Energy and Buildings, 15 - 16 (1990/91) 537 - 551

537

A Linear Goal P r o g r a m m i n g Model for Urban

E n e r g y - E c o n o m y - E n v i r o n m e n t Interaction
N. S. KAMBO and B. R. HANDA

Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016(India)
R. K. BOSE

Tata Energy Research Institute, 7, Jot Bagh, New Delhi 110003(India)

ABSTRACT

The last decade has witnessed a growing

concern with the adequacy of energy resources
and with the quality of the physical environment. This concern stems from such factors as
the unrelenting growth of energy use, the end of
an era of abundant and cheap energy, adverse
environmental effects of economic growth, and
the increasing participation of governments in
decisions pertaining to energy supply and environmental protection. Owing to the fact that a
significant part of the shortfalls in environmental quality in contemporary societies derives
from energy use, issues of "trade-off" between
additional energy supplies and environmental
quality frequently arise. In the context of this
intimate association between the economy, environment and energy, there has been a growing
awareness that policy decisions on economic,
environmental and energy-related issues need
to be placed in the broader framework of conflicting political priorities. These include: meeting energy demands for sectoral end-uses;
maximizing energy conservation; checking air
pollution; reducing the annualized economic
cost of utilization of energy systems; reducing
import of energy from neighbouring regions;
and increasing the capacity for utilization of
domestic appliances and different modes of
transport.
Multi-objective decision models arise from
the need to take into account the presence of a
wide variety of conflicting objectives in ordinal
ranking or priorities depending on the degree
of importance one wants to assign to each objective. The basic problem related to the existence
of multiple objectives is the fact that decisions
are normally interdependent, so that any decision to increase production has a corresponding
0378-7788/91/$3.50

impact on energy consumption, pollution emission and vice versa. Pollutants considered for
this study are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (S02) and suspended particulate matter (SPM) which are the
emissions caused by combustion or automation.
This paper provides a comprehensive and
systematic analysis of energy and pollution
problems interconnected with the economic
structure, by using a multi-objective sectoral
end-use model for addressing regional energy
policy issues. The multi-objective model proposed for the study is a "linear goal programming (LG P)" technique of analysing a
"reference energy system (RES)" in a framework within which alternative policies and
technical strategies may be evaluated. The
model so developed has further been tested for
the city of Delhi (India) for the period 1985- 86,
and a scenario analysis has been carried out by
assuming different policy options.
Keywords: energy, e c o n o m y , environm e n t , goal p r o g r a m m i n g , reference energy s y s t e m , Delhi.

BACKGROUND
U r b a n i z a t i o n is a r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t b u t by
far the m o s t d o m i n a n t social t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
of o u r times. T h e w o r l d h a s fast t r a n s f o r m e d
itself into a n u r b a n society, a n d by 1985
n e a r l y 2 billion p e o p l e (41% of the t o t a l population) w e r e living in u r b a n s e t t l e m e n t s [1].
T h i s r a p i d p a c e of t h e u r b a n i z a t i o n p r o c e s s
a n d t h e different forms of u r b a n g r o w t h p r e s e n t
s e r i o u s c h a l l e n g e s to the e n e r g y s e c t o r in financial, e c o n o m i c , t e c h n o l o g i c a l a n d environm e n t a l terms. T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of u r b a n i z a t i o n
~ Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands

538
on the energy sector is therefore concerned
with two major current debates in public policy in affluent societies. One is the widespread
concern with the quality of the natural environment, which is degrading. A second debate
concerns the adequacy of energy resources to
meet the requirements of the growing service
needs in an urban economy. Increased energy
consumption entails increased outputs of potentially polluting "residuals" (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, carbon
monoxide, etc.). Thus the production, distribution, conversion and use of all forms of energy
are inherently and heavily associated with
environmental impacts. Since a significant
part of the shortfalls in environmental quality
in contemporary societies derive from energy
use, issues of "trade-off" between additional
energy supplies and environmental quality
frequently arise. In the context of this intimate association between the economy, environment and energy, recent developments in
energy and natural resources have raised a
number of analytical issues that may be
grouped into three classes [2]:
(1) the effects on the economy (and the
policies) to facilitate the transition from
cheap or abundant energy and a reliance on
oil and gas to more expensive sources of energy;
(2) the trade-off between additional or
lower-cost energy for environmental quality;
(3) the incidence of the costs incurred in
the trade-off decisions in different socioeconomic groups in society.

SUSTAINABLE URBAN ENERGY SYSTEMS

THROUGH MULTI-OBJECTIVEPROGRAMMING
APPROACH
The basic question that now arises is how
to plan an overall energy system in a city in
terms of "optimum mix of energy sources to
meet the growing service needs in different
sectors" by which the following objectives (a
part of which are conflicting in nature) can be
addressed together:
-maximize efficiency of energy use;
- - m i n i m i z e
the overall energy system
cost, i.e., both the capital cost of the energyusing devices and their operating cost should
be minimized;

meet the service needs of the poor in an

equitable manner;
- - minimize emission of air pollutants due
to burning or automative processes of different fuels;
minimize import of energy supply from
the neighbouring region.
It is very apparent that these objectives,
which are conflicting in nature, cannot be met
simultaneously. Therefore, a single objective
like minimizing the energy system cost or rainimizing emission of pollutants is less relevant
in the actual decision environment.
In recent years the insight has grown that
energy-economic and environmental decisionmaking has to be placed in a broader framework of multiple objectives. Multi-objective
programming and planning is concerned with
decision-making problems in which there are
several conflicting objectives. Multi-objective
analysis allows several noncommensurable
effects to be treated without artificially
combining them. According to Cohon [3], the
analysis of energy problems, which is inextricably bound up with the environment, is a
new area to which multi-objective analysis is
applicable. This new view has induced the
development of multi-objective decisionmaking tools. This multi-objective analysis
technique has so far been used by Lesuis,
Muller and Nijkamp [4] for studying the interrelationships between economic structure, energy consumption and pollution with an
application to the Dutch economy. According to Lesuis et al. [4], the other persons
who have also done work in this field are
Blair [5] and van Delft and Nijkamp [6]. The
study by Samouilidis and Pappas [7] has implemented a similar technique for energyforecasting of the Greek economy where the
problem of pollution is not taken into account. Another recent study by Hsu et al. [8]
used a multi-objective programming approach
to an i n p u t - o u t p u t model for energy planning in Taiwan.
One of the most promising techniques for
multiple objective decision analysis is goal
programming (GP), developed by Ijiri [9], Lee
[10- 12] and Ignizio [13]. Goal programming is
a powerful tool and provides a simultaneous
solution to a complex system of competing
objectives. It can handle decision problems
having single or multiple goals with multiple
subgoals [10]. In GP, instead of attempting to

539

maximize or minimize the objective criterion

directly, the deviations between goals and
what can be achieved within the given set of
constraints are minimized, based on the relative importance or priority assigned to each
goal. Prioritizing the deviational variables in
the objective function allows for the satisfying of conflicting goals corresponding to
their order of importance with the decisionmaker. If overachievement of a certain goal
is acceptable, deviational variable d from
the goal can be eliminated from the objective
function. On the other hand, if underachievement of a certain goal is acceptable, deviational variable d - should not be included in
the objective function. If the exact achievement of the goal is desired, both d and d must be represented in the objective function.
For the application of this model, it is essential to understand the overall energy system framework in the reference region. This
is possible by using the process flow technique known as the "reference energy system" (RES) network developed by Hoffman
[14]. The RES presents a network description
of the energy system in which the flow of
energy sources from supply ends to each of
the sectoral service demands is depicted.
Each link in the network corresponds to a
physical process and is characterized by conversion efficiency, capital and operating cost,
and emission of air pollutants due to burning
or automative processes of these fuels per
unit of energy input.

OBJECTIVES

The broad objective of the study is to develop a linear goal programming (LGP) model
by analysing the reference energy system
(RES) for satisfying the "best" mix of fuels
required to meet at least the basic demand of
different economic sectors in an urban area of
India. While doing so, three major goals are
addressed in some ordinal preference by prioritizing them under different scenarios. The
three goals are to minimize:
(1) emission of pollutants in the atmosphere with respect to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards;
(2) energy system cost with respect to the
budgetary limit of the total energy expenditure;

(3) level of import of different energy

sources from the neighbouring region.
In the present paper an attempt has been
made to develop this integrated optimization
model for the city of Delhi. Delhi has been
chosen due to its phenomenal growth of population at the rate of 4.69% annually during
the last decade. The total population of Delhi
city had swelled to 62.21akhs (92.7% of the
total population of the Union Territory of
Delhi) during 1981 [15]. Presently, Delhi accommodates 99% of the urban population and
it is expected that by the year 2001, Delhi will
overtake any other city in India if this rapid
rate of growth continues.
The model so developed for the city of
Delhi has been further tested by carrying out
a scenario analysis using 1985-86 data as the
reference year for the study.

THE MATHEMATICAL MODEL

The mathematical structure of the LGP

model is formulated by analysing the RES for
the city of Delhi during 1985-86 (Fig. 1), by
considering the following indices, decision
variables and parameters.
Indices
The following indices take different values
and are defined in Table 1: i = energy source;
j =end-use; S =sector; s =subsector; p =
pollutants. From Fig. 1 and Table 1 we also
define:
K

set of feasible combinations of i and

j,
where
i = 1 , 2 . . . . 11 and j =
1,2 . . . . 16
K(~)
set of feasible combinations (i,j) for
fixed
energy
source
i,
where
j = l , 2 . . . . 16
K*(J) set of feasible combinations (i,j) for
fixed end-use j, where i = 1, 2 , . . . 11
K,(p) set of feasible combinations (i,j),
i = 1, 2 . . . . 11 and j = 1, 2. . . . 16, emitting p t h pollutant
Decision variables
For each feasible combination (i,j),
i = 1 , 2 . . . . 11 and j = l , 2 . . . . 16, let us
define

540

ove~lah
t plate
~oking range
yser
tmeraion rod
r cooler
r conditioner
loom heater

FIrewood

Charcoal

Coke

Sub-sectors

End-uses

End-use devices

Energy sources

:~:~,
jj

Cooking

~ .

Water heating

.J

Sectors

, Domestic

j , Space heating
LI family

--

1~Space

cooling

.'an

can.bulb
uor.bulb
~
I/ashlng m a c h i n e . ~
ron
"-'~-.~
ad Io.TV,VCR
~efrlgerator
~

Coal

LPG
Kerosene

Dieeel
Petrol

two wheeler
hree wheeler
:vate oar
ubllo oar

~
" ~
~/~
~
\

i3uS

~ _

Furnaoe

oiler
Iotor
kenerstor

Furnace oll

Others

Electricity

vthers

,//i~
, , ' COttOn,textiles
~\:

-,
~

Food p r o d u c t s , \

rooo. heat

~_
.

Transport
//

~
~j_

~ooster pump
IlscellaneoUShops

HI family

Passenger
movement

~\,"

Fuel oll

MI family

Lighting

,\
?

Motive power
~
Chemicals ./,iI
Other, with I l g h t ~ ~
//
Captive power ~
Metal & alloy

Industry

,:/

Public lighting \,..~___~___Others

J
Miscellaneous 0
~~"--'--~Servlces
&
Commercial
Water works & sewage ~ /
Commercial
Others

Fig. 1. Reference energy system network for Delhi.

TABLE ]
Definition of various indices considered in the model
Energy sources i

Pollutants p

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
]l.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Firewood
Charcoal
Coke
Coal
LPG
Kerosene
Diesel
Petrol
Furnace oil
Fuel oil
Electricity

SO2
CO
NOx
SPM

End-uses j
1.
2.
3.
4.
5,
6.

Cooking
Water heating
Space heating
Space cooling
Lighting
Other electric
appliances

Subsectors s

Sectors S

1. Low-income family
2. Middle-income family
3. High-income family

1. Domestic

4. Low-income family
5, Middle-income family
6. High-income family

2. Passenger
transport

7. Passenger movement
8. Process heating
9. Motive power
10. Others including
lighting
11. Captive power
12. Public lighting
13. Public water works
and sewage pumping
14. Miscellaneous
15. Commercial
16. All other end-uses
together in urban
establishments

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Food products
Cotton textiles
Chemicals
Metal and alloy
Others

12. Services and

commercial

3. Manufacturing
industry

4. Services and
commercial

541

x!;) =

- a n n u a l per-capita r e q u i r e m e n t of the
ith e n e r g y s o u r c e for the jth end-use
d e m a n d expressed in 103 k c a l / p e r s o n
in the s th subsector; s = 1, 2 , . . . 6, 12
a n n u a l r e q u i r e m e n t of the /th e n e r g y
s o u r c e per u n i t of v a l u e added (va) for
the j t h end-use d e m a n d expressed in
103kcal/Re va in the s th subsector;
s = 7 , 8 . . . . 11

F o r e a c h feasible c o m b i n a t i o n (i, j), let us

d e n o t e by bi. j the a n n u a l c a p a c i t y of utilization of the ith e n e r g y s o u r c e to meet the jth
end-use demand. In the definition of bi~ the
suffix i for 8 and 11 will be f u r t h e r split at the
second level*. T h e definition of bii is given
below:
-

Parameters
For e a c h feasible c o m b i n a t i o n (i, j), i =
1, 2 . . . . 11 and j = 1, 2 . . . . 16, let us d e n o t e by
a!~) the e n e r g y d e m a n d coefficient corresponding to the decision v a r i a b l e xl~). D e p e n d i n g
u p o n a p a r t i c u l a r subsector, these coefficients
are defined differently as given below:

a(8)
ij

~-

u(8)
j

---

device or a p p l i a n c e efficiency expressed as a fraction, used to meet the

j t h end-use d e m a n d by utilizing the ith
e n e r g y source; s = 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 . . . . 12
inverse o f the " o p e r a t i n g e n e r g y int e n s i t y " * expressed in p a s s e n g e r km/
kcal of different modes of t r a n s p o r t
w h e n used to meet the p a s s e n g e r
t r a v e l d e m a n d ( j = 7) by utilizing the
ith e n e r g y source; s = 4, 5, 6
" a n n u a l per c a p i t a useful e n e r g y demand** of the j t h end-use expressed in
1 0 a k c a l / p e r s o n in the s th subsector;
s = 1, 2 . . . . 6, 12
useful e n e r g y d e m a n d per u n i t
of v a l u e added of the j t h end-use expressed in 10 3 k c a l / R e va in the s th
subsector; s -- 7, 8 . . . . 11

bij --

a n n u a l u t i l i z a t i o n of five different vehicles, namely, bus, two wheeler, t h r e e

wheeler, car and taxi, expressed in
109 pkm;
{(i,j) = (7, 7), (8.1, 7), (8.2, 7),
(8.3, 7), (8.4, 7)}
ri = a n n u a l a v a i l a b i l i t y of the ith fuel e x pressed in 109 kcal; i = 1, 2 . . . . 11
Let {:_(8)
d e n o t e the cost coefficient correij
sponding to the decision v a r i a b l e X..(8)
i j Depending
on
a
particular
subsector,
these
coefficients are defined differently, as given
below:
a n n u a l cost of domestic appliances per u n i t of gross h e a t input,
expressed in Rs/10 a kcal, r e q u i r e d to
meet the j t h end-use by the ith e n e r g y
s o u r c e in the s th subsector; s = 1, 2, 3

-levelized

annual

t(s) =

a n n u a l u t i l i z a t i o n of six domestic electrical appliances, namely, i m m e r s i o n

rod, geyser, w a t e r cooler, air-conditioner, i n c a n d e s c e n t bulb and fluorescent t u b e expressed in 109 kcal;
{(i,j) = (11.1, 2), (11.2, 2), (11.4, 4),
(11.5, 4), (11.6, 5), (11.7, 5)}

(8)

c ij =

-total p e r s o n p o p u l a t i o n expressed in
10 6 persons in the s th subsector;
s = 1 , 2 . . . . 6,12

levelized a n n u a l cost of different

modes of vehicles to meet the passenger t r a v e l d e m a n d ( j = 7) expressed
in Rs/pkm by the ith e n e r g y s o u r c e in
t h e s th subsector; s = 4, 5, 6

a n n u a l v a l u e added expressed in 10 6
R u p e e s v a l u e added in the s ts subsector; s = 7 , 8 , . . . 1 1

m a r k e t price of the i th e n e r g y s o u r c e
expressed in Rs/103kcal in the s th
subsector; s = 7, 8 . . . . 11

N o t e t h a t t (1) = t (4), t (2) = t (5) and t (3) = t (s).

*Operating energy intensity [16] in a way represents

the efficiency of different modes of vehicles. It measures
the amount of energy needed to move one person over
1 km by a given vehicle. It is an average concept, which
conceals wide variations in energy intake in operating
conditions and will be expressed in kcal/passenger km
(pkm) units.
**"Useful" energy refers to the amount consumed net of
conversion losses.

D e n o t e by e (8), the a n n u a l e n e r g y expend i t u r e in the s th subsector. D e p e n d i n g on a

*i

Vehicles

Appliances

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4

2-wheeler
3-wheeler
Car
Taxi

11.1
11.2
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7

Immersion rod
Geyser
Water cooler
Air-conditioner
Incan. bulb
Fluor. bulb

542

particular subsector, these coefficients are

defined differently, as shown below:
F annual per-capita energy expenditure
| e x p r e s s e d in Rs/person in the s th subsector; s = 1, 2, 4, 5
e('~)= | a n n u a l energy expenditure per unit of
| v a l u e added expressed in Rs/Re va in
Lthe s th subsector; s = 7, 8 . . . . 11
The parameters giving emission factors of
pollutants are defined next:
q(P'~)
ij = emission factor of the pth p o l l u t a n t expressed in g/103 kcal due to the burning or a u t o m a t i v e process of the i TM
energy source for the jth end-use in the
s TM subsector.

Services and commercial sector

(j, s) E4 = {(j, s): (12, 12), (13, 12), (14, 12),
(15, 12), (16, 12) I
(5)
We thus have 45 constrained inequalities in
eqn. (1) of which 17 correspond to the domestic sector in eqn. (2), 3 for t r a n s p o r t in eqn.
(3), 20 for industries in eqn. (4) and the last
five inequalities in eqn. (5) are for the services
and commercial sector.
In the L G P setup the constraint eqn. (1) is
to be written as
u-(~)u~-(~)i:+ d~ - dfs = _ju(~)

(6)

i E K*(J)

where dj~ (or dj+) denotes the under- (or over-)

achievement of the jth end-use energy demand
in the s TM subsector.

Finally,

v(P)= annual permissible or allowable loading

level of the pth p o l l u t a n t expressed in
tonnes.

CONSTRAINTS

1. Useful energy demand by sectoral end-use

The useful energy demand for each end-use
in different sectors which is exogenously estimated will be met.
~]

_(8) _(~)

tt ij " ij

2. Capacity utilization of selected appliances

and vehicles
The annual use pattern of some selected
domestic electrical appliances, namely, immersion rod, geyser, water cooler, air-conditioner,
incandescent bulb, fluorescent tube and different modes of passenger vehicles, namely, bus,
two wheeler, three wheeler, car, taxi, are fully
utilized. In other words, the capacity utilization factor of these specified devices/modes
should be 100% utilized.
a i j(~) t(~)xl~~ <~bit

" (~)
Uj

(1)

i e K*(J)

where (j, s) takes values according to the following:

Domestic sector

where for given feasible combinations (i,j),

the summation index s belongs to set E 6 or E s
when (i, j) belongs to E5 or E 7 respectively.
The sets Es, E6, E7 and E s are defined below.

Domestic electrical appliances

(j, s) E~ = {(j, s): (1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 1),

(2,
(4,
(5,
(6,

(7)

2), (2, 3), (3, 2), (3, 3),

1), (4, 2), (4, 3), (5, 1),
2), (5, 3), (6, 1), (6, 2),
3)}
(2)

For

(i,j) E~ = {(i,j): (11.1, 2), (11.2, 2), (11.4, 4),

(11.5, 4), (11.6, 5), (11.7, 5)}

s E 6 = (1, 2, 3)

Transport sector

(8)

Modes of passenger vehicles

(j, s) E2 = {(j, s): (7, 4), (7, 5), (7, 6)}

(3)

Industrial sector
(j, s) E3 = {(j, s): (8, 7), (8, 8), (8, 9), (8, 10),
(8, 11), (9, 7), (9, 8), (9, 9),
(9, 10), (9, 11), (10, 7),
(10, 8), (10, 9), (10, 10),
(10, 11), (11, 7), (11, 8),
(11, 9), (11, 10), (11, 11)} (4)

For

(i,j) E7 = {(i,j): (7, 7), (8.1, 7), (8.2, 7),

(8.3, 7), (8.4, 7)}
s e Es = (4, 5, 6)

(9)

There are 11 constrained inequalities in

eqn. (7). Of these, 6 correspond to the electrical appliances in eqn. (8) and the last 5 in eqn.

543
(9) are for different types of passenger vehicles. In the LGP setup the constraint eqn. (7)
is to be written as
aij(s) t(s)~c(s)
- --ij + d * -

(10)

= bij

where d*- denotes the under-utilization of the

appliance/mode of transport using the ith
energy source for the jth end-use.
Here it may be mentioned that in the inequality, eqn. (7), only a negative deviational
variable is added to transform it into a LGP
framework in eqn. (10). This is due to the fact
that the capacity utilization factor of any
device/mode of transport cannot exceed 100%
utilization factor.
3. E n e r g y resources available

Total annual demand of the i th energy

source for different sectoral end-uses is to be
met with respect to the total availability of
t h e i th energy source in the region.
12
~
s=l

-t(s)y(s)'-ij <

i = 1, 2, . . . 11

ri

(11)

jK(i)

There are 11 constrained inequalities in

eqn. (11), each of which corresponds to the
availability of the 11 different types of fuels
used in Delhi.
In the LGP setup the constraint eqn. (11) is
written as
12
~
s=l

~(s)~(s)
-

-ij

q- di

. . . . .
-

d,

= ri

(12)

j e I';[(i)

where dT- (or d7+) denotes the surplus (or

deficit) of the i th energy source in the region
of study.
4. E n e r g y e x p e n d i t u r e

The energy demand for domestic end-uses

and for transportation purposes is to be met
within the current level of energy expenditure
budget in only low- and middle-income households. Similarly, the industrial end-use demands are to be met within the current level
of energy expenditure. It may be noted here
t h a t an energy budget is not taken as a constraint in the high-income households, as the
percentage share of energy expenditure of the
total income in the high-income household is
very small as compared to the low- and middle-income households.
~,

i e K*(J)

_(s) X i (s)
j

Uij

e(S)

(13)

where, depending on the value of s ( = 1, 2, 4, 5,

7, 8, 9, 10, 11), the summation index j belongs
to either set E9 or El0 or Ell as defined below.
Energy budget: domestic

fors=l,

2; j ~ E g = ( 1 , 2 , 3 . . . . 6)

(14)

Energy budget: transport

for s = 4, 5; j e El0 -- (7)

(15)

Energy budget: industries

for s = 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 ;

jeEaa=(8,9,10,11)

(16)
There are nine constrained inequalities in
eqn. (13), of which two correspond to the domestic energy budget in eqn. (14), two to the
transport energy budget in eqn. (15) and the
last five to the industrial energy budget in
eqn. (16).
In the LGP setup, the constraint eqn. (13) is
written as

c,j(~) x (s)
ij + d*- - d *+ = e (s)

i K*(J)

(17)

where, d*- (or d *+) denotes the energy under(or over-) expenditure in the s th sector.
5. A i r p o l l u t i o n l o a d i n g

The total annual emission of the p t h pollutant due to the burning or automotive processes of different fuels is to be kept as low as
possible with respect to its permissible or safe
loading level in the atmosphere annually. In
other words, total emission of the pth-pollut a n t annually should be minimized with respect to the annual safe loading level.
12

qij

p = 1, 2, 3, 4

s = l (i,j) K'(P)

(18)
There are four constrained inequalities in eqn.
(18), each of which corresponds to the four
different pollutants SO2, CO, NO~ and SPM.
In the LGP setup, the constraint eqn. (18) is
to be written as
12

~,

.~a!e'~)t(~)~
~ _,j + d'p- - d'p = v (p)

(19)

s = 1 (i,j) K'(P)

where d~- (or d~+) denotes the under- (or

over-) loading of the p t h pollutant in the atmosphere.

544

6. Non-negativity constraint
We have here the natural constraints
x (s)

ij ~>0 for all i , j a n d s

(20)

Also, all the positive and negative deviational

variables are non-negative.

Now, the objective function of LGP can be

formulated only after the following are determined:
(i) prioritizing ordinal ranking of the six
goal classes G1 to G6, and
(ii) assigning weighting factors to the goal
deviation of each of the subgoals within a
goal class.

GOAL FORMULATIONS

Prioritization of goal classes

Let us consider the following six goal
classes:
G1 useful energy demand of sectoral end-uses
is to be met;
G2 minimize over-utilization of energy after
G1 is completely attained;
G3 annual capacity of utilization of some selected domestic electrical appliances, and
different types of passenger vehicles
should be fully utilized;
G 4 minimize energy import from neighbouring region;
G5 minimize over-expenditure on energy
while meeting the domestic end-uses as
well as travel demand in low- and middleincome households. Also, over-expenditure on energy in the five types of
industries considered are minimized while
meeting the industrial end-uses demand;
G6 minimize pollution loading of four pollutants SO2, CO, NOx and SPM due to the
burning or automotive processes of different fuels with respect to their safe or
permissible loading level.
For notational convenience, let us replace
all the goal deviations in eqns. (6), (10), (12),
(17) and (19) by d~-(~>0) for negative deviations and d[ (~>0) for positive deviations.
Thus, goal deviations corresponding to goal
classes:
G1 is d i ;

= 1,2 . . . . 45

G2 is d[;

G~ is dT;

= 46,47 . . . . 56

G4 is d [ ;

= 57,58 . . . . 67

G~ is d/~;

= 68,69 . . . . 76

d[;

= 77,78,79,80.

G 6 is

1,2 . . . . 45

With this, G1 and G2 have 45 subgoals each; Ga

and G4 have 11 subgoals each; G5 has 9 subgoals and G 6 has 4 subgoals.

The primary objective of the model would

be to determine the optimum mix of fuels
required to meet G1 completely in the presence of Gz and to see its overall impact on G2,
G4, G~ and GG. It is important to mention here
that the goal G3 has a special significance in
the overall LGP framework. Without Ga it is
very likely that the model might represent a
very unrealistic situation. For instance, without G~ it is very likely that, to meet the
passenger travel demand, the model may suggest use only of Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) buses and not of personal vehicles,
mainly because buses are more economically
efficient as compared to personal vehicles.
But, under the existing situation this is not
possible as the fleet strength of DTC buses is
limited and also because personal vehicles are
actually being used. From the nature of the
goal classes it can be noted that, excepting G~
and Ga, all the other four goals are non-commensurable or incompatible. It therefore follows that G~ and G3 are to be assigned P1 and
the other goal classes are assigned low-order
priorities. Since the goal classes G 2, G4, G 5
and G6 cannot be met simultaneously, each of
them have been assigned different levels of
priorities P2, P~, P4 and/)5 depending on the
ordinal ranking of these goals.
In this paper, let us consider the three
scenarios given in Table 2 where each time
TABLE 2
Ordinal r a n k i n g of the goals
Priorities
Scenario

P1

P2

Pa

P4

P5

I
II
III

Ga > G1
G:3 > G~
G:, > G~

G~
G~
G4

G6
G~
Gs

G4
G4
G6

G,~
G2
G2

For G~ > Gj under P1 means both G i and Gj are assigned

first priority but between them G i is assigned more importance t h a n Gj.

545

the ordinal ranking of the goals is considered

differently.

Scenario H

Minimize Z = P I ( A - + B - ) + P 2 E +
+ P3D+ + P4C+ + P~A +

Objective w e i g h t i n g w i t h i n priority g r o u p i n g

After assigning priorities to all the six goal

classes (Table 2) the next step is to assign
differential values of weights to the goal deviations of subgoals within a goal class. Assigning weights to the goal deviations is purely on
the basis of our judgements and will vary from
person to person.
Let us denote the differential weights as
wE(>~0) or w~(>~0). These differential
weights are assigned to the negative or positive goal deviation dT(~>0) or d~(~>0) for
i = 1, 2. . . . 80, respectively.
Let us define
45

A - = ~ wTdF
i= I

= weighted deviation of the

45 subgoals in G~

45

= weighted deviation of the

A+= E w;d;
i=l

45 subgoals in G2

56

B-=

w[-di-

= weighted deviation of the

i = 46

11 subgoals in G3

67

C += ~

w?-dJ-

= weighted deviation of the

i =57

11 subgoals in G4

76

D+=

E w~-d?-= weighted deviation of the

i = 68
9 subgoals in G~

E+=

E w?-d~- = weighted deviation of the

i =77
4 subgoals in G6

8O

where
45

56

w/-+ ~
i = 1

w/-=1

i=46

45

67

76

80

E w ; = E w~+ = E w~-= E w~+ = 1

i=1

i=57

i=68

i=77

Objective function

The structures of the objective function under three different scenarios after assigning
weights to the goal deviations in Table 2 are:
Scenario I

Minimize Z = P I ( A - + B - ) + P2D +
+ P3E + + P4C + + PsA +

(21)

(22)

Scenario I I I

Minimize Z = P , ( A - + B - ) + P2C +
+ P3D + + P4 E + P~A +

(23)

Thus, under the three scenarios, the LGP

model consists of finding the values of decision variables and deviational variables
which minimize Z given by eqns. (21), (22) and
(23) subject to the constraints expressed in
eqns. (6), (10), (12), (17) and (19).
The mathematical structure of the LGP,
after analysing the RES for Delhi city during
1985-86, has a total of 80 linear equations in
136 decision variables. Also, the total number
of deviational variables is 149, of which 80 are
negative deviations corresponding to each of
the 80 equations and only 69 are positive deviations, as no positive deviational variable is
allowed in eqn. (10).
The solution set of LGP is determined by
using a FORTRAN program developed by Lee
[17]. Of the total 285 variables (136 decision
and 149 deviation), only a maximum of 80
non-zero variables are the basic variables
which will be determined in the optimum solution set; and the balance of 205 variables
being non-basic have zero values.

SCENARIO RESULTS
P1 = 0, in all the scenarios. This means G1
and G 3 are fully met. In other words, each of
the sectoral end-use energy demands have at
least been met, in the presence of full utilization of the selected domestic electrical appliances and different modes of vehicle available
in Delhi during 1985-86.
Ph ~ 0 for h = 2, 3, 4, 5 in all the scenarios.
This indicates none of the other four goals G2,
G4, G~ and GG are fully met.
Now to understand which subgoals in G2,
G4, G5 and G~ are responsible for under-attainment of these goals in all the three scenarios,
Table 3 presents a detailed analysis. From the
definition of goal types, any positive deviational variable, if it is non-zero for the goal
G2, is a gain in the overall system. Whereas,
any negative deviational variable, if it is a

W a t e r heat: MI: domestic

Water heat: HI: domestic

Space cool: LI: domestic
Space cool: HI: domestic

Lighting: MI: domestic

Lighting: HI: domestic
Passenger kin: LI: transport

Passenger km: HI: transport

Firewood
Charcoal
Soft coke
Coal
LPG

Kerosene
Diesel
Petrol
Furnace oil

Fuel oil
Electricity
Expenditure: LI: domestic

Expenditure: MI: domestic

Expenditure: Lh transport
Expenditure: MI: transport

Expenditure: food: industry

Expenditure: cotton: industry
Expen.: chemical: industry
Expenditure: metal: industry
Expenditure: other: industry
SO 2 pollutant loading
CO pollutant loading
NO~ pollutant loading
SPM pollutant loading

6
9
11

13
14
18

20
57
58
59
60
61

62
63
64
65

66
67
68

69
70
71

72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80

Rs/Re va
Rs/Re va
Rs/Re va
Rs/Re va
Ils]Re va
103 tonne
103 tonne
103 tonne
10a tonne

Rs/person
Rs/person
Rs/person

109 kcal
10a kcal
Rs[person

109 kcal
109 kcal
109 kcal
10s kcal

10a pkm/person
109 kcal
10s kcal
109 kcal
109 keal
109 kcal

103 kcal]person
103 kcal/person
10a pkm/person

10a kcal[person
103 kcal/person
10a kcal/person

10a keal/person

Unit

0.51
0.68
0.47
0.81
0.13
16
255
42
22

448
365
943

30
3353
242

1940
6253
2286
1514

4
1608
355
707
535
1340

14
26
4

90
27
380

42

Goal

0
0
0
0
0
0
91
0.04
0

0
0
0

30
0
0

0
5170
0
1514

0
1608
355
0
535
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0.20
0.42
0.10
0.31
0.21
11
0
0
13

285
0
0

0
5532
19

1601
0
976
0

2
0
0
2311
0
373

0
0.36
0

244
0
762

0
0
0
0
0
0
131
0
0.93

0
0
0

30
0
0

688
5170
0
1514

0
1608
355
707
535
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

d-

d+

Scenario II

Scenario I

All the figures have been rounded off to the nearest integer value except for figures less t h a n unity.

P a r a m e t e r description

Eqn.
No.

Under-attainment of goals under three different scenarios showing p e r c e n t a g e gain or loss in each goal

TABLE 3

92
0
0

0
0
0

0.63
0.29
4
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
477
0.29
0.72
0.15

798
4671
359

0
0
0
0

0
0
5057
7523

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
4816
0

0
0
853

2
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
6128

0
2193
0

237

d ~

0
2
41

0.68
0.25
11

0.41
0.62
0.13

479
8768
0

0
0
5523
7526

0
0
825

0.01
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0

164
2193
0

d*

Scenario III

36
0.10

100

100

83

100

38
100
100

201

62

36

32
78
223
24

21
38
168
69

190

28
84
192
71

80
91

165
3113

36

(%)

Loss

38
57
106

5]

77

127

0.07

182
8071

(%)

Gain

39
62

151
3112

37

457

(%)

Loss

Scenario IlI

107
2405

51

100
100

83

35

100

100
100
100

127

17

8071

569

(%)

Gain

Scenario I1

178
1218

64

165

43

28
83

327

(%)

270

Loss

(%)

Gain

Scenario I

Energy

rod

kWh/person
kWh/person

kWh/person

2.28

46.19
57.08

37.16

38.98

LI*

Scenario

44.12

9.74

77.16

43.29
68.65
160.21

113.33

MI

above.

appliances

as irons, TVs, radios, refrigerators,

f a m i l y i n c o m e o v e r Rs. 54 000.

mentioned

with annual

include the use of such electrical

**"Others"

HI = High-income household

*LI = L o w - i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d w i t h a n n u a l f a m i l y i n c o m e u p t o Rs. 18 000.

M I = M i d d l e - i n c o m e h o u s e h o l d w i t h a n n u a l f a m i l y i n c o m e b e t w e e n Rs. 18 0 0 0 a n d R s . 54 000.

Others**

fluorescent tube

Electricity:
Electricity

bulb

incandescent

Electricity:

air-conditioner

Electricity:
Kerosene

Lighting

kWh/person

w a t e r cooler

Electricity:
kWh/person
litres/person

kWh/person

fan

Electricity:

kWh/person
kWh/person

Space cooling

geyser

Space heating

instant

litres/person
kWh/person

Kerosene
Electricity:

kWh]person

Electricity
kg/person

kg/person
litres/person

LPG
Kerosene

LPG

kg]person
kg/person

Unit

Firewood

immersion

Appliance

Soft coke

source

399.36

372.15
128.97

145.29

65.18

washing

307.59

311.55

13.34

23.63

machines,

II

78.23

21.08

160.21

194.61

113.33

131.44
44.12

.
46.77

MI

65.18

141.43
307.59

331.29
53.09

188.22

123.59
128.97

HI

etc., that are not included

57.08

83.14

3036.87

LI

Scenario

13.34

under

57.08

83.14

3036.87

142.39

LI

Scenario

i n t h e domestic s e c t o r o f D e l h i d u r i n g 1 9 8 5 - 86

1162.43

HI

m i x o f e n e r g y s o u r c e s f o r d i f f e r e n t e n d - u s e s i n t h r e e income c a t e g o r i e s

Electricity:
Electricity

Water heating

Cooking

End-use

Scenario results on annual

TABLE

160.21

166.97

113.33

10.91
44.12

78.23

122.51

28.14

63.11

MI

9.78

141.43
307.59

52.77

331.29
-

188.22

348.19
128.97

2.13
101.33

HI

the specific end-uses

III

Bus
2 wheeler
3 wheeler
Car
Taxi

Diesel
Petrol
Petrol
Petrol
Petrol

litres/person
litres/person
litres/person
litres/person
litres/person

Unit

17.94
7.41

LI

Scenario

25.96

16.37

MI
10.99
41.42
34.88
22.42
14.30

HI

for passenger

160.30
123.54

LI

Scenario

II

34.66
7.68

14.62
--

MI

Energy

Diesel

Captive
power

litres/Re va

kWh/Re va

kg/Re va
kg/Re va
litres/Re va
litres/Re va
kWh/Re va

Coal
LPG
Furn. oil
Fuel oil
Electricity

Electricity

kg/Re va
kg/Re va

Unit

Charcoal
Coke

SOUrCe

O t h e r and
light

Motive
power

Process
heating

End-use

0.01

0.05

0.45

0.12

Food

neg.

0.05

0.44

0.43

Cotton

Scenario I

neg.

0.05

0.44

0.06

Chemical

0.003

0.05

0.41

0.46

Metal

0.002

0.02

0.15

0.11

Others

0.01

0.05

0.45

0.05

Food

neg.

0.05

0.44

0.17

Cotton

S c e n a r i o II

neg.

0.05

0.44

0.03

Chemical

0.003

0.05

0.41

0.18

Metal

0.002

0.02

0.15

0.05

Others

232.96
51.85

0.01

0.05

0.45

0.11

Food

neg.

0.05

0.44

0.62

Cotton

S c e n a r i o Ill

1.16

72.65

L!

Scenario

16.98
12.79

Mt

neg.

0.05

0.01
0.44

0.07

Chemical

II|

in three income categories

19.10

HI

km by different modes of transport

Scenario results on a n n u a l mix of energy sources for four m a j o r end-uses in five types of manufacturing industries in Delhi d u r i n g 1985- 86

TABLE 6

Vehicle mode

Energy
source

Scenario results on annual mix of energy sources for meeting travel demand
sector

TABLE

0.003

0.05

0.41

0.14

0.(17

0.15

Metal

0.002

0.02

0.15

0.05

Others

34.59

14.71

Ht

in t h e transport

549
TABLE 7
Scenario results on annual mix of energy sources for different end-uses in the services and commercial sector in Delhi
during 1985-86
End-use

Energy
source

Unit

Scenario
I

Street lighting
Water works and
sewage pumping
Miscellaneous
Commercial
Others*

II

III

Electricity
Electricity

kWh/person
kWh/person

8.00
39.81

8.00
39.81

8.00
39.81

Electricity
Electricity
Firewood
LPG
Kerosene

kWh]person
kWh/person
kg/person
kg/person
litres/person

8.90
120.11

8.90
120.11
2.86
-

8.90
120.11
0.03
5.90

2.86

*"Others" include (i) hotels and restaurants, (ii) hospitals, (iii) laundries, and (iv) any other establishment where all types
of fuels are consumed. Where in the case of all other end-uses only electricity is consumed.
non-zero for the goal G1, is a loss. Both the
goals G, and G2 are expressed in the same
equation numbers 1 to 45. The appearance of
a non-zero value for a positive deviational
variable is a gain for goals G4, G5 and G~.
These are expressed in equation numbers 46
to 80.
The optimum mix of different fuels required
to meet G1 in the presence of G3 in the four
major economic sectors of Delhi city, namely,
domestic, passenger transport, manufacturing
industry and services and commercial is estimated and presented separately in Tables 4- 7,
respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The optimum annual requirements of eleven

different fuels to meet the desirable sectoral
end-use energy needs under the three scenarios are estimated and are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 also gives the actual utilization of
these fuels annually in Delhi during 1985-86.
The following major conclusions can be
drawn from Tables 3 and 8:
-Actual utilization of diesel during 1985 - 86
in Delhi was 579 x 103kl which included
diesel consumption by both passenger and
freight vehicles, and also for captive generation. But as the freight t r a n s p o r t is not considered in the model owing to limited data, it
is estimated t h a t for meeting only the passenger travel demand and captive power generation, the diesel requirement across three
scenarios ranges between 17% and 23%.

- - E l e c t r i c i t y and petrol are required in

greater quantities with respect to their actual
utilization pat t ern in all the three scenarios.
Actual utilization of electricity in Delhi during 1985- 86 was nearly 3.9 TWh. According to
the model results, the annual requirement of
electricity across scenarios is nearly 2.5 to 2.7
times more t han the actual amount used. Similarly, annual utilization of petrol during
1985-86 was 205 x 103kl. But the scenario
results show an excess requirement of
petrol which is nearly 1.4 times more t han was
actually utilized.
- - According to scenario I, when energy
budget goal G5 is assigned greater importance
t han pollution loading goal G6 followed by the
other two goals, namely, energy import and
over-utilization (denoted by G4 and G2 respectively), only six out of eleven fuels (actually
used in Delhi during 1985- 86) are required for
achieving sectoral end-use energy demand
goal G1 completely in the presence of capacity
goal G~. Moreover, the energy budget available for t r a n s p o r t a t i o n in low- and middleincome households is used up for meeting
their travel demand. But an additional expenditure is required by low- and middle-income
households for fulfilling their domestic enduse energy demands. The same holds true in
all the five types of industries considered in
Delhi, where additional expenditure is required for meeting the industrial end-uses. As
far as the pollution loading is concerned, CO
and NOx are below the safe loading level, and,
in the case of SO2 and SPM, the safe loading
level is crossed.

550
TABLE 8
Actual availability vis-a-vis optimum annual requirements* of different fuels under three different scenarios
Energy
Source

Unit

Firewood

tonne

Charcoal

tonne

Soft coke

tonne

Coal

tonne

LPG

tonne

Kerosene

klitres

Diesel

klitres

Petrol

klitres

Furnace oil

klitres

Fuel oil

klitres

Electricity

MWh

Total

Gcal

Actual
consumption
in 1985-86

Scenario
I

340
(8.07)
51
(1.78)
109
(3.55)
121
(2.69)
114
(6.73)
177
(9.74)
579**
(31.39)
205
(11.47)
145
(7.60)
3
(0.15)
3986
(16.83)
19921
(100.00)

II

III

465
(14.04)
0

0
0

146
(7.97)
323
(16.47)
100
(5.03)
293
(15.17)
0

635
(34.98)
114
(5.86)
100
( 5.07)
281
(14.70)
0

10324
(41.32)

9772
(39.39)

21502
(100.00)

21352
(100.00)

340
(7.50)
51
(1.65)
109
(3.30)
121
(2.49)
114
(6.25)
177
(9.04)
133
(6.70)
279
(14.50)
145
(7.06)
3
(0.14)
10313
(41.37)
21453
(100.00)

*Figures outside parentheses are in thousands; figures within parentheses are expressed in percent.
**Including diesel consumed in freight transport.

- - According to scenario II, when pollution

loading goal G 6 is assigned greater importance
than energy budget goal G 0 followed by the
other two goals, namely, energy import and
over-utilization (denoted by G4 and G2 respectively), only five out of eleven fuels (actually
used in Delhi during 1985- 86) are required for
achieving sectoral end-use energy demand goal
G, completely in the presence of capacity goal
G~. Moreover, the pollutant CO is well below
the safe level and SPM is just below the safe
level. NOx loading has coincided with the safe
level, but SO2 has just exceeded the safe loading level. Since pollution loading is given
greater importance than energy budget, it can
be seen that energy budget is affected very
badly and more so in the low-income households for meeting domestic and travel needs.
- - A c c o r d i n g to scenario III, when energy
import goal G4 is given greater importance
than energy budget goal G0 followed by the
other two goals, namely, air pollution loading
and over-utilization of energy goal (denoted by

G~ and G2 respectively), all the eleven fuels

are required for achieving sectoral end-use
energy demand goal G1 completely in the presence of capacity goal G 3. Here, an excess of
electricity is spent for some of the domestic
end-uses than the desired level along with
excess utilization of petrol/diesel in the transport sector. This has a negative impact on
both G 0 and G~.
Annual loading of CO in Delhi during
1985-86 in all the three scenarios (representing a different type of decision environment)
has not crossed the safe annual loading level
of 255 x 103 tonnes.
The LGP model therefore determines the
best mix of fuels required for meeting sectoral end-use energy demands by minimizing
the goal deviations from a number of goals,
some of which are conflicting in nature. Furthermore, the model yields a different fuels
mix each time depending upon the order in
which these goals are assigned relative importance.
-

551
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their deep gratitude to

Dr. R. K. Pachauri, Director, Tata Energy
Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi, for his
encouragement and support during various
discussions and to Ms. Sharmila Sengupta for
editorial comments.

REFERENCES
1 Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi,

Urbanisation and Energy in the Third W o r l d - A

Study of India, Prepared for the Commission of the
European Communities, Brussels, 1989.
2 T. R. Lakshmanan and S. Ratick, Integrated models
for economic-energy-environmental impact analysis,
in T. R. Lakshmanan and P. Nijkamp (eds.), Eco-

nomic- Environmental- Energy Interactions, Modeling

and Policy Analysis, Studies in Applied Regional Science, Vol. 17, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 1980, pp. 7 - 39.
3 J. L. Cohon, Multi-objective Programming and Planning, Mathematics in Science and Engineering, Vol.
140, Academic Press, London, 1978.
4 P. J. J. Lesuis, F. Muller and P. Nijkamp, Operational
methods for strategic environmental and energy policies, in T. R. Lakshmanan and P. Nijkamp (eds.),

Economic-Environmental Energy Interactions, Modeling and Policy Analysis, Studies in Applied Regional
Science, Vol. 17, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 1980, pp.
40 - 73.

5 P. Blair, Multi-objective Regional Energy Planning,

Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 1978.
6 A. Van Delft and P. Nijkamp, Multi Criteria Analysis
and Regional Decision Making, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 1977.
7 J. E. Samouilidis and A. Papas, A goal programming
approach to energy forecasting, European J. Operational Res., 5 (1980) 321 - 331.
8 G. J. Y. Hsu, P. S. Leung and C. T. K. Ching, Energy
planning in Taiwan: an alternative approach using a
multiobjective programming and input-output model,
Energy J. 9(1) (1988) 53- 72.
9 Y. Ijiri, Econometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1965.
10 S. M. Lee, Goal Programming for Decision Analysis,
Auerbach, Philadelphia, 1972.
11 S. M. Lee, Goal programming for decision analysis in
multiple objectives, Sloan Management Rev. 4(2)
(1973) 11- 24.
12 S. M. Lee, Interactive and integer goal programming,
Paper presented at the Joint ORSA/TIMS Meeting,

Las Vegas, NV, 1975.

13 J. P. Ignizio, Goal Programming and Extensions,
Health Lexington, MA, 1976.
14 K. Hoffman and D. O. Wood, Energy systems modeling
and forecasting, Annual Review of Energy. Vol. 1, Palo
Alto, CA, U.S.A., 1976, pp. 423-453.
15 Government of India, Statistical Abstract, India 1985,
Central Statistical Organisation, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning, 1987.
16 Government of India, Report of the National Transport
Policy Committee, Planning Commission, New Delhi,
1980.
17 S. M. Lee, Linear Optimization for Management, Petrocelli/Charter, New York, 1976.