THE LEAST COST GENERATION PLAN

2016 – 2025
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2013, the Authority developed a 5 year Least Cost Generation Plan

(LCGP) that covered the period 2013 to 2018. An update of the LCGP
has been undertaken covering a 10 year period of 2016 to 2025. The
update involved review of the load forecast in light of changed
parameters, commissioning dates for committed projects, costs of
generation plants, transmission and distribution system investment
requirements.

In the update of the plan, similar to the Power Sector Investment Plan,
prepared by the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, the
”Econometric Demand” forecasting method was used at distribution
level to forecast Commercial, Medium Industry and Large Industry
customer category demand. A bottom up approach was used for
Domestic customer category using the end-user method. A Base Case,
Low Case and High Case scenario were developed for sensitivity
analysis.

The resultant demand forecast was 6.5%, 3.6% and 12% growth rate in
energy demand for the Base Case, Low Case and High Case scenarios
respectively. This growth rate is lower than the projection in the 2013
LCGP of 10%, 5% and 14% for Base Case, Low Case and High Case
respectively.

A number of energy supply options were considered including Hydro,

Peat, Solar PV, Bagasse Cogeneration, Wind and Natural Gas. The
planned supply considered already existing, committed and candidate
generation plants/projects with their estimated commissioning dates
aligned. We note that more than 80% of the generation will come from
hydro.

1
In the demand supply balance, Figure E1 shows the demand and supply
balance over the planning period. A large unutilized generation
capacity is observed for the Base, Low and High Case scenarios. The
excess capacity increased from about 120 MW in 2016, to a range of
1,200 MW and 2,300 MW in 2025, for the Low Case to the High Case
Scenario.

Figure E1: Trend of Peak Demand and Supply Balance 2015 - 2024
3,500.0

3,000.0

2,500.0
Capacity (MW)

2,000.0

1,500.0

1,000.0

500.0

-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating construction
Licensed Feasibility
Import Base Case Demand (MW)

Source: ERA

Given the projected excess generation, there is need for a concerted

effort to stimulate demand either within the country or explore options
of exporting power to the neighboring countries like Rwanda,
Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan.
In order to increase the demand, there is need for Investment in the
distribution and transmission systems, to improve the quality of service
and supply especially for industrial consumers to absorb the expected

2
additional generation. This can be done through reduction of network
congestion and grid extension to increase the uptake.

Policy makers may also need to explore possibilities of rescheduling the

construction of some large generation plants to avoid redundant
capacity. In the same vein, a review of the Energy Policies is important
to align the recent developments with the Policy Direction for the
electricity generation. Further, there is need to fast track the
implementation of the Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan (RESP 2013-
2022), to increase connections of rural consumers. This will facilitate the
uptake of power on the national grid.

The required investment is subdivided into the distribution and

transmission infrastructure. Over the next 10 years, it is estimated that USD
1.27 Billion and USD 1.2 Billion will be needed for transmission and
distribution respectively. This is in addition to the required funding for
implementation of the RESP.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Objectives of the Plan ............................................................................................................ 8
1.3 Structure of the Report ........................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Update on Electricity Industry Policies and Reports ..................................................... 10
2.1.1. Energy Policy and Renewable Energy Policy ........................................................ 10
2.1.2. Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan (RESP) 2013-2022 ................................... 12
2.2. Regulatory Policies and Decisions .................................................................................... 12
2.2.1. Solar Tendering ............................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2. Implementation of the Quarterly Tariff Adjustment ............................................. 13
2.2.3. Multi Year Tariff (MYT) .................................................................................................... 14
2.2.4. Umeme Performance Targets .................................................................................... 14
2.2.5. Progress of GETFiT Implementation ........................................................................... 15
2.2.6. Implementation of the Demand Side Management Strategies ...................... 15
2.3. Macro economy .................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1. Annual Inflation Rate .................................................................................................... 16
2.4. Exchange Rate ....................................................................................................................... 17
3. FORECAST OF ELECTRICITY DEMAND ........................................................................................ 19
3.1. Methods of Forecasting ....................................................................................................... 20
3.2. Review of PSIP Demand Forecast Methodology .......................................................... 23
3.3. Review of Data Used in the Study..................................................................................... 23
3.4. Review of Energy Forecast per Customer Category................................................... 24
3.4.1. Domestic Demand Forecast ...................................................................................... 24
3.4.2. Commercial Demand Forecast................................................................................. 25
Source: PSIP and ERA .................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.3. Medium Industry Demand Forecast ......................................................................... 26
3.4.4. Large Industry Demand Forecast .............................................................................. 27
3.4.5. Demand Forecast for Rural Grids .............................................................................. 28
3.4.6. Projected Total Exports ................................................................................................. 29

4
 3.4.7. Distribution Losses ........................................................................................................... 29
3.4.8. Suppressed Demand .................................................................................................... 30
3.5. Energy Sales Forecast 2016-2025 ....................................................................................... 30
3.5.1. Data Source and Trend................................................................................................ 31
3.5.2. Diagnostic Test for Variables....................................................................................... 34
3.5.3. Daily Load Curves .......................................................................................................... 36
3.6. Regression for Elasticities ...................................................................................................... 37
3.6.1. Forecasting Domestic sales ........................................................................................ 37
3.7. Forecasting Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 38
3.7.1. Sales to Other Distribution Companies .................................................................... 43
3.8. Demand at Generation Level ............................................................................................ 44
3.8.1. Forecast for Export ......................................................................................................... 44
3.8.2. Trend of Distribution and Transmission Losses ......................................................... 45
4. PROJECTED ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 2016 – 2025 ......................................................................... 48
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 48
4.1.1. Review of Uganda’s Potential source of Electricity ............................................. 48
4.1.2. Large Hydro ..................................................................................................................... 48
4.1.3. Small Hydro ...................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.4. Biomass/Bagasse Cogeneration ............................................................................... 49
4.1.5. Wind ................................................................................................................................... 49
4.1.6. Geothermal ..................................................................................................................... 50
4.1.7. Natural gas Plants .......................................................................................................... 50
4.1.8. Thermals ............................................................................................................................ 51
4.1.9. Nuclear Energy ............................................................................................................... 51
4.1.10. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) ............................................................................................ 51
4.2. Current Sources of Electricity.............................................................................................. 52
4.2.1. Eskom Uganda Ltd (380 MW) ..................................................................................... 52
4.2.2. Bujagali Energy Limited (250 MW) ............................................................................. 52
4.2.3. Africa EMS Mpanga Ltd (18 MW) .............................................................................. 52
4.2.4. Tronder Power Ltd – Bugoye (13MW) ....................................................................... 53
4.2.5. Kasese Cobalt Company Ltd -KCCL (10.5MW)..................................................... 53

5
 4.2.6. Tibet Hima Ltd – THL (5MW) ......................................................................................... 53
4.2.7. Eco Power-Ishasha (6.5 MW) ...................................................................................... 53
4.2.8. Kakira Sugar Works (32 MW) ....................................................................................... 54
4.2.9. Kinyara Sugar Works Ltd ............................................................................................... 54
4.2.10. Hydromax Ltd - Buseruka (9MW) ........................................................................... 54
4.2.11. Electro-Maxx Ltd - Tororo (50 MW) ........................................................................ 55
4.2.12. Jacobsen Uganda Power Plant Ltd - Namanve (50MW)............................... 55
4.3. Committed and Candidate Projects ............................................................................... 56
Source: ERA ......................................................................................................................................... 58
5. DEMAND AND SUPPLY BALANCE ............................................................................................... 59
5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 59
5.2. Demand and Supply balance ........................................................................................... 60
6. WAY FORWARD .............................................................................................................................. 62
6.1. Increase Domestic Demand .............................................................................................. 62
6.2. Export Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 63
6.3. Review the Renewable Energy Policy ............................................................................. 63
6.4. Rescheduling of Generation Plants .................................................................................. 64
6.5. Rural Electrification ................................................................................................................ 64
7. REQUIRED INVESTMENT TO UNLOCK DEMAND ....................................................................... 64
7.1.1. New Connections .......................................................................................................... 64
7.1.2. 33/11KV and MV Feeder Growth Investment ........................................................ 65
7.1.3. Investments to Reduce Poor Power Quality .......................................................... 66
7.1.4. Total demand Growth Investment at Distribution ................................................ 66
7.2. Investment in Transmission ................................................................................................... 67
7.3. Exports Opportunities for Uganda ..................................................................................... 68
7.4. Rural Electrification ................................................................................................................ 70
Annex 1: INPUT DATA ............................................................................................................................ 72
Annex 2: .................................................................................................................................................... 78
Annex 3: REGRESSION RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 81
Annex 4: DETAILS OF COMMITTED AND CANDIDATE GENERATION PROJECTS .................... 82
ANNEX 5: ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEMAND ................................................................................. 87

6
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

Clean energy in general and electricity in particular is an essential input

in the growth and economic, social and political development of a
country. Electricity is the engine of socio-economic transformation at
individual household and firm level as well as at aggregate national
level. As a critical input in the development process, electricity
consumption has multiplier effects on the economy. The availability or
lack of adequate and reliable electricity supply therefore has significant
implications on the political stability of the country.

For a country to have adequate and reliable electricity supply match

demand, it calls for a deliberate effort to plan and develop the
electricity generation capacity of the country, based primarily on
national natural resources. This is the fundamental reason why most
countries develop and continually update what is generally termed as
the “Electricity Generation Plan or Least Cost Electricity Generation Plan”
in particular.

Most of the time, the reality does not conform to the plan due to a variety
of factors that affect the strict implementation of plans. As such, the
“Electricity Generation Plan” is a living document that is continuously
revised to ensure that it is realistic and guides generation capacity
development.

In Uganda, there has been concerted effort to develop and update the
electricity related plans. In 2010, Government of Uganda (GoU)
developed and published a comprehensive “Power Sector Investment
Plan” covering up to 2035. Since then, other studies have been
conducted like “Grid Development Plan”, by Uganda Electricity
Transmission Company Limited (UETCL), Regional Power System Master

7
Plan and Grid Code Study by JICA, a study on Integrating Nuclear Power
in Generation Capacity Plan by MEMD among others.

In 2013, the Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA), developed a “Least

Cost Generation Plan” (LCGP) in line with its functions as stipulated in the
Electricity Act 1999, “To advise the Minister responsible for energy on the
least cost projects”. This Plan was shared with players in the electricity
sub-sector including MEMD, UETCL and the Ministry of Finance, Planning
and Economic Development (MoFPED).

The purpose of the “Least Cost Generation Plan” (LCGP) was to derive
forward looking least cost electricity supply options that can satisfy the
projected demand over a given time. The Authority intended to
continuously update this plan every year in order to reflect any changes
since the last LCGP was produced.

While deriving the (2013 - 2018) Plan, a number of assumptions were

made on the forecast of demand and the estimated commissioning
dates of the generation plants as a basis for the Plan. In light of the latest
actual system demand and generation reported by UETCL for the year
2013, 2014 and 2015, this sought to review the assumptions and revise
any changes that have taken place in the electricity industry since
January 2013, when the last LCGP was developed. It is against this
background that further, a new 10 year “Least Cost Generation Plan”
from 2016 to 2025 was developed.

1.2 Objectives of the Plan

The overall objective of this Plan is to update the current 5-year (2013-
2018) LCGP to a ten-year (2016 – 2025) Plan. The specific objectives are
to:

a) Review the performance of the “Power Sector Investment Plan”

8
 (PSIP) demand forecast models against the actual outturn and
adapt and apply the models in forecasting demand in this report;

b) Revise and update the commissioning dates for planned

generation, transmission and distribution projects and revise the 10-
year electricity supply position;

c) Determine the 10-year electricity demand-supply balance position

of the country;

d) Propose options to increase electricity demand in the country.

1.3 Structure of the Report

The foregoing section of this report has been the background,

highlighting the importance of least cost generation planning in the
Electricity Supply Industry (ESI) and the need for continuous update of
the plan. The next sections of this report cover the following:

 Section 2 gives an update of the current state of Uganda’s ESI

including the policies, laws and regulations and market structure
upon which the industry is running. Section 2 also describes the
macro-economic conditions prevailing in the country, which affect
the ESI.

 Section 3 of the report presents the methodology and data used

in forecasting demand.

 Section 4 presents the demand forecasting.

 Section 5 presents the projected electricity supply sources and

output in the 10 years.

9
 Section 6 presents the demand-supply balance.

 Section 7 presents the recommended options to increase

demand to match the potential surplus capacity.

2. CURRENT STATUS OF UGANDA’S ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY

2.1. Update on Electricity Industry Policies and Reports

A review of various electricity industry related policies, Authority

decisions and international activity related to electricity industry in
Uganda was conducted. This was intended to inform any changes
that could have affected the plan during the review period as well as
the new plan moving forward as discussed in the next section.

2.1.1. Energy Policy and Renewable Energy Policy

In 2002, the Government of Uganda (GoU), developed its

comprehensive Policy on Energy. The Energy Policy was defined as
the ‘Manner in which a given entity has decided to address issues of
energy development including energy production, distribution and
consumption”. The objectives of the Energy Policy were to;

 Establish the availability, potential and demand of the various

energy resources in the country;

 Increase access to modern affordable and reliable energy services

as a contribution to poverty eradication;

 Improve energy governance and administration;

 Stimulate economic development;

10
  Manage energy-related environmental impacts In addition to the
2007 Renewable Energy Policy, developed by the Ministry of
Energy.

The main objective of this policy was to increase the use of modern
renewable energy so that its proportionate use increases from the then
3.8% to 61% of the total energy consumption by the year 2016. The key
objectives in this policy include:

 To Maintain and improve the responsiveness of the legal and

institutional framework to promote renewable energy investments;

 To establish an appropriate financing and fiscal policy framework

for investments in renewable energy technologies;

 To promote research and development, international

cooperation, technology transfer and adoption of standards in
renewable energy technologies;

 To utilize biomass energy efficiently so as to contribute to the

management of the resource in a sustainable manner;

 To promote the sustainable production and utilization of biofuels;

and;

 To promote the conversion of municipal and industrial waste to

energy.

Since January 2013, when the last LCGP was developed, no

amendment has been made on these policies. The framework in which
these policies were drawn has been considered to be the same.

11
2.1.2. Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan (RESP) 2013-2022

In July 2013, the Cabinet of Uganda approved the new RESP 2013 - 2022.
The overall objective of this plan was and is still, “To position the
electrification development program on a path that will progressively
advance towards achievement of universal electrification by the year
2040, consistent with the existing policy of the Government, while
ensuring the displacement of kerosene lighting in all rural Ugandan
homes by 2030”.

The plan targets to achieve 26% rural electrification rate (i.e. consumers
who will be utilizing electricity in their homes, businesses or institutions) by
2022 from the current 7%. This is planned to be achieved using long-
range service territory plans and financial forecasts for the service
territories under logical, sequential allocation of investment and
capacity-building resources. This will be met by electricity service
expansion of up to 1.28 million on grid new service connections and
140,000 additional installations of Solar PV Systems and Mini-Grid
Distribution Service Connections for off-grids making a total of 1.42 million
connections1. If this plan is achieved, then demand for energy should
be projected to increase in similar measures for our study. The
implementation of this plan will contribute to the demand for electricity
in the next 10 years and must therefore be considered in this LCGP.

2.2. Regulatory Policies and Decisions

2.2.1. Solar Tendering

The Authority, in a bid to manage the challenges of the intermittent

power from Solar PV generation, resolved to allow developers from Solar
PV supplying to the national grid to acquire licenses by going through a
competitive bidding process. This was intended to give an equal

1
Refer to the Rural Electrification Strategy and plan 2013-2022

12
opportunity to all developers as well as manage the capacity
requirement at the time of day when they cannot generate.

2.2.2. Implementation of the Quarterly Tariff Adjustment

In 2014, the Authority approved a Quarterly Tariff Review Methodology

to be used in the computation of the tariff adjustments on a quarterly
basis. This adjustment was intended to recover or pay costs for fuel cost
charges, foreign exchange rate fluctuation adjustment, and an inflation
adjustment. Figure 1 shows a trend of movement in weighted tariffs from
2014 Quarter One (Q1) to 2016 Quarter Four (Q4). A tariff increase was
observed from 2014 up to Q4 2015. This increase was mainly attributed
to depreciation of the Uganda shilling against other foreign currencies.
The situation however improved in 2016 and a reduction is observed.

Figure 1: Trend of End-User Tariff Changes

Weighted Average Tariff Ush/kWh

550

500
Tariff (Ushs/kWh)

450

400

350

300
Jan,14 Apr,14 Jul,14 Oct,14 Jan,15 Apr,15 Jul,15 Oct,15 Jan,16 Apr,16 Jul,16 Oct,16
Weighted Average Tariff
411.1 407.8 408.5 409.2 419.2 427.8 432.2 507 491.7 484.6 472.4 470.2
Ush/kWh

Source: ERA

13
 2.2.3. Multi Year Tariff (MYT)

In January 2014, the Authority completed the review of UETCL’s

application and approved a multiyear tariff trajectory from 2014 to 2016.
ERA consequently amended and issued a License to UETCL. The
performance target trajectory set for the company is shown in Table 1
below.

Table 1:
Loss Targets Set for UETCL
Parameter 2014 2015 2016
Power loss (%) 4.7 4.4 4.0

Energy loss (%) 3.8 3.6 3.3

Source: ERA

These targets have been included in the tariff determination for UETCL
since 2014. The process of setting another set of performance targets for
UETCL starting from 2017 is underway.

2.2.4. Umeme Performance Targets

In 2012, the Authority reviewed and approved Umeme’s performance

targets for seven years from 2012 to 2018, as shown in Table 2. Among the
parameters are; Distribution Losses, Collection Rate, Distribution
Operation and Maintenance Costs (DOMC). These performance targets
are being implemented by ERA as approved by the Authority.

Table 2:
Umeme Performance Targets
PARAMETER SYMBOL TARIFF YEAR
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
DOMC(Total) USD*1000 44,093 44,553 46,186 47,678 49,300 51,100
Uncollected
TUCF 2.70% 2.50% 2.30% 2.10% 1.80% 1.50%
Debt Factors

14
PARAMETER SYMBOL TARIFF YEAR

Loss target LF 23.00% 20.00% 18.30% 16.90% 15.70% 14.70%

Actual
ALF 24.3% 21.3% 19.5%
Losses
Source: ERA

2.2.5. Progress of GETFiT Implementation

The Global Energy Transfer for Feed–in–Tariffs (GET-FiT)2 Program was

launched in 2013, to fast track the development of on grid small
renewable energy projects which generate less than 20 MW. Since the
launch of the GET-FiT Program on 24th March 2013, 4 rounds of Request
for Proposals (RFP) have been successfully completed. The GETFiT
Program Investment Committee approved 16 projects, with a combined
generation capacity of 144.2 MW. The approved projects comprise of 2
Solar-PV projects totaling up to 20 MW, Hydro projects totaling up to
104.2 MW and Bagasse projects totaling up to 20 MW.

2.2.6. Implementation of the Demand Side Management Strategies

In 2014, ERA in an effort to manage the demand in the industry and

avoid load shedding or significantly dispatching the expensive thermal
plants, undertook to adjust the Time of Use Weighting Factors and
distribution of energy saving bulbs as below:

a. In the 2014/15 Annual Tariff Review, the Peak Time of Use Weighting
factor was increased from 110% to 130%. This was intended to shift
consumption especially for time of use customers like
manufacturers from consuming energy at peak time to other time
periods like shoulder and off-peak periods. The effects of the
consumer response so far to the shift in time of use factor was

2
Read : http://www.getfit-uganda.org/

15
 analyzed and it showed that there was a possible shift
consumption from peak to shoulder and off-Peak time periods.

b. The Authority considered and approved the distribution of 840,000

Light Emitting Diodes (LED) as a Demand Side Management
Strategy. By December 2015, 420,022 bulbs had been distributed.
Another batch of 310,000 bulbs was distributed in May 2016.

2.3. Macro economy

Uganda’s Electricity supply Industry (ESI) is highly affected by the

prevailing macroeconomic conditions in the economy.
Uganda’s electricity tariff adjustment methodology provides for
quarterly adjustment of licensees’ operation costs and electricity
retail/end-user tariffs for changes in macro-economic parameters that
affect operation costs yet are beyond the control of the industry service
providers. These macro-economic parameters are:

I. inflation –both local and international inflation linked to the sources

of imported inputs;

II. Exchange rate and international prices of heavy fuel oil (HFO)
which is used in some thermal power generation plants in Uganda.

2.3.1. Annual Inflation Rate

The inflation rate measures the movement in the general price level of
good and services over the past twelve months. While determining
electricity costs for various licensed companies, there is an allowance for
a proportion of costs to be adjusted for movement in the variable cost
of the company. This adjustment filters through to the final consumer
tariff. It is therefore important to keep track of inflation in the country.
Figure 2 shows the trend of inflation over the past three years. For the past

16
three years, core annual inflation has increased by an average of 5%.
The lowest annualized increase in inflation (1.6%) was recorded in
September 2014, while the highest annualized increase in inflation (8.5%)
was in December 2015. Over the forecasting period, we expect the
general price level to increase by an average of 5% per annum in line
with the past trend.

Figure 2: Trend of Annualized Inflation Rate

9.0
8.0
Annual Inflation Rate (%ge)

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Mar-14

Jan-16
Mar-16
Jan-13
Mar-13
May-13
Jul-13
Sep-13
Nov-13
Jan-14

May-14
Jul-14

Jan-15
Mar-15
May-15
Jul-15
Sep-15
Nov-15

May-16
Jul-16
Sep-16
Sep-14
Nov-14

Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics

2.4. Exchange Rate

Over 70% of Uganda’s ESI costs are denominated in foreign currency –

the US Dollar. A depreciation or appreciation of the Uganda shilling
against the US dollar has significant implications on industry costs and
end-user electricity tariffs. It is therefore important to keep track of the US
Dollar against the Uganda shilling exchange rate movements.

shows the trend of US dollar against the Uganda shilling exchange

Figure 3

rate over the past three years. The figure indicates that over the past
three years, Uganda’s shilling has generally depreciated against the US

17
dollar by an average of 12% per annum. The most significant
depreciation was noted in May 2015 to September 2015.

Figure 3: Trend of US Dollar against the Uganda Shilling Exchange Rate

3,800

3,600

3,400
Exchange rate (UGS/US$)

3,200

3,000

2,800

2,600

2,400

2,200

2,000

Mar-16
Jan-13
Mar-13
May-13

Nov-13

Jan-15
Mar-15
May-15
Jul-15
Jul-13

Jan-14
Mar-14
May-14
Jul-14
Sep-14
Nov-14

Sep-15
Nov-15
Jan-16

May-16
Jul-16
Sep-16
Sep-13

Source: Bank of Uganda

Over the forecasting period, we expect the Uganda shilling to

depreciate against the US dollar by an average of 5% Per Annum. We
expect that the 10-year average depreciation rate of the Uganda
shilling against the US Dollar will be lower than the current trend mainly
due to the likely appreciation of the Uganda shilling when the country
starts producing and exporting oil in early 2020s.

3.3 The International price of Oil

There are two major power generation plants that use Heavy Fuel Oil in
Uganda and contribute up to 11 % of the total installed generation
capacity. Changes in international fuel prices have significant impact
on the electricity production costs of these plants and end-user tariffs in

18
general. Over the past five years, the international price of oil has been
on a declining trend from about US$100 per barrel in 2011 to US$42 per
barrel in 2015 as indicated in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Trend of International Oil Prices

120

100
Crude Oil Price USD/BBl

80

60

40

20

Jul-15
Jul-13
Sep-13

Jul-14
Sep-14

Sep-15
Mar-13

Mar-14

Mar-15

Mar-16
Jan-13

Jan-14

Jan-15

Jan-16
May-13

May-14

May-15
Nov-13

Nov-14

Nov-15
Source: World Bank

According to the US Federal Energy Agency, in the next five years, the
international price of oil is likely to remain within the range of US$50 - 80
per barrel. This is information we have taken into consideration in the
update of the LCGP.

3. FORECAST OF ELECTRICITY DEMAND

Electricity demand forecasting forms an important pillar for electricity

planning since it determines the additional capacity needed and their
cost implication. A high forecast leads to over-investment resulting into
a redundant capacity that is expensive to the consumer and sector
while a depressed demand forecast leads to capacity shortfalls as

19
 demand outstrips supply. Achievement of a balanced forecast requires
application of a credible methodology, a correct planning approach,
accurate information and appropriate assumptions.

3.1. Methods of Forecasting

There are a number of methods that can be used to forecast electricity

demand3 as discussed below;

i. Trend Method

This method assumes that demand mainly moves with time and thus the
demand is predicted purely as a function of time, rather than being
influenced by any other factors apart from itself. Given the limitation of
the time element, it may not be conclusive to assume that the demand
for electricity is only time bound.

ii. End-Use Method

The end-use method focuses on the various uses of electricity in the

respective consumption sectors of the economy. This is then aggregated
to come up with the total demand and the projection depends on the
expected use in the near future. This method is used in developed
economies with robust information that can be relied on for
aggregation.
A number of off-the-shelf energy demand forecast Software like LEAP,
WASP and MAED derive their demand with a similar concept of
aggregating demand from the end user level. In Uganda’s case, this
may not easily be applied given the limited information on the kind of

3 Demand Forecasting for Electricity by Mehra, M; Bharadwaj,A , 2000

20
 equipment and consumption by the respective sectors in the economy
and the difficulty of making futuristic end-use demand or usage patterns.

iii. Econometric Approach

This approach combines economic theory with statistical methods to

produce a system of equations for forecasting energy demand. Taking
time-series or cross-sectional/pooled data, causal relationships can be
established between electricity demand and other economic variables.
This is a popular method given its robustness and wide acceptance
across scholars and practitioners for its consideration of other
surrounding factors that can influence demand. This method was used
in the 2010 Power Sector Investment Plan for Uganda by MEMD, the 2013
LCGP by ERA and in Kenya’s 2013 Least Cost Development plan.

The 2013 LCGP followed the PSIP forecast output for the same year
period 2013 to 2018 and only corrected for an observed upward bias in
the forecast. This adjustment was mainly related to the over estimation
of rural customer connections and suppressed demand that was
attributed to poor security and quality of supply as well as strained
network operating conditions. The under lying error was therefore
estimated and applied to the proportional method to smoothen out the
error bias on the total sales estimates by the PSIP.

In addition to the LCGP, MEMD conducted a study on the integration of

Nuclear Power in Generation Capacity. This study also used the
econometric method of forecasting demand for the period 2015 to
2040. The trend of the Base Case forecast is also shown in Figure 5. We note
a significant increase in demand mainly attributed to estimation of the
suppressed demand in the system.

21
Figure 5: Comparison of LCGP Forecast against Actual Energy demand
1,600
1,400
1,200
PEAK DEMAND (MW)

1,000
800
600
400
200
-
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
LCGP 2013 Actual Demand PSIP Intergration of Nuclear

Source: ERA, PSIP and MEMD

In September 2015, an Inter institutional Sector Planning Committee was

set up by the MEMD Permanent Secretary. This Committee was chaired
by the Chief Executive Officer, ERA. The role of this committee was to
prepare a brief report addressing the demand and supply situation in
the medium term as well as infrastructure requirements to meet demand
and supply.

The forecasting methodology used in the Inter-Institutional Sector

Planning report reviewed the forecast methodology of the PSIP report
and then made adjustment of the PSIP forecast per customer category.
The output of the forecast were then used in the inter-institutional report
to derive a demand supply balance.

Given the robustness and simplicity of the previously utilized econometric

forecasting model in the PSIP, the LCGP 2016-2025 retained the same
methodology while building on the other modifications done on the PSIP
as discussed in the following sections.

22
 3.2. Review of PSIP Demand Forecast Methodology

The PSIP forecasting methodology used the econometric regression of

electricity Sales at distribution level against income of consumers and
price of electricity. Electricity demand growth equations with income
and price elasticity coefficients based on natural logarithmic regression
equations were generated. These were based on the four main
consumer categories that include domestic, commercial, medium
industry and large industry consumers.

The general structure of regression equations that were estimated in the

PSIP are presented as Equation (i) below.

Log (E) = log (A) + B log (GDP) + C log (P) (i)

Where: E= Electricity consumption, GDP= Gross Domestic Product,

P=Price of Electricity (Tariff), B = GDP or income elasticity, C = price
elasticity.

3.3. Review of Data Used in the Study

Secondary data for energy sales and electricity tariffs was captured from
electricity distribution billing records from 1991 to 2007. This was captured
from reports made by Umeme Limited, from 2005 to 2007, UEDCL from
2000 to 2004 and UEB from 1991 to 1999 respectively. The Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) and Population data was acquired from the Uganda
Bureau of Statistics.

The data used was reviewed to assess its consistence with the sources
referred to and it was found to be correctly reported. In addition to the
data used in the PSIP which stretched from 1991 to 2007, more recent
data from 2008 to 2015 is reported and was considered in this report to
establish the level of variation. A discussion of the respective variables

23
that is Energy Sales, Electricity Price and GDP is presented in the following
sections.

3.4. Review of Energy Forecast per Customer Category

3.4.1. Domestic Demand Forecast

The PSIP report considered two subcategories under the domestic

consumer group, the High Consumption category and the Low
Consumption Category. The high consumption energy sales were
derived using the regression. In Equation (i) the PSIP authors regressed
historical domestic energy sales data (1991 – 2007) for Umeme Limited
on GDP per capita and the domestic electricity tariff and generated the
income and price elasticity coefficients for high consumption domestic
customers. Based on the derived elasticities, the authors forecasted the
domestic customers’ demand for the period 2008 – 2030.

While deriving the regression, the authors of the PSIP study observed
that there was a negative relationship between income per capita and
domestic average consumption per connection. This relationship was
considered to be inappropriate and therefore the regression was recast
by regressing each aggressor against energy sales separately.

The new regressions coefficients were combined from two separate

regressions of energy sales and prices from 1992 to 1996 as well as energy
sales against GDP per Capita with the following equations;

Specific/Average Consumption = 1.5466 + 0.885 Log GDP/Capita -------- (ii)

Specific/Average Consumption = 4.462 - 0.552 Log Price -------------------- (iii)
The resultant regression equation was;
Specific/Average Consumption=2.2766-0.552Log Price+0.886Log GDP/Capita--
(IV)

Combining two coefficients from two different models is not an

approach used in econometrics and therefore puts the results to doubt.
24
In addition, we note that only 5 years 1992-1996 of data were used
instead of the entire data set which may have led to loss of information.
We also compared the 7-year forecast (2008 – 2015) with actual
available Umeme Sales to domestic consumers. The results in Table 3
indicate that for the first 3-years, the PSIP forecast is equal to actual
domestic consumer electricity demand. However, the forecast was
higher than the actual domestic demand outturn by an average of 22%
for the last 5 years.

Table 3: PSIP Forecast Vs Actual Domestic Demand, 2008 – 2015

Actual
Base Case PSIP
Years Demand Variance (%)
Forecast (GWh)
(GWh)
2008 326 327 0%
2009 368 364 1%
2010 419 418 0%
2011 477 397 20%
2012 545 469 16%
2013 610 503 21%
2014 681 544 25%
2015 758 573 32%
Average 14%
Source: PSIP and ERA

3.4.2. Commercial Demand Forecast

In the PSIP study, commercial customer electricity demand was

regressed using Umeme historical energy sales data (1991 – 2007) on
commercial GDP and the commercial electricity tariffs. The resultant
elasticities were then used to forecast the demand for the period 2008 –
2030. The resultant regression equation is presented as;

Commercial Electricity Sales = -0.597-0.584 Log Price+1.218Log Commercial GDP

25
A comparison of the PSIP forecast with the actuals (2008 – 2015) was
conducted. The results shown in Table 4 indicate a variance of about 8%
for the last 3 years. We however note a variation between the actuals
and forecasted Commercial GDP forecast. This would have contributed
to the overall variation reported in the forecast.

Table 4:PSIP Forecast Vs Actual Commercial Demand, 2008 - 2015

Actual Variance
Year Base Case PSIP (GWh) (GWh) (%)
2008 172 179 -4%
2009 188 211 -11%
2010 207 242 -14%
2011 230 215 7%
2012 256 217 18%
2013 281 259 8%
2014 308 286 8%
2015 337 312 8%
Average of Last 5 years 10%
Source: PSIP and ERA

3.4.3. Medium Industry Demand Forecast

The PSIP regression used Umeme Medium Industry energy sales data
(1991 – 2007) on industrial GDP and the electricity tariffs for Medium
industry. The PSIP results were reported to be inconsistent with economic
theory. The results showed that an increase in electricity prices led to an
increase in energy sales as shown in equation (v).

Medium Industry Sales = 1.906+0.01Log Price + 0.118Log Industry GDP—(v)

The Authors therefore dropped the regression method and instead

adopted a simple trend analysis whose results were then extrapolated
to forecast for the period of 2008 – 2030. These forecast results were

26
compared with actuals (2008 – 2015) of Umeme Medium Industry
consumers and found that the PSIP grossly underestimated the actual
demand as shown in Table 5.

PSIP Forecast Vs Actual Medium Industry Demand, 2008 - 2015

Table 5:
Base Case
Forecast (GWh) Actual (GWh) Variance (%)
2008 216 223 -3%
2009 218 232 -6%
2010 220 256 -14%
2011 221 260 -15%
2012 223 342 -35%
2013 225 378 -41%
2014 227 390 -42%
2015 229 406 -77%
Source: PSIP and UETCL

3.4.4. Large Industry Demand Forecast

Large Industry customers’ electricity demand was also regressed on

Industrial GDP and the tariffs for this category. The elasticities were then
used to forecast the demand for the period 2008 – 2030. Table 7 shows the
variation between the forecast and the actual demand for the period
2008 to 2015. There was an average variation of 17%.

We validated the robustness of the PSIP forecast, for the period 2008 –
2015 against actual Large Industry demand data. Over the same period,
the results are presented in Table 6 and indicate that PSIP forecast is on
average 17% lower than the actual out turn.

Table 6: PSIP Forecast Vs Actual Large Industry Demand, 2008 – 2015

PSIP Forecast (GWh) Actual (GWh) % Variance
2008 492 549 -11%
2009 539 594 -9%

27
 2010 589 711 -17%
2011 648 859 -25%
2012 717 909 -21%
2013 790 981 -19%
2014 870 1,060 -18%
2015 958 1177 -22.9%
Average -18%
Source: PSIP and UETCL

3.4.5. Demand Forecast for Rural Grids

The PSIP forecasted energy consumption of mini-grids and off-grids to

grow from 3.69 GWh in 2008 to 126 GWh by 2014, as indicated in Table 7.
However, comparison with actual sales by mini-grids and off-grids shows
that the PSIP forecast was ambitious. Review of the PSIP forecast
assumptions revealed that the driver of the over estimation was the
number of new connections in 2014, which was assumed to be 278,000,
yet the actual connections were only 35,690.

Table 7: PSIP Forecast Vs Actual Rural Connection and Sales

Average Customers Total Average Customers Total
Sales (kWh) Sales Sales (kWh) Sales
(GWh) (GWh)
PSIP Forecast Actual Performance
2008 369 10,000 3.69 646 5,754 3.72
2009 378 54,667 20.68 1028 5,909 6.07
2010 392 99,334 38.98 1256 10,890 13.68
2011 409 144,000 58.90 1206 12,734 15.36
2012 428 188,667 80.81 1208 15,560 18.80
2013 441 233,334 102.94 1161 22,056 25.60
2014 455 .278,001 126.39 777 35,693 27.75

2015 455 .278,001 126.39 777 35,693 27.75

Source: PSIP and ERA

The PSIP projected that the total number of customers would increase
from 10,000; 5,000; 15,000 for Base Case, Low Case and High Case
28
respectively in 2008 to 250,000; 456,668 and 618,290 in 2012. This forecast
was based on the 2002-2012 Rural Electrification Plan. However, this
number of connections was not achieved. The non-achievement of
customer growth targets was addressed in the RESP 2013-2022.

3.4.6. Projected Total Exports

The PSIP had anticipated that in the Base Case scenario, exports to
Tanzania would increase from 10 MW in 2008 to 16 MW in 2012, increasing
by 3% per year. On the other hand export to Kenya would remain stable
at around 6 MW. Considering the actual outcome from 2008 to 2015,
export to Tanzania has remained at around 12 MW while export to Kenya
has generally not exceeded 3 MW, which is within the Tie line between
Uganda and Kenya for Grid stability.

3.4.7. Distribution Losses

The PSIP assumed that the total electricity commercial losses would be
2%, while the technical losses would be 14.4% by 2020. However,
following the review of Umeme Limited’s performance targets, the loss
targets were revised such that the overall distribution losses are
expected to be 14.7% by 2018. In addition, the plan did not take into
account the projected transmission loss trajectory. It is therefore
important to take stock of the loss expectation in this LCGP. Figure 6 shows
the loss trajectory achieved by Umeme.

Figure 6: Trend of Distribution Losses by Umeme

30%
Trend of Loss (%ge)

25%

20%

15%
2012 2013 2014 2015

29
Source: Umeme

3.4.8. Suppressed Demand

The PSIP report considered suppressed demand to be as a result of Load

shedding/ limited supply which was common during the late 2000s, poor
security and quality of supply with some customers using their own
generation; and strained network operation where customers switch off
their equipment when voltage is below normal.

The study therefore assumed unconstrained specific consumption of

1,447 kWh compared to the 1,060kWh that was actual for domestic
customers. The Authors also assumed that specific/average
consumption would be 15% higher than the actual in 2007 for
commercial, large Industry, and Medium industry customers. These
estimates were assumed for the years 2008 to 2017 and were thus
included in the demand estimates.

In 2012, following the commissioning of Bujagali Hydro Power Project PP,

the country had sufficient electricity supply. During this period, it was
then expected that the constrained demand would be unlocked. As
was illustrated in the trend of energy sales, the growth in energy sales did
not significantly change after 2012.

This limited increase in demand points to a possibility of an over

estimation of suppressed demand. It is not uncommon that the power
system often has some customers out of supply even if the system is fully
functional with sufficient supply. It is therefore likely that the level of
suppressed demand was over estimated.

3.5. Energy Sales Forecast 2016-2025

In this LCGP 2016-2025, the same forecasting methodology from the PSIP
was retained given the robustness and its good theoretical foundation.
30
The econometric regression method was used for Large Industry,
Medium Industry and Commercial. However, given the challenges of the
observed reverse relationship for the domestic customer sales with
Income per capita reported in the PSIP report, the forecast for this
category was based on a bottom-up estimation method depending on
the projected connections and average consumption starting right from
the household.

3.5.1. Data Source and Trend

a) Energy Sales

All the data that was used is shown in annex 1 of this report for reference
purposes. As shown in figure 7, the trend of energy sales to all customer
categories has increased from 1991 to 2015. In particular, as was
reported in the PSIP, energy consumption by the large industry customers
is observed to be increasing at a higher rate compared to the rest of the
customers.

31
Figure 7: Trend of Energy Sales per customer Category
1,400

1,200

1,000
Energy Sales (GWh)

800

600

400

200

-
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2004*

Domestic Commercial Medium Industrial Large Industries

Source: Umeme, UEB, UEDCL

b) Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

The Industrial GDP was composed of the Mining and Quarrying,

Manufacturing, Electricity and Water as well as Construction Sectors. We
note that the construction sector does not necessarily contribute to the
Industry that consumes electricity apart from the construction material
that are already captured under manufacturing. The Commercial GDP
on the other hand was composed of whole sale and retail trade sector
as reported by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics.

shows the trend of GDP by sector at constant price. It shows that

Figure 8
the growth has been most significant in the services industry followed by
the Industrial sector. Almost no movement is observed in the agricultural
sector.

32
Figure8: Trend of GDP by Sector
30,000.0

25,000.0

20,000.0

15,000.0

10,000.0

5,000.0

2008
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Agriculture GDP Services GDP Commercial GDP Industrial GDP

Source: UBOS

In addition to the above, a visual illustration of the relationship between

GDP and energy sales is shown in Figure 9. It can generally be observed
that there is a positive relationship between the movement in GDP and
energy growth rates.

Figure 9: Trend of Growth rate GDP and Energy sales

20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
Percentage Growth

14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
GDP Growth rate 8.4% 8.7% 7.2% 5.2% 3.4% 5.3% 4.8% 5.1%
Growth in GWh Sales % 17.4% 10.5% 10.8% 8.0% 3.5% 9.9% 6.9% 5.6%

Source: UBOS and ERA

33
 c) Trend of Electricity Prices/Tariff

Following the implementation of the automatic tariff adjustment

mechanism in 2014, there has been an observable movement in
electricity prices per Quarter. This was designed in order to adjust for
inflation, exchange rate and oil prices as provided in the methodology4.
The trend of Uganda’s nominal electricity prices was generally stable
with minimal adjustments over the past 20 years. In real terms however,
an increase in the electricity price was observed in the early 1990 s and
the mid-2000. Figure 10 shows the trend of electricity prices by customer
category in real terms.

Figure 10: Trend of Tariff in Real Terms per Customer Category

450
400
350
300
Shs/kWh

250
200
150
100
50
0
1995

1998
1991
1992
1993
1994

1996
1997

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Domestic Commercial Medium Industries Large Industrial

Source: ERA approved tariff and UEB Data Base

3.5.2. Diagnostic Test for Variables

Best practice in econometrics requires that time series data used for
forecasting is stationery and that a long run relationship exists among the

4
http://era.or.ug/index.php/2013-12-14-14-58-04/guidelines

34
variables. It is observed that the PSIP methodology did not reflect this
important step.

In this case, a cointegration method was used to test the existence of a

long run relationship. As stated by Engle and Granger, “If a set of variables
are cointegrated, then there exists a valid error correction representation of the
data, and vice versa5”. As such, a cointegration test was conducted using
the following steps.

i) Test for Stationarity

Annex 2 shows the results from the Augmented Dickey Fuller test for
stationarity. The table shows that before differencing, all the variables
became non stationary given that the absolute values of the test
statistics are less than the critical values. However, it is illustrated that
after the first difference, all the variables are stationary. We can
therefore conclude that the electricity sales, electricity prices and GDP
are integrated of order one thus I (1) and thus have a long run
relationship.

ii) Test for existence of cointegration

To test for the existence of cointegration the “Engle and Granger 1987”
method was used. Regression of energy sales against GDP and tariff
were conducted for the respective consumer categories and an ADF
test for stationarity of the residuals was conducted.

The First cointegration test with Electricity Sales, tariff and GDP showed
no existence of cointegration in all customer categories as shown in
Annex 2. However, regressions without tariffs showed that cointegration
actually exists between GDP and electricity sales in all the respective
customer categories under review.

5
Engle and Granger, 1987, Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation and Testing,
Econometrica, 55 251-276.

35
This therefore confirms the existence of a long run relationship between
electricity sales and income. The problem with electricity tariff is likely to
be due to the fact that tariffs were not changing in nominal terms for a
long time which could have had marginal effects on the consumer.
None the less, given that the Authority implemented the quarterly tariff
adjustment mechanism, we expect that going forward, tariffs will
impact on the energy sales. From the foregoing, we therefore
maintained both tariff and GDP as the variable that influence sales.

3.5.3. Daily Load Curves

In order to establish the system load curve, a review of the hourly

capacity demand was conducted. Figure 11 shows that no significant shift
in the Load profile is observed from the respective load curves as shown
from 2014 to 2015. Uganda’s daily load curve indicates that there is no
variation in the load pattern throughout the months of the year. In our
analysis of demand, we therefore assumed the same load curve all year
round.

Figure 11: Daily load Curves 2014-2015

600

550 Dec-14

500
Max Demand (MW)

Mar-15
450

400 Jun-15

350 Jul-15
300
Sep-15
250

200 Oct-15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of the Day
Source: UETCL

36
 3.6. Regression for Elasticities

In order to forecast the sales, a regression of the log of the variables was
conducted for the respective customer categories as shown in the Annex
1 and summarized in the equations below. The results for the respective
energy sales all show that the models were correctly specified with a
significant F statistic. The sign on the independent variables is positive for
GDP which implies that energy sales are positively influenced by income.

In addition, the negative sign on electricity tariff implies that an increase

in price leads to a drop in energy sales in all the respective customer
categories. This behavior is in line with the economic behavior of a
normal good which was originally assumed for electricity. We therefore
used the regression equations to forecast the energy sales for the
respective customer categories using the assumptions for the forecast of
GDP from 2016 to 2025.

a. Commercial Electricity Sales=-4.77 -0.29 Log Price+1.21Log Commercial GDP

b. Med-Industry Electricity Sales=-3.22—3.22log Price+0.89Log Industry GDP
c. Large-Industry Electricity Sales=-5.89-0.24 Log Price+1.37Log Industry GDP

3.6.1. Forecasting Domestic sales

As REA continues to implement the RESP 2013-2022, the rate of

household connections to the national grid is expected to grow
significantly following the National Rural Electrification target of over 1.2
Million rural customer connection by 2022. We have reviewed Umeme’s
total sales to the Domestic consumers and the average consumption
per house as shown in Table 8.

The table shows that while the total domestic customers have steadily
increased, the average consumption per household has gradually
reduced. This is due to the increase in rural customers whose

37
consumption is lower than the existing urban and peri-urban customers.
This trend is expected to continue in the future as more rural connections
are made.

Table 8:Umeme Domestic customer Connection Rate

Year (s) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Domestic
sales (GWh) 290 293 327 364 418 397 469 503 544 591
Customers
'000 287 277 278 286 325 419 474 530 604 753
kWh per
Household 1,011 1,059 1,177 1,272 1,287 949 991 948 901 865
Source: Derived From Umeme Annual Reports

3.7. Forecasting Scenarios

In order to capture the sensitivity of the forecast and prepare for different
outcomes, we considered a number of scenarios as discussed in the
following section. This LCGP maintained three main scenarios, the Base
case, High case and Low case.

a. Base Case Forecast Scenario

This case assumed the business as usual scenario in the economy and
thus adopted the average GDP growth rate as projected by the second
National Development Plan (NDP II) 62015-2020.The National Planning
Authority while developing the NDPII 2015/16 to 2019/20 estimated that
the GDP growth rate will be as indicated in Table 9.

6
npa.ug/wp-content/uploads/NDPII-Final.pdf

38
 Table 9: Forecast of GDP Growth Rate

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20

5.8% 5.9% 6.4% 6.7% 6.8%

Source: NDP II

For the Base Case forecasting scenario, the same growth rate was
adopted for the period 2015 to 2019. While the 2019/20 growth rate was
maintained from 2020 to 2025.

However, we note that the growth rates were reported in Financial Year
terms while energy sales were reported in Calendar Years. In order to
convert the rates from Financial Year to Calendar Year, a two year
moving average was used for each year. Table 10 shows the GDP growth
rate that was used for the period 2015 to 2025.

Table 10: Estimated Annual GDP Growth Rate

Year
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GDP Growth
5.6% 5.9% 6.2% 6.6% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%
Source: Team’s Computations

Using the forecast of the GDP growth rate, the forecasted real GDP from
2015 to 2025 is shown in table 11.

Table 11: Base Case Projected GDP by Sector

GDP(Shs
,Bn) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Industry
7,388 7,820 8,301 8,844 9,441 10,083 10,769 11,501 12,283 13,119

Services
15,524 16,432 17,442 18,585 19,839 21,188 22,629 24,168 25,811 27,566
Source: Team’s computations

39
In order to project the domestic demand up to 2025, we assumed total
new connection of 140,000 from 2016 up to 2025 as submitted by
Umeme. In addition, we assumed that the consumption per household
would annually reduce by 8%. Using the above assumption, the
projected Domestic energy sales are as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Projected Domestic Energy Sales

No. of Domestic Average Domestic
Customers Consumption per Energy Sales
Household (kWh) (GWh)
2016 843,903 782 660
2017 983,903 719 708
2018 1,123,903 662 744
2019 1,263,903 609 770
2020 1,403,903 560 786
2021 1,543,903 532 822
2022 1,683,903 506 851
2023 1,823,903 480 876
2024 1,963,903 456 896
2025 2,103,903 433 912
Source: Umeme

Using the above methodology for forecasting the energy sales at

distribution level, the resultant total energy forecast for the base case
are shown in Table 13 and Figure 12. The energy sales would grow from 2,598
GWh in 2016 to 4,929 GWh in 2025. An average growth rate of 7% is
observed from 2016 to 2025. The largest energy sales are projected to
come from Industrial consumers.

40
Table 13: Base Case Projected Energy Sales by Umeme
Large Industry Commercial Medium Domestic Total
(GWh) (GWh) Industry (GWh) (GWh) Umeme
Sales (GWh)
2016 1107.4 325.4 413.4 752.2 2598.5
2017 1201.8 349.8 436.1 801.6 2789.3
2018 1310.9 377.8 461.5 838.3 2988.5
2019 1433.6 408.9 489.3 864.0 3195.8
2020 1568.9 442.8 518.9 918.5 3449.1
2021 1716.8 479.5 550.3 967.3 3713.9
2022 1878.7 519.2 583.7 1010.7 3992.3
2023 2055.9 562.3 619.0 1049.1 4286.3
2024 2249.8 608.9 656.5 1082.7 4598.1
2025 2462.0 659.4 696.3 1112.1 4929.8
Source: Computations

Figure 12: Projected Energy sales by Umeme

5,000
4,500
Domestic
4,000 (GWh)
Demand (GWh)

3,500
3,000 Medium
Industry (GWh)
2,500
2,000
Commercial
1,500 (GWh)
1,000
500 Large Industry
- (GWh)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Source: Internal Computations

41
 b. High Case Forecast Scenario

The High Case Scenario assumed an increase in economic activity,

moving forward including accelerated connection through the new
2013-2022 Rural Electrification Strategy, accelerated industrialization
among other activities being undertaken to accelerate economic
activity in the country. A GDP growth rate of 10% per year was adopted
for this case to forecast the large industry, Medium Industry and
Commercial customers.
To estimate the Domestic customer sales in the High Case, we assumed
that Umeme will connect 180,000 customers per year. In addition, we
assumed that the consumption per house hold connection would
reduce by only four (4%) per year.

As a result of the assumption for the High Case scenario, the resultant
demand by Umeme is shown in Table 14. The average growth rate in
demand is 11%, with demand expected to grow from 2,843GWh in 2016
to 7,076GWh in 2025. The main driver of demand still remains industrial
demand with more than half of the growth in the total demand.

Table 14: High Case Projected Energy Sales by Umeme

Large Commercial Medium Domestic Total Umeme
Industry (GWh) Industry (GWh) (GWh) Sales (GWh)
(GWh)
2016 1235 358 429 820 2843
2017 1408 402 452 896 3158
2018 1604 452 479 954 3488
2019 1828 507 508 997 3839
2020 2083 569 538 1071 4261
2021 2373 638 571 1138 4721
2022 2704 716 606 1198 5224
2023 3081 804 642 1252 5779
2024 3511 902 681 1299 6394
2025 4001 1013 722 1340 7076
Source: ERA

42
 c. Low Case Forecast Scenario

The Low case scenario assumed that the demand would drop under
lower expectations of the level of economic activity at about 3.4% GDP
growth rate on average from 2016 to 2025. The consideration of the 3.4%
GDP growth rate was because it is the lowest growth rate registered for
the past 10 years which happened in 2011. The consumption per house
hold connection would reduce by 10% per year, while the average new
connections would be 70,000. This would translate into total sales as
shown in Table 15 at an average growth rate of 4%.

Table 15: Low Case Projected Energy Sales by Umeme

Large Commercial Medium Domestic Total
Industry (GWh) Industry (GWh) Umeme
(GWh) (GWh) Sales
(GWh)
2016 1043 309 406 633 2390
2017 1092 321 428 637 2478
2018 1143 335 453 637 2567
2019 1196 348 480 632 2657
2020 1252 363 509 651 2776
2021 1311 378 540 668 2897
2022 1372 393 573 682 3021
2023 1437 410 608 694 3149
2024 1504 427 645 705 3280
2025 1575 444 684 713 3415
Source: ERA

3.7.1. Sales to Other Distribution Companies

Umeme represent more than 97% of energy purchases for Uganda’s ESI.
However a number of other small distribution companies were set up
with the support of REA. Among the other distribution companies are,
43
Pader Abim Community Multipupose Electric Cooperative Society
Limited (PACMECS), Bundibugyo Energy Co-Operative Society (BECS),
Kilembe Investment Limited (KIL). Table 16 provides some highlights of the
performance of these companies. Since most of the REA activities are
supporting rural electrification, we have assumed a 20% growth in
energy purchases to all the mini- distribution companies from 2016 to
2025.

Table 16: Connection and Sales of Mini-Grid as at end of 2015

Total
Number of Customers
Purchases
FERDSULT PACMECS BECS KIL (GWh)
2012 7,500 1,181 1,596 1,981 31.96
2013 11,023 1,323 2,085 3,312 33.71
2014 17,738 1,842 3,381 6,450 39.08
2015 22,464 2149 4165 7659 43.32
Source: ERA

3.8. Demand at Generation Level

In order to convert energy sales at distribution to generation

requirement, we added back all exports by UETCL and energy losses. The
following sections derive the demand at generation level.

3.8.1. Forecast for Export

Uganda has on average exported 12 MW to Tanzania and about 2 MW

to Rwanda. The general exchange of power between Uganda and
Kenya has been on the basis of the tie line agreement of only four 4 MW.
Table 17 shows the trend of export by Uganda to its neighboring countries.
We note that exports have not significantly changed from 2009 to 2015.

44
Table 17: Energy Exports
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Export
(MWh) 65 66 82 76 88 99 105 167 121
Source: UETCL Annual Report

Uganda has not concluded any new export contract. However a

Wheeling Agreement was signed for Kenya to export power to Rwanda
over UETCL’s network until 2019. Though this power will be wheeled over
Uganda’s network, the net effect of this transaction is expected to be
negligible in terms of additional energy demand.

For this report, we assumed that any significant export would be made
at the earliest in 2018. This assumption is mainly based on fact that
Uganda does not have any new contract in the pipeline to export
power. We assumed that the same exports will be as those in 2015 until
2017. Export will then increase by 20% in 2018 and another 20% increase
in 2020.

3.8.2. Trend of Distribution and Transmission Losses

During the Review of Umeme’s License in 2012, ERA set the loss reduction
target trajectory that will have distribution losses at 14.7% by 2018. In
UETCL’s Multiyear Tariff Review 2014 - 2016, the transmission loss trajectory
was also set from 3.8 % in 2014 to 3.3 % in 2016. For this forecast, we have
assumed distribution loses to be 11 %, while transmission loses will be at
2.3 % by 2025 as shown in Figure 13.

45
 Figure 13: Distribution and Transmission Loss Trajectory

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%
%ge Energy Loss

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Distribution Loss Transmission loss

Source: ERA

As a result of the above assumptions, the resultant generation demand

is as shown in Table 18 and illustrated in Figure 13. The total capacity
requirement is expected to increase to 1,057MW; 1,849 MW and 753 MW
by 2025, with an average growth rate of 7.3%; 12.2% and 4.1% for Base
Case, High Case and Low Case respectively.

Table 18:
Projected Demand at Generation Level
Year Total Peak Total Peak Total Peak
Generation Demand Generation Demand Generation Demand
(GWh) (MW) (GWh) (MW) (GWh) (MW)

Base Case High Case Low case

3,546 575 4,001 649 3,281 517

2016
2017 3,720 605 4,431 720 3,333 526

46
 3,974 646 4,971 809 3,456 546
2018
4,203 684 5,520 899 3,549 561
2019
4,548 742 6,239 1018 3,738 593
2020
4,875 796 7,001 1144 3,899 619
2021
5,223 855 7,859 1286 4,071 647
2022
5,610 918 8,846 1448 4,266 678
2023
6,043 989 9,990 1635 4,489 714
2024
6,517 1067 11,299 1849 4,736 753
2025
Source: ERA

Figure 14: Projected Energy Sales 2016-2025

2,000

1,800

1,600

1,400
Peak Demand (MW)

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Base Case High Case Low Case

Source: ERA

47
 4. PROJECTED ELECTRICITY SUPPLY 2016 – 2025

4.1. Introduction

Since the development of the last LCGP in 2013, some projects either
commissioned, upgraded their generation or started construction.
Kasese Cobalt Company Limited (KCCL), increased their dispatch to the
national grid from around 1 MW to an average of 5 MW. This followed
the company’s indication that it had exhausted the cobalt which was
consuming most of the power and therefore all the energy would be
exported to the national grid.

In the same year 2013, the 9 MW Hydromax HPP Kabalega was

commissioned and started supplying electricity to the national grid. This
plant however faced some power evacuation challenges so it has not
been in position to dispatch at full capacity. In addition, Kakira Sugar
Ltd ramped up its capacity from 22 MW to 52 MW. However, out of the
52 MW, only 32 MW are committed to the national grid meaning that
only 20 MW of additional 30 MW capacity was developed for the Grid.
In 2013 still, Electro-maxx thermal plant expanded its capacity from 18
MW to 50 MW. The plant is still run on a merit order dispatch largely as a
peaking plant. Details of these plants are discussed later in this report.

In the review of the various sources of energy that would satisfy the
projected demand, different technologies were considered to supply
the projected demand from 2016 to 2025 as discussed below.

4.1.1. Review of Uganda’s Potential source of Electricity

4.1.2. Large Hydro

There are three existing large Hydro Projects; Kiira (180 MW) and
Nalubale (200 MW), managed by Eskom Uganda Limited and Bujagali

48
HPP (250 MW), located on the Nile River. All the future large hydro
projects are also located on the Nile River. The committed projects
include; Karuma (600 MW), Isimba (183MW), Ayago (840 MW) and
Agago-Achwa (83 MW). In addition, the other candidate plants include;
Oriang 392 MW and Kiba 600 MW.

4.1.3. Small Hydro

The small hydro projects in Uganda are generally developed on the basis
of the run of the river technology stationed on the small rivers in the
country. The GETFiT Program has given a boost to the development of
small renewable energy projects with small hydro project developers
taking the majority. As it was indicated earlier, more than 8 GETFiT
Program approved projects are expected to be commissioned within
the next two (2) years. In addition, more private developers have
expressed interest and are apparently conducting feasibility studies for
their projects as will be discussed in detail later.

4.1.4. Biomass/Bagasse Cogeneration

Cogeneration is the simultaneous generation of electrical power and

thermal energy through a single fuel. More than 3 sugar factories are
developing generation plants using sugar cane wait (Bagasse), as fuel.
These include Kakira (32 MW), Mayuge (9 MW) and Kaliro (11.9 MW). As
technology advances and more sugar factories are set up, the
prospects of this technology is quite high in the medium and long term.
Prospects into the development of generation projects using other
biomass resources are still under consideration.

4.1.5. Wind

Uganda has an indication of Wind energy prospects in the North Eastern

Part of the Country. MEMD is apparently conducting feasibility studies
while some two developers have been licensed to develop this
49
technology in the same region. Wind energy in Uganda is considered in
line with other intermittent renewable energy resources. For this report,
we considered Wind as one of the sources of supply over the planning
horizon.

4.1.6. Geothermal

The MEMD is still undertaking feasibility studies on geothermal

generation. In 2014, the MEMD conducted surface and subsurface
exploration studies on geothermal sites in order to establish conceptual
models for drilling and development of geothermal resources for
electricity generation7. Although the prospects of harnessing energy
from this resource cannot be down played we assumed that no
generation will be attained from geothermal until 2025. This is due to the
risks, high drilling costs as well as the long lead time required to complete
the studies and develop.

4.1.7. Natural gas Plants

Using natural gas, one method of generating electricity is to burn the gas
in a boiler to produce steam, which is then used by a steam turbine to
generate electricity. A more common approach is to burn the gas in a
combustion turbine to generate electricity.

Another technology that is growing in popularity is to burn the natural

gas in a combustion turbine and use the hot combustion turbine exhaust
to make steam to drive a steam turbine. This technology is called
"combined cycle" and achieves a higher efficiency by using the same
fuel source twice.

7
Read: The Joint Sector Review Report 2013/14 by the Ministry of Energy

50
MEMD has indicated that there will be some natural gas that will be
harvested in the Albertine region in the process of drilling the oil. We
therefore considered natural gas as one of the resources in the plan.

4.1.8. Thermals

The national grid currently has two 50 MW plants that use imported
Heavy Fuel Oil, that is Electro max Tororo and Jacobsen Namanve,
which are operating under a merit order dispatch regime. GoU has
indicated that some fuel from the Albertine region will be committed to
generation of electricity. The quantum of fuel to be provided and time it
will be available for use is not yet confirmed. However, the indicative
capacity to begin with is around 50 MW which can later on be
expanded accordingly.

4.1.9. Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy has been considered as one of the main energy

resources that will satisfy Uganda’s energy demand for the future. By
2014, the nuclear roadmap development strategy 2014-2016 was
developed. This was followed by the commissioning of a study to
integrate nuclear power in the generation capacity plan for a period
2015-2040. A deliberate and systematic process has been noted in an
effort to integrate this technology in the future. The preliminary indication
is that Nuclear energy will at the earliest be available in 2028. We have
therefore not included this nuclear energy as a resource in the next 10
years.

4.1.10. Solar Photovoltaic (PV)

Photovoltaic (PV) is the generation of electricity from sunlight through an

electronic process that occurs in semiconductors. In these conductors,
electrons are induced to travel through an electrical circuit which will
ultimately generate power. The Government of Uganda and the GETFiT
51
Program introduced a Solar-PV under the GETFiT Premium Payment
Mechanism (GFPPM). A reverse tendering processes was conducted in
2014, with phase 1 targeting a total of 20 MWp Grid connected solar PV
(4x5MWp plants). At the end of the tendering process, 2 developers were
awarded licenses to develop two (2) projects of 10MWp Projects each.
We have therefore considered this technology as one of the options. In
addition, ERA had already awarded some unsolicited bids.

4.2. Current Sources of Electricity

4.2.1. Eskom Uganda Ltd (380 MW)

The Directorate of water Resource Management (DWRM), reported that

as a result of good hydrology, water levels between River Nile and Lake
Victoria had finally risen above 12.5 meter mark. We note that with such
water levels, it is possible to increase the discharge above 800 CUmecs
if need arises. UETCL already got an approval for water release up to
950Cumecs, which will end in May 2016. However, the limit of water
release of up to 800 Cumecs was adopted as a conservative position for
the long term projection. At 800 Cumecs, the average capacity was 139
MW for the past 5 years, we assumed the same capacity going forward
in the plan.

4.2.2. Bujagali Energy Limited (250 MW)

The water release at the Nalubaale / Kiira complex directly influences

the generation of Bujagali Energy Limited. It has been established that
Bujagali’s capacity is 1.21 times more than the generation of Eskom. We
assumed an average capacity of 168 MW for Bujagali in this plan.

4.2.3. Africa EMS Mpanga Ltd (18 MW)

This plant was commissioned in 2011, as a run of the river. It has not
experienced any major technical challenge since its commissioning. The
52
average generation capacity for the plant in the past five years is 9.5
MW. We have thus assumed the same in this plan.

4.2.4. Tronder Power Ltd – Bugoye (13MW)

This plant was commissioned in 2009, with an installed capacity of 13

MW. No major generation problems have been reported in operation.
The plant generated at an average capacity of 8.6 MW in the past six
years. This translates into average energy generation of 75.336GWh. We
have assumed the same generation capacity for the plant in the future.

4.2.5. Kasese Cobalt Company Ltd -KCCL (10.5MW)

In 2013, KCCL indicated that it had exhausted cobalt from it mines which
were consuming part of the energy that was being generated. As a
result, the company increased its energy supply to the National Grid in
the second half of 2014. The plant generated on average 64.58 GWh in
2014 and 2015 compared to 17.55 GWh earlier when the cobalt plant
was still active. We have therefore assumed an average generation
capacity of 7.2 MW to the National Grid.

4.2.6. Tibet Hima Ltd – THL (5MW)

The floods in the Kasese region continue to pose a threat to the normal
operations of this plant. None the less, we project that THL will generate
an average of 2.5 MW.

4.2.7. Eco Power-Ishasha (6.5 MW)

This 6.5 MW Plant was commissioned in 2011. The plant is estimated to

generate 28.99 GWh per year. This energy translates into an average
generation capacity of 3.3 MW per year. We have assumed the same
capacity for the forecasted period.

53
4.2.8. Kakira Sugar Works (32 MW)

In 2013, KSL increased its capacity from 12 MW to an additional 20 MW

leading to a total capacity of 32 MW exported to the national grid. The
plant is estimated to generate at an average capacity of 25 MW,
translating into energy of 219 GWh. In addition, KSL was approved by
GEFiT Program and it is expected to get additional US cents 1/kWh top-
up premium.

4.2.9. Kinyara Sugar Works Ltd

The plant has on average generated 1.5 MW to the national Grid.

However, the company plans to ramp up its generation to 30 MW
committing 20 MW to the grid in 2017. We have thus assumed generation
of 1.5 MW for 2016 and 16 MW from 2017 onwards.

4.2.10. Hydromax Ltd - Buseruka (9MW)

Hydromax plant experienced evacuation challenges which have not

allowed it to fully evacuate its power since its commissioning. In July 2014,
refurbishment works on the Hoima - Busunju line was completed by
Umeme to facilitate the evacuation of the plant. This refurbishment
improved on the evacuation capacity from 3 MW to about 6 MW.
However, more works are expected to facilitate stable evacuation of
the plant. This among other efforts is expected to reduce the evacuation
problem until the completion of the Nkenda substation as a permanent
solution in 2017.

Given the improvement in evacuation, the plant is expected to

generate an average of 4 MW. After the completion of Nkenda
substation, it will on average generate 6 MW.

54
4.2.11. Electro-Maxx Ltd - Tororo (50 MW)

The plant expanded its capacity in 2013 from 18 MW to 50 MW. Since the
commissioning of Bujagali, the plant has been operating minimally as an
emergency and peaking plant. In order to ensure that the plant is
available on call, a minimum dispatch of 7 MW is maintained. We have
assumed the same dispatch and any addition dispatch to be called on
merit order going forward when all cheaper options have been
exhausted. Electro-Maxx’s license expires in 2017. We have assumed that
the plant will not be in mix after 2018.

4.2.12. Jacobsen Uganda Power Plant Ltd - Namanve (50MW)

The company’s operational license expired in August 2014. In order to

allow for takeover by UEGCL, Jacobsen Ugnada Power Plant Ltd was
given a one year license extension. There are further reviews by MEMD
on the management of this plant moving forward. The plant is however
expected to be available all through the planning period, dispatching
the minimum 7 MW and any additional capacity on merit order. Table 19
shows the available generation projects as at April 2016.

Table 19: Existing Generation Plant in Uganda 2016

Technology Name of Plant Installed Average
Capacity Available
Capacity
140
Eskom 380
168
Bujagali 250

9.5
Hydro Africa EMS Mpanga 18

4
Hydromax Buseruka 9
3.3
Eco Power Ishasha 6.5

55
 Technology Name of Plant Installed Average
Capacity Available
Capacity
2.5
Kilembe Mines Limited 5
7.2
Kasese Cobalt Company Ltd 10.5
8.6
Tronder Power Bugoye 13

25
Kakira Sugar Limited 32
2.4
Mayuge Sugar 3
Bagasse
Cogeneration 5.5
Sugar & Allied Kaliro 6.9
1.5
Kinyara Sugar Works 7.5

45
Jacobsen-Namanve 50
Thermal
45
Electro-Maxx-Tororo 50
Source: ERA

4.3. Committed and Candidate Projects

Table 20 shows a list committed and candidate plants that were

considered as possible sources of generation. These plants include those
that were licensed and are under construction, those already
constructed but awaiting evacuation as well as those under feasibility
study from various technologies. Details of each plant is indicated in
Annex 4.

Twenty five (25) Hydropower Projects are currently under feasibility study,
of which, 22 projects can be classified as small Hydropower Projects. The
small hydropower projects post a combined installed capacity of
547.871 MW.

56
 Table 20: Committed and Candidate projects
Installed Capacity Estimated
No. Project Name
(MW) Commission Date
1 Siti 1 HPP 5 2017
2 Access Solar 10 2016(Commissioned)
3 Isimba HPP 183 2018
4 Rwimi HPP 5.5 2017
5 Lubilia HPP 5 2018
6 Muvumba HPP 6.5 2017
7 Waki Hydro HPP 4.8 2018
8 Nkusi HPP 9.6 2017
9 Nyamwamba HPP 9 2017
10 Tororo North Solar 10 2017
11 Ms Xsabo Solar 20 2018
12 Mahoma HPP 3.2 2018
13 SCOUL 26 2018
14 Sindila HPP 4.8 2018
15 Nengo Bridge HPP 6.7 2019
17 Agago-Achwa HPP 83 2018
18 Kyambura HPP 7.6 2018
19 Nyamagasani 2 HPP 5 2018
20 Nyamagasani 1HPP 15 2018
21 Bukinda HPP 6.5 2018
22 Ndugutu HPP 4.8 2018
23 Siti 2 HPP 17 2018
25 Kinyara 25 2018
26 Albatros Thermal Power 50 2021
27 Kakaka HPP 5 2020
28 Nyagak III HPP 4 2019
29 Sironko HPP 12 2019
Lake Albert Natural
30 50 2021
Gas Project

57
 Installed Capacity Estimated
No. Project Name
(MW) Commission Date
31 Kabeywa HPP 12 2019
32 Kabale Peat 33 2021
33 Karuma HPP 600 2019
34 Muzizi HPP 45 2020
35 Muyembe-Sirimityo HPP 7 2019
Nyabuhuka-Mujunju
36 3 2019
HPP
37 Keere Small HPP 6 2020
38 Ngoromwo HPP 6.2 2020
39 Senok Wind Project 20 2020
40 Kikagati HPP Project 16 2018
41 Oriang HPP 392 2024
Source: ERA

Cost Outlook

The generation of electricity in Uganda through fossil fuel power plants

has generally taken the back sit in the recent years, especially since the
commissioning of Bujagali HPP. We anticipate that this will be the same
situation in the medium term, given the many renewables in the pipe
line. However, we note that some of these thermal plants will have a part
to play mainly as an emergence source of supply. The price of oil has
steadily reduced from the highs of over USD 140 per barrel on the
international market to as low as USD 35 per barrel in 2016.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the

average price of a barrel of Brent crude oil will rise to USD 79/barrel by
2020. After 2020, world demand will start driving oil prices to the
equivalent of USD 141.28/barrel in 2040 (again, in 2013 dollars). Given the
above consideration, we shall assume a price of USD 100/ barrel for the
plan.

58
In addition to the oil prices, a number of assumptions were considered
for costs of generation projects. Table 21 shows the respective estimates
mainly focusing on Capital cost of a plant, Operation and maintenance,
Plant Factor and Time of construction of a plant.

Table 21: Cost over View by Technology

Capital Cost O&M Cost Plant Factor Construction
(USD per kW) (USD per (%ge) Time (Months)
kW/yr)
Bagasse 2,052.8 191 84% 29
Biogas 4,271.6 182 80% 24
Biomass &
2,976.2 285 85% 24
MSW
Geothermal 5,475.8 206 89% 30
Hydro 2,455.8 54 51% 24
Landfill gas 2,044.8 121 85% 24
Solar PV 1,801.3 40 19% 9
Wind 1,737.2 36 29% 19
Source: ERA

5. DEMAND AND SUPPLY BALANCE

5.1. Introduction

In section 3 of this report, a demand forecast was conducted to establish

the level of capacity requirement that would be required in the next 10
years. On the other hand, section 4 identified the various energy sources
that can be used to satisfy the projected demand. This section brings the
two sections; 3 and 4 together and presents the potential surplus or
deficit position that may arise from 10-year demand and supply situation
thus called the demand supply balance.

59
 5.2. Demand and Supply balance

The Authors of PSIP in their dispatch adopted the spreadsheet based

“Monte Carlo” simulation model to derive a dispatch that meets the
projected demand at the respective time periods. This model uses
random number generators to assign respective hours of the years to
demand. Then demand is randomly selected in relation to the random
numbers and the available generation is dispatched to meet the
demand. This method was used in continuous iterative demand events
while registering any events of unserved demand under the merit order
dispatch.

While the PSIP methodology is observed to be ideal, it is faced with some

challenges given the existing energy policy in Uganda. Under the
renewable energy policy and the Renewable Energy Feed in Tariff, all
small renewable generators have a guaranteed dispatch. As a result, all
small renewables have to be dispatched first and there after dispatch
the rest of the plants under merit order thus dispatching the cheapest
plants first.

We thus developed a demand supply balance as shown in Table 22 for the

base case. As illustrated in the Table 22 and figure 14, while the total demand
increases from 575 MW to 1,067 MW by 2025, total generation grows from
693 MW to 3,133 MW. This demand supply balance leads to un-utilized
generation increasing from 118 MW in 2016 to 2,066 MW in the year 2025.

On the other hand, considering the High Case scenarios, the total
demand will grow from 649 MW to 1,849 MW. This will lead to a lower un-
utilized supply starting from 44 MW in 2016 including thermal capacity to
1,284 MW in 2025.

In the same vein, considering a low case scenario will have unutilized
generation increasing from 176 MW to 2,380 MW by 2025. As discussed

60
above, considering all the scenarios, it is evident that if all planned
generation projects are commissioned as assumed in the study, then
Uganda will face a challenge of excess generation capacity if no
mitigation measures are undertaken in time. There is thus an urgent need
for Uganda to explore avenues of increasing the uptake for electricity
generated in order to align demand with supply.

Table 22: Demand Supply Balance

Year Available Base High Low Balance Balance Balance
Supply Case Case Case Base High Low
(MW) Demand Demand Demand Case Case Case
(MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)

2016 693 575 649 517 118 44 176

2017 929 605 720 526 324 209 403

2018 967 646 809 546 321 158 421

2019 1,870 684 899 561 1,186 971 1,309

2020 1,901 742 1,018 593 1,159 883 1,308

2021 1,901 796 1,144 619 1,105 757 1,282

2022 2,293 855 1,286 647 1,438 1,007 1,646

2023 3,133 918 1,448 678 2,215 1,685 2,455

2024 3,133 989 1,635 714 2,144 1,498 2,419

2025 3,133 1,067 1,849 753 2,066 1,284 2,380

Source: Computation

61
Figure 14: Demand Supply Balance
3,500.0

3,000.0

2,500.0
Capacity (MW)

2,000.0

1,500.0

1,000.0

500.0

-
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating construction
Licensed Feasibility
Import Base Case Demand (MW)

Source: Internal Computation

6. WAY FORWARD

In order to address the likely excess capacity challenge, the following

are some of the proposals that may help to align Uganda’s demand with
supply;

6.1. Increase Domestic Demand

As earlier discussed, the industrial sector is the main driver of electricity

consumption in the country. It is urgent that all supply constraints are
addressed to unlock the suppressed demand within the country. In
addition, it is likely that investors have been constrained by the limited
infrastructure to facilitate the access to electricity. Annex 4 shows the

62
prospective industrial demand as was reported by Umeme in
preparation for the plan.

In line with the Uganda Investment Authority’s plan for industrial parks,
there is need to support the development of the infrastructure in the
Industrial parks in the country. In particular, there is need to fast track the
infrastructure required for Namanve Industrial Park. There are two forms
of investment required; investment to improve the quality of supply and
then increasing the capacity. The required investment in the industrial
parks is discussed in detail in the next section.

6.2. Export Opportunities

Preliminary inquiries have indicated that Kenya and Tanzania may have
excess capacity in the next 2 to 3 years. However, export opportunities
can be sought in Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo and South Sudan.
According to the UETCL Grid Development Plan (2014 -2030), the export
potential stands at 390 MW.

Such export opportunities however require investment in transmission

infrastructure. Above all, it is capital intensive and has a long lead time.
It is therefore important to undertake these investments early in order to
meet demand. An estimate of the required investment in the required
infrastructure is also discussed further in the next section. Export to
neighboring countries would require policy makers and the political
heads to come to an agreement to import Uganda’s power. An Inter –
Ministry Committee is thus needed to explore marketing opportunities in
neighboring countries.

6.3. Review the Renewable Energy Policy

The policy provides for a guaranteed dispatch of the renewable

generation. While it is important to incentivize the development of

63
renewable energy projects, it may be ideal to revisit the guaranteed
generation provision in the policy. This is mainly due to the excess
capacity projected.

6.4. Rescheduling of Generation Plants

For projects that are in the initial stage, it is important that these projects
are rescheduled to slightly later dates to allow for the exhaustion of the
already committed projects that are already under construction.

6.5. Rural Electrification

The RESP (2013-2022) is targeting increased connection of up 26 % which

would be approximately 1.28 million connections. We however note that
the level of rural electrification attained in the meantime is lower than
targeted. It is therefore important that necessary support is accorded to
REA in order to fast track its implementation to increase the number of
domestic customers.

7. REQUIRED INVESTMENT TO UNLOCK DEMAND

To address the projected demand constraint, there is needed to make

investment in the infrastructure both at distribution and transmission level.
This will improve the quality of supply, increase the supply capacity or
facilitate exports. The following section discusses the required investment
to address the demand constraint. These investment requirements have
been subdivided into priority areas and these are:

7.1.1. New Connections

The connections were costed based on the “Last Mile Cost Principle”.
Normally new connection costs are based simply on the cost to install
the meter and service cable. This omits the required low voltage and

64
distribution transformer costs to support the customer base growth. This
approach is not sustainable as it results in under-investment in the low
voltage networks leading to poor voltage regulation, long low voltage
lines, high technical losses and poor reliability. The last mile costs of a
connection were considered to ensure that the customer growth does
not result in low voltage networks moving out of technical compliance.

The assumptions for new connections are as follows:

 Customer growth rate: 140 000 per annum

 Specific consumption per annum: 800kWh

 New Domestic customers distribution assumptions: infill no pole:

80%, infill one pole: 15%, greenfield: 5%

 Last mile connection costs: infill no pole $140, infill one pole $500,
and green field $1,500

 Annual expenditure $35-$40m

7.1.2. 33/11KV and MV Feeder Growth Investment

This investment addresses the following key growth requirements:

 The distribution assets required for the evacuation of Karuma,

Isimba and Get fit projects

 Evacuation of power from all the planned UETCL substations

 Backbone assets to address local industrial and domestic load

growth in the demand forecast.

The list of the major projects is attached as Annex 4.

65
7.1.3. Investments to Reduce Poor Power Quality

The power quality has now become a topical issue within industrial
customers. The causes of poor power quality range from natural effects
such as lighting, system effects such as faults, switching operations and
customer effects switching in and out of major loads, like furnaces, large
motors etc. The symptoms of the power quality problems are:

 Unexplained equipment trips and shutdown

 Occasional equipment damage and component failure

 Erratic control of process performance

 Power system components over heating

From a power demand side, power quality results in reduction in energy

consumed, and from the customer side there is production loss,
equipment and material damage. In Uganda, this problem has been
experienced by customers in Namanve Industrial Park, Mukwano, Hima,
and in Jinja. Umeme proposes an average annual investment of $10m
per year to cater for the system generated disturbances.

7.1.4. Total demand Growth Investment at Distribution

When all the above are taken into consideration, the required
investments at distribution level to match the transmission investments
are estimated to be USD 120 million per annum for the Umeme Network
or USD 1.2 billion for the next 10 years.

66
 7.2. Investment in Transmission

Three transmission projects are urgently required in unlocking domestic

demand in Uganda; Queensway Substation 132/33kV Project,
Mutundwe-Entebbe 132kV line and Industrial Parks 132/33kV Project.
These projects aim at supplying power to the increasing domestic
demand and upcoming industrial loads. UETCL under their Grid
Development Plan estimates a total investment of USD 1,272 million on
transmission infrastructure in the next ten years. This investment is required
to facilitate the transmission and evacuation of power over the network.
Details of the estimated cost are summarized in Table 23.

Table 23:Grid Investment Plan for Additional Substation Projects

Investments (USDx1000)
Year Capacity (MVA)
2016 965 341,673
2017 410 258,746
2018 880 305,131
2019 3,845 196,069
2020 440 108,266
2021 40 40,299
2024 80 21,983
Total 6,660 1,272,166
Source: UETCL

Industrial Parks Infrastructure

The Uganda investment Authority (UIA) gazette up to 21 industrial parks

in the country that will support the manufactures and all possible
industrial developments for prospective investors in processing and value
addition. Four industrial parks are under development, these are;
Namanve South, Luzira, Mukono and Iganga. As a result of this
development, transmission and distribution substations are under
construction to support the manufacturing activities.

67
In order to support this development, a loan of US$84,979,000 was
acquired from the China EXIM Bank for the development of the
transmission infrastructure. In addition to this loan Government of
Uganda contributed up to 24 million towards counterpart funding.

However, a constraint in the release of the counterpart funding on the

side of government has been noted to delay the implementation of the
project.

On the distribution side, approximately US$23 million will be required to

support the transmission capacity under development. This investment is
expected to be undertaken privately by Umeme Ltd unless otherwise
guided by the Government.

As a result of the developments in the four industrial parks, a total of 451

MW of demand will be released from the manufactures. The details of
the planned capacity demand and the resultant distribution cost are
shown in the Annex 5.

7.3. Exports Opportunities for Uganda

The Least Cost Generation Plan considered exports to the neighboring

countries as one of the options to increase the demand for the
generated power. The following is the status of the transmission lines to
the neighboring countries;

i) Kenya

The current interconnection line to Kenya was contracted for the main
purpose of system stability. As such, it only works on the tie line
agreement of exchange of power mainly for stability of either systems at
any time. The maximum capacity of this line is 40MW.

In 2014, Rwanda signed a power purchase agreement with Kenya to

import up to 100 MW. This power will be wheeled over Uganda’s network.

68
As a result of the planned wheeling over Uganda’s network, a wheeling
agreement was as well signed between Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.

Following the wheeling agreement, Uganda embarked on a

construction of a 220Kv line that will wheel this power and is expected to
be commissioned in late 2017. It is expected that this line will have the
capacity to wheel up to 300 MW. This will therefore be an opportunity for
Uganda in the medium term to export reasonably high capacities of
power to either Rwanda or Kenya.

ii) Tanzania

A feasibility study was conducted and completed under the NELSAP

project in 2011 for a transmission line to northern Tanzania. The feasibility
study needs to be updated in order to fit in the current status and
technical requirement.

There is however no funding or export agreement that has been

committed for the development of this line. This consequently constrains
the prospects of exporting power to Tanzania .There is, therefore, need
for the Government to revisit the option of developing this transmission
line.

iii) South Sudan

The feasibility study for this transmission line is planned to be undertaken

under the NELSAP program. However, a contribution by the Uganda
Government of around US$75,000 to support the development of this
study is yet to be made. This is expected to delay the development of
this transmission line and therefore any sale of power to South Sudan.

iv) Democratic Republic of Congo

A feasibility study for the development of a transmission line to DR Congo

was completed in 2012. There is however no funding that has been

69
committed to the development of this line. Similarly the possibility to
export power to DRCongo will be delayed due to delays in the
construction of the transmission line to DRCongo.

It is generally noted that the transmission line to DRCongo, Tanzania and

South Sudan have limited progress in their prospects for construction and
therefore demand from the respective countries is limited. Government
of Uganda is therefore requested to fast track the development of these
lines alongside bilateral negotiations to sale power to these neighboring
countries.

7.4. Rural Electrification

The rural electrification strategic plan was developed with the intention
of increasing the number of customers by up to 130,000 per year. If the
plan is fully implemented with all the funding requirement fully accessed,
an additional 6 MW of demand is expected to be realized. It may be
noted that the increase in demand is lower than the main grid demand,
due to the consumption of the rural households.

This additional demand if fully realized will help to reduce the expected
excess generation capacity in LCGP.

As result of the additional plans to increase demand, the additional

demand will be as shown in Table 1. The main drivers for the additional
demand is the demand expected from the industrial parks after
completion and rural electrification.

70
Table 1: Summary of implication of additional information on Demand

Year Base Case Demand Base Case Demand after Intervention

(MW) (MW)

Before intervention

2016 575 575

2017 605 671

2018 646 902

2019 684 1,190

2020 742 1,498

2021 796 1,552

2022 855 1,611

2023 918 1,674

2024 989 1,745

2025 1,067 1,823

Source: ERA

71
Annex 1: INPUT DATA
Table 1.1: Real Electricity Tariff per Category in Shs/kWh

Medium Large Street

Year Domestic Commercial Industries Industrial Lighting

1991 97 289 96 58 116

1992 101 348 113 56 137

1993 150 385 238 88 303

1994 156 227 129 145 254

1995 119 167 124 155 168

1996 109 157 135 164 175

1997 99 145 122 147 159

1998 101 161 125 162 159

1999 124 183 132 158 199

2000 197 197 197 197 201

2001 215 220 149 319 218

2002 221 232 144 260 215

2003 195 203 214 133 239

72
 Medium Large Street
Year Domestic Commercial Industries Industrial Lighting

2004 186 179 163 66 176

2005 213 204 179 72 202

2006 397 372 345 174 376

2007 374 350 325 164 354

2008 334 312 290 147 316

2009 295 276 256 130 279

2010 257 239 216 123 225

2011 217 201 182 104 189

2012 258 240 226 154 241

2013 253 236 222 151 236

2014 243 236 222 151 236

2015
Source: UEB and ERA

73
 Uganda’s Real Gross Domestic Product in billions
Table1.2:
Year (s) Total GDP Industrial GDP Services GDP GDP per Capita

1991 5297.4 902.0 2490.9 222.3

1992 5544.1 955.5 2661.7 225.0

1993 5881.5 1036.9 2847.2 230.6

1994 6480.3 1245.4 3161.9 247.8

1995 7008.2 1446.6 3483.8 262.6

1996 7385.9 1690.3 3700.0 271.9

1997 7731.4 1893.0 3938.3 278.3

1998 8507.8 2074.6 4269.6 296.2

1999 9071.1 2248.9 4538.5 306.6

2000 9485.7 2341.2 4786.6 311.9

2001 10319.9 2457.7 5255.0 327.6

2002 11038.7 2689.9 5663.5 344.8

2003 11720.3 2886.7 6090.2 357.8

2004 12391.7 3138.7 6479.7 371.4

74
 Year (s) Total GDP Industrial GDP Services GDP GDP per Capita

2005 13529.2 3658.0 7028.9 399.6

2006 14400.8 3891.7 7718.6 420.2

2007 15401.3 4201.4 8361.9 439.6

2008 16969.5 4846.6 9220.2 475.3

2009 17572.0 4872.8 9725.7 476.1

2010 18685.4 5263.1 10386.7 492.4

2011 19847.0 5739.2 11045.1 509.5

2012 21908.5 6059.3 12732.6 641.9

2013 23005.3 6400.2 13441.4 650.7

2014 2661.4 6805.7 14215.5 689.3

Source: UBOS

75
Table1.3: Energy Sales across Each Customer Categories in GWh
Domestic commercial Medium Large
Industrial Industries

1991 370.1 37.8 54.5 63.2

1992 263.3 39.4 72.6 109.5

1993 272.5 36.2 71.0 96.7

1994 285.5 43.3 76.9 81.8

1995 264.5 49.1 92.6 115.3

1996 366.4 64.3 102.1 143.9

1997 344.3 90.0 107.6 158.6

1998 316.6 99.5 135.5 154.3

1999 307.1 109.7 122.7 162.7

2000 311.8 123.8 201.2 206.2

2001 354.4 177.1 218.6 162.6

2002 475.5 161.9 200.4 272.5

2003 418.0 155.5 220.4 263.3

76
 Domestic commercial Medium Large
Industrial Industries

2004 552.2 136.7 262.4 337.6

2005 331.8 129.1 205.8 348.1

2006 290.2 137.6 173.3 389.0

2007 293.5 151.3 211.2 482.1

2008 327.4 178.7 222.9 549.5

2009 363.7 210.7 232.4 594.1

2010 417.9 242.2 256.2 711.3

2011 397.4 215.0 260.2 859.3

2012 469.5 217.4 341.7 908.7

2013 500.6 258.9 378.4 980.6

2014 538.5 278.5 407.1 1054.9

Source: Umeme, UEDCL and UEB Data bases

77
Annex 2:

Table 2.1: TEST FOR LONG RUN RELATIONSHIP (Test for stationarity of Residuals)

Sales Category ADF Residual Results

Domestic 0.927

Commercial 5.309

Medium Industry 2.792

Large Industry 2.792

** Critical Values: 1% =-3.75, 5%= -3, 10%=-2.64

78
Table 2.2: TEST FOR STATIONARITY of Variables (Unit Root Test)
Test Statistic Before
Variable Differencing Test Statistic After Differencing

Large Industrial Sales 2.939 -3.879

Commercial Sales -0.101 -3.606

Medium Industry Sales 0.033 -4.571
Tariff Commercial -2.098 -3.948
Tariff Medium Industry -2.455 -5.583

Tariff large industry -2.531 -3.528

GDP Industrial 2.792 -4.144

GDP commercial 1.577 -2.699

** Critical Values: 1% =-3.75, 5%= -3, 10%=-2.64

79
 Unit Roots Tests after First Difference
Table 2.3:
Dickey-Fuller test for unit root Number of obs = 21
Test 1% Critical 5% Critical 10% Critical
Statistic Value Value Value
Energy Z(t) -4.555 -3.750 -3.000 -2.630
GDP Z(t) -4.166 -3.750 -3.000 -2.630
Tariff Z(t) -2.891 -3.750 -3.000 -2.630

Table 2.3: Stationarity Test of Residual with Regression of Energy Sales, Tariff and GDP only
Dickey-Fuller test for unit root Number of obs = 22
Test 1% Critical 5% Critical 10% Critical
Statistic Value Value Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z(t) 2.318 -3.750 -3.000 -2.630
Source: ERA

80
Table 2.4: Stationarity Test of residual with Regression of Energy Sales and GDP only, lags (0)
Dickey-Fuller test for unit root Number of obs = 22
---------- Interpolated Dickey-Fuller ---------
Test 1% Critical 5% Critical 10% Critical
Statistic Value Value Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z(t) 5.286 -3.750 -3.000 -2.630
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annex 3: REGRESSION RESULTS

Const Tariff GDP N F Adj.R2

Large -5.887 -0.235 1.370 24 335.58 0.967

Industry
(0.000) (0.007) (0.000)

Commercial -4.768 -0.285 1.211 24 103.84 0.899

(0.000) (0.078) (0.000)

Medium -3.229 -0.135 0.894 24 97.12 0.893

Industry
(0.000) (0.375) (0.000)

81
Annex 4: DETAILS OF COMMITTED AND CANDIDATE GENERATION PROJECTS
No. Project Name Technology Installed Estimated Comment Estimated
Option Capacity Plant Commission
(MW) Factor Date

1. Access Solar Solar 10 19% Under construction and 2017

qualified for GETFiT
premium

2. Isimba HPP Hydro 183 67% Under construction as a 2018

public project. Oversight
activities undertaken by
MEMD.

3. Rwimi HPP Hydro 5.54 50% Under construction and 2017

qualified for a premium
under the GETFiT.

4. Lubilia HPP hydro 5.4 50% Under construction and 2018

qualified for GETFiT
Premium.

5. Muvumbe HPP hydro 6.5 50% Under construction and 2017

qualified for GETFiT
Premium.

82
No. Project Name Technology Installed Estimated Comment Estimated
Option Capacity Plant Commission
(MW) Factor Date

6. Waki Hydro HPP hydro 4.8 50% Under construction and 2018
qualified for GETFiT
Premium.

7. Siti 1 HPP Hydro 5 50% Under construction and 2017

qualified for GETFiT
Premium.

8. Mahoma HPP hydro 3 50% Licensed. Expected 2018

construction start 2017

9. Nkusi HPP hydro 9 50% Licensed. Started 2017

construction in 2016

10. Emerging power Solar 10 20% Licensed 2017

11. Albatros Thermal crude oil 50 90% Licensed to use local 2021
Power crude oil from Albertine
region.

12. Sindila HPP hydro 5.25 50% Licensed and under 2018
construction.

83
No. Project Name Technology Installed Estimated Comment Estimated
Option Capacity Plant Commission
(MW) Factor Date

13. Nengo Bridge hydro 6.7 50% Under construction and 2019
HPP qualified for GETFiT
Premium

14. Nyamwamba hydro 9.2 50% Licensed and Under 2017

HPP construction.

15. Kakaka HPP Hydro 5 50% Licensed 2018

16. Agago-Achwa hydro 83 50% Licensed. Expected 2018

HPP (ARPE) construction start, Q1 2016

17. Nyagak III HPP hydro 4.36 50% Licensed. Expected 2018
construction start, 2017

18. Kyambura HPP hydro 8.3 50% Licensed and qualified for 2018
GETFiT premium. Expected
construction start, 2017

19. Sironko HPP hydro 7 50% Feasibility studies ongoing 2019

20. Nyamagasani 2 hydro 8 50% Feasibility studies ongoing 2018

HPP

84
No. Project Name Technology Installed Estimated Comment Estimated
Option Capacity Plant Commission
(MW) Factor Date

21. Nyamagasani hydro 15 57% Feasibility studies ongoing. 2021

HPP 1

22. Lake Albert Natural 50 50% Feasibility studies ongoing. 2019

Natural Gas Gas
Project

23. Bukinda HPP hydro 6.5 44% Licensed Expected 2018

construction start, 2017

24. Kabeywa HPP hydro 12 50% Feasibility Study ongoing. 2019

25. Ndugutu HPP hydro 5.1 50% Licensed, Expected 2018

construction start, 2017

26. Tororo PV Solar Solar 10 23% Licensed, Expected 2017

construction start, 2017

27. Kabale Peat peat 30 70% Feasibility Study ongoing 2021

28. Karuma HPP Hydro 600 65% Under construction as a 2019

public project.

29. Muzizi HPP hydro 44.7 70% Feasibility study complete 2020

85
No. Project Name Technology Installed Estimated Comment Estimated
Option Capacity Plant Commission
(MW) Factor Date

30. Siti 2 HPP Hydro 16.5 50% Licensed. Expected 2018

construction start, 2016

31. Muyembe- hydro 6.9 50% Feasibility studies on-going 2019

Sirimityo HPP

32. Nyabuhuka- hydro 3.2 50% Feasibility studies on-going 2019

Mujunju HPP

33. Bukwa HPP hydro 9 50% Feasibility studies ongoing. 2019

34. Keere Small HPP hydro 6.3 50% Feasibility studies on-going 2020

35. Ngoromwo HPP hydro 8 50% Feasibility studies on-going 2020

36. Senok Wind wind 20 30% Feasibility studies on-going 2020

Project

37. Oriang HPP Hydro 392 65% Feasibility studies on-going 2024

38. Kikagati HPP hydro 16 55% Licensed. Expected 2018

Project construction start, 2017

86
ANNEX 5: ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEMAND
Customer Additional Location Time lines
load (MW)
1. Roofings (Namanve) – 28 Mukono 2017
43MW
2. Tian Tang Steel Works 26 Mukono 2017
(Mbalala) – 10MW (up to
30MW)
3. Tembo Steels at Lugazi 14 Lugazi 2017

4. Tembo Steels at Iganga 12 Iganga 2017

5. Kampala Cement Industries 10 Lugazi 2017

6. Abisha Steel 10.5 Lugazi 2017

7. Steel Corporation of East 16 Jinja 2017
Africa
8. Nile Breweries Jinja 4 Jinja 2017

9. MMI Steel 2 Jinja 2017

10. Bidco 5 Jinja 2017

11. Other factories around Jinja 20 Jinja 2017

Industrial (Bidco area)
12. Pramukh 7 Kayunga 2017

87
 Customer Additional Location Time lines
load (MW)
13. Yogi 2 Kayunga 2016

14. DAO Cement 25 Mbale 2017

15. Bavima 2 Jinja 2017
16. China Golden Rooster 7 Bombo 2017
17. National Water - Katosi 30 Mukono 2017

18. Mbale Cement - phased 5 Mbale 2017

19. 5 Mbale 2016

20. 5 Mbale 2019
21. 5 Mbale 2021
22. 9.7 Entebbe 2016
23. 27 Entebbe 2020
24. NSSF Lubowa Housing 27 Najjanankumbi 2020
Estate
25. Mukwano 14 Banda 2017
26. Steel and Tube Industries 25 Banda 2017
27. Three Way Shipping 10 Banda 2017
378.7
Source: Umeme

88