Vestas Wind Repowering

Study of Repowering of Wind Power Projects
Submitted to:
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited
Dated: 26nd December 2014
WinDForce Management Services Pvt Ltd

11th Floor, Vatika Professional Point
Sector-66, Golf course Extension Road
Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India
WinDForce Management Services Pvt. Ltd
Name of Client: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency
India Habitat Centre, East Court

Address of Client
Core-4A, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 11 00 03
Document No: WFML/2014-15/ IREDA/3651/Repowering Study
Assignment Type: Study of Repowering of Wind Power Projects
Report Type: Final Report
District:
Site Location: Village: Muppandal State: Tamil Nadu
Kanyakumari
Date: 26-December-2014
Project Manager Mr. Saujanya Kumar
Site Visit By: Mr. Mohammad Ziaulhaq Ansari and Mr. Saujanya Kumar
Mohammad Ziaullhaq Ansari, Dr. Deepshikha Sharma and Neelu Kumar

Technical Analyst:
Mishra
QA & QC Mr. Saujanya Kumar and Mr. Eric Phillips
WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 1|Page

Disclaimer
This document contains information that is confidential and proprietary to WinDForce Management Services Pvt.
Ltd. (WinDForce), and it’s Client. Neither this document nor its contents shall be revealed or disclosed to
unauthorized persons or sent to any other person/ party without prior permission of WinDForce.
The contents of this document shall not be used, copied, modified, transmitted or inspected by any person by any
means, including the use of data processing equipment, xerography or any other methods, known or unknown,
without the express written permission of duly authorized individuals of WinDForce.
The document has been prepared for the use of WinDForce’s Client and has been based on data provided by Client,
the vendors of Client, the in-house data available with WinDForce as well as data available in public domain, which
WinDForce believes is reliable, as on the date of circulation of the document. The data and conclusions thereof may
change with time, depending on government regulations, changes in data available in the public domain and from
third parties based on revised assessments carried out by such parties or due to changes in the contractual
conditions of the Client for whom this document has been prepared. Readers should also note that actual results
relating to the project may change due to inherent statistical variations in performance of machines and market
conditions and therefore, the actual results as estimated in the document are not guaranteed.
The conclusions arrived at by WinDForce constitute an opinion of WinDForce and each party concerned ought to
draw its own conclusions based on making independent enquiries and verifications. The document has been
divided into a number of sections for ease of reading and developing a logical analysis of various issues involved.
Any inference based on partial reading of the document may result in conclusions divergent from those presented
in the document.
Principal Contact : SaujanyaKumar

saujanya@windforce-management.com

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................................................8
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
2. REGION OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
3. MESO-SCALE MODELING AND APPROACH........................................................................................................................ 22
3.1 Terrain ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Physical Details of the region ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3 Boundary Layer Wind Mapping Model (BLWMM) ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Datasets Processing................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
3.3.2 Model Validation...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
3.4 WinDForce Meso map Assessment Model (WMMAM)................................................................................................................ 25
4. POTENTIAL CAPACITY ASSESMENT AND WINDFARM PRODUCTION.................................................................... 27
4.1 Potential Capacity Assessment.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.2 Annual Energy Assessment..................................................................................................................................................................... 27
5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................................ 29
6. POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................ 30
7. POLICY ASPECT............................................................................................................................................................................ 32
7.1 Review of Central and State Polices on Wind Power ................................................................................................................... 32
7.1.1 Existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) ............................................................................................................................ 32
7.1.2 Micro-siting and Turbine Spacing Criteria ................................................................................................................................... 33
7.1.3 Key Financing Instruments and Policies for Wind Power ..................................................................................................... 34
7.2 Possible Policy changes for Repowering Project ........................................................................................................................... 37
7.2.1 Factors influencing the decisions of Re-power ring projects ............................................................................................... 37
7.2.2 New PPAs .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
7.3 Challenges and Possible Solutions ....................................................................................................................................................... 38
8. CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................................................................... 40

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: State Map of Tamil Nadu ....................................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 2: Muppandal as region of interest in Tamil Nadu ........................................................................................................................19
Figure 3: Installed capacity by different WTG model..................................................................................................................................20
Figure 4: Installed capacity by different WTG rating .................................................................................................................................20
Figure 5: Installed capacity by year of commissioning ..............................................................................................................................21
Figure 6: Methodology followed for carrying out capacity assessment...............................................................................................22
Figure 7: Satellite Map of RoI...............................................................................................................................................................................23
Figure 8: Digital Elevation Map of the site......................................................................................................................................................24
Figure 9: Wind speed meso map of the region at 80 m.a.g.l.....................................................................................................................26
Figure 10 : Process-flow for assessing AEP .....................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 11 Power Curve for G97 WTG Model...................................................................................................................................................28
Figure 12: PLF v/s Tariff Sensitivity ..................................................................................................................................................................29
Figure 13: Installed capacity by year of commissioning............................................................................................................................33
Figure 14: Structure of partial risk guarantee facilities............................................................................................................................36

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project Assignment Parameters.........................................................................................................................................................17

Table 2: Rating wise installed capacity in Tamil Nadu ..............................................................................................................................18
Table 3: Installed capacity by different WTG make.....................................................................................................................................19
Table 4: Summary of the site ................................................................................................................................................................................23
Table 5: Details of substation in Muppandal and adjoining passes.......................................................................................................30
Table 6: Installed capacity by year of commission.......................................................................................................................................32

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AD Accelerated Depreciation
AEP Annual Energy Production
AYAM Annual Yield Assessment Model
BLW Boundary Layer Wind
BLWMM Boundary Layer Wind Mapping Model
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CWET Center for Wind Energy and Technology
DEM Digital Elevation model
EHT Extra High Tension
Fis Financial Institutions
FiTs Feed-in tariffs
FY Financial Year
GBI Generation based incentives
GW Giga watts
G97 Gamesa-97.0
HH Hub height
IEC International Electro technical Commission
IPO Initial public offering
IPP Independent Power Producers
IREDA Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited
IRR Internal Rate of Return
kW Kilo Watts
LULC Land Use Land Cover
m.a.g.l Mean above ground level
m.a.s.l Mean above sea level
MAPE Mean absolute percentage error
MAWS Mean Annual Wind Speed
MMAM Meso map assessment model
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MW Mega watts
NCEP/NCAR National Centre for Environmental Prediction
NIWE National Institute of Wind Energy
O&M Operation and Maintainence
P50 Probability of Exceedance P50
PLF Plant Load Factor
PPAs Power Purchase Agreements
PPP Public Private Partnership
RECs RE certificates
RoI Region of interest
RPOs Renewable Purchase Obligations
SERC State Electricity Regulatory Commissions
SPV Special Purpose Vehicle
Sq Km Square Kilometers
TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation
TNEB Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
TNERC Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission
USD United States Dollar
WinDForce WinDForce Management Services Pvt Ltd
WMMAM WinDForce Meso map Assessment Model
WTG Wind Turbine Generator

LIST OF UNITS
kW Kilowatts
km Kilometer
m/s Meters per second
MW Megawatts
GWh/year Gigawatt hours per year

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WinDForce Management Services Pvt Ltd hereafter referred to as (“WinDForce”) has been commissioned by Indian
Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) to carry out a project titled “Study of Repowering of
Wind Power Projects”. This project is being conducted as part of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between
IREDA and Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India (MNRE). The project involves carrying out
a study on repowering of wind power projects in wind pocket of Tamil Nadu viz Muppandal Pass.
The overall aim of the project is to support sustainable expansion of electricity generation from wind power
through repowering in India and therefore it is desired to initially carry out a study on repowering scenarios
considering a region which possesses first generation WTGs. In this study, Muppandal in Kanyakumari district,
Tamil Nadu has been selected as the region of interest. The outcome of this study would help IREDA gain complete
understanding of optimal utilization of land & wind resource at existing wind-farm site in Muppandal and pave the
way for deployment of modern high efficiency technology.
The main reasons which set off the concept of repowering in India are acute power shortages and inefficient
utilization of potential windy areas. There are many windfarm sites across the country which have attained an age
of 15-20 years and possess old, underperforming wind turbines. Also, many sites in India with very good wind
resources are underutilized as older, low rated wind turbines were installed in these sites during the earlier days of
the industry and performance of these turbines has been below par. Over the years, the wind industry has seen
significant improvement in design feature. The unit rating is now varying between 1500 kW to 2500 kW and the
critical parameters are:
 Rotor diameter of 100meter

 Hub height of 100 meter
Therefore it is natural to explore the option of replacing these with modern high capacity wind turbine technology
that could offer better returns and more power than before. The generation from modern windfarms shall aid in
meeting the demand-supply gap of electricity.
The country has enormous possibilities for repowering with an estimated potential of 3 GW1. In the national
interest and also in the interest of the project proponents, there is a need of repowering from various viewpoints
such as i.e. advanced wind turbine technologies & its considerable benefits, land utilization per megawatt of
installed capacity, meeting electricity need and achieving national targets for CO2 emissions.
Approximately 25% of turbines in India have wind turbine generators (WTGs) with rating <500 kW with Tamil
Nadu being the state with highest number of old generation turbines. The state has the best wind energy sites,
some of which includes Muppandal, Tirunelveli, Chittipalayam, Ketha-nur, Gudimangalam, Poolavadi,
Mrungappatti, Sunkara-mudaku, Kongal Nagaram, Gomangalam and Anthir.
In this study, we have selected Muppandal in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu as the region of interest (RoI).
The basis for selecting this region lies in the fact that it holds first generation WTGs, which have completed an age
of 15-20 years.
We have carried out analysis of repowering potential in Muppandal region which covers the following scope of
work:
 Total estimation of repowering potential using more advanced wind turbine technology at wind pocket of
Muppandal in Tamil Nadu;
 Sensitivity Analysis
 Existing power evacuation system and possible augmentation and up-gradation
 Review of existing policies and regulation on wind power development in Tamil Nadu;
1 Directory, India Wind Power

 Aspect of policy changes in terms of existing PPAs, new PPAs, Permissions and Approvals, policy support for
new repowered project; and
 Barriers in repowering and possible solutions and translating them into actionable path forward;
The elevation of RoI varies between 70 to 100 m.a.s.l. The region falls under low to moderate complexity scale
terrain and is surrounded with sparse vegetation. The project parameters are presented in Table – A.
Table A: Project Assignment Parameters
Client IREDA
Site Name Muppandal
Village Aralvaimozhi
District Kanyakumari
State Tamil Nadu
Assignment type 1. Potential Capacity Estimation and Sensitivity Analysis
2. Existing Policies and regulation
3. Aspect of Policy Changes
4. Barriers and Possible solutions
Existing WTGs (Number, Make,
WTGs of different rating and make
Rating)
Region of Interest (RoI) 9.1 sq km
Nearest NIWE (earlier CWET) mast Number of masts at different height of 20/25m
Nearest Railway Station Aralvaimozhi
Nearest Airport Trivandrum International Airport
Figure A: Satellite map of Muppandal region
Today, Tamil Nadu has highest installed wind power capacity of 7269 MW2. The state has many projects which
were commissioned before year 2002 and possess WTGs of rating <600 kW. In Muppandal, the first private sector
windfarm was setup in 1992 using two WTGs of 250 kW capacities. The rating of WTGs in wind pocket varies
between 220 to 500 kW. The maximum number of WTGs in the region belongs to the manufacturer Vestas RRB.
The figure B given below provides details of rating wise installed capacity of wind power in Muppandal.
Table B: Installed capacity by different WTG make
WTG Make Total MW

AMTL-Wind World 12.69
Das 2.5
NEPC 12.48
NEPC & AMTL 2.5
2
MNRE, Government of India
WinDForce M
Management Services Pvt. Ltd
TTG 2
Vestas RRB 23
WINCON 0.25
Total installed Capacity 55.42
Figure B: Installed capacity by WTG model
Figure C: Installed capacity by year of commissioning
WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 10 | P a g e

WinDForce has carried out an initial meso scale modeling and mapping of the wind resource for RoI. WinDForce
has validated methodology of Meso map assessment model (MMAM) using the datasets given below in order to
minimize the standard error.
1. Processed NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis wind data3;

2. NIWE (earlier CWET) measured data4;
3. Land Use Land Cover database from GLC2000 Project5 and;
4. Digital elevation model.
This was carried out in order to achieve least standard error and make the model more robust. The model applied
to RoI yielded a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of 12.44%. The mean annual wind speed map at 80 m.a.g.l
is shown in figure D.
Figure D: Wind speed meso map of the region at 80 m.a.g.l
Potential Capacity Assessment

The potential capacity of the RoI was assessed considering the tradeoff between performance of wind turbines and
land utilization per megawatt of capacity installed. Gamesa’s G97-2.0 MW WTG Model was selected as it represents
predominant wind technology and appropriate WTG class suited at the site. This WTG model is a mainstream IEC-
3
The NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project is a joint project between the National Centre for Environmental Prediction (NCEP, formerly "NMC") and the National Centre for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR). The goal of this joint effort is to produce new atmospheric analysis using historical data and as well to produce analysis of the current atmospheric state (Climate
Data Assimilation System, CDAS). It contains the information of climate variables with different time setups. For the analysis, data has been collected from different data sources
like, COADS surface marine data (the Comprehensive Ocean-Atmospheric Data set includes ships, fixed buoys, drifting buoys, pack.)
4
NIWE has a total of 790 wind masts installed on the land and at varying heights of 20m, 25m, 50m, 100m and 120m. The data is periodically published by MNRE. NIWE over the
years has continued to provide updated processed information on wind speeds in India.
5
Global Land Cover 2000 Project (GLC 2000) provides harmonized land cover database over the whole globe for the year 2000. The GLC2000 project uses the FAO Land Cover
Classification System (LCCS). The LULC database has been used for assigning surface roughness length to each grid element of the layer.

61400 IIIA fully certified turbine6. Considering this criterion, the capacity per sq km is estimated to be 7.10 MW.
The total potential capacity within RoI is estimated to be 64.5 MW.
The figures for Gross & Net Annual Energy Production (AEP), Gross & Net PLF w.r.t P50 and P75 are derived. The
G97 2.0 MW Model power curve is used to arrive at AEP. In the estimation of Net AEP, the Machine Availability, Grid
Availability and Transmission Loss are considered in accordance with best industry practice. The summary of the
annual energy production is provided below:
Muppandal as Region of interest (RoI)

Total Area of Muppandal 9.1 sq km
Current installed Capacity 55.4 MW
WTG selected for Repowering Gamesa G97-2.0 IIIA
Rotor Diameter 97 m
Hub height 90 m
Capacity which can be installed per sq km 7.09 MW
Total Repowering Potential Capacity 64.5 MW
Average Elevation in RoI 95 m
Average Wind speed (mean annual) in RoI (HH) 7.67 m/s
*Gross PLF (P50) 44.90%
***Gross PLF (P75) for 15 years 41.54%
**Net PLF (P50) 38.29%
***Net PLF (P75) for 15 years 36.02%
* - Gross PLF is assessed using wind speed derived from meso-scale modeling at hub height for site indicated. The Gross AEP is corrected
for site air density
** - after MA=0.97, GA=0.97 and TL factor = 0.97 and Array losses = 0.95
*** - after applying total uncertainty value of 11.08% for 15 years
Annual Energy generation from existing WTG machine

WinDForce analyzed annual energy generation of 2012 from existing WTG machine in Muppandal. The average net
PLF from 500kW and 750kW achieved is of the order of 19.60% and 27.60% respectively.
Make Vestas NEG Micon India Ltd

WTG Capacity 500 kW 750 kW
Average PLF (2012) 19.60% 27.60%
A sensitivity analysis for repowering project of a capacity of 64.5 MW was carried out. The sensitivity is between
SEB (State Electricity Board) Tariff and Net PLF at P75 for 15 years, considering no AD or GBI benefits. This
analysis highlights the impact of varying the main parameters that affect the project IRR calculations. In applying
sensitivity analysis we have varied the PLF from 20% to 40%. It shows that for the project to be financially
attractive, INR 5.5 tariff is suitable. The inputs considered are given in the table below:

Total Area of Muppandal (RoI) 9.1 sq km
WTG assumed for Repowering Gamesa G97-2.0 IIIA
Average Wind speed (mean annual) in RoI 7.67 m/s
**Net PLF (P50) 38.29%
**Net PLF (P75) for 15 years 36.02%
Long term Interest Rate 13%
Short term Interest Rate 14%
Moratorium from date of sanction 2 Years
Repayment period (excluding moratorium) 12 Years
Debt: Equity 70:30
Per MW cost of WTGs INR 690 Lacs
Per MW Cost of De-erection7 INR 45 Lacs
6
http://www.cwet.tn.nic.in/Docu/RLMM_Main_%20List_11.09.2014.pdf
Per MW Scrap value8 INR 20 Lacs

Per MW cost including de-erection and scrap value INR 715 Lacs
Sensitivity Analysis on Equity Returns

Tariff
26.19% 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
20% - - 1.5% 4.4% 7.5% 10.5% 13.5%
25% 1.6% 5.3% 9.1% 12.8% 16.5% 20.4% 24.5%
28% 5.1% 9.4% 13.5% 17.8% 22.2% 26.8% 31.5%
PLF 32% 10.0% 14.8% 19.7% 24.8% 30.2% 35.6% 41.2%
35% 13.6% 18.9% 24.5% 30.3% 36.3% 42.4% 48.6%
38% 17.2% 23.2% 29.5% 36.0% 42.6% 49.3% 55.9%
40% 19.7% 26.2% 32.9% 39.8% 46.8% 53.8% 60.8%
**considered without acceleration depreciation or GBI benefit
Figure E: Equity IRR (%) Sensitivity on Net PLF (P75 for 15 years) v/s Tariff
Power Evacuation System
The existing sub-stations in Muppandal Pass are old and have attained an age of nearly 15-20 years. The evacuation
system is not sufficient to evacuate power post repowering of project. Therefore, there is a need of augmentation
and upgradation. Considering the repowering potential, it is necessary to establish dedicated high voltage
substation and associated EHT (extra high tension) lines in Muppandal region. Sub-stations today are more reliable
and equipped with better protection devices and automation as compared to older substations. Modern circuit
breakers with vacuum or SF6 gas are used instead of older pneumatic compressed air types.
There have been persistent problems of evacuation and major load shedding in the state of Tamil Nadu. Presently,
around 6000 privately installed wind turbine generators dotting the stretch from Aralvoizmozhi in Kanyakumari
district to Uvari in Radhapuram taluk in Tirunelveli district are augmenting the power generated by the Tamil
Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO).
According to Tamil Nadu vision 2023, there is dedicated focus on augmentation of power evacuation infrastructure
across the state. The Government has instructed significant investment in the transmission sector to create
required evacuation capacity for future increase in power generation capacity. The Government is also working on
a project to implement a 400 kV wind power corridor. This would comprise setting up of five numbers of 400 kV
substations and its associated lines of 1,100 kilometers route length.
If additional power from repowered project in Muppandal is to be evacuated, the existing infrastructure needs to
be upgraded and augmented. A detailed load flow study shall be required to analyze the situation of current power
evacuation & requirement for improvement in infrastructure for additional load post repowering. It is critical to
analyze the possibility of upgradation of system for automation & interfacing with grid to avoid load shedding.
7
Cost of de-erection is dependent on Size of WTGs installed. For reference Cost of WTGs of de-erection has been considered based on per MW.
8
Since all the WTGs in Muppandala area are very old and it is not possible to re-use WTGs component. Moreover the scrap value will be based on weight of equipment only which
is relatively very low.
Challenges/Barriers and Possible Solutions
The study identifies key challenges which are likely to come in repowering project in Muppandal region. Following
are the key challenges and possible solutions to each:
1. New PPAs: For sale to EB projects, many if not most of the projects are under the old PPA rates and in
case the projects are to be set up by dismantling of old WTGs, for financial viability of the projects,
WinDForce recommends that TANGEDCO should allow developers to sell power under current FiT
(Feed in Tariff) rates. It is possible TANGEDCO will not be willing to come out of such PPAs where they
are buying power at much cheaper rate than that of current tariff. Few of the existing project
proponents may be having PPA with private consumers (industrial/ commercial at the indexed tariff),
who will not be willing to come out of the existing short term PPA because of power deficiency in the
state. But since the Third-party sale rates are very high, PPAs should be allowed to lapse after giving a
notice of 6 months which will give the existing power buyers to find new sellers.
Possible Solution: There should also be a provision of "Right of First Refusal to Purchase" to the
existing group of captive PPA holders to buy power from the repowered projects at competitive rates.
In this case the existing power purchaser should have the right to opt the electricity generated from re-
powered project at the price determined by state regulatory body and if existing purchaser refuse to
opt then only power producer may opt to go for other option of sale of electricity. This way interest of
existing power purchaser will not be harmed. In another option each repowered project must be
considered as a new project in terms of PPA rates and the existing PPA must be lapsed with a notice
period of 6 to 12 months.
2. Turbine and Project Ownership: Multiple owners of windfarm land may create complications for
repowering projects. The wind turbines are being maintained by different agencies and OEMs.
Repowering will reduce the number of turbines and there may not be one-to-one replacement. Thus,
the issue of ownership needs to be handled carefully.
Possible Solution: It is necessary to identify and engage concerned stakeholders such as owners of the
windfarms, OEMs, project developers, financial institutions, regulatory bodies, nodal agencies, land
owners, O&M agencies etc. to arrive at a workable business model. All existing stakeholders willing to
re-power, can be made partners in a SPV and profits can be shared in the ratio of equity shareholding
in the SPV.
3. Disposal of Wind Turbine: The disposal of the old WTG is a crucial factor which is seen as a challenge
for repowering projects.
Possible Solution: There are various options such as scrapping, buy-back by the government or
manufacturer. Local capacity may need to be developed. But most of the turbines may be too old and in
unusable condition and can be just sold as scrap to be scavenged for usable spare parts and copper and
other expensive metals.
4. Incentives: One of the primary barriers to re-powering is the general lack of economic incentive to
replace the older WTGs. In order to compensate for the additional cost of repowering, appropriate
incentives are necessary. To encourage repowering, financial incentives need to be extended by
Government. The following are some of the incentives which can be which could boost repowering in
the country :
o Need of easy financing for repowering projects from financial institution such as IREDA etc.
o Concession on custom duty on certain components of WTGs or excise duty exemption;
o Need of extended tax holidays to encourage the re-powering of project;
o IPPs (Independent Power Producers) and FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) need to be
encouraged by government; and
o Old project owners needs to be given freedom to choose alternate option for sale of power i.e.
REC Mechanism, third party sale etc.

5. Policy Package: A new policy package should be developed which would cover additional project cost
and add-on tariff by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) and include a repowering
incentive (on the lines of the recently introduced generation-based incentive scheme by Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)). Such additional funds even for a period of 5-6 years can be
helpful in meeting the initial interest portion of the debt obtained. Following are few of policy package
which should be provided by government:
o For successful repowering of wind project minimum feed-in tariff need to be declared by state
government for repowering project for financial feasibility;
o Policy package should include reduction of wheeling and banking charges from re-powering
projects;
o Government need to mandate for absorption of complete energy generated by repowered
project;
o Repowering need to be mandated for all projects which are generating low PLF considering the
wind potential at sites; and
o Government may relax micrositing criteria for wind site from 5Dx7D concept to 3Dx5D concept
for better utilization of land.
6. Grid augmentation: All the WTGs in Muppandal are connected at 11/33/66 KV rural feeder level and
most of the WTGs available in the market today are designed as per 33 KV/ 220 KV level as it
minimizes losses due to step-up and transmission. For new projects, TRANSCO/ TANGEDCO needs to
allow interconnection at higher (110/ 220) KV level. Considering the congestion of grid lines at
Muppandal Pass, it would be advisable to allow interconnectivity at 220KV level.
7. NIWE certification: The wind regime at Muppandal Pass is suitable for Class IIIA / IIA turbines and in
certain cases even Class IB turbines can be used. But most of the current WTGs sold in India are
suitable for low wind sites i.e class IIIA/IIIB sites and manufacturers like Suzlon who have higher class
turbines (class I/II) in their portfolio have stopped manufacturing such turbines due to either lack of
demand and their NIWE (National Institute of wind energy, formerly CWET) certifications have also
lapsed. NIWE needs to allow fast-track revival of type certificates for manufacturing of higher class
turbines of limited numbers for such repowering Projects.
8. The additional decommissioning costs for old turbines (such as transport charges) need to be assessed.

1. INTRODUCTION
WinDForce has been commissioned by IREDA to carry out a project titled “Study of repowering of wind power
projects”. This project is being conducted as part of MoU between IREDA and MNRE. The project involves carrying
out a study on repowering of wind power projects in wind pocket of Tamil Nadu viz Muppandal Pass.
The primary objective of this project is to support the sustainable expansion of electricity generation from wind
power through repowering. Further, the project would help in optimal utilization of land & wind resource and pave
the way for deployment of modern high efficiency technology in the state.
The main reasons which set off the concept of repowering in India are acute power shortages and inefficient
utilization of potential windy areas. There are many windfarm sites across the country which have attained an age
of 15-20 years and possess old, underperforming wind turbines. Also, many sites in India with very good wind
resources are underutilized as older, low rated wind turbines were installed in these sites during the earlier days of
the industry and performance of these turbines has been below par. Over the years, the wind industry has seen
significant improvement in design feature. The unit rating is now varying between 1500 kW to 2500 kW and the
critical parameters are:
 Rotor diameter of 100meter

 Hub height of 100 meter
Therefore it is natural to explore the option of replacing these with modern high capacity wind turbine technology
that could offer better returns and more power than before. The generation from modern windfarms shall aid in
meeting the demand-supply gap of electricity.
The country has enormous possibilities for repowering with an estimated potential of 3 GW9. In the national
interest and also in the interest of the project proponents, there is a need of repowering from various viewpoints
such as i.e. advanced wind turbine technologies & its considerable benefits, land utilization per megawatt of
installed capacity, meeting electricity need and achieving national targets for CO2 emissions.
Approximately 25% of turbines in India are WTGs rated <500 kW with Tamil Nadu being the state with highest
number of old generation turbines. The state has the best wind energy sites, some of which includes Muppandal,
Tirunelveli, Chittipalayam, Ketha-nur, Gudimangalam, Poolavadi, Mrungappatti, Sunkara-mudaku, Kongal Nagaram,
Gomangalam and Anthir.
In this study, we have selected Muppandal in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu as the region of interest (RoI).
The basis for selecting this region lies in the fact that it holds first generation WTGs, which have completed an age
of 15-20 years. We have carried out analysis of repowering potential in Muppandal region which covers the
following scope of work:
 Total estimation of repowering potential using more advanced wind turbine technology at wind pocket of
Muppandal in Tamil Nadu;
 Sensitivity Analysis
 Existing power evacuation system and possible augmentation and up-gradation
 Review of existing policies and regulation on wind power development in Tamil Nadu;
 Aspect of policy changes in terms of existing PPAs, new PPAs, Permissions and Approvals, policy support for
new repowered project; and
 Barriers in repowering and possible solutions and translating them into actionable path forward;
9 Directory, India Wind Power

The project parameters are presented in Table – 1.
Table 1: Project Assignment Parameters
Client IREDA
Site Name Muppandal
Village Aralvaimozhi
District Kanyakumari
State Tamil Nadu
Assignment type 1. Potential Capacity Estimation and Sensitivity Analysis
2. Existing Policies and regulation
3. Aspect of Policy Changes
4. Barriers and Possible solutions
Existing WTGs (Number, Make,
WTGs of different rating and make
Rating)
Region of Interest (RoI) 9.1 sq km
Nearest NIWE (earlier CWET) mast Number of masts at different height of 20/25m
Nearest Railway Station Aralvaimozhi
Nearest Airport Trivandrum International Airport

2. REGION OF INTEREST
The state of Tamil Nadu has the highest wind installed capacity of 7269 MW10. The state has many windfarm sites
which have attained an age of 15-20 years and possess old, underperforming wind turbines. There are many
projects which were commissioned before year 2000 and possess WTGs of rating <600 kW. Table 2, given below,
provide details of rating wise (< 500 kW) capacity installed in Tamil Nadu till 1997 and WTG rating wise (<500 kW)
installed capacity (MW) till 1997.
Table 2: Rating wise installed capacity in Tamil Nadu

S No Rating Installed capacity (MW)
1 Up to 225 kW 146.5
2 226 – 250 kW 206.86
3 251 – 350 kW 33.63
4 350 – 410 kW 132.11
The Muppandal in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu has been identified as the RoI. The first private sector wind
turbine generator (WTG) in this region was setup in 1992 with two WTGs of 250 kW rating and over the years, it
has seen significant rise in the installation of wind power. The rating of WTGs varies between 220 to 500 kW. The
region is located in a hilly region where wind from the Arabian Sea gusts through mountain passes.
Region of interest (RoI)
Figure 1: State Map of Tamil Nadu
10
MNRE, Government of India
Figure 2: Muppandal as region of interest in Tamil Nadu
The figures 3, 4 and 5 below provide details about installed wind power capacity in Muppandal region by different
WTG make and year of commissioning. The maximum number of WTGs in the region belongs to Vestas RRB
manufacturer. More details are provided in Annexure I.
Table 3: Installed capacity by different WTG make
WTG Make Total MW

AMTL-Wind World 12.69
Das 2.5
NEPC 12.48
NEPC & AMTL 2.5
TTG 2
Vestas RRB 23
WINCON 0.25
Total Installed Capacity 55.42

WinDForce M
Figure 3: Installed capacity by different WTG model
Figure 4: Installed capacity by different WTG rating

WinDForce M
Figure 5: Installed capacity by year of commissioning

WinDForce M
3. MESO-SCALE MODELING AND APPROACH
WinDForce has carried out an initial meso scale modeling and mapping of the win
nd resource for RoI. The
methodology followed for conducting this exercise is illustrated below:
• Examination of primary wind speed datasetts i.e NIWE

Task 1.1 – Examination of Primary • Examination of long term secondary wind sspeed datasets i.e.
and Secondary datasets NCEP/NCAR
• Procurement of other global datasets i.e. DE
EM, LULC etc
• Processing of Digital Elevation Model (DEM

M)
Task 1.2 – Processing of Global
• Procesisng of LandUse /LandCover
datasets
• Processing of NCEP/NCAR datasets
• Run Boundary Layer Wind Mapping Model using primary and

Task 1.3 - Boundary Layer Wind secondary datasets
Mapping Model (BLWMM) • Model validation and Minimization of errorr in estimation
• Creation of Boundary Layer Wind Field
• Modeling/ Simulation
Task 1.4 – WinDForce Meso Map • Long term wind speed computation at vario
ous heights over grid
Assessment Model (WMMAM) elements
• Wind Speed map at 80 ma.g.l
• Turbine spacing
Task 1.5 - Annual Yield Assessment
Model (AYAM) • Capacity assesment of the region of interst
• Computation of annual yield and PLF
Figure 6: Methodology followed for carrying out capacity assess

ssment

3.1 Terrain
The Muppandal region is located in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. The elevation in the region varies between
70 to 100 m.a.s.l. The region falls under low to moderate complexity scale terrain and is surrounded with sparse
vegetation. The location map of the region is shown in figure 7:
Figure 7: Satellite Map of RoI
3.2 Physical Details of the region
Table 4: Summary of the site
Site Characteristics
Terrain Type Small to moderate complexity
Contiguous/ non-contiguous land Non-Contiguous
Surface Roughness 0.005 – 0.1
Vegetation Scattered
Obstacles Scattered
Orography
Elevation (m.a.s.l) 70 m to 100 m above mean sea level

The digital elevation model is given in figure 8:
Figure 8: Digital Elevation Map of the site
3.3 Boundary Layer Wind Mapping Model (BLWMM)
The boundary layer wind mapping model creates a hypothetical field of wind speeds at Boundary Layer termed as
Boundary Layer Wind (BLW) for an area much larger than the RoI. The following datasets were used in this model.
1. Processed NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis wind data;

2. NIWE (earlier CWET) measured data;
3. Land Use Land Cover database from GLC2000 Project and;
4. Digital elevation model.
3.3.1 Datasets Processing
The long term NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data, NIWE wind speed datasets of the masts falling within the larger area,
LULC database, DEM etc. were processed in the required format to be taken as an input in the BLWMM. The
measurements available with NIWE are available over periods of 2-3 years, over the last 30 years or so. Typically,
the measurement data used in the modeling exercise is in a time window of 2-3 years, and it is assumed that the
mean values of this data approaches the long term average at that location. It is assumed that BLW is free of
disturbances from local terrain, vegetation and settlements and buildings. In the past, BLWMM has been validated
by WinDForce at the country level for India and Kenya to yield an error of the order of 10%.

3.3.2 Model Validation
WinDForce has validated methodology of Meso map assessment model (MMAM) using the above datasets in order
to minimize the standard error. This was carried out in order to achieve least standard error and make the model
more robust. The model applied to the region of interest yielded a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of
12.44%.
Limitations of the Model:
1. The mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) of the model is of the order of 12.44%.
2. The mean annual wind speeds are the long-term averages from 1948 till 2013, while WinDForce internal
measurements database are in a window of time frame of 2010 till 2013. Additionally, NIWE
measurements are also in the window of data obtained from 1995 – 2010, which significantly doesn’t
cover the long term period. It is assumed that the mean annual wind speed measured at any location in
any given year approaches long-term average. An analysis of long-term mean annual wind speeds derived
from NCEP/ NCAR Reanalysis dataset shows that the standard deviation is of the order of 6-9%.
Therefore, our assumption on applicability of long-term averages is reasonable.
3. The satellite derived data on LULC and DEM are used for deriving local conditions of terrain and
vegetation at all wind data points. WinDForce understands local conditions of slopes, vegetation and local
climatology can have influences on wind speeds that cannot be adequately captured in a Mesomap study.
3.4 WinDForce Meso map Assessment Model (WMMAM)
In this task, the BLW is mapped on to every cell in the grid (RoI) at 3 kilometer resolution to arrive at mean wind
speed at height 80 m.a.g.l11. The mean annual wind speed map at 80 m.a.g.l is shown in figure 9.
11
This method of meso-scale map technique is generally meant to identify high potential area at a macro level. The results are indicative and don’t substitute
actual measurements at any site identified through this technique. The positioning of the WTGs, AEP figures are indicative and may differ with actual
measurements.

Figure 9: Wind speed meso map of the region at 80 m.a.g.l

4. POTENTIAL CAPACITY ASSESMENT AND WINDFARM PRODUCTION
4.1 Potential Capacity Assessment

In this task, the potential capacity of the RoI was assessed considering the tradeoff between performance of wind
turbines and land utilization per megawatt of capacity installed. Gamesa’s G97-2.0 MW WTG model was selected as
it represents predominant wind technology used today and is an appropriate WTG class suited at the site. This
WTG model is a mainstream IEC-61400 IIIA fully certified turbine12. More details on certified list of WTG is given in
Annexure III. The potential capacity was assessed considering a spacing criterion 5Dx3D as per IEC standards and
existing terrain. Using this criterion, the capacity per sq km was estimated to be 7.10 MW. The total potential
capacity in RoI was estimated to be 64.5MW.
4.2 Annual Energy Assessment
The Energy assessment provides information about AEP for the RoI. The figures for Gross & Net Annual Energy
Production (AEP), Gross & Net PLF w.r.t P50 and P75 are derived. The G97 2.0 MW Model power curve is used to
arrive at AEP. In the estimation of Net AEP the Machine Availability, Grid Availability and Transmission Loss are
considered in accordance with best industry practice. The process involved in assessing AEP is described through
the process – flow diagram shown in Figure 10.
Obtain Mean annual wind speed WMMAM
Carry out simulation to assess gross AEP
Correct AEP for air density and apply MA, GA and TL
Calculation of Gross & Net PLF
Figure 10 : Process-flow for assessing AEP
12 http://www.cwet.tn.nic.in/Docu/RLMM_Main_%20List_11.09.2014.pdf
The power curve of G97 2.0 MW III Model at standard air density = 1.225 kg/m3 is given in figure 11 below:
Wind Power
Speed (kW)
(m/s)
3 14
4 94
5 236
6 438
7 714
8 1084
9 1508
10 1836
11 1973
12 1992
13 1998
14 2000
15 2000
16 2000
17 2000
18 2000
19 2000
20 2000
21 2000
22 2000
23 2000
Figure 11 Power Curve for G97 WTG Model
The summary of the annual energy production is provided below:

Total Area of Muppandal 9.1 sq km
Current installed Capacity 55. 4 MW
WTG selected for Repowering G97 2.0 III Turbine
Rotor Diameter 97 m
Hub height 90 m
Capacity which can be installed per sq km 7.09 MW
Average Elevation in RoI 95 masl
Average Wind speed (mean annual) in RoI (at HH) 7.67m/s
*Gross PLF (P50) 44.90%
***Gross PLF (P75) for 15 years 41.54%
**Net PLF (P50) 38.29%
***Net PLF (P75) for 15 years 36.02%
4.3 Annual Generation from existing WTG machine
WinDForce analyzed annual energy generation of 2012 from existing WTG machine in Muppandal. The average net
PLF from 500kW and 750kW achieved is of the order of 19.60% and 27.60% respectively.
Make Vestas NEG Micon India Ltd

WTG Capacity 500 kW 750 kW
Average PLF (2012) 19.60% 27.60%
5. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
In this section, we have carried out a sensitivity analysis for repowering project of a capacity of 64.5 MW was
carried out. The sensitivity is between SEB (State Electricity Board) Tariff and Net PLF at P75 for 15 years,
considering no AD or GBI benefits. This analysis highlights the impact of varying the main parameters that affect
the project IRR calculations. In applying sensitivity analysis we have varied the PLF from 20% to 40%. It shows that
for the project to be financially attractive, INR 5.5 tariff is suitable. The inputs considered are given in the table
below:

Total Area of Muppandal (RoI) 9.1 sq km
WTG assumed for Repowering Gamesa G97-2.0 IIIA
Average Wind speed (mean annual) in RoI 7.67 m/s
Net PLF (P50) 38.29%
Net PLF (P75) for 15 years 36.02%
Long term Interest Rate 13%
Short term Interest Rate 14%
Moratorium from date of sanction 2 Years
Repayment period (excluding moratorium) 12 Years
Debt: Equity 70:30
Per MW cost of WTGs INR 690 Lacs
Per MW Cost of De-erection13 INR 45 Lacs
Per MW Scrap value14 INR 20 Lacs
Per MW cost including de-erection and scrap value INR 715 Lacs
Sensitivity Analysis on Equity Returns

Tariff
26.19% 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00
20% - - 1.5% 4.4% 7.5% 10.5% 13.5%
25% 1.6% 5.3% 9.1% 12.8% 16.5% 20.4% 24.5%
28% 5.1% 9.4% 13.5% 17.8% 22.2% 26.8% 31.5%
PLF 32% 10.0% 14.8% 19.7% 24.8% 30.2% 35.6% 41.2%
35% 13.6% 18.9% 24.5% 30.3% 36.3% 42.4% 48.6%
38% 17.2% 23.2% 29.5% 36.0% 42.6% 49.3% 55.9%
40% 19.7% 26.2% 32.9% 39.8% 46.8% 53.8% 60.8%
**considered without acceleration depreciation or GBI benefit
Figure 12: Equity IRR (%) Sensitivity on Net PLF (P75 for 15 years) v/s Tariff
13
Cost of de-erection is dependent on Size of WTGs installed. For reference Cost of WTGs of de-erection has been considered based on per MW.
14
Since all the WTGs in Muppandala area are very old and it is not possible to re-use WTGs component. Moreover the scrap value will be based on weight of equipment only which
is relatively very low.
6. POWER EVACUATION INFRASTRUCTURE
Typically, the power evacuated from wind power project is interfaced at 11kV, 22kV & 33kV levels depending on
the network available in the area. The RoI of this study is Muppandal which falls under Aralvoimozhi region in
Tamil Nadu. It is observed that power generated from existing wind projects in the region is evacuated through
different 110kV sub-stations. Initially, all the dedicated windfarm sub-stations of 110kV and 230kV level and EHT
were established by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB). There has been a big mismatch between the installation
of wind power and evacuation infrastructure in the state. Detail of sub-stations in Muppandal and adjoining passes
are presented in table 5 below. More details of substations in Muppandal pass are provided in Annexure II.
Table 5: Details of substation in Muppandal and adjoining passes
Name of the SS Type of SS Voltage ratio Name of the Capacity in No of Wind Power
in KV circle MVA WTG project capacity
connected at sub-
station
Aralvaimozhi Outdoor 110/11 WEDC/TIN 48 211 53.565
Kannanallur Outdoor 110/11 WEDC/TIN 148 36.25
Muppandal Outdoor 110/11 WEDC/TIN 50 223 55.12
Pazhavoor Outdoor 110/11 WEDC/TIN 82 320 91.50
Panangudi Outdoor 110/11 WEDC/TIN 48 96 47.8
The existing sub-stations in Muppandal are old and have attained an age of nearly 15-20 years. The evacuation
system is not sufficient to evacuate the power post repowering of project. Therefore, there is a need of
augmentation and upgradation. Considering repowering development, it is necessary to establish dedicated high
voltage substation and associated EHT lines in Muppandal region. Sub-stations today are more reliable and
equipped with better protection devices and automation as compared to older substations. Modern circuit breakers
with vacuum or SF6 gas are used instead of older pneumatic compressed air types.
There have been persistent problems of evacuation and major load shedding in the state of Tamil Nadu. Presently,
around 6000 privately installed wind turbine generators dotting the stretch from Aralvoizmozhi in Kanyakumari
district to Uvari in Radhapuram taluk in Tirunelveli district are augmenting the power generated by TANGEDCO.
In Aralvaimozhi region in Southern Tamil Nadu, the existing installed wind power capacity is 1800MW and there is
no 400kV substation available. TANGEDCO has proposed Samugarengapuram 400/230-110kV substation to avoid
congestion from additional wind power capacity addition and for load withdrawal during non-wind season. The
following 230kV connectivity is proposed:
 LILO of Kudankulam – SRPudur 230kV SC line

 LILO of Udayathur – Sankaneri 230kV SC line
 230kV DC line to proposed Muppandal 230kV SS.
According to Tamil Nadu vision 2023, there is dedicated focus on augmentation of power evacuation infrastructure
across the state. The Government has instructed significant investment in the transmission sector to create
required evacuation capacity for future increase in power generation capacity. The Government is also working on
a project to implement a 400 kV wind power corridor. This would comprise setting up of five 400 kV substations
and its associated lines of 1,100 kilometers route length.
If additional power from repowered project in Muppandal region is to be evacuated, the existing infrastructure
needs to be upgraded and augmented. A detailed load flow study shall be required to analyze the situation of
current power evacuation & requirement for improvement in infrastructure for additional load post repowering. It
is critical to analyze the possibility of upgradation of system for automation & interfacing with grid to avoid load
shedding.

Further, repowering in Muppandal region shall improve the following:-
1. Better grid interfacing due to modern technology;

2. For windfarms using modern wind turbines it will be easy for developers to fulfill grid compliance;
3. Reactive power loss will be reduced significantly; and
4. New turbine can be easily managed to comply with regulatory guidelines such as forecasting and scheduling
and improve performance.

7. POLICY ASPECT
7.1 Review of Central and State Polices on Wind Power
In this section, the existing policies and regulation in the state of Tamil Nadu are highlighted.
7.1.1 Existing Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
In Tamil Nadu, there are two different regulatory/investment regimes for wind power projects. The power projects
installed prior to year 2001 are governed by MNRE policy with tariff set at INR 2.25 per unit for the base year
1994-95 with an escalation of 5% annually and wheeling and banking charges of 2% etc while projects installed
post 2001 are regulated by TNEB & TNERC policies/orders.
Wind power projects were governed by (a) TNEB order of 2001 with fixed tariff of INR. 2.70 per unit, wheeling and
banking charged of 5%, etc. (b) As per Latest TNERC order 2012 wind project commissioned post July 2012 are
eligible for tariff of INR 3.51 per unit while wind mills commissioned prior to 15-5-2006 shall be eligible for a tariff
of Rs.2.75 per unit. The wind mills commissioned between 15-5-2006 and 18-9-2008 shall be eligible for a tariff of
Rs.2.90 per unit. The wind mills commissioned between 19-09-2008 to the date of this order shall be eligible for a
tariff of Rs.3.39 per unit.
The power projects commissioned in Muppandal Pass are mostly covered by MNRE policies which are eligible for
tariff of INR 2.25 per unit with escalation of 5% annually, while few are covered under TNEB policy. It is observed
out of the total wind projects, few are supplying electricity at utility tariff while others are captive consumers and
supplying at HT tariff. Further, most of the PPAs have either expired or been discontinued, however the power is
still being supplied based on extension terms. The cost of maintenance of these projects has increased significantly
due to increase in tear-wear and ageing effects which also results increase in reactive power consumption. Table 6
below describes year wise installation of wind power project at Muppandal Pass till 2002.
Table 6: Installed capacity by year of commission
Year No. of machines

1992 3
1993 13
1994 88
1995 80
1996 15
1997 3
1998 0
1999 16
2000 3
2001 0
2002 0
Total M/c 221

WinDForce M
Figure 13: Installed capacity by year of commissioning
7.1.2 Micro-siting and Turbine Spacing Criteria
The repowering of windfarms in Muppandal, Tamil Nadu shall attract use of state of the art wind technology. The
micro-siting of high capacity wind turbines is carried out in such a manner that one mach hine doesn’t cause strong
interference to other machines in the vicinity. The micro-siting and optimal layout of thhe windfarm is developed
keeping in view that a minimum spacing criteria is maintained between wind turbines aas per IEC standards. The
positioning of WTGs (given number of machines) was optimized in micro-siting considerring the tradeoff between
performance of wind turbines, array efficiency and land utilization per megawatt of capaciity installed.
According to NIWE, a guideline has been set for effective utilization of land and resourcees. The optimal layout of
the windfarm is defined in terms of row and column wise spacing depending upon the leveel of terrain:
1. Level Terrain sites
These are flat or gently undulating terrain with vast open spaces. Under moderate conditio
ons, the normal 3D x 5D is
employed but inter column distances should not be less than 3D and inter row less than 5 5D. Most of the sites with
such level of terrain, are characterized by moderate wind conditions (5.5 to 6.5 m/s annuually), however there are
exceptions in some of the recognized passes and such passes need to considered on a sepaarate footing.
2. Complex Terrain sites
These sites are characterized by high winds and the wind field is found to be heterogen neous. The hill may have
wide fluctuations of winds over small areas; therefore hilltops may have to be flatten ned to accommodate the
machine and installation equipment. In such case, it is feasible to accommodate only one rrow of machines and sites
need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. But, in any case the inter machine spacing shaall not be less than 3D in a
row perpendicular to predominant wind directions.

Pre-dominant wind
direction
3 D min
5 D min
7.1.3 Key Financing Instruments and Policies for Wind Power
Over the past 10-15 years, the Central and State governments have implemented a number of financing
instruments to facilitate the development of wind energy in the country. These include mechanisms such as feed-in
tariffs (FiTs), capital subsidies, and tax benefits. These mechanisms have been successful in attracting significant
investments. New policy instruments such as generation based incentives (GBIs), Renewable Purchase Obligations
(RPOs), RE certificates (RECs) and open access (wheeling and banking) have provided further stimulus to the
sector in the last few years. Some of the financing instruments are elaborated below:
Debt Instruments: It is an important means to reduce cost of capital as the cost of debt is lower than equity. In
India, generally 70 percent of project costs are funded through conventional term loans. Several RE (renewable
energy) projects are funded by foreign currency loans which aim to promote specific technologies. Some of the
common debt instruments used for wind financing are:
1. Local Currency loans: In this method of financing, developers typically approach banks for debt financing
during the development stage of the project after which PPAs are signed. The table given below lists the
prominent Financial Institutions (FIs) providing term loans to wind projects.
Goverment backed NBFCs Public Sector banks Private sector Private NBFCs
banks
IREDA State Bank of India ICICI Bank L&T infrastructure
finance
Power finance corporation Canara Bank Axis Bank Tata Capital
Power Trading Corporation Central Bank of India HDFC Bank
Rural Electrification Corporation Punjab National Bank IDFC Bank
India infrastructure finance Andhra Bank Standard Chartered
company limited Bank
3. Local Currency loans: Foreign currency loans are provided to RE projects by development banks, export-
import (EXIM) banks, and international banks. These loans carry low interest rates ranging between three
and six percent, with tenures between 10 and 18 years.
4. Supplier Credit: this is typically based on supplier extending credit to RE projects, limited to the value of
material supplied. Supplier credit is extended for a period of one to three years, normally the construction
period. On commissioning the project, developers substitute the supplier credit with a term loan.
5. Lease Financing: It’s a commercial arrangement between an FI and the project developer, where the former
purchases the generating equipment and other components (usually equivalent to 70 to 80 percent of the
project cost) and leases them to the latter. In the past, the financial institutions and IPPs have worked
together to use lease financing to benefit from accelerated depreciation.
Benefits to FIs Benefits to PD

Generate business by providing debt in the The project developer is able to get
form of lease to the project developer. access to debt, but in the form of lease.
6. Equity finance: Typically, comprises 30 to 40 percent of the total project cost, while the rest is financed
through debt. Strategic investors, venture capital, private equity, tax equity investors15, are the key providers
of equity. The hurdle rates16 for direct equity investments range between 16 and 20 percent, and are
dependent on factors, such as the size of the project.
Private Equity Investments: Private equity funds have been actively investing in RE projects in India since 2008.
They have supported IPPs. In many cases, these funds invested in majority-owned RE aggregation vehicles. Such
vehicles include Green Infra Private Limited (99 percent owned by IDFC Private Equity), Renew Power Ventures
Private Ltd. (99 percent owned by Goldman Sachs Private Equity), and Continuum Wind Energy (majority owned
by Morgan Stanley Infrastructure Partners). Most equity investments in Indian RE companies have been made at
the parent company level, and not at the project level. This approach provides various exit options, such as an
initial public offering (IPO), or a sale to a strategic investor. Due to the nascent stage of the Indian RE sector, most
IPPs do not have significant implementation and operational experience. In order to limit their risk, private equity
investors structure transactions with low upfront valuations for projects under development with “earn-outs”
which are provided to, the promoters based on meeting pre-agreed milestones and asset performance.
Mezzanine finance: is a structured debt-like instrument which often bridges the financing gap in a company's
capital structure, and occupies a place between senior debt and equity, both in security and total returns. It offers
flexibility to meet both the investor's and the company's requirements, and also provides medium term capital
without significant ownership dilution. Mezzanine finance is mostly provided in the form of convertible
debentures, bonds or preference shares.
In case, the wind project developer is unable to raise more funds from traditional market, a developer may raise
mezzanine capital or unsecured debt. Wind power project need working capital for project development and in
such cases, mezzanine funding is used to increase firm’s liquidity and grow more effectively. Mezzanine capital
doesn’t dilute the equity ownership and does not usually require monthly or quarterly interest payments; it’s paid
at maturity which allows developer to take all current cash flow and pour it directly into growing your business
which eventually helps wind power project in initial stage when return are low though Mezzanine capital are more
expensive in terms of interest costs.
Through mezzanine financing, interest of lender is safe guard and lender has the rights to convert to an ownership
or equity interest in the company if the loan is not paid back in time and in full. Some portion of equity can be
replaced by mezzanine capital which is at a cost of 14%-15%, and hence can boost returns available to equity
holders in underlying wind projects with 16%-18% equity IRRs.
15
Tax equity investors are those who invest in projects for tax benefits i.e. to avail accelerated depreciation
16 Hurdle rate is the required rate of return for equity investors. This required rate is risk adjusted for various risks, such as the country risk, technology risk, policy risk, etc
Partial Risk Guarantee Facilities: It facilities assume the lenders' default risk on a part of the debt provided to the
project. Such facilities are usually provided for a fee charged by the organization providing the guarantee, and this
fee is borne by the lender. Partial risk guarantees improve a project's credit rating and reduce the perceived
investment risk. They are used to encourage lending to projects that otherwise would not have been funded by FIs
due to various reasons, such as the use of new technologies, counterparty risk, or a lack of understanding among
lenders regarding a new sector. Guarantee providers can be government bodies, development banks, and
government backed FIs.
Figure 14: Structure of partial risk guarantee facilities
Policy Support for Wind Energy: The Government interventions remain the backbone of RE market development
across the globe. A review of policies and regulatory frameworks indicates that commercialization of RETs remains
dependent on government support, be it in the form of fiscal support or other support like favorable access to the
grid. The use of these instruments at the state and the central levels has allowed large scale deployment of RE and
development of new business models across the country. The key policy instruments for promotion of RE include
tax incentives, FiTs, subsidies, RECs, and GBI.
1. Income Tax Exemptions: All companies in India are required to pay taxes on their profits (Current
corporate tax rate is 32.4517 per cent). As per Income Tax Law, the corporate tax rate is 32.45 percent
(Income tax rate 30 percent + Surcharge 5 percent + Education Cess 3 percent) for income below INR 100
million (USD 1.6 million) and 33.99 percent for incomes above INR 100 million (USD 1.6 million)18. The
Government of India, under Section 80-IA of Income Tax Law Act, 1961 (IT Law), exempts all
infrastructure assets (this includes RE generators) from income tax for a block of any 10 consecutive years
out of the first fifteen years of operation.
2. Accelerated Depreciation: In order to promote RE, the accelerated depreciation on wind electric
generator is permissible upto 80% for income tax calculations subject to a minimum utilization for 6
months in the year in which deduction is claimed. The accelerated depreciation benefit has been a very
effective tool for mobilizing funds for wind turbine technologies. The accelerated depreciation benefit was
available for wind energy projects and was the key driver for capacity addition in the country's wind
sector. However, the benefit was withdrawn in April 2012. This withdrawal negatively impacted the
growth of wind capacity. For instance, during the FY 2012-13, only 1,700 MW of wind power capacity was
added as compared to 3,164 MW19 in the previous financial year. In 2014, the Government has again
decided to bring AD for wind assets which is likely to proliferate the investment opportunities. There are
certain limitation associated with AD such RE projects are capital intensive, with low taxable profits in the
initial years due to high depreciation. Hence, the benefit of accelerated depreciation can only be utilized
when the company owning the wind asset generates enough profits from other businesses. Independent
Power Producers (IPP), which is the key drivers of investments in RE, suffers as a result because they
invest via SPVs in each project.
3. Feed-in Tariffs: It is one of the most successful policy instruments for promoting wind energy. State
governments across the country have been providing long term support to RE through FiTs, also known as
preferential tariffs. Under the FiT framework, wind power is procured by Distribution Companies
(DISCOMs) at the FiT specified by SERCs. FiTs, applicable over a period of 10 to 25 years, ensure
17Income tax rate 30 + Surcharge 5 + Education Cess 3. As per Income tax law. Available at
http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DIT/File_opener.aspx?page=FINA&schT=FIN&csId=30d194ca-afe8-4ed5-afc6-f7c6d83451eb&&pId=9c845744-9bd9-4c83-aa3a-
f3cb1dcd62f7&sch=&title=Taxmann20-20Direct20Tax20Laws
18http://law.incometaxindia.gov.in/DIT/File_opener.aspx?page=FINA&schT=FIN&csId=30d194ca-afe8-4ed5-afc6-f7c6d83451eb&&pId=9c845744-9bd9-4c83-aa3a-
f3cb1dcd62f7&sch=&title=Taxmann20-20Direct20Tax20Laws
19http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/UserFiles/wp_installed.htm

predictable financial returns over the life of the project. The SERCs determine FiTs for each RE technology
(separately) using a cost plus approach based on following factors:
• Achievable capacity utilization factors based on the availability of fuel/resource;

• Operating costs (cost of fuel, O&M expenses, capital replacement);
• Capital expenditure (project cost);
• Share of debt and the cost of debt; and
• Expected return on equity.
4. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs): Its market based instrument to promote renewable energy and
facilitate renewable purchase obligations (RPO). REC mechanism is aimed at addressing the mismatch
between availability of RE resources in state and the requirement of the obligated entities to meet the
renewable purchase obligation (RPO).
5. Subsidies: MNRE and several state governments, support the development of grid-connected RE through
the provision of subsidies. For example, for biomass based RE projects, MNRE provides a subsidy of up to
INR 2.5 million per MW (USD 40,000 per MW) to special category states, and up to INR 2 million.er MW
(USD 32,000 per MW) in the rest of India. Some states, such as Bihar, also provide a capital subsidy
equivalent to 60 percent of the total project cost for biomass-based RE projects.
6. Generation based incentives: In December 2009, MNRE introduced the GBI scheme41 for wind energy
projects to facilitate the entry of large IPPs. This scheme was available only to those developers who did
not avail themselves of accelerated depreciation benefits and sold power to the state distribution
companies.
Under the GBI scheme, IREDA provided an incentive of INR 0.50 per kWh (US cent 0.8 per kWh) of wind power fed
into the grid, with a total project lifecycle cap of INR 6.25 million per MW20 (USD 0.1 million per MW) and an annual
cap of INR 1.55 million per MW (USD 24,700 per MW). While the target was to develop 4,000 MW through GBI, the
scheme was discontinued in March, 2012, even though only 2,247 MW of wind capacity had been installed under
the scheme. However, it was re-introduced in August 2013 and will be applicable for the entire period of the 12th
Five Year Plan42. The cap on GBI was increased for a project to INR 10 million per MW (USD 0.16 million per MW)
with an annual cap of INR 2.5 million per MW (USD 40,000 per MW).
7.2 Possible Policy changes for Repowering Project
7.2.1 Factors influencing the decisions of Re-power ring projects
1. Stakeholder Consultation: It is necessary identify and engage concerned stakeholders such as owners
of the wind-farms, OEMs, project developers, financial institutions, regulatory bodies, nodal agencies,
land owners, O&M agencies etc. to arrive at a workable business model. One of the major challenges in
repowering which is likely to create complications is multiple ownerships. Therefore, engagement of
key project proponents is a crucial factor to arrive at a workable business model.
2. Single window clearance: A single window clearance is recommended as there are many approvals
and permissions required from concerned regulatory bodies. A single window would avoid time delay
in obtaining various approvals.
3. Revenue Sharing mechanism: This is a very important factor influencing the decisions as most PPAs
signed must be either with SEBs or third parties and respective project proponents. It is assumed that
the power procurer may not be interested in discontinuing it before the stipulated time. Therefore, a
workable business model is recommended which incorporates possible solutions for such challenges.
4. Financing instruments: It is found that most of the early wind turbines in Tamil Nadu were captive
and repowering project need to be approved to choose alternate option of power sale such as under
REC mechanism, third party sate, captive consumption, etc.
5. Public Private Partnership (PPP): The model needs to be encouraged by government towards
development of infrastructure.
6. Must Run /Must Take Status: the take needs to be encouraged for financial viability.
20
Revised to INR 10 million/MW in the policy announced recently
7.2.2 New PPAs
Currently, there is no repowering policy in Tamil Nadu. The repowering of project would entail terminating the
existing PPAs and entering into new PPA governed by TNERC. For proliferating the re-powering of wind project,
the following points are recommended:
 Considering the huge potential of repowering in Tamil Nadu, there is need of separate policy requirement for
repowering;
 TNERC needs to issue separate tariff order for repowering project since there is a higher cost involved to
compensate the termination of existing PPA as compared to new wind power projects;
 Cost of augmentation of existing power infrastructure needs to be incorporated while assessing the tariff &
setting of new PPA;
 There is a possibility of inclusion of tariff based on improvement in CUF since Muppandal has huge wind
potential and when harnessed more efficiently post repowering will give much higher CUF figures.
 There is a possibility that concerned electricity board may not be interested to discontinue the existing PPAs
before its stipulated time. To avoid such bottle necks, termination of PPA should be allowed post due
diligence of project site based on certain condition.
 Payment security mechanism should be mandated in new PPA to avoid any delay which causes loss of
revenue.
 PPA needs to be signed for longer control period for 25 years which is the expected life for new age turbine
models.
7.3 Challenges and Possible Solutions
The study identifies key challenges which are likely to come in repowering project in Muppandal region. Following
are the key challenges and possible solutions to each:
1. New PPAs: For sale to EB projects, many if not most of the projects are under the old PPA rates and in
case the projects are to be set up by dismantling of old WTGs, for financial viability of the projects,
WinDForce recommends that TANGEDCO should allow developers to sell power under current FiT
(Feed in Tariff) rates. It is possible TANGEDCO will not be willing to come out of such PPAs where they
are buying power at much cheaper rate than that of current tariff. Few of the existing project
proponents may be having PPA with private consumers (industrial/ commercial at the indexed tariff),
who will not be willing to come out of the existing short term PPA because of power deficiency in the
state. But since the Third-party sale rates are very high, PPAs should be allowed to lapse after giving a
notice of 6 months which will give the existing power buyers to find new sellers.
Possible Solution: There should also be a provision of "Right of First Refusal to Purchase" to the
existing group of captive PPA holders to buy power from the repowered projects at competitive rates.
In this case the existing power purchaser should have the right to opt the electricity generated from re-
powered project at the price determined by state regulatory body and if existing purchaser refuse to
opt then only power producer may opt to go for other option of sale of electricity. This way interest of
existing power purchaser will not be harmed. In another option each repowered project must be
considered as a new project in terms of PPA rates and the existing PPA must be lapsed with a notice
period of 6 to 12 months.
2. Turbine and Project Ownership: Multiple owners of windfarm land may create complications for
repowering projects. The wind turbines are being maintained by different agencies and OEMs.
Repowering will reduce the number of turbines and there may not be one-to-one replacement. Thus,
the issue of ownership needs to be handled carefully.
Possible Solution: It is necessary identify and engage concerned stakeholders such as owners of the
wind-farms, OEMs, project developers, financial institutions, regulatory bodies, nodal agencies, land
owners, O&M agencies etc. to arrive at a workable business model. All existing stakeholders willing to
re-power, can be made partners in a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and profits can be shared in the
ratio of equity shareholding in the SPV.
3. Disposal of Wind Turbine: The disposal of old WTGs is a crucial factor which is seen as a challenge for
repowering projects.
Possible Solution: There are various options such as scrapping, buy-back by the government or
manufacturer. Local capacity may need to be developed. But most of the turbines may be too old and in
unusable condition and can be just sold as scrap to be scavenged for usable spare parts and copper and
other expensive metals.
4. Incentives: One of the primary barriers to re-powering is the general lack of economic incentive to
replace the older WTGs. In order to compensate for the additional cost of repowering, appropriate
incentives are necessary. To encourage repowering, financial incentives need to be extended by
Government. The following are some of the incentives which can be which could boost repowering in
the country:
o Need of easy financing for repowering projects from financial institution such as IREDA etc.
o Concession on custom duty on certain components of WTGs or excise duty exemption;
o Need of extended tax holidays to encourage the re-powering of project;
o IPPs (Independent Power Producers) and FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) need to be
encouraged by government; and
o Old project owners needs to be given freedom to choose alternate option for sale of power i.e.
REC Mechanism, third party sale etc.
5. Policy Package: A new policy package should be developed which would cover additional project cost
and add-on tariff by the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) and include a repowering
incentive (on the lines of the recently introduced generation-based incentive scheme by Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy (MNRE)). Such additional funds even for a period of 5-6 years can be
helpful in meeting the initial interest portion of the debt obtained. Following are few of policy package
which should be provided by government:
o For successful repowering of wind project minimum feed-in tariff need to be declared by state
government for repowering project for financial feasibility;
o Policy package should include reduction of wheeling and banking charges from re-powering
projects;
o Government need to mandate for absorption of complete energy generated by repowered
project;
o Repowering need to be mandated for all projects which are generating low PLF considering the
wind potential at sites; and
o Government may relax micrositing criteria for wind site from 5Dx7D concept to 3Dx5D concept
for better utilization of land.
4. Grid augmentation: All the WTGs in Muppandal are connected at 11/33/66 KV rural feeder level and
most of the WTGs available in the market today are designed as per 33 KV/ 220 KV level as it
minimizes losses due to step-up and transmission. For new projects, TANTRANSCO/ TANGEDCO needs
to allow interconnection at higher (110/ 220 KV) level. Considering the congestion of grid lines at
Muppandal Pass, it would be advisable to allow interconnectivity at 220 KV level.
5. C-WET certification: The wind regime at Muppandal Pass is suitable for Class IIIA / IIA turbines and in
certain cases even Class IB turbines can be used. But most of the current WTGs sold in India are
suitable for low wind sites i.e. class IIIA/IIIB and manufacturers like Suzlon who have higher class
turbines (class I/II) in their portfolio have stopped manufacturing such turbines due to lack of demand
and/or their C-WET certifications have lapsed. C-WET needs to allow fast-track revival of type
certificates for manufacturing of higher class turbines of limited numbers for such re powering
Projects.
6. The additional decommissioning costs for old turbines (such as transport charges) need to be assessed.

8. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions on Repowering Study

1 Muppandal in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu is selected as the region of interest. The basis for selecting
this region lies in the fact that it holds first generation WTGs, which have completed an age of 15-20 years.
The first private windfarm in this region was setup in 1992 with two WTGs of 250 kW rating.
2 The region covers a total area of 9.1 sq km and there are about 224 WTGs of different makes and models.
The rating of WTGs varies between 220 to 500 kW. The maximum number of WTGs in the region belongs to
the manufacturer Vestas RRB.
3 The region falls under small to moderate complexity scale terrain and is surrounded with sparse vegetation.
The elevation in the region varies between 70 to 100 m.a.s.l.
4 WinDForce has carried out meso-scale modeling of wind resource for RoI. The outcome of this modeling
exercise are wind speed meso maps at 80 m.a.g.l, capacity estimation of repowering and annual energy
assessment.
5 The Meso map assessment model is validated with measured wind speed data. The model yielded a MAPE of
12.44%. The validation has been carried primarily based on NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis Project data, annual
mean wind speed from NIWE Measurement data and WinDForce internal database.
6 The average mean annual wind speed at 90m height assessed from WMMAM is 7.67 m/s
7 The potential capacity of the RoI was assessed considering the tradeoff between performance of wind
turbines and land utilization. Gamesa’s G97 2.0 MW WTG Model was selected as it represents predominant
wind turbine technology used today. Using the spacing criterion of 3D x 5D, the capacity per sq km was
estimated to be 7.10 MW. The total potential capacity in RoI was estimated to be 64.5MW.
8 The Gross PLF (P50) and Net PLF (P50) in the RoI are estimated to be 44.90% and 38.29% for capacity of
64.5 MW while Gross PLF (P75 for 15 years) and Net PLF (P75 for 15 years) are estimated 41.54% and
36.02% respectively. The average mean wind speed at 90m height is 7.67 m/s. The Net PLF at P75 for 15
years is estimated to be 36.02%
9 A sensitivity analysis for a capacity of 64.5 MW is carried out. This analysis highlights the impact of varying
the main parameters that affect the project IRR calculations. In applying sensitivity analysis we have varied
the PLF (P75 for 15 years) from 25% to 40%.
10 Power Evacuation System: The existing sub-stations in Muppandal Pass are old and have attained an age of
nearly 15-20 years. The evacuation system is not sufficient to evacuate the power post repowering of
project. Therefore, there is a need of augmentation and upgradation. A detailed load flow study shall be
required to analyze the situation of current power evacuation & requirement for improvement in
infrastructure for additional load post repowering.
11 Challenges and Possible Solutions
New PPAs: For sale to EB projects, many if not most of the projects are under the old PPA rates and in case
the projects are to be set up by dismantling of old WTGs, for financial viability of the projects, WinDForce
recommends that TANGEDCO should allow developers to sell power under current FiT (Feed in Tariff) rates.
It is possible TANGEDCO will not be willing to come out of such PPAs where they are buying power at much
cheaper rate than that of current tariff. Few of the existing project proponents may be having PPA with
private consumers (industrial/ commercial at the indexed tariff), who will not be willing to come out of the
existing short term PPA because of power deficiency in the state. But since the Third-party sale rates are
very high, PPAs should be allowed to lapse after giving a notice of 6 months which will give the existing
power buyers to find new sellers. There should also be a provision of "Right of First Refusal to Purchase" to
the existing group of captive PPA holders to buy power from the repowered projects at competitive rates.
Turbine and Project Ownership: Multiple owners of windfarm land may create complications for
repowering projects. It is necessary to identify and engage concerned stakeholders such as owners of the
wind-farms, OEMs, project developers, financial institutions, regulatory bodies, nodal agencies, land owners,
O&M agencies etc. to arrive at a workable business model. All existing stakeholders willing to repower,
owners can be made partners in a SPV and profits can be shared in the ratio of equity shareholding in the
SPV.
Disposal of Wind Turbine: The disposal of old WTGs is a crucial factor seen as a challenge for repowering
projects. Scrapping of WTGs appears to be a practical option as most of the turbines may be too old and in
unusable condition and can be just sold as scrap to be scavenged for usable spare parts and copper and other
expensive metals.
Incentives: To encourage repowering in the national interest, extra incentive or probably extra GBI may be
considered.
Policy Package: A new policy package should be developed which would cover additional project cost and
add-on tariff by SERCs and include a repowering incentive (on the lines of the recently introduced
generation-based incentive scheme by MNRE). The additional decommissioning costs for old turbines (such
as transport charges) need to be assessed.
Grid augmentation: For new projects, TRANSCO/ TANGEDCO needs to allow interconnection at higher
(110/ 220) KV level. Considering the congestion of grid lines at Muppandal Pass, it would be advisable to
allow interconnectivity at 220KV level.

Annexure I
Details of wind farm in Muppandal region

WTG Year of
Hub Rotor
Owner Rating WTG Model and make Tower type Commissi SS Name & Capacity
height Diameter
(MW) oning
Aban Loyds 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Perungudi

ABT 0.22 AMTL-Wind World - 220 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
ABT Industries 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1996 Shenbagaramanputhoor
ABT Industries 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1996 Shenbagaramanputhoor
ABT Investment 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1996 Aralvaimozhi
Amulya sea foods 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
Amulya sea foods 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
Annamalai Engineering 0.25 AMTL-Wind World Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Perungudi
Apollo Hospitals 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1996 Pazhavur
Appollo Hospital 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1996 Pazhavur
Aqua Sub II 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1992 Muppandal
Arasan 0.25 TTG - 250 kW Latice 30 26.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Arasan 0.25 WINCON - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Aravind chemicals 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1999 Pazhavur
B.B.T.C. - I 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
B.B.T.C. - I 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
B.B.T.C. - II 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
B.B.T.C. - II 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Bharat Petroleum 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Muppandal
Bharat Petroleum 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Perungudi
Bharat Wind Farm Ltd 0.25 Das-Lagerwey - 250 kW Latice 30 27 1999 KannaNallur
Bharat Wind Farm Ltd 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1999 Pazhavur
BMF 0.25 TTG - 250 kW Latice 30 26.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Clarion wind farm 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
clarion wind farm 0.25 Das-Lagerwey - 250 kW Latice 30 27 1999 KannaNallur
Coimbatore Agro foods 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Concrete construction 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Concrete construction 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Dalmia 0.4 NEPC - 400 kW Tubular 36 31 1995 Aralvaimozhi

WTG Year of
Hub Rotor
height Diameter
(MW) oning

Easun Rayrolle 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Perungudi
Easun Rayrolle 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1996 Pazhavur
Easun Rayrolle 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1996 Pazhavur
Fasterex 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1997 Pazhavur
Fenner 0.25 TTG - 250 kW Latice 30 26.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Fenner textiles 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Filo Tex 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 KannaNallur
Ganapathy mills 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 29.6 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Glory Papers 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Pazhavur
Gomathi mills 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1996 Muppandal
Gomathi mills 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Gomathimills 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1993 Muppandal
Gomathimills 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1993 Aralvaimozhi
Hatsun Agro Products
0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1993 Muppandal
Ltd
Hindustan Lever Ltd 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
Hindustan Lever Ltd 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
India meters 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
India meters 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
Indo wind Energy Ltd 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1996 Muppandal
Jeyakrishna 0.225 NEPC - 225 kW Tubular 30 29.6 1995 Muppandal
KKSK 0.5 Vestas RRB - 500 kW Latice 50 47 1997 Pazhavur
KLRF 0.25 TTG - 250 kW Latice 30 26.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
KLRF 0.25 TTG - 250 kW Latice 30 26.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Kurian Abraham 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
Kurian Abraham 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
L.G Auto Products 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 2000 KannaNallur
L.G Auto Products 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 2000 KannaNallur
L.G.Balakrishna & Bros 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Muppandal
LG Bala Krishnan&Bros 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Latice 50 28.8 2000 KannaNallur
Madras cements 0.25 NEPC & AMTL - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Madras cements 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1993 Muppandal
Madras cements 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1993 Muppandal
Madras cements 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Muppandal
WTG Year of
Hub Rotor
height Diameter
(MW) oning
Madras cements 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Maris Spinners 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Mirra 0.4 NEPC - 400 kW Tubular 36 31 1996 Pazhavur
N.Mahalingam & Co 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Perungudi
NEPC Micon 0.4 NEPC - 400 kW Tubular 36 31 1994 Muppandal
NEPC Micon 0.4 NEPC - 400 kW Tubular 36 31 1994 Muppandal
NEPC Micon 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1993 Aralvaimozhi
P.K. Malai Tea Estate 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Aralvaimozhi
P.K.malai 0.4 NEPC - 400 kW Tubular 36 31 1996 Aralvaimozhi
Pondicherry chloride 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1999 Pazhavur
Prakash Industries 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
Prakash Industries 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Premier Mills 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Pazhavur

WTG Year of
Hub Rotor
height Diameter
(MW) oning

Pushpa textiles 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Quilon Radios 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1999 Pazhavur
R.C. Diocese 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Rajapalayam mills 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Renuga 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Pazhavur
Rose flower 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1999 Aralvaimozhi
Rose Matches 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1997 Pazhavur
S.I Viscose 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1993 Muppandal
Sakthi engineering 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Sakthi finance 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Sangeeth Textiles 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Sangeeth Textiles II 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Seyedu Beedi 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Seyedu Beedi 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
SFL 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1994 Shenbagaramanputhoor
Snowcem 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Snowcem 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Southern india
0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1995 Aralvaimozhi
depositers
Southern india
0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1995 Aralvaimozhi
depositers
Sri Jeya krishna 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1995 Muppandal
Sri Moogambigai 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Sri Moogambigai 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Sri Rubber Latex 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
Sudarson 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Sudarson 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Vasudeva Textiles 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Muppandal
Vasudeva Textiles 0.25 NEPC - 250 kW Tubular 30 27.6 1994 Aralvaimozhi
Vishnu sankar 0.25 AMTL-Wind World - 250 kW Tubular 30 28.8 1995 Aralvaimozhi
Wipro Finance 0.225 Vestas RRB - 225 kW Latice 30 27 1995 Muppandal
Total 55.415

Annexure II
Details of substations in Muppandal pass

Substation details in Muppandal pass

Substation Voltage ratio in KV Capacity in MVA No of WTGs Capacity in MW
Perungudi 110/33-11 76 346 102.455
(Kanyakumar EDC 250Kw-1) 110/11 16 0 0
Vadakkankulam 110/33-11 116 272 134.98
Kottaikarungulam 110/33-11 67 100 71.325
Radhapuram 110/33-11 132 180 139.215
Thandalyarkulam 110/33-11 98 173 103.825
Samugarengapuram 17 20.5
Sivagnanapuram 2 4
Koodankulam 10(1) 110/33-11 95 35 56.5
Navaladi 110/11Kv 110/11 11 9.35
Muppandal 110/11 50 223 55.125
Panangudi 110/11 48 96 47.875
Aralvoimozhi 110/11 48 211 53.565
Pazhavoor 110/11 82 320 91.505
Karunkulam 320 111.905
Koodankulam 97 110.45
Kottaram 15 7.45
Anna Nagar 119 66.775
Sankaneri 230/110/33 2*100+4*50 141 157.15
Chidambarapuram 110/33-11 73 229 79.975
Chenbagarapuram 9 2.25
Maharajapuram 110/33-11 91 133 83.98
Kannanllur 148 36.25
Valliyoor 110/11 20 12 6.3
Irrukkanthurai 26 29.2
U d a y a t h u r 230 kV 230/33, 230/110 4*50+1*100 143 210.35
Mandapam 110/33-11 26 15 3.375
Rameshwaram 19 4.75

Annexure III
List of Model and manufacturers of Wind Turbines in India can be downloaded from below link:
http://www.cwet.tn.nic.in/Docu/RLMM_Main_%20List_11.09.2014.pdf

Vestas Wind Repowering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vestas Wind Repowering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vestas Wind Repowering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study of Repowering of Wind Power Projects

Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Dated: 26nd December 2014

WinDForce Management Services Pvt Ltd

Name of Client: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency

India Habitat Centre, East Court

Document No: WFML/2014-15/ IREDA/3651/Repowering Study

Assignment Type: Study of Repowering of Wind Power Projects

Report Type: Final Report

Project Manager Mr. Saujanya Kumar

Mohammad Ziaullhaq Ansari, Dr. Deepshikha Sharma and Neelu Kumar

QA & QC Mr. Saujanya Kumar and Mr. Eric Phillips

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 1|Page

Principal Contact : SaujanyaKumar

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 2|Page

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 3|Page

Figure 1: State Map of Tamil Nadu ....................................................................................................................................................................18

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 4|Page

Table 1: Project Assignment Parameters.........................................................................................................................................................17

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 5|Page

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 6|Page

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 7|Page

 Rotor diameter of 100meter

1 Directory, India Wind Power

Table A: Project Assignment Parameters

Figure A: Satellite map of Muppandal region

Table B: Installed capacity by different WTG make

WTG Make Total MW

Figure B: Installed capacity by WTG model

Figure C: Installed capacity by year of commissioning

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 10 | P a g e

1. Processed NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis wind data3;

Figure D: Wind speed meso map of the region at 80 m.a.g.l

Potential Capacity Assessment

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 11 | P a g e

Muppandal as Region of interest (RoI)

Annual Energy generation from existing WTG machine

Make Vestas NEG Micon India Ltd

Muppandal as Region of interest (RoI)

Per MW Scrap value8 INR 20 Lacs

Sensitivity Analysis on Equity Returns

Power Evacuation System

Challenges/Barriers and Possible Solutions

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 14 | P a g e

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 15 | P a g e

 Rotor diameter of 100meter

9 Directory, India Wind Power

The project parameters are presented in Table – 1.

Table 1: Project Assignment Parameters

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 17 | P a g e

Table 2: Rating wise installed capacity in Tamil Nadu

Region of interest (RoI)

Figure 1: State Map of Tamil Nadu

Figure 2: Muppandal as region of interest in Tamil Nadu

Table 3: Installed capacity by different WTG make

WTG Make Total MW

WFML/2014-15/IREDA/3651/Study of Repowering of WPP - Final Report 19 | P a g e

Figure 3: Installed capacity by different WTG model