory dimensions to renewable energy forecasting, scheduling and balancing in India – Regulatory Practices analysis and primer –
February 2020
39
*WIP: Work in progress

Regional Platform for Reserves Sharing pilot. The pilot included support to CERC, as part of its TA
framework, 88 provided in June 2019 to implement the National Open Access Registry (NOAR). The
summary report 89 on the Regional Platform pilot, published in December 2020, mentions that to date,
assistance was provided to CERC to select market models and undertake stakeholder interaction, and
that the system integrator for implementing NOAR has been appointed.

The report also mentions several completed activities, including a study on international examples of
market-based procurement of ancillary services, co-optimization of energy and ancillary services, and
drawing learnings for Indian context; assisting the CERC in drafting the ancillary services regulations; an
explanatory memorandum outlining market-based procurement, including frequency regulation,
modelling and illustrations of co-optimization of energy and ancillary services along with financial
settlements in day-ahead/real-time horizon; and designing and illustrating a payment mechanism for
resource providers, including opportunity costs for reserves under various scenarios and assisting the
CERC in undertaking stakeholder interactions.

GTG also provided support on issues summarized in “Benefits modeling and Technical Assistance to
CERC on Implementing Power Market reforms.” Assistance was also provided to the CERC in
preparing an issue-wise summary of comments on draft regulations, preparing replies for consideration,
and preparing final regulations and Statement of Reasons for the same.

From the Security Constrained Economic Despatch (SCED) perspective, assistance was provided in
analyzing operational aspects, understanding key issues in operation of SCED from data published by
NLDC/Regional Load Despatch Centers (RLDCs), and assisting in determining cash in pool generated
due to SCED operations. The benefits were illustrated through a detailed modelling exercise using a
Python Model. In response to the consultation paper on SCED, the CERC issued suo-moto order to
POSOCO for implementing SCED of Electricity for the Inter-State Generating Stations on a pilot basis.
However, the methodology of sharing of benefits from the mechanism will be decided after the results
of the pilot and the extent of savings are available. As per the summary report, benefits demonstration
results have already been delivered for real-time market and Market Based Economic Dispatch (MBED).

Further, the GTG team assisted in analyzing comments on draft regulations, preparing final regulations
and an Explanatory Memorandum for RTM, preparing an issue-wise summary of comments received on
the MBED discussion paper, analyzing the efficacy of the SCED pilot implemented by POSOCO,
exploring various benefit-sharing options, and reviewing the Ancillary Services (AS) market.

Draft regulations for the AS market were recently published for public comment. CERC is expected to
analyze comments received on the discussion paper for Market Based Economic Dispatch of Electricity
and preparation of draft regulations for the same.76 Also, support to POSOCO on NOAR is being

88
NOAR RFA Framework outline, Jun 14, 2019, GTG-Deloitte
89
Greening the Grid - Renewable Integration and Sustainable Energy (RISE) Initiative, Summary Report, Regional Platform for Reserve Sharing
40
delayed, but the system integrator has been appointed and it is expected that this RTM activity will be
successfully completed.

This program will enable implementation of NOAR for improved electricity trading in short time
intervals, which will be in line with international markets. In June 2020, the RTM platform was launched 90
and CERC has issued three papers on market re-design of RTM, AS, MBED, and day- ahead market
(DAM). Hence it is evident that progress is happening on this front. On the cross-border trading (part
of the original TOR) and future energy markets, there were a few discussions and presentations 91 at the
Asia Clean Energy Forum (ACEF) side event/webinars. No follow-up was conducted.

Table 4 provides a summary of the regulatory engagement under GTG.

TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ENGAGEMENT

FINDINGS

• SAMAST DPR proposals are approved in 18 states

• F&S Regulations are notified in 20 states and Deviation Settlement Mechanism (DSM) Regulations in 14 states
• Multiple discussion papers on day-ahead and real-time markets submitted
• NREL developed reports on India’s transitioning energy sector and facilitated dialog
• Need to introduce aggregator/QCA established and draft report published
• Regulatory and market guidelines report, and regulatory primer report published by NARUC
• More than 25 meetings with FOR and participation of state regulators
• Technical assistance provided successfully to implement and redesign the day-ahead, SCED, MBED, real- time, and ancillary markets
• RTM launched and draft AS regulation published
• Papers issued on market re-design of RTM, AS, MBED, and DAM
• Discussions on cross-border trading through ACEF side events
• No clarity of status on payment gateway for OA clearances, and establishment of clearinghouse
• Block chain technology not considered feasible

CONCLUSIONS

• Good feedback on preparing SAMAST DPRs

• SLDs have been sensitized. Handholding required at the state level for implementation
• Framework is in place for regional balancing and reserve sharing mechanism but will take time
• Delivery of ancillary services at the state level is not prioritized
• An overlap of the work that FOR is doing (other than SAMAST) with other activities—difficult to isolate the incremental
contribution of RISE initiatives
• State grid codes need to be updated
• No clear way forward on implementation of regulations – regulations are critical for scalability
• Unable to identify incremental benefits from pilots, given overlaps with other existing initiatives
• Development of regulations and policies—a continuous and iterative process—may take time for consensus

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Early on in the GTG project, NREL together with
LBNL conducted a study, “Pathways to Integrate 175 Gigawatts of Renewable Energy into India’s

90
India’s launch of real-time electricity trading is a huge step toward robust grid, efficient power market, Draft announcement, June 3, 2020
91
Redesigning the Power markets: An enabler to RE Integration and multilateral trade presentation-ACEF 2020 event, June 16, 2020
41
Electric Grid, Vol. I—National Study” in close collaboration with the modeling team at POSOCO.
USAID reports that this work resulted in the transfer of know-how to the POSOCO modeling team, 92
as well as contributing to the selection and design of the GTG pilot projects.

Also, to date NREL has completed modeling BRPL’s feeders with varying scenarios on battery energy
storage and electric vehicles. These results have been presented to a stakeholder group at BRPL and
jointly with BRPL to the Delhi Energy Regulatory Commission. NREL launched the report with USAID,
MOP, and BRPL at a virtual event.

Based on the modelling and simulation studies, two documents were released at a report launch event.
The reports analyze the impact of new technologies, such as solar photovoltaics (PV), BESS, and EVs, on
the distribution network. The first report, titled “Preparing distribution utilities for utility-scale storage
and electric vehicles – A novel analytical framework,” has been developed by NREL, U.S., in
collaboration with BRPL as part of the GTG program. The report presents a power distribution system
impact analysis framework to evaluate the impact of PV, BESS, and EVs on utilities. The second
document is a white paper on “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Impacts on Distribution
Network,” developed under the GTG-RISE initiative, in collaboration with BRPL. The paper analyzes key
considerations for setting up EV charging infrastructure and presents an extensive review of the
international experience and a prioritization framework for laying out charging infrastructure for a
distribution utility. 93

The two 94 documents95 related to India’s transitioning energy sector were launched through a launch
event and panel discussions based on the studies conducted. A DPR 96 was submitted to BRPL in March
2020. The Solar Energy Corporation (SEC) of India submitted the DPR to DERC and RISE responded to
DERC queries received. The report covers aspects such as design and BESS size methodology, BESS
applications and use cases, cost-benefit analysis through value stacking, framework service linked
agreements, and international case studies. The report thus provides a techno-commercial analysis and a
business case. This pilot is considered complete as per the latest quarterly report.

Regular meetings were held with GOI officials, updates on monthly progress were provided, and
upcoming events were submitted to MOP, GOI. GTG Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings
were held at regular intervals, the last one on March 2, 2021.97

Private/Sector Engagement. A charter and framework 98 were established for Private-Sector

Engagement (Industry Advisory Council (IAC)), which consisted of membership details, structure and
voting rights, etc. IAC was established under US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF). 99 A total 35

92
GTG. “Pathways to Integrate 175 Gigawatts of Renewable Energy into India’s Electric Grid, Vol. I—National Study”. GTG/LBNL. 2017.
93
KII with implementing partner held May 24, 2021
94
Preparing distribution utilities for utility-scale storage and electric vehicles – A novel analytical framework
95
Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure and Impacts on Distribution Network
96
Implementation of distribution grid scale battery energy storage- DPR for 20 MW/40MWh at 33/11 kV Kilokari grid, March 2020
97
Monthly Progress reports from March 2017 to November 2020 and PAC meeting minutes from July 2017 to March 2021
98
Original charter and framework_IAC – Final
99
KII with implementing partner held May 18, 2021
42
private firms have joined the IAC to date, and a few are on the pilot review boards. Various meetings
and four webinars were organized. IAC was instrumental in Kreate Energy signing a Strategic
Assignment with a U.S.-based wind energy consultancy company, Innovative Wind Energy, Inc.100

However, key documentation is lacking in several areas, including the governing council, online business-
to-business directory, working group formation, if any initial seed funding was contributed, and if any
investments have happened between U.S.-India public/private companies. There are no documents
showing if any joint ventures/memorandums of understanding/letters of intent have happened, and KIIs
did not reveal answers to any of these questions.

The quarterly report 101 by GTG-RISE mentions a few potential loan guarantee opportunities and debt
transactions with private-sector clients to enable the Development Credit Authority and multilateral
banks to support scale-up of the grid integration pilots or similar initiatives for integrating large-scale
VRE onto the grid. As per the latest quarterly report 102 a short list of 20 potential opportunities was
submitted to USAID and RISE is in the process of finalizing the deliverable as per USAID’s comments.

South Asian Women in Energy (SAWIE) Forum. With the objective of strengthening gender equity,
GTG-RISE proposed 103 to establish SAWIE Forum to promote women’s participation and strengthen
gender diversity and equity in the energy sector. Various discussions were initiated with women leaders
to brainstorm SAWIE charter and activities. Specific work areas of this initiative included developing a
charter and onboard members, establishing a gender-balanced steering committee, partnering with
forums on women’s empowerment, developing a mentorship program for girls by engaging with
academia, hosting SAWIE events, developing a sustainability plan for SAWIE beyond 2020, and ensuring
a committed membership base of at least 50 SAWIE members (women leaders) by Oct 2020.

A charter 104 was established in March 2020 with 10 founding members 105 along with a proposed work
plan for 2020. 106 The estimated timeline to complete this activity was September 2020, when a success
story on SAWIE would be developed. A SAWIE whitepaper 107 discusses the key themes and best
practices that emerged from panel discussions for women who want to enter the industry and for
companies striving to increase the gender diversity of their leadership teams. Other key achievements:
Plaksha University expressed interest in a mentorship pillar, and Shell Foundation expressed interest in
collaborating.

• SAWIE hosted its first steering committee meeting on December 4, 2020.

100
GTG - Y4 - Key achievements-Final Paper
101
Integrated Quarterly Performance Report (October–December 2020), GTG-Deloitte
102
Integrated Quarterly Report (January–March 2021), GTG-Deloitte.
103
Scope of Work (IAC & SAWIE), January 13, 2020, GTG-Deloitte
104
Charter of South Asian Women in Energy (SAWIE)- A USISPF-IAC initiative, March 13, 2020
105
SAWIE- Founding Members List, March 13, 2020
106
SAWIE-Proposed work plan 2020
107
Best practices in gender mainstreaming – Bridging the gender diversity gap in the energy and industrial sector, July 2020
43
 • The United Nations Industrial Development Organization invited SAWIE to share its
experiences in the annual flagship Vienna Energy Forum virtual series.
• The Energy and Resources Institute received a partnership interest to be knowledge
partners at the World Sustainable Development Summit 2021 engagement.

From the desk review and KIIs, we identified some issues in SAWIE organization and activities during
GTG:

• One gap found in the desk review was that the SAWIE membership base is not wide enough
and engagements with academia are limited.
• There was no specific documentation for power-sector governance. The information
technology (IT) component is seen in most of the pilots with original equipment
manufacturer and technology suppliers playing a role. However, from a Science, Technology,
Innovation and Partnership perspective, documentation is insufficient, and no details are
provided in any of the quarterly and annual reports.
• The first annual report 108 indicated the need to identify educational institutions to partner in
the program. The USEA team will be conducting an Institutionalization Scoping Mission to
identify an Indian-based training institution to partner with the GTG Project on system
operator training and continue that training after GTG ends. Few internship opportunities
from premier institutes were offered as per the second- year annual report 109, No major
activities were noted.
• Most of the documentation is in place from an M&E/knowledge management perspective.
However, the latest documents need to be updated (the quarterly reports, status of the
contract deliverables with respect to the Task Order and indicators and targets, etc.).
• Communication and Outreach activities comply with USAID norms.

108
Greening the grid – Integrated annual progress report (October 2016-October 2017)
109
Greening the grid – Integrated annual progress report (October 2017-October 2018)
44
CONCLUSIONS
The GTG project evaluation exercise has established some overarching conclusions that can be grouped
into those that are pilot specific and those related to the overall program. 110
The pilot activities are:

• At various stages of completion:

o Only a few pilots have been completed and ready for final evaluation. At many points,
the current evaluation was less of a final project evaluation and more of a mid-term
evaluation of the project.
o On several occasions, specific activities had to be redesigned after lengthy discussions
with Indian stakeholders. As designed, the GTG initiatives were a result of consultations
with several stakeholders. However, key Indian stakeholders viewed the proposed
project activities as not completely suited to their needs and the ground realities in
India. As such, activities had to be redesigned, resulting in significant delays in start-up
and implementation111.
o The COVID-19 related shutdowns have further exacerbated the problem with non-
completion of project activities.
• Poorly documented:
o Relevant project documents, including technical specifications (technical drawings,
equipment specifications, datasheets, etc.), have not been defined and updated (along
with implementation recommendations).
o Technical design specifications for equipment were not developed, while testing and
commissioning procedures have not been systematized for use on similar projects.
o This hinders replication and scale-up of pilot activities.
• Stand-alone activities:
o They were designed to demonstrate the viability of specific technologies and protocols.
Implementors were not tasked to ensure that individual pilot activities complement
other pilot activities and/or cross-cutting activities.
o Implementors were not responsible for replication and scale-up of successful initiatives.
This would require a careful evaluation of state-level differences and appropriate
modification of activities.

110
The earlier discussion in this section has provided the detailed findings and conclusions related to each pilot as well as the cross-cutting and
regulatory/policy support activities.
111
Project activities needed to be designed in consultation with various stakeholders in India so that their requirements and needs on the
ground could be fully identified and addressed. Instead of insisting on BESS or hydrogen that will most probably qualify as an emerging
technology, many stakeholders suggested that energy storage could be better achieved via hydro pumped storage technology, since there is a
potential to do it and there is already a base established. Also, the compensation mechanisms and financial initiatives needed to be implemented
- so that generators would be incentivized to participate in the ancillary service market.

45
 o To better manage the large-scale integration of RE into the Indian grid, much more
work is needed at the state level to ensure that interventions are appropriately modified
to reflect the needs of the specific location(s) and technology.
Overall program initiatives. Activities related to regulatory and policy support have been well
designed and often successfully implemented. However, these initiatives will need ongoing
implementation. This is outside the control of the GTG project implementors and in the hands of
relevant national- and state-level stakeholders in India. Delays have been considerable in formal approval
and widespread implementation of the support activities. In other instances, such as the role of
compensatory mechanisms, while the importance of such mechanisms and protocols is recognized, no
progress has been made on design and implementation of critical initiatives. This is a shortcoming that
needs to be addressed to replicate, scale up, and sustain GTG initiatives. Without this the GTG TOC
cannot be evaluated.
Cross-cutting activities. Those initiatives aimed at supporting the CERC and FOR have been
successful. More needs to be done by the Indian counterparts before these initiatives can be sustained
across other parts of India. Activities including those aimed at ensuring greater gender diversity in
project activities were discussed and initiated but have a long way to go before they can be considered
successful. Activities related to STIP have not been implemented.
GTG coordinating role. A lack of regular communications on project initiatives resulted in a lack of
coordination among implementing partners. This was especially true of USG implementing partners
whose role could have been better integrated into GTG implementation to ensure that issues related to
replication and scaling up of GTG activities were better addressed. High-level GOI counterparts
complimented the GTG team for its open communications on project matters. It was the activity-level
communication on project implementation details that was lacking. This situation further created activity
silos.
It should be noted that there was a lot of discussion and engagement on certain pilots (AGC, DRPC),
that had initial design challenges - therefore a lot of interaction was needed to make some progress (this
was accomplished). However, for other – non-pilot related - work the KIs indicated that additional
stakeholders needed to be involved. This is particularly true for the stakeholders at state level, system
operators, etc. (rather than just generator companies, etc.), since without their involvement any scalable
and sustainable implementation of the pilots is not possible. State level stakeholders could include
generation companies, local utilities, distribution companies, forum of regulators including state
electricity regulatory commissions, regional commissions, load dispatchers, academia, research
organizations and other private players in the state involved in implementation. This should have also
been expanded to local universities, institutes, etc. Without wider stakeholder involvement, sustainable
and scalable implementation of the achievements, particularly at the state level, may not be possible.
Theory of change. Based on the findings, the theory of change for this project, “to build the flexibility
of India’s grid through new market opportunities for the private sector, for ancillary services, better
forecasting, improved operating systems and equipment, and flexible energy services,” cannot be
validated. This due to the fact that many activities are still incomplete, and others are lacking critical
documentation.

46
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations presented in this section include those that are:

A. Pilot specific: actions that should be prioritized to ensure that GTG pilots are completed
effectively and achieve the intended results

B. Related to overall program initiatives: initiatives that can lead to replication, scaling up,
and sustainability of key initiatives

C. Program focused: initiatives that will inform future program design and implementation

A. PILOT-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
Evaluation of the overall program suggests that common recommendation can be made for similar pilot
projects:

• Project documents should be complete and comprehensive (GTG documents were typically
generic and often missing) so that they can be easily shared and reviewed.

• All project activities should be completed (e.g., AGC PV, BESS in distribution systems, DRPC)
before starting any new work. This will allow for an understanding of the problems, gaps, and
challenges as well as opportunities.

• Every attempt should be made to replicate a completed pilot project multiple times. This will
contribute to its scalability and sustainability and will help to establish it as a proven technology in
multiple state-level scenarios. This replication may not be achieved within a single project. As
such, future programming should address this important issue.

• Pilots designed to demonstrate the viability of specific technologies and protocols should also
ensure that individual pilot activities complement other pilot activities and/or cross-cutting
activities.

The following recommendations are specific to each pilot:

1. The BESS in Transmission Systems Pilot demonstrated that BESS connected to the
transmission grid can be used to reduce primary reserves and stabilize system frequency; several
improvements should be made to ensure the overall BESS integration process is more systematic:

a. Establish a standardized evaluation process for BESS technologies and develop a

framework to select and size similar projects to explore and quantify additional ancillary
services that have been requested by the initial SOW.

b. Develop a more detailed financial analysis to evaluate pre-defined tariff benefits for
storage projects.

47
 c. Given that a single project cannot make a difference at the system level, future projects
should be designed to optimize grid-level performance. This can be achieved by
replicating the same or similar projects on a number of different locations (would
eventually lead to sustainable and scalable adoption of BESS technology in the
transmission system).

d. Some technical indicators of BESS system improvement could be:

 Findings of the voltage/frequency and other key system parameters and cross
comparison before and after BESS implementation. Pilot project could answer the
level of improvement which could later be translated and implemented at the larger
scale.

e. Some financial parameters of BESS system improvement could be:

 Deferral of investments
 Lower reduction for spinning reserve (no need to use conventional generation
anymore)
 Reduced loading on the lines these transfers to lower technical losses, etc.

2. The above indicators could be used as a basis to establish technical criteria and show case
improvements by cross comparing before and after situation. This has not been done - makes
assessment difficult and business case may be difficult to present (and get approved by the system
regulators). A clear framework needs to be developed so that it can be used by others who are
trying to implement BESS in their state (part of the system). This framework would lead them
through the process of demonstrating technical and financial benefits (business case) 112.

The BESS in Distribution Systems Pilot has not been completed as per the original SOW and has
been revised to serve as an integration study (which is complete). In the future, we recommend
that similar projects focus on long-term capacity planning rather than a single feeder
implementation:

a. Consider BESS in combination with new or existing renewable energy sources. This will
allow for a cost-effective dispatch.

b. Focus on useful nodes in the feeder and consider islanding services.

c. Address consumer-side issues through analyses of demand response services.

d. Support implementation by thorough benefit-cost analyses.

112
The GTG-RISE approach did not identify and/or quantify these indicators – as such there is no way to assess how successful a set of
activities could be (there is no reference or benchmarking).

48
3. The Coal-Based Flexible Power Generation Pilot has achieved most of the initial
objectives and provided support to all involved stakeholders. We recommend several activities
that will need to be conducted in future projects.

4. The Automatic Generation Control Pilot cannot be considered as complete, to do. We

recommend that:

a. The pilot project follows a uniform and approved technical and financial methodology
that throughout project implementation to establish a common platform for
understanding project success (and could be easily understood by all project
stakeholders).

b. Future work beyond GTG focuses on the existing hydro plants with different
technologies, primarily reaction turbines (Francis/Kaplan). This work will very likely
need to be picked up in future projects.

c. Scalability and sustainability of similar projects be emphasized by ensuring wider

stakeholder participation to include generation companies, dispatchers and system
regulators. All need to attend joint capacity building programs for a common
understanding of the system operation.

5. The Dynamic Reactive Power Control Pilot has not been completed. We recommend
that:

a. All activities listed in the initial SOW be completed; in particular, the original pilot
activities (points B and C) should be completed including power quality assessments.

b. The project should address the reactive power compensation device selection process
so that this process can be adopted on similar projects in the future.

c. Implementation of activities using this equipment should be preceded by analyses from

the system and strategic levels rather than as isolated pilot-implementation. The
approach should be backed up with a set of system studies and would speed up
development of similar projects in the future (as all stakeholders would have a clear
path that needs to be followed). This will eventually ensure project sustainability and
scalability.

6. The Regional Platform for Reserve Sharing Pilot has been mostly completed and we
recommend that:

a. NOAR is implemented on a priority basis.

b. Regular follow up is scheduled with implementation agency.

49
 c. The pilot provides evidence on the incremental achievements relative to other ongoing
activities.

Overall Recommendations on pilot projects

I. Pilots should identify technical and financial parameters against which pilots’ outcomes and
achievements could be compared:

a. Technical parameters could include notable improvements in the system operation

(decrease of outage time, improvement on system stability and flexibility, reduced
technical losses, etc.).

b. Financial parameters could include savings related to deferral on investments, financial

benefits of decreased losses, etc.

These parameters (benchmarks) should be established before project inception and project outcomes
need to be tracked (monitored) against these parameters. Otherwise, projects activities may not clearly
target these parameters/objectives.
II. In addition, from the market development and regulatory support perspective, there could be
several focused initiatives, with clearly established targets and objectives so that they could be
monitored over time. These initiatives would provide incremental support over time so that the
power can evolve in a gradual manner - this would avoid the need to redesign and restructure
the whole power sector in few years’ time. Examples of focused initiatives could be:

a. Development of the compensation mechanisms for ancillary services as well as

accounting and settlement mechanisms and tools. If these are not properly structured
and implemented, power sector trades will not occur (this has been the case at the
state level).

b. The generation companies (especially at the state level) should be made comfortable
(e.g., through the establishment of compensation mechanisms and other incentives) so
that there is more participation in pilot activities.

III. Both the market-based mechanisms and regulations should evolve incrementally. In many cases
it would be more beneficial to use “bottom up” approach to pilot design as opposed to the
relatively “top down” approach used by GTG-RISE 113. A “bottom-up” approach would include
the following steps:

a. Select states where the program will be implemented.

113
This approach has led to an overall lack of stakeholder buy-in to pilot activities. Under these circumstances, scaling and sustaining pilot
activities is a challenge.

50
 b. Identify problems, requirements, needs and future plans together with relevant
stakeholders (generation companies, transmission and distribution operators, regulators,
local academia, etc.) and understand what needs to be done to achieve the goals of the
state. These goals could include (i) the need to increase penetration of renewables by
50% by 2030; and (ii) analyses of generation/consumption data to identify congestion in
the feeders.

c. Identify technologies that are of interest. These may not have to be new technologies
such as BESS or Hydrogen – rather they could include pumped storage, upgrade of the
systems at existing plants and control centers (e.g., SCADA).

d. Define what needs to be done on market development and how this support is related
to Item 3 above. Depending on the selected technologies, supporting market initiatives
may be different. At this stage, the approach should clearly establish market rules and
market mechanisms.

e. Simplify the bid/tender process so that more organizations participate in the market.

f. Establish a detailed plan addressing Items 3 and 4 implementation – establish

benchmarks (for subsequent monitoring, evaluation and learning) and analyze the system
requirements for mid to long term operational scenarios. Conduct risk assessments via
alternate scenario analyses

g. Proceed with pilot implementation and keep all stakeholders involved.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO OVERALL PROGRAM INITIATIVES

Successful pilot implementation is not sufficient to scale up, replicate, and sustain a program that assists
the GOI in integrating large-scale, VRE into the existing power grid. Also, the TOC “to build the
flexibility of India’s grid through new market opportunities for the private sector, for ancillary services,
better forecasting, improved operating systems and equipment, and flexible energy services” cannot be
validated through implementing stand-alone pilots. To this end, we recommend certain program-level
initiatives that integrate and streamline efforts across pilot activities. These include:

a. Finalizing and adopting necessary supporting regulations and policies in a timely way.

b. Enhancing state level capacity to better manage grid-level integration and to ensure that
interventions are appropriately modified to reflect the needs of the specific location(s)
and technology.

c. Designing compensation mechanisms during the planning of pilots. One of the most
important conditions for pilot scalability is the need to finalize a regulatory
compensation mechanism as soon as possible and expedite the implementation of
various regulatory mechanisms with CERC and POSOCO.

51
 d. Ensuring more widespread participation in the tendering process (especially for
NOAR). 114

e. Prioritizing implementation of the recommendations of SAMAST DPR.

f. Aligning and integrating state-level initiatives with central initiatives to ensure effective
system functionality in the long run.

g. Integrating central and state interactions, activities, and regulations to be more effective;
during program design and implementation, activities should not be stand-alone
initiatives.

h. Adequately addressing cybersecurity issues.

i. Involving academia and civic society stakeholders particularly on cross cutting issues
such as gender inclusion and STIM.

Overall, projects (pilots) should:

a. Be coordinated and should supplement each other. Instead of starting new activities
with completely new objectives, it may be better to continue and build up on the
conclusions of previously completed projects. This particularly refers to the financial
viability of the projects as it is to be understood that they will not be sustainable and
scalable without proper financial evidence and case studies.

b. Focus on proven technologies and ensure that they are financially beneficial in the
particular state or federal context. Otherwise, obtaining regulatory approval for wide
application will be a true challenge. Only then will system regulators be able to finalize
market and regulatory. 115

c. Make sure that discussion papers on SCED, MBED, regional balancing and reserve
sharing are completed, and the recommendations followed through till the end of the
program and a plan is put in place to ensure that ongoing discussions are conducted.

d. Recognize that the development of regulations and policies is a continuous and iterative
process and may take time for consensus (considering the Indian scenario).

114
Repeatedly, at several KIIs, the team was told that the conditions of participation were onerous (GOI and USG protocols were involved),
and the process was very time consuming – the rewards did not justify the costs of participation.
115
As has been noted in the findings and conclusions, currently, this is a key shortcoming under GTG.
52
C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING
For future programming and project design, more focus needs to be put on strategic planning and
technology selection. This means that priority should be given to proven technologies that are more
appropriate to the specific energy and geographic context(s) (e.g., pumped storage, hydro).

Future program design needs enhanced involvement of a wide group of stakeholders (e.g., system
operators, regulatory bodies, etc.), particularly at the state level. This would help to bridge the gaps
between different state agencies and thereby greatly improve the chances of sustainable adoption of
successful pilot initiatives. In addition, selection of the program consultants and advisors needs to be
further diversified and local universities and academia needs to be more involved during program design.

Project design needs to incorporate rigorous baseline parameters, clear success indicators, as well
as appropriate monitoring and evaluation metrics and approaches—otherwise quantifying and
measuring program success are major challenges. If this is not done, it is also very difficult to segregate a
pilot’s activities and achievements from those of other programs and initiatives—leads to questions on
the rationale and benefits that are introduced by each of the programs. Success indicators need to be
focused on sustainability and scalability of the technological solutions and need to use pre-defined
metrices and indices.

Projects need to be designed focusing on a particular problem that exists at the ground and
needs to be defined in the consultation with the local stakeholders so that it fully addresses their
needs. Instead for going for the latest technologies (e.g. hydrogen), more focus needs to be put on the
existing proven technologies (e.g., hydro storage) that can provide considerable contribution to the
overall grid flexibility and are at the same time proven and can be supported by the local expertise.
Implementation of the latest technologies, that are still being tested, mainly in controlled conditions,
bring a set of new challenges related to technical, financial and expert capacities that are needed for the
implementation. If this is done, there may be learning curve which eventually delays projects and
questions the whole approach including the funds spent.

Furthermore, a bottom-up approach to project design should be adopted - this involves

stakeholder participation and ground level discussions during program design. This is particularly true at
the state level to ensure that stakeholder inputs are integrated into program design and subsequent
implementation right from the project inception. A well-designed program based on this bottom-up
approach would ensure stakeholder “buy-in” and better serve stakeholder needs.

This recommended approach (the outline is enumerated in previous section of the report) is superior to
a top-bottom approach in which the project design process (including the choice of appropriate
technologies) is dominated by decision making from the top 116.

116
Often, this process leads to project activities and choice of technologies that fail to address local stakeholder. Stakeholders feel pressured
into activities that do not serve their needs and they do not have any” buy-in”, particularly when there is no accompanying financial initiative or
compensation mechanism. This can lead to project delays and failures.
53
A programmatic approach needs to be adopted instead of focusing on a single, isolated pilot-
implementation that will not make any significant difference at the system level. The following are
recommended for future programming:

a. Improve pilot design at initial stage. A bottom-up approach (discussed in previous sections of
this report) involving local stakeholders right from the design stage, will be more likely to yield
sustainable outcomes.

b. Consider long-term planning instead of isolated implementation.

c. Target state-level stakeholders using a bottom-up approach (this approach has been elaborated
earlier in this report)

d. Involve all stakeholders (e.g., system operators and FOR), providing more coordination.

e. Ensure sustainability and scalability by widely implementing existing technologies rather than
repeatedly piloting new technologies.

f. Harmonize tender requirements (national, international/regional and state level) so that more
local companies can be involved.

g. Develop exhaustive documentation to help regulatory commission staff members.

h. Update relevant stet grid codes.

Specifically, we recommend that for Coal Based Flexible Power Generation:

a. The established process be scaled up and implemented on similar projects in the future this can
be backed up with the financial analyses that has been completed under the pilot 117. One of the
key stakeholders that needs to be involved is forum of system operators.

b. Assistance be provided to enhance existing plant operation simulators with flexible operation
capabilities. A wider group of state operators will be trained and this will make project
implementation highly sustainable.

c. Future work be based on a more structured approach that is focused on the entire generation
portfolio.

117
In several KIIs, participants noted that wider stakeholder group needs to be briefed on the pilot purpose, rationale, and objectives even
before the pilot is started.
54
ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: SUMMARY OF GTG PILOT PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED TO DATE

BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY

This pilot project, identified by the RISE initiative, was designed to determine to what extent Indian
transmission utilities can benefit from BESS installation and what preferred services could be used.
Recognizing the advances made by PGCIL in commissioning the Puducherry facility, RISE held
consultations with PGCIL in April 2017 to allow collaboration on this pilot. The goal was to leverage the
investments being made by PGCIL and to enhance the coverage and functionality of the pilot with RISE
support.

PILOT DESCRIPTION: The pilot supports an initiative to test different battery technologies for
various grid scale applications. Three different technologies were installed on a pilot basis: Li-ion,
Advanced Lead Acid, and Flow batteries with a total of 1.25MW capacity. The pilot project is being
implemented at Puducherry and all the BESS are connected to a 22KV distribution grid. Functionalities
envision for this project include:

- Frequency regulation
- Energy time-shift
- Capacity firming of VRE generators
- Peak shaving/avoidance of capacity addition
- Voltage support and black start
- Spinning and non-spinning reserve
- Congestion relief and deferral of T&D upgrades
- Electric Vehicle Charging (auxiliary support) through BESS

BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY

This pilot project has objectives that are similar to the BESS pilot implemented by PGCIL. In this case,
RISE is working with BRPL on a storage pilot project to help BRPL conduct a technical study for
deploying BESS in BRPL’s distribution network. The study examines the value of BESS deployments with
optimal sizing, in suitable locations on BRPL’s network. The analysis will feed into the development of
the regulatory business case/framework and early investment opportunities for justifying BESS
deployment and any needed viability gap funding.

PILOT DESCRIPTION: This pilot involves distribution system modelling with a focus on the
following aspects:

• Assessment of Battery Energy Storage System effectiveness at the distribution level considering
feeder load, line congestions, distribution transformer capacity/overloading, RoW, and network
losses.
• Modeling/simulation of BESS in distribution networks to assess the technical and financial issues.
55
 • Scenario-based analysis for optimizing BESS size in the distribution network; undertaking
scenario-based simulations to arrive at the most optimum size of BESS considering the load to
support, load profile, battery types, number of cells in series, and determining battery capacity.
• Value analysis of BESS under two scenarios 1) benefits to DISCOM and 2) benefits to consumer
(regulatory business case).
• A 20 MW/40 MWh BESS system has been evaluated for cost-benefit analysis.

COAL-BASED FLEXIBLE POWER GENERATION (NATIONAL AND STATE)

This pilot project allows the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) to develop a framework for
testing and implementing flexibility in its portfolio of coal-fired power plants. NTPC has offered one unit
each at the Dadri (210 MW) and Simhadri (500 MW) stations to conduct the feasibility study.

PILOT DESCRIPTION: The overall pilot objectives are:

- To study and recommend the changes required in the power plant.

- To estimate the cost of achieving flexibility including the initial capital investments required as
well as the operations and maintenance expenses.
- To support the development of a “business case” with associated commercial compensation
mechanisms for flexibility–this will allow discussions with the Ministry of Power (MOP),
CEA, and CERC.
- To provide insights to the CERC on compensation for generation units to operate as
flexible units.

The pilot is being implemented in the following phases:

- Phase 1: Techno economic assessment and business case for regulatory approval.
- Phase II: (post NTPC Board approval): implementation process and monitoring.

AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL HYDRO AND SOLAR

As outlined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission [CERC, USAID’s GTG-RISE initiative in
collaboration with Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL), Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited (KPTCL), Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (APTRANSCO), National
Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) and National Load Dispatch Center (NLDC), is implementing this
pilot in the southern region as part of the roadmap to implement AGC across the country].

PILOT DESCRIPTION: Key activities under this pilot include: enhancement of existing control
facilities at two hydro units (4x115 MW Varahi and 10 units x130.5MW Sharavathi, Karnataka) and two
solar power plants (10 MW Shivanasamudra in Karnataka and 250 MW NP-Kunta in Andhra Pradesh).

DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER CONTROL (DRPC) FOR LARGE SOLAR PARK INTEGRATION
The objective of the DRPC pilot is to demonstrate the viability of providing reactive power support to
the grid from a large solar power project. The pilot will test the efficacy of existing power plant
56
equipment, as well determine cost-effective technology options in providing dynamic reactive
compensation at the interconnection point. As an outcome, the pilot aims to outline the cost-benefits of
enhanced solar integration into the overall grid through field-based deployment and subsequent
modeling.

PILOT DESCRIPTION: This pilot implementation plan is intended to further flesh out the DRPC
pilot at NTPC’s 250 MW Ultra Mega Solar Power Plant at NP Kunta, Andhra Pradesh. GTG-RISE
obtained NTPC’s approval to proceed with this pilot at its NP Kunta Ultra Mega Solar Park in May 2019.
The pilot will enable:

- Reactive power control at the solar park.

- Test certain technical mandated parameters from the CEA regulation.
- A comparative analysis of regulatory/market approaches followed internationally to compensate
developers for participating beyond the obligatory reactive power requirement as per the
relevant grid codes or equivalent technical interconnection standards.
- Demonstrate learnings to other RE rich states for enabling large-scale RE integration at
national level.

REGIONAL PLATFORM FOR RESERVE SHARING

This pilot will support CERC in the following two dimensions:

- Provide technical assistance to CERC in implementation of an enhanced system for intra-day

energy exchange enabling coordination amongst states. This would cover a modelling and
assessment of benefits for stakeholders participating in various models of revamped intra-
day market operations.
- Automate the process of granting open access and maintaining an online registry for NLDC
as the nodal agency.
The intended outcome of this pilot is to enable re-organization of the intra-day market with periodic
collective auctions and gate closures along with substantial reduction in response time for open access
approvals (thus enabling faster and shorter gate closures). It will lead to increased volumes of RE as well
as balancing energy trade across states at short notices.

Pilot Description: The pilot envisions the enabling of a mechanism for reserves sharing through
implementing of the following tasks:
- Demonstrating the benefits of a national power exchange (PX) based intra-day market
(support to CERC). The scope under this task is to assist CERC in evaluating the market
models in the intra-day timescales and evolve a consensual way forward on implementing
the appropriate model/product in the national power market to effectively enlarge the
balancing area from individual states to regions or one national market.
- Automating the process of open-access approval and maintaining an online registry. The task
is to establish an integrated IT-based system, accessible to all stakeholders (including open-
access participants, trade intermediaries and national/regional/state load dispatch centers

57
 (LDCs’), regional power committees), with functionalities for maintaining a centralized
repository of information related to open access, inter-state corridor availability, interim
approvals and no objection certificates.

Our data review and analyses suggest that additional information is needed to better understand the
rationale, design methodologies implementation processes used as well as the results of implementing
the pilot projects. The pilot projects are described in the documents summarized in Table 5.

TABLE 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PILOT PROJECTS – BASED ON DOCUMENT

REVIEW

PILOT DOCUMENT(S) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

1. Transmission system This study is needed to understand how the BESS will affect performance of
impact study (steady the transmission system in terms of voltage, frequency, and power fluctuation.
state, analyses, dynamic How does the system respond to disturbances (three phase, line to ground
analyses, power quality faults, loss of the load, etc.), with and without the BESS? Are there any
Pilot 1 - Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) in Transmission Utility

analyses). improvements? Does the BESS affect power quality in the area (harmonics,
unbalance, flickers, system resonance points, etc.)?

2. Generation studies These analyses need to suggest how the BESS helps with the generation
(generation adequacy) operational reserves (secondary, tertiary) and if there are any changes to the
analyses. existing governor operating patterns due to this. Can typical reserves be
reduced or replaced by the BESS? This should also answer the question about
ancillary services and how BESS fits into that.

3. Technical specifications Are any standards or technical specifications developed? This would allow
and standards application of the typical BESS solution on a wider scale. Without such
documents, each project would be done with different designs which would
make installation, training, operation and maintenance for the utilities more
difficult.

4. FAT or SAT reports These tests would enable seeing and understanding if there is a universal
testing procedure that would be applicable to future projects. This is related to
the standardization process which is needed if BESS solutions are to be widely
used.

5. Document explaining Several documents provide a high-level overview of the BESS applications, such
how BESS installation as frequency regulation, energy time-shift, capacity firming of VRE generators,
achieved all functions peak shaving/avoidance of capacity addition, voltage support and black start,
that it was designed for. spinning and non-spinning reserve, congestion relief and deferral of T&D
upgrades. However, there are no documents that quantify how any of these
functions have been achieved and to what extent in this particular pilot.

6. Financial analysis Does the BESS installation help to reduce system operating costs? What are
the costs before and after BESS installation?

1. Distribution system An understanding is needed of how the BESS will affect performance of the
impact study (steady transmission system in terms of voltage, frequency, power fluctuation. How
Pilot 2 -

Storage
Battery
Energy

state, analyses, dynamic does the system respond to disturbances (three phase, line to ground faults,
analyses, power quality loss of the load, etc.), with and without the BESS? Are there any
analyses). improvements? Does the BESS affect power quality in the area (harmonics,
unbalance, flickers, system resonance points, etc.)?

58
TABLE 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PILOT PROJECTS – BASED ON DOCUMENT
REVIEW

PILOT DOCUMENT(S) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

2. Generation studies These analyses need to suggest how the BESS can help with the generation
(generation adequacy) operational reserves (secondary, tertiary) and if there is any changes to the
analyses. existing governor operating patterns due to this. Can typical reserves be
reduced or replaced by the BESS? This should also answer question about
ancillary services and how BESS fit into that.

3. Technical specifications Are any standards or technical specifications developed? This would allow
and standards application of the typical BESS solution on a wider scale. Without such
documents, each project would be done with different design which would
make installation, training, operation and maintenance of the utilities more
difficult.

4. FAT or site acceptance These tests would enable seeing and understanding if there is a universal
test (SAT) reports testing procedure that would be applicable to the future projects as well. This
is related to standardization process which is necessary if BESS solutions are to
be widely used.

5. Document explaining Several documents provide a high-level overview of the BESS applications, such
how BESS installation as: frequency regulation, energy time-shift, capacity firming of VRE generators,
achieved all functions peak shaving/avoidance of capacity. Along with voltage support and black start,
that it was designed for. spinning and non-spinning reserve, congestion relief and deferral of T&D
upgrades. However, there are no documents that quantify how any of these
functions has been achieved and to what extent in this particular pilot.

6. Financial analysis Does the BESS installation help to reduce system operating costs? What are
the costs before and after BESS installation?

1. Generation study This study needs to present how the operation of selected generation plants
Pilot 3 - Coal Based Flexible Power Generation (National and

has changed and how it has impacted system performance. This needs to be
assessed through participation in reserves, ancillary services, costs, etc. Has
this affected any cost reduction?

2. Technical specifications Are any standards or technical specifications developed? This would allow
and standards application of the implemented solution on a wider scale. Without such
documents, each project would be done with different design which would
make installation, training, operation and maintenance for the utilities more
difficult. There is a requirement to standardize such activities.
State)

3. Regulatory change Since this pilot affects operation at the national and state levels, has there been
any changes in regulation policies? Are these changes documented and how
this solution could be adopted on a wider scale?

4. Measurements and tests There are suggestions that measurements (e.g. damage modelling) were done
reports but no information was provided about results implementing the solution.

5. Testing procedures It is important to know what testing procedures (load/ramp test) were
used to enable solution implementation. These testing methods need
to be developed and adopted as a result of this project.

59
TABLE 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PILOT PROJECTS – BASED ON DOCUMENT
REVIEW

PILOT DOCUMENT(S) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

1. Generation study How do selected generators participate in the system before and after
implementation of the AGC? What is their participation in regulations
Pilot 4 - Automatic Generation Control (AGC) Hydro and Solar

(primary, secondary, tertiary)? What is their participation in ancillary services?

Is there any evidence from conducting studies before and after implementation
of such pilot?

2. Grid impact study It would be useful to understand how frequency of these units changes as a
result of applied disturbance (faults, loss of load, etc.). Calculating RoFC before
and after implementation of the pilot would be useful. Are there any
improvements in frequency recovery? This is particularly important since it
addresses renewable generation plants.

3. Standards and It is not known if implemented hardware and software solutions are versatile
specifications enough to be used on a wider scale. This is particularly important since the
pilot mentions that there is a plan to deploy such a solution on 55 inter-state
generating stations.

4. PV plant operation It is mentioned that the power factor (PF) was changed manually but there are
no clear records of any improvement on the PV plant operational procedures
after implementing the pilot.

5. Compensation Has any compensation framework been developed after pilot implementation?
framework
6. Regulatory framework Are there any changes to the regulatory framework? Does such plant
operation of the plant violate any of the existing procedures and practices,
particularly grid codes, power purchase agreements, etc.?

7. SCADA Is there evidence that the implemented SCADA system can be extended and
upgraded to support wider scale application?

1. Grid impact study Reactive power planning (static and dynamic) can only be assessed after
completion of power system studies that include steady state and more
Pilot 5 - Dynamic Reactive Power Control
(DRPC) for Large Solar Park Integration

importantly dynamic performance. The aim of the studies is to understand if

crucial network values (voltage, frequency) can recover after being exposed to
disturbance. How does DRPC help with this and how does this affect large-
scale PV integration?

2. Technical standards and Technical specifications and standards would allow wider application of such
specifications solution. Have any recommendations been made?

3. Power quality DRPC may affect power quality and it is suggested that power quality
measurements be made to prove this.

4. Measurements and test What commissioning tests and measurements were done and how do they
affect DRPC implementation? Is there a cross-comparison of the performance
before and after implementation?

5. Operation and Have any recommendations been made for operation and maintenance,
maintenance given that this this may be fairly new technology for the utility

60
TABLE 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PILOT PROJECTS – BASED ON DOCUMENT
REVIEW

PILOT DOCUMENT(S) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED

engineers and they may not have sufficient experience with this
technology.

6. Financial mechanisms Are there any records on how DRPC affect reactive power charging
mechanism at the point of connection? Typically, this is regulated between the
independent power producer (in this case large scale PV) and the off-taker, but
there is no records if there have been any changes in the compensation
mechanisms and how any of the parties may benefit from it.

7. Inverter capability tests How does DRPC affect inverter reactive power capability? If this solution is to
be widely adopted, it would be good to understand how it affects typical
inverter operation parameters.

8. Regulatory change Have there been any regulatory changes due to change in the power factor
improvement?

1. Generation study How does reserves sharing affect generator operation in terms of reserve
margins (are they reduced or increased)? Are any generators taken out of
reserve, etc? Does this consider only generator constraints, or are
transmission constraints included as well?

2. Communication How is information exchanged on a daily basis? Is the SCADA system robust
Pilot 6 - Regional Platform for Reserve Sharing

(SCADA) enough to support this additional activity? Is the system designed in a way that
it can be easily implemented on any other location?

3. Python based software Has this software been tested and verified? Have security risks been
addressed?

4. Regulatory effect Have there been any changes to the existing regulation? If so, what?

5. Standards and technical Are any standards or specifications for such solution adopted? This is
specifications important for scaling up the solution.

6. Cross comparison The document needs to summarize advantages/disadvantages of each solution

between existing and to point out how implemented pilots benefits market participants.
arrangement and
implemented platform
7. Integration to external The document needs to summarize how communication and integration with
systems external system can be achieved.

8. Financial analysis Is this project financially sound? What are the advantages (cost savings) from
such a project?

61
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PILOT PROJECTS

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PILOT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. BESS in - Narrow focus a. Establish a standardized evaluation

Transmission process for BESS technologies and
Utility - Not adequately documented develop a framework to select and size
similar projects to explore and quantify
- No indicators of sustainability and additional ancillary services that have
scalability been requested by the initial SOW.
- No clear policy/market inputs b. Develop a more detailed financial
analysis to evaluate pre-defined tariff
benefits for storage projects.
c. Given that a single project cannot
make a difference at the system level,
future projects should be designed to
optimize grid-level performance. This can
be achieved by replicating the same or
similar projects on a number of different
locations (would eventually lead to
sustainable and scalable adoption of BESS
technology in the transmission system).

2. BESS in - Information on testing, commissioning a. Consider BESS in combination with

Distribution not available new or existing renewable energy
Utility sources. This will allow for a cost-
- Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
(DERC) response is pending effective dispatch.
- Regulatory business case needs b. Focus on useful nodes in the feeder
alignment with DERC targets and consider islanding services.
- Clear framework (for design and c. Address consumer-side issues through
implementation) that could be used for analyses of demand response services.
similar projects is missing d. Support implementation by thorough
- Difficult to scale up/sustain—only two benefit-cost analyses.
feeders were considered

3. Coal-based - Major achievements in reducing

Flexible Power technical minimums a. The established process be scaled up
Generation and implemented on similar projects in
- Mindset change—success
the future. This can be backed up with
- Joint work with system operators is still the financial analyses that has been
needed completed under the pilot . One of the
key stakeholders that needs to be
- Absence of regulatory business case(s) involved is forum of system operators.
for approvals from the respective Board
of Directors and the appropriate b. Assistance be provided to enhance
Regulatory Commissions existing plant operation simulators with
flexible operation capabilities. A wider
- Several strategic documents published group of state operators will be trained
- Recommendations for CERC were and this will make project
made implementation highly sustainable.
- Financial initiatives (in particular, c. Future work be based on a more
compensation mechanisms) are not in structured approach that is focused on
place—impediment to scaling up the entire generation portfolio.
implementation

62
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PILOT RECOMMENDATIONS

4. Automatic - Photovoltaic (PV) AGC is still in the a. The pilot project follows a uniform and
Generation implementation stage (assessment approved technical and financial
Control (AGC) against SOW is difficult). methodology that throughout project
– Hydro and implementation to establish a common
Solar - No technical documents (drawings, platform for understanding project
specifications, studies, etc.) to support success (and could be easily understood
future implementation. by all project stakeholders).
- Not clear if pilot met initial objectives: b. Future work focuses on the existing
relevant documents (technical reports hydro plants with different technologies,
and calculations, drawings and studies, primarily reaction turbines
etc.) were not made available for (Francis/Kaplan).
evaluation
c. Scalability and sustainability of similar
- AGC Hydro—further work on different projects be emphasized by ensuring
turbine types may be needed wider stakeholder participation to
include generation companies,
dispatchers and system regulators. All
need to attend joint capacity building
programs for a common understanding
of the system operation.

5. Dynamic - Awarded in December 2020 and still a. All activities listed in the initial SOW
Reactive Power not complete be completed; in particular, the original
Compensation pilot activities (points B and C) should be
(DRPC) for - Insufficient information to determine completed including power quality
Large Solar Park pilot’s achievements relative to the assessments.
Integration scope of work
b. The project should address the
- Incomplete or missing documentation reactive power compensation device
(drawings, studies, technical selection process so that this process can
specifications, etc.)—prevented a be adopted on similar projects in the
complete evaluation future.
- Items from original SOW need to be c. Implementation of activities using this
addressed (e.g., Power Quality) equipment should be preceded by
- No KII could be scheduled analyses from the system and strategic
levels rather than as isolated pilot-
implementation. The approach should be
backed up with a set of system studies
and would speed up development of
similar projects in the future (as all
stakeholders would have a clear path that
needs to be followed). This will
eventually ensure project sustainability
and scalability.

6. Regional - Almost complete against the original a. NOAR is implemented on a priority

Platform for SOW (Part A and Part B) basis.
Reserve Sharing
- Assisted CERC in AS market regulation b. Regular follow up is scheduled with
framework implementation agency.
- RTM has been established c. The pilot provides evidence on the
incremental achievements relative to
- Only the physical delivery market is other ongoing activities.
available, no financial market
d. To continue the NOAR initiative
- No clear contributions from the pilot as under the USAID SAREH program
Power System Operation Corporation
(POSOCO) is doing ongoing work; no
measurable effects to date

63
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF THE PILOT FINDINGS

PILOT FINDINGS PILOT RECOMMENDATIONS

- National Open Access Registry (NOAR)

“go live” is planned for July 2021—not
clear if this schedule will be met
- Lack of coordination at the state level,
as each state has its own priorities

64
ANNEX 3: DATA SOURCES, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS TO BE USED
TO ADDRESS EVALUATION QUESTIONS

TABLE 7: SUMMARY EVALUATION MATRIX

DATA ANALYSIS
EVALUATION QUESTION DATA SOURCE DATA COLLECTION METHOD
METHOD

1. To what extent has the GTG • Quarterly and • Document review and • Triangulation
program achieved its objective of annual reports Indicator analysis • Content analysis
assisting the GOI in integrating • Evaluation and • KIIs; all stakeholder groups • Trend analysis
large scale, VRE into the existing strategy documents
power grid?

2. To what extent has the theory of • Quarterly and • Document review and • Triangulation
change (TOC) for this project “to annual reports Indicator analysis • Content analysis
build the flexibility of India’s grid • Evaluation and • KIIs; all stakeholder groups • Trend analysis
through new market opportunities strategy documents
for the private sector, for ancillary • GTG pilot contracts
services, better forecasting,
improved operating systems and
equipment, and flexible energy
services” been validated?

3. What possibilities and challenges • Quarterly and • Document review and • Triangulation
are there for applying, replicating, annual reports Indicator analysis • Content analysis
and scaling up the GTG • Evaluation and • KIIs; all stakeholder groups • Trend analysis
interventions - in particular, the strategy documents
pilot projects? Are they sustainable?

4. How has the sector evolved in the • Quarterly and • Document review and • Triangulation
five years since GTG was annual reports Indicator analysis • Content analysis
conceived and designed? Looking • Evaluation and • KIIs; all stakeholder groups • Trend analysis
at this recent evolution and strategy documents
emerging technologies for VRE • Background
integration, what should be the research documents
focus of follow-on programming?

5. How far has GTG been successful • Quarterly and • Document review and • Triangulation
in incorporating gender into annual reports indicator analysis • Content analysis
implementation of the overall • Evaluation and • KIIs; all stakeholder groups • Trend analysis
project approach and the individual strategy documents
pilots/components? • Background
research documents

65
ANNEX 4: RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
As part of the desk study (review), the evaluation team reviewed several strategy-related documents.
Findings are summarized below, grouped by key pilot activities. The focus on the pilot activities enabled
development of the relevant evaluation questions used for the KIIs. The team reviewed other
documents, particularly those related to quarterly and annual reporting of program progress, as well as
those related to various contract modifications, to determine the extent to which the GTG program
had met its objectives. The complete desk review is available as a separate document.

PILOT 1 - BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY

DESCRIPTION

DATE

DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

1. “The studies indicated that the 1. Has the generation study been
country’s power system, with some done and has the least cost
enhancement in flexing capability of optimal model been
coal-based power plants, has the implemented, e.g. Plexos model
required technical flexibility in time done by NREL?
frames of 15-minutes for balancing out 2. What level of curtailment is
this high quantity of VRE on the grid, achieved and how does this
with minimal curtailment.” relate to the case without BESS?
Greening the Grid 2. The studies however pointed out that 1. What studies? Are these studies
– Renewable the value of fast responding, high- available?
Integration quality energy sources for ancillary
market operations could still be
& Sustainable significant and needs to be assessed
Energy (RISE) separately.
Concept Note

3. Storage could also avoid locational 1. How has this been considered?
May 15, 2017

Initiative
congestion and address power quality 2. What power quality
considerations, which can result in considerations were studied?
locational curtailment of VRE. 3. Has power quality (harmonics,
Concept Note flicker, etc.) been assessed?
– Proposed Pilot 4. The Battery Management System is 1. Are testing reports available?
on Battery Energy currently set up to run two significant 2. What are the lessons learned?
use cases outlined above; testing 3. Have other applications been
Storage Systems
energy time-shift applications and assessed, such as:
studying response to frequency - Frequency regulation
regulations signals. - Energy time-shift
- Capacity firming of VRE
generators
- Peak shaving / Avoidance
of Capacity Addition
- Voltage Support and Black
start
- Spinning and non-spinning
reserve

66
PILOT 1 - BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY

DESCRIPTION

DATE
DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

- Congestion relief and

deferral of T&D upgrades
4. Electric vehicle charging
(auxiliary support) through
BESS
5. Part A - Enhancement of an existing 1. Are testing results available?
BESS facility at Puducherry: The overall 2. What gird parameters are
scope of work includes developing and monitored (e.g. voltage,
implementing control logics for frequency, etc.) and how do
different BESS applications along with they compare with the results
required hardware/software retrofits before BESS installation?
to enable real-time monitoring of grid 3. Has data analysis of BESS
parameters and specified controlled performance related to external
operation of the BESS across the three grid signals been conducted?
battery technologies.
6. After successful deploying the
software/hardware retrofits at the BESS
Pilot in Puducherry, GTG-RISE will carry out
Implementation Plan

Implementation data analysis with focus on

parameterizing battery responses to
July 19, 2018

Plan-Battery
external grid signals.
Energy Storage 7. Part B - Assessment of economic value 1. Are results of these studies
System Pilot of storage: The BESS pilot under Part B available?
aims to conduct a national or regional 2. How has BESS installation has
(depending on data availability) affected ancillary services which
assessment/modelling of the value of it was supposed to impact?
storage at the grid level with modeling 3. What BESS sizing methodology
efforts in the sub-15-minute timeframes was used and what studies were
to assess contribution to ancillary done to support such decisions?
services, alleviation of transmission
constraints, etc. The study scope also
aims to include siting and sizing of grid
connected battery energy storage
systems in India for providing balancing
support to the grid in various reserve
regulation services.

67
PILOT 1 - BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY

DESCRIPTION

DATE
DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

8. Advanced lead acid - 500kW/30 min 1. Commissioning appears to

(250kWh); Installation complete and have started in 2017 but was
commissioned completed in 2018. Have there
been any other activities in the
Lithium ion; 500kW/30 min (250kWh); meantime or is it just a result
Installation complete and of a delay?
commissioned

Flow; 250kW/4 hours (1 MWh);

Commissioning by July 2018

9. Data outputs from the enhanced BESS 1. Studies should have been done
pilot facility (Part-A) would be used for before the actual
parameterizing response under implementation.
different operating scenarios and would 2. What operating scenarios
be a valuable input to modelling studies were considered?
for establishing the systemic value at
the grid level.

10. It is proposed to appoint a technically 1. What is the benefit of this

qualified entity as the system integrator program if an additional
through the grants mechanism under technically qualified entity
the contract for enhancing the existing needs to be employed?
BESS Pilot facility at Puducherry 2. What would be the specific
covering the two tasks outlined above. scope of the system
integrator?

11. The scope of work under this 1. Is this study available?

component includes a modelling study
to establish the stacked value of BESS
at the grid level with a focus on
harnessing grid services in sub-15-
minute time scales.
12. Assessment of economic value of 1. What are these benefits? Are
storage: The specific focus is to identify there any supporting
and quantify the value that battery documents?
energy storage systems have in
providing grid services, particularly in
the sub-15 minutes time scales in
today’s and 2022 forecasted grid
operations.

68
PILOT 1 - BESS IN TRANSMISSION UTILITY

DESCRIPTION

DATE
DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

13. Assessment of Economic Value of 1. This suggests that the study has
Storage: NREL, which has conducted not been completed.
grid modelling studies at the national
and regional level for the Indian power
system will be a key part of the
systemic value assessment to help in
developing the scope of work for Part
B, defining the framework for the
analysis and in peer reviewing the
outputs of the international firm that
conducts the value assessment.
14. The scope of work will include a
detailed modelling study on the need,
quantity, and location of storage
systems in India with specific focus on
the sub-15 minutes time scale. The
study would thus be an important input
to identifying ancillary products aligned
with storage systems.
15. The scoping of this study is yet to be
undertaken as RISE continues to
analyze the framework adopted in
international instances of such value
assessment at the system level.

PILOT 2 - BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY

DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION

DATE

Pilot 16. The 33/11 kV sub-station at Kilokari has 1. Has the 20 MW/40 MWh
been identified for deploying of the BESS BESS actually been
Implementation

March 16, 2020

Implementation
system. This substation is among the implemented at the site?
Plan - BESS in
oldest stations of Delhi and the land is
Pilot

Power owned by BRPL. Multiple site surveys

Pl

Distribution have been undertaken to design the

Utility Pilot placement and interconnection of the
BESS at the substation assets. The table
69
PILOT 2 - BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY

DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION

DATE provides details of the site proposed for

BESS installation.
17. Sizing BESS with evacuation design: To 1. Has this been done?
assist BRPL in optimally sizing the BESS 2. Are these documents
based on BRPL’s ramping requirements available?
for the future.
18. Assessing resources and technology
19. Analyzing project cost estimates and
benefits: Deloitte propriety model
D.VAST will be used to evaluate the
costs of the BESS and the benefits
accrued by ramping energy requirement,
peak shifting, capacity deferral,
transmission loss reduction and
reduction of outages due to operation of
BESS.
20. Designing of Framework BESS PPA with
Service Level Agreement: Provide
assistance to the Solar Energy
Corporation of India and BRPL on
finalizing the terms of the Power
Purchase Agreement with Service Level
Agreements based on international best
practices.
21. Deriving the tariff for purchase of BESS
Services
22. Preparing a regulatory business case to
be submitted to DERC for kind approval
1. D.VAST has been developed on a robust 1. If such analysis was done, what
python-based open-source platform are the results and
which easily integrates with standard, conclusions?
industry recognized software for power
flow simulations such as PSSE and Open
DSS. Values from power flow studies are
integrated to assess benefits from
CAPEX deferral and loss reduction to
arrive at a final cost benefit assessment
for BESS deployment.
2. In addition to these data points, the 1. There are no clear data on
existing power purchase agreements, this. Has this been done and
upcoming/under-construction thermal included in the analyses?
projects, future RE generation growth,
and RE generation profile would be used
to project supply scenario to meet future
demand projections.
- Benefits from ramping support 1. Have listed benefits been
Concept Note:
Conc

Febr
uary
ept

- Benefits from peak shaving/ energy considered?

24

Pilot on Battery
N

shifting application

70
PILOT 2 - BESS IN DISTRIBUTION UTILITY

DOCUMENT CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION

Energy Storage DATE - Benefits from transmission capacity

System (BESS) in upgrade deferral and loss reduction
Distribution 3. Two main scenarios have been developed 1. Are results of these analyses
Network using a model developed in Python available?
Programming Language. The two
scenarios contribute understanding value
of benefits from BESS for DISCOM and
Consumers respectively.
4. Key insights derived from the study are 1. There are no results of these
as follows: analyses.
- Dispatch analysis and distribution system
modelling
- Value stack analysis –
o CAPEX deferral, ramping
support, peak shifting
(Regulatory b-case)
o DSM penalty reduction, capex
deferral, peak shifting (Discom
b-case)
- Identification of locations for placement
of BESS along with sizing estimates
- Regulatory business case, petition, etc.

PILOT 3 - COAL BASED FLEXIBLE POWER GENERATION (NATIONAL AND STATE)

CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND

DESCRIPTION

QUESTIONS
DATE

DOCUMENT

71
 1. The purpose of the minimum
load/ramp test procedure is to
support Coal-Based Thermal
Minimum Power Plants (TPPs) across the
country in preparing and

Technical book
load/ramp test
conducting low load and cyclic

April, 2020
procedure for
operations to facilitate
coal based integration of renewable energy
thermal power (RE) into the grid. Even though
plants testing procedures are
described there are no test
results or descriptions of how
selected power plants benefit
from the implemented pilot.
Transition 1. Damage modeling - Cycling-related damage 1. It is not clear how this has been
towards for any component in a power plant can be done.
flexible estimated by direct damage modeling. This
Summary report

October, 2020

type of modeling combines physical

operations in
measurements (e.g., pressure, temperature,
India – Coal- strain, and heat flux) taken while the
based flexible component is online, with state-of-the-art
power stress analyses and damage algorithms to
generation produce a detailed estimate of the amount
pilot of damage suffered by the particular
component.
2. The pilot’s Phase 2 (2019-2020) focused on 1. A description of the running
designing low-load test run procedures and procedures is available;
conducting pilot test runs for technical however it is not clear how
minimums at the target units. The objective these have been implemented
was to identify the applicability of the test for the particular pilot.
run procedures and witness the
responsiveness of the plant equipment
subject to the low loads on a sustained
basis. This pilot phase also emphasized the
need to create enabling frameworks
through regulatory and policy
interventions.
3. Detailed recommendations were provided 1. This information is not
in unit wise reports submitted to NTPC currently available.
and GSECL. The findings, analysis, and
recommendations were also shared with
these utilities in two (2) day knowledge
dissemination workshops. Few of the
recommendations have already been
implemented/under implementation by
NTPC and GSECL.

72
PILOT 4 - AUTOMATIC GENERATION CONTROL (AGC) HYDRO AND SOLAR

CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND

QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION

DATE
DOCUMENT

1. Part A: Demonstration of AGC pilot on 1. What progress has been made

hydro and RE plants in Southern India - on this activity? Has it been
Key activities in this pilot include upgrade of implemented?
software and communication infrastructure
to enable AGC support from hydro, solar,
and wind units for a period of three to six
months with recording of system
parameters and generator response.
Software updates will be required at both
the generation and system operator ends
and adequate SCADA and communication
links are required to be established.
August 4, 2018
Implementation plan

Pilot 2. Part B: Compensation framework for 1. Has this activity progressed?

Implementation enabling AGC support and support in 2. Has regulation been set?
Plan - Automatic national rollout. Part B of the pilot will
Generation focus on analysis and development of a
Control Pilot proposed compensation framework for
enabling AGC support from various types of
generating units in the country, which will
inform CERC in framing necessary
regulations.

3. For this part of the scope, support from 1. What experiences have been
NREL will be leveraged in international shared by NREL?
experiences on pricing and compensation.
4. GTG-RISE has offered its services to 1. There are no records that
POSOCO for assessing pre-feasibility of this has been started.
AGC deployment at about 55 inter-state
generating stations, which form the target
set for national roll-out of AGC.
5. AGC at 10MW solar power plant, 1. What is the typical power
Shivanasamudra, Karnataka. Currently, the factor and how does reactive
operators at the 10 MW Solar power plant power support changes with
at Shivanasamudra, Karnataka, are changing PF change?
the inverter power factor settings manually
at the inverter panels as per the
requirement from the KLDC in Bangalore
6. The Grantee needs to provide the 1. Have any of these been
following facilities in accordance with the completed?
scope of work. 2. Are records available?
- Communication between remote
terminal unit RTU at KPTCL 66 kV
Shiva substation and Solar plant RTU.
- SCADA software update at Solar
plant
- Configure the inverters from manual
mode to auto mode as per the inputs

73
 from plant SCADA software to
control inverter active power
generation.

7. AGC at Varahi hydro power plant, 1. What is the typical power

Karnataka. Currently, at Varahi hydro factor and how does reactive
power plant, operators are changing the power support changes with
generator output set points manually as PF change?
per the information from LDC Bangalore
over telecommunication.
8. The demonstration of AGC pilot at 1. Any additional details on this?
different location requires additional
hardware (telemetry and communication
systems) and software (control logics and
human-machine interface) enhancement.
The list of existing hardware/software and
required hardware/software (estimated) to
be deployed by the Grantee is provided in
table based on recent field visits carried
out by GTG-RISE team.
9. Part B, Development of Compensation 1. There are no records that this
Framework for AGC support - The scope has been done. There is no
of work includes a detailed modelling study information on modelling
on the need and economic output from procedure, measured benefits
the ancillary services using the AGC (savings), etc.
system at all RE and conventional
generation plants in India at large scale
10. The data analysis outputs from enhanced 1. Details on compensation
AGC pilot facility would be used for framework?
parameterizing the attribution from AGC
support to the grid with and conducting
sensitivity studies while developing
compensation framework for AGC service
at large.
11. This pilot communication network includes 1. White paper has been
plans to enhance at plant side, two-way published before the pilot is
communication facilities to receive the completed?
AGC signals from SLDC and observe the 2. Have any results of sensitivity
September 4, 2019

Implementation response of hydro units as per the AGC analyses been evaluated in
of Automatic signals. The pilot was initiated in the year terms of developing
White paper

Generation 2018 and operated for three months from framework guidelines for
Control at September 2019 to November 2019. The ancillary market mechanisms?
Hydro Power outcomes of the pilot will be analyzed to
Plants in develop the framework guidelines for
ancillary market mechanism focused on
Southern India
secondary reserves in India.
12. White paper mentions dynamic simulation 1. Is this model available? What
model. is the modelling scope?
13. White paper mentions plants of 1720 MW, 1. Where do these plants fit in
1700 MW, 1035 MW. into the discussed pilot?

74
PILOT 5 - DYNAMIC REACTIVE POWER CONTROL (DRPC) FOR LARGE SOLAR PARK INTEGRATION

CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND

DESCRIPTION
QUESTIONS

DATE
DOCUMENT

1. Assessment of dynamic reactive power 1. Was a dynamic study

support capability of the solar inverters for done?
supporting RE interconnection point voltages 2. Have any measurement
during peak and off-peak generation from or tests been done?
NTPC’s power block.
2. This evaluation will provide an independent 1. What options were
field level assessment of technology options considered (Static VAR
and the most optimal choice of reactive Compensator,
compensation with solar parks. STATCOM, capacitor
banks)?
3. The pilot implementation is expected to 1. There is no indication
establish techno-commercial pathways for that this was done.
regulators and state transmission
utilities/system operators to design the most
cost-effective mechanism to address voltage
stability issues due to large RE parks.
4. The pilot will also include the power quality 1. There is no indication
(PQ) assessment to measure the quality of that a power quality
output of NP Kunta solar power plant at assessment (harmonic
February 14, 2020

Power Control Center (PCC) (33kV) and analysis, frequency scans,

Pilot Implementation Plan

Pilot analyze and assess the impact of Power flicker analyses) was
Implementation Quality (PQ) on grid to identify the need for done.
Plan - Dynamic PQ enhancement.
Reactive Power 5. Part A, DRPC; The pilot scope includes the 1. There is no indication
Compensation demonstration of dynamic reactive power that this has been done.
(DRPC) support from inverters for supporting RE Inverter reactive power
interconnection point voltages during peak and capability has not been
off-peak generation at NP Kunta solar park assessed, and no
through Aggregator software. It will also test background information
the associated standards specified in is available. Cross
“Technical Standard for Connectivity to the comparison against CEA
Grid” regulation 2019, issued by CEA in regulation is not
February 2019. mentioned.
6. Part B: Testing of inverter capability for 1. There is no indication
providing DRPC; The Part B involves carrying that these tests were
out factory acceptance test (FAT) on a new done or that test
inverter (having similar technical specifications information is available.
as already deployed at NP Kunta Solar Park
for rating of 1 MW).
7. Part C: The scope of Part C under DRPC is 1. A power quality
the Power Quality Assessment sub-pilot. It assessment and cross
includes detailed measurement of power comparison against
quality and its impact at PCC of the Solar Plant International
i.e., 33 kV bus, and the output of the three to Electrotechnical
five sampled inverters of the solar plant, which Commission (IEC)
will be used in developing of impact mitigation standards are not
strategies. available.
75
 8. The measurement will be conducted for a 1. Results of these tests are
minimum period of 4 weeks to record the not available.
PCC point current harmonics, flicker, steady
state voltage variation, voltage unbalance and
DC current injection with the wind/solar farm
in service and a detailed analysis of the power
quality will be performed with reference to
the technical standards, grid codes and IEC
standards.
9. Development of Pilot Case Study - July 2020 - 1. If completed, is this
Pilot Case Studies. study available?

PILOT 6 - REGIONAL PLATFORM FOR RESERVE SHARING

CONCLUSIONS COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION

DATE

DOCUMENT

1. The simulation will take into account the 1. How is this integrated into the
difference of day-ahead schedule and system in terms of
actual demand met by the states in the communication, SCADA
Western / Southern region (Andhra integration, data transfer, etc.?
Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, 2. Is day-ahead schedule and
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, demand exchanged on a daily
Chhattisgarh) and meet this difference or weekly basis?
through available un-requisitioned surplus
(Inter-state + Intra-state) across all states
dispatched on a merit order basis.
2. A python-based co-optimization algorithm 1. Is this algorithm providing
is being used to simulate this and calculate benefits at the state level or
benefits accrued for each time block in a country level? What
September 30, 2018
Project Implementation Plan

Pilot day for an entire year. The proposed optimization procedure is

Implementation simulation will require actual 15-minute used?
Plan – Regional block-wise data for all the states for the 2. How is this algorithm,
Platform for past 12 months and compare the software implemented in the
Reserves Sharing simulated system charges with actual actual system?
system charges to arrive at benefits for
each state.
3. The system charges will be calculated after 1. These are pricing options but
taking into account clearing of un- which of them is used?
requisitioned surplus generation based on
three different price options:
- DAM price at Indian Energy
Exchange.
- Regulated prices as decided by
regulatory authorities.
- System Marginal Price (based on
matching of demand and reserves for
each slot)
4. These data were used in carrying out the 1. What generator constraints
simulation for a period of 12 months from were implemented?
April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017.
76
 2. What transmission
constraints were considered?
5. The optimization exercise is expected to 1. Is this just assumed, or has it
successfully establish that inter-state been actually achieved?
sharing of reserves, when dispatched on
system marginal price, would lead to
substantial reduction of power
procurement cost of the DISCOMS.
6. National Open Access Registry has been 1. Is this just a concept?
conceptualized as a one-stop solution for
automating the short-term open access
approval processes wherein applicants can
apply for a transaction based on corridor
availability as specified and the system
would grant automatic recommendations
for approval based on the same.
7. A Python based optimization tool has been 1. Optimization results are not
used to simulate and demonstrate these currently available.
benefits for six states assumed to be
participating in the PX based market in a
closed mode. The simulation is carried out
for each of the 96 time blocks for each day
in 12 months (April 16-March 17). Data
have been obtained from six states/ SLDCs
- Telengana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka,
Chhattisgarh (three states in Western
Region & 3 states in Southern Region).
8. GTG-RISE would also undertake an AS-IS 1. What technology is currently
study of existing IT landscape at NLDC / being used and what
RLDC and determine various technology technology is recommended
alternatives for implementing the National based on the completed
Open Access Registry. analyses?
9. A technology feasibility assessment on 1. There is no clear information
block chain has been concluded by GTG- how block chain technologies
RISE. It is recommended that instead of fit into this pilot.
designing the entire NOAR on blockchain,
a pilot implementation would be the ideal
way forward.
10. Integration with external systems. 1. There is no clear indication
how integration with external
systems has been done.

77
ANNEX 5: DRAFT DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL AND LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

INFORMED CONSENT – KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is [NAME]. I am a researcher from a
company named Panagora Group, which is based in the United States. Our team is speaking with people
to conduct an evaluation of a project funded by USAID/India called Greening the Grid or GTG for short.
We would like to conduct a brief discussion with you today to learn about your experience with this
topic. Your responses, along with responses from other participants, will be compiled into findings for a
report. The report will be publicly available once it is complete, but it will not include your name or other
identifying information. Readers will not be able to identify the specific individuals we spoke to from any
specific quotes or data in the report.
It is important to understand that while we would like your help in this study, you do not have to
participate if you do not want to, and you do not have to answer any questions if you feel uncomfortable
doing so. The objective of this research is to improve the performance of projects like this one.
Please note that we plan to record this interview. The recordings will be used to transliterate the interview
so that we can review the content later. The recordings will not be shared with any third party.
The interview is expected to take about 60 minutes.
You may ask questions at any time during our discussion. If you have questions or concerns about the
research after we leave today, you can contact me at [EMAIL] or [PHONE NUMBER].
Do you have any questions before we start?
By saying “yes,” and participating in this study, you are indicating that you have heard this consent
statement, had an opportunity to ask any questions about your participation, and voluntarily consent to
participate.
Will you participate in this interview? You may answer yes or no.

◻ Yes, I will participate.

◻ No, I will not participate.

Are you okay with us recording the interview? You may answer yes or no.

◻ Yes, I am okay with recording the interview.

◻ No, I am not okay with recording the interview.

78
KII GUIDE – DONOR AGENCY STAFF MEMBER

INTERVIEW DATE:
INTERVIEWER:
RESPONDENT NAME:
RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION:
RESPONDENT JOB TITLE:

BG.1 Background

◻ EQ1: To what extent has the GTG program achieved its objective of assisting
the Government of India (GOI) in integrating- large scale variable renewable energy
(VRE) into the existing power grid?

I. Impacts on VRE Integration. In terms of overall impacts, what has been the change in VRE
integration into power grids compared to the baseline situation?
II. Contributions of Pilots. What are the outcomes of the pilots in contributing to the overall
objectives of the activity and what are the demonstrable results on the selected utilities?
III. Impact on Regulatory Change. How effective has GTG been in supporting national and state
regulatory bodies, and in particular the Forum of Regulators. What are GTG’s impacts on
regulatory changes?

◻ EQ2: To what extent has the theory of change (TOC) for this project “to build
the flexibility of India’s grid through new market opportunities for the private sector,
for ancillary services, better forecasting, improved operating systems and equipment,
and flexible energy services” been validated?

I. New market opportunities for the Private Sector. How effective has GTG been in identifying and
demonstrating these opportunities? What specific GTG actions can you identify? How effective
were these actions?
II. Ancillary and flexible energy services. How has GTG performed in this area? What specific program
actions contributed to this objective? What could GTG have done better in this area?
III. Better forecasting. How and what did GTG contribute to better forecasting? What added benefits
did the program provide to stakeholders? Who benefitted and how?
IV. Improved operating systems and equipment. What specific systems and equipment were improved
under GTG and to what extent did this help provide flexibility in India’s grid?
V. Are there signs of measurable flexibility in India’s grid? What has contributed the most to this
improved flexibility?

79
 ◻ EQ3: What possibilities and challenges are there for applying, replicating, and
scaling up the GTG interventions, in particular, the pilot projects? Are they
sustainable?

I. Is there evidence that the program outcomes are likely to grow, scale up and out, past the project
period of implementation (sustainability)?
II. What are the challenges that pilots have faced and how can these be addressed during similar
actions in the future?
III. What changes/improvements need to be made to make the program interventions more scalable,
sustainable, and to achieve an enhanced development impact?
IV. Have pilots allowed measurable impact on the existing market and suggested possible regulatory
changes?
V. What are recommendations that can improve geographic selection, sub-sector identification,
beneficiary private company selection and resource allocation?
VI. What additional support would be required to make the program interventions, especially the pilots.
sustainable?
VII. Have pilots contributed to establishing technical baselines that can be used to develop technical
specifications and standards for equipment?

◻ EQ4: How has the sector evolved in the five years since GTG was conceived and
designed? Looking at this recent evolution and emerging technologies for VRE
integration, what should be the focus of follow-on programming?

I. Which market/technological/policy/regulatory issues should be the focus of future programming?

II. What should be the approach with respect to pilot projects, integration studies, etc.?
III. How can this future work be made relevant for both India and the South Asia region?
IV. Which components (pilots, studies, analyses, etc.) should future activities include so that a more
uniform approach can be followed towards project design and implementation by adjusting and
linking program components?

◻ EQ5: How far has GTG been successful in incorporating gender into the
implementation of the overall project approach and the individual pilots/components?

I. Any lessons learned from the intervention regarding gender equality and the empowerment of
women for future programming in energy sector?

80
KII GUIDE – IMPLEMENTING PARTNER STAFF MEMBER

INTERVIEW DATE:
INTERVIEWER:
RESPONDENT NAME:
RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION:
RESPONDENT JOB TITLE:

BG.1 Background

◻ EQ1: To what extent has the GTG program achieved its objective of
assisting the Government of India (GOI) in integrating large-scale variable
renewable energy (VRE) into the existing power grid?

I. Impacts on VRE Integration. In terms of overall impacts, what has been the change in VRE
integration into power grids compared to the baseline situation?
II. Contributions of Pilots. What are the outcomes of the pilots in contributing to the overall
objectives of the activity and what are the demonstrable results on the selected utilities?
III. Impact on Regulatory Change. How effective has GTG been in supporting national and state
regulatory bodies, and in particular the Forum of Regulators. What are GTG’s impacts on
regulatory changes?

◻ EQ2: To what extent has the theory of change (TOC) for this
project “to build the flexibility of India’s grid through new market opportunities for
the private sector, for ancillary services, better forecasting, improved operating
systems and equipment, and flexible energy services” been validated?

I. New market opportunities for the Private Sector. How effective has GTG been in identifying and
demonstrating these opportunities? What specific GTG actions can you identify – how effective
were these actions?
II. Ancillary and flexible energy services. How has GTG performed in this area? What specific program
actions contributed to this objective? What could GTG have done better in this area?
III. Better forecasting. How and what did GTG contribute to better forecasting – what added benefits
did the program provide to stakeholders? Who benefitted and how?
IV. Improved operating systems and equipment. What specific systems and equipment were improved
under GTG and to what extent did this help provide flexibility in India’s grid?
V. Are there signs of measurable flexibility in India’s grid – what has contributed the most to this
improved flexibility?

81
 ◻ EQ3: What possibilities and challenges are there for applying,
replicating, and scaling up the GTG interventions, in particular, the pilot projects?
Are they sustainable?

I. Is there evidence that the program outcomes are likely to grow, scale up and out, past the project
period of implementation (sustainability)?
II. What are the challenges that pilots have faced and how can these be addressed during similar
actions in the future?
III. What changes/improvements need to be made to make the program interventions more scalable,
sustainable, and to achieve an enhanced development impact?
IV. Have pilots allowed measurable impact on the existing market and suggested possible regulatory
changes?
V. What are recommendations that can improve geographic selection, sub-sector identification,
beneficiary private company selection and resource allocation?
VI. What additional support would be required to make the program interventions, especially the pilots,
sustainable?
VII. Have pilots contributed to establishing technical baselines that can be used to develop technical
specifications and standards for equipment?

◻ EQ4: How has the sector evolved in the five years since GTG was
conceived and designed? Looking at this recent evolution and emerging
technologies for VRE integration, what should be the focus of follow-on
programming?

I. Which market/technological/policy/regulatory issues should be the focus of future programming?

II. What should be the approach with respect to pilot projects, integration studies, etc.?
III. How can this future work be made relevant for both India and the South Asia region?
IV. Which components (pilots, studies, analyses, etc.) should future activities include so that a more
uniform approach can be followed towards project design and implementation by adjusting and
linking program components?

◻ EQ5: How far has GTG been successful in incorporating gender into
the implementation of the overall project approach and the individual
pilots/components?

I. Any lessons learned from the intervention with regard to gender equality and the empowerment of
women for future programming in energy sector?

82
KII GUIDE – “GTG PILOT PROJECT” STAFF MEMBER

INTERVIEW DATE:
INTERVIEWER:
RESPONDENT NAME:
RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION:
RESPONDENT JOB TITLE:

BG.1 Background

◻ EQ1: To what extent has the GTG program achieved its objective of
assisting the Government of India (GOI) in integrating large-scale variable
renewable energy (VRE) into the existing power grid?

I. Impacts on VRE Integration. In terms of overall impacts, what has been the change in VRE
integration into power grids compared to the baseline situation?
II. Contributions of Pilots. What are the outcomes of the pilots in contributing to the overall
objectives of the activity and what are the demonstrable results on the selected utilities?
III. Impact on Regulatory Change. How effective has GTG been in supporting national and state
regulatory bodies, and in particular the Forum of Regulators? What are GTG’s impacts on
regulatory changes?

◻ EQ2: To what extent has the theory of change (TOC) for this
project “to build the flexibility of India’s grid through new market opportunities for
the private sector, for ancillary services, better forecasting, improved operating
systems and equipment, and flexible energy services” been validated?

I. New market opportunities for the Private Sector. How effective has GTG been in identifying and
demonstrating these opportunities? What specific GTG actions can you identify – how effective
were these actions?
II. Ancillary and flexible energy services. How has GTG performed in this area? What specific program
actions contributed to this objective? What could GTG have done better in this area?
III. Better forecasting. How and what did GTG contribute to better forecasting? What added benefits
did the program provide to stakeholders? Who benefitted and how?
IV. Improved operating systems and equipment. What specific systems and equipment were improved
under GTG and to what extent did this help provide flexibility in India’s grid?
V. Are there signs of measurable flexibility in India’s grid? What has contributed the most to this
improved flexibility?

83
 ◻ EQ3: What possibilities and challenges are there for applying,
replicating, and scaling up the GTG interventions, in particular, the pilot projects?
Are they sustainable?
◻
I. Is there evidence that the program outcomes are likely to grow, scale up and out, past the project
period of implementation (sustainability)?
II. What are the challenges that pilots have faced and how can these be addressed during similar
actions in the future?
III. What changes/improvements need to be made to make the program interventions more scalable,
sustainable, and to achieve an enhanced development impact?
IV. Have pilots allowed measurable impact on the existing market and suggested possible regulatory
changes?
V. What are recommendations that can improve geographic selection, sub-sector identification,
beneficiary private company selection and resource allocation?
VI. What additional support would be required to make the program interventions, especially the pilots,
sustainable?
VII. Have pilots contributed to establishing technical baselines that can be used to develop technical
specifications and standards for equipment?

◻ EQ4: How has the sector evolved in the five years since GTG was
conceived and designed? Looking at this recent evolution and emerging
technologies for VRE integration, what should be the focus of follow-on
programming?

I. Which market/technological/policy/regulatory issues should be the focus of future programming?

II. What should be the approach with respect to pilot projects, integration studies, etc.?
III. How can this future work be made relevant for both India and the South Asia region?
IV. Which components (pilots, studies, analyses, etc.) should future activities include so that a more
uniform approach can be followed towards project design and implementation by adjusting and
linking program components?

◻ EQ5: How far has GTG been successful in incorporating gender into
the implementation of the overall project approach and the individual
pilots/components?

I. Any lessons learned from the intervention with regard to gender equality and the empowerment of
women for future programming in energy sector?

84
KII GUIDE – PARTNER COUNTRY (INDIA) AGENCY STAFF MEMBER

INTERVIEW DATE:
INTERVIEWER:
RESPONDENT NAME:
RESPONDENT ORGANIZATION:
RESPONDENT JOB TITLE:

BG.1 Background

◻ EQ1: To what extent has the GTG program achieved its objective of
assisting the Government of India (GOI) in integrating large-scale variable
renewable energy (VRE) into the existing power grid?

I. Impacts on VRE Integration. In terms of overall impacts, what has been the change in VRE
integration into power grids compared to the baseline situation?
II. Contributions of Pilots. What are the outcomes of the pilots in contributing to the overall
objectives of the activity and what are the demonstrable results on the selected utilities?
III. Impact on Regulatory Change. How effective has GTG been in supporting national and state
regulatory bodies, and in particular the Forum of Regulators. What are GTG’s impacts on
regulatory changes?

◻ EQ2: To what extent has the theory of change (TOC) for this
project “to build the flexibility of India’s grid through new market opportunities for
the private sector, for ancillary services, better forecasting, improved operating
systems and equipment, and flexible energy services” been validated?

I. New market opportunities for the Private Sector. How effective has GTG been in identifying and
demonstrating these opportunities? What specific GTG actions can you identify – how effective
were these actions?
II. Ancillary and flexible energy services. How has GTG performed in this area? What specific program
actions contributed to this objective? What could GTG have done better in this area?
III. Better forecasting. How and what did GTG contribute to better forecasting? What added benefits
did the program provide to stakeholders? Who benefitted and how?
IV. Improved operating systems and equipment. What specific systems and equipment were improved
under GTG and to what extent did this help provide flexibility in India’s grid?
V. Are there signs of measurable flexibility in India’s grid? What has contributed the most to this
improved flexibility?

85
 ◻ EQ3: What possibilities and challenges are there for applying,
replicating, and scaling up the GTG interventions, in particular, the pilot projects?
Are they sustainable?

I. Is there evidence that the program outcomes are likely to grow, scale up and out, past the project
period of implementation (sustainability)?
II. What are the challenges that pilots have faced and how can these be addressed during similar
actions in the future?
III. What changes/improvements need to be made to make the program interventions more scalable,
sustainable, and to achieve an enhanced development impact?
IV. Have pilots allowed measurable impact on the existing market and suggested possible regulatory
changes?
V. What are recommendations that can improve geographic selection, sub-sector identification,
beneficiary private company selection and resource allocation?
VI. What additional support would be required to make the program interventions – especially the pilots
- sustainable?
VII. Have pilots contributed to establishing technical baselines that can be used to develop technical
specifications and standards for equipment?

◻ EQ4: How has the sector evolved in the five years since GTG was
conceived and designed? Looking at this recent evolution and emerging
technologies for VRE integration, what should be the focus of follow-on
programming?

I. Which market/technological/policy/regulatory issues should be the focus of future programming?

II. What should be the approach with respect to pilot projects, integration studies, etc.?
III. How can this future work be made relevant for both India and the South Asia region?
IV. Which components (pilots, studies, analyses, etc.) should future activities include so that a more
uniform approach can be followed towards project design and implementation by adjusting and
linking program components?

◻ EQ5: How far has GTG been successful in incorporating gender into
the implementation of the overall project approach and the individual
pilots/components?

I. Any lessons learned from the intervention with regard to gender equality and the empowerment of
women for future programming in energy sector?

86
ANNEX 6: LIST OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED

DONORS: USAID
• USAID/India COR
• Indo-Pacific Office Team Leader and Energy Team

IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS:
• Deloitte management team (including present and former Chiefs of Party), Home Office and
Project Team
• NREL
• USEA
• NARUC and their sub E3

PARTNER COUNTRY: GOI STAKEHOLDERS

• Ministry of Power (MOP)
• Power System Operation Corporation (POSOCO)
• Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL)
• Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)
• National Thermal Power Corp. (NTPC)
• Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI)

GTG PILOTS: STATE GOVERNMENT REGULATORS AND SYSTEM OPERATORS

• Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL)
• Southern Regional Load Dispatch Centre (SRLDC)
• Andhra Pradesh State Load Dispatch Centre (APSDLC)
• Southern Regional Power Committee (SRPC)
• Forum of Regulators (FOR)
• Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC)

GTG PILOTS: GENCOS/PRIVATE SECTOR

• Gujarat State Energy Corporation Limited (GSECL)
• Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL)
• Power Grid personnel in Pudducherry
• BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL)
• BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL)
• NTPC Limited
• Members of Industry Advisory Council (IAC)

OTHERS:
• Members of South Asia Women in Energy (SAWIE)
87
88