Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
123
Editor
Subhes Bhattacharyya
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy,
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development
De Montfort University
Leicester
UK
This edited book forms part of the dissemination activity of a Research Councils
UK funded project on off-grid electrification. The project, called OASYS South
Asia (through grant no EP/G063826/1), is led by me as the Principal Investigator
and includes four other partner organisations, namely School of Environment and
Development, Manchester University, School of Built Environment, Edinburgh
Napier University, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI, India) and TERI
University. The consortium has been working on developing suitable business
models for off-grid electrification in developing countries since 2009. As part of
the research activity, the consortium members have reviewed a huge volume of
literature covering various aspects of off-grid project activities. These were ini-
tially presented as Working Papers of the project. This edited volume brings
together a revised and updated collection of relevant working papers from this
activity for wider dissemination.
This volume contains 12 chapters divided into three parts: Part I provides the
background information on electricity access, discusses the developmental
implications of rural energy infrastructure (or lack of it) and provides a review of
alternative technologies used for off-grid electricity delivery. Part II provides
detailed review of rural electrification experiences from around the world, with a
special emphasis on off-grid electrification. Part III presents the business-related
elements—participatory arrangements, financing, regulation and governance.
Finally, a concluding chapter summarises the key findings and indicates further
research agenda.
The work reported here has been discussed internally and in various workshops
organised as part of the research activity. These were held in Edinburgh, Delhi and
Dundee between 2010 and 2012. The chapters have thus benefited from the inputs
and comments of a large number of participants from the academia as well as those
involved in practice with off-grid electrification.
I hope this volume will prove to be a valuable addition to the literature on rural
electrification and off-grid electrification and would benefit researchers and other
stakeholders involved in policy-making and enhancing electricity access in rural
areas of the developing world.
v
vi Preface
The work related to my contributions to the volume was carried out while I was
with the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP),
University of Dundee. I acknowledge the support I received there. The book
manuscript was prepared while I was relocating to the Institute of Energy and
Sustainable Development (IESD), De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.
As the editor of the Volume I would like to thank all contributors to this volume
for their continued support and hard work. I would like to thank the publisher—
Springer for agreeing to publish this volume despite the specialised nature of the
work that still faces limited academic attention. We would like to thank Elsevier
for allowing us to reuse materials for a few papers that appeared in some form in
their journals. We also thank the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI, New
Delhi, India) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Wash-
ington D.C. (USA) for allowing us to reuse some of diagrams from their works.
Last but not the least, I would like to thank my wife (Debjani) and daughter
(Saloni) for their support in completing this work over the summer of 2012 during
a very stressful relocation exercise, thereby enduring a double externality (i.e.
sacrificing the entire summer holidays for my academic pursuits and shouldering a
higher share of the relocating stress).
Subhes Bhattacharyya
IESD, De Montfort University
Leicester
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Subhes C. Bhattacharyya
vii
viii Contents
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Abbreviations
AC Alternating Current
ADB Asian Development Bank
AEPC Alternate Energy Promotion Centre
AfDB African Development Bank
AFPRO Action for Food Production
AGF Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing
AMC Annual Maintenance Contract
AMORE Alliance for Mindanao Off-grid Renewable Energy
ASER Senegalese Agency for Rural Electrification (French Acronym)
AWEA American Wind Energy Association
BANPRES The Presidential Assistance Project (Indonesia)
BPDB Bangladesh Power Development Board
BPL Below Poverty Line
BPPT Agency for Assessment and Application of Technology, Indonesia
CBO Community-Based Organisation
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CEMIG Decentralised Electrification Programme (Brazil)
CER Certified emissions reduction (in CDM)
CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp
CH4 Methane
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CIF Climate Investment Funds
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CREDA Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy, Development
Agency (India)
CREE Community Rural Electrification Entities
CTF Clean Technology Fund
DC Direct Current
DfID Department for International Development (UK)
DG Distributed Generation
ix
x Abbreviations
This part contains three chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the challenge of electricity
access and discusses the role that off-grid electrification can play. It also
introduces the content of the book. Chapter 2 establishes the link between rural
electrification and rural development, and puts the work in its wider context.
Chapter 3 provides a review of technology choices for off-grid electrification. The
themes of the introductory chapters will recurrently appear in the entire book and
hence are presented for setting the background of the book.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Subhes C. Bhattacharyya
Abstract This chapter introduces the research theme of the book and provides the
relevant background for the work. The issue of energy access in general and
electricity access in particular is presented and the developmental consequences of
lack of electricity access are discussed. The purpose of the book and a brief
introduction to subsequent chapters completes the chapter.
The critical role played by energy in achieving sustainable development has been
well recognized in the energy policy literature (see for example, WEC (2001);
DfID (2002); IEA (2002); UNDP (2005) Bhattacharyya (2006); and Ailawadi and
Bhattacharyya (2006)). Access to clean energies received significant attention in
the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 and in 2012—ten years after that event and
20 years after the Rio Summit—the issue once again is attracting global attention.
Although a consensus exists that sustainable development cannot be achieved
without affordable, reliable and clean energy services to the population, and
despite an increasing number of efforts over the past decade, the energy access
situation has not changed significantly in the past decade. According to IEA
(2011), more than 1.3 billion people (or 19 % of the global population) lacked
access to electricity and more than 2.7 billion people (or 40 % of the global
population) lacked clean cooking energy in 2009.
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
Development, De Montfort University,
Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com; subhesb@dmu.ac.uk
Fig. 1.1 Major concentration of population without access to electricity in 2009. Data source
IEA (2011)
Fig. 1.2 Least electrified countries in the world. Data source IEA (2011)
of rural population of LDC and Sub-Saharan Africa lack access to clean cooking
energies in 2008 (UNDP-WHO 2009).
Moreover, according to the United Nations World Population Prospects 2010,
most of the global population addition will take place in Asia and Africa in the
coming decades. Asia’s population will exceed 5 billion by 2050 (from 4.2 billion
in 2010) while Africa’s population will increase from just above 1 billion in 2010
to 2.2 billion by 2050. Forecasts by IEA (2011) suggest that almost one billion
people will still lack access to electricity in the 2030 horizon while 2.7 billion
people will not have access to clean cooking energies. Although the forecast
assumes a significant level of investment ($13 billion per year on average),
increases in the population in developing countries of South Asia and Sub-Saharan
Africa will mean that electricity access will remain a problem. According to IEA
6 S. C. Bhattacharyya
(2011) 356 million in South Asia and 645 million in Sub-Saharan Africa will still
live without electricity access by 2030 (see table 1.2).
1
This is based on Bhattacharyya (2012)
1 Introduction 7
Fig. 1.3 Electricity access—GDP link (The horizontal axis is presented in logarithmic scale to
capture the wide range of incomevariation across countries). Data source HDI data for 2011 and
UNDP-WHO (2009) for electricity and cooking energy access
Fig. 1.4 HDI and electricity access. Data source HDI data for 2011 and UNDP-WHO (2009)
for electricity and cooking energy access
Fig. 1.5 Electricity access and mean schooling years. Data source HDI data for 2011 and
UNDP-WHO (2009) for electricity and cooking energy access
respectively despite the fact that less than 1 % of their population has access to
clean cooking energies. Second, many countries with less than 20 % electricity
access have achieved 6 or more years of schooling that many countries with 100 %
electrification are also striving for. Third, countries with a given level of energy
access have also scored significantly differently on HDI scores or its component
scores. For example, in Fig. 1.4, large variations in HDI scores can be seen for
countries with 100 % electricity access.
Clearly, poor electricity access inhibits economic development by denying the
population the opportunity to develop their human capital and by restraining
economic activities. The quality of life is adversely affected and the economies get
locked-in to a perpetual low level development path.
Yes
No Yes
Yes
No
No
they impose high demand on renewable sources because of size of the plant. They
also use the grid similar to a storage facility. Off-grid systems are mostly used in
areas where grid extension is difficult. These systems are demand-driven,
small-scale operation for local needs; impose less pressure on resources due to
smaller size; are often seasonal in supply due to technological characteristics and
need storage systems that incur extra costs (Kaundinya et al. 2009).
Decentralised options can be grouped into two categories—individual solutions
and collective solutions. Individual solutions normally include small ready-to-use
kit-based systems, such as Solar Home Systems (SHS), solar lamps, battery-
operated systems, etc. Collective systems come in two modes of operation: stand-
alone systems and local-grid systems (ESMAP 2001). The local-grid systems often
rely on diesel generators or hydropower. According to World Bank (2008), por-
table 5–10 kW diesel generators are widely used as the conventional solutions.
However, heavy reliance on diesel for small-scale power generation imposes cost
burden on the utilities (more importantly on oil importing countries). The price
fluctuations in the international market affect the overall cost of production and the
viability of the business. This, in turn, imposes a heavy subsidy burden on the
government.
Local-grid system has also developed in hydro-dominated areas. For example,
many small hydropower plants in China were initially developed using a local grid
system and then connected to the main grid. In the stand-alone category, the solar
photovoltaic systems (in local grid or in battery charging systems) and the Solar
Home Systems (SHS) have emerged as the preferred off-grid technology for rural
areas (IFC 2007). IFC (2007) estimates that SHS has provided electricity access to
between 0.5 and 1 million households in developing countries.
However, the access issue goes beyond the technology dimension and technical
feasibility does not necessarily make an option socially acceptable, economically
viable and desirable from a business perspective. A multi-dimensional approach
covering regulation, finance, economic development and social dimensions is
required to analyse the business case of off-grid electrification. Moreover, elec-
trification just to meet the basic illumination needs of a household or a society may
not provide adequate catalytic support for the economic and social development of
a society. An essential requirement for resolving the electricity access problems is
to ensure electricity supply that spurs economic activities which in turn can pro-
vide income generation opportunities for the communities.
The purpose of this book is to review, analyse and share the experience of
providing rural electricity access in developing countries with a special focus on
decentralised off-grid electrification. The issue of electrification is viewed from a
multi-dimensional perspective. The basic questions that each contribution of the
book asks can be stated as follows:
(a) What is the state-of-the art knowledge in respect of the specific topic or
dimension being considered in the contribution?
(b) What lessons can be learnt from the past experience so that those who are
trying to improve energy access can take advantage?
1 Introduction 11
These questions are answered through a critical review and analysis of the
status of electrification around the world, technological options for off-grid elec-
trification, electrification—economic development linkage, financial issues, regu-
latory challenges and participatory models of delivery.
The book is organized in three parts. The first part sets the scene and consists of
three chapters. This introductory chapter provides the background of the work by
presenting an overview of electrification status across various parts of the devel-
oping world, and establishing the link between electrification and economic and
human development. In Chap. 2, Prof. Paul Cook delves further into the role and
relation of infrastructure, with an emphasis on rural infrastructure, on economic
growth and development. He critically reviews the social and economic issues
underlying rural electrification and explains why the progress has been so slow.
Chapter 3 by Kishore, Dattakiran and Nand Gopal provides a review of technology
options for off-grid electrification by considering the technical features, econom-
ics, potential and barriers.
The second part reviews the rural electrification experience from around the
world. This part is composed of four chapters. In Chap. 4, Palit and Chaurey present
the South Asian experience of rural electrification highlighting the off-grid elec-
trification efforts. They contrast the approaches taken by different countries and
identify cross-learning opportunities. Chapter 5 presents the Chinese success in
achieving almost 100 % electrification despite its billion-plus population and vast
geographic coverage. It highlights the key success factors and lessons for other
developing countries. Chapter 6 captures the African experience while Chap. 7
provides a brief review of South East Asian and South American experiences.
The third part is devoted to business-related issues of off-grid electrification.
Krithika and Palit present the participatory approaches for providing the off-grid
electricity services in Chap. 8. Bhattacharyya considers the financing issues in
Chap. 9. Minogue provides the regulatory governance perspective in Chap. 10
while regulatory issues and options are briefly considered in Chap. 11. Concluding
remarks are then presented in the last chapter.
References
Ailawadi, V. S., & Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2006). Access to energy services by the poor in India:
Current situation and need for alternative strategies. Natural Resources Forum, 30(1), 2–14.
Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2006). Energy access problem of the poor in India: Is rural electrification a
remedy? Energy Policy, 34(18), 3387–3397.
Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2012). Energy access programmes and sustainable development: A critical
review and analysis. Energy for Sustainable Development,. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.05.002.
12 S. C. Bhattacharyya
DfID. (2002). Energy for the poor: underpinning the millennium development goals. U.K.:
Department for International Development.
ESMAP. (2001). Best practice manual: promoting decentralized electrification investment.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
IEA. (2002). World energy outlook. Paris: International Energy Agency. (see Chap. 13, Energy
and Poverty).
IEA. (2011). Energy for all: financing access for the poor, special early excerpt of the world
energy outlook 2011. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IFC. (2007). Selling solar: lessons from more than a decade of IFC’s experience. Washington,
D.C.: International Finance Corporation.
Kaundinya, D. P., Balachandra, P., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2009). Grid-connected versus stand
alone systems for decentralized power—a literature review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 13(8), 2041–2050.
UNDP. (2005). The energy challenge for achieving the millennium development goals. New
York: United Nations Development Programme.
UNDP-WHO. (2009). The energy access situation in developing countries: a review focusing on
the least-developed countries and sub-saharan Africa. New York: United Nations Develop-
ment Programme.
WEC. (2001). Living in one world. London: World Energy Council.
World Bank. (2008). ‘The welfare impact of rural electrification: a reassessment of the costs and
benefits’, An ieg impact evaluation. DC, World Bank: Washington.
Chapter 2
Rural Electrification and Rural
Development
Paul Cook
This chapter is a revised version of the paper Infrastructure, rural electrification and
development by the author that was published in Energy for Sustainable Development,
15(3):304–13.
P. Cook (&)
Centre on Regulation and Competition, University of Manchester,
Manchester, UK
e-mail: paul.cook@manchester.ac.uk
2.1 Introduction
and flowed, as has the debate over whether it ought to be provided by the public or
private sector. Central to these issues has been the type of case that can be made
for developing infrastructure. Should infrastructure to be developed primarily
because the relationship to economic growth is a supportive one, acting as a
prerequisite for growth? Or alternatively, does economic growth increase the
demand for more infrastructural services? In contrast, can the development of
infrastructure be viewed as a universal right, giving people access to essential
services? Clearly, the case for this has been made more strongly in relation to
water and health. A definitive answer to these age old questions has been difficult
to find. Swings in political ideology at the national and international levels have
played their part in explaining the fluctuating interest in issues relating to infra-
structure. In recent years, there has been a belief that the differences in growth
between the successful East Asian economies and other parts of the developing
world can be explained by failure to invest sufficiently in infrastructure (Estache
and Fay 2007).
Moreover, the concern for rural electrification has resurfaced in recent years
with the heightened interest in infrastructure in relation to the part it can play in
improving welfare and reducing poverty. Poverty is now officially recognised as
the core issue of international development; notably, halving absolute poverty by
2015 is at the top of the list of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
(UN 2000), and the MDGs are recognised by most aid agencies, as well as by
many NGOs, as constituting their leading priority. In part this is a return to a
recognition that the relative importance of infrastructure may relate to a country’s
level or stage of development. In developing countries, even on economic grounds,
it is now seen that there is an urgent need to expand infrastructural services as
widely as possible to integrate dispersed populations in rural areas into the
mainstream economy. The mainstream economy has typically been concentrated
in urban areas where economic activities have been most vibrant. A contrast in
experience can be witnessed in the industrialised countries, where increased
attention on private ownership and the development of infrastructure have changed
the pattern and level of service provision in rural areas, although welfare has not
necessarily declined as a consequence. For example, the privatisation of railways
has often resulted in a deterioration of services in rural areas, as provision has been
rationalised on economic efficiency grounds, but alternatives and substitutes in the
form of other methods of transport have often been more readily available. The
relation between infrastructure and growth has been a debated arena for some time
as both the quantity and quality of infrastructure affect growth.
Infrastructure affects growth through a number of channels both direct and
indirect. The most evident direct link is through the productivity effect. This is
often captured in a production function framework, where an increase in the
quantity of infrastructure ought to raise the productivity of other factors. For
example, giving enterprises access to electricity will spread to the development of
other types of investment. This process can be applied to infrastructural investment
in remote areas and result in an increase and diversified range of private invest-
ments in productive activities. Direct channels, therefore, concern the effects of
16 P. Cook
can take a long time and can be costly. Whilst these reviews find both positive and
negative effects on growth, there appears to be consensus that infrastructure
matters more for growth in lower income countries (Romp and deHaan 2005).
Fewer studies explore the relationship between infrastructure and growth in Africa
and most are hampered by the low quality of data and the concentration on the role
of human capital (Estache and Fay 2007). More recently, Escribano et al. (2010)
has extended the analysis by using total factor productivity in African manufac-
turing to examine the relationship with infrastructure. They find although infra-
structure (including electricity) has a low impact on total factor productivity in the
higher income countries in the region, the poor quality of electricity provision does
have adverse effects in poorer countries. Earlier Esfahani and Ramirez (2003)
came to similar conclusions, estimating that poor economic performance in Sub-
Saharan Africa was due to under investment in electricity and telecommunications.
Some of the blame for the poor performance of low income economies has been
linked to the adverse effects on infrastructure investment resulting from the pursuit
of economic liberalisation and forms of structural adjustment policies in the 1980s,
which called for smaller government and reduced public expenditure (Cook 1988).
Most capital expenditure in low income developing countries was aid financed in
the 1980s since indebtedness caused the cessation of external private capital
inflows. Some of the external financing supplied by the only lenders at the time,
the World Bank and the IMF, was diverted to support recurrent rather than capital
costs, as the effects on operating and maintenance of previous capital expenditure
was becoming increasingly recognised (the so-called recurrent cost problem).
Inevitably, this limited the growth of infrastructure in a wide range of low income
developing countries. Although private investment in infrastructure, principally
through privatisation did not significantly develop until the mid-1990s, after the
World Bank concluded in its Bureaucrats in Business Report (1995) that utility
privatisation had not proceeded as anticipated, the results have nevertheless been
disappointing. A recent study by Cook and Uchida (2008) showed that although
the performance of privatised utilities may have improved immediately after
privatisation in developing countries, this was not the case later. Even 10 years
after privatization there have been significant declines in investment and rising
indebtedness has been used to cover operation and maintenance costs of privatised
electricity utilities in many developing countries.
provides low statistical testing power (Huang et al. 2008). Although inconsistent
results on the association and the direction of the link exist, the more important
question for development comes down to the importance of electricity (or energy)
in relation to other factors of production, such as capital and labour. Even where
this has been examined the results continue to be mixed. Recently, Wolde-Rufael
(2009) has shown that in 11 out of 17 countries studied in Africa energy con-
tributes to economic growth but not as much as capital and labour. It ought to be
noted that transport costs also generally form a higher proportion of a firm’s total
costs than energy. Studies at the country level, however, do find more in favour of
a relationship running from electricity consumption to economic growth (Ozturk
2010). This implies that a policy to halt or slow down electricity capacity growth
will adversely affect economic growth.
It has also been argued that many studies are flawed in terms of causality or
attributing impact because electricity is put into areas with the greatest potential
for growth. Further, results can be distorted because a developed country puts
more effort into creating energy efficiency and introducing protective regulation
for the environment and the economy, whilst a developing country is more likely
to put more resources into production rather than energy efficiency and environ-
mental protection.
The policy emphasis towards rural electrification has fluctuated over time and has
been influenced by the World Bank. In the 1970s the World Bank thought
investment in rural electrification was worthwhile [reflecting the received wisdom
over the previous 20 years that rural electrification would act as a catalyst for rural
development (Hirschman 1970)] but would be loss-making (World Bank 1975). It
was thought that the high up-front investment costs and perceived low demand in
rural compared to urban areas would constrain rapid development in this direction
and that developments in health and water were of higher priority. Despite the
spurt to rural electrification projects in the 1980s in, for example, Malaysia and
Bangladesh, an Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) found disappointing results
in terms of low economic returns, low cost recovery (between 10 and 15 %) and
little evidence of an impact on industrial development (IEG 1994). This finding
was also reflected in wider reappraisals of its effects which began in the 1980s
(Barnes 1988; Foley 1992; Pearce and Webb 1987; Kirubi et al. 2008).
The World Bank’s approach to energy in the 1990 s turned towards the pro-
motion of utilities in the private sector. The implications for the electricity sector
were spelt out in World Bank (1993a). This represented a reversal of earlier policy
where the World Bank had argued, particularly for poorer countries, that priva-
tisation of utility sectors was too difficult due political reluctance and the lack of
20 P. Cook
willing buyers and investors (Cook 1999). In the early 1990s the World Bank also
attempted to balance efficiency with an emphasis on sustainable development with
little real success (World Bank 1993b). The subsequent shift by the World Bank
and other international development institutions after 1995 towards a strategy
based on poverty had a more significant implication for rural electrification pro-
grammes and the ways in which they were perceived.
The link between energy and poverty was clearly laid out in a number of the
World Bank’s reports (World Bank 1996). By 2008 the World Bank could claim
that the economic case for investment in rural electrification is proven and that the
benefits to rural households are above the average long run supply costs, indicating
that cost recovery tariff levels are achievable (World Bank 2008). The World
Bank’s coverage of rural electricity is still low in South Asia and Sub Saharan
Africa and it acknowledges that it supports few projects in the countries where
access to electricity is poor and rural electrification is limited, although new energy
projects have recently commenced in Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania. The motives
for supporting projects are evenly matched between those that aim to improve
welfare (60 % have this component and it includes poverty reduction), those to
increase electricity supply (72 % have this component) and those to foster insti-
tutional development (75 % have this component). Most poverty reduction
objectives are associated with multi-sector projects. Institutional development
mainly relates to utilities and private sector development and includes training and
operational support as for example provided in Senegal and some grid and off-grid
regulation projects in Peru.
Most World Bank support for off-grid projects appear to be linked to renewable
energy schemes and is usually a component of a larger project, as is the case in at
least 28 out of the 33 off-grid projects that involve the World Bank. Many of these
are considered pilot projects which attract co-funding from the Global Environ-
ment Facility (See Sovacool 2010 for a recent review of support mechanisms for
renewable electricity). The World Bank uses several criteria to support electrifi-
cation projects. These include cost effectiveness to connect, distance to a grid,
affordability and population density. Sometimes a wider more socially-oriented
criterion is used in a minority of projects (usually multisectoral projects) and has
been used to support projects in deprived regions of NE Brazil and in Chile,
Honduras and Vietnam.
According to the World Bank, projects furthest from a grid are likely to involve
off-grid solutions, where there are small communities. In this way a kind of pecking
order is used which favours grid over off-grid support. Financial considerations are
also used to determine the merit order. This is the case because the World Bank’s
favoured model for delivering even off-grid electricity is through the private sector,
as in Nicaragua and Laos. However, as the example of Cuba shows the real value of
supplying a locality with off-grid technology lies in its ability to draw on local
resources and help develop local potential (Cherni and Hill 2009).
As far as an overall assessment is concerned it is evident that the private sector
has not developed electrification in rural areas on the scale envisaged with pri-
vatisation and the variety of approaches pursued to increase private participation in
2 Rural Electrification and Rural Development 21
Despite the heightened interest in poverty reduction through the targets established
in the MDGs, the objectives are not new: poverty reduction has been a major
policy focus in development circles for at least two decades. Unsurprisingly, there
is an immense literature on poverty going back to the 1960s, and the intention here
is to draw out some of the main analytical perspectives as a framework for an
understanding of the linkage to specific economic reforms held to have a pro-poor
22 P. Cook
countries but to intra regional analysis, and provides justification for developing
backward rural areas.
Current approaches to poverty also emphasise the need to involve the poor in
the identification of their issues, through participation processes and mechanisms,
as well as in the consideration of what types of poverty reduction interventions
could be appropriate and effective (Chambers 1997). Two main strategies have
emerged from the literature for policy interventions to reduce poverty. Livelihood
promotion aims to raise productivity to bring people out of poverty. Livelihood
protection aims to prevent a decline in welfare and uses direct transfers and other
means to safeguard and protect the vulnerable. Livelihood protection, therefore,
focuses on ensuring the minimum level of entitlements. Although these two
concepts are useful to distinguish the goals and means of differing poverty
reduction policies, it is important to note that they are closely related. Effective
livelihood protection makes livelihood promotion more likely, since a household
will have the confidence to take on more risky, higher-return economic activities in
order to raise income (Matin and Hulme 2003).
The more positive view of the role of rural electrification and its relation to poverty
reduction has interesting implications for rural development strategies as a whole.
Most people living in poverty are in rural areas living below the poverty line
(70 % in rural as opposed to 30 % in urban areas). Earlier thinking was that rural
poverty could be alleviated by raising agricultural productivity (Johnston and
Mellor 1962). Underpinning this notion was agriculture as a labour-based activity
suitable for income earning possibilities in a labour abundant and capital scarce
developing economy (Hayami and Ruttan 1971).
Following these ideas a technological revolution in the form of the Green
Revolution gave impetus to the idea that agricultural growth could be stimulated,
particularly through increasing the efficiency of yields and involving smaller
farming units. This created a view that income could be increased with rising equity
and that economic growth could be linked to agricultural change through backward
(supply inputs to farmers) and forward (marketing and processing of agricultural
outputs and consumption linkages, that is expenditure by farmers on non-farm
consumption goods) linkages (Ellis 2006). With these developments, infrastructure
could contribute to improving agricultural productivity and reduce rural poverty
(Van de Walle 2002; Renkow et al. 2004). This view was reinforced by the asso-
ciated rise in non-farm activities in rural areas (Freeman and Norcliffe 1981).
However, there are sceptical views of the agriculturally centred approach which
emphasise that growth and poverty reduction may come more from the links with
industry and services than from agriculture (Harriss 1987; Hart 1993). Work by
24 P. Cook
Bernstein et al. (1992) and Ellis (2000) have questioned the agriculture-centred
approach to rural poverty reduction. They point to the importance of non-farm
sources of income for rural households through studying livelihood patterns. The
livelihood approach emerged in the 1970s and provides the link between assets and
the options that people have to pursue alternative activities that give income. The
belief that farming alone can provide a sufficient means of survival in rural areas is
replaced by a livelihood approach that emphasises a process by which households
construct a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities for sur-
vival and to improve standards of living. Moreover, it is evident that incomes of
farm households also depend on income from migratory flows of labour to urban
areas (income remittances). Interestingly, it has been found that the rural poor are
more dependent on agriculture than the better-off rural population, who are less
dependent on agriculture (Ellis and Freeman 2004). The better-off farmers are also
able to use non-farm income to acquire inputs to raise productivity of farms. Part
of the explanation for the emphasis on non-farm income is linked to the deterio-
rating terms of trade between agricultural and industrial goods prices. In many
instances then this has led to less reliance on agriculture in rural areas with
increasing rural to urban migrations, particularly of males and women remaining
in agriculture.
Livelihood research would therefore suggest that rural poverty reduction
depends on the scope for intersectoral mobility and adaptability (Ellis 2006), and
that barriers to these need to be addressed (barriers include institutional factors
such as land tenure systems that hamper exit; land tenure systems make land rental
difficult without compromising ownership security). There are also social
restrictions on the mobility of women (less the case in the Philippines). In this case
poverty reduction could be served by encouraging urban and non-farm growth,
although some attention would need to be given to raising farm productivity where
this is low. Rural lighting, by improving possibilities for education, would help
remove the bottleneck of failure to get an urban job by raising skills and increasing
prospects of rural non-farm employment (Gibson and Olivia 2009). In practice,
many households straddle rural and urban areas through migration and investment
strategies, kinship ties and cultivation and livestock ownership (Satterthwaite and
Tacoli 2002). Rural to rural migration is also important, which is often seasonal,
and migrants search for work in road construction for example and contribute to
building infrastructure (Rogaly 2006).
Water and livelihoods are also intimately connected because water is a con-
straint on food production. Around 80–90 % of all consumed water goes onto
fields and only half of that touches crops through poor irrigation. In the water
sector the shift to cost recovery has increased prices for those connected to the
piped network, however, many of the poorest and those living in low income
settlements have not been connected. Low income households can buy water from
private vendors but this soaks up a high proportion of their income and may not be
viable. Connection is also not tenable because connection charges are high and
there is a need to pay bills on a regular basis. Income for the poorest is often
uncertain and seasonal. This is a reminder that poor households may find
2 Rural Electrification and Rural Development 25
combination of fuels at any one time, some of which may be advanced and others
more traditional. In any event, household fuel choices are likely to be related to the
size and diversity of household incomes, and other factors such as education and
distance and availability of natural resources come into play (Heltberg 2004). The
cost and availability of electric appliances, such as cooking stoves, has often been
a prohibiting factor in the take up of electricity. If appliance costs were to be
subsidized then indications are that the demand for electricity take up and use
would increase amongst the poor. However, whether or not the cost for this is
borne by cross subsidisation by higher income and higher consumption households
has to be carefully considered as price sensitivity amongst higher income groups
could lead them to switch to other fuels, with a consequent fall in the demand for
electricity.
The experience from projects has shown that where electricity becomes
available the take up is variable. Sometimes it takes between 1 and 3 years for
households to start using electricity, and there are still high percentages that do not
connect. So a distinction can be made regarding the type of policy that ought to be
used to improve connection where electricity has arrived, and towards expanding
electricity to areas where it does not presently exist. The World Bank report that
the emphasis is on the latter in Indonesia. This situation exists, despite the fact that
once a community is electrified, the marginal cost of electrifying additional
households is low. Marginal costs fall as more households become connected. It is
therefore argued that if tariff levels are sufficient to cover operating and mainte-
nance costs then little is lost by providing connections. However, in terms of
affordability it may mean looking more critically at discriminatory tariffs to
capture the poor that go beyond the cross subsidisation of commercial and non-
commercial users (as in Cambodia) and rural and urban users.
The World Bank confirms that in their experience connection rates are low for
the poor even when electricity becomes available. This has mainly been attributed
to the relatively high cost of connection. They cite the example of Laos, where
30 % of the population cannot afford the $100 connection charge. They also
reiterate that even though off-grid schemes can be delivered to a community at
lower cost than an electric grid can be extended to an area, it is sometimes still the
case that the price of off-grid electricity is higher than to those households that are
buying electricity from a grid elsewhere. It is obvious that cost continues to be a
barrier to accessing off-grid electricity for poorer households. But even for the
better off, costs can be formidable in many countries in Africa. For example, for a
solar heating scheme in Namibia a household needs $2,500 per year.
The World Bank in their projects has also looked at the issue of late connectors,
as in Laos, but has largely attempted to deal with the issue through loans rather than
subsidies. These are being tried in Ethiopia and Thailand. It is apparent that the use
of subsidies are more common in relation to off-grid projects, particularly to meet
the upfront equipment installation costs, since operating costs are negligible in the
case of solar energy and these systems only require limited maintenance. This
circumstance may represent a problem for low skilled poor communities and may
30 P. Cook
excluded despite government intentions. The poorer were also the first to revert to
wood when the subsidy was reduced to 20 % in Senegal.
Typically subsidies for rural electrification tariffs are based on estimates of
household spending for lighting and light electricity use. This was the case in
Argentina (Covarrubias and Reiche 2000). In the absence of willingness to pay
analysis, household expenditure on kerosene, bottled gas and dry batteries was
used as an indicator of the upper limit of electricity tariffs and affordability. This
determined the baseline cost the rural poor could pay. If the actual cost of elec-
tricity provision was higher, then the difference ought to be subsidised. But sur-
veys show that willingness to pay, even if estimated in this way, can be lower than
a household’s capacity to pay. In practice households generally want to pay less
than they previously paid for kerosene when switching to electricity or any other
new energy source. Obviously, there are advantages which they may not recognize
such as convenience of use and less pollution in the household.
Problems remain in relation to the knowledge poor communities have over the
benefits of electricity and in convincing them that these will eventually contribute
to improving welfare. The poor may continue to be reluctant to adopt newer
processes when they perceive meeting regular monthly payments will be difficult,
since their income flows vary in time and are often seasonal.
effect in South Africa as labour is freed up with the arrival of electricity. The effect
on women is greatest. The female employment response is driven by the middle-
poor and second -richest communities that initially rely on wood for cooking and
are able to respond more when new electricity services become available. The
effects are larger for women in their 30 and 40 s and there is evidence to suggest
that this is related to women having fewer child-care responsibilities at these ages.
Dinkelman also looks at the potential spillover effects from electrification. If
firms create jobs for people living in neighbouring areas, then there are said to be
positive spillover effects. If, however, people move out of a non-electrified area
towards an electrified area to get a job, then there is a negative spillover.
Dinkelman suggests there are no strong spillover effects between communities.
Electrification was driven by household targets and capacity was too small to
stimulate even mid-sized enterprises or services. The lack of evidence for spill-
overs, therefore, supports the claim that electrification increased employment
primarily through a labour supply rather than a labour demand channel. Why
might middle-quintiles in particular have larger employment effects? It appears
these communities contain households that experienced the largest changes in
home production technology when electricity arrived. Middle poor areas are
initially less likely to be using electricity than richer areas and are anyway more
reliant on wood for cooking. Women who have additional home-production
responsibilities are less likely to be able to respond to the new access to electricity,
even though their productivity at home may be substantially enhanced by the use
of electricity i.e. child care.
2.10 Conclusions
and resources, are required. Our review has also indicated that whilst the more
extensive use of subsidies cannot be ruled out, caution is needed in relation to the
distributional effects of certain types of subsidies. For example, whilst income
elasticities do not rule out cross-subsidisation as a way of providing affordable
services to lower income households, high income groups could be over-burdened,
and as a result may alter the quantity of electricity they consume. For example, it
could lead to a decrease in demand (where gas is available for instance) to middle
and high income households (as indicated in Louw et al. 2008), if greater price
sensitivity exists amongst higher income groups who could switch to other fuel
sources. Our review has also shown that, if appliance costs are subsidised, then
electricity take up and use would increase for the poor.
Our review has indicated that the earlier emphasis on cost recovery and reliance
on the private sector to delivery electricity widely was misplaced. More recently,
the World Bank, drawing on the experience with the 120 electrification projects it
has supported since 1995, has moved away from a pure cost recovery approach to
provide lessons that are more in keeping with meeting the needs of the poor,
particularly in rural areas. These include firstly, justifying subsidises for capital as
long as income covers operating and maintenance costs. The example of Kenya’s
experience with community led rural micro-grids that have the potential to cover a
substantial proportion of the operating costs from internal revenue derived from
the sale of electricity and other charges linked to SMEs, demonstrates the alter-
natives that are available.
Secondly, rural electrification programmes must be implemented with comple-
mentary infrastructure, including educational initiatives that influence change.
As seen in our review this enables the users of electricity to put energy to productive
uses. These aspects are not normally part of rural electrification programmes
provided by private or state-owned utilities. Even enterprise development
programmes have not, as a rule, been designed to promote end-users of electricity
(Cook 2006). There are, of course, some examples such the Nepalese Enterprise
Development Programme between 1993 and 1998 that did, but these have often been
short-lived.
Thirdly, an autonomous and effective implementing agency is needed to ensure
that plans for electrification can be delivered. Although it has been argued that the
precise institutional structure for these agencies is less relevant, as different
structures exist in different countries (Barnes and Foley 2004 citing examples of a
separate rural electricity authority in Bangladesh, rural cooperatives in Cost Rica
and branches of government in a wide range of countries), it is apparent that not all
types of institutions are effective. An ingredient that works in many spheres of
local development is to involve the community closest to the targeted beneficiaries
that can leverage local skills and resources and overcome local resistances.
34 P. Cook
References
Adam C, Bevan D (2004) Aid and the supply side: public investment, export performance and
Dutch disease in low income countries. Department of Economics Working Paper 201,
Oxford University: Oxford.
Addison, T., Hulme, D., Kanbur, R. (2008). Poverty dynamics: Measurement and understanding
from an interdisciplinary perspective. BWPI Working Paper 19. Manchester: Brooks World
Poverty Institute, University of Manchester.
Adenikinju, A. (2005). Analysis of the cost of infrastructure in a developing economy: The case
of the electricity sector in Nigeria. African Economic Research Consortium Research Paper
148, Nairobi.
Adkins, E., Eapen, S., Kaluwile, F., Nair, G., & Modi, V. (2010). Off-grid services for the poor:
Introducing LED lighting in the millennium villages project in Malawi. Energy Policy, 38,
1087–1097.
Agenor, P., Moreno-Dodson, B. (2006). Public infrastructure and growth: New channels and
policy implications. Policy Research Working Paper Series 4064. Washington: World Bank.
Agoramoorthy, G., & Hsu, M. (2009). Lighting the lives of the impoverished in India’s rural and
tribal dry lands. Human Ecology, 37(4), 513–517.
Angel-Urdinola, D., & Wodon, Q. (2007). Do utility subsidies reach the poor? Framework and
evidence for Cape Verde, Sao Tome, and Rwanda. Economics Bulletin, 9(4), 1–9.
Balisacan, A., Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Pernia, E. (2002a). Probing beneath cross-national
averages: Poverty, inequality and growth in the Philippines. ERD Working Paper Series no 7.
Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Balisacan, A., Pernia, E., & Asra, A. (2002b). Revisiting growth and poverty reduction in
Indonesia: What do sub-national data show? ERD Working Paper Series no 25. Manila:
Asian Development Bank.
Barnes, D. (1988). Electric power for rural growth: how electricity affects rural life in developing
countries. Boulder: Westview Press.
Barnes, D., Foley G. (2004). Rural electrification in the developing world: a summary of lessons
from successful programs. Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance
Programme (ESMAP), Washington: World Bank.
Bastakoti, B. (2006). The electricity-livelihood nexus: Some highlights from the andhikhola
hydroelectric and rural electrification centre (AHREC). Energy Sustain Development, 10(3),
26–35.
Bernstein, H., Crow, B., & Johnson, H. (1992). Rural livelihoods: Crises and responses. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bhattacharya, S. (2007). Power sector reform in South Asia: Why slow and limited so far? Energy
Policy, 35, 317–332.
Boccanfso, D., Estache, A., & Savard, L. (2009). A macro–micro analysis of the effects of
electricity reform in Senegal on poverty and distribution. Journal Development Study, 45(3),
351–368.
Brew-Hammond, A. (2009). Energy access in Africa: Challenges ahead. Energy Policy, 1–11.
Bricefio-Garmendia, C., & Klytchnikova, I. (2006). Infrastructure and poverty: What data are
available for impact evaluation. Washington DC: World Bank.
Calderon C, Serven L (2004) The effects of infrastructure development on growth and income
distribution. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3400. Washington: World Bank.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. London: Intermediate
Technology Development Group.
Cherni, J., & Hill, Y. (2009). Energy and policy providing for sustainable rural livelihoods in
remote locations—The case of Cuba. Geoforum, 40, 645–654.
Cook, P. (1988). Liberalizacion y politica de desarrollo industrial en los paises menos
dessarrollados. El Trimestre Economico, LV, 1, 3–40.
2 Rural Electrification and Rural Development 35
Cook, P. (1999). Privatisation and utility regulation in developing countries: The lessons so far.
Annals Public Cooperative Economics, 70(4), 549–587.
Cook, P. (2006). Private sector development strategy in developing countries. In G. Hodge (Ed.),
Privatization and market development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cook, P., & Uchida, Y. (2008). The performance of privatised enterprises in developing
countries. Journal Development Study, 44(9), 1342–1353.
Covarrubias, A., & Reiche, K. (2000). A case study on exclusive concessions for rural off-grid
service in Argentina. Washington: World Bank.
Davidson, O., & Mwakasonda, S. (2004). Electricity access for the poor: A study of South Africa
and Zimbabwe. Energy Sustain Development, 8(4), 26–40.
Davidson, O., Sokona, Y. (2002). A new sustainable energy path for African development: think
bigger, act faster. Cape Town: Energy and Development Research Centre, University of Cape
Town.
Dinkelman, T. (2009). The effects of rural electrification on employment: New evidence from
South Africa, mimeo: Princeton University.
Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (1989). Hunger and public action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellegard, A., Arvidson, A., Nordstrom, M., Kalumiana, O., Mwanza, C. (2004). Rural people pay
for solar: Experiences from the Zambia PV-ESCO project. Renew Energy, 29, 1251–1263.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, F. (2006). Rural poverty reduction. In D. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to development
studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ellis, F., & Freeman, H. (2004). Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African
countries. Journal Development Study, 40(4), 1–30.
Escribano, A., Guasch, J., Pena, J. (2010). Assessing the impact of infrastructure quality on firm
productivity in Africa. Policy Research Working Paper 5191. Washington DC: World Bank.
Esfahani, H., & Ramirez, M. (2003). Institutions, infrastructure and economic growth. Journal of
Development Economics, 70, 443–477.
ESMAP. (2003). Rural electrification and development in the Philippines: Measuring the social
and economic benefits. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, 255/03.
Washington DC: World Bank.
Estache, A., Fay, M. (2007). Current debates on infrastructure policy. Policy Research Working
Paper 4410. Washington DC: World Bank.
Estache, A., Gomez-Lobo, A., & Leipziger, D. (2001). Utilities privatisation and the poor:
Lessons and evidence from Latin America. World Development, 29(7), 1179–1198.
Fan, S,. Chan-Kang, C. (2002). Growth, inequality, poverty reduction in Rural China. Research
Report 125. Washington DC: IFPRI.
Foley, G. (1992). Rural electrification in the developing world. Energy Policy, 20, 145–152.
Freeman, D., & Norcliffe, G. (1981). The rural nonfarm sector and the development process in
Kenya. In G. Norcliffe & T. Pinfold (Eds.), Planning African development. London: Croom
Helm.
Gibson, J., & Olivia, S. (2009). The effect of infrastructure access and quality on non-farm
enterprises in Rural Indonesia. World Development, 38(5), 717–726.
Grinspun, D. (2001). Choices for the poor: Lessons from national poverty strategy. New York:
United Nations Development Programme.
Grossman, G., Krueger, A. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. Q J, 10(2), 353–377.
Gustavsson, M. (2007). Educational benefits from solar technology—Access to solar electric
services and changes in children’s study routines, experiences from Eastern Province Zambia.
Energy Policy, 35, 1292–1299.
Harriss, B. (1987). Regional growth linkages with agriculture. Journal Development Study, 23(2),
275–289.
Hart, G. (1993). Regional growth linkages in the era of liberalisation: A critique of the new
agrarian optimism. World Employment Programme Research Working Paper no 37. Geneva:
International Labour Office.
36 P. Cook
Prasad, G., & Dieden, S. (2007). Does access to electricity enable the uptake of small and
medium enterprises in South Africa. South Africa: Domestic Use of Energy Conference.
Reinikka, R., & Svensson, J. (2002). Coping with poor public capital. Journal of Development
Economics, 69(1), 51–69.
Renkow, M., Hallstrom, D., & Karanja, D. (2004). Rural infrastructure, transaction costs and
market participation. Journal of Development Economics, 73, 349–367.
Rogaly, B. (2006). Migration for rural work. In D. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar companion to
development studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Romp, W., de Haan, J. (2005). Public capital and economic growth: A critical survey. European
Investment Bank Papers, 10(1), Luxemburg.
Satterthwaite, D., & Tacoli, C. (2002). Seeking an understanding of poverty that recognises rural–
urban differences and rural–urban linkages. In C. Radodi & T. Lloyd-Jones (Eds.), Urban
livelihoods: A people-centred approach to reducing poverty. London: Earthscan.
Sebitosi, A., Pillay, P., & Khan, M. (2006). An analysis of off grid electrical systems in Rural
Sub- Saharan Africa. Energy Conservation Management, 47, 1113–1123.
Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sovacool, B. (2010). A comparative analysis of renewable electricity support mechanisms for
Southeast Asia. Energy, 35(4), 1779–1793.
Steinbuks, J., & Foster, V. (2010). When do firms generate? Evidence on in-house electricity
supply in Africa. Energy Economics, 32(3), 505–514.
Straub, S. (2008). Infrastructure and growth in developing countries: Recent advances and
research challenges. Policy Research Working Paper Series 4460. Washington DC: World
Bank.
Straub, S., Vellutini, C. (2006). Assessment of the effect of infrastructure on economic growth in
the East Asia and Pacific Region, mimeo, Washington DC: World Bank.
UN. (2000). Millennium declaration and millennium development goals. United Nations, New
York.
UNDP. (1997). Human development report. New York: United Nations Development
Programme.
Van de Walle, D. (2002). Choosing rural investments to reduce poverty. World Development,
30(4), 575–589.
Wamukonya, N. (2001), Davis M. Socio-economic impacts of rural electrification in Namibia:
Comparisons between grid, solar and unelectrified households. Energy Sustain Development,
5(3), 5–13.
Whittington, D., Davis, J., Prokopy, L., Komives, K., Thorsten, R., Lukacs, H., et al. (2008) How
well is the demand-driven, community management model for rural water supply systems
doing? Evidence from Bolivia, Peru and Ghana. BWPI Working Paper 22 Brooks World
Poverty Institute, University of Manchester; Manchester.
Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2009). Energy consumption and economic growth: The experience of African
countries revisited. Energy Economics, 31(2), 217–224.
World Bank. (1975). Rural electrification. Policy paper no PUB-517. Washington DC: World
Bank.
World Bank. (1993). Energy efficiency and conservation in the developing world. Policy paper.
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (1993b). The World Bank’s role in the electric power sector: Policies for effective
institutional, regulatory and fuel reform. Working Paper. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (1995). Bureaucrats in business. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (1996). Rural energy and development, improving energy supplies for two billion
people. Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank. (2000). Attacking poverty, world development report 2000/2001. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
World Bank. (2007). World bank development indicators. Washington DC: World Bank.
38 P. Cook
World Bank. (2008). The welfare impact of rural electrification: A reassessment of the costs and
benefits. An IEG Impact Evaluation. Washington DC: World Bank.
Yadoo, A., & Cruickshank, H. (2010). The value of cooperatives in rural electrification. Energy
Policy, 38(6), 2941–2947.
Chapter 3
Technology Choices for Off-Grid
Electrification
3.1 Introduction
there is now growing acknowledgement of the fact that achieving 100 % electri-
fication even by 2030 seems ambitious particularly for Sub-Saharan Africa
(Bazilian et al. 2012). It is increasingly becoming important that such off-grid or
decentralized solutions be tried out until the local economy reaches a certain level
where productive activities dominate in comparison with minimal sustenance
activities, so that users of the modern energy services can pay for these, leading to
sustainable development. A number of technologies exist with different charac-
teristics and degree of maturity. As any discussion about the off-grid electrification
options is centred around specific technology choices, the purpose of this chapter
is to provide a basic overview. It provides a review of different technologies which
can be employed for decentralized power generation using local resources. The
review includes technology descriptions, limitations, economic considerations and
research needs.
Hydro power is the power produced by harnessing energy from the flow or fall of
water in rivers, streams or canals. Water pressure is converted using a hydro
turbine into mechanical energy, which can then be used either to drive an elec-
tricity generator or for running small industrial applications that require shaft
power, such as a grain mill. Hydropower systems that generate 5–100 kW of
electricity are often called micro hydro systems and systems even smaller are
called pico-hydro systems. These systems are mostly ‘‘run-of-river’’, which means
that no dam or water storage is required for their operation. However, they do need
water diversion and conveyance systems.
Micro-hydro power (MHP) is environmentally benign and could be a cost-
effective solution for electrifying isolated communities located in mountainous
regions where extension of the electricity grid is not feasible. It could also be used
in the plains if adequate flowing water is available throughout the year.
The best geographical areas for harnessing micro hydro power are those where
there are perennial rivers and streams flowing through steep hills and mountains.
In South Asia, the potential for micro hydro power exists in almost the entire
Hindu-Kush Himalayan region, which includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal,
Bhutan, Northern India and Myanmar. Huge potential also exists in several
locations in Sri Lanka and Southern India due to their unique geo-climatic
conditions.
The power potential of the water in a stream depends upon the flow rate (volume
per unit time) of the water and the head (vertical drop) through which the water can
fall. The theoretical power potential at a particular site can be estimated as:
P ¼ Q H 9:81 kW ð3:1Þ
where,
P theoretical power potential at a site
Q flow rate in cubic metres per second
H head in metres
9.81 product of the density of water and the acceleration due to gravity (g)
However, energy is lost while getting converted from one form to another due
to inefficiencies and losses in various components of the power generation system.
In practice, the efficiency of most MHP systems ranges from 30 to 70 %.
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 43
• Impulse turbines—these convert the kinetic energy of jets of water striking the
turbine buckets/blades running freely in air. No pressure reduction occurs in
these turbines.
• Reaction turbines—the rotating part (runner) of these turbines is completely
submerged in water and is enclosed in a pressure casing. The linear and angular
momentum of water flowing through the turbine is converted into shaft power.
They are suitable for medium and low heads.
The choice of turbine for any particular hydro site depends primarily on the net
head and flow available. The selection also depends on the desired running speed
of the generator or other connected mechanical appliances and whether the turbine
will be expected to produce power under reduced flow conditions. More than one
turbine could also be chosen at times to match the variations in flow during the
peak and lean seasons.
3.3.1.3 Economics
MHP plants are more expensive and are often less competitive as compared to
larger sized hydro power plants. The cost is highly site specific and depends on the
site characteristics such as the terrain and accessibility, in addition to various other
factors such as the availability of labour for civil works, availability of local
manufacturing of electro-mechanical equipment, the sizing of the plant and the
distance of load from the power house. Costs can be controlled to an extent by
proper sizing, by utilizing local materials and indigenous technology and by
adopting appropriate standards. The investment per kW of electricity ranges from
$1136 to $5630 per kW, with an average of about $3085 (Khennas and Barnett
2010). However, the investment required for mechanical power alone would be
significantly lower at around $714–$1233 per kW (Khennas and Barnett 2010) due
to the absence of expensive electrical/electronic equipment and the distribution
lines.
The operational costs on the other hand are highly competitive and are usually
lower than many other sources of energy. Most MHP plants could operate for up to
50 years without requiring any major refurbishment (Paish 2002). This brings
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 45
down the cost of energy drastically if the economics are worked out for the entire
life of the project. The levelized cost of energy for a typical MHP plant ranges
from $0.1 to $0.2 per kWh (ESMAP 2007). The energy cost reduces further if the
generated power could be fed into the main electricity grid.
3.3.1.4 Benefits
Unlike large hydro plants, the adverse impacts on the environment are minimal for
MHP. The energy source is predictable and power is available continuously on
demand. An MHP installation usually lasts for several decades. The operational cost
of the plant is very low. The operation is simple as well and training requirements
are minimal. Further, most components of an MHP plant can be manufactured or
assembled locally. The turbine’s shaft power can also directly drive machinery such
as a mill at a higher efficiency, thus making a cost-effective option for several energy
services.
The history of MHP in South Asia can be traced back to the traditional ghatta or
water mills used in Nepal for grinding flour. Thousands of such water mills existed
in Nepal for many centuries and even today, many installations of the improvised
ghatta—Multi-Purpose Power Unit (MPPU) are being used in this mountainous
46 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
country. The modern MHP technology, on the other hand, was derived from the
larger hydro technology and is only about four decades old in South Asia. The
technology has evolved considerably over the past few decades, with several
manufacturers and project developers currently available in the region.
MHP is currently among the most mature of small-scale technologies for
decentralized electrification. However, the technology has not been massively
disseminated in spite of its vast potential in almost all the countries in the region.
The reasons for this are the lack of local manufacturing, the higher initial cost per
kilo Watt, lack of specific government policies and the disproportionate attention
given to larger sized hydro installations. Most of the existing off-grid MHP
installations in South Asia are driven either by donor funds or by passionate
technocrats. With increasing awareness of the technology, the situation can be
expected to improve in the future. Current efforts in MHP technology for off-grid
electrification are focused on cost reduction, increase in reliability of the system,
local manufacturing and servicing of critical components, newer technical designs
for low flow and low head and regional cooperation for manufacturing and
development of standards.
The term ‘biomass’ refers to a wide range of non-fossil organic matters derived
from the products of photosynthesis occurring in plants and algae. Solar energy
captured during photosynthesis is stored in biomass, thereby making it a high-
energy density source. Biomass resources are highly versatile and can be used in a
solid, liquid or a gaseous form for producing electrical power, heat, bio-fuels and
other useful by-products. Biomass has been a major energy source to mankind,
prior to the discovery of fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. Even today, about
30 % (IEA 2011) of the total primary energy supply in South Asia is derived from
biomass, used predominantly for cooking and heating. With recent advancements
in technology and an increasing awareness of its potential benefits, there has been
a renewed interest in biomass as a source of power generation. Power generated
from biomass is considered to be renewable if the consumption of biomass mat-
ches to its production.
Several processes exist to convert biomass into fuels that can run engines to
produce electricity. These conversion processes are broadly classified as:
• Thermo-chemical processes (combustion, gasification, pyrolysis, liquefaction)
• Chemical processes (esterification)
• Biochemical processes (acid hydrolysis, enzyme hydrolysis, fermentation)
Among these, the most widely used technologies for decentralized power
generation are combustion and gasification of solid biomass, and anaerobic
digestion of organic matter for production of biogas, which is then combusted for
power production. Among the thermo-chemical processes, power generation
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 47
through gasification is the simpler and more economical option for low capacities
of 10–500 kW, which are typical for off-grid installations.
Biomass resources are highly versatile and are abundantly available in all the
South Asian countries, especially in the rural areas. The biomass resources suitable
for gasification can be derived from forests and wastelands and from residues of
agriculture and related processing industries. Based on their bulk density, biomass
resources are broadly classified as woody and non-woody (or powdery). An
indicative list of the different types of biomass resources is given in Table 3.2.
Despite being widely available, very little documentation is available regarding
the availability and variability of biomass resources due to their scattered nature.
Existing assessments of biomass resources in most developing countries are only
macro-level estimates that use an inventory approach. These assessments are based
on simple calculations that factor in the available forest, agricultural and waste
lands, the cropping patterns in the country/region and the alternative uses of
biomass. Examples of calculations for biomass resource estimation from ground
inventory are given below (Kishore 2008).
From woody biomass:
Annual sustainable yield ðASYÞ ¼ 2 growing stock = rotation ð3:2Þ
Fig. 3.3 Schematic of a gasifier system for power generation (Source www.teriin.org)
3.3.2.3 Economics
The capital cost of biomass gasifier based power generation systems varies widely
based on numerous factors such the size of the system, the material used for the
reactor (stainless steel or mild steel), the choice of engine (CI or SI or Producer gas
engines), the types of sensors and controls used and the type of cooling and
cleaning mechanisms. An increase in the scale of operation reduces the price per
kW significantly; whereas choosing modern equipment such as 100 % producer
gas engines or SCADA control systems increases the initial cost drastically (see
Table 3.3).
The cost of electricity generated too varies widely from about $0.08 to $0.14
per kWh depending on several factors such as the cost of feedstock, labour costs,
capacity utilization factor of the plant and the distance over which the feedstock
needs to be transported.
3.3.2.4 Benefits
Unlike solar and wind energy technologies which are dependent on intermittent
sources, biomass gasification is capable of providing firm power and can therefore
be operated at high utilization rates to meet both the base load and the peak load.
A huge untapped potential exists in South Asia for utilizing the biomass resources
which until now are going waste. The technology could easily be retrofitted with
50 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
Table 3.3 Typical capital costs of biomass gasifier based power plants
Size of the plant Capital cost ($/kW)
(Excluding land cost)
10–35 kWe with dual-fuel engines and minimal 850–1,750
control systems
50–100 kWe with 100 % producer gas engines and minimal 1,500–2,880
control
Systems
250 kWe–2 MW with 100 % producer gas engines, 1,200–2,030
water treatment system and SCADA controls
Source ESMAP 2007, GoI 2009 and field visits conducted in India; Assumption of 1$ = INR 45
existing diesel based generation facilities, thereby leading to a gradual fossil fuel
replacement. An immense scope also exists for further efficiency improvements
in the current technology by employing waste heat recovery, by operating in
combined heat and power (CHP) mode or by employing gas turbines. Adopting
biomass gasification can lead to several social, environmental and economic
co-benefits as well. Almost 70–80 % of the cost of power generation will go back
to the rural community in terms of cost of biomass feedstock and for employing
local manpower, thereby resulting in increased prosperity. Large scale plants,
when planned with dedicated energy plantations on waste lands to supply fuel lead
to afforestation in the region. Potential for recovering value-added products such
as activated charcoal and precipitated silica (rice-husk gasifier) from the char
obtained in the reactor could make the technology more economically attractive in
the future.
The quality of producer gas is highly dependent on the feedstock type, its moisture
content and its sizing. Hence utmost consistency had to be maintained in the
feedstock supply. Ensuring the sustainability of the biomass source throughout the
lifetime of the plant could at times be a huge challenge. Monetization of fuel—
wood, crop and agro-processing residues could adversely affect their present uses
and could possibly lead to a competition for scarce land and water resources.
Further, the operational expenditure of the plant is highly dependent on the cost of
feedstock, with very little scope to hedge against any future price hike. Thus the
viability and scalability of the plant is limited by the availability of feedstock in the
region. The scalability could be severely restricted if the plant is dependent solely
on energy plantations.
Biomass preparation by cutting of woody biomass and by briquetting or pel-
letization of powdery biomass requires significant electrical power. In addition,
water is required for scrubbing the producer gas. Hence a water treatment plant
could be essential for large sized plants to meet the local pollution standards. The
operation and maintenance of the plant is labour-intensive and requires extensive
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 51
training. Unavailability of skilled operators in rural areas could severely affect the
operation of the plant.
The development of biomass gasification has always been in spurts since the
1850s, with the maximum intensity observed during the World War II and during
the energy crisis of 1970s. The technology received a boost again in the 1980s and
several demonstration projects were set up in Europe, US and a few developing
countries such as Brazil, India and Indonesia based on indigenous models. Most of
these were unsuccessful due to technical, economic and institutional problems
(Pathak and Srivastava 2005). A notable effort in South Asia during the 1980s
was the setting up five Gasifier Action Research Centres in India. The R & D
programmes were carried out in these centres resulted in the fabrication of new
prototypes, development of testing standards, development of gas cleaning systems
and the application of gasifiers in other sectors such as agricultural processing,
steel rolling, ceramic kilns and cold storages (Pathak and Srivastava 2005).
A 250 kW 100 % producer gas engine was also developed during this period.
Decentralized power generation through biomass gasification has been proven
to be commercially viable in many countries today. However several technical and
operational issues still remain to be overcome to advance the maturity of the
technology. Most small-scale gasifiers are still based on the conventional open-top,
down-draft configuration. Attempts are being made for newer configurations that
produce lower tar, such as two-stage gasification, dual-air entry configurations and
twin fire configurations. In addition, research is ongoing to eradicate slagging/
corrosion problems in the reactor, to identify more reliable materials for reactor
construction, to reduce the contaminants in the gas, to enhance the fuel flexibility
and to develop effective process controls for the plant operation.
3.3.3 Biomethanation
Any biomass that contains carbohydrates, proteins, fats, cellulose and hemicellulose as
its main components is theoretically suitable for biomethanation. Examples of biomass
(substrate) suitable for anaerobic digestion include (1) Animal waste—manure from
cattle and pigs, chicken litter, human excreta, slaughter house waste (2) Market
waste—vegetable waste, spoilt grain and cereals (3) Wastes from households and
canteens—leftovers, eggs, bread (4) Agricultural residues—straw, stalks, leaves,
roots, sugarcane trash (5) Food processing waste—mash from fermentation, molasses,
spent fruits (6) Weeds and algae. Cattle dung has by far been the most widely used
feedstock for biomethanation by the rural communities in South Asian countries.
The nature of the substrate determines the type of bacteria acting on it and also
the composition of the generated biogas. Maintenance of optimum microbial
activity is crucial to gas generation which is in turn is dependent on a variety of
parameters. Few of the critical parameters are mentioned in the Table 3.4.
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 53
The gas production can be enhanced by (1) Mechanical methods such as stirring
the digester and recycling a fraction of the slurry; (2) Thermal methods such as
insulating the digester, pre-heating the input slurry, solar heating the digester and
composting around the digester; (3) Bio-chemical methods such as addition of
urine, urea, molasses and sugar wastes (Nijaguna 2009).
Residue tank Spent slurry from the digester is stored in open tanks for drying
before being used as a bio-fertilizer. Storage in a series of small tanks used in
rotation not only makes the removal of dried residue easier but also increases the
overall cleanliness of the plant.
Gas cleaning systems Biogas contains several impurities such as dust, water vapor
and traces of sulphur dioxide. Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the biogas
reduces its calorific value; hydrogen sulphide and its combustion product SO2 can
cause severe corrosion in pipes and metal parts of the engine. The solid particles in
biogas are filtered with dust collectors. Water vapor is removed by condensation
either in the gas storage or by dehumidification on its way to the engine. Hydrogen
sulphide and other trace gases are removed by scrubbing, adsorption, absorption or
other chemical and biological processes.
Engine In theory, biogas can be used as a fuel in almost all types of combustion
engines such as diesel engines, gas engines, gas turbines and Stirling engines.
However in practice, only modified diesel engines in dual-fuel mode are widely
used in South Asia, owing to their lower capital costs and easier availability in
smaller sizes. Gas engines that run on biogas are slowly gaining popularity due to
their lower fuel costs. Running the engines in combined heat-and-power (CHP)
mode increases their overall efficiency. Heat recovery can also be used for heating
the digester during colder months of the year.
3.3.3.3 Economics
The capital cost, operating and maintenance costs of a biogas power generation
system vary widely based on the scale of the system, the type of civil construction
and the choice of engine. The typical cost a biogas power plant is estimated at
around $1890 (MNRE 2008) to $2490 per kWe (ESMAP 2007). The cost for
different types of engines varies between $1200 and $1600 per kWe (Deublein and
Steinhauser 2008). With civil construction and labour constituting roughly 30–
40 % of the capital cost, the availability of construction materials and labour costs
in the region also play a substantial role in arriving at the total capital cost.
The cost of power is primarily dependent on whether the biomass had any
previous use and the monetary value attached to it. Though several theoretical
studies have estimated the levellised cost of energy from biogas at around $0.07
per kWh, a more realistic figure calculated by GTZ experts in Kenya puts this at
about $0.15 per kWh (Dimpl 2010).
3.3.3.4 Benefits
Biogas digesters are simple in construction and could be adapted according to the
needs, climatic conditions and building materials in many countries or regions.
The produced biogas can be stored in bags, balloons or cylinders and could be
transported to remote places such as agricultural fields for running engines.
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 55
Existing engines can be modified to run in dual-fuel mode with minimal modifi-
cations, thereby contributing to gradual replacement of fossil fuels for power
generation. The operation and maintenance of a biogas plant is technically simple
and training requirements are minimal. Operational costs too are minimal since the
cost of feedstock is usually low and at times almost zero.
Use of biomethanation for disposal of organic waste is relatively cheaper as
compared to land filling or combustion of waste. It can therefore be an effective
technology for sewage treatment in rural areas of under-developed countries where
facilities for sewage disposal do not usually exist. Biomethanation of waste
reduces the pathogen content in the substrate materials and thereby helps to
improve the health of the community. The profitability of the plant could be
enhanced substantially with the sale of slurry as a bio fertilizer and the sale of
excess biogas for cooking and heating applications. Use of spent slurry as a natural
fertilizer not only increases soil fertility but also reduces the dependence on the
supply of chemical fertilizers.
The biggest barrier for the diffusion of biogas technology is to overcome the
negative perception about the technology in countries where many previous
installations have failed. Daily procurement of sufficient biomass is a critical
requirement for a biogas plant’s sustained operation. This means that plants uti-
lizing animal manure can be located only in such places where sufficient livestock
is stabled at a single location. This could restrict the technology to only a few
richer communities with larger livestock population and to communities with
excellent synergy for resource sharing. Also, the dependence on feedstock such as
cattle dung or poultry litter for power generation could affect their present uses.
Such competing uses of feedstock could have an adverse impact on the plant’s
operation.
Preparation of input slurry for the plant requires substantial amounts of water.
Water recycling would hence be required in locations with scarce water resources.
The digester requires an extensive overhaul once every few years to prevent
reduction in gas output due to scum or silt. Low temperatures at higher altitudes
and during winters can also severely reduce the production of biogas.
The utilization of biogas as a source of energy in South Asia could be traced back
to as early as 1859 when biogas generated by the purification of waste water from
a leprosy hospital in Bombay was used for emergency lighting. However, biogas
was recognized as a promising source of energy for cooking only a century later.
Several digester designs based on the fixed dome and the floating drum designs
were experimented in South Asia since the 1950s. The governments in Nepal,
56 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka launched several subsidy based pro-
grammes to promote biogas for cooking in rural areas. Several millions of biogas
digesters were installed in these countries. However, very few of them are fully
functional today. Their failure could be attributed to several reasons such as lack of
technical training, high costs of maintenance, lack of sufficient feedstock and
inadequate community participation. With most of the technical issues rectified
during the past few decades, biomethanation stands today as a mature technology
capable of uninterrupted operation. Currently, several large scale plants that
generate power from biogas derived from cattle manure, chicken litter, vegetable
waste and municipal solid waste exist in South Asian countries. However, gen-
eration of electrical power at a smaller scale in off-grid locations is still relatively
new in these countries. The few biogas-to-power plants that have been installed
in off-grid regions during the past few years were driven primarily by the support
of international agencies and by private enterprises seeking an alternative source
of reliable electric power.
Current research activities aim at creating cheaper and more rugged designs of
digesters for difficult terrains, investigating the use of weeds, algae and other
wastes in the digester, development of microorganisms capable of digesting
non-cellulose portions of biomass, seeking a better control and breeding of
microorganisms, incorporating solar–powered heating for cooler climates and
water saving mechanisms for arid regions, designing of more efficient biogas
engines and turbines, creating easier techniques for gas storage and developing
newer technologies for upgrading biogas to methane.
Solar energy is the most abundant and inexhaustible of all the renewable energy
resources. The average solar radiation incident over the South Asian countries
varies from 4 to 7 kWh/day/m2. With most of these countries having about 300
sunny days in a year (Raman et al. 2012), it is but natural for them to explore the
possibilities of harnessing the energy of the sun.
Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) devices convert sun light directly into electricity.
High reliability and a lifetime of about 25 years for the solar panels are the most
attractive features of SPV for its use in off-grid applications. Due to its high degree
of modularity and scalability, SPV technology can be used in a wide range of
applications—from small solar lanterns up to kilo-watt sized mini-grids. Its
emission-free and silent operation makes it appealing for household applications.
Absence of moving parts and its use of sun as a free fuel makes it virtually free to
use during its entire lifetime, except for periodic replacement of battery. Even at
the existing price levels, SPV can be a cost-effective solution for many remote
locations that depend on kerosene lamps and diesel generators for lighting and
power back-up.
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 57
PV technologies are broadly classified into crystalline silicon, thin Film, con-
centrating PV and emerging PV technologies. An SPV system usually consists of
the following components:
• PV modules (which convert sunlight into electricity)
• Battery
• Charge controller
• Inverter
• Mounting structure
• Interconnections and other devices
Several options of SPV technology are available for off-grid electrification:
(1) Solar home systems (SHS),
(2) Solar battery-charging stations, and
(3) PV mini/micro grids
These are systems that are designed to meet the power requirements of a small
household. A solar home system consists of a PV module, a charge regulator,
deep-cycle battery and optionally an inverter (when connecting to AC loads) (see
Fig. 3.4). The charge controller which is a fundamental part of the SHS controls
the energy inflow and outflow into and from the battery bank. SHSs are usually
owned by the user; hence the user is responsible for all repairs, replacements and
maintenance requirement throughout the useful life of the system (Chaurey and
Kandpal 2010). The schematic of a typical solar home system is given in Fig. 3.5.
Economics
The capital cost of a SHS varies based on type of system opted. The capital cost
is directly related to the number of bulbs in the system. Table 3.5 gives typical
capital costs SHS.
Benefits
SHS is a DC system that generates, stores and uses DC electricity usually at the
same voltage levels throughout the cycle, thus it has higher system efficiency than PV
mini-grid. Energy consumption and load management is within the control of user.
There is no risk of fire, smoke or smell as compared to the traditional energy sources.
Current status
Several hundred thousand SHS are in operation in Africa, Asia and Latin
America. It is estimated that 200,000 SHS are sold annually. A steady growth is
expected over next few years (Goetzbergerand Hoffmann 2005). In India, Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh nearly 600,000, 125,000 and 750,000 SHSs had been sold
as of 2010 respectively (REN21 Renewables 2011).
58 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
A large solar battery charging station (SCS) is typically set up at a central place in
a village/hamlet. This station has battery bank charged from an array PV modules.
A DC-DC converter is used to charge batteries of individual solar lanterns. Solar
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 59
lanterns, due to their portability and versatility are a potential option for replacing
kerosene lamps for domestic lighting applications. A solar lantern is a portable
lighting device using either a CFL or LED based luminaire, housed in an enclosure
made of plastic or metal that contains a re-chargeable battery and necessary
electronics. The schematic of a typical SCS is shown in Fig. 3.6.
Economics
The typical cost of a SCS depends on its capacity (numbers of households) and
the lantern specifications. Table 3.6 shows typical costs of SCS including the cost
of lanterns.
Benefitss
Solar lanterns are similar to kerosene lanterns, its easily accepted by rural
community. Easy to use, charging the lantern battery by paying fees is similar to
60 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
buying kerosene. Users are not responsible for safety of PV modules. The con-
sumer could either buy a lantern or pay fees of only charging or he can rent a
charged lantern for a particular duration. The modular design of the SCS offers the
advantage of need based capacity expansion of the charging station
Off-grid PV power plants are typically in the range of 1–500 kWp, and with
independent power distribution network (PDN). They usually supply 220 V 50 Hz
three-phase or single phase AC electricity through low-tension PDN to households
for domestic power, commercial activities (e.g. shops, video centres, computer
aided communication kiosks, small grinders), and community requirements such
as drinking water supply, street lighting and vaccine refrigeration (Chaurey and
Kandpal 2010). A PV mini/micro grid essentially has:
(1) Centralized electricity generating capacity mainly consisting of PV array,
(2) A battery bank to store the electricity,
(3) Power conditioning unit (PCU) consisting of junction boxes, charge control-
lers, inverters, distribution boards and necessary wiring/cabling, etc., all
located within an appropriately constructed building and
(4) Power distribution network (PDN) consisting of poles, conductors, insulators,
wiring/cabling; service lines, internal wiring and appliances to individual
households.
Figure 3.7 shows a schematic of a PV mini grid.
Economics
The capital cost of PV mini grid system can be broken down to cost of each
component. Percentage break-up of capital cost is shown in Table 3.7.
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 61
The cost of the power distribution network varies depending upon topology. The
typical cost of low-voltage distribution line is about $3000 per km for the plains and it
increases by 10–25 % for remote, hilly regions. Thus by only considering the fixed
cost of the solar PV micro grid system (without including the distribution cost) the
solar PV array alone accounts for 63 % of total cost, battery bank 13 %, and power
conditioning unit 24 %. But the cost of the solar PV panels has declined significantly
from $3.5/Wp in 2009 to $2/Wp in 2011; this has given a much needed boost for the
adoption of SPV technology for off-grid electrification (Raman et al. 2012).
Current status
The most common technology used for off-grid electrification in South Asia is
solar PV mini grids. The mini-grids are typically in the range of 2–150 kWp and
provide AC electricity.
Benefits
Possibility with grid interconnectivity in future is bright. It uses AC appliances,
which are easily available in the market. Better monitoring of energy consumption
is possible due to fixed hours of operation of the power plant at the generation
level and use of individual meters. Plant requires less maintenance.
High investment cost of the solar panels and batteries is the most important barrier
for commercial dissemination of this technology. The high cost of energy relative
to the limited purchasing power of the rural households makes the electricity
prohibitively expensive. With most rural households being able to pay only $2–$3
per month for the electricity (Cust et al. 2007), it may not be financially viable to
run a mini-grid on solar PV alone.
Difficulty in access to finance is another major hurdle that is preventing solar PV
technology from large scale adoption. Most of the current off-grid PV installations in
South Asia are from donor-assisted programmes. Many banks and financing insti-
tutions still perceive solar PV as an unproven technology and as a risky investment.
This is exacerbated by the fact that financial institutions have difficulty finding well-
informed advice about PV system financing. Limited availability of low wattage DC
appliances is another factor that is currently restricting the technology to primarily
lighting loads such as CFL and LED lamps. Replacement of battery-bank every 3–
5 years can be an expensive affair if not planned for at the initial stages itself. Also,
access to quality spares and trained technicians to undertake repair/replacement of
equipment can be very difficult in remote regions.
Small wind turbines (SWT) are wind turbines which are smaller in size, simpler
in construction and have lower energy output [typically up to 100 kW
(Renewable UK 2011)] as compared to the large commercial wind turbines found
62 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
in wind farms. The two most common designs of SWTs are the horizontal axis
wind turbines (HAWTs) and the vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs). Most
SWTs manufactured today are HAWTs with two or three blades and facing the
wind. They generally have aero-elastic blades, lifetime bearings and direct drive
generators. A vane helps it to point into the wind. Their simpler construction,
rugged design and gear-less direct-drive mechanism ensures a higher efficiency, a
longer life time and lesser maintenance expenses.
Unlike the larger wind turbines, installation of SWTs requires neither extensive
infrastructure, nor special equipment for carrying the equipment. SWTs therefore have
a great potential to provide electric power, especially in remote and hilly locations.
However, due to the intermittent nature of the wind resource, SWTs are usually used in
combination with other technologies such as Solar PV, diesel generators and energy
storage systems. Common off-grid applications of SWT are for small homes, farms,
institutions, communication systems, irrigation pumps and village mini grids.
The energy produced by a SWT over a year depends critically on the average wind
speed at the site. The wind resource at a site is usually measured by installing
meteorological towers equipped with anemometers and wind vanes that measure
the wind’s speed and direction respectively. Where onsite measurement is not
viable due to technical or economic reasons, secondary data is used from nearby
reference stations such as airports, nearby meteorological towers or even from
satellite measurements. While typical wind resource maps evaluate wind condi-
tions typically at 50 m height and above, setting up an SWT usually requires data
at lesser than 30 metres height. This requires the data to be extrapolated to lower
hub heights. Installations that are in a semi-urban or built environment would
further require analytical tools to accurately assess the wind resource. With no
such tools currently being available or affordable, for small wind developers, most
SWTs are currently installed in built-up environments based on approximate
estimates of resource and power production.
The theoretical power generated by a small wind turbine (assuming negli-
gible mechanical and electrical losses) is given by the equation below
(Smallwindtips 2010).
P ¼ Cp 1=2 q A V3 ð3:7Þ
where,
P Power generated (in Watts)
Cp Power co-efficient of turbine, ranging from 0.25 to 0.45, (theoretical maxi
mum = 0.59)
Q Air Density (about 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level)
A Swept Area of Blades (pr2) (in m2)
V Velocity of the wind (in m/s)
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 63
The power curve of a wind turbine gives the relationship of power generated
and the wind speed. Most SWT manufacturers rate their turbines by the amount of
power (rated power) that they can produce at a particular wind speed (rated wind
speed). With no specific standard speed to define the power rating, there exists a
possibility that the wind speed for which the SWT is rated would never be seen at
the actual site of installation. Applying a combination of Cp, the swept area of
turbine and the average wind velocity at a site can give us a more realistic estimate
of the expected power output at a site.
Three main technological solutions are available using SWTs (EWEA 2009):
• Wind home systems
• Wind-PV hybrid systems
• Wind-diesel hybrid systems
Wind home systems (WHS)
The WHS, similar to a Solar Home System, is designed to handle the power
requirements of a household for lighting, TV, mobile charging and small house-
hold appliances. A larger sized WHS can also be used for community lantern/
battery charging.
A typical WHS consists of a turbine mounted on the rooftop or on a tower, a charge
controller, deep-cycle batteries and optionally a power conditioning unit (when
connecting to AC loads). Turbines are usually of diameter less than 15 m and a rated
power output of less than 7 kW. WHS are ideal for dwellings, schools, hospitals,
telecom towers, water-pumps, etc. in remote sites with wind speeds above 4–5 m/s.
Unlike SHS that are very widely available, WHS are still not popular in South Asia,
with very few wind turbine manufacturers catering to this market.
Wind-PV hybrid systems
Most South Asian countries have a unique seasonal variation due to the mon-
soons. When the solar resource is low during the monsoon season, the wind speed
is high and vice versa. This creates an ideal situation for a SWT and solar hybrid.
A diesel generator may also be used an additional back-up source. Wind-PV
hybrids [see Fig. 3.8], typically less than 50 kW (EWEA 2009), can be used to
handle the power requirements for farms, institutions, irrigation pump-sets,
industrial applications, small commercial buildings, village electrification, etc.
Wind diesel hybrid
When the power requirement is larger (up to 100 kW) and when quality power
cannot be delivered by the intermittent sources alone, a wind-diesel hybrid is used.
The diesel generator handles most of the power requirement, with SWT being used
to fill in whenever adequate wind is available. Batteries, if any, are used only to
power supervisory controls and not for substantial storage. Wind diesel hybrid is a
suitable solution for mini-grids in remote locations with adequate wind resource.
64 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
3.3.5.3 Economics
The price of small wind turbines depends on its size, its design and whether it is
operated in stand-alone or hybrid mode. The cost of a SWT installation includes
the price of the complete system (wind turbine, tower, battery storage, power
conditioning unit and wiring), in addition to labour charges for installation and
permit charges in several countries. Other likely additional costs include those
arising from resource assessment and feasibility studies. The typical cost for
buying and installing a SWT ranges from about $2,500 to $6,000 per kW (AWEA
2009). In spite of the higher investment cost, their relatively lower operational
costs make the SWTs cost-competitive to conventional power in many off-grid or
remote areas having a sufficient wind resource.
Though SWTs are designed for uninterrupted operation, they still require
occasional cleaning and lubrication. In addition to the batteries, the turbine, guy
wires, nuts and bolts, etc. require periodic inspection. The maintenance costs are
primarily dependent on the availability of local spares and service. The amount of
energy generated and hence the cost of energy is critically dependent on the
average annual wind speed and the capacity factor (dependent on the frequency of
wind) at the site of installation. The typical cost of energy for an off-grid SWT
installation ranges from $0.19 to $0.34 per kWh (ESMAP 2007).
3.3.5.4 Benefits
land acquisition issues and do not require large infrastructure support to transport
equipment. The SWT industry provides local employment for sales, installation
and maintenance in the remote regions. Scope also exists for local manufacture or
indigenization of the technology.
Due to their low state of maturity and commercialization, current designs of SWT
are relatively less efficient, more expensive to manufacture and produce lesser
energy per kW when compared to their larger counterparts. With paucity of actual
working installations, most customers are not aware of the technology and its
benefits. Manufacturers of SWTs have limited resources to promote the technology.
Hence SWTs may remain out of reach for most rural customers in South Asia
without sustained government policies and funding. Also, in the absence of tech-
nology and policy for net metering, there will be little incentive for private players
and co-operatives to adopt the technology for commercial gains.
Currently most manufacturers have their own performance rating criteria. This
leads to concerns over the performance of the equipment at actual site. In the
absence of testing to local or standard conditions, turbine components are prone to
reliability concerns. Problems of noise and vibration observed in many small
turbines can act as a major deterrent for rooftop installations and can be a major
cause of customer dissatisfaction.
Small wind turbine technology is still in a nascent stage across the world in spite of
the maturity attained on the development of the large and medium-sized wind
technology for wind farms. While opportunities for off-grid energy access are
making SWTs attractive to the developing world, feasibility to sell electricity to
the grid through policies such as feed-in tariffs and net-metering is driving the
sales in the developed world (AWEA 2011).
The US is the main market for SWTs in the world both in terms of consumption
and production, with more than 100,000 small wind turbines in operation (EWEA
2009). As per a 2009 estimate by the American Wind Energy Association, there
are approximately 250 companies manufacturing SWTs world-wide. Of these, 95
are based in the US. After the U.S., the U.K. and Canada are the largest markets
for SWTs.
The South Asian market, though believed to be large, is yet to gain momentum.
Realizing this huge untapped market, particularly in the off-grid segment, the
small wind turbine manufacturers in the region are slowly organizing themselves
to play a major role in the years to come (Windpowerindia 2010).
Globally, IEC standards exist for the safety requirements of SWTs (IEC61400-2)
and other applicable IEC standards such as those for power performance or noise
66 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
3.3.6 Biodiesel
The most common feed stocks for biodiesel are rapeseed, sunflower, soybean, palm
oil, animal fats and used frying oil. In South-Asia, due to paucity of edible oils, only
non-food feed stocks are being recommended (Verma and Sharda 2005). India has
rich and abundant forest resources with a wide range of plants and oilseeds. Non
edible oils such as rice bran, sal, neem, mahua, karanj, jatropha, etc. are easily
available in many parts of the world including South-Asia (Satish 2006). Non-edible
oil sources of India, their potential and current utilization is shown in Table 3.8.
Many non-edible oil-seeds grow in forests, wasteland, and can be cultivated in un-
used land in the village premises. These non-edible oil-seeds can be used to
produce biodiesel by the simple process explained above. Biodiesel production
does not require economy of scale. There is no minimum size for a biodiesel
facility. Small decentralized biodiesel facilities do not require dedicated technical
staff support; they can be operated by locally trained non-technical staff. Thus
biodiesel is a renewable way of meeting rural energy demands. Biodiesel can be
produced in a required quantity and used to run a diesel generator set. The gen-
erated electricity could be stored in a battery bank, and used to charge lantern or
could supply power through a DC mini grid. Although it is recommended that
biodiesel must not be used for sole purpose of electrification, it must be used for
other applications like pumping drinking water, etc.
3.3.6.4 Economics
The rapeseed oil derived biodiesel, in 1992 cost 186 % of the price of conventional
diesel. An evaluations of cost from US soybean and sunflower in 2005 concluded
that biodiesel cost were 2.8 fold those of conventional diesel. The production cost
depends on production route. When we talk about biodiesel for rural electrifica-
tion, the simplest way of producing biodiesel must be followed. Sale of glycerol
would reduce cost of production by approximately 6 % (David 2010). Sale of
glycerol covers not only cost of alcohol and catalyst, but labour and the energy
input as well. Small decentralized biodiesel plants of capacity 45–1,800 tons/year
would cost around US $1,000–$40,000 respectively (Satish 2006).
3.3.6.5 Benefits
NOx emissions are generally higher (0–10 %) but can be reduced by additive like
butyl peroxide (DTBP) or by retarding the injection timing. Biodiesel can’t be
directly used in engines having components made of nitrile rubber, as biodiesel
dissolves it. Thus, engines need retrofitting, replacing nitrile rubber by
3 Technology Choices for Off-Grid Electrification 69
Rapeseed oil methyl ester was the first type of biodiesel fuel produced commercially in
1988. Tremendous progress has been made in the past two decades. Actual production
in the world rose from about 10,000 tons in 1991 to about 2,800,000 tons in 2003
(Verma and Sharda 2005). In 2010, the annual production of bio-diesel was at 19
billion litres (REN21 Renewables 2011). In principle there are two approaches that can
be taken to secure the wide use of biodiesel in the national fuel market: whereas
German law prefers a biodiesel to be used in the pure form, in France biodiesel blended
with fossil fuels carries the tax advantages (Planning and installing bioenergy systems
2005). At present, USA uses 50 million gallons and European countries use 350 million
gallons of bio-diesel annually. France is the country which uses 50 % of bio-diesel
mixed with diesel fuel (Murugasen et al. 2009). Biodiesel based rural electrification has
been attempted in various places in South Asia and Africa. Successful example can be
seen in West Africa, Odisha in India and elsewhere.
Each of the RETs discussed above vary immensely in terms of the resources
required, their initial and operational costs, their levels of technical maturity and
their perceived social and environmental benefits. Table 3.9 lists some of the
relative strengths and weakness of the technologies discussed.
3.5 Conclusions
energy resources available or addressing the varied nature of the energy services
required. Therefore, a faster development and wider deployment ofthe full range of
technologies is essential for universal energy access to be achieved.
Each of the technologies is in a different stage of evolution and requires different
stimuli for its development. Research for further reduction in the capital cost and
development of innovative financing or pricing mechanisms could make the costlier
technologies such as Micro hydro and Solar PV more attractive even in the devel-
oping countries. The less mature technologies, on the other hand, require an exten-
sive focus on applied research and a localized innovation strategy to promote their
accelerated diffusion. In the interim, new hybrid solutions and smart mini-grids can
be adopted to effectively utilize the core strengths of each of the RETs in addition to
maintaining diversity in supply options for decentralized electrification.
References
AWEA. (2009). Small wind turbine global market study. American Wind Energy Association, USA.
AWEA. (2011). U.S. Small wind turbine market report. American Wind Energy Association, USA.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Rogner, H. H., Brew-Hammond, A., Foster, V., Pachauri, S., et al.
(2012). Energy access scenarios to 2030 for the power sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. Utilities
Policy, 20(1), 1–16.
72 V. V. N. Kishore et al.
This part reviews the global rural electrification experience by focusing on South
Asia, China, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the rest of the world. The developments in
terms of off-grid electricity access are also highlighted. This part contains four
chapters. Chapter 4 presents the South Asian case, Chapter 5 focuses on China,
Chapter 6 deals with Sub-Saharan Africa and finally Chapter 7 covers South East
Asia and the Latin American experience. Each chapter considers the status,
technology choices, organisational and governance aspects as well as initiatives
for off-grid access. Each chapter also highlights the lessons for others or lessons
that can be learnt from others.
Chapter 4
Off-Grid Rural Electrification
Experiences from South Asia
Abstract South Asia accounts for around 31 % of the global population without
access to electricity. While there is no denying the fact that the electrification rate is
increasing, such a situation continues to exist despite several initiatives and policies
to support electrification efforts by the respective country governments. The chal-
lenges to enhance electricity access are manifold including technical, financial,
institutional and governance barriers. Based on an extensive literature review, this
chapter attempts to highlight the rural electrification situation at the regional and
country level in South Asia. It also performs a comparative analysis to exploit cross
learning potential and suggest specific boosters that could serve as input for policy
and technology review and assist future electrification efforts in the region. Here we
have focused on renewable energy based mini-grids and stand-alone systems and
also covered conventional grid extension. We also raise some pertinent issues and
attempt to find their solutions. The household connection needs to be improved
considerably through a targeted approach and innovative micro-lending model.
At the same time the electricity supply also needs to be enhanced, such as through
distributed power projects utilizing locally available renewable resources, to ensure
that electricity supply to connected households in sustainable and supply constraints
do not inhibit extending electrification to virgin areas or intensification of existing
villages. Developing a regulatory mechanism to extend the tariff fixation for
4.1 Introduction
Despite growing investment in rural electrification across South Asia from gov-
ernments, NGOs, and private investors, 493 million people in the region continue
to remain without electricity. The importance of electrification, especially for rural
areas, in bringing about both human and economic development has been well
documented (DFID 2002; GNESD 2007; NRECA 2002). A number of studies also
demonstrate how rural electrification provides direct and indirect social and eco-
nomic benefits for communities, ranging from poverty eradication to education
(ESMAP 2002; Gunaratne 2002; Yang and Yu 2004). Some evidence even sug-
gests that provision of infrastructure in a complementary fashion provides not just
additional, but exponential benefits, due to the available synergies (Cecelski 2000).
The benefits of rural grid electrification, are similarly realized in off-grid situations
also, even though the amounts of power made available by decentralized systems
are relatively smaller and the services provided more basic (World Bank 2008).
While there is available literature (Khan 2003; Shrestha et al. 2004; Dubash and
Bradley 2005; Bhattacharyya 2006; TERI 2009a; Krishnaswamy 2010; Mainali
and Silveira 2011) analysing the rural electrification (RE) at the individual country
level, no recent comparative analyses exist1 at the South Asian regional level for
cross learning by the countries and others. This chapter seeks to provide a review
of available literature on the status of rural electrification in South Asia,2 and to
identify best practices in off-grid supply that could be useful to expanding elec-
trification in South Asian region and in other developing countries. Based on the
review, we attempt a comparative analysis to exploit the cross learning potential,
both at the country and region level, and suggest specific boosters that could serve
as inputs for policy and technology review and assist future electrification efforts
for improving the access. Emphasis is given to those countries in South Asia where
a significant improvement in the access to electricity has been achieved. The
categories studied include technology, delivery models, policy and regulatory
architecture, local participation and financing. As data availability on off-grid
electrification is often limited, the review is selective.
1
Our paper Palit and Chaurey (2011) is an exception and this chapter refers to this work
extensively.
2
South AsiaRegion consists of eight countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives,
Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 77
World-wide, although the rate of rural electrification has increased and has made
significant gains in terms of percentage of access to electricity, there seems to be
no significant decrease in the absolute number of people without electricity. This
could be due to the fact that rural population has expanded at roughly the same
pace as electrification in many countries. Another reason could be because of
de-electrification3 of villages, typical of South Asian countries, due to poor or no
supply of electricity to such areas, although officially such villages remain elec-
trified. The current penetration of electricity in the rural areas of the region is about
59.9 %, leaving two out of every five people in the rural areas without access to
electricity (IEA 2011). While the figure serves as a common denominator to the
problem, there exists wide disparity in rural electrification in South Asia. Sri Lanka
has a rural electrification rate higher than the global average while only 15.5 % of
the rural population in Afghanistan is connected to the grid. India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh alone constitute more than 90 % of the population that lack access to
electricity in the region while the remaining 10 % is dispersed in the other smaller
countries (see Table 4.1).
Of the total population without electricity access in the region, many reside in
isolated communities, such as islands, forests fringes and hilly settlements. These
communities are generally small, consisting of low-income households—with
characteristics that may be economically unattractive to electricity distribution
companies or even government electrification program that usually prioritizes the
allocation of the scarce resources. A substantial section of the un-served con-
sumers are also found in mainstream rural and peri-urban areas, already connected
to the grid, where the issue seems to be less of opportunity to get connected to grid,
but more of inability of households to take electricity connection due to their
financial constraints or the perception that electricity services (quantity and
quality) will be inadequate. For example, official figures indicate that India and
Bangladesh has almost 94 and 57 % of the villages covered through grid while it is
observed that rural household connection levels are at 53 and 28 % respectively.4
Despite the differences in South Asian countries’ efforts to electrify rural areas,
including significant natural resource disparities, many similarities also exist in
regional efforts. Shared regional population characteristics are one major contrib-
utor to similarities in these rural electrification efforts. South Asian countries are
3
De-electrified village means a village which has been electrified earlier, however, it has
become un-electrified at present as the distribution infrastructure has not been in working
condition for a long time. However, in official records it continues to be shown as electrified. The
de-electrified village category was accepted by the Government of India during the launch of
Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana and included for repeat electrification of such
villages.
4
Village electrification here is considered as percentage of villages where electricity grid or
mini-grid exists. Household electrification on the other hand is defined as percentage households
who have actually taken electricity connection.
78 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
4.3.1 India
With the largest rural population in the world, India continues to face a huge RE
challenge. Though the government has been making conscious efforts since the
beginning of planned economic development in the country in 1951 to make
substantial improvements to the electricity infrastructure in terms of availability
and accessibility, the household electrification level and power availability is still
far below the world average. Low household electrification level may reflect the
fact that historically the level of electrification has been measured as a percentage
of electrified villages with extension of the grid to any point within the revenue
boundary of a village, irrespective of whether any household is getting connected or
not. In fact, some researchers argue that electrification as a part of the green
revolution in agriculture was the main driver for RE (Bhattacharyya 2006;
Krisnaswamy 2010). However, the Government of India adopted a new definition
of village electrification5 in 2004 and many villages that were previously
considered electrified now fall by definition into the un-electrified category.
5
A village will be deemed to be electrified if: basic infrastructure such as distribution
transformer and distribution lines are provided in the inhabited locality as well as the hamlet
where it exists; Electricity is provided to public places like schools, panchayat office, health
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 79
Currently, only seven states have achieved 100 % village electrification, and
five of these states are smaller ones. Though officially Andhra Pradesh and Tamil
Nadu are considered to have achieved complete village electrification, reports
from the TERI field study indicate that there are many hamlets and forest fringe
villages in these states where any form of electricity, on-grid or off-grid, is yet to
reach (Palit and Chaurey 2011). Some of the larger states such as Assam, Bihar,
Jharkhand, Orissa, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the north-eastern region lag
behind in rural electricity access. Krishnaswamy (2010) argues that the main
reason for poor electrification in these states is poor governance. Some have also
noted that structural factors may explain disparities in the share of electrified
villages between regions and states (Chaurey et al. 2004; Kemmler 2007).
Bhattacharyya (2006) while comparing the variation in electricity consumption by
expenditure class in rural and urban areas shares that ‘‘(a) electricity consumption
per capita increases with higher level of income; (b) for similar level of income,
urban consumption is much higher than rural consumption and (c) low-income
groups appear to use electricity mostly for lighting whereas very high level of
electricity consumption in highest income groups of urban areas can only be
achieved through significant appliance use’’.
Over the years, a number of central government Programs (such as Kutir Jyoti,
Minimum Needs Program, and Accelerated RE Program in grid extension mode
and RVE (Remote Village Electrification) Program and VESP (Village Energy
Security Program) in off-grid mode) attempted to enhance electricity access either
as part of overall rural development or specifically targeting RE. However,
Bhattacharyya (2006) argues that multiplicity of programs made funding for each
of them inadequate and implementation was also not properly coordinated or
managed. Due to the financial burden that national programs have been imposing
on state governments, the state government operated electricity utilities often have
shown less interest in promoting these schemes actively and even the targets set by
the utilities have not been met.
However, during the last decade, rural electrification has come become a political
priority, driven by the realization of its neglect over the years, with the Government
of India creating the necessary enabling environment through the REST (Rural
Electricity Supply Technology) Mission in 2001, Electricity Act 2003,6 National
(Footnote 5 continued)
centers, dispensaries, community centers etc. and the number of households electrified should be
at least 10 % of the total number of households in the village.
6
The Electricity Act 2003 made the government (both state and central) obligated to supply
electricity to rural areas including villages and hamlets. Section 6 of the act mandates the hitherto
implied Universal Service Obligation by stating that the government shall endeavor to supply
electricity to all areas including villages and hamlets. Section 5 further mandates the formulation of
national policy on rural electrification focusing, especially, on management of local distribution
networks through local institutions. The EA2003 in Section 4 also frees stand-alone generation and
distribution networks from licensing requirements.
80 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
Electrification Policy 20057 and Rural Electrification Policy 2006.8 In 2001, the
government declared the objective of ‘power for all’ by 2012 under the REST
Mission and continued it with the launch of a large-scale electrification effort, the
Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY) scheme in February 2005 to
create access to electricity for all households and provide connections to 32 million
BPL (below poverty line) households. To ensure revenue sustainability, RE
distribution franchises were also introduced, and made responsible for metering,
billing and revenue collection for particular territories. In some cases, input based
franchises (IBF) were also introduced who procure electricity in bulk from the
distribution utility and distribute the same in their operational areas. These policies
have improved the financial and institutional status of the state utilities and have
widened the governments’ scope of action in the sector.
However, the RGGVY may have achieved its targets of village electrification
and below poverty line (BPL) household electrification; the overall household
electrification level has not increased substantially. While 87 % of the targeted
villages had been energized and 86 % of the BPL households connected to the grid
(as of December 2011), studies indicate only about 20 % of the total un-electrified
rural households have taken connection (Palit and Chaurey 2011). This is also
because of the ambiguity in interpreting the term ‘‘electricity access’’. As part of
RGGVY, the government is extending the electricity grid with the understanding
that the necessary access has been created and now the onus of taking the
connection rests with individual households. Rejikumar (2005) argued that
the timescale applied to the electrification targets seems to be highly infeasible.
Researchers argue that a more realistic date by which to achieve the government’s
targets is 2019/2020 (Dubash and Bradley 2005; Purohit 2009).
4.3.2 Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s RE programme started in the late 1970s with the assistance of the
United States Agency for International Development and has since then been
growing in size. Under the programme, 75,000 villages were planned to be elec-
trified out of a total of 86,038 villages (at the time of start of the program) in the
country. However, currently the overall electrification rate in Bangladesh is 41 %
and more than 95 million people do not have access to electricity (IEA 2011). The
main mode of electrification has been the extension of the electricity grid through the
7
The National Electricity Policy 2005 inter-alia states that wherever grid based electrification is
not feasible, DDG (decentralized distributed generation) facilities (either conventional or non-
conventional methods of electricity generation whichever is more suitable and economical)
together with local distribution network would be provided so that every household gets access to
electricity.
8
The REP aims at providing minimum lifeline consumption of 1 kWh per household per day as
a merit good by year 2012.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 81
rural electricity cooperatives called Palli Bidyut Samity (PBS). The role of PBS is to
construct rural electricity distribution backbone, manage and operate the facilities,
and distribute power, all under the supervision of Rural Electrification Board (REB).
The PBSs are connected to the grid and receive electricity in bulk from the
Bangladesh Power Development Board, which is then distributed to their con-
sumers. The tariff structure cross-subsidizes domestic and agricultural consumers by
levying rates on them below the cost of service and levying rates above the cost of
service on industrial and commercial consumers. Overall, the REB programme has
been successful having energized over 2,29,809 km of line, electrified 48,730
villages and connected 9.03 million households as on April 2012 (REB 2012).
Despite the country’s political, social, and economic instability, the REB model
can be considered successful to the extent that it created the distribution backbone
covering almost 65 % of the targeted rural area and has achieved a certain level of
results in terms of proper system design, low system loss, and high collection
efficiency. However, similar to Indian situation, households getting connected to
the network continue to remain low as compared to the total number of rural
households in the country. Further, poor households have much lower electrifi-
cation rate as compared to non-poor households (GNESD 2004). One of the
reasons for low level of electricity access by the poor could be high upfront cost of
getting connected to the electricity network. At the same time, the focus on strictly
enforced performance targets for PBS (such as revenue/km of line, collection
efficiency, cost of service, system loss to name a few) may also have impeded the
PBS to connect households in unviable areas. Shrestha et al. (2004) opine that
inadequate electricity generation capacity commensurate with the increased
demand due to expansion in the distribution network to cover new areas, lack of
adequate financial resources to support RE as well as slow national economic
growth could also have limited electricity access of rural households. Neverthe-
less, the Government of Bangladesh has targeted to provide access to all by the
year 2020 (GOB 2005). In addition to the PBS model, solar home systems (SHS)
are also being disseminated in the areas not covered by grid electrification and till
April 2012 have covered around 1.43 million consumers.
4.3.3 Nepal
The national electrification rate in Nepal presents a very uneven regional and
urban–rural distribution (REP 2008). In urban areas, where less than 20 % of the
population lives, the household electrification rate is more than 90 %. The RE rate
on the other hand is considerably low—being higher in the accessible lowland
regions (the terai) and lowest in the mountain communities. IEA statistics also
indicate that in terms of per capita electricity consumption, it is only 81 kWh, one
of the lowest in the world. However, the access to grid does not necessarily mean
that there is a reliable electricity supply to meet the needs of the people. The
82 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
electricity demand is more than the supply capacity and there are frequent
blackouts with annual energy deficit more than 20 % of the demand (NEA 2009).
Though the electrification rate is still low, the country has made significant
progress since the beginning of the last decade to extend electrification to the
remote areas. The electrification rate was 40 % in 2002 at the start of the 10th Five
Year Plan. Due to concerted efforts by the Government of Nepal, the overall
electrification rate increased to 55 % at the end of the Plan period (ESAP 2006).
Zahnd and Kimber (2009) observed that about 10 million people, out of Nepal’s
estimated 28.5 million (at the end of 2006), live in such remote locations where it
will be difficult to extend the national electricity grid for decades to come. The
Government recognized the fact early and formulated the hydro power policy 2001
(NDF 2004) which allows domestic private sector to generate and distribute
electricity by building micro-hydro power projects of up to 100 kW capacity. The
Water Resources Strategy 2002 also emphasized active participation of rural
communities and private entrepreneurs, and envisaged electrifying 60 and 80 % of
the nation’s households respectively by the end of years 2017 and 2027 respec-
tively (NDF 2004). A note-worthy feature of the RE situation in Nepal is that, at
one point of time, almost 30 % coverage in rural areas and 10 % of overall
electrification has been through the off-grid route (REP 2008).
Since 2003, Nepal also started experimenting with community involvement as
part of their Community RE Rules. This was done to bring in operational effi-
ciency in the distribution sector, which was witnessing high system losses and poor
revenue collection over the years. Consumer associations, typically in the form of
cooperatives, take the responsibility of managing, maintaining, and expanding the
rural distribution of electricity. Communities raise 20 % of the investment cost for
grid extension to their area and 80 % of the cost is borne by the Government of
Nepal through the Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA). The NEA sells power in
bulk to rural electricity cooperatives that distributes and collects revenue from the
villagers. Ghimire (2011) reports more than 230 cooperatives across Nepal have
entered into agreements with NEA. Ghimire also shares that currently 135,000
rural households have been electrified through community based RE and the
number will increase to about 230,000 households as pipeline projects are com-
pleted. The communities have till middle of 2011 contributed a total of US$6.89
million towards their share.
Sri Lanka stands out among the South Asian countries for its high rate of household
electrification. During the period 1986–2005, the national electrification rate
improved significantly from 10.9 to 76.7 % due to aggressive electrification efforts
(ADB 2007). Almost 90 % of the rural households are reportedly connected to
electricity grid while another 2 % are connected through off-grid option. Sri Lanka’s
high electrification rate compared to other South Asian countries reflects the strong
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 83
political will and an early move by the Government to create grid electricity
infrastructure through donor support as well as utilize the country’s significant
hydro resources for meeting the demand. Another significant feature is setting up of
annual targets for household connection rate as part of the Energy Policy 2006 and
the implementable road map for achieving the targets. Electricity has been con-
sidered a basic service similar to providing access to better road, education and
water by the government and large amount of fund has been allocated to extend the
grid and provide quality power in the rural areas. Further, the country being compact
with almost all areas being accessible and better economic condition of households
in Sri Lanka may also have contributed to better grid penetration and households’
decision to take electrical connection.
ADB has been mainly supporting the Sri Lankan Government to achieve its
electrification goals. Similar to other developing countries, connection prices were
a barrier to electrification of households. ADB designed and created a revolving
fund to support grid connections for poor households through micro-lending (ADB
2009). The power fund targeted poor households who are within range of a grid
but lack finance to take connection, costing US$130–US$170. Building on the
initial success of the scheme from 2004 to 2009, ADB approved a new credit
program, which aims to connect at least 75,000 households into the grid by 2016
to support the government’s goal to substantially raise rural electricity coverage
to more than 90 % through grid by 2016.
Despite the high electrification rate in the country, disparities in access to
electrification exist with the relatively economically backward districts and estate
plantation areas recording lesser electrification than the country average. ADB
(2007) observes that deterrents to access include eligibility criteria used to select
electrification projects, politicization of the decision making process and also poor
affordability of the potential consumers to pay the connection charges.
The most common technologies used for off-grid electrification in the region are
solar photovoltaic (PV) and mini/micro hydro systems. Solar PV applications in
the region include both SHS as well as mini-grids. While a typical SHS includes a
20–100 Wp (peak watt) PV array, a rechargeable battery for energy storage, one or
more high efficiency lamps (either compact fluorescent or LED) and an outlet for a
portable black and white television or other very low power consuming appli-
ances,9 the mini-grids are typically in the range of 2–150 kWp and provide
AC electricity (Ulsrud et al. 2011; Shukla 2010).
9
Usually SHSwith less than 40 Wp is used for lighting purpose whereas SHS above 40 Wp can
be used for operating other electrical appliances such as TV, motor, fan etc.
84 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
Almost all the countries reviewed have used SHS as a means for extending
lighting to areas that could not be reached with grid electricity. An interesting
feature in Nepal is that smaller capacity SHS (locally called solar tuki) with capacity
between 2.5 and 10 Wp have also been widely disseminated. India, on the other
hand, has also implemented solar mini-grids especially in Sunderban region and
Chhattisgarh to cover un-electrified areas. Lately, solar DC micro grid and solar
charging stations are also being implemented by selected institutions and solar
companies in India. TERI’s Lighting a Billion Lives (LaBL) programme is one such
program, where solar charging stations or solar DC micro-grids are set up in villages
to extend clean lighting to such areas. While the DC micro grid provides fixed line
connections, LED lamps are recharged from the solar charging stations and pro-
vided on rental basis to the users. A key factor of the success of the solar PV program
in different countries is due to quality standards ensured for PV panels, batteries, and
other components as approved by the technical standards committees in respective
countries. However, effective after sales maintenance in remote rural areas continue
to pose challenges, especially in India and Nepal, for functionality of solar devices.
The mini/micro hydro systems (usually capacity in the range of 50 kW–3 MW)
have been used to create mini-grids to supply AC electricity locally. While Sri
Lanka and Nepal have extensively used this technology to extend electrification to
off-grid areas, such plants have also been installed in the hilly regions of India such
as Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, and Uttarakhand. Many mini/
micro hydro projects in the region have been driven by ‘technology push’, with
micro-hydro now being a mature technology greatly improved by electronic load
controllers, low-cost turbine designs, and the use of plastics in pipe work and
penstocks. However, one of the key challenges faced by mini/micro hydro systems
especially in India is low utilization factor due to unavailability of sufficient water
discharge during dry season and very high discharges during monsoon in the
Himalayan streams (when the plant has to be shut down to avoid damage to
the penstock or turbine due to possibility of high quantity of silt coming with
the water). The low load factors also results in high O and M costs resulting in
uneconomical operation in isolated mode in the hilly areas.
Biomass gasifiers have found use in India and to a limited extent in Sri Lanka
for off-grid electrification (Ghosh et al. 2006; Abeygunawardana 2011). Biomass
gasifier based mini-grids are typically in the range of 10–500 kW. The technology
however has found limited success for off-grid electrification. One of the key
reasons for this is absence of standardized performance oriented technical speci-
fications of the systems to ensure quality of the products and also due to non-
creation of proper after sales maintenance network to service the systems in the
remote rural areas10 (TERI 2009b). Ghosh et al. (2006) opine that technical
10
The performance of the biomass gasifier projects implemented under VESP or RVE program
in remote rural areas is found to be unsatisfactory especially due to technology management and
product quality issues On the other hand, biomass gasifiers implemented by private companies in
some parts of India for electricity supply to ‘not so remote’ areas are reported to be working
satisfactorily.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 85
barriers also remain in the development of engines running only on producer gas
for small capacity biomass gasifiers11—these engines are not designed for pro-
ducer gas and are mostly developed through modification of existing diesel
engines that leads to substantial capacity derating. The technology is also signif-
icantly hindered by limited manufacturing capabilities with most gasifier manu-
facturers having small workshops or small fabricators.
Reddy and Srinivas (2009) opine that the choice of energy technology in the
context of RE is influenced by various actors and factors—prevailing policy and
implementing agencies at the macro level, distributors, service companies and
financing institutions at meso level and finally the household socio-economics at
micro level. Even though both grid-connected and off-grid have their own
advantages and disadvantages, the underlying principle for choice of a particular
mode is adopting the least cost technology options and with minimum mainte-
nance requirements as far as possible. A strong fuel supply linkage, especially
through involvement of local community, is critical for sustainability of biomass
gasifier based mini-grids (Palit et al. 2012). Also, in the case of solar mini-grids,
the storage batteries are found to be the technically weakest part in the systems
(Ulsrud et al. 2011). They have thrown upon additional challenges for the whole
operation and sustenance of the solar mini-grids, including the difficulties it gives
the operators and the need it creates for development of a quite advanced technical
understanding in the operators as well as proper drawl of electricity by the con-
sumers as per set norms so as to have a longer battery life. A close interconnection
thus exists between technical and non-technical matters. Recognition of this fact is
thus crucial to obtain viable and sustainable solutions.
Most off-grid electrification programs in the region have been grant-based and
donor-driven, and continue to be so in countries such as India, Nepal and Pakistan.
Yet markets have also developed in some countries, such as the SHS and solar
lantern market in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India. The rise of these markets reflects
innovations in system design as well as in financial and institutional mechanisms.
While the grid has been extended mainly through the utility based model (in India,
Sri Lanka and Nepal) or rural electricity cooperative (in Bangladesh), literature
indicates community based models were often adopted for mini-grid based elec-
trification, albeit with different names such as VEC (village energy committee),
VDC (village development committee), and REC (rural electricity cooperative). The
VEC or the REC plays the role of stand-alone power producer, distributor and
11
Usually, for small capacity gasifier systems running on only producer gas such as 10 or
20 kWe, diesel engines are modified (CI engine converted to SI engine) and coupled with the
gasifier, as gas engines are not commercially available for smaller capacity range. Gas engines
are used for 25 kWe capacity systems and above.
86 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
supplier of electricity, manages the revenue through collection of payments for the
electricity used from users and dispute resolution in case of power supply disruption.
The RVE program and VESP in India followed the VEC approach. Though previ-
ously private Rural Energy Service Companies have not attempted to in any of the
countries, it is observed since last few years that private developers in some Indian
states have started providing electricity services on a flat rate basis (e.g. INR 150/per
light point per month) in rural areas, through installation of biomass gasifier based
power generation systems12 or diesel generators.13
In case of solar PV based rural electrification, different service delivery models
have been adopted in different countries. For example, fee-for-service, leasing and
consumer financing have been attempted in case of individual SHS disseminated in
the region. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh followed the consumer financing model
involving banks and MFIs (micro-financing institutions) for large scale dissemi-
nation of SHS. Similarly, in India private agencies such as SELCO and rural banks
(Aryabrat Grameen Bank and Prathama Grameen Bank in Uttar Pradesh, Gurgaon
Grameen Bank in Haryana, SEWA Bank in Gujarat and Syndicate Bank in
Karnataka) have also used the consumer financing model to disseminate SHS
(Palit and Chaurey 2011). Rural Electrification Board in Bangladesh on the other
hand has adopted an innovative model in disseminating SHS. The Board installs
the SHS in the customer’s house and the household pays a monthly bill for
electricity consumption but never owns the actual solar panel.
In case of solar mini grids in India, these are operated by cooperative societies
or VEC formed by the local people and is responsible for selection of consumers,
planning for the distribution networks, tariff setting and revenue collection.
A unique case is the Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Agency
(CREDA), who evolved its own service delivery model and directly takes care of
the operation and maintenance through a three-tier system of maintenance to
ensure trouble-free working of the mini-grid systems. On the other hand, TERI has
been extending clean lighting under its LaBL program using the fee-for-service
model. Mera Gao Micro Grid Power (MGP) and Naturetech Infra, which are small
start-up companies in India, are building several solar DC micro-grids in small
villages in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar following the fee-for- service model. Both the
companies’ model focuses on implementing the full energy system—generation,
12
Husk Power Systems, DESI Power and Sharan Renewables are some privately owned
companies that have set up biomass gasifier-based power plants with capacity ranging from 30 to
100 kWe covering around 300 villages and hamlets across Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These
gasifiers run on a variety of crop residues, such as rice husk, sugar cane toppings, corn cob, etc.
and provide electricity services to villages on flat rate or metered basis.
13
In many villages across India, especially in Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, use of
diesel gensets (called choti bijli) is common. These are usually owned by individuals and used to
supply power to their own homes or for powering irrigation water pumps. Often an enterprising
villager works out an arrangement to provide power either to a cluster of houses or for some
economic activity. The electricity is priced as flat rate (ranging between INR 10 and INR 15 per
kWh if converted to kWh basis) and so it is availed of only by those who can afford it or who
cannot afford to do without it.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 87
Table 4.2 Technologies for off-grid electrification and business models adopted in four South
Asian countries
Country Major off-grid technologies Business models adopted
implemented
Bangladesh SHS Consumer financing, leasing
India SHS, solar lanterns, biomass gasifier, Consumer financing, leasing, fee for
micro/mini hydro power service, village energy committee
Nepal SHS, micro/mini hydro power Consumer financing, village energy
committee
Sri Lanka SHS, micro/mini hydro power Consumer financing, village development
committee
storage, DC distribution lines and LED lamps—with users paying service charges
for availing the lighting. Their core innovation is profiting from the low cost power
delivery through LED lights and charging of mobiles (both DC applications)
without provision for powering any other appliances.
It is also observed that programs such as IDCOL or mini-grids in Sunderban
region and Chhattisgarh in India have been more successful as compared to other
programs in these countries mainly due to their implementation through a proper
institutional arrangement following a standard set of guidelines (Palit and Sarangi
2011). This corroborates the need for a robust institutional structure along with
appropriate policy enablers for success of any solar programs.
The major off-grid technologies and the business models in the four selected
South Asian countries are shown in Table 4.2.
In India, the off-grid electrification has been carried out under RVE Program,
the VESP and the Technology Demonstration Program, all administered by the
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) and implemented primarily
through designated state renewable energy development agencies in each of the
states. In addition, various NGOs have also been attempting to create electricity
access through off-grid options with funding support from MNRE, bilateral and
multilateral aid agencies. The RVE program, initiated in 2001, covers un-electrified
census villages and hamlets that are not likely to receive grid connectivity. RVE
electrified 9,160 villages and hamlets as of March 2012 (MNRE 2012). The VESP,
conceptualized as a step forward to the RVE program, attempted to address the total
energy need for cooking, electricity, and motive power in remote villages through
use of the locally available biomass. In the test phase, 79 projects, covering as many
villages, were sanctioned of which 61 have been actually constructed or commis-
sioned in 8 states, while the others are at various stages of implementation (Palit
et al. 2012). In all, around 700 kW of electricity generation equipment has been
installed (World Bank 2011). MNRE statistics also indicate that about 721.31 MW
of off-grid/captive power projects have been deployed till 30 March 2012.
88 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
private sales with a total installed capacity of around 3.5 MW. The current phase of
ESAP aims to provide energy solutions to more than 1 million households through
its various program (ESAP 2012). It is supporting creation of mini-grids, to be fed by
hydro power with capacity 5 kW–1 MW, as pre-grid electrification option.
In addition to mini-grids, it is also targeting to cover 1,50,000 households with SHS
and about 2,50,000 households by solar tuki systems (ESAP 2012).
14
With the launch of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), as one of the eight
National Missions comprising India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, the solar
technology programmes promoted by the MNRE has now all been integrated under the Mission.
The Mission has twin objectives of contributing to India’s long-term energy security and its
ecologically sustainable growth, and aims to incentivize the installation of 22,000 MW of on and
off-gridsolar power using both solar PV and Concentrating Solar Power technologies by 2022 as
well as a large number of other solar applications such as solar lighting, heating, and water
pumps. The first phase (up to 2013) is focusing on promoting off-gridsystems to serve populations
without access to commercial energy and also capacity addition in grid-based systems for
augmenting supply of clean energy. The Mission recognizes that off-gridsolar energy applications
have tremendous potential in reaching out to people in rural and remote areas by providing
lighting and basic energy services to them and envisages that by the end of phase 1 in 2013, it
should have led to the setting up of cumulative capacity of 200 MW of off-gridpower in India. In
the second phase, after taking into account the experience of the initial years, capacity will be
90 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
that by the end of phase 1 in 2013, the mission should have led to the setting up of
cumulative capacity of 200 MW of off-grid power (MNRE 2010).
The Energy Policy 2006 in Sri Lanka clearly emphasized provisioning of
electricity to all feasible areas, by extending the national grid and focused rural
energy initiatives using off-grid technologies, and set up specific annual targets,
milestones and institutional arrangements to achieve the same (GoSL 2006). The
Policy also attempted to address the issue of energy supply under Small Power
Purchase Agreement and also made provision for viability gap funding to ensure
renewable projects become financially viable for the project developers for
augmenting the electricity supply.
The Hydro Power Policy 2001 in Nepal is by far the most relevant policy in
existence for RE (NDF 2004). It emphasized the tying up of electrification with
economic activities and encouraged establishing small and mini hydropower
projects at local levels. At the same time, the Water Resources Strategy 2002 also
recognized the fact that providing electricity to rural populations is a major chal-
lenge in Nepal due to the scattered nature of the population in remote mountainous
areas and thus envisaged a combination of grid extension, isolated generation and
reliance on alternative approaches. The growth of SHS dissemination in Nepal can
be correlated with the implementation of a number of policies (subsidy policy 2000
with its delivery mechanism, VAT exemption and import tax exemption) and sup-
port programmes i.e. Rural Energy Development Program in 1996 and Energy
Sector Assistance Program in 1998.
The establishment of the Rural Electrification Board in Bangladesh, through the
issuance of Ordinance Number LI of 1977 was the first major institutional reform
in the power sector that emphasized RE and aimed at increasing electricity access
in rural areas. This institutional reform helped to increase the number of electrified
households from around 25,972 during the pre-reform period (i.e. 1982) to more
than 9 million households now. On the other hand, the promotion of SHS in
Bangladesh was successful mainly because of a market based model and a suitably
designed financing model by IDCOL. The Renewable Energy Policy Bangladesh,
published in 2008, has also recognized renewable energy as having strong
potential for delivery of electricity services to the entire country by 2020.
It is thus observed that the rate of success of the renewable energy based rural
electrification is directly dependent on the government’s commitment in creating
an enabling environment such as clear cut policy framework and milestones,
systems for defining and enforcing appropriate technical standards, financial
support mechanisms and support towards capacity building. Inspite of the above
efforts, required policy boosters are still falling short of the needed level of sup-
port. For instance, absence of standards and performance specifications for
(Footnote 14 continued)
aggressively ramped up to create conditions for up scaled and competitive solar energy pene-
tration in the country.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 91
4.4.6 Financing
While government programmes have been instrumental to extend the grid elec-
trification in almost all the countries of the region, the types of financing mech-
anisms used for various renewable energy based programmes, include micro-
credits schemes, interest rate buy-downs and fee-for service mechanism, all with
or without any subsidies. In case of off-grid electrification, it is observed that
leasing of energy generating products, consumer financing models, and direct
subsidy under state program has been instrumental for promotion of decentralized
systems. A survey of solar PV programs in South Asia shows that majority of the
customers have availed micro-credit or consumer credit, a quarter used state or
donor funded subsidies and fee-for-service and only 5 % used cash purchase for
procuring solar PV systems (Urmee and Harries 2009).
Among the successful SHS programs, IDCOL and ESD/REREDP offer refi-
nancing through loans (6 % interest with 10 years maturity and 2 years grace
92 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
period) to their intermediaries (such as POs and PCIs) and also channel grants (for
example around US$25 per 50 Wp system is provided as system buy down grant
to POs by IDCOL) to reduce the cost of SHS. The intermediary provides credit to
customers, who pay 10–20 % of the total cost as down payment and the out-
standing in monthly installments, which also covers the service charge (around
12–15 %, paid over a period of 3–5 years) and the maintenance cost. Mainali and
Silveira (2011) share that in Nepal, loans covered 55 % of the capital cost of SHS,
followed by subsidy (27 %) and owner’s equity (18 %). The centre piece of these
schemes was long term loan packages from donors to the national government
which made it possible for government to ‘on lend’ funds to local banks for
proving credit to customers.
Micro-hydro system costs per kW vary from $1850 to $5010 including the cost
of power evacuation and distribution system (Nouni et al. 2006; Mainali and
Silveira 2011). The wide variation of costs can be attributed to highly site-specific
nature of hydro projects. Costs also are impacted by management practises, proper
sizing and appropriate standards. The financial mix for mini/micro hydro power
reveals that the proportion of subsidy at 55 % followed by local community
contribution as equity (33 %), loan (11 %) and additional loan from local gov-
ernment (1 %). Further, there has been increasing trend in community contribution
towards meeting a percentage of the capital cost of systems in Nepal which can be
viewed as an indicator that RE is moving towards sustainable business.
In India, the RVE and VESP provide direct subsidy to implementing agencies at
90 % of the project cost, up to a predefined maximum of INR 18,000 per
household. The balance 10 % can be financed through state or other central
government support or by the users. Currently, the JNNSM provides capital
subsidy on off-grid solar products (INR 90/Wp) and soft loan at 5 % per annum
(MNRE 2010). Further, to meet unmet community demand for electricity or in
un-electrified rural areas, standalone solar power plants with mini-grid, capital
subsidy is provided at INR150/Wp and soft loan at 5 %. On the other hand, the
DDG program of RGGVY considers technology with the lowest marginal cost for
a given area and extends subsidy of 90 % of the project cost and some operational
subsidies. The subsidy is released on annuitized basis based on performance of the
system for 5 years. However, it is also observed that commercial finance for
off-grid electrification has been very minimal. Jaisinghani (2011) observes that
most companies active in off-grid distribution are not able to access sufficient
capital to expand. He further argues that off-grid electrification is also hindered by
non-uniform technical approaches, undeveloped non-technical processes (such as
tariff collection, and response to system abuse) which are also hindering access to
finance at the early project stage.
Further, the choice of financing mechanism used is also found to relate to the
organization type. Most government organizations used the fee-for-service
mechanism and these programs provided all equipment and maintenance costs,
and the users pay for the service only. Private organizations or NGOs tended to use
consumer credit, micro-credit or cash sale mechanism. An issue worth highlighting
is that lack of suitable financing mechanism was regarded in the survey by Urmee
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 93
and Harries (2009) as most significant barrier to the uptake of SHS, and was
considered to be of more importance than the technical and policy issues. Another
important finding was that while low incomes were regarded as barriers, it was not
perceived to be the primary, or even a major barrier to the uptake of SHS.
15
The access to electricity grids does not necessarily mean that there is reliable electricity
supply to meet the needs of the rural people. In India and Bangladesh the Central Electricity
94 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
has fully utilized its micro and small hydro potential in a planned way and has
also introduced small power producers program based on dendro-thermal and
other renewable resources to augment the supply situation in the rural areas. The
annual available biomass energy potential for electricity generation in Bangla-
desh is in the range of 184 and 224 TWh (Hossain and Badr 2007), which could
probably be utilized for decentralized electricity generation to augment rural
supply situation. Similarly, small and micro hydro power can be fully tapped in
Nepal to augment the supply in rural areas. A World Bank study (2010) for India
also shares that distributed generation and supply model, mainly biomass and
small hydro power, could well be utilized to improve RE efforts.
• Institutional and organizational shortcomings were also found to act as major
deterrent for the successful operation of the off-grid projects. Cust et al. (2007)
argue that even economically viable projects fail simply because the importance
of appropriate organizational structure and institutional arrangement of those
projects are not adequately appreciated. Past experiences also show that a large
number of off-grid electrification projects have seen limited success because
focus has been generally on technical installation without paying sufficient
attention to the long-term sustainability (Kumar et al. 2009). A study on the
functioning of the biomass gasifiers for off grid electrification implemented
under the VESP in India has revealed a number of challenges that need to be
tackled at village level to ensure the sustainability of the project interventions:
Some of these challenges are low concentration of electricity demand (making
distribution expensive and difficult); low economic activity (implying low
demand for electricity); difficulty on the part of users to pay for electricity;
difficulty in operation and maintenance due to remote project location; limited
technical knowledge of VEC members and weak fuel supply chain linkages
(Palit et al. 2012). Palit (2003) also highlights, based on specific examples from
north eastern region of India that lack of availability of adequate maintenance
facilities and inadequate capacity building of the technicians acted as a barrier.
Across South Asia, a wide variety of RE models and technologies have been
implemented. While on the one hand because of such a wide range of imple-
mentation efforts, it is difficult to identify and fully analyze all, or to create clear
(Footnote 15 continued)
Authority and Bangladesh Power Development Board statistics indicate that the peak power
deficit was more than 10 and 27 % respectively during the year 2010. Similarly, Nepal Electricity
Authority reports that the annual energy deficit was more than 20 % of the demand during 2008–
2009 and load shedding period was up to 16 h a day in the rural areas. As priority is always
provided to meet the urban and commercial demand, due to expectation of higher returns (as tariff
is high in such areas), the rural areas are neglected and is impacted by frequent blackouts.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 95
directives for best practices, the range of options also presents the opportunity to
glean lessons. Our review presents a number of interesting findings and lessons as
summarized here:
a. While the village electrification level in Bangladesh and India is moderate to
high, the actual number of connected households is comparatively low. In fact,
the current definition of village electrification in India requires electrification of
only 10 % of households, for a village to be considered as electrified. In both
countries, the key issue is ‘how to improve the household level connection’ and
also ‘how to ensure sustained electricity supply to rural areas in line with the
demand’. Sri Lanka, by adopting targets and milestones for connecting rural
households and arranging micro-lending for poor households desirous of taking
electricity connection could achieve a high household connection level. The
country is also utilizing its local hydro resources potential to augment supply
especially in off-grid areas. Further, the better economic condition of house-
holds in Sri Lanka may also have contributed to their decision to take electrical
connection as compared to Bangladesh and Nepal. Nepal, because of its hilly
and forested terrain is finding it difficult to extend grid coverage and sustaining
the same. Another interesting fact in India and Bangladesh is that the SHS are
not considered in the RE figures as they cater only to lighting needs, while
Nepal and Sri Lanka considers SHS also as a means of electrification.
b. All RE projects examined have involved a significant subsidy component
especially capital subsidy. However, different approaches have been adopted
for grid based and off-grid electrification. ‘Top down’ approach has been
primarily adopted in extending grid to rural areas with the planning and
implementation undertaken by central or state level agencies, Off-grid electri-
fication, through mini-grids or otherwise, has been mainly through community
centered projects or involving non-governmental organisations and thus lacks
an organised delivery model.
c. The rate of success is directly dependent on the government’s commitment in
creating an enabling environment such as clear cut policy framework and
milestones, systems for defining and enforcing appropriate technical standards,
standardized operational metrics, financial support mechanisms and support
towards R and D and training. Market has a very minimal role for central grid
based electrification. Bangladesh and India are two examples where we can see
that the creation of REB and launch of REST mission and later the RGGVY
assisted in sharply increasing the village electrification rate. At the same time,
specific targets, milestones and institutional responsibilities adopted in the Sri
Lankan Energy Policy for improving households connections—both through
grid connected and off-grid model—along with the ‘Power Fund for the Poor’
project helped in achieving high household electrification level.
d. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have had success in disseminating SHS following a
market based approach which indicates that it is possible to successfully
implement off-grid programs in association with the private sector and MFIs.
Improved access to capital, development of effective after-sales service,
96 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
Based on the analyses, we observe that all the countries do not have similar issues
related to electrification efforts and so may need a differential approach to enhance
the level of electrification. While there is no doubt that conventional grid extension
has been and will continue to be a preferred approach, distributed generation can
also be attempted to enhance power supply as well as extend electrification to
remote areas. This section discusses some pertinent issues and attempts to suggest
measures to improve the pace of RE in the region.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 97
While the extent of village electrification level in India and Bangladesh is good,
the electricity connection at the household level is low. The key task is to improve
the overall household connection level at a rate that exceeds the rate of population
(or number of households) growth. The micro-financing of household connection
experience from Sri Lanka will be particularly useful in expanding the household
electrification level in countries such as India and Bangladesh where Government
support is currently being used to expand the network to the rural areas. With both
these countries are having a strong MFI network, the tasks should be easier. Rural
distribution utility in these countries can tie up with local MFIs and attempt to
develop schemes whereby the MFIs can bear the cost of connection charges
(including cost towards energy meter) and the money can be recovered by the
utility through monthly electricity bills. The electricity distribution utilities can
also launch a scheme of waiving/reducing the initial connection charges and
instead levy a connection fee every month, which may also help in improving the
connection rate. However, any schemes also have to be complimented by adequate
awareness generation of prospective consumers on the process to avail a con-
nection followed by organisations of spot connection programs in the village itself
(all necessary documentation works for connection being completed and con-
nections provided in the same day).
16
OBA is a performance-based operating subsidy scheme that links payments to actual
electricity output delivered to customers.
98 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
The ‘access gap’ relates to communities who are beyond the reach of the market
due to inadequate income levels or geographical access. Creating market linkages
and market accesses and targeted subsidy interventions are needed for attracting
business to low load areas. As the off-grid projects are invariably smaller in
capacity, concentrating energy loads in a given area or bundling projects can
increase the market size. Off-grid projects could be identified depending on the
availability of local energy resources and clusters, to ensure economies of scale
and scope, which would help to manage them sustainably. For example, CREDA
has been successfully running the projects in such remote locations, mainly
because of the cluster approach followed for operation and maintenance. Financial
institutions/banks would also be interested as project implementation and credit
risks would be less. Bundling also can be helpful in minimising the transaction
costs associated to get carbon benefits. The experience reflects that there have been
efforts by private mini-grid developers such as Husk Power Systems to capitalise
on bundling of projects and getting venture capital funding as well as carbon
benefits.
Arranging necessary financial resources for mini-grid projects is the most crucial
and difficult part of the project development, so innovative financial mechanisms
are tried out and experimented across the intervention varieties. One way to
address the financing of renewable energy based projects is through carbon funds,
though it has achieved very limited success so far.17 The amount of CO2 mitigation
potential depends on the type and amount of fuel replaced by the renewable energy
system. As decentralized renewable systems replace very small amount of
17
According to the IEA (Energy for All-Financing access to the Poor 2011), ‘up to June 2011,
only 15 CDM projects, 0.2 % of the total, have been designed to increase or improve energy
access for households’.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 99
Similar to other developing nations (Monroy and Hernandez 2005), a key barrier
to extend and sustain off-grid RE in South Asia, is lack of appropriate institutional
models. While it is observed that the grid extension projects are more organized
and managed by a utility (private sector, state level cooperatives or government
owned), most of the off-grid programs are implemented through NGOs or local
level institutions. Successful programs such as IDCOL SHS or mini-grids in
Sunderbans (Ulsrud et al. 2011) and Chhattisgarh (Shukla 2011) in India imple-
mented through a proper institutional arrangement following a standard set of
guidelines corroborates the need for such institutional structure for off-grid case.
It is imperative that there must be appropriate (socio-politically acceptable)
institutions in place with necessary skills and means to manage the systems on-site
and collect revenue, and that the technical knowledge for ensuring sustainability
must be available within a reasonable distance.
The evidence drawn from mini-grid experiences in India reveals that appropriate
support system should be a mixture of both ‘participatory approach’ and ‘multi -
level’ approaches. While issues that are of local in nature could be better addressed
through participatory mode of governance structure, policy, regulatory, and
financing matters can be dealt at appropriate intermediary and or higher levels. It is
important to design support systems so as to ensure that plans and policies match
the needs of all stakeholders—consumers, owners and technology suppliers. Fur-
ther, it is observed that projects by private developers can be financially sustainable
in areas with adequate income generation, while remote areas with minimal
possibility of cash generation will require top-down support, both technical and
financial, for building up local institutions to manage and sustain the projects.
100 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
Electricity must result in opportunities for enhancing the local economy and
adequate money flow to the rural households so that they are willing and able to
spend a part of the incremental income on purchasing the electricity. While it is
observed from this research that correlation exists between the per capita GDP and
household electrification, the causal factor cannot be identified in this case. This
needs further research whether higher economic level contributes to higher con-
nection level or higher level of RE contributes to improved rural economy.
Nevertheless, creating economic linkages is particularly important for off-grid
electrification as they are usually remote and people have low disposable incomes.
4.7 Conclusions
This chapter shared the RE experiences and best practices from four selected
countries of South Asia for cross learning potential across the region as well as
other developing counties. We have also raised some pertinent issues and have
attempted to find solutions to these issues. We suggest that India and Bangladesh
should focus on improving the household connection level in grid connected rural
areas through a targeted approach. While micro-financing can be extended to
consumers unable to take connection due to financial barriers, the Palli Bidyut
Samities (PBS) and Input Based Franchises (IBF) should also be incentivised to
connect more un-served households. In rural areas of India, where franchise sys-
tem is yet to be introduced, IBF model should be extended for better delivery of
services. Secondly, benefits of cross-subsidy also need to be extended to off-grid
areas, especially in India, to ensure continuous operation of projects in such areas.
India and Bangladesh, being densely populated, hybrid model of solar charging
stations with solar DC micro grid can also be attempted as an enterprise based
model for providing lighting and value added energy services in electricity starved
areas. While the solar DC micro grid will provide fixed line connection, using LED
lamps, to around 10–20 households/shops within the vicinity of the enterprise,
rural community can also avail portable lanterns on rent. The enterprises can have
facility to charge mobile phones and option to sell LED lamps and efficient cook
stoves to meet any demand in the villages, thereby acting as rural clean energy
hub. The fee-for-service model for renting of lantern from a solar charging station
or providing only lighting service from a solar DC micro grid may also be closer to
the need of poorer sections of population. Wong’s (2010) research also corrobo-
rates the fact that without the support of any micro-credit systems and where poor
people are expected to pay for the service by their own means, they prefer to pay
for the ‘service’, rather than own the equipment since this exerts less financial
pressure on the poor households. Simultaneously, it also fosters a sense of own-
ership that is essential for co-financing the technology.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 101
To augment the supply situation in grid connected areas and also for achieving
better operational efficiency, twinning distributed power generation, utilizing
locally available renewable energy resources, with a suitably structured rural
distribution delivery model in India (or PBS in Bangladesh) can result in better
utilization of the installed rural distribution infrastructure and in greater economic
and social development. The financing for setting up such renewable based dis-
tributed power projects in India could be leveraged from the National Clean
Energy Fund launched recently. Over the years, as the grid supply situation
improves and also the electricity demand, these operators can become distribution
franchisees and continue to serve the areas, partly with the local generation and
partly from the grid supply.
Nepal needs to address its RE issues with a two-pronged approach—extending
the coverage and also utilizing its hilly stream based hydro resources to ensure
supply to these areas. Although Sri Lanka has a notable RE achievement through
grid extension, the country should ensure that the off-grid mini/micro hydro power
projects set up earlier to extend RE remain functional and can feed power to the
grid to avoid any future supply constraints in the grid. Pakistan and Afghanistan on
the other hand need to formulate clear cut policy framework and executable master
plan taking lessons from other countries in the region to extend their RE efforts.
Finally, economic linkages, access to credit, bundling of smaller projects and
institutional arrangements also need to be organised appropriately, especially for
off-grid RE to facilitate successful outcomes in the region.
References
DFID. (2002). Energy for the poor: Underpinning the millennium dev goals. London: Department
for International Development.
Dubash, N. K.,& Bradley, R. (2005) pathways to rural electrification in India. In: Growing in the
greenhouse: Protecting the climate by putting development first, World Resources Institute.
Washington, DC, pp. 69–93.
ESAP. (2006). Mini grid rural electrification: Energy sector assistance program phase II
2007–2011. Government of Nepal: Alternative Energy Promotion Centre.
ESAP. (2012). Energy sector assistance program. Alternative energy promotion centre,
Government of Nepal. http://www.aepc.gov.np. last viewed 14 June 2012.
ESMAP. (2002). Rural electrification and development in the Philippines: Measuring the social
and economic benefits. Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance
Program (ESMAP) Report. The World Bank: Washington, DC.
Ghimire, D. P. (2011). Rural electrification—an experience from Nepal. Paper presented at the
workshop on off-grid access system in south Asia. 06 January 2011, New Delhi.
Ghosh, D., Sagar, A., & Kishore, V. V. N. (2006). Scaling up biomass gasifier use: an
application-specific approach. Energy Policy, 34, 1566–1582.
GOB. (2005). Government’s vision and policy. Power Division, Ministry of Power, Energy and
Mineral Resources, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka. http://www.powerdivision.-gov.bd.
last visited 30 December 2010.
GNESD. (2004). Institutional reforms and their impact in rural electrification: South and South
East Asia. Denmark: Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development.
GNESD. (2007). Reaching the millennium development goals and beyond: Access to modern
forms of energy as a prerequisite. Denmark: Global Network on Energy for Sustainable
Development.
GoSL. (2006). National energy policy and strategies of Sri Lanka; Ministry of power and energy,
Government of Sri Lanka.
Gunaratne, L. (1994). Solar photovoltaic’s in Sri Lanka: a short history. Progress in
Photovoltaics: Research and Applications, Vol. 2.
Gunaratne, L. (2002). Rural electrification in Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka: LGA Consultants
Pvt Ltd.
Hossain, A. K., & Badr, O. (2007). Prospects of renewable energy utilization for electricity
generation in Bangladesh. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 1617–1649.
IDCOL. (2012). Renewable energy projects. Infrastructure Development Company Limited,
Dhaka. http://www.idcol.org/. last viewed 15 June 2012.
IEA. (2011). Key world energy statistics. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Jaisinghani, N. (2011). Islands of light—the experience of micro-grid power solutions. The Solar
Quarterly, 3(3), 10–18.
Kemmler, A. (2007). Factors influencing household access to electricity in India. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 11(4), 13–20.
Khan, S. I. (2003). Protecting the poor in the era of utility privatization. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 7(2), 49–56.
Krishnaswamy, S. (2010). Shifting of goal posts—rural electrification in India: A progress report.
New Delhi: Vasudha Foundation.
Kumar, A., Mohanty, P., Palit, D., & Chaurey, A. (2009). Approach for standardization of off-
grid electrification projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1946–1956.
Kumar, M. V. M., & Banerjee, R. (2010). Analysis of isolated power systems for village
electrification. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14, 213–222.
Mainali, B., & Silveira, S. (2011). Financing off-grid rural electrification: Country case Nepal.
Energy, 36, 2194–2201.
MNRE. (2012). Renewable energy at a glance. Akshay Urja. Ministry of new and renewable
energy, Government of India, New Delhi, Vol. 5 Issue 5.
MNRE. (2010). Jawaharlal Nehru national solar mission—guidelines for off-grid and
decentralized solar applications and rooftop and other small solar power plants. Ministry
of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India.
4 Off-Grid Rural Electrification Experiences 103
Monroy, C. R., & Hernandez, A. S. S. (2005). Main issues concerning the financing and
sustainability of electrification projects in rural areas: International survey results. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 9(2), 17–25.
NDF. (2004). Rural electrification Nepal development forum, ministry of finance, foreign aid
coordination office, Katmandu. http://www.ndf2004.gov.np/pdf/proceedings/rural.pdf. last
viewed 24 April 2010.
NEA. (2009). A year in review 2008–09; Kathmandu: Nepal Electricity Authority.
NRECA. (2002). Economic and social impact evaluation study of the Bangladesh rural
electrification program NRECA international Ltd. Bangladesh: Dhaka.
Nouni, M. R., Mullick, S. C., & Kandpal, T. C. (2006). Techno-economics of micro-hydro
projects for decentralized power supply in India. Energy Policy, 34, 1161–1174.
Palit, D. (2003). Performance and impact of solar thermal and photovoltaic devices disseminated
in north eastern region of India. In Shrestha, J. N., Bajracharya, T. R., Vaidya, B.,&
Pradhan, S.(Eds.) Conference papers of International Conference on Renewable Energy for
Rural Development (pp 81–84). Kathmandu: Tribhuvan University.
Palit, D., Malhotra, R., & Kumar, A. (2011). Sustainable model for financial viability of
decentralized biomass gasifier based power projects. Energy Policy, 39, 4893–4901.
Palit, D., & Chaurey, A. (2011). Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: Status
and best practices. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 266–276.
Palit, D.,& Sarangi, G. K. (2011). A comparative analysis of the solar energy programs for rural
electrification: Experiences and lessons from South Asia. In Conference Proceedings of Third
International Conference on Addressing Climate Change for Sustainable Development
through Up-Scaling Renewable Energy Technologies, October 12–14, 2011, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Palit, D., Sovacool, B. K., Cooper, C., Clarke, S., Crafton, M., Eidsness, J., Johnson, J.,&
Zoppo, D. (2012). Towards household energy security: The Village Energy Security Program
in India. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy: National University of Singapore.
Purohit, P. (2009). CO2 emissions mitigation potential of solar home systems under clean
development mechanism in India. Energy, 34, 1014–1023.
REB. (2012). Rural electrification program. rural electrification board, Dhaka. Retrieved from
http://www.reb.gov.bd/at_glance.htm. last viewed 1 June 2012.
Reddy, B. S., & Srinivas, T. (2009). Energy use in Indian household sector—an actor oriented
approach. Energy, 34, 992–1002.
Rejikumar, R. (2005). National electricity policy and plan: A critical examination. Economic and
Political Weekly, 40(20), 2028–2031.
REP. (2008). Concept paper on community energy service provider. Renewable Energy Project,
Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
Shrank, S. (2008). Another look at renewables on India’s Sagar Island. Working Paper #77.
Stanford Program on Energy and Sustainable Development.
Shrestha, R. M., Kumar, S., Sharma, S., & Todoc, M. J. (2004). Institutional reforms and
electricity access lessons from Bangladesh and Thailand. Energy for Sustainable Develop-
ment, 8(4), 41–53.
Shukla, S. K. (2010). Chhattisgarh’s experience in implementing and maintaining solar power
plants in remote rural areas. Presentation made at the Solar Transitions Worksop. February
12’ 2010, Kolkata.
Shukla, S. K. (2011). Maintenance of solar power plants. Presentation made at the Workshop on
Off-grid Access System in South Asia. January 6, 2011, New Delhi.
TERI. (2007a). Evaluation of franchise system in selected districts of Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal
and Karnataka. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi.
TERI. (2007b). Evaluation of franchisee system in selected districts of Assam, Karnataka and
Madhya Pradesh. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi.
TERI. (2009a). Study on improved rural electricity services through renewable energy based
distributed generation and supply—comprehensive review of experiences of distributed
generation projects in India. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.
104 D. Palit and A. Chaurey
TERI. (2009b). Assessment of village energy security Program. Cosmile Update. The Energy and
Resources Institute, New Delhi 4(3), 2–4.
TERI. (2010). Analysis of rural electrification strategy with special focus on the franchise system
in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa. The Energy and Resources Institute,
New Delhi.
Urmee, T., & Harries, D. (2009). A survey of solar PV program implementers in Asia and the
Pacific regions. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13, 24–32.
Ulsrud, K., Winther, T., Palit, D., Rohracher, H., & Sandgren, J. (2011). The solar transitions
research on solar mini-grids in India: Learning from local cases of innovative socio-technical
systems. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 293–303.
World Bank. (2008). Designing sustainable off-grid rural electrification projects: Principles and
practices. The Energy and Mining Sector Board Operational Guidance for World Bank Group
Staff, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
World Bank. (2010). Empowering rural India: Expanding electricity access by mobilizing local
resources. South Asia Energy Unit, The World Bank, New Delhi.
Wong, S. (2010). Overcoming obstacles against effective solar lighting interventions in South
Asia. Energy Policy,. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.030.
Yadoo, A., & Cruickshank, H. (2010). The value of cooperatives in rural electrification. Energy
Policy, 38, 2941–2947.
Yang, M., & Yu, X. (2004). China’s rural electricity market—a quantitative analysis. Energy
Policy, 29(7), 961–977.
Zahnd, A., & Kimber, H. M. (2009). Benefits from a renewable energy village electrification
system. Renewable Energy, 34, 362–368.
Chapter 5
The Chinese Model of Rural
Electrification and Electricity Access
5.1 Introduction
Although more than 1.3 billion people (i.e., about 19 % of the global population)
without access to electricity in 2009 (IEA 2011), the most populous country in the
world, China, has achieved a very impressive record, with less than one percent of
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
development, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com; subhesb@dmu.ac.uk
S. Ohiare
Doctoral Researcher, IESD, De Montfort University, Leicester , UK
5.2.1 Status
China is the most populous country in the world (with 1.33 billion people in 2009)
and the fourth largest country area-wise (with a surface area of 9.6 million m2)
(China Statistical Yearbook 2010). China’s population has more than doubled
between 1949 and 2009–increasing from 541 million in 1949 to 1.33 billion in
2009. A large share of the population lives in rural areas but the urbanization is
progressing rapidly, particularly since 1980. In 2009, 53 % of the population lived
in rural areas (see Fig. 5.1) (China Statistical Yearbook 2010).
1
This chapter is largely drawn from our own paper Bhattacharyya and Sanusi (2012), It also
refers to Bhattacharyya (2012) for the comparative analysis.
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 107
Energy consumption in rural China, like the rest of the country, has increased
rapidly, particularly since 1978. According to Zhang et al. (2009),2 rural China
consumed 307 Mtce3 in 1979 but in 2007, the rural energy consumption reached
977 Mtce, representing a three-fold increase. The share of productive use of
energy in rural areas in 1979 was about 17 % but in 2007, this has increased to
44 %. The expansion of productive activities in rural areas has also brought a
significant change in the fuel mix in rural energy demand. In 1979, 71 % of energy
supply was of non-commercial type while in 2007, this has declined to about 32 %
of the demand. The evolution of rural energy demand in China is shown in
Fig. 5.2.
Rural electricity consumption has also followed the overall energy trend and
has grown exponentially. Electricity consumption in 1978 was 25 TWh and
reached 610 TWh in 2009 (China Statistical Yearbook 2010).4 To put the infor-
mation in perspective, the annual electricity consumption in the UK is typically
about 400 TWh. Rural China consumed about 1.5 times of this volume in 2007.
Surely, the challenge and scale is very different in China. Electricity consumption
per person per year has also increased accordingly—from 32 kWh per person per
year in 1978 it reached 856 kWh per person per year in 2009 (see Fig. 5.3). Yet, it
must be noted that electricity still plays a minor role in rural China and accounts
2
Zhang et al. (2009) provided the relevant data in an appendix. This is not reproduced here.
3
This represents ton coal equivalent. Energy contained in each fuel is converted to that of one
ton of coal. This is an imprecise unit but used widely in Chinese statistics.
4
Electricity data is shown in 100 million kWh in the Yearbook. This is equal to 100 GWh or
0.1 TWh.
108 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
for about 10 % of all energy consumption. The rest is provided by coal, oil and
non-commercial energies.5 Moreover, there is significant spatial variation in
electricity use—especially between the northern and southern regions (Zhang et al.
2009a). In per capita terms, rural energy consumption is almost one half of the
national average but the accelerated growth rate of rural energy consumption
points towards a possibility of role reversal in the future (Yang et al. 2010).
China has a long experience of rural electrification and has been successful in
providing access to 900 million people over a period of 50 years (Peng and Pan
2006). But the success in rural electrification started since 1979 when the eco-
nomic reform began from rural areas. The country achieved a tremendous success
in ensuring electricity access to 95.5 % of households by 1997 (Yang 2003).
About 8 million people lacked electricity China by 2009 (IEA 2011). The gov-
ernment intends to use off-grid and decentralized options to electrify the remaining
areas by 2020. The progression in rural electrification is summarised in Table 5.1
below (IEA 2010).
Since the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, the country’s eco-
nomic and social policies have been influenced by three distinctive phases, namely
(a) the Maoist era of central planning (1949–1977); (b) the era of market reform
5
See Luo (2004) for a general discussion on rural energy in China.
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 109
(1978–1997); and (c) a subsequent move towards a dynamic market economy from
1997 till date (Peng and Pan 2006). As the government gradually moved from a
centrally controlled economy to a more market-oriented one, the country has seen
major institutional changes which have influenced her energy policy over the same
period (Peng and Pan 2006). These distinctive phases have shaped China’s rural
electrification policies as well and are briefly discussed below.
At the time of its foundation in 1949, electricity consumption in rural China was
low with a per capita consumption of 0.05 kWh and representing only 0.58 % of
the total national consumption (Peng and Pan 2006; Yang 2003). China adopted
the Soviet Union’s command system of government and followed a strict central
planning framework. The energy sector development was under strict state control
and the commercial energy supply to rural areas was not a priority (Pan 2002).
Being isolated from the rest of the world, China was reliant on imported tech-
nology from the Soviet Union. The country had limited technical capacities,
financial resources and management skills. China completed its rural land reform
process by confiscating land from landlords and redistributing the same to landless
peasants. The rural living condition was constrained by limited economic activity
and shortage of essential supplies such as food, commercial energy and water.
Biomass-based energy was the main fuel used in rural households during this
period (Zheng et al. 2002). Rural electricity consumption increased marginally to
0.66 % of the national electricity consumption by 1957 (Yang 2003).
The subsequent years of this era witnessed major disruptive movements like the
Great Leap Forward of 1958 and the Cultural Revolution of 1966. The objective of
transforming the economy through rapid development of the agricultural and
industrial sectors was abandoned in 1961 amidst widespread famine, starvation
and economic recession. A ‘‘dual track’’ policy where agriculture acts as the
foundation of development, and industrialisation as the leading activity was
adopted in 1961. Low agricultural productivity, the existence of ‘‘price scissors’’
(i.e., low prices for agricultural outputs and high prices for industrial products),
and social and political disruption of economic activities meant that the rural
farmers were poor and there was a striking urban–rural income disparity (Long
et al. 2009). The economic policy during this period of political isolation of China
relied on self-reliance through ‘‘self-construction, self-management and self-con-
sumption’’ (Pan 2002; Zhang and Heller 2004), where local resources, technolo-
gies and state-controlled management played an important role.
Rural electricity supply through small hydropower received attention. This was
favoured as a means of agricultural development and was funded and managed
mostly by rural residents and collectives with some support from the state.
According to Pan et al. (2006), 1,000 small hydropower stations were built by the
end of 1959, with an installed capacity of 150 MW. Hydropower stations operated
on a single unit basis at this time and electricity was transmitted at low voltage to
110 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
local communities (Pan et al. 2006). Recurrent changes were made to the orga-
nizational arrangement that ultimately led to more powers and management
responsibilities being vested in the county level agencies. This was particularly
notable with the management of small hydrothermal energy systems and other
types of power networks in the rural areas, making them the basic units of the rural
electrification drive of China.
Although the promotion of hydropower continued in the 1960s and early 1970s,
the central government decided to expand the central grid alongside the local
networks in rural areas. Funds for such network extensions were provided in the
national plan and the central government decided to adopt an equal share
arrangement for investments. Non-state sector small coal mines were also pro-
moted as a biomass conservation effort in rural areas and the production from
small coal mines trebled between 1957 and 1960 (from 6.49 Mt in 1957 to
21.95 Mt in 1960) and quadrupled between 1960 and 1965 (to reach 95.32 Mt in
1965) (Pan 2002). As a consequence of this two-pronged strategy a comprehensive
vertically integrated power network was developed in China that spans from the
central government, through regions and provinces to the local authorities and
counties by late 1970s (Peng and Pan 2006). Electricity access to rural China
increased to 61 % by the year 1978. Per capita electricity consumption increased
to 32 kWh in 19786 but the share of electricity in overall rural energy consumption
was just 5 % due to high reliance on traditional fuel wood energies in rural areas
(Zhang et al. 2009).
Despite the success in improving rural electricity access, this period also wit-
nessed a number of challenges. The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution,
and the strained Sino-Soviet relations of the 1960s affected the energy sector
significantly, particularly the coal mining industry. This caused energy shortages
during the period (Arruda and Li 2003). Half of the farmers in the rural areas still
lacked access to electricity, and rural electricity consumption per capita was one-
fifth of that urban areas (Zhang et al. 2002). The shortage of electricity supply was
a common feature and the over-reliance on firewood led to deforestation and local
environmental problems in rural areas (Zhang et al. 2009b). Wang and Feng
(2001) indicate that the policy of self-reliance of this period that meant limited
commercial energy supply led to over-dependence on local resources but ineffi-
cient technologies, limited local resources, and high population pressure meant
that local supplies were often inadequate, and this resulted in energy shortages.
The adoption of the Open Door economic policy in 1978 marked a new era in
terms of economic policy, which led to a rapid economic growth. The subsistence
agriculture gave away to more ‘‘commercialised and industrialised’’ economy led
6
This is calculated from the data obtained from China Statistical Yearbook (2010).
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 111
7
Based on China Statistical Yearbook (2010) data.
112 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
network in the rural areas was responsible for 20–30 % line losses compared to 8–
9 % losses on the national level (Wang et al. 2006).
The challenges triggered another institutional restructuring to increase energy
supply capacity, while minimising the demand for energy through efficient use of
energy and reducing its intensity (Zhao 2001). These reforms, which basically
involved the transition from a centrally planned system to a more devolved one,
were targeted at the rural areas towards giving the counties and local authorities
more autonomy in investment decision making. The reconstruction of rural power
system was undertaken during this period to reduce power transportation losses.
The ‘‘pilot counties’’ provided encouraging results where losses reduced signifi-
cantly (Wang and Feng 2001).
As the target of universal electricity access was almost achieved by 1999, the focus
shifted to better system management, system renovation and better regulatory
control. The non-standard and uneven growth of the rural network led to high
system losses and poor performance. The State Council decided to upgrade rural
electricity networks through an allocation of RMB 180 billion (equivalent to about
18 billion British pound) from treasury bonds (Yang 2003). This project led to
tangible benefits through a significant reduction in transportation losses (from 25
to 12 %), which also helped in reducing the rural electricity tariffs (Pan 2002).
Harmonization of electricity tariffs between rural and urban consumers helped
promote rural consumers. Simultaneously, China also undertook an ambitious plan
to electrify remote areas in a phased manner through the Brightness programme,
Township programme and then Village Electrification programme. A brief
description of the Brightness Programme and Township Electrification Programme
can be found in Box 5.1 below.
8
National Renewable energy laboratory: Renewable energy in China, Brightness Rural
electrification program found at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35790.pdf.
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 113
programme. The pilot projects successfully installed 5515 SHS, 518 wind/
solar hybrid systems and 5 solar/hybrid power stations at a cost of 40 million
RMB (around USD 50 million) (Shyu 2010). The pilot projects provided
important insights related to service networks, financing mechanism, train-
ing needs, and manufacturing needs.
The Township Electrification programme
As a scaling-up effort of the pilot projects, a new programme was launched
in 2002 called the Township Electrification Programme to extend electricity
access to 1013 non-electrified townships in 11 western provinces (Shyu
2010). This is now regarded as the largest renewable electricity supply
programme in the world. The RNB 4.7 billion programme (IEA 2010)
totally funded by the Chinese government aimed at supplying renewable
energy-based electricity to power businesses and homes with sufficient
capacity to supply basic needs such as public facilities, lighting and enter-
tainment. The programme relied on system integrators who designed, pro-
cured and installed the systems while the service companies were
responsible for operating and maintaining the systems. Thirteen system
integrators were chosen through a competitive bidding process and by 2005
when the programme was implemented, more than 840,000 people were
supplied with electricity.
Once rural access rose to 99 % during this era and urban China achieved a
100 % electrification rate (IEA 2009), the rural electrification efforts have slowed
down (IEA 2010). Between 1997 and 2007, the electricity consumption in rural
areas trebled and electricity consumption per capita increased to 856.3 kWh in
2009.9 The share of productive use of electricity marginally increased to 65 % in
2007, while the rest was used in households (Zhang et al. 2009b). However, the
rural electricity consumption per capita in 2008 is just 30 % of China’s average
electricity consumption. This suggests that the rural electricity market has not
reached its saturation level and further development will take place in the future.
Three phases of electrification of rural China as discussed above are charac-
terised by specific developments (Wang and Feng 2001). While the policy of self-
reliance amidst dramatic social changes during the first period failed to manage
severe shortage, a contrasting development took place during the second phase
when a rapid expansion of the electricity system was achieved that allowed
widespread use for irrigation as well as for lighting and other household uses (e.g.,
TV, fans). The third phase has further expanded electricity use to Town and
Village Enterprises. Electricity is also being used in highly energy intensive
appliances (such as air-conditioning, washing machines, refrigerators, etc.) in rural
areas and the appliance holding has rapidly increased.
9
This is calculated from the China Statistical Yearbook (2010) data.
114 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
China, unlike many other developing countries, has relied on multiple resources,
and multiple distribution channels for its rural energy supply (Catania 1999). The
specific features of Chinese electrification considering the technical, organiza-
tional and financial aspects are presented here.
Unlike most developing countries where the grid extension has been the preferred
mode of electrification, China has experimented with alternative strategies. Pan
et al. (2006) report that rural electrification relied on three modes of delivery: local
grid-based, central-grid based and a hybrid system of local and centralised grids.
Local grids played an important role in areas with large hydro potential where
county water bureaus or small hydropower companies are responsible for elec-
tricity supply. However, the dominant mode of supply remains the extension of
central grid [about 2/3rd of the counties relied on this as per Pan et al. (2006)] but
due to high cost of transmission and high losses of this mode, rural consumers
either face shortages or are unable to afford electricity from the grid. This has also
prevented the development of local resources in these areas. The third mode (i.e. a
hybrid system) is used in areas where hydropower is inadequately available to
meet local demand. ESMAP (2000) noted that the delegation of electricity pro-
vision to local power companies in the first instance and then integration of the
local grids to the central system has allowed the Chinese system to accomplish a
higher rate of access.
Although the main emphasis was on grid-based electrification, China has also
undertaken a number of off-grid initiatives to provide electricity access, especially
in remote locations where grid extension is difficult. Zhang and Kumar (2011)
indicate that the cost of grid extension in western or north-western China has been
reported to range between $5000 and $12,750 per kilometre, making the option
uneconomic. Therefore, to reach the population in these areas, China has initially
launched the Brightness Programme in 1996, which was then scaled-up to include
1065 townships in 12 provinces under the name of Township Electrification Pro-
gramme. In addition, various bilaterally and multi-laterally assisted programmes
were also undertaken (See Shyu 2010 for more details) to promote rural energy
supply through renewable energies.
Stand-alone systems have been mainly used in remote areas of North and
Northwest China and include provinces such as Gansu, Inner Mongolia, Qinghai
and Xinjiang. Photovoltaic systems are being used in these areas since mid-1990s.
A recent report, World Bank (2009), claims that more than two million people in
western China are receiving electricity through PV systems. Between 2002 and
2007, companies have reported a total sale of more than 0.5 million PV systems
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 115
with an aggregate capacity of 11.5 MWp. Four provinces account for the majority
of these sales: Tibet, Qinghai, Sichuan and Xinjiang.
The Chinese strategy for rural electricity supply has focused on a number of
energy sources. Reliance of local resources was an important consideration.
Small hydro power:10 Hydropower has played an important role in the elec-
trification of rural China since the first phase of its development (i.e., in the central
plan period). The self-reliance policy during the central planning period and the
policy of empowerment of rural population through utilisation of local resources in
the reform era stressed on small hydropower development. Small hydro power
(SHP) served multiple purposes—produced electricity, provided irrigation water
and supplied drinking water in rural areas. It also offered environmental benefits
through reduced firewood dependence. Small hydropower incentives in terms of
reduced VAT rate and state investment funds were provided to make this a success.
This helped resolve the power supply problem in many areas and small hydropower
accounts for more than one-half of the local generating capacity (Pan et al. 2006).
The growth in hydro capacity for rural energy supply is presented in Fig. 5.4.11 The
rapid growth in this area can be attributed to, among others, a decentralised
approach, reliance on special policies and strategies, manufacturing capabilities,
and a close co-ordination with rural electrification programmes (Hicks 2004).
However, SHP was not always the cheapest option because of high initial cost for
10
The definition of small hydropower (SHP) has evolved over time—in the 1950s, stations
below 500 kW were considered as SHP. In the 1960s, the size increased to up to 3 MW. The size
was increased to 12 MW then and now up to 25 MW stations are included as SHP (Hicks 2004).
This adds to the data consistency issue as well.
11
A sharp increase in capacity is shown in the diagram since 2007. IEA (2010) also confirms the
overall capacity at 51 GW. This change may be due to a change in the definition that increased
the size of hydro plants to 50 MW from 25 MW used earlier.
116 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
small plants, subsidised supply of other energies, and high per kWh cost due to
limited electricity supply due to hydrological factors (Hicks 2004).
Coal-based power: Because of widespread availability of coal, China followed
a policy of small, local mine development with an objective of reducing rural
poverty. Small-scale coal mines are found in all provinces of China and these were
developed since 1950s but the big push came after the economic reform when the
demand for coal increased. The average output of these mines can be as low as
4,000–25,000 tonne per year, while the largest ones can produce as much as
100,000 tonnes per year (Andrews-Speed et al. 2003). These mines were promoted
in the 1980s to avert the severe energy crisis China was facing in the period of
economic reform. They were owned by provincial government in general and were
a major source of employment (Andrews-Speed et al. 2003). These mines enjoyed
a number of cost advantages (Zhu and Cherni 2009)—their cost of production was
low as they extracted coal from shallow seams; they paid low wages to miners;
they were subjected to less tax payments and social burdens; and they hardly
invested on safety and environmental protection. Zhang et al. (2009b) suggest that
in 1996, there were 73,000 Township coal mines in the country that employed
20 million people. The price liberalisation of coal also gave a further boost to these
mines and by 1995, they produced about 45 % of the national output (see Fig. 5.5).
But recently, the government has imposed a ban on these mines to reduce safety
hazards and environmental degradation. Even then, 13,900 non-state mines were
operating in 2007 and produced 908 Mt of coal, which represented 36 % of
national coal output (Zhang et al. 2009b).
Development of modern renewable energies: This is a new initiative to use
modern renewable energies like wind and solar power. Although these energies
have been emphasised since 1990s, serious efforts have been made in the new
millennium to promote modern renewable energies. China relied on three specific
approaches—small- and micro-hydro was used where hydro potential exists; mini-
grids and village networks using renewable energies were developed in areas with
‘‘clustered households and township infrastructure’’ (Zhang and Kumar 2011).
In remote areas, off-grid technology options were used.
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 117
It must be mentioned here that biomass plays an important role in rural energy
supply in China but instead of traditional burning, bio-gasification has been pro-
moted widely in the 1980s, making China the world leader in biogas production
(Zhang et al. 2002). As biogas is mainly used for heating and cooking, it is not
considered here.
12
See Zhao (2001) for a detailed account of the organisational changes in the energy sector.
118 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
communities without much support from the central government. The asset
ownership rule was clarified in 1973—investor is allowed to own and operate the
asset. This policy encouraged investors to invest in hydro projects (Pan et al.
2006).
The Chinese government has over the years provided specific low interest loans
for rural energy development. For example, loans granted for the execution of
large and medium biogas projects, wind and solar projects by the government all
have interest rates which are almost half the interest rates obtainable on similar
projects at a commercial rate. Although, the commercial banks are seen to be
largely involved in providing private sector lending to the Chinese public, they
have not been very active in providing finance to rural energy projects. The reason
for this is the high risk and low profit margins that may be associated with these
energy loans. With a developed rural banking infrastructure, the links between
these banks and the rural energy renewable sector in supporting some of these rural
projects is still weak.
The source of funding changed during the next period when more government
funds were allocated to rural electrification. The government arranged funds from
the Agricultural Bank of China for rural grid construction and transformation. In
addition, grants, loans, in-kind contribution were also available. In 1987, the
government created a special interest-bearing loan for rural electrification which
was used for large biogas plants, solar thermal and small-scale wind projects. The
interest was 50 % subsidized by the commercial bank. But the decentralized
electrification was either fully financed by the central government or through a
cost-sharing scheme where the provincial government contributes a share. The
Township Electrification Programme which supported off-grid electrification in 11
provinces was a joint financing scheme where the share of central contribution was
determined by the level of socio-economic development. In certain provinces,
100 % central contribution was available (e.g., Tibet).
However, this era also witnessed some challenges as local authorities invested
only a fraction of revenues on energy projects and looked up to the central gov-
ernment for financial assistance and credit towards bridging the gap in energy
supply. This period also witnessed various energy fees and taxes on industries, as
well as increased the rents on land and other services. These led to frictions and
clashes of interests between the central government and the local authorities. More
so, there was an increase in the financial deficit of the central government due to
the rising tax regimes imposed by the local governments, which led to a reduction
in the central government’s control of resources, further deepening the friction and
power tussle between the federal government and the component units.
In the third phase, the government invested heavily in improving the network
system and also to provide access in the remote areas. The government invested
RMB 230 billion (or equivalent to £23 billion) in the Rural Power Grid
Restructuring project between 1998 and 2003 (Wang et al. 2006). 20 % of the
investment came from the central government while the rest came from the
preferential loans from development banks and locally matched finance (Wang
et al. 2006). An investment of RMB 9.88 billion (or equivalent to £1 billion) went
120 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
into the Brightness Program, whereas RMB 4.7 billion (or £0.5 billion) was
invested in the Township Electrification program (Wang et al. 2006). RMB
2.96 billion (or £0.3 billion) came from the central government while the rest
came from local governments (Wang et al. 2006). Clearly, the state participation
has played a vital role in extending the electricity access in China, although
community contribution in the process was crucial as well.
5.2.3.5 Issues
The Chinese experience provides a number of lessons for others and a number of
critical factors can be identified behind the success of the Chinese case. Similarly,
the contrast with the Indian experience can also be instructive. These are discussed
below.
China’s success in providing electricity access to its entire population remains one
of the inspirational stories for the rest of the world trying to achieve the same feat.
A number of critical success factors can be identified from the Chinese experience
and are discussed below.
Bottom-up approach to electrification: Unlike other developing countries that
followed a top–down approach to electrification, China has relied on a bottom–up
approach, where the local level administration and participation was responsible
for the local solution. The approach allowed flexibility and was anchored in self-
reliance. Although it may be argued that this started not as a deliberate policy
122 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
100 households while in 2009, the number has increased to 53.1 and 37.1
respectively (China Statistical Yearbook 2010).
Organisational arrangements: The hierarchical organisational arrangement
with devolved powers and responsibilities at the lowest level and the central
administration setting the overall programme objectives have also helped in
implementing the programmes successfully.
Pilot projects and capacity building: China used pilot projects to gain vital
information before implementing it on a large scale. This small-scale experi-
mentation has allowed programme adjustments and helped the country to direct
resources where necessary. In addition, the emphasis on training and capacity
building, standardisation and dissemination has helped in spreading the knowledge
widely across the country. The development of a cadre of skilled technicians and
project staff and the performance improvement through feedback loops were also
essential factors.
Technological flexibility: Because of emphasis on local resource utilisation,
China allowed selection of locally-relevant energy sources and as a consequence
allowed technological diversities to co-exist. Although the main emphasis was on
small hydropower and coal initially, there was never a ‘‘single solution fits all’’
approach. Technological flexibility has also allowed local resource utilization and
avoided highest cost options for difficult locations. The sense of local ownership
has also ensured success of projects in remote areas.
Local manufacturing base: China’s strong manufacturing strength has also
helped in reaching the rural areas. The country has developed a strong manufac-
turing capacity in hydropower equipment, biogas and even in modern renewable
energies. Continued growth in demand and consequent exploitation of scale and
scope economies have resulted in lower supply costs, making supply more
affordable. Moreover, local supply also reduced external dependence and project
completion time.
Funding arrangements: Peng and Pan (2006) argue that funds for rural
electrification flowed from central and local governments and even local residents
participated in providing funds. Strong state support and the ability to engage the
local communities to the creation of local infrastructure have surely contributed to
the success. Dollar (2008) indicates that although the state invested in creating the
infrastructure, the pricing system ensured almost full cost recovery, which in turn
allowed future sustainability of the system. He points out that increased private
participation also supported this growth and in fact, cost recovery allowed
domestic private sector to achieve a significantly better financial result. In fact,
China has avoided the trap of high electricity subsidy syndrome noticed in many
South Asian countries.
Policy influence: Yang (2003) and Zhang and Heller (2004) suggest that the
central government policies played an important role in promoting rural electri-
fication. This is evident from the review of the electrification process presented
above.
124 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
neglected. Although China promoted small hydro power, yet unplanned devel-
opment of this resource can have significant environmental impacts. Similarly,
small-scale coal mining has damaged the environment and is responsible for fire
and flooding hazards. It is appropriate to consider these issues at the time of
planning and development.
Although both China and India initiated their electrification efforts in the 1950s,
the two most populous countries in the world have produced very different out-
comes. With almost 100 % electrification rate, China stands out in the developing
world, whereas India still has a large population without electricity access. The
differences in their approaches explain the outcomes to a large extent.13
China has relied on a bottom–up approach, where the local-level administration
and participation was responsible for the local solution. India on the other hand
had relied on a top–down approach, where the Central government developed the
schemes, provided funding but required the state agencies to implement them.
There was limited local-level participation in India.
China adopted a phased development approach where local grids at the village
or community level were established initially, followed by an upgrading of the
system to link to the regional or national network. India on the other hand followed
a unified approach mainly based on grid extension, although decentralized options
were also used subsequently. However, lack of demand in the rural areas and poor
ability to pay of the consumers did not provide any incentive to the utilities to
extend supplies.
While both India and China recognised that rural electrification and rural
energy supply is closely linked to rural economic development, China’s emphasis
moved from agricultural development in the planned economy phase to Town and
Village Enterprises in the reform era. Through sustained rural economic activities,
China was able to reduce rural poverty rapidly and improve the living conditions
of its population. Rural Electrification programme in India on the other hand was
launched in the 1950s with two distinct dimensions viz. (1) Village Electrification.
(2) Irrigation Pump set Energisation. The former enhanced consumer satisfaction
and the latter optimised crop yield. The area of focus was maximising farm output,
which did result in the Green Revolution in the mid-1960s. Although the Green
Revolution was limited to a few states and a few crops, it transformed the country
from an importer of food grains to a self-sufficient (and even exporter) nation.
Thus, from a macro point of view, rural electrification was a success with benefits
having trickled down to the Indian farmers, though probably to those with com-
paratively bigger farm holdings. However, there was no parallel development in
13
This is based on Bhattacharyya (2012).
126 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
the rural industrial activities, which in turn did not create industrial employment
and alternative income generation opportunities. This has reduced the commercial
attractiveness of rural electrification activities in India.
China allowed selection of locally-relevant energy sources and as a conse-
quence allowed technological diversities to co-exist. Although the main emphasis
was on small hydropower and coal initially, there was never a ‘‘single solution fits
all’’ approach. Technological flexibility has also allowed local resource utilization
and avoided highest cost options for difficult locations. In India this was never the
case, although various schemes were designed from time to time. Thus local
electricity generation at the rural level did not receive any attention.
The sense of local ownership has also ensured success of projects in remote
areas. Further, strong state support and the ability to engage the local communities
for the creation of local infrastructure have surely contributed to the success. On
the other hand, local ownership and participation was not promoted in India and
therefore, rural electrification was a state-driven activity.
Moreover, China followed a pricing system that ensured almost full cost
recovery, which in turn allowed future sustainability of the system. In fact, China
has avoided the trap of high electricity subsidy syndrome. The approach was thus
flexible, pragmatic and anchored in self-reliance. On the other hand, the Indian
practice of subsidised and unmetered supply to agriculture and small consumers
proved to be very costly for the utilities, making them financially unsound in the
first place. As local resources or local grids were not used, electricity only reached
villages during off-peak hours. The quality of supply was often very poor and
neither the consumers nor the utility were happy with the entire process. This
resulted in a poor rate of electrification until recently when a new drive for rural
electrification was initiated in 2005 through a centrally-sponsored scheme. The
country made significant progress since then but reaching the target of universal
electrification will take some more time.
The differences in the approaches highlight the need for careful decisions about
technology choices, energy resource selection, organizational arrangements,
pricing decisions and community participation.
5.4 Conclusions
The Chinese model of electricity access provision is a pragmatic approach that has
evolved over the past 60 years as it passed through the command-and-control era
to a more market-oriented economy. Obviously, the strategy required several
adaptations and adjustments—starting from a locally-developed, locally managed
programme using local resources, the strategy moved to a combination of central
grid extension and use of local grids and finally to off-grid solutions, with strong
state support. But it appears that the approach has clearly tried to make best use of
available resources and opportunities, keeping the constraints in mind within
which the country had to operate at different phases of its development. Thus, the
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 127
Acknowledgments We have benefited from the comments made on an earlier draft by a number
of specialists. We are particularly grateful to Prof. Philip Andrews-Speed, Prof. Shi Dan,
Dr. Mingying Yang and Dr. Xiaoyi Mu. Usual disclaimers apply.
References
Andrews-Speed, P., Yang, M., Shen, L., & Cao, S. (2003). The regulation of China’s township
and village coal mines: A study of complexity and ineffectiveness. Journal of cleaner
production, 11(2), 185–196.
Arruda, M. E., & Li, K. Y. (2003). China’s energy sector: Development. Structure and future
china law and practice, 17(9), 12–17.
Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2012). Energy access programmes and sustainable development: A critical
review and analysis. Energy for sustainable development,. doi:10.1016/j.esd.2012.05.002.
Byrne, J., Zhou, A., Shen, B., & Hughes, K. (2007). Evaluating the potential of small-scale
renewable energy options to meet rural livelihood needs: A GIS-based and life-cycle cost-
based assessment of Western China’s options. Energy policy, 35(8), 4391–4401.
Catania, P. (1999). China’s rural energy system and management. Applied energy, 64(1–4), 229–240.
China statistical yearbook, (2010). National bureau of statistics of china: Beijing. (See http://
www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2010/indexeh.htm).
Dollar, D. (2008). Lessons from China for Africa, Policy Research Working Paper WPS 4351,
The World Bank, Washington D.C.
ESMAP, (2000). Assessing markets for renewable energy in rural areas of Northwest China,
ESMAP Technical Paper 003, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
128 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Ohiare
Gao, P., & Luo, G. (2009). Problems in development of electrical power in rural China. Asian
social science, 5(12), 27–31.
Hicks, R. (2004). Small hydropower in China: A new record in world hydropower development.
Refocus, 5(6), 36–40.
(IEA) International Energy Agency, (2009). World Energy Outlook. Paris (See IEA website at
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/electricity.asp.
IEA, (2010). Comparative study on rural electrification policies in emerging economies. Key to
successful policies. Information paper, International energy agency, Paris.
IEA, (2011). Energy for all: Financing access for the poor, Special early excerpt of the World
Energy Outlook 2011, International Energy Agency, Paris
Long, H., Zou, J., & Liu, Y. (2009). Differentiation of rural development driven by
industrialisation and urbanisation in eastern coastal China. Habitat international, 33(4),
454–462.
Luo, Z. (2004). Rural energy in China. Encyclopaedia of energy, Vol (5), Elsevier.
Mohanty, B. (2010). Terminal evaluation of China rural energy enterprise development. United
Nations environment programme. www.unep.org/eou/Portals/52/Reports/CREED_TE_Final.pdf.
Pan, J. (2002). Rural energy patterns in China: A preliminary assessment from available data
sources, Paper presented at Stanford TERI Conference in Delhi.
Pan, J., Wuyuan, P., Meng, L., Xiangyang, W., Lishuang, W., Zeriffi, H., Elias, R.J., Zhang, C.,
Victor, D.G. (2006). Rural electrification in China 1954–2004. Historical processes and key
driving forces. PESD working paper no. 60, program on energy and sustainable development,
Stanford University, Stanford, California at http://pesd.stanford.edu/publications/
rural_elec_china.
Peng, W., & Pan, J. (2006). Rural electrification in China: History and institutions. China and
world economy, 14(1), 71–84.
Shyu, C.W. (2010). Renewable energy policy in remote rural areas of Western China:
Implementation and socio-economic benefits. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Bonn
(see http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2010/2174/2174.pdf, accessed on 3 May 2011).
Wang, X., & Feng, Z. (2001). Rural household energy consumption with the economic
development in China: stages and characteristic indices. Energy policy, 29(15), 1391–1397.
Wang, Z. Y., Gao, H., & Zhou, D. (2006). China’s achievements in expanding electricity access
for the poor. Energy for SD, 10(3), 5–16.
World Bank (1996). Energy for rural development in China: An assessment based on a Joint
Chinese/ESMAP study in six counties, Report 183/96, World Bank, Washington D.C.
World Bank, (2009). China: renewable energy development project. Implementation completion
and results report. report number ICR0000880, World Bank, Washington D.C.
Yang, M. (2003). China’s rural electrification and poverty reduction. Energy policy, 31, 283–295.
Yang, P. Y., Zhao, L. Y., & Liu, Z. I. (2010). Influences of new socialist countryside construction
on the strategy of China and the countermeasures. Energy, 35(2), 698–702.
Zhang, C., & Heller, T.C. (2004). Reform of the Chinese electric power market: Economics and
institutions, working paper 3, Program on energy and sustainable development, Stanford
University (see http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/20182/wp3,_10_May_04.pdf).
Zhang, L., Yang, Z., Chen, B., & Chen, G. (2009a). Rural energy in China: Pattern and policy.
Renewable energy, 34(12), 2813–2823.
Zhang, L. X., Yang, Z. F., Chen, B., Chen, G. Q., & Zhang, Y. Q. (2009b). Temporal and spatial
variations of energy consumption in rural China. Communications in non-linear science and
numerical simulation, 14(11), 4022–4031.
Zhang, X., & Kumar, A. (2011). Evaluating renewable-energy-based rural electrification program
in western China: Emerging problems and possible scenarios. Renewable and sustainable
energy reviews, 15(1), 773–779.
Zhang, Y.F., Liu, L., Zeng, M., (2009). A management mode for joint-stock rural electric power
enterprises in China, International conference on management and service science, MASS’09,
20–22 September, 2009, pages 1–4, DOI 10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5305794.
5 The Chinese Model of Rural Electrification and Electricity Access 129
Zhao, J. (2001). Reform of China’s energy institutions and policies: Historical evolution and
current challenges, BCSIA Discussion Paper 2001–20. Energy technology innovation project.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Zheng, Y., Yang M., Shao, Z. (2002). Rural energy policy in China. Presentation in Stanford/
TERI workshop on Rural Energy Transitions. New Delhi, 5–7.
Zhu, S., & Cherni, J. (2009). Coal mining in China: Policy and environment under market reform.
International journal of energy sector reform, 3(1), 9–28.
Chapter 6
Electrification Experiences
from Sub-Saharan Africa
Subhes C. Bhattacharyya
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a brief review of the rural electrification experience from a selected
set of countries from the African continent is presented. The continent is one of the
least electrified regions of the world but provides a striking contrast between the
North and the sub-Saharan regions. As indicated in Chap. 1, more than 585 million
people lack access to electricity in the African continent (with an overall
electrification rate of just above 40 %) but most of them are concentrated in sub-
Saharan Africa. The contrast with North Africa is striking where 99 % of the
population has access to electricity and less than 2 million people do not have
electricity access in this region (see Table 6.1). On the contrary, the electrification
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
Development, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhesb@dmu.ac.uk; subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com
We first consider two successful cases, namely the South African and Ghanaian
cases, followed by six other country examples covering the entire range of electri-
fication spectrum. The choice of countries is informed by the available information
as well as specific research interests about the countries. These cases are presented in
the descending order of electrification rate.
In 1993, South Africa had an electrification rate of 30 %. Since the end of the
Apartheid regime in 1994, South Africa has been active in promoting changes to
1
These countries are Nigeria, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Botswana , Senegal and Zimbabwe.
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 133
its policies. In 2000, it declared the access to basic services, including electricity,
as a social right. By 2009, the country has achieved a 75 % electrification rate,
with 88 % urban and 55 % rural population having access to electricity (IEA
2010). In 2009, 3.4 million households lack access to electricity, of which almost
50 % live in informal settlements. The government plans to achieve universal
electrification by 2014 (IEA 2010).
South Africa has relied on grid extension as the principal means of electrifi-
cation. Before 1993, the focus was only on urban electrification but during the
Apartheid regime there was systematic discrimination of supply in areas inhabited
by non-white population. Since 1994, the country has adopted an Integrated
National Electrification Programme (INEP) which allows for both grid extension
and non-grid supplies. But off-grid supply has not been widely used and is used
only when grid cannot be extended. Coal remains the main fuel for electricity
generation in the country. Where grid is not extended, solar home systems are used
for electrification.
In rural areas where grid has not reached, the solar home system (SHS) is used as
the means of electrification. The suppliers are selected through an open-bidding
process and they have the obligation of providing cooking fuel (paraffin or LPG)
alongside providing SHS. The suppliers receive a subsidy from the Department of
Energy (DoE). The service provider has a monopoly in its area of service. DoE has
selected 6 private consortia in the first phase of the programme (IEA 2010).
However, the progress in this respect has not been impressive—only 50,000 SHS
have been installed to date. Lack of political will, non-payment of fees by con-
sumers, and the perception of a temporary solution or inferior solution are among
the factors affecting the success of off-grid supply. Renewable energy is publicly
called ‘‘rural energy’’ and this has created a negative image. Technology innovation
for rural electrification has not succeeded. The South African example also supports
the claim that rural electrification as such does not lead to economic growth or job
creation or business development. DoE surveys have confirmed this view.
In South Africa, the electricity business was traditionally carried out by two
types of organisations—the state utility Escom and the local authorities (Bekker
et al. 2008). Escom generates, transmits and distributes electricity while local
authorities distribute in their areas. The responsibility of rural electrification was
with the local authorities in their distribution areas but Escom took over some
crisis-ridden areas and increased its market share in the overall distribution
business (Bekker et al. 2008). By 2008, Escom distributed 55 % of electricity to
end-users while the local authorities served the rest (IEA 2010).
The electrification under the INEP was financed by the state budget and since
2003, has cost about $160 million per year. The financial support is expected to
increase to $280 million by 2012. Bekker et al. (2008) indicated that Escom
initially thought the electrification programme could be self-financing but by late
1990s, it became apparent that this is unlikely and the state took the responsibility
for funding the infrastructure development and subsidising supply. From this
perspective, the financial sustainability of the rural electrification programme is
not ensured.
134 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Fig. 6.1 Urban electricity access in Ghana by income class Data Source GSS (2008)
Fig. 6.2 Rural electricity access in Ghana Data source GSS (2008)
phase, the district capitals and towns/villages en-route were targeted. The Self Help
Electrification Programme was introduced in 2001 to accelerate the electrification of
non-electrified areas which would otherwise receive low priorities under the NES
due to smaller population size or other reasons. The Self-Help programme intro-
duced community participation through contribution of low voltage distribution
poles in villages within a distance of 20 km from the grid (World Bank 2007b).
These initiatives brought a rapid improvement in electricity access to reach 54 % by
2004 from 28 % in 1998.
The country also initiated another project in 2000 (called Ghana Energy
Development and Access Project, GEDAP) with the support of the World Bank
which introduced off-grid electricity systems into the electrification programme.
The project also aimed at improving electricity distribution performance and
creating a Rural Electrification Agency (REA) along with a Rural Electrification
Fund (REF). The country has increased its emphasis on increased electricity access
in the new milennium. Ghana adopted its formal energy policy that recognised the
importance of adequate energy supply for meeting development goals. The
136 S. C. Bhattacharyya
played a crucial role but with limited attention on productive use of energy, the
sustainability of such systems remains questionable.
Fig. 6.3 Distribution of Nigerian states in terms of grid connectivity Data source NBS (2009)
(The data can also be found in Oseni (2012a, b))
Recently the country has initiated a number of initiatives to address the above
problems. The government has approved an energy policy in 2003 that aims for a
coordinated development of the energy sector using both fossil fuels and renew-
able energies. The Electric Power Reform Act of 2005 paved the way for
restructuring of the electricity industry and a national regulatory commission was
created to regulate the electricity industry. The Act also led to the creation of the
Rural Electrification Agency (REA) in 2006 to rapidly expand rural and peri-urban
access to electricity in the country in a cost-effective manner, employing the grid
and off-grid options. The Act also provides for a Rural Electrification Fund (REF)
to support rural electrification projects. But the progress in respect of implemen-
tation has not been impressive so far.
Nigeria is blessed with abundant fossil fuels as well as renewable energy
resources. But the country faces a serious electricity supply shortage due to
inadequate generation capacity. The transmission and distribution network is weak
and requires significant strengthening before any major expansion into rural areas
can be aimed. Although the renewable energy potential remains high, the level of
exploitation is limited. Nigeria produced a Renewable Energy Master Plan in 2006
that aimed at a transition from the fossil-fuel based economy to a more sustainable
energy system. It also set short, medium and long-term targets for renewable
electricity generation that varied from 13 % for the short term to 36 % for the
long-term. Although the country has experimented with solar PV, solar thermal,
wind and bio-mass technologies, no significant success has been achieved in
harnessing the vast potential. For example, Ohunakin et al. (2011) indicated that
only 5 % of the small hydro power potential has been tapped so far. The rural
electrification authority does not seem to be working effectively and the slow
progress of sector reform has not helped in reducing the energy access problem.
The Nigerian example clearly shows that lack of strong government commitment
and support acts as a major barrier to rural electrification. While organizations have
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 139
been created to promote rural electrification, they remained ineffective and lacked
capacity and financial strength. A clear road map, a well-monitored implementation
plan and proper demarcation of responsibilities would be required to make progress
in rural electrification.
6.2.4 Botswana
6.2.5 Senegal
Senegal, located on the west coast of Africa with a population of about 13 million,
had an overall electrification rate of 42 % in 2009 (IEA 2011) with a relatively
high urban electrification rate at 75 % but a relatively low rural access rate at 18 %
(IEA 2009). More than 7 million people (out of a population of 12 million) in the
country lack access to electricity. Thiam (2010) identifies the lack of adequate
infrastructure in rural areas due to financial constraint of the government and the
monopolistic state utility as the main factors behind poor rural electricity access.
As Sanoh et al. (2012) indicate, the state utility (SENELEC) continues to enjoy
the monopoly status in electricity supply in Senegal although the power sector was
reformed twice in the past. SENELEC focuses on urban areas now and in 1998, as
part of the World Bank promoted reform process, a rural electrification agency
(ASER) was created. The agency was mandated to develop rural electrification
programmes and grant concessions for delivering rural electrification programmes
so as to reduce rural poverty. It has set a target of reaching 30 % of the potential
population by 2015 and 60 % by 2030 (Sanoh et al. 2012).
To achieve its objectives, ASER has divided the country into 18 concession
areas and the concessionaire is selected through a competitive bidding process.
Each concession covers 5,000–10,000 consumers and can last between 10 and
25 years. This concession-based system allows private participants to invest in
rural electrification by developing their own local electrification plans. The plan is
required to identify the appropriate technologies including renewable energy
technologies, investment needs and include demands from productive uses. The
operator has to investment a minimum of 20 % of the project cost and the rest can
be supported through a subsidy. ASER has established a Rural Electrification Fund
(REF) that combines all resources available for rural electrification purposes.
These include a tax on electricity use, budgetary contributions, grants and financial
aid from development partners and any other resources that can be used for rural
electrification. The upper limit of the tariff is set by the electricity regulator and
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 141
same tariffs apply for same levels of service but tariffs can vary from one con-
cession to another. The bidding process for the first concession started in 2006 and
the process of concession finalization has been achieved. However, Thiam (2010)
remarked that the country still remains poorly electrified and served.
As the grid extension has remained slow, the focus has shifted to renewable
energy-based off-grid and mini-grid systems. Pilot projects with donor support
have been undertaken. Thiam (2010) reported that the cost of PV-based mini-grid
electricity is cheaper than grid extension. Sanoh et al. (2012) on the other hand
report that between 20 and 50 % of the non-electrified households live in areas
where grid extension is the preferable solution than off-grid solutions and the cost
comparison is sensitive to assumptions on demand and capital costs. Camblong
et al. (2009) present the results of a micro-grid project with a high installed content
of renewable energies with an aim of promoting electrification of rural regions of
Senegal using these technologies. The authors concluded that solar energy
potential is excellent for the country whilst wind energy potential could be
interesting in some specific sites and that biomass could also be an efficient source
if livestock farming was properly managed in the future. They further believe that
the electrical energy needs could be met through the deployment kit based micro-
grids.
The Senegalese example shows that private sector involvement in the rural
electrification process is possible but is not an easy process. The small size of the
power sector, dispersed population in rural areas and weak paying capacity of the
consumers do not make private investments very attractive.
6.2.6 Zambia
Haanyika (2008) analysed the policy, legal and institutional measures implemented
in Zambia and assessed their potential or effectiveness to tackle some of the
challenges facing rural electrification in the country so as to increase access and
affordability. The overall level of access to electricity in rural areas in the early
1990s was 0.8 % of the rural population; mostly for cooking. 1.5 % used electricity
in 2000. However, the population growth of 2.9 % in effect hides the level of success
achieved. By 2009, the country had only achieved an electrification rate of about
19 %, with more than 10 million people lacking electricity access (IEA 2011).
Rural electrification in Zambia was for a long time viewed as grid extensions to
replace diesel generators in isolated towns. The use of decentralized systems and
renewable energies were introduced through the broadening of the National
Energy Policy (NEP) in 1994. It broadened rural electrification to include alter-
native technologies such as solar PV and mini-hydropower. It is interesting to note
that this helped to facilitate the increased application of decentralized technolo-
gies, thus enabling social institutions and residences in remote towns and villages
with low population densities to be supplied with electricity from solar PV.
However, Haanyika (2008) does point out that the application of alternative
142 S. C. Bhattacharyya
mode of transport. The possibility of any connection to the grid can modify
customers’ expectations and can affect the financial condition of the ESCO.
Flexible systems—Initially a standard system was made available [a 50Wp
panel with a 90–105 Ah battery to light up to 4 lights and a connection for a
TV/radio]. Now ESCOs offer a number of alternative schemes to suit the
customers’ needs. The payment method can be made flexible as well, as
farmers tend to have an irregular flow of income. CHESCO accepts pay-
ments during harvest with interest. Energizing public institutions like
schools, hospitals etc. may have a social goal but from an ESCO perspective,
the risk of non-payment increases from such organizations that can ruin the
financial viability of the ESCO.
Training and awareness—The users need to be made aware of the limits
and good practices of using PV systems. This could reduce the over-use of
batteries and malfunctioning of systems. Establishing a local network of
component and system suppliers is essential for a successful business.
Excluding the local suppliers from the bidding process makes things worse.
Financial design—Because the systems are unaffordable by the local
consumers, subsidy systems are required. A study indicated that a subsidy of
50–70 % of the capital costs would be required. This is an area of concern.
The electricity act provides for a 3 % levy on electricity consumers to create
a rural fund. However, this was never created.
Lemaire (2009) raises a number of issues including the following: (1)
ESCO for PV or for other energies: a successful business model can cater to
PV and other energies for cooking/heating. The viability of the business can
be better for such a wider remit of the business. (2) Size of the ESCO: In
Zambia , small companies have been created. While this provides the benefit
of providing a local service, some advantages may be obtained by expanding
the size of the companies—in terms of scale of operation, cost advantage in
procurement, etc. But in such a case, the company has to establish a system
of managing the business internally. Source Lemaire (2009).
6.2.7 Kenya
Kenya, located on the east coast of Africa, with a population of 38 million in 2008
is an important East African economy (Kiplagat et al. 2011). Recent IEA data
(IEA 2010) indicates that only 16 % of the Kenya’s population has access to
electricity and 33 million people lack access in the country. While 55 % of the
urban population has access, only 1.5 % of the rural population is connected to the
grid (IEA 2009). The electricity system with an installed capacity of 1345 MW in
2008 is relatively small. Hydropower and geothermal energy contribute about
80 % of the electricity generation, making the country highly renewable energy
dependent for its electricity production (Kiplagat et al. 2011). But Kenya continues
to experience a marked shortfall in its electricity supply, caused partly by system
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 145
Kenya can be considered as a rural electrification paradox. The country has set
up organizations and created dedicated funds for providing energy in deprived
areas. It has received sustained international donor attention and has experimented
with a variety of technologies and options. Yet, the country remains poorly served
in terms of electricity and energy access. While there have been cases of limited
success in some areas or pilot projects, their replication and sustenance has not
been ensured. This shows that it is not sufficient to have the legal framework or
organizational arrangement for a successful electrification programme. It requires
a strong government commitment and financial support, a strong strategy and a
systematic plan to bring success.
6.2.8 Tanzania
project developers and promotes rural energy projects. The Fund is supported
through an electricity levy (charged at 3 % and to go up to 5 %) as well as grants
from international agencies, government budgetary support and other sources. The
Agency is mostly working with private investors who identify the projects, submit
their business plan and get agency’s approval. Most of the projects are renewable
energy-based and often off-grid type, while the national transmission utility
Tanesco is mainly responsible for grid extension.
REA has facilitated 32 electrification projects by expanding the main grid using
the electrification fund and promoted 17 off-grid projects. It is responsible for the
implementation of the off-grid component of the Tanzania Energy Development
and Access Project (TEDAP), which is a five year project with the financial
assistance of the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility. REA has
approved three small hydropower-based projects and a solar system project to
deliver 8,000 PV systems for private use and 285 systems for public facilities
under the TEDAP activities (REA, 2010). The project is expected to run up to
2015 but already the grid extension component has faced severe delays and the
project is facing cost over runs.
Several studies have reported the Tanzanian case. Kainkwa (1999) analysed
whether wind energy can be used in the dry season to supplement electricity
generation in the country. Based on wind data from two sites, he found that a
hybrid hydro-wind system can serve the dry season better and improve reliability
of electricity supply. Similarly, Sheya and Mushi (2000) describe the status of
renewable energy use in the country. However, these studies did not focus on rural
electrification as such.
Ilskog et al. (2005) analysed the co-operative model for successful electrifi-
cation in a Tanzanian village. The authors evaluated the performance of a rural
electrification co-operative pilot project, and found that the co-operative, which
was formed in 1993 (with regular operations commencing in 1994 with 67
consumers), had a tariff that was more than 15 times higher than in the nearby
town served by TANESCO—the electric utility. Even with the higher tariff, the
cooperative had been growing and reached 241 consumers in October 2002. Most
of the energy produced was consumed by households for lighting purposes with
the remaining being consumed in businesses, 12 % in institutions and public
buildings and approximately 3 % for street lighting. The reliability of the supply
has improved from 80 % in 1994, to 97 % during 2000 with one major episode
occurring in 2001 where the operations were shut down completely due to lack of
funds for purchase of spare parts.
This study suggests that the villages can manage their own electricity supply
system if given adequate technical, management and financial support. Even in
rural villages, it is possible to find a fraction of the population that has the ability
and willingness to pay the fairly high price of almost 0.5 USD/kWh for electricity.
It also highlights that if power is generated using fossil fuels that are subject to
price volatility, the need to increase tariffs at the same rate as fuel prices increase is
a must, otherwise funds run out and operations must come to a halt. Additionally,
the tariff must be sufficient for the build-up of an adequate budget for maintenance
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 149
and reinvestment. The above co-operative strove to aim for at least 30 % capital
recovery during its operations even though most of the equipment and grid were
supplied by TANESCO and other aid agencies. Finally, non-metered supply
should be avoided in preference for metered consumption.
Gullberg et al. (2005) presented a related study where they analysed the effect
of introducing solar PV and compact fluorescent lamps in a Tanzanian village
where the co-operative model discussed above was operating. Their study found
that the PV system with incandescent lamp can compete with diesel generation and
offers a reliable system but the subsidized cost of diesel makes diesel generation
cheaper for the consumers.
Marandu (2002) investigated whether local investors in Tanzania are capable of
establishing and managing power sector enterprises in Tanzania and examined the
extent to which this capability could be harnessed to enhance rural electrification-
especially of the poor. The study concluded that substantial local ownership is
possible in small power enterprises but firms located in rural areas were established
to support an economic activity rather than selling of power as a core activity. The
terms and conditions of local financial institutions are major constraining factors on
the ability of local investors to mobilize finance locally. Marandu (2002) reveals that
the level of interest rate charged can be as high as 24 % for funds. As far as the level
of collateral is concerned some require the borrower to cover 100–150 % of the loan.
The repayment period varies between 8 and 10 years. It appears that, on the overall,
technical, managerial and professional capabilities needed to set up, operate and
manage Independent Power Production (IPP) and Independent Power Distribution
(IPD) enterprises exist locally. The results from a survey suggests that electrical
technicians, managers, accountants and artisans take a long time to get employment,
while engineers and lawyers take a short time. Therefore, he contends that a new
power sector investor may find it relatively easy to secure most of the required skills
from the market except engineers and lawyers. Although the study points to rural
electricity cooperatives and suggests that with the appropriate incentives, legal and
regulatory framework in place, there is the possibility that local private investors
may be capable and willing to invest in rural electrification, however, it fails to
represent that such co-operatives could not have been started and would not have
survived without external financial support, in particular from Swedish Develop-
ment Agency and TANESCO (for financing of rehabilitation of generator sets,
purchase of a new generator set and expansion of the distribution network).
Barry et al. (2011) have identified factors that should be considered for
promotion of renewable energies to address energy access problems in Africa and
used eight case studies in Rwanda, Tanzania and Malawi to confirm these factors.
They then suggested a list of 13 factors that could be used to ensure sustainable
renewable energy technology choices.
150 S. C. Bhattacharyya
The above review brings out a number of interesting findings and lessons. These
are organised around technical, economic, and institutional aspects.
Most of the countries have preferred the grid extension approach to rural elec-
trification but the progress has remained very slow in most cases. The rate of
electrification was slower than population growth in some cases, thereby eroding
the overall growth in electrification. Electric utilities generally plan their electri-
fication activities around or in close proximity to their existing grids, which makes
the electrification of virgin areas very slow due to low demand, high cost of
investment and financial constraints of the utilities (Sanoh et al. 2012).
A specific feature of the power sector of sub-Saharan Africa is its limited size.
According to Eberhard et al. (2011), the combined installed capacity of 48 sub-
Saharan countries is just 68 GW but South Africa alone has about 40 GW of
installed capacity. Only seven other countries, namely Nigeria, DR Congo,
Zimbabwe, Zambia, Ghana, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire, have more than 1 GW
capacity each, although only a part of this is operational. The rest have very small
capacity.
The capacity addition has also been slow and consequently, most of the
countries face severe capacity shortages and rely on back-up generators or
emergency power supplies. Increasing the supply capacity therefore is a priority in
sub-Saharan Africa.
Apart from South Africa, which relies heavily on coal, Sub-Saharan Africa is
much dependent on hydropower, which in turn makes the region vulnerable to
seasonal variation in water availability and draught. Although other resources such
as natural gas and petroleum fuel are also available in some countries, their
contribution remains low in most countries. The small size of the power sector in
individual countries and capital intensiveness of such investment have led to
small-scale generating plants and sub-optimal outcomes.
Szabo et al. (2011) using a spatial least-cost analysis framework identified that
in many parts of Africa cost of decentralised off-grid options can be cheaper than
grid extension and that if the affordability of consumers can be increased or cost of
supply is reduced, off-grid options can surely play an important role. In a similar
study, Bazilian et al. (2012) also suggest that to provide universal basic electricity
access, most rural areas in Africa will need off-grid supply systems, either based
on diesel generators or solar PV systems. Deichmann et al. (2011) also report that
renewable energies are already cost-competitive in many parts of Sub-Saharan
Africa.
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 151
Where the alternative off-grid solutions are being offered, they appear as a
‘‘temporary’’ solution, until grid extension becomes feasible. This is especially
true in the case of South Africa. Promoting off-grid solutions as ‘‘inferior’’ or
‘‘temporary’’ solutions creates concerns regarding the acceptability of these
options and reduces their attractiveness. This also creates a sense of ‘‘discrimi-
nation’’ or ‘‘isolation’’ in the minds of the users and can adversely affect the
success of programmes for access to electricity.
Further, the introduction of modern technologies in rural areas with limited
support networks creates the challenge of sustaining such options over a long
period. Poor quality of components, using local solutions for cost reduction (e.g.
bypassing the control system or using cheap batteries), poor workmanship and lack
of technically skilled maintenance staff are common challenges faced in most
cases. The need for proper organisational arrangements for managing these sys-
tems thus cannot be underestimated.
In this context, it may be pertinent to look at the Chinese experience which
provides an alternative approach where rural development is integrated with the
rural electrification programme. The decentralised decision-making process, reli-
ance on local energies, development of local grid and supply network initially,
followed by its upgrading and linkage to the national grid, and strong state
commitment have produced a successful example of rural electrification and
access. The phased network and supply development, reliance on local content,
linkage with agriculture and local economic activity development, and high local
participation in the process have created wider benefits that have sustained the
programmes and made electricity accessible to all. However, the need for mod-
ernisation arises once the system reaches maturity and through a strong state
support, China has ensured such a transformation of the system. Sub-Saharan
Africa may benefit from such a phased development strategy.
2
This is further elaborated in Chapter 9.
152 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Eberhard et al. (2011) estimated that between 1995 and 2005, the capacity
addition was about 1 GW per year whereas the region needs to add 7 GW per year
to clear the backlog and to cater to the growing electricity needs of the region as
well as to meet the rural energy needs. This in turn would require an investment of
$41 billion per year over a ten year period. In another study, AfDB (2008)
estimated that to enhance electricity access in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030,
$547 billion (constant 2005 terms) will be required, which results in an average
annual investment need of $24 billion approximately. This does not include the
operational costs and hence provides an indicative estimate. The colossal invest-
ment need of the sector can be easily understood from the above estimates but the
issue of financing such huge investment remains an unresolved challenge.
While the rural electrification efforts so far have greatly relied on state support
and donor funding, the need for subsidy will increase exponentially as rural
electrification process intensifies and the current cost recovery trend continues.
Eberhard et al. (2011) indicate that although the tariff of electricity is high in the
region, still it does not ensure full cost recovery. This in turn weakens the financial
situation of the electric utilities and discourages the investors in the business. The
issue becomes even challenging due to resource constraints of many governments
and international aid or donor support may not provide funds for subsidies. Thus,
both short-term financing of subsidies and ensuring the long-term sustainability of
the subsidised systems are challenging issues.
Some Sub-Saharan African countries have created an electrification fund to
support rural electrification and energy access programmes but the rate of elec-
trification has not improved much. Although these funds are financed through a
combination of electricity use tax, budgetary support and donor supports, the
funding does not appear to have reached the required level to ensure funding for
electricity access. This shows that it is not sufficient to have a specific funding
mechanism. Strong government commitment to the process, strong financial
support and clear objectives and management systems are required.
Similarly, although some private partners are participating in some off-grid
supply activities, it is the general experience that the donor-assistance or state-
support has been the catalyst for off-grid solutions. Better results have been
achieved where the entire programme is well co-ordinated with adequate support
services and clear assignment of responsibilities. The development of a local
supply chain has also played a major role in the successful delivery of the systems.
6.4 Conclusions
The experience from Sub-Saharan Africa clearly shows that good performance in
terms of electrification and electricity access depends on sound policies, good
organizational set up, sound financing, strong commitments and good governance.
South Africa over the past two decades and Ghana over the last decade give
credence to this observation whereas weak performance of a large number of other
countries supports the counter-factual that the absence of essential elements does
not lead to success. The region urgently needs a massive power system expansion
along with commensurate efforts for enhancing electricity access to the population.
Reliance on donor funding or pilot projects will not be sufficient to achieve the
universal electrification objectives. A systematic, committed approach with strong
local participation is required to integrate rural development with the electrifica-
tion process so that a long-term solution is obtained. The experience shows that
there is no single solution that fits all cases and each country would have to
identify its own solution—this remains the main challenge.
Acknowledgments Several colleagues and student assistants provided inputs to this chapter.
I am particularly indebted to Dr. Suad Badri, a visiting researcher from Sudan, Mr. Roderick
Williams (a previous student and now an alumnus) and Mr. Nikhil Rodriguez, an MSc student at
the Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee. Nikhil has
154 S. C. Bhattacharyya
recently passed away in a fatal car accident just when he was about to start his career in the
energy sector. His loss is deeply regretted. This chapter is dedicated to him.
References
Abdullah, S., & Jeanty, P. W. (2011). Willingness to pay for renewable energy: Evidence
from a contingent valuation survey in Kenya. Renewable and Sustainable Reviews, 15(6),
2974–2986.
AfDB, (2008). Clean energy investment framework for Africa: Role of the African development
bank group, operation policies and compliance department, Tunis: African Development
Bank.
Barry, M. L., Stein, H., & Brent, A. (2011). Selection of renewable energy technologies for
Africa: Eight case studies in Rwanda, Tanzania and Malawi. Renewable Energy, 36(11),
2845–2852.
Bawakyillenuo, S. (2007). Rural electrification in Ghana: Issues of photovoltaic energy
technology utilisation, unpublished doctoral thesis, Hull: University of Hull (see https://
hydra.hull.ac.uk/resources/hull:579, last visited July 16, 2012).
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Gualberti, G., Haites, E., Levi, M., Siegel, J., et al. (2011).
Informing the financing universal energy access: An assessment of current financial flows.
The Electricity Journal, 24(7), 57–82.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Rogner, H. H., Brew-Hammond, A., Foster, V., Pachauri, S., et al.
(2012). Energy access scenarios to 2030 for the power sector in Sub-Saharan Africa. Utilities
Policy, 20(1), 1–16.
Bekker, B., Eberhard, A., Gaunt, T., & Marquard, A. (2008). South Africa’s rapid electrification
programme: Policy, institutional, planning, financing and technical innovations. Energy
Policy, 36, 3125–3137.
Camblong, H., Sarr, J., Niang, A. T., Curea, O., Alzola, J. A., Sylla, E. H., et al. (2009). Micro-
grids project, part 1: Analysis of rural electrification with high content of renewable energy
sources in Senegal. Renewable Energy, 34(10), 2141–2150.
Deichmann, U., Meisner, C., Murray, S., & Wheeler, D. (2011). The economics of renewable
energy expansion in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy, 39(1), 215–227.
Eberherd, A., Rosnes, O., Shkaratan, M., & Vennemo, H. (2011). Africa’s power infrastructure:
Investment, integration, efficiency. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
ESMAP. (2005). Nigeria: Expanding access to rural infrastructure: Issues and options for rural
electrification, water supply and telecommunication, ESMAP Technical Paper 091. Wash-
ington, DC: The World Bank.
GSS. (2008). Ghana living standards survey of the fifth round. Accra, Ghana: Ghana Statistical
Service.
Gullberg, M., Illskog, E., Katyega, M., & Kjellstrom, B. (2005). Village electrification
technologies—an evaluation of photovoltaic cells and compact fluorescent lamps and their
applicability in rural villages based on a Tanzanian case study. Energy Policy, 33(10),
1287–1298.
Gustavsson, M. (2007). With time comes increased loads: An analysis of solar home system use
in Lundazi, Zambia. Renewable Energy, 32(5), 796–813.
Haanyika, C. M. (2008). Rural electrification in Zambia: A policy and institutional analysis.
Energy Policy, 36(3), 1044–1058.
Hankins, M. (2000). A case study on private provision of photovoltaic systems in Kenya, Chapter
11 in ESMAP (2000). Energy Services for the Poor, Washington DC: The World Bank (see
http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/esmap/energy_report2000/ch11.pdf).
IEA. (2009). World Energy Outlook 2009. Paris: International Energy Agency.
6 Electrification Experiences from Sub-Saharan Africa 155
IEA. (2010). Comparative study on rural electrification policies in emerging economies: Key to
successful policies. Paris: International Energy Agency.
IEA. (2011). Energy for all: Financing access for the poor, Special early excerpt of the World
Energy Outlook 2011. Paris: International Energy Agency.
Ilskog, E., Kjellsrom, B., Gullberg, M., Katyega, M., & Chambala, W. (2005). Electrification co-
operatives bring new light to rural Tanzania, 33(10), 1299–1307.
Jacobson, A. (2007). Connective power: Solar electrification and social change in Kenya. World
Development, 35(1), 144–162.
Kainkwa, R. R. (1999). Wind energy as an alternative source to alleviate the shortage of
electricity that prevails during the dry season: A case study of Tanzania. Renewable Energy,
18(2), 161–174.
Kemausuor, F., Obeng, J. Y., Brew-Hammond, A., & Duker, A. (2011). A review of trends,
policies and plans for increasing energy access in Ghana. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 15, 5143–5154.
Ketlogetswe, C., & Mothudi, T. H. (2009). Solar home systems in Botswana—Opportunities and
constraints. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(6–7), 1675–1678.
Ketlogetswe, C., Mothudi, T. H., & Mothibi, J. (2007). Effectiveness of Botswana’s policy on
rural electrification. Energy Policy, 35(2), 1330–1337.
Kiplagat, J. K., Wang, R. Z., & Li, T. X. (2011). Renewable energy in Kenya: Resource potential
and status of exploitation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(6), 2960–2973.
Kirubi, C., Jacobson, A., Kammen, D. M., & Mills, A. (2009). Community-based electricity
micro-grids can contribute to rural development: Evidence from Kenya. World Development,
37(7), 1208–1221.
Lemaire, X. (2009). Fee-for-service companies for rural electrification with photovoltaic systems:
The case of Zambia. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13(1), 18–23.
Maher, P., Smith, N. P. A., & Williams, A. (2003). Assessment of pico-hydro as an option for
off-grid electrification in Kenya. Renewable Energy, 28(9), 1357–1369.
Marandu, E. (2002). The prospects for local private investment in Tanzania’s rural electrification.
Energy Policy, 30(11–12), 977–985.
Miller, V. B., Ramde, E. W., Gradoville, R. T., Jr, & Schaefer, L. A. (2011). Hydrokinetic power
for energy access in rural Ghana. Renewable Energy, 36(2), 671–675.
NBS, (2007). Household budget survey 2007, Tanzania Mainland, Dar es Salam: National Bureau
of Statistics.
NBS, (2009). Social Statistics in Nigeria, National Bureau of Statistics, Abuja: Federal Republic
of Nigeria.
Obeng, G. Y., & Evers, H. D. (2010). Impacts of public solar PV electrification on rural micro-
enterprises: The case of Ghana. Energy for Sustainable Development, 14(3), 223–231.
Obeng, G. Y., Evers, H. D., Akuffo, F. O., Braimah, I., & Brew-Hammond, A. (2008). Solar
photovoltaic electrification and rural energy-poverty in Ghana. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 12(1), 43–54.
Ohunakin, O. S., Ojolo, S. J., & Ajayi, O. O. (2011). Small hydropower development in Nigeria:
An assessment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(4), 2006–2013.
Oseni, M. O. (2012a). Households’ access to electricity and energy consumption pattern in
Nigeria. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 990–995.
Oseni, M. O. (2012b). Improving households’ access to electricity and energy consumption
pattern in Nigeria. Renewable Energy Alternative, 16(6), 3967–3974.
Rabah, K. V. O. (2005). Integrated solar energy systems for rural electrification in Kenya.
Renewable Energy, 30(1), 23–42.
REA, (2010) Annual Report 2009/10, Rural Energy Agency, Dar-es Salam, Tanzania (see http://
www.rea.go.tz/Resources/eLibrary.aspx).
Sanoh, A., Parshall, L., Sarr, O. F., Kum, S., & Modi, V. (2012). Local and national electricity
planning in Senegal: Scenarios and policies. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16(1), 13–25.
Sheya, M. S., & Mushi, S. J. S. (2000). The state of renewable energy harnessing in Tanzania.
Applied Energy, 65(1–4), 257–271.
156 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Szabo, S., Bodis, K., Huld, T., & Moner-Girona, M. (2011). Energy solutions in rural Africa:
mapping electrification costs of distributed solar and diesel generation versus grid extension,
Environmental Research Letters (Vol. 6 pp. 1–9). U.K.: IOP Publishing.
Thiam, D. R. (2010). Renewable decentralized in developing countries: Appraisal from micro-
grid project in Senegal. Renewable Energy, 35(8), 1615–1623.
UNDP-WHO, (2009). The energy access situation in developing countries: A review focusing on
the least-developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa, New York: United Nations Develop-
ment Programme.
Williams, A., & Simpson, R. (2009). Pico-hydro: Reducing technical risks for rural electrifi-
cation. Renewable Energy, 34(8), 1986–1991.
World Bank, (2007). Ghana Energy Development and Access Project, Washington D.C.: The
World Bank.
Chapter 7
Rural Electrification Experience
from South-East Asia and South America
Subhes C. Bhattacharyya
7.1 Introduction
South East Asia and South America represent two regions that have successfully
provided electricity access to most of its population. Both the regions have made
tremendous progress over the past two decades and have achieved improved
access to electricity despite difficult geographical and economic conditions. 93 %
of the South American population had access to electricity in 2009 while South
East Asia had an overall electrification of 74 %.1 As can be seen from Fig. 7.1,
1
If Myanmar is excluded, the overall rate improves to 80 % for the rest of the region.
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
Development, De Montfort Unversity, Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhesb@dmu.ac.uk; subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com
Indonesia, Myanmar, Cambodia and the Philippines account for most of the
non-electrified population of South East Asia but in terms of electrification rate,
Myanmar and Cambodia are the worst performers. At least five member countries
of the region have reached universal electrification. About 152 million people in
the region still lacked access to electricity in 2009.
South America on the other hand shows a very different scale of the problem.
The total size of population lacking electricity access was only 31 million in 2009,
thereby putting the region on a strong footing compared to other developing
regions in terms of electricity access. The urban electrification rate was almost
99 % while 74 % of the rural population had electricity in 2009 (IEA 2011). Haiti
and Peru accounted for about 10 million (or one-third) of non-electrified popu-
lation of the region while Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Bolivia and Hondurus
account for another 13 million (or 43 %) of non-electrified population. The rest is
distributed amongst other countries in small sizes (see Fig. 7.2).
The purpose of this chapter is to review the successful and not-so-successful
cases of both the regions to identify the lessons for other countries trying to
improve their electricity access situation. The chapter is organized as follows: the
next section provides a review of the South East Asian cases while Sect. 3
considers the South American cases. A final section then provides the main lessons
and findings.
Fig. 7.2 Electrification rate and non-electrified population in South America Source IEA (2011)
7.2.1 Indonesia
Kalimantan-Sulawesi remained the most electrified area while the rest of the country
remains less electrified.
The national utility PLN reported in its 2011 annual report that it has
successfully eliminated the customer waiting list and is strengthening the grid
system. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources has launched a new
initiative to enhance electricity access and allocated state funding. The government
has set a target of achieving 80 % electrification by 2014. An improvement in the
overall electrification rate is clearly visible as a result (see Table 7.1) but reaching
the target in all regions looks challenging. According to, World Bank (2005) the
possibility of grid extension as a solution to increase access is an unlikely solution
in the present Indonesian context and the country is unlikely to achieve its elec-
trification targets if it continues with the existing electrification policies. Even PLN
estimates that grid extension is unlikely in the near future for about 6,000 villages
(Draeck 2008).
The country has also faced uncertainties in terms of legal framework for the
electricity sector. In 2004, the Constitutional Court annulled the Electricity Law
20/2002, which as a consequence disapproved all reform initiatives. This has
reduced investor confidence and has rendered private investment difficult (World
Bank 2005). A new electricity law (Law 30/2009) is in place and the national
utility company PLN does not have de-jure monopoly status anymore but it still
retains de facto monopoly.
Indonesia has relied on both conventional and renewable energies for its electri-
fication. Fossil fuels account for 80 % of the electricity generation in the country
while hydropower and geothermal account for the rest. The main emphasis was on
extension of the electricity grid but Indonesia has also experimented with other
options including mini-hydro, geothermal, solar PV and hybrid systems. PLN has
generally used diesel generator sets for rural supply in dispersed areas and
maintained a fleet of at least 30,000 diesel generators, with a capacity of 500 MW
(USAID 2008). However, the cost of diesel-based electricity is much higher than
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 161
the revenue received from the consumers, which in turn makes the utility finan-
cially weak.
Indonesia is blessed with substantial renewable energy resources. The country
has significant hydro potential (75,000 MW), geothermal potential (27,000 MW),
as well as biomass, solar and wind power potential (Draeck 2008) but only a small
fraction has been developed so far due to high upfront cost, infrastructure
deficiency and non remunerative tariffs (USAID 2008). Despite a number of
initiatives solar PV has not reached the poorer section of the population. Draeck
(2008) estimated that only 0.016 % of the Indonesian households use PV systems,
which is much lower compared to other poorer countries such as Sri Lanka and
Kenya.
Draeck (2008) and Retnanestri et al. (2003) provide an overview of off-grid status
in Indonesia and present the lessons from the past experience. Indonesia experi-
mented with off-grid solutions for remote rural areas since the 1980s. By 2000,
162 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Government-Driven Initiatives
In 1991, BANPRES, or Presidential Assistance Project was launched and 3300
SHS were installed through this (Cabraal et al. 1996). The project received grants
from the Presidential Development Budget and was implemented in 13 provinces.
A government agency, BPPT (Agency for Assessment and Application of
Technology) was leading the implementation of the programme. The Village
Co-operatives (KUD) were the village level delivery agents and were responsible
for project implementation, fee collection, maintenance and disconnection of
services for non-payment. The Ministry of Co-operatives was involved in
providing the link between the local KUDs and the government. A state bank, BRI
(Bank Rakyat Indonesia) participated in the scheme because of its widespread
presence in rural areas (Cabraal et al. 1996).
The programme identified the villages to be included in the programme using a
set of criteria: affordability and willingness to pay of the consumers, grid extension
possibility, location relative to the KUD, etc. Once a village is selected, villagers
received the system upon becoming a full member of the KUD and agreeing to
sign a lease-purchase agreement by paying the stamp duty. The KUD upon
receiving the down payment then engaged a private supplier to install the system.
This consisted of a 45–48 Wp PV panel, supporting structure, two fluorescent
lights, an automotive battery, required wiring and control equipment and a 12 V
DC outlet. The system is capable of generating 145 Wh/day with 6 h of bright
sunlight and could run two lamps for 7–8 h or 5 h of light and 5 h television.
Consumers pay an initial payment of Rp 50,000 and a monthly fee of Rp 7500 for
10 years. The KUD retained Rp 500 per month towards its costs and deposited the
rest to a Revolving Fund maintained at the Bank. In contrast, commercial terms for
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 163
Private initiatives
IEA (2003) provided two examples from Indonesia where two private entities
supplied solar home systems in the Indonesian market.
PT Sudimara, Indonesia: Between 1993 and 1998 this company, which was
earlier known as R&S and was owned by Shell Renewables, was supplying SHS in
Middle-Java, West Java, Lampung and Jambi. It stopped operation after the
financial crisis of 1998. They offered both cash sales and a hire-purchase option.
The company carried out the installation at the consumer premises and undertook
the collection of monthly payments for hire-purchase sales. They offered a 40 Wp
SHS and produced the BOS locally. The price was about $400 and charged a down
payment of 20 %, with the rest spread over a maximum of 3 years carrying an
interest of 20 %. The system ownership was transferred to the consumers upon full
payment. The company operated about 65 branches and each branch covered an
area of 45 km radius. The company faced credit management problems as it grew
164 S. C. Bhattacharyya
and overheads increased. Raising loans or credit from banks was difficult in
absence of collaterals.
PT Mambruk Energy International, Indonesia: Mambruk started its operation in
1998 and has achieved a significant level of sales. It operated a cash sale and a
hire-purchase sale through Sales and Service Centres (S&SC) and their appointed
agents or outlets. S&SC places a batch order for units and arranges for their sales
through its agents or outlets. The consumer upon entering into an agreement and
upon payment of required charges receives the unit which is installed by the
technician of S&SC. The company has experimented with alternative payment
collection schemes—collection through debt collectors and payment with a trusted
person in the locality who received a commission. A system in 2001 cost USD 320
and required a down-payment of 25 % which can be spread over a three month
period and a monthly fee spread over a maximum of 30 months.
Draeck (2008) reported that PT Mambruk and Shell Solar participated with BRI
in the village credit scheme and supplied 1000 SHS units each in the plantation
area where farmers have regular income streams.
As indicated above, the state utility is the main agency used in the electrification
process. The funding for rural electrification was provided by the state, which was
utilised through the PLN. In the off-grid projects, both state and private entities
operated, and the donor agencies have played an active role in providing support
and conducting pilot projects. The government provides subsidy for SHS based on
the level of income and location but this has put a subsidy burden on the state. Also,
the financial difficulties of the state affected its commitment towards financing.
Retnanestri et al. (2003) reported that Indonesia classifies the consumers into
three categories—under developed, more developed and developed economic
standing. According to them, demonstration projects are important for the first two
categories whereas semi-commercial projects are useful for the third category. In a
demonstration project, government or donor agencies support the revolving fund
used to finance the project whereas in a semi-commercial project, consumers
contribute significantly to the cost-recovery. In a demonstration project, rural
cooperatives provide the support service whereas in a semi-commercial operation,
consumers deal directly with the dealer.
7.2.1.4 Lessons
Limited growth despite huge potential: Indonesia offers huge potential for
off-grid solutions because of its geographical location and its configuration (island
country). Although Indonesia has experimented with the PV technology and other
options, the country did not make a substantial progress in its rural electrification
compared to its neighbours or countries in similar positions. Lack of government
commitment due to financial and political difficulties faced by the country, reliance
on the state initiatives mainly through the national power company and lack of
local participation in the programmes have affected the success.
Tariff and subsidy issues: Indonesia offers fuel subsidy and other supports for
conventional fuels and its electricity tariff does not ensure cost-recovery for the
electric utility. Poor financial condition, lack of access to private funds and
dwindling state support for social projects have affected the electrification efforts
of the national electric utility.
Regulatory confusion: The annulment of the reform-oriented electricity act and
the subsequent regulatory confusion has also slowed down the electrification
process. This has affected the private investment climate and consequently,
governance issue has emerged as a major concern. With the new law in place, the
situation is likely to change in the future.
According to, IEA (2011) the overall electrification rate in the Philippines was
89.7 % in 2009, with only 9.5 million without access to electricity. IEA (2009)
indicated that 97 % of the urban population and 67 % of the rural population have
access to electricity. However, according to the National Electrification Admin-
istration (NEA), the country achieved 100 % electrification of urban areas and
99 % electrification of other areas, although 77 % of the households have access to
electricity (NEA (2010)). Clearly, despite the differences in the coverage of the
above two definitions,2 the Philippines has recorded an impressive rural electri-
fication performance. This is even more impressive considering the fact that the
country is composed of more than 7,000 islands, some of which are far-fetched
from the main area of inhabitation. The present target is to achieve 90 % house-
hold electrification by 2017 and a four-year revolving development plan is being
used to achieve this target.
2
The NEA considers an area electrified based on the concept of accessibility. If it is possible to
supply a customer upon request even if it is not electrified, the area is considered as electrified.
Thus in an electrified area there can be households without actual connection to the grid or supply
166 S. C. Bhattacharyya
The main mode of electrification is the extension of the electricity grid. The
Electricity Co-operatives (EC), created in the 1960s, generally manage the local
grid and distribute electricity in their areas. A specific group called Small Power
Utilities group (SPUG) of the National Power Corporation produces most of the
power for small and isolated islands. Other generators include independent power
producers, new power producers, local government units, qualified third parties
and community-based generators (DOE 2008). SPUG operated 304 generating
units in 78 small islands with a generating capacity of about 130 MW. Most of this
capacity comes from diesel generators—either land-based or barge mounted. It
also operates a micro-hydro plant and a hybrid renewable energy farm (DOE
2008). Co-operatives generally buy power from SPUG and distribute it through
their distribution systems.
However, for remote rural areas where extending the grid is not cost effective or
is not likely to materialise in the near future, off-grid solutions have been used.
Mini-grid system has been used in such areas. Mini/micro-hydro power was the
preferred energy source where hydro potential exists. Similarly, geothermal power
has also been exploited where available. Otherwise, new renewable energies such
as solar power, wind and biomass have been used, although the development in
these areas remains slow compared to other technologies. SPUG operated 8
isolated grids in 2008 (DOE 2008).
Heavy reliance on diesel for small-scale power generation imposes cost burden
on the utilities of an oil importing country. The price fluctuations in the interna-
tional market affect the overall cost of production and the viability of the business.
This imposes in turn a heavy subsidy burden on the government.
The Philippines is however endowed with significant renewable energy
resources. It has the largest potential for wind power in South East Asia and can
support about 700 MW of capacity. It has large small hydropower (*1,800 MW)
and geothermal power (1,200 MW) potential. It is also the largest solar
manufacturing hub in South East Asia. But the progress in renewable power
development has been slow.
The country has a long experience with PV technology but often as a pre-electrifi-
cation strategy rather than a permanent solution. A few examples are given below. In
1982, a collaborative programme with German assistance installed a 13 kWp plant
under Philippine-German Solar Energy Project (PGSEP). However, the plant was
uneconomical due to its high capital cost and the demand grew faster than the plant
could supply. The above programme however led to the next phase of development
under Special Energy Program (SEP) in 1987 (Cabraal et al. 1996). SEP relied on the
SHS-based electrification and developed a village selection criteria based on the
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 167
following (Cabraal et al. 1996). (1) Area not included in the near-term electrification
plan; (2) Existence of an approved rural electrification cooperative for program
implementation and fee collection; (3) At least 20 users in a cluster within a day’s
travel time; (4) Ability and willingness to pay the fee; (5) Existence of a local
association or NGO to take responsibility of collection, maintenance, monitoring
and access to the areas at all conditions.
The SEP procured the SHS and supplied to RECs who sold to the consumers
upon payment of charges for BOS (balance of systems) and on agreeing to pay
monthly charges. A typical system consisted of 53 Wp panel, associated
controllers and converters, a lead-acid battery, and five lamps. The system could
generate 130–206 Wh per day that was sufficient to light one or two lamps for
few hours and operate a radio (Cabraal et al. 1996). The entire system except the
panel is locally produced but the quality was a major problem. The REC
technicians are responsible for installation and maintenance or trouble shooting
while the NGO or local association collected the fees and monitored the
performance of the systems.
The price of the system was 23,000 pesos (USD 900) in 1995. The imported
components were exempt from duties and taxes. The SEP created a revolving fund
to fund procurement of new units. Only 10 % of the households could procure the
SHS in cash terms but another 20–60 % could afford with an appropriate financing
mechanism while the rest could not afford the SHS but could buy a battery.
In 1991, with GTZ support, NEA initiated a ‘‘pre-electrification project’’ by
installing SHS in remote households through the electricity co-operatives. This
project installed about 2000 systems but was a one-off exercise (ESMAP 2001a).
An Australian aid-funded project supported installation of 1000 packaged PV
systems in 390 villages for community infrastructure development (ESMAP
2001a).
The Renewable Energy Power Program (REPP) was the most important
government initiative in promoting renewable energies in the country. This was
initiated in 1993 and aimed to support small renewable energy power projects up
to 25 MW by providing finance up to 750 million pesos. A task force under the
Department of Energy was created and the department guaranteed the purchase of
electricity produced from the renewable projects under the programme. Although
this generated a significant amount of interest, the project faced difficulties and
delays, and was never successfully launched (ESMAP 2001a).
However, most of the initial experiments did not produce promising results
either due to their limited scope or one-off nature of the intervention. In 2008, the
Renewable Energy Act was enacted and this provided support for renewable
energy development in the country through feed-in tariffs, renewable portfolio
obligations and Renewable Energy Market creation. Additionally, market incen-
tives are being provided to support on-grid and off-grid use of renewable energies.
To achieve the target of 90 % household electrification by 2017, the Depart-
ment of Energy has planned to provide 200,000 SHS in remote areas under its
SWITCH programme which supports a transition from kerosene to a renewable
energy for lighting. The Department will provide P8000 per SHS and P1500 per
168 S. C. Bhattacharyya
The second phase started in 1969 when the National Electrification Act was
passed and the Electrification Agency was reorganised to create the National
Electrification Administration (NEA). The private utilities played an important
role in the electricity sector of the country but they mostly focused on the urban
areas, which created a significant urban–rural gap. NEA decided to promote the
Rural Electrification Co-operatives to enhance electricity access in rural areas.
This gave impetus to the electrification process and during the next two decades,
the country recorded significant progress (ESMAP 2002). By early 1990, the
country reached 100 % electrification in the municipal areas. But the electric
co-operatives faced financial difficulties in pursuing the electrification goals due to
drying up of low-cost funds. The cooperatives were designed along the US model
of rural electric cooperatives but the Philippine co-operatives cannot request
members to contribute funds beyond their initial subscription payments.
Accordingly, they were totally dependent on NEA funding for their operations.
Subsequent to reform of the sector in 2002, the government did not allow NEA to
borrow additional funds for lending to co-operatives, which in turn affected their
access to capital.
Prior to the reform of the electricity sector in 2002, the country was served by
139 distributors, of which 20 were investor owned and 119 were electricity
co-operatives, each covering a specific area franchised to them (ESMAP 2004).
Upon reform in 2002, the country has adopted a competitive electricity market
model but the reform progress has been slow. In 2003, the government launched
the Expanded Rural Electrification Programme to achieve 100 % electrification by
2008 (extended to 2010 afterwards) and 90 % household electrification by 2017.
The programme focuses on a combination of approaches including extension of
distribution network, setting up of micro/mini grids and the use of off-grid
systems. The programme has allowed participation of non-government and non-
utility agencies in electricity provision and resource generation by involving
qualified third parties (QTP). Where a co-operative or a franchisee finds it unviable
to provide electricity, the Missionary Electrification project is undertaken, which
receives a continuous flow of subsidy from a fund created by levying a universal
charge, set by the electricity regulator, on electricity users. For off-grid electrifi-
cation, innovative delivery mechanisms are being used to reach the dispersed
population (DOE 2008).
7.2.2.4 Lessons
The experience of the Philippines shows that the country has used private supply
and co-operative models for rural electrification. The co-operative model has been
successful in delivering electricity through state and donor funding support.
However, ESMAP (2004) indicates that the performance of ECs is not uniform and
the difference in the performance cannot be explained by common driver variables
such as differences in the consumer density, area or per capita income of
consumers. The report suggests that the governance and management of the
170 S. C. Bhattacharyya
7.2.3.1 Thailand
(c) Household electrification programme – Since 1997, the focus has changed to
electrifying households and more than 550,000 households were provided
electricity access in two phases. Only less than 1 % of the households lacked
electricity by 2004 and most of these households are located in national parks,
forests, islands, etc. These were to be electrified using solar home systems.
Rural electrification in Thailand was carried out by the Provincial Electricity
Authority (PEA). PEA used a pragmatic approach towards electrification. It used a
ranking scheme to decide the village electrification decision. This was based on the
following seven components: (1) proximity of the grid, (2) accessibility by road,
(3) village size, (4) number of expected customer in the first five years, (5)
potential agriculture and industrial loads, (6) number of commercial establish-
ments, and (7) extent of public facilities (ESMAP 1997). PEA accelerated a village
selection if that village was willing to make a larger contribution to the
construction cost. 17,681 villages out of 70,726 contributed 30 % but only 707
villages contributed the full amount (ESMAP 1997). However, there are some
evidences that most of these contributions were paid by a few individuals and by
politicians securing local development funds (World Bank 2000).
Harnboonyanon (2005) identified the following key success factors behind the
Thai success:
(a) Standardised technical design: PEA used a standard technical design for all
rural areas that was easy to use and replicate.
(b) Simple construction standard: The delivery was based on a simple standard
and involved private contractors to provide the supply.
(c) Financial support: The electrification programme received generous finan-
cial support from the government, local people, donor agencies and inter-
national funding agencies. This support ensured a rapid development of the
system.
(d) Cross-subsidy: The development was supported by a tariff policy that ensured
cost reduction for the rural consumers. The cross-subsidy was provided at the
wholesale level for rural consumers from the urban consumers.
(e) Dedicated organisation: PEA was a dedicated agency for the provision of
electricity in the rural areas. This separation of responsibilities and organisa-
tional arrangement ensured a concerted effort on rural electrification.
Yet, Thailand also faced a number of constraints. The financial viability of rural
electrification programme was an issue, given the heavy investment in developing
rural electricity infrastructure and poor revenue potential due to low demand.
The non-availability of adequate infrastructure for transportation of equipment and
materials was another issue. The cost of revenue collection and regular meter
reading was high for PEA and this affects the financial viability of rural system
operations. Finally, the reliability and quality of supply was also a problem
(Harnboonyanon 2005).
However, Thailand essentially relied on grid extension and has used off-grid
options only in a limited scale. Two technologies were used for off-grid
172 S. C. Bhattacharyya
7.2.3.2 Vietnam
Vietnam provides another example where rapid progress has been made in terms
of rural electrification. Vietnam is a populous country (90 million in 2011) with a
high share of the population living in rural areas (about 70 % of its population).
According to Shrestha et al. (2004), only 2.5 % of the poor had electricity access
in 1975 but the rate of access accelerated in the 1990s and according to IEA
(2010), the country has achieved close to 98 % electrification. As a result, from a
mere 1.2 million population with electricity access in 1976 the country managed to
provide electricity to 82 million population by 2009 (World Bank 2011a).
According to Nguyen (2007), about 2 million households living in remote areas
lack access to electricity grids, where off-grid electrification methods are being
used. World Bank (2011a) provides a detailed review of the Vietnamese rural
electrification experience. In the following paragraphs, we briefly present the
salient features and essential points.
Vietnam started its electrification in the mid-1970s during the post-war
recovery period but the focus was on developing required infrastructure, particu-
larly in the urban areas. Therefore, rural electrification was not the priority during
this period and consequently, and the progress was relatively modest. The country
initiated market-oriented economic reform initiatives in the mid-1980s following
the example of China and wide-ranging changes to the economic system were
initiated (ADB 2006). This period paved the way for rapid economic growth, and
some crucial electricity infrastructure was created during this period. Rapid pro-
gress in electrification was made during since mid-1990 (see Fig. 7.4) when the
electricity generating capacities and transmission networks were available, and
when the Electricity of Vietnam (EVN) was established to ensure integrated
development of the electricity supply industry. At this time the government also
set the national electrification targets. After a short period of rapid electrification,
the progress continued at a slower pace due to reduced access to favourable
funding and emergence of institutional and organisational issues related to elec-
trification. While EVN was ensuring village level connections, taking the grid to
the households was done using diverse operational and administrative arrange-
ments. The emphasis then shifted to better regulation of the industry and better
quality of supply. The ad-hoc operational arrangements were initially converted to
local distribution utilities and then consolidated to create viable local distribution
business. A uniform distribution tariff system and the distribution code were
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 173
7.3.1.1 Status
Brazil has relied on grid extension as the main mode of electrification. The main
difference with South Africa is that a large share of electricity in Brazil comes
from hydro sources, making it less environmentally damaging. Diesel generator
based mini-grid systems have been widely used in rural areas, especially in the
Amazon region. According to, Goldemberg et al. (2004) more than 1,000 diesel
generator sets are used in the region, of which more than 700 sets have a capacity
of less than 500 kW. Brazil has also used other forms of renewable energies such
as solar PV for electrification purposes.
Andrade (2009) indicates that isolated systems provide electricity to 3 % of the
Brazilian population (1.6 million consumers) spread over 45 % of the territory.
Thermo-electric plants running on diesel are generally used in most of the cases
but this entails fuel waste as one litre of fuel used in the plant may require spending
two litres of fuel for transportation to the region. The quality of power is not high
and the supply is often not available for 24 h.
Zerriffi (2008) indicates that Brazil has a considerable experience in the
decentralised electrification programme. CEMIG, the utility of Minas Gerais,
undertook a PV-based electrification in the 1990s for electrification of schools,
community buildings and households. However, the programme could not achieve
its target and only 450 SHS were installed out of a target of 4,700 between 1995
and 2001.
According to, Andrade (2009) three main programmes have been used in Brazil
for universal electrfication:
(a) PRODEEM (The State and Municipal Power Development Programme)—This
was launched in 1994 to provide decentralized renewable energy options to
schools, health centres and other community facilities. Between 1996 and 2002,
more than 8,700 systems were distributed leading to an installed capacity of
5.2 kWp. The programme faced operation and management problems and the
performance was not high due to poor operating results of the installed systems
(50 % not working) and other institutional issues (Zerriffi 2008).
(b) LnC (Rural Power supply National Programme)—This was initiated in 1999
and extended grid connection to rural areas. Between 2000 and 2003, 630,000
connections were made.
(c) LpT (Light for all)—Initiated in 2003 to connect more than 2 million rural
households by 2010 with a budgeted expenditure of R$12.7 billion.
Two types of efforts are found in Brazil: (1) efforts by centralised utilities to
provide access in their service areas—this is the dominant mode of operation and has
often promoted diesel mini-grid, solar home systems in remote areas and providing
supply to community structures (schools, etc.) through PRODEEM programme
(Zerriffi 2008). (2) There are a few examples where non-centralised agencies have
also participated in decentralised energy supply. An NGO, IDEAAS, has developed
a fee-based SHS where consumers pay an installation fee and a monthly charge. The
NGO used a mix of loans and grants for funding but requires the installation of 4000
176 S. C. Bhattacharyya
units to break-even. This has not been ensured but if the costs can be controlled, the
model could be replicated and sustained (Zerriffi 2008).
The diesel mini-grid is used in the rural areas of Amazonia and is provided by
government-owned utilities like CAEM, who use grants for ‘‘Lights for all’’
programme and diesel fuel subsidy for rural areas. Even then, the services are not
economically viable and the companies run into deficits. On the other hand, private
companies like COELBA have relied on SHS to provide electricity to the remote
areas. While they can access funds for ‘‘Lights for all’’ programme, being private
utilities cannot operate under financial losses, although they also try to use cross-
subsidies from rich consumers to make up for some losses.
Until 1990s, the rural electrification programmes were implemented at the state
level through franchisees selected by the state. PRODEEM followed a top-down
approach and was a centralised project and implemented through utilities
(Goldemberg et al. 2004). This was funded by donor agencies and the federal
government. The LnC programme was implemented by Electrobras and coordi-
nated by the Ministry of Mines and Energy. For the LpT programme, a new
organisational structure has emerged (IEA 2010). The regulatory agency, ANEEL
plays a key role here for setting the annual targets and approving the conces-
sionaires while Electrobras, the national utility, holds the secretariat for the
programme. The Ministry of Mines and Energy coordinates the programme. The
funding is essentially provided by the federal government although the states
contribute about 10 % to the cost.
7.3.1.4 Lessons
The Brazilian experience also supports the case for state support in rural electri-
fication infrastructure. Brazil has relied mainly on grid expansion and only used
off-grid solutions where grid cannot be extended. Its reliance on diesel generators
for off-grid solutions as opposed to renewable sources is another important feature
of the electrification strategy. In all programmes, the state took an active role in
setting the targets, creating the organisational arrangements and monitoring of the
programme. Although Brazil has reduced its poverty and developed economically,
the viability and sustainability of its subsidised electrification programmes is not
ensured.
3
PIES-MME. December 2007
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 177
7.3.2.1 Colombia
quite poor and the remoteness implies that the cost of supply is higher when the
supply comes from diesel. Silva and Nakata (2009) report that diesel costs 60 %
more in the NIZ area compared to that prevailing in the capital and consequently,
the average price of electricity is twice that of grid-connected areas and the service
duration is limited.
Although renewable energies can become cost effective in certain areas and
could displace some fossil-fuel use in rural Colombia, the progress has been rather
limited. Hernandez et al. (2011) report that the telephone company (TELECOM)
first used solar PV systems for rural telecommunication systems in 1979 and this
still continues to provide electricity for rural telecommunication. In recent times,
some solar PV systems for individual household use are being used with the
financial support from the general budget and special funds. Also a 125 kW
mini-grid pilot project is under development (Hernandez et al. 2011).
7.3.2.2 Peru
carried out in the 1990s. Martinot and Reiche (2000) reported that in Peru a GEF
funded project aimed at creating a model concession arrangement for the devel-
opment of PV-based rural electrification in Peru through the involvement of local
communities. The users will pay a monthly fee and the government will provide a
subsidy and contribute equity to the project. It aimed to provide 12000 SHS within
4 years.
ESMAP (2001b) reported evaluations of several small-scale projects through
post-investment investigations and found that micro-hydro plants and diesel
generators faced a number of problems including frequent shutdowns, high
subsidy requirements, and lack of management skills. It is reported that there are
300,000 isolated households in the country where grid extension is not feasible and
off-grid systems will be used to provide electricity access (ESMAP 2001b). As part
of a World Bank project that started in 2006, 39,000 people are targeted to be
provided access with solar PV systems (ESMAP 2011).
A recent study suggested that Peru has a significant small hydropower potential
and a conservative estimate puts it at 1600 MW. But as small hydropower has to
compete with cheap gas-based electricity, investors did not find it attractive to
invest in Greenfield projects, which prevented the country from realizing its small
hydro potential (World Bank 2011b).
In 2008, the Renewable Energy Decree was introduced to promote renewable
energy and renewable electricity in the country. But the focus again was on grid-
connected supply. The country still needs strategic thinking to address the rural
electricity access issue.
7.3.2.3 Chile
Jardesic (2000) reported the Chilean programme that was introduced after the
restructuring of the power sector in the country. In the early 1990s, almost 50 % of
the rural population had no access to electricity and an innovative rural electrifi-
cation was introduced (called PER in Spanish) in 1994 to address the problem. It
aimed at providing electricity to 100 % of electrifiable rural dwellings within
10 years and reach 75 % coverage by 2000. The programme was deeply rooted in:
(i) decentralised decision-making; (ii) community participation; (iii) competence
promotion in the energy supply; and (iv) use of appropriate technologies. A special
fund was created to provide one-time direct subsidy on a competitive basis to
cover the investment costs while the tariff charges set by the regulators were to
cover the operating costs. The subsidy fund is allocated based on the progress
made in the past year and the number of households still lacking access. Jardesic
(2000) reported that the programme produced demonstrable results, achieving the
75 % target set for 2000 by 1999. The state invested $112 million between 1995
and 1999 and the private sector also brought another $60 million.
These experiences from South America show that while the urban electrifica-
tion has been very successful, there are areas of low rural electrification in the
continent. Although the grid-based approach has been favoured and countries have
180 S. C. Bhattacharyya
tried private investor-led developments, the rate of success varied. While countries
have created funds and special legal arrangements for rural electrification, they
were not always quite effective. Therefore, no univocal lesson emerges from these
experiences that can be used in other countries.
This review brings out a number of interesting findings and lessons from the rural
electrification and off-grid experiences from South-East Asia and South America.
These can be summarised below as follows.
Grid extension as the preferred mode of operation Grid extension has been used as
the preferred mode of electrification in all cases. Even in the cases of Indonesia or
the Philippines, the main emphasis was on grid extension, although mini-grids or
local grids are being used as well. Many countries considered in this review have
made a significant progress in terms of electrification. However, the rate of success
has depended on the level of government commitment and financial support to the
process. Examples of Brazil, Thailand and Vietnam in particular show the
importance of proper planning of the electrification process.
Most of the countries in this review have also used alternative off-grid solutions
but these are offered as a ‘‘temporary’’ solution, until grid extension becomes
feasible. This is especially true in the case of Brazil, Philippines and elsewhere.
Promoting off-grid solutions as ‘‘inferior’’ or ‘‘temporary’’ solutions creates con-
cerns regarding the acceptability of these options and reduces their attractiveness.
This also creates a sense of ‘‘discrimination’’ or ‘‘isolation’’ in the minds of the
users and can adversely affect the success of programmes for access to electricity.
Similarly, dependence on petroleum fuels for decentralised operations is clearly
noticed in islands or remote areas. The cost of supply becomes prohibitively high
during soaring international oil prices, which in turn jeopardises the financial
viability of the operator or imposes high subsidy burden on the state or high
electricity tariffs on the consumers.
Subsidy-based and donor-assisted initiatives In all cases, the electrification process
has heavily relied on state subsidies for infrastructure development and in many
cases for system operation. It is also the general experience that the donor-assis-
tance or state-support has been the catalyst for off-grid solutions. Indonesia pro-
vides a clear example of the possible consequences of such dependence. The
Financial Crisis of 1997 eroded the subsidies and caused a major set-back to the
electrification process. It also shows that the electrification as a social objective
suffers during economic downturns, including externally supported initiatives. The
resilience of electrification programmes to such shocks proved to be poor due to its
inadequate local participation and self-reliance. Operating subsidies supporting
non-remunerative tariffs for electricity services have not often benefited the poor
and were always difficult to remove subsequently. The issue of long-term viability
and sustainability of such subsidy or donor-assisted programmes remains.
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 181
Limited integration with rural development Although both the regions have
achieved relatively high levels of electrification, the electrification efforts were
carried out as social objectives without properly integrating them with rural
development. Consequently, despite electrification the rural poverty remained a
problem in many countries. This also enhances the need for perpetual support to
sustain the electrification efforts, which becomes a questionable issue for finan-
cially weak utilities or budget-constrained states. The contrast with the Chinese
approach becomes very evident in this respect. While China has ensured rural
prosperity by integrating electrification efforts with rural development, such a
transformation did not happen in countries reviewed in this chapter. The effec-
tiveness of the electrification programme reduces consequently.
Prevalence of top-down approaches Most of the countries have relied on a top-
down approach, where the targets were set by the governments and the pro-
grammes were implemented by the utilities or their subsidiaries. Better results
have been achieved where the entire programme is well co-ordinated with ade-
quate support services and clear assignment of responsibilities. The development
of a local supply chain has also played a major role in the successful delivery of
the systems. However, reliance on the top-down approach in turn did not provide
flexibility of integrating local resources into the electrification process and did not
create a reliable rural supply system.
Private sector participation and local involvement Although many countries have
followed the top-down approach, local-level involvement and private sector par-
ticipation played an important role in some cases. The Philippines relied on the co-
operative model initially and has extensively used the market-based approaches
allowing private sector to play an important role. The franchisee system used in
South America allowed private sector participation as well. Local participation in
Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines can also be noticed. However, their influ-
ence in the decision-making process was limited and the electrification process did
not develop as a locally-driven system as was the case in China.
Clearly, these examples provide a contrasting alternative case where successful
electrification was achieved through different means that each country has char-
tered to suit its specific needs and conditions. This provides further support to the
diversity of solutions to reach the same objectives and can be useful for others who
are trying to enhance electricity access.
7.5 Conclusions
This chapter provides further evidence to the premise that strong state support is an
essential condition for the success of any electrification process. All successful
cases have received strong policy support and financial contribution from the state.
Further, these experiences from South-East Asia and South America suggest that
top-down approaches work when they are supported by strong implementation
strategies. Although such strategies varied and included strong national utility
182 S. C. Bhattacharyya
References
ADB, (2006). Economic transition in Vietnam: Doi Moi to WTO, Asian development bank,
Manila, (see http://www.adb.org/documents/reports/consultant/economic-transition-in-
vietnam/economic-transition-in-viet-nam.pdf).
Akhmad, K., Rezavidi, A., & Dasuki, A.S. (2008). Technical, institutional and financial issues of
PV Development in Indonesia, Case study: SHS and hybrid system, Power point presentation
in National Workshop on Solar PV Development in Indonesia: Going to a sustainable model,
June 18, 2008. (see http://rendev.org/docs/resources/content_workshop/RENDEV_WP4_
D10%20-%20Indonesia%20-%20Pres%20BPPT.pdf).
Andrade, C. S., (2009). Photovoltaic system for electrical power generation in remote rural areas
of the Brazilian Amazon, RIO-9 World Energy and Climate Event, 17-19 March, Rio de
Janeiro (see http://www.rio9.com/programme/Book_of_Proceedings/12_PV_Andrade_5.pdf).
Arriaga, M. (2010). Pump as a turbine—a pico-hydro alternative in Lao Peoples Democratic
Republic. Renewable Energy, 35(5): 1109–1115.
Bambawale, M. J., D’Agostino A. L., Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Realising rural electrification in
South East Asia: Lessons from Laos. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15(1):41–48.
Cabraal, A., Cosgrove-Davies, M., & Schaffer, L. (1996). Best practices for photovoltaic
household electrification: lessons from experiences in selected countries, World Bank.
Cherni, J. A., & Preston, F. (2007). Rural electrification under liberal reforms: the case of Peru.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(2), 143–152.
DOE, 2008, Missionary Electrification Development Plan for 2009-2013, Electric Power Industry
Management Bureau, Department of Energy, Manila (see http://www.doe.gov.ph/ep/Devp.
htm).
Draeck, M., (2008). Overview of Policies—Policy review document including summary of
stakeholder interviews, Indonesia, Report for RENDEV, (See http://rendev.org/docs/
resources/reports/RENDEV_WP2%20_D3-indonesia_%20v3_july08.pdf).
ESMAP. (1997). Political involvement in Thailand’s rural electrification. Washington: The
World Bank.
ESMAP. (2001a). Strengthening the non-conventional and Rural Energy Development Program
in the Philippines: A Policy Framework and Action Plan. Washington: The World Bank.
7 Rural Electrification Experience from South-East Asia and South America 183
USAID, 2008, Indonesia Energy Assessment, USAID, Washington D.C. (see Indonesia.
usaid.gov.
Winrock International. (2005). Alliance for Mindanao off-grid renewable energy project: Final
project performance report. Arlington: Winrock International.
World Bank, (2000). Rural electrification in the developing world: Lessons from successful
programs, The World Bank, Washington D.C.
World Bank, (2005). Electricity for all: Options for increasing access in Indonesia, World Bank,
Washington D.C. (see http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/
WDSP/IB/2009/11/01/000333037_20091101233456/Rendered/PDF/
513800WP0Elect10Box342026B01PUBLIC1.pdf).
World Bank, (2011a). State and people, Central and local, working together: The Vietnam rural
electrification experience, World Bank, Washington DC (See http://siteresources.worldbank.
org/INTEAPASTAE/Resources/Viet-Elec-WebReport.pdf).
World Bank, (2011b). Light and hope: Rural electrification in Peru, IBRD Results, The World
Bank, Washington DC.
Zerriffi, H. (2008). From acai to access: Distributed electrification in rural Brazil. International
journal of energy sector management, 2(1), 90–117.
Zeriffi, H. (2011). Rural electrification: Strategies for distributed generation, chapter 4 Distributed
rural electrification in Cambodia, Springer, London.
Part III
Approaches for Participation, Governance
and Financing of Off-grid Electrification
This part focuses on the business and delivery of off-grid electrification and
elaborates on three aspects, namely participatory approaches for electrification
and off-grid electricity provision, governance and regulatory issues, and
financing of electrification. Chapter 8 presents a review of participatory
approaches with a special emphasis on South Asia. Chapter 9 presents the
challenge of financing electrification and off-grid access globally while
Chapter 10 presents the governance issues related to electrification. Chapter 11
elaborates on the regulatory challenges facing off-grid electrification.
Chapter 8
Participatory Business Models
for Off-Grid Electrification
Abstract Bringing modern electricity services to more than 450 million South
Asians without access to grid electricity calls for a variety of innovative mecha-
nisms. Since off-grid electricity implementation is ipso facto decentralized, many
have been able to experiment with different business models for implementation.
This chapter examines various business models in rural electrification with a focus
on off-grid models using clean sources of energy. The chapter also aims to
understand how different organizations have modeled their off-grid and rural
electrification programmes and what have been successful and challenging about
each model. Given the vastness of the literature available on various electrification
models adopted across the world, the review will necessarily be a partial one,
however an attempt has been made to capture the models prevalent in the South
Asian region and their essential features.
8.1 Introduction
Bringing modern electricity services to more than 450 million South Asians
without access to grid electricity calls for a variety of innovative mechanisms.
Most off-grid populations lack not only the ability to easily pay for electricity, but
also the active demand for electricity necessary to support financially viable
electricity programs. Innovative strategies for rural electrification are crucial to
success—whether through innovative financing programs, marketing strategies or
distribution channels.
1
We are defining the business model as an overall framework within which the project operates
including the choice of technology, financial viability of the model, institutional set up, role of
various stakeholders and the regulatory & policy framework. In a business model, the underlying
motive for an investor is profit which assumes central importance, however in a participatory
model the underlying objective is to create access to electricity through sustainable partnerships
with the local communities.Participation of the communities is the centrepiece in a participatory
model.
2
Palit and Chaurey (2011).
3
Palit and Chaurey (2011).
4
Vanderpuye (2010).
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 189
This model has been experimented widely across the world starting with USA
in the 1930s to developing countries such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Philippines
and Nepal and India to some extent.
5
Palli Bidyut Samiti is the Bengali name for rural electric society.
192 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
elected representatives to the PBS governing body. The PBS has a board of
directors consisting of 12–15 members who are elected on an annual basis to
manage the business and affairs of each PBS. While the tariff setting authority
vests with the PBSs, it is still subject to the approval of REB. Cross subsidies are
permitted, however, average tariffs are set so as to cover for operation, mainte-
nance, depreciation and financing costs. REB also prescribes the by-laws for the
PBS as well as operational, technical and administrative standards of rural
electrification.6
Additionally, REB assists the PBS in planning and designing of the distribution
network; conducting initial organizational activities relating to institutional
development; constructing substation and electric lines; providing training to PBS
personnel; and monitoring management, financial, and system operational activi-
ties. REB also offers the PBSs subsidized financing through low interest loans with
long repayment periods. During the start-up period (up to 6 years) cooperatives
with losses receive direct subsidies and a common revolving fund allows them to
benefit from cross subsidies.
There is a strict system of ‘‘checks and balances’’ as far as the procurement
procedure is concerned and the REB instils a strict discipline into the process
through comprehensive training in the areas of management, rules and regulations
(Rejikumar 2007). The REB also hires the executive management of the PBS and
has the power to terminate their employment with the PBS board approval for non-
performance. The most important feature of the model is the annual performance
target agreement which the PBSs have to sign with REB, covering 22 parameters
broadly committing to increase revenues and connections, decrease losses and
improve service quality, based on previous year’s achievements. PBSs that attain
the set targets are rewarded with incentive bonus up to 15 % of the salary, on the
other hand, PBSs which fail, have to face financial penalty.
The PBSs have been claimed to be a successful model as they have been able to
achieve 14.31 % distribution losses as compared to the national average of 30–35 %
losses, 97 % collection efficiency which is far higher than that of other utilities not
only in Bangladesh but also internationally.
The PBSs which have essentially focussed on centralized grid connections are
now focussing on off-grid technologies also. The renewable policy of REB has
selected SHS as the preferred option for providing electricity to those regions of
Bangladesh that will not be reached at least for next 5 years. The arrangement is
by ‘‘Pay for Service’’ where the equipment is owned by the PBSs and the con-
sumers pay fixed monthly bills for 20 years according to their chosen system
configuration. PBS is also responsible for the maintenance of the systems.
6
As per Bye-Laws, the PBS shall at all times be operated on No Loss-No Profit basis for the
mutual benefit of all its Members and non-members alike and is expected to repay all
indebtedness on schedule.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 193
7
Cruickshank and Yadoo (2010)
8
NACEUN’s responsibilities include (1) national level policy advocacy, (2) capacity building,
technical training, administrative and management support for its member organizations,
(3) institutional development, and (4) research and promotion of some renewable technologies
(for example, biogas and improved cooking stoves.
9
http://naceun.org.np/about-us/what-we-are-doing.html, accessed on 20th Dec 2010.
194 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
provided by the cooperatives has empowered the local communities and made
them realize that they can hold the management accountable and thus led to
improvement in service.
This case study examines two off-grid distributed generation projects initi-
ated by West Bengal Renewable Energy Development Agency (WBREDA)
in the Sunderbans, viz., a 500 kW Biomass Gasifier System at Gosaba Island
and a number of Solar Power Plants at Sagardweep Island.
the plant and training of the operators for the biomass gasification plant and
the electricity distribution mini grid. The members provided some capital
from the society membership fees and some construction labour.
10
One US dollar is equivalent to 50 Indian rupees in 2012.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 197
The fact that very few cooperatives have survived in India is indicative of the
failure of the model to take off in a big way. Some of the factors responsible for the
poor performance of the cooperatives in India are as follows:
1. The fundamental cooperative principle is missing as the RECs were constituted
in a top-down approach through departmental actions.
2. Cooperatives in India have been subject to political interference in their day-to
day work which has caused delays and disputes in power supply activities
(NRECA 2002).
3. The electricity cooperatives were operating in a very restricted environment. In
most situations, nominated administrators imposed by the government and
senior officers of SEBs were often sent on deputation to act as managing
directors of cooperatives (Singha 2007).
The societies are registered under Cooperative Societies Act and are regulated
by Registrar of Cooperative Societies. However, they are also regulated by the
Table 8.1 Strengths and weaknesses of the rural electricity cooperativescooperatives
198
In this model, the franchisee buys the electricity from the utility and pays the
energy charges to the utility at a pre-determined rate (see Fig. 8.4). The energy
supplied/purchased will be as shown in the feeder/distribution transformer
metering unit. The franchisee collects revenues from the consumers through raising
bills (as per the tariff set by the regulator) so as to have sustainable commercial
operation. An extension of this model is an operations and maintenance franchisee
wherein the franchisee is also responsible for the Operation and Maintenance of the
11 kV and LT feeders including distribution transformers to the franchisee based
on monthly retainer basis or at an adjusted energy purchased price (of the utility),
factored appropriately considering O&M cost of the franchisee.
tension) end of DTR, recorded by a three phase static meter, and makes
monthly payment to discom based on the energy charge for the energy
consumed in the franchisee’s operational area. In short, the franchisee is
responsible for energy purchase, sales and revenue collection. The coverage
for the franchisee is for systems (a) beyond and including feeders from
substation or (b) from and including DTRs. The scheme is for rural con-
sumers only and a minimum of 80 % of the connected load in a particular
area has to be domestic to qualify for the scheme. DTs up to maximum 250
kVA are handed over to the franchisees.
The SPPS model is a good example of PPP wherein the state owned discom
and private franchisees came together to provide better service to the con-
sumers, reduce the line and commercial losses ensuring increased revenue
for the utility. The decentralised distribution of electricity has resulted in
better service, maintenance and management and increase in revenue as
compared to the centralised billing and collection because of focussed
approach by franchisees and improved customer service due to localised
operation.
Surveys conducted by TERI in 2005 and 2007 indicate that there has been a
substantial increase in revenue for the discom after introduction of SPPS.
The discoms reported that 70 % of the outstanding bills are usually from
rural areas. However, after introduction of SPPS, collection of current and
outstanding bills in the areas served by franchisees has increased by 50 % to
more than 100 % (including arrears) in some cases.
The collection efficiency in the franchised area of a district (Nagaon) cov-
ered during the TERI study was fund to be 93 % as against average of 53 %
for the entire district. The average billing efficiency (ratio of energy billed to
energy injected in the network) in the franchised area of the said district was
found at around 81.83 %. The motivating factor behind the increase in
revenue was found to be convenience of the consumers in depositing the
bills at the camps and franchise’s office, which are near to the villages and
due to extensive campaign by the franchisee in recovering the dues.
Source TERI 2007
Similar models are also in operation in Orissa and in some urban areas such as
Bhiwandi (Maharashtra), Agra and Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) etc. Following the
success of the input based models, other states of India such as Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Haryana are also planning to adopt the
model for rural electricity distribution in certain areas. Recent TERI studies on
evaluation of franchisees in the rural areas of selected districts of Assam, Kar-
nataka and Madhya Pradesh show that the franchisee model has been successful
and have generated avenues for business and employment for the local population,
resulted in reduction of customer grievances and contributed to the socio-eco-
nomic development of the regions. It has also improved the revenue realization
and led to reduction in thefts and pilferage (TERI 2007).
202 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
Table 8.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the rural electricity distribution franchisee model
Strengths • Focussed attention on electrification of rural areas thereby increasing the pace of
rural electrification.
• Investments in the distribution network of the franchised area which are usually
remotely located and are neglected by the distribution licensees. This helps in
bringing down losses and stepping up revenues.
• Creation of employment opportunities in the rural areas as franchisees generally
employ the local youth for services like bill collection, meter reading,
maintenance of LT lines, fuse off calls etc.
• Better customer service and grievance redressal as compared to the distribution
company due to localised operation.
• Political fallouts associated with full privatization are not there in the franchisee
model since the distribution assets stay under the control of the distribution
company, while it also simultaneously allows for benefits of private sector
efficiency to come in.
Weaknesses • Does not improve supply and the lack of predictable and demand-responsive
supply is a barrier to attracting qualified franchise operators.
• Short duration of contracts may act as a deterrent for private entities to invest in
the distribution network.
• The possibility of franchisee defaulting on the payments could emerge as an issue
unless contractual arrangements are enforced effectively.
• Difficulty in having operational control over franchisee where large distribution
zones are franchised (esp. in the case of retail supply and distribution
franchisee) which may create regulatory hurdles.
The franchisee model however, is grappling with certain challenges that need to
be addressed so as to realize its full potential in functioning as a sustainable
participatory model. Franchising may bring in private sector efficiency, invest-
ments in the distribution network, reduce loss levels and improve collection
efficiency but their financial sustainability also depends on the load mix that they
cater to. In case of Bhiwandi, it needs to be noted that the franchisee primarily
served the industrial consumers, who are high revenue base consumers. However,
the same may not hold true for rural consumers who generally cannot afford to pay
high tariffs. The study undertaken by TERI also reveals that one of the risks that a
franchisee faces is due to short duration of contracts. The contract duration for
franchisees is seldom adequate for them to invest in the distribution network and
reap positive returns from the same (TERI 2010).11 A franchisee wanting to
manage the distribution and retail supply activities in the franchised area would
require a whole set of technical, commercial, and managerial skills, the availability
of which may be an issue in the rural areas, at least initially (Bhattacharya and
Srivastava 2009). Franchising may prove to be a win–win case, provided the
operational and financial risks associated with the model are carefully considered
while analysing the feasibility of the model. The Table 8.2 summarizes the
strengths and weaknesses associated with this model.
11
For e.g., the contract duration of Enzen Global in Orissa is five years.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 203
The ESCO is a company that owns, installs and operates electricity systems (e.g.
SHS, solar water heaters etc.) and provides energy services to consumers.12 The
company is also responsible for repair and maintenance of the systems and
providing replacement parts over the life of the service contract. The ESCO
charges the users/beneficiaries a fixed monthly fee or leases the equipment to the
consumers for a fixed rental fee, which is why the model is also known as fee-for-
service model. The Fee-for service model has been found to be successful in India
and Sri Lanka in South Asia as well as in some countries of Africa such as Zambia,
Kenya, Dominican Republic etc. Here we discuss cases from Zambia and India.
There are some fee-for-service models for SHS that are run by private companies
such as Selco India, Sunlabob etc. These have been separately discussed in the
successive section on private sector models as these are purely commercial ventures
which provide a range of products (e.g. solar homes systems, solar lanterns, solar
water pumps etc.) using various financing models where in fee-for-service is just one
of the options.
12
ESCO can be a public or a private company.
13
ESCOs are operating in the districts of Nyimba, Lundazi and Chipata in Eastern Province of
Zambia.
204 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
A fund is also created to replace the batteries regularly. This is a savings scheme,
where part of the regular service fee is set aside in a bank account, in order to be
able to purchase a new battery once the old one is exhausted.
Most of these ESCOs served a similar consumer mix which primarily com-
prised of farmers, civil servants, businesses and schools. However, a recent study
states that many of the farmers and entrepreneurs have withdrawn from the scheme
and now the ESCO caters mainly to the government servants as they have steady
income stream (Lemaire 2009). Several studies also indicate that there are tangible
socio-economic benefits accruing from the SHS such as educational benefits for
school children who can study at night, extended business hours for shops etc.
SHSs have also improved the quality of life of people who now have a better
source of lighting and access to entertainment facilities such as black and white
TV sets and radio cassette players.
The model has been running smoothly for several years now, owing to various
factors that have contributed to its success. There is a regular interaction between
the ESCO and the customers, which enables the ESCO to take feedback from
customers and act on their requests in a timely manner. The technicians of the
ESCO visit the customers on a monthly basis to collect the fee, check the system
for malfunctions and provide services which include—checking the acid level of
the battery, cleaning the solar panels, visual inspection of the system installations,
measuring the voltage over battery poles etc. There seem to be no vandalisms as
the consumers have to face severe costs in accordance with the agreement that they
sign with the company. These systems are kept in close control of the client’s
houses. Further are no local black markets for panels which may also be the reason
for low incidence of thefts. The payment record of the consumers is also good due
to the quality of the service provided by the ESCOs and immediate disconnection
in case of non-payment.
However, the ESCO model in Zambia faced some challenges in terms of
overuse of the systems by the clients which resulted in blackouts. Some of the
initial designs of the SHS also had technical limitations in terms of the quality of
batteries and lamps. Lamps and lamp fittings were reported to break after a few
operating hours. However, with the training of ESCO’s technicians and the dis-
semination of information to customers who are now aware of the possibilities and
limits of their solar system, these initial technical difficulties have been solved to a
great extent.
TERI has evolved an innovative renting model for providing access to clean
lighting through solar lantern under its Lighting a Billion Lives (LaBL) campaign
initiative (See Fig 8.5). The campaign launched in 2008 aims to bring light into the
lives of one billion rural people by displacing kerosene and paraffin lanterns with
solar lighting devices, thereby facilitating education of children; providing better
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 205
corporate and government schemes) and co-financed by the LaBL-PO. For ‘not so
remote’ villages, where the villagers have some paying capacity, the operators are
provided with the option to set up SCS as their own enterprise either putting in
their equity or availing loans (facilitated under LaBL initiative), with part of the
SCS cost being subsidised by the LaBL Fund.
As on 30th April 2012, TERI has successfully extended the initiative in around
1486 villages spread across 21 states in India impacting more than 370,400 lives.
The LaBL initiative has successfully demonstrated in India how solar lanterns
could impact the community; be it for lighting or for livelihood generation at the
household and village level. There is direct livelihood benefit in the form of ‘green
jobs’ for the entrepreneurs managing the SCS and earning through renting. The
operators—more than 15 % of whom are women—earn approximately INR 2000–
3500 (USD 40–60) per month by renting out lanterns. At the household level, the
programme has been instrumental in encouraging children—particularly, the girl
child, who is usually busy during the day with household activities— in opting for
longer study hours. Apart from inducing a smoke-free indoor environment for
women, there is improved mobility and safety after dusk for both women and the
elderly. In addition, the programme is also advantageous to those who are using
the lanterns to earn a living by way of weaving, sewing, vending, running tuition
centres, and by providing other village level services.
Some of the key strengths and weaknesses of the fee-for-service model are as
given in the Table 8.3.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 207
The growth of village micro hydro schemes in Sri Lanka can be traced in two
phases. Phase 1 saw the emergence of welfare oriented community projects, while
the second phase was more market-oriented, driven primarily by the private sector
(discussed in detail in the next section on private sector models).
In the first phase (early 90s), Intermediate Technology Sri Lanka (ITSL),15
embarked on an innovative mode to provide electricity to rural households in Sri
Lanka through micro hydro based generation. As Sri Lanka is abundantly
bestowed with rainfall, there is significant hydro potential to generate adequate
power for household illumination. ITSL capitalised on this idea to provide rural
electrification based on ‘‘community management’’. While the concept of micro
14
Ariyabandu, R, Upscaling Micro hydro a Success Story
15
ITSL is a development charity based out of United Kingdom. It has now been rechristened as
Practical Action.
208 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
hydro was not new in Sri Lanka, the micro hydro turbines available in the open
market had poor safety record. ITSL improved this technology by incorporating
new developments and safety features.
ITSL first studied the electricity needs of a few off-grid communities with water
sources and analysed the financial viability and economic benefits of micro hydro
for village applications. Community management approach was adopted where
Electricity Consumer Societies (ECS), a village organization, were formed for
development, functioning and maintenance of village hydro schemes. This was done
to instill a sense of ownership among the communities. Further given the
geographical location of these micro hydro sites, external agencies were not able to
manage on a long term basis. Membership of ECS was essentially from the village.
ECS functioned as an autonomous body, responsible for raising funds, contributing
labour, setting tariff structures and managing operation and maintenance. ECS was
ably supported by the technical advisory committee of ITSL. A monthly fee of SL Rs.
600/household for a maximum usage of 100 W/household was fixed by the ECS.
Tariff subsidies or free power were given to poor so that they will not be ‘dropped
out’ in the rural electrification process. Households were willing to donate ones share
of power to households in need of extra power at times of social functions. These
projects were functioning with aid from development organizations and donors.
In the second phase, the micro hydro projects were included in the World Bank
ESD project. However, under the more ‘commercial orientation’ of the World Bank
programme, the ECS were not eligible for loans and had to be converted into limited
liability Electricity Consumer Companies. The new model under ESD/RERED
project allowed a ‘project developer’ to submit a proposal to the bank (DFCC) and
on the strength of the proposal a loan was approved for implementation. ECS had to
repay the loan with interest after a stipulated time. Households which could con-
tribute towards the initial project costs, voluntary labour for civil works and pay for
the internal wiring are known to be favoured more in the new model. While initially
the micro hydro model was only for lighting purposes, later on the concept of
productive end uses was also introduced. Two main uses were—battery charging
and grinding and paddy milling. However, ECSs do not encourage day time pro-
ductive end uses which consume substantial power, leading to power fluctuations
and consequent disputes between high power users and normal users. While these
are minor setbacks, the village micro hydro model in Sri Lanka has by and large been
successful with increased role of decentralized provincial institutions.
Village Energy Committee (VEC) model has been tried out in some states in India
with limited success. Most of the projects promoted under various schemes of the
16
TERI 2009a
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 209
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy such as Village Energy Security Pro-
gramme (VESP) and Remote Village Electrification programme propagated the
VEC model to manage off-grid projects at the village level. These projects have
been undertaken in un-electrified remote villages and hamlets that are not likely to
be electrified through conventional means in the immediate future. Based on a
community centric approach, a one-time grant (up to 90 % of the project cost) is
provided to the village community for installation of energy systems capable of
meeting the village community’s energy (mostly lighting and some low con-
sumptive applications) demand. The community is also expected to provide an
equity contribution either in cash or kind to bring in the much needed ownership,
required for success of any community centric project.
The service delivery model involves formation of a VEC by the Project
Implementing Agency (PIA), usually the state renewable energy development
agency or NGOs, with representations from villagers and the local governance body
(panchayat). The VEC is either constituted directly or through the Gram Sabha17
and might also be duly notified by the Gram Panchayat as a Sub-Committee of the
Gram Panchayat as per the relevant provisions of the State Panchayati Raj Act and
rules in this regard. The VEC usually consists of 9–13 members with 50 %
representation from women members and the elected Panchayat member from that
village being the ex-officio members of the VEC.
The PIA sets up the energy production systems and hands over the hardware to
the VEC for day-to-day operation and management. The VEC thus acts as cus-
todian of the energy production system and is responsible for the operation and
management of the systems. The electricity generated from the energy production
systems is distributed to the community through a local mini-grid. The tariff is set
by the VEC in consultation with the PIA in such a way that it takes care of the fuel
and the O&M costs. The VEC is also responsible for arranging the fuel (in case of
biomass or biofuel projects), either as contribution from the project beneficiaries
on rotation basis or purchase of biomass from the biomass collection agents such
as self-help groups. The VEC also creates energy plantation in the village for-
estland or community land to ensure sustainable supply of biomass. User charges
are collected by the VEC to meet the operational expenses of the projects and VEC
manages all the accounts in relation to the project (see Fig. 8.6).
Further, a Village Energy Fund is created by the VEC initially with beneficiary
contributions for sustained operation and management of the project. The monthly
user charges from the users are deposited in this account. The fund is managed by
the VEC with two signatories nominated by the Committee. One of the signatories
is the Gram Panchayat member and the other signatory is the President or Sec-
retary of the VEC. In short, it can be said that VEC plays the role of stand-alone
17
Gram Sabha is a body consisting of all registered voters of a village within the area of a
village Panchayat. It is a forum that ensures direct, participative democracy. It offers equal
opportunity to all citizens including the poor, the women and the marginalised to discuss and
criticize, approve or reject proposals of the Gram Panchayat (the executive) and also assess its
performance.
210 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
of the technical operation and maintenance and there are local level technicians to
handle preventive maintenance such as fuse off calls etc., which was found to be
lacking in the VEC model under VESP.
The NTPC decentralized distributed generation projects are also community
managed where the custody of the project rests with VEC. The village committee
is also responsible for revenue collection, operations and maintenance, while
NTPC provides the technical back up support and does the social engineering,
training and capacity building in the project area either directly or involving a
NGO or a consultant agency. The equipment manufacturer is given an Annual
Maintenance Contract (AMC) for the first 5 years for preventive and breakdown
maintenance. The equipment supplier also trains at least two operators in operation
and maintenance of equipment. The technology used for electrification is usually
biomass gasifiers, wherever surplus biomass is available. Biomass is supplied by
the villagers. All the capital expenses of this project are funded through grants
from various GoI schemes as well as from international funding agencies. All
running expenses for operating and maintaining the plant are borne by the
villagers.
One key aspect that distinguishes these projects from the VEC model projects is
introduction of income generation activity from the planning stage itself. The
income generation as an inherent project component ensures an anchor load thereby
improving the load factor of the project and the resultant income (from electricity
revenue) for the VEC allows it to manage the project on a sustainable basis.
The strengths and weaknesses of the community managed model are given in
the Table 8.4.
212 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
Some of the most promising models for scaling up off-grid energy involve private
companies profiting from building rural energy infrastructure and/or selling rural
electricity. In these models, a for-profit entity arranges and manages an imple-
mentation model (often using one specific technology), identifies suitable villages,
builds the electricity supply, and arranges for operations and maintenance, often
with the help of local partners. In general, the private sector space is undeveloped,
perhaps because of the high risk and relative instability of the market. Yet the
recent World Resources Institute and CDF-IFMR report Power to the People
identifies an enormous potential $2+ billion market in decentralized renewable
energy.
There are many variants of the private sector models of electrification. Each of
the models is discussed separately in this section:
A large number of private models implemented to-date have used a private model
paired with government resources to support their initiatives. These models
develop a business plan that relies on government subsidy or support to make the
financial model effective, but is implemented by the private entity. For example,
some models have used government funding to support capital cost of a power
plant or charging station, but a partial-private model uses power revenues to pay
for operations and maintenance.
18
Best (2011).
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 213
international loans such as the World Bank and the GEF, national and provincial
budgets, with small-user contributions. The focus of this programme is on
renewable energy, but it is neutral on individual technologies and inclusive of
fossil fuel generation (e.g. hybrid diesel-solar mini-grid), with choices made on the
basis of technical and best value options. Though majority of the installations are
based on solar PV panels, PERMER also involves renewable and hybrid mini-
grids (wind, hydro, biomass, diesel), and solar systems for water heating, cooking,
space heating and water pumping.
The cost of maintaining and replacing equipment (at the end of its lifetime) is
covered by a tariff charged and collected from users by the concessionaire, and
supported by a subsidy. In the case of individual home systems, the tariff is usually
a flat rate aligned to the capacity of the equipment, while connections to a mini-
grid, which has higher capacity, involve a combined flat and variable rate,
depending on use. The tariff is set by the provincial regulator, through a process of
negotiation with the concessionaire.
The PERMER programme was successful in delivering basic energy access to
rural populations which otherwise would not have happened in the business as
usual scenario. The model also has other distinct strengths. The award of service
contracts, enforced by regulators, appears to have been reasonably effective in
ensuring equipment is properly used and maintained. Since it was a large, gov-
ernment-led programme, PERMER was able to achieve efficiencies through cen-
tralising some procurement activities and by standardising more technical
processes such as market surveys. It also ensured that rural customers received
services during the entire concession period (15 years). While the programme is
broadly considered successful, with concessionaires maintaining good levels of
performance (especially in repair and maintenance of the equipment’s) and ben-
efits have accrued to the rural communities particularly schools, there are also
criticisms of the model. The main criticism is that the model is not economically
sustainable as the tariffs are heavily subsidized. Implementation has also been slow
owing to a host of reasons, including economic, institutional and capacity factors
and the programme has not had much impact in stimulating domestic industries.
Two successful examples of private sector models from India are discussed here:
HPS a small start-up company based in Bihar, is one of the most widely recog-
nized rural energy enterprise in India (see Fig. 8.7). It has electrified around 80
villages since 2007, affecting nearly 25,000 households, with plans to expand to
6,500 villages by 2014. HPS builds village scale mini-grids using rice husk
214 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
gasifiers, usually ranging between 30 and 200 kW systems. HPS works only in
locations where at least 250 households agree to take a connection and it charges a
nominal installation charge as well as a regular fee-for electricity, sometimes 45
INR per 15 W CFL. It charges a higher rate for commercial use than for residential
use. Some of its plants have generated INR 40,000 monthly revenue from tariffs,
considerably greater than average expenses of INR 20–25,000/month.
HPS’s operation focuses on local community participation and a number of
synergies which enable it to profitably sell power to villagers. Revenue from
villager’s electricity use pays for the operations of the plant and there is enough
profit to pay back the large upfront costs to build the biomass plant. The favourable
economics result from a number of specific innovations. For instance, HPS builds
rice mill alongside its plant, using surplus power capacity from its power plant to
run these mills. It offers free milling to local farmers in exchange for using the rice
husks to feed the power plant. As a result it has reduced its fuel costs and
simultaneously provided local benefit. HPS has even found out an innovative way
to use the charred rice husk and generate additional revenue. The charred husk is
used to make incense sticks and this process is usually carried out by rural women,
thus providing them with a gainful employment opportunity and in turn additional
revenue for HPS through sale of electricity to these employee’s household. HPS
employs local entrepreneurs to manage plant upkeep and collection. Plant
assembly provides temporary employment for about 10 local labourers. Each plant
then employs four people (plant operator, electrician, fuel handler and fee col-
lector) who have training, income and safe working conditions. It also encourages
its collection agents to earn extra as ‘travelling salesman’, selling goods that are
not usually available in the village (such as groceries and other articles) at the
same time as collecting fees.19 The company has also secured significant seed
investments from primarily social venture funds, such as Acumen Fund, the Shell
Foundation, and Bamboo Capital.
Bangalore-based SELCO has made a name for itself selling, servicing and
financing more than 100,000 SHS since 1995. A typical system uses a single PV
module to power four 7 W compact fluorescent lights (CFLs). While the core
business of SELCO is design and sale of solar PV systems, SELCO also offers an
array of solar lighting, water heaters, cook stoves and other products. Core to its
business model are innovative financing and loan mechanisms which support
consumers to purchase the relatively expensive systems.
While SELCO does not provide credit or loans directly by itself, the company
has built up working relationships with local banks and microfinance organisa-
tions, over the years. This has given finance organisations the confidence to
19
www.ashdenawards.org/winners/husk11, last accessed on 30th October 2011.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 215
provide credit for PV systems, and an understanding of the payment terms which
different owners may need. The average loan size is Rs. 13,000 (average system
cost being 15,000 for a 2–3 light system and the rest is margin money). For a
tenure of 5 years and the interest rate of 12 % (which keeps varying depending on
base rate), the monthly instalments (EMI) is about Rs. 300. The ‘lease-to-own’
plan was initiated which focused on establishing a steady, long term policy while
simultaneously maintaining a good relationship with the customers and building
their trust and confidence. At the initial phase of the activity, along with the
lucrative financing scheme, Selco also had an additional one-year guarantee to the
manufacturer’s warranty, a 90 day money back guarantee along with a year’s free
service to build consumer’s trust. Currently SELCO provides a free service for
1 year and after that consumer has the option of availing an annual maintenance
contract or pay per service. Some users work directly with the finance organisa-
tions, others work through self-help-groups which provide additional security that
a loan will be repaid.20
The main work of SELCO is carried out by its local energy service centres, with
the aim that all customers should be within three hours travelling distance of a
centre. All installations and user training are carried out by SELCO technicians.
Service is free during the first year, and SELCO staff visit each system every three
months to make sure that it is working correctly. PV modules supplied by SELCO
come with an 8 year guarantee and batteries with a 3 year guarantee, and the
electronics are warranted for 1 year: any faults are reported to the SELCO head
office, which keep details of all systems, so that problems with suppliers can be
tracked quickly. Usually the systems would last for 15 years at optimal efficiency
with one battery change.
20
www.ashdenawards.org/winners/selco07 accessed on 12th February 2011.
216 P. R. Krithika and D. Palit
The IDCOL Solar home system programme in Bangladesh was launched in 2003
for the installation of SHS at the household level. This programme has been sup-
ported by the World Bank’s International Development Agency (IDA) and GEF
and is administered by IDCOL—a non-banking financial institution. IDCOL
implement’s the project through its 23 partner organizations (POs), Grameen Shakti
being the largest among all. It provides grants and refinances the systems, sets the
technical specifications for the solar equipment, develops publicity materials,
provides training for PO capacity building and monitors PO performance. The role
of PO is to select the project areas and potential customers, offer micro-financing to
the customers, install the systems, provide maintenance support, ensure that spare
parts are available, consultation with the users before installation, disseminate
knowledge for productive use of the system, and provide training to the users and
local technician in order to create local expertise and ownership of the system.
IDCOL offers refinancing through soft loans (6 % interest with 2 years grace period
and 10 years maturity) to the POs and channels grants to reduce the SHSs costs as
well as support the institutional development of the POs. In addition, the IDCOL
also provides technical, logistic, promotional and training assistance to the POs.
The POs provide credit to the customers. A customer has to pay 10 % of the total
cost of the system as down payment and the outstanding amount is to be paid in
monthly instalment with a 12 % service charge, which covers the maintenance cost
of the system. The programme has been immensely successful with deployment of
more than 1,008,854 SHS as of June 30, 2011, lighting the lives of around 4 million
people (IDCOL 2011). IDCOL has set a target of 2.5 million SHS by 2014. Cur-
rently, an average of 30,000 SHSs is installed per month, lighting the lives of about
150,000 people (see Fig. 8.8 for a schematic of the model).
Cambodia’s power supply facility covers only about 20 % of the total population.
Of this, 13 % is by EdC (Electricite du Cambodge), which is the national elec-
tricity company and essentially covers the capital city Phnom Penh and other
provincial towns and cities; 7 % by REEs (Rural Electricity Entrepreneurs). Most
of these REEs own 1–2 small diesel generators, and distribute electricity through
their own small network (low-voltage distribution lines) to local households.
While many of these REEs have been established after obtaining license from the
Government as per norms, there are many unlicensed REEs operating in the
country. It is reported that there are around 600–1,000 rural electricity enterprises
21
IDCOL 2010
22
TERI 2009b
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 217
The key strengths and weaknesses of the private sector models are given in the
Table 8.5.
This chapter has reviewed a number of alternative business models for rural elec-
tricity supply that have been reported in the literature. From the review, it is observed
that the business models for rural electrification projects vary from country to
country depending upon the resource availability, load profile, consumer’s will-
ingness to pay, techno-economic viability and social structures etc. A comparative
assessment of various service delivery models is provided in Table 8.6.
Based on the analysis, it can be said that it is not possible to narrow down to a
single approach of participatory models that can be considered for off-grid elec-
tricity access provision. However, based on the analysis of the models, we find that
for any model to be sustainable, scalable and socially acceptable, there are certain
pre-requisites that need to be fulfilled. The key features which are essential for any
participatory rural electrification model are as follows:
• Choice of technology and demand estimation: The suitability of a technology
for a particular area would depend upon the availability of resources, the con-
sumption pattern of consumers and degree of dispersion of the population. If it is
a highly dispersed population and main electricity usage is only lighting then
stand-alone systems based on solar, is most suitable while for concentrated
populations with some productive load, village mini grids is more appropriate.
Small renewable energy plants with capacity of 25–40 kW can be viable if they
select an ideal area of operation, as demonstrated by the business models of
Husk Power Systems. While this may not be necessary as seen in the case of
VESP, where a 10 kW biomass gassifier was inadequate to run productive load
Table 8.6 Comparative assessment of service delivery models
Characteristics Energy service delivery model
Cooperative Fee-for-service/ESCO Community managed Franchisees Private sector
model
Ownership Members of the cooperative own Ownership vests with Can be of two types: Ownership of assets vests Owned and operated by the
and operate the model the ESCO • Owned by private/public entity and with the discom; private sector except in
managed by communities Franchisee is a custodian PPPs where the
• Owned and managed by communities of the assets ownership of assets
may remain with public
entity
Management Managed by a Board of directors Managed by the ESCO Managed either by an NGO or local self- Managed by private sector, Managed by private sector
or a governing body elected by governing institutions such as village NGO, SHG etc.
the consumers committees or village councils etc.
Maintenance Cooperative is responsible Maintenance is Maintenance is undertaken by the VEC O&M undertaken by the O&M undertaken by the
for O&M undertaken by the village council etc. franchise operator private sector
ESCO
Pricing Low upfront cost and monthly Low to moderate tariffs Low to moderate tariffs (mutually decided Moderate electricity tariffs Moderate to high tariffs
tariffs; usually regulated (set up by ESCO) by the community and VEC) (regulated) (set up by service provider)
Community Moderate to high participation. Limited participation. High participation. Communities are Limited participation. Consumers are generally
participation Communities are members of involved right from the planning stage Franchisee operators not involved in the
Cooperatives. Local youths may till the end implementation stage. may involve locals for planning or
also be involved for bill Several functions such as labour bill collection. management of the
collection, undertaking minor contribution for construction, business.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification
and was excess for just lighting. Therefore, the choice of technology and its
sizing is a complex decision dependent on several factors.
For many rural communities, especially in remote areas, there may be visible
need for electricity, but often with low levels of disposable income and irregular
income streams. Unfortunately, while the investor and entrepreneurs may see an
exciting market opportunity in this suppressed need, need for electricity solu-
tions does not necessarily translate into ability to pay. This, combined with the
need for plants to maintain a certain plant load factor to not operate in a loss,
underscores the needs for careful demand estimation while selecting target
villages. The LaBL or the HPS model has been successful as they conduct a
scoping survey to estimate the likely demand for lighting and ability to pay and
sizes the plant/operation accordingly. The technology choice should best be
compared with alternative options to arrive at the most favourable least cost
option for a particular demand.
• Financing: As seen from the review, there are a number of financing mecha-
nisms available to support rural electrification projects. Finance for project
developers on favourable terms is a necessity for off-grid projects as they
typically involve large upfront costs. A World Bank study has clearly demon-
strated that financial subsidy is an important component of most rural electri-
fication projects, at least in the initial years (The World Bank 2010). Financing
can range from consumer financing, subsidies, grants etc. to market develop-
ment finance given to the companies in the supply—chain.23 For consumer
financing, there is a need for creating mechanism for easy access to credit and
financing through simpler process and better accountability mechanisms. On the
other hand, for large scale programmes such as company-to company lines of
credit, it is extremely important that timely disbursement of funds to companies
installing/operating off-grid systems is ensured. However, ex-post subsidies or
payments which are released only after a project has been completed and is
running well have also shown good results. Because of the unique situation of
every off-grid project, there is no ‘one-size fits all’ approach for financing.
Experience also suggests that contribution solicited from the direct beneficiary
of the projects (e.g. the local community) helps to foster a sense of project
ownership in the community.
• Electricity tariffs: As affordability is one of the key factors from a customer’s
perspective, the electricity tariffs should be based on the ‘ability/willingness to
pay’ of rural consumers. Willingness to pay and affordability are influenced by
variety of factors such as trust, flexibility and frequency of payment schedules,
proximity to payment points and quality of customer service.
As many rural consumers still perceive off-grid to be the second best solution in
comparison to grid connectivity, it is vital to spell out the tangible and intangible
benefits which off-grid electrification may offer. Building trust and community’s
23
Supply-chain refers to the actors in the supply chain of RETs such as manufacturers, dealers,
equipment importers etc.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 221
• Community participation
Organizations with fewer layers and greater community interaction seem to
work well and have the potential to scale up. Only those institutions which can
successfully mobilize the communities by engaging with them can be sustain-
able in the long run. Women’s groups and local farmers associations should be
involved in the project development process. Voluntary labour (or ‘‘sweat
equity’’) and capital contribution by the communities in design and imple-
mentation of a project also brings in a sense of ownership. It has also been seen
that models which leverage local expertise seem to perform very well as local
persons know the service area much better and are able to respond to community
needs effectively. In fact private models with community involvement can
perform very well as seen in the case of Laos (Solar lantern rental system).
The experience in off-grid electrification till date highlights the presence of different
business models depending upon the geographical settings, consumer mix, socio-
economic context and the type of technology chosen. It is also seen that participation
from communities at all levels, especially from the planning stage, leads to their
‘‘buy-in’’ into a project and makes it sustainable beyond the pilot phase. However,
complete dependence on community for operation and maintenance and more
specifically on the technical aspects without any external support is also seen lead to
the failure of projects. Models involving multiple actors, with each actor performing
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 223
References
Best, S. (2011). Remote access: Expanding renewable energy provision in rural Argentina
through public-private partnerships. London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Bhattacharya, S., & Srivastava, L. (2009). Emerging regulatory challenges facing the Indian rural
electrification programme. Energy Policy, 37, 68–79.
Cabraal, A., Cosgrove-Davies, M., & Schaeffer, L. (1996). Best Practices for Photovoltaic
Household Electrification Programs: Lessons from expereince in selected countries.
Washington DC: The World Bank.
Cruickshank, H., & Yadoo, A. (2010). The value of cooperatives in rural electrification. Energy
Policy, 38, 2941–2947.
ESMAP (2006). Four Regulatory Principles to Promote Diverse Electrification.
Gustavsson, M., & Ellegard, A. (2004). The impact of solar home systems on rural livelihoods.
Experiences from the Nyimba Energy Service Company in Zambia. Renewable Energy, 29,
1059–1072.
IDCOL. (2010). IDCOL solar energy program; Dhaka: Infrastructure Development Company
Limited; http://www.idcol.org; last viewed 30 December 2010.
Iyer, C., Misri, M. (2007). Critical review of existing institutions and institutional mechanisms for
rural electricity and possible areas for improvement. In H. Panda (Ed.), Governance of rural
electricity systems in India, pp 283–285 Academic Foundation.
Lemaire, X. (2009). Fee-for-service companies for rural electrification with photovoltaic systems:
The case of Zambia. Energy for Sustainable Development, 13, 18–23.
Ministry of Power, Government of India. (2010). Distribution Reform, Upgrades and
Management (DRUM) Training Program. Rural Power Supply and Participatory Models.
Franchisee by Business Models.
NRECA (2002). Experiences in Cooperative Rural Electrification and Implications for India.
Palit, D., & Chaurey, A. (2011). Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: Status
and best practices. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 266–276.
Palit, D., Sarangi, G. K. (2011). A comparative analysis of the solar energy programs for rural
electrification: Experiences and Lessons from South Asia; In Conference Proceedings of
Third International Conference on Addressing Climate Change for Sustainable Development
through Up-Scaling Renewable Energy Technologies; October 12–14, 2011,Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Rejikumar, R. (2007). Institutional framework for effectively meeting the electricity needs of
rural population. In H. Panda (Ed.) Governance of rural electricity systems in India, pp 236,
Academic Foundation.
Singha, A. K. (2007). Experiences of Power Sector reform. In H. Panda (Ed.) Governance of
rural electricity systems in India, pp 325, Academic Foundation.
Tchami, G. (2007). Handbook on Cooperatives for use by Worker’s Organisation. Geneva:
International Labour Organisation.
TERI (2007). Evaluation of franchisee system in selected districts of Assam, Karnataka and
Madhya Pradesh. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute. Project Report No.
2006ER39.
TERI (2008). Study on improved rural electricity services through renewable energy based
distributed generation and supply. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute. Project
Report No. 2008DG05.
TERI (2009a). National contract for economics and financing, monitoring and evaluation
frameworks and policy and institutional issues. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources
Institute. Project Report No. 2007BE07.
TERI (2009b). Scoping Study Report-Cambodia: Working Group on Solar Lanterns. New Delhi:
The Energy and Resources Institute. Project Report No. 2009BL09.
8 Participatory Business Models for Off-Grid Electrification 225
TERI (2010). Analysis of rural electrification strategy with special focus on the franchisee
system: in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa. New Delhi: The Energy and
Resources Institute. Project Report No. 2009ER03.
The World Bank (2010). Empowering rural India: Expanding electricity access by mobilizing
local resources. South Asia Energy Unit, Sustainable Development Department, New Delhi.
UNDP (2004). Solar Photovoltaics in Africa: Experiences with financing and delivery models.
Vanderpuye, H. (2010). SHEP –Ghana’s Self-help electrification programme; climate parlia-
ment–Workshop on Climate Change and Energy Access for the Poor March 26–28, Limbe,
Cameroun, Retrieved from http://www.climateparl.net/cpcontent/pdfs/SHEP%20%E2%80%
93%20Ghana%E2%80%99s%20Self-help%20Electrification%20Programme.pdf.
Chapter 9
Financing Electrification and Off-Grid
Electricity Access Systems
Subhes C. Bhattacharyya
Abstract This chapter provides a review of financing mechanisms used for energy
access in general and off-grid electrification in particular. It reviews the literature on
the subject and tries to find answers to issues like whether the funding has been
adequate, whether sufficient funding for the future is likely to be available, whether
states should take the lead or leave it to the private sector and so on. It also looks at the
innovative approaches used in funding and indicates whether small-scale projects can
benefit from such initiatives. The chapter finds that in general the state has played an
important role in funding infrastructure investments in both developed and developing
countries. But many developing countries faced difficulties financially and neglected
this for a long time. The gap has been somewhat filled by international donor agencies
but their scale of operation so far has been selective and limited and cannot ensure
adequate funding for the future. The innovative mechanisms are also unfriendly
towards small-scale projects and therefore, do not really provide much hope. The
challenge of mobilising finance and ensuring its appropriate delivery and use remains a
major issue and would require a co-ordinated effort of all relevant stakeholders.
9.1 Introduction
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
Development, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhesb@dmu.ac.uk; subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com
are urgently required in countries lacking energy access. One challenge that
immediately catches attention is that of funding energy access projects, particu-
larly in poorer economies of the world where the need is the most. It is not difficult
to recognise that financing electrification projects (or clean cooking energy supply
for that matter) will not be an easy task, given the inadequacy of existing efforts by
governments, international financial agencies, donor agencies and even the private
sector in funding energy supply provisions.
Rural electrification programmes both at the national and international levels
have long been supported by the states and donor agencies. The funding mecha-
nisms have evolved over time due to changed economic paradigm (i.e. the wave of
economic reforms in the 1980 and 1990s) promoting more market involvement
and private sector participation. Further, the financial markets have evolved and
new innovative instruments have arrived including carbon market instruments as
well as micro-finance to cater to the financial needs of the users. Unfortunately,
there is limited academic attention on this vital issue.
Although there are some studies on financing energy covering various macro-
aspects, (e.g. the funding needs and possible funding flow in IEA (2011), inter-
national financial flows to the energy sector in Bazilian et al. (2011); Glemarec
(2012) who identifies the private and public sector funding potentials), or micro
aspects (e.g. Monroy and Hernandez (2008); (2005) on stakeholder perspectives,
Mainali and Silveira (2011); Miller and Hope (2000); ASER (2007) providing
country case studies of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Senegal respectively), there is no
systematic review of financing issues and options for electrification in developing
countries. This chapter aims to bridge the gap through a comprehensive review.
The chapter is organised as follows: the second section presents the scale of
the challenge by considering the financing needs for energy access for all and
by identifying the financial sources and financial flows; Sect. 9.3 discusses
financial options and financing challenges, Sect. 9.4 explores financing mecha-
nisms specifically for off-grid electrification. Finally, Sect. 9.5 provides some
concluding remarks.
This section provides an overall picture focusing on the investment needs for universal
electrification first, followed by specific details related to off-grid electrification.
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 229
The enormity of the financing challenge is directly related to the energy access
problem itself. According to IEA (2011),2 $9.1 billion was invested in providing
access to energy in 2009—most of which (except only $70 million that went to
provide advanced biomass cook-stoves benefitting 7 million people) was used in
providing access to electricity to 20 million people. IEA (2011) further estimated
that 14 % of the above investment came from bi-lateral official development
assistance, and $3 billion (or 34 %) were provided by multi-lateral agencies (such
as international financial institutions, funds, etc.). The developing countries
themselves invested about 30 % of the above investment while the rest came from
private agencies. IEA (2011) further estimates that $14 billion will be invested
each year between 2010 and 2030 to provide electricity access. 55 % of this
amount is likely to be invested in on-grid electricity supply while 45 % will go to
the off-grid sector. This investment is likely to connect 26 million people to
electricity supply each year but, this investment will not be sufficient to ensure
energy access to all—by 2030, about 1 billion people will still lack access to
electricity. This implies that even with a 50 % increase in investment in energy
access provision, the gravity of the problem is likely to change marginally.
IEA (2011) also provides an alternative scenario to achieve universal energy
access by 2030 as is envisaged by the UN Secretary General’s call. This scenario,
which makes necessary assumptions about the technology choices for electrifi-
cation requires a five-fold increase in the investment compared to that in 2009.
Electricity access will need about $45 billion a year with grid extension taking
30 % of the share, whereas the rest 70 % will go to mini-grids and off-grid systems
in the proportion of 65:35. Similarly, the regional pattern of investment will follow
the pattern of lack of energy by region. 60 % of the investment for providing
electricity access will be needed in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Bazilian et al. (2010) provided a review of various cost estimates for energy
access and indicated the variation in the cost components and offered a new
estimate for universal electricity access based on the life-cycle costs. They argue
that most of the studies focus only on the capital costs and ignore the recurring
costs. They found the cost for capital investment to vary between $5 and $40 per
person. Their cost estimates for universal electricity access are based on the fol-
lowing assumptions: (a) full levelised cost of generation is considered but trans-
mission and distribution-related costs are not considered; (b) the levelised
generation costs are based on IEA studies; (c) estimates are provided for three
scenarios—low, medium and high where the consumption level varies from basic,
to the current average residential consumption in Latin America; (d) the electri-
fication rates in 2008 is considered as the base level and universal electricity
2
This report was released ahead of a high-level conference on Energy for All: Financing access
for the poor in Olso organised by the Government of Norway and the International Energy
Agency on 10 October 2011.
230 S. C. Bhattacharyya
access for urban and rural population by 2030 is considered; (e) Urban access is
provided through grid extensions while rural access is provided through an arbi-
trarily chosen mix of grid extension, mini-grids and off-grid options.
Their results show that the annual investment requirement will be $12 billion in
the low scenario, $60 billion in the medium scenario and $134 billion in the high
scenario. While the low estimate is comparatively lower than IEA (2011), the
middle estimate is closer to the IEA’s estimate while the other estimate is much
higher than that of IEA. This suggests the possibility of significantly higher level
of investment needs for providing access.
AfDB (2008a) provides an indicative estimate of investment requirement for
enhancing electricity access in Africa with the assumption that 90 % of the rural
population in Sub-Saharan Africa and 100 % of the rest (including urban
population of SS-Africa) will have access to electricity by 2030. The estimation
included cost of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity for the
period between 2008 and 2030 and found that 265 GW of new generation capacity
will be required to ensure energy access. AfDB (2008b) estimated that $547 billion
(constant 2005 terms) will be required for this purpose, which results in an average
annual investment need of $24 billion approximately.
Thus, the investment requirement for universal electricity access is likely to be
substantial and the estimates have high levels of uncertainties. Moreover, they do
not consider the demographic transitions, rural–urban migrations, effects of
economic development and life-styles of people (e.g. emergence of the middle
class income group by 2030 horizon in many developing countries), etc. Yet, in
any case the financial need will be considerably higher than the present needs if
energy access targets have to be realised.
As indicated in the general overview, the investment needs for electricity access is
dependent on assumptions of technology choice. IEA (2011) considered that mini-
grids and off-grid technologies will be deployed in 70 % of the rural areas. In its
New Policies Scenario, IEA (2011) estimates that $6 billion per year will be
required for mini-grid and off-grid electrification, but this level of investment will
not ensure universal electricity access. The alternative scenario where electricity
access for all is considered, an additional annual investment of $20 billion is
required for off-grid options between 2010 and 2030. However, the investment is
likely to be back-loaded, implying a higher amount of flow required as 2030
approaches. Mini-grids are likely to have a major share in the off-grid systems,
while isolated off-grid systems will cater to about 20 % of the population without
electricity access. About 60 % of the investment would go to Sub-Saharan Africa
where the electricity access is relative low at present.
Bazilian et al. (2012) provide an estimate of power capacity requirement and
investment need for providing basic electricity access in Africa. It reports an
investment requirement of $3.4 billion per year for off-grid systems to deploy
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 231
Although the data on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in energy is more patchy,
Delina (2011) contends that $3.65 trillion flowed to developing economies
between 1997 and 2008 but FDI has benefitted only certain countries that provided
the enabling environment and that the poor countries did not benefit from the FDI.
Bazilian et al. (2011) noted that the FDI flow has declined over time.
232 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Fig. 9.1 Trend of gross fixed capital formation in electricity and gas distribution Data source
Bazilian et al. (2011). Note LDC—least developed countries (as per UN categorisation). The data
is presented using the right-hand scale
Although Bilateral and multilateral donor support for the energy sector of developing
countries started in the 1940s, but until recently, there was a lack of co-ordination of
aid policies amongst the donor agencies (Gualberti et al., 2012). Delina (2011)
observed that between 1997 and 2008 OECD countries have provided almost $1
trillion as Official Development Assistance for various purposes and this remains an
important source of funding for developing countries.3 However, only a small share
of this funding goes to the energy sector. According to Bazilian et al. (2011) and
Gualberti et al. (2012), the Official Development Finance for energy generation and
supply declined in the 1990s amid widespread sector reform initiatives. Since 2000,
the ODF has steadily increased and in 2008, ODF for energy represented $9.67
billion (constant 2000 terms)—see Fig. 9.3. Although, most of the ODF went to non-
3
Tirpak and Adams (2008) reported $490 billion for 1997–2005.
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 233
Fig. 9.2 FDI flow in energy infrastructure Data source PPIAF database (World Bank)
Fig. 9.3 ODF flow for energy generation and supply Data source Bazilian et al. (2011)
LDCs, the share of LDCs is showing an increasing trend: in 2000, LDCs received
only 11 % of the ODF while in 2008, it reached 16 %.
Summarising the above discussion, it can be argued that only a fraction of ODF
and FDI leads to new capital asset formation and that financial constraints of
poorer countries act as a hindrance towards gross capital formation in energy
generation and supply. In addition to FDI and ODF, development assistance from
multilateral agencies, such as agencies of the United Nations and some regional
agencies come under this group, provided $94 billion between 1997 and 2008
covering various development activities (Delina 2011). The World Bank group
contributed almost 40 % of this funding. A review of World Bank investment in
energy access by Barnes et al. (2010) reveals that out of $20 billion invested by the
Bank between 2000 and 2008 in energy-related projects, only about $4 billion (or
one-fifth of the total) qualifies as energy access investments. The report indicates a
steep rise in energy access funding in 2008 to reach $1.15 billion from a level of
234 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Fig. 9.4 World bank funding for energy access in LDCs Source Barnes et al. (2010)
$250 million per year earlier. Whether this rise is an abberation or not cannot be
verified from the report. In terms of geographical distribution, about $1.1 billion
each went to Africa and East Asia while South Asia received $0.7 billion, Eastern
Europe $0.6 billion and Latin America $0.4 billion. The balance went to Middle
East. Data provided in Barnes et al. (2010) reveals that about $1.4 billion went to
the LDCs for energy access purpose, representing 35 % of the total energy access
finance by the Bank. 64 % of the funding for energy access in LDCs went to
Africa, and about 50 % of this came between 2007 and 2008 (see Fig. 9.4). This
shows that only a small share of the energy access funding was directed to
countries who need it the most and the attention to energy access in situation in
Africa has received recent attention by the multilateral funding agencies. This
imbalance in the funding is a major challenge for energy access funding.
In terms of investment by type of activity, household electrification received the
highest amount—47 % of the total investment (see Fig. 9.5). Within electrification
investments, grid extension was the preferred mode, whereas off-grid electrifica-
tion is gaining in importance. The lowest amount of investment went to cooking
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 235
energy solutions, which clearly indicates the Bank’s bias for prestigious large
projects and inadequate support to the most pressing challenge of the poor.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the African Development Bank, two
multilateral funding agencies, have also provided energy-related assistance but
most of the investment went to large energy projects. Energy access financing was
not a major priority for ADB and the support did not reach the poor, less developed
economies.
4
97 % if secondary transactions are considered.
236 S. C. Bhattacharyya
fund for the least developed countries but most of the funding is directed towards
climate change issues and not specifically for energy access.
UNDP (2009) highlighted the uneven flow of funds for clean energy investment
across regions. Although the private sector has made about $150 billion new
investment in clean energies in 2007, only 22 % of the investment went to
developing countries and only two countries (China and Brazil) attracted most of
this investment and only $1.3 billion went to Africa. 85 % of the funds went to
three technologies, namely wind, solar and biomass. It is not clear how much of
this finance went for enhancing energy access but given the regional distribution
pattern, it can be inferred that energy access did not really benefit much.
Therefore, despite a significant growth of the carbon finance market, it remains
less accessible to small and poor developing countries and has not helped much in
financing energy access.
IEA (2011) estimated that about $9.1 billion was invested in 2009 for enhancing
energy access. This includes ODA, Multilateral organisational funding, private
sector funding and state funding. IEA (2011) reported that 14 % of the investment
came from ODA, 34 % from multilateral organisations, 22 % from the private
sector and 30 % from the national governments. However, these estimates need to
considered with caution because of the assumptions used (such as 50 % of the
Private Public Partnership funding for energy infrastructure came from the private
sector and that between 5 and 20 % of the private sector funds went to enhance
energy access, or that governments provided matching funds for every dollar of
ODA support).
Based on the analysis of financial flows and investment needs for electricity
access, the magnitude of the challenge becomes quite clear. The present level of
investment is much lower than what is needed to ensure universal electricity
access and the gap in funding will be significantly higher for low income countries.
Bazilian et al. (2011) observe even if LDCs invest entire amount of their energy
sector investment to enhance energy access, universal electricity access by 2030
will not be ensured. They estimate that LDCs will need an annual investment of
$11.6 billion as against $2.5 billion invested in 2008. Bridging this huge gap in
finance is the main challenge. IEA (2011) suggests a 30:30:40 split of funds from
the private sector, national governments and development assistance (including
multilateral funding support). This would turn out to $15 billion per year each for
the private sector and the governments, and $18 billion per year for the devel-
opment assistance. The task becomes even more challenging due to economic
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 237
recession in the developed world and donor apathy towards sustaining aid support
over decades. Glemarec (2012) notes the dim prospects of additional development
assistance in the near future. Thus, a major change in the attitude of the funding
agencies, development priorities of the states and the business strategies of the
private sector will be required. It remains to be seen whether profound changes
inherently assumed in the above suggestion are likely to happen or not.
Therefore, the challenge of financing universal energy access is a major global
challenge. It will require unprecedented level of investments in a large number of
countries, most of which are in the low and middle income group, and who have
limited experience of dealing with such high level of investments. The level of
financial resources would have to grow a few folds compared to the present level
and even the traditional sources may not be sufficient to bridge the funding gap.
The financing challenge has received international attention in recent times, since
the Copenhagen Accord in 2009 where a promise was made for investing $100
billion per year in the developing countries by 2020 towards climate adaptation
and mitigation. The subsequent decision of the UN to designate 2012 as the Year
of Sustainable Energy for All has expanded the scope of the financing problem.
This section reviews the literature on financing options and related challenges.
market and FDI trends, it remains doubtful that the required volume of finance will
flow to countries who need it most.
A Roundtable day organised by Bloomberg New Energy Finance in association
with UN Energy in April 2011 to seek views of various stakeholders and thought
leaders on the twin challenge on financing energy access and low carbon transition in
developing countries reported that if private capital has to flow to enhance energy
access, the business climate has to change and countries would need to ensure the
‘‘core tenets of business ecology’’. Also the need for capacity building, identifying
local champions and providing information was highlighted (Bloomberg 2011).
AfDB (2010) recognises that the financing gap in Africa is enormous. Against
an annual investment need of $41 billion in the power sector, the continent is
typically investing $11.6 billion. Closing the gap will be a challenge due to
insufficient national public finances, limited benefits from the CDM, and poor
private sector participation. While donor and multilateral funding agency support
can help, the financing challenge cannot be underestimated.
Glemarec (2012) suggests that the development assistance is unlikely to meet
the financing needs of energy access as there is the possibility of reduced flow of
development assistance in the future due to economic downturn. The developing
country governments will also be hardpressed for funds despite their commitments
to energy access. This will by default imply a higher reliance on private capital to
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 239
ensure energy access. He also highlights the new arrangements like Green
Investment Fund, Energy+ initiative and stresses on the need for leveraging
different funding mechanisms to achieve the energy access objectives. A summary
of various new financing instruments is given in Box 9.1.
A review of energy access projects in Asia and the Pacific (UNDP 2011)
suggests that a firm commitment from the government for financial support
through appropriate budgetary allocations was a key element in all successful
cases. Embedding the projects in the overall rural development programme is also
found to be another feature of successful programmes. It reports that two energy
access projects in Nepal have successfully accessed CDM funding—one of them is
based on biogas and the other is a micro-hydro project. At the end-user level, a
240 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Fig. 9.6 Perception about transaction costs and fossil fuel subsidies Data source UNEP (2012)
Fig. 9.7 Detrimental factors to market access Data source UNEP (2012)
Fig. 9.8 Perception of political and regulatory risks Data source UNEP (2012)
Lack of access
Significant barrier Lack of affordability lack of expertise lack of expertise lack of expertise
Lack of affordability
lack of business
model
No important
barrier lack of access
survey and received 185 responses (21.6 % response rate). They found that 85 %
of the respondents considered financial sustainability of projects is the essential
factor ensuring long-term viability of rural electrification projects. 67 % of the
respondents considered that a public–private partnership would strengthen the
financial sustainability of such projects. In respect of financing, micro-finance and
linking electrification with productive activities was highlighted as a very
important factor. 72 % respondents considered renewable energy funds ‘‘the most
suitable financial instrument to deal with renewable electrification projects’’.
Revolving funds were identified as the best option for end-user financing, followed
by productive uses and micro-finance. Lease instruments were considered least
suitable for these markets.
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 243
Fig. 9.9 Financial instruments for off-grid electrification Source Adapted from Ortiz et al. (2007)
Moreover, the developing countries need remove major barriers that hinder large-
scale mobilisation and use of funds. Whether such corrective actions can be taken
in the short-term or not remains an issue requiring further investigation.
Sonntag-O’Brien and Usher (2004) posit that for a new off-grid business, capital is
required at various stages of the business—upstream of the project, for running the
project and even downstream to support the customer or the business transaction.
Ortiz et al. (2007), on the other hand, presented the financial instruments by their
nature: assistance, funds, micro-finance, fiscal instruments and others (see
Fig. 9.9). Accordingly, this section is divided into project-level financing and end-
use level financing.
Off-grid projects have often relied on finance from donor agencies and budgetary
support from the state. For example, electrification programmes such as Energising
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 245
5
EnDev is a joint programme of the Dutch and German governments to enhance access of energy in
developing countries. EnDev aims to provide access to 5 million people in rural areas and is being
implemented by GTZ and SannterNovem. The programme started in 2005 and has undertaken 23
projects covering cooking energy, lighting, energy for productive use and for social infrastructure.
More information is available at http://www.senternovem.nl/energising_development/general_
information/index.asp.
246 S. C. Bhattacharyya
Once a business starts operating, its operating capital needs increase to meet the
short-term and long-term capital needs. Sonntag-O’Brien and Usher (2004) indi-
cate that very few commercial lenders provide funds to off-grid electricity busi-
nesses and consequently, support mechanisms are required in the form of ‘‘lines of
credit, credit enhancements for loan provision and SME growth capital funds.’’
Reiche et al. (2000) present a review of off-grid rural electrification experience
in developing countries especially through the World Bank initiatives. They
suggest that if governments want to reach the poorest section of the population,
subsidies perhaps cannot be avoided but these have to be well targeted and
appropriately designed to avoid market distortions. Based on a case study of
Nepal, Mainali and Silveira (2011) argue that there is still a huge affordability gap
amongst rural poor and therefore subsidy plays an important role. But the subsidies
may be attracting new suppliers in the market and may not be creating a sus-
tainable business model.
World Bank (2008) suggests that to become sustainable an off-grid project has
to be beneficial to all main stakeholders—consumers, service providers, financiers
and government. It should consider the government’s intentions, subsidy
commitment, and regulatory rules; promote productive and institutional energy use
that generates income opportunities; and take the possibility of international
co-financing into account.
World Bank (2008) acknowledges that designing an off-grid system is not an
exact science—it is made more complex by a combination of factors including
among others high cost, poorer consumers and new technologies. It also suggests
that the question that requires investigation is how and when an off-grid invest-
ment complements grid expansion. It recognizes that although a few off-grid
operations are commercially viable (example include PV in China and Kenya,
some PV operations in India, pico-hydro in Laos and Vietnam and micro-wind in
China and Mongolia), most off-grid electrification may require subsidies. There-
fore, enhancing affordability through subsidies, consumer financing, low-cost
technology options and policies and business practices is important. Further,
financing arrangements can complement subsidies. International co-financing such
as through GEF, CIF, and CDM can help. By increasing the size of the consumer
base through micro-finance, the affordability and viability of projects can be
enhanced. Duty or import tax waiver or reduction and avoidance of multiple taxes
are commonly used in this respect.
The issue of end-use financing is not a new one. Cabraal et al. (1996); Wang
(1998); Reiche et al. (2000) provide a review of practices in the 1990s and
discussed alternative types of financing arrangements. Sonntag-O’Brien and Usher
(2004) also provide a review of alternative end-users financing options. These
include:
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 247
6
See Morris et al. (2007); Morris and Kirubi (2009); Lipp (2001) for country cases and
examples.
248 S. C. Bhattacharyya
UNDP (2011) reported that the projects reviewed in the report used a combi-
nation of end-user financing mechanisms. Table 9.3 presents a summary. It can be
seen that projects tend to rely on a combination of instruments that are appropriate
locally. In most cases direct subsidy (capital and in some cases energy-related)
forms an integral part of the end-user financing mechanism for enhancing energy
access. However, the issue of ensuring financial sustainability of the business
enterprises and the burden on government budget cannot be overlooked.
There is also some suggestion that a premium renewable energy tariff scheme
along the lines of feed-in tariff can be used in rural mini-grid systems. Moner-Girona
(2009) provides such an argument and shows that it can be a viable alternative.
However, it is not known whether such a system has been applied in reality yet.
To conclude, both upstream and downstream financing options play an important
role for off-grid electricity supply. Rapid expansion of off-grid electricity supply in
remote rural areas would require expansion of financial services and financing options.
While upstream finance receives greater attention, sustainability of the electrification
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 249
efforts would also require a greater attention to downstream activities. Balancing these
challenges would require involvement of multiple stakeholders—government,
financial organizations, microfinance organizations and energy suppliers.
9.5 Conclusion
Renewed focus on universal energy access in recent times has necessarily brought
the underlying financial challenge to limelight. Although the estimates vary from a
low of $11 billion per year to $ 120 billion per year with a mid-range value of
$50–60 billion for the next two decades, the size of investment required is
significantly higher than traditional levels for energy access provisions. The
funding gap will be more acute in least developed countries where the energy
access level is very low and where the traditional barriers to investment are more
profound. This review highlighted that even the multilateral funding agencies
actively involved in development of poorer countries have not paid adequate
attention to energy access funding and have focused on large projects and large
countries. There is an urgent need to redress this bias.
Our review also highlights that the development assistance will not be sufficient
for promoting energy access. Despite pledges for support to noble causes, the
developed country funding constitutes only a small fraction of the overall financial
resources. Given the unfavourable economic condition in many developed coun-
tries at the moment and aid fatigue, one cannot solely depend on such sources.
Developing country governments and the private sector will have to play an
important role. Governments would have to commit not only funds but also create
an enabling environment for private businesses, micro-finance organizations,
and management and implementation of energy access activities in a timely and
250 S. C. Bhattacharyya
References
AfDB. (2008). Clean energy investment framework for Africa: Role of the African development
bank group, operation policies and compliance department. Tunis: African Development Bank.
AfDB. (2008). Clean energy investment framework for Africa: The role of the African
development bank. Tunis: African Development Bank.
AfDB. (2010). Financing of sustainable energy solution, Tunis: African Development Bank. (see
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/C-
10%20Note%203%20English%20%28final%29_for%20posting.pdf).
AGF. (2010). Report of the secretary general’s high level advisory group on climate change
financing. New York: United Nations (http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/
shared/Documents/AGF_reports/AGF%20Report.pdf).
ASER. (2007). Costing for national electricity interventions to increase access to energy, health
services and education. Senegal final report, agence senegalaise d’electrification rurale,
Washington: World Bank.
Barnes, D. F., Singh, B., & Shi, X. (2010). Modernising energy services for the poor: A world
bank investment review—Fiscal 2000–2008, World bank energy sector management program.
Washington: World Bank.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Haites, E., Levi, M., Howells, M., & Yumdella, K. K. (2010). Understanding
the scale of investment for universal energy access. Geopolitics of Energy, 32(4), 21–42.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Gualberti, G., Haites, E., Levi, M., Siegel, J., et al. (2011).
Informing the financing universal energy access: An assessment of current financial flows.
The Electricity Journal, 24(7), 57–82.
Bazilian, M., Nussbaumer, P., Rogner, H. H., Brew-Hammond, A., Foster, V., Pachauri, S., et al.
(2012). Energy access scenarios to 2030 for the power sector in sub-saharan Africa. Utilities
Policy, 20(1), 1–16.
9 Financing Electrification and Off-Grid Electricity Access Systems 251
Behrens, A., Nunez Ferrer, J., Carraro, M., Lahn, G., & Dreblow, E. (2011). Access to energy in
developing countries. Brussels: European Parliament.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2011). Scaling PPP for energy access and climate finance. The
Boathouse Sessions, New York, London.
Cabraal, A., Cosgrove-Davies, M., & Schaffer, L. (1996). Best practices for photovoltaic household
electrification: Lessons from experiences in selected countries. Washington: World Bank.
CIF. (2011). Annual Report 2011, Climate Investment Funds, The World Bank Group,
Washington D.C.
Delina, L. (2011). Clean energy financing at Asian development bank. Energy for Sustainable
Development, 15(2), 195–199.
GEF. (2012). Behind the numbers: A closer look at GEF achievements. Washington: The global
environment facility, GEF secretariat.
Glemarec, Y. (2012). Financing off-grid sustainable energy access for the poor. Energy policy
(in press).
Gualberti, G., Bazilian, M., Haites, E., & Carvalho, M. G. (2012). Development finance for
universal energy access. Milan: Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei.
IEA. (2011). Energy for all: Financing access for the poor, Special early excerpt of the World
Energy Outlook 2011. International Energy Agency, Paris.
Lipp, J. (2001). Micro-financing solar power: The Sri Lankan SEEDs model. Refocus, October,
pp. 18–21.
Mainali, B., & Silveira, S. (2011). Financing off-grid electrification: Country case Nepal. Energy,
36(4), 2194–2201.
Miller, D., & Hope. C. (2000). Learning to lend for off-grid solar power: Policy lessons from
World Bank loans to India, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Energy Policy, 28(2):87–105.
Moner-Girona, M. (2009). A new tailored scheme for the support of renewable energies in
developing countries. Energy Policy, 37(5), 2037–2041.
Monroy, C. R., & Hernandez, A. S. S. (2005). Main issues concerning the financing and
sustainability of electrification projects in rural areas: International survey results. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 9(2), 17–25.
Monroy, C. R., & Hernandez, A. S. S. (2008). Strengthening financial innovation in energy
supply projects for rural exploitations in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 12(7), 1928–1943.
Morris, E., & Kirubi, G. (2009). Bringing small-scale finance to the poor for modern energy
services: What is the role of government? Experiences from Burkina Faso, Kenya, Nepal and
Tanzania. UNDP, New York.
Morris, E., Winiecki, J., Chowdhary, S., & Cortiglia, K. (2007). Using microfinance to expand
access to energy services: Summary of findings. Washington: The SEEP Network.
Ortiz, B., Vetter, M., Golz, S., & Bopp, G. (2007). Concepts for hybrid PV village grids to make
their operation a local business, 22nd European photovoltaic solar energy conference and
exhibition, 3–7 September, Milan.
Radulovic, V. (2005). Are new institutional economics enough? Promoting photovoltaics in
India’s agricultural sector. Energy Policy, 33, 1883–1899.
Reiche, K., Covarrubias, A., & Martinot, E. (2000). Off-grid rural electrification in developing
countries. World Power, pp. 52–60.
Simon, G., Bumpus, A. G., & Mann, P. (2012). Win-win scenarios at the climate-development
interface: Challenges and opportunities for stove replacement programmes through carbon
finance. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 275–287.
Sonntag-O’Brien, V., & Usher, E. (2004). Mobilising finance for renewable energies. Thematic
background paper 05, International Conference for Renewable Energies, Bonn.
Tirpak, D., & Adams, H. (2008). Bilateral and multilateral financial assistance for the energy
sector of developing countries. Climate Policy, 8(2), 135–151.
UNDP. (2008). Financing options for renewable energy: Country experiences. Thailand: UNDP
Regional Centre in Bangkok.
252 S. C. Bhattacharyya
UNDP. (2009). Charting a new low-carbon route to development. New York: United Nations
Development Programme.
UNDP. (2011). Towards an energy plus approach for the poor: A review of good practices and
lessons learnt from Asia and the Pacific. New York: UNDP.
UNEP. (2012). Financing renewable energy in developing countries: Drivers and barriers for
private finance in Sub-saharan Africa. Geneva: United Nations Environment Programme
Finance Initiative.
Wang, X. (1998). The best practices for off-grid solar energy: A case study on China, Yale
University.
Woerlen, C. (2011). Meta-evaluation of climate mitigation evaluations. Washington: GEF
Evaluations Office.
World Bank. (2008). Designing sustainable off-grid rural electrification projects: principles,
Washington: World Bank.
World Bank. (2011). The State and Trends of the Carbon Market, World Bank, Washington D.C.
Chapter 10
Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid
Electrification
Martin Minogue
10.1 Introduction
M. Minogue (&)
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
e-mail: martin.minogue@yahoo.co.uk
analysis. Two categories of problem are considered here: the problem of contested
definitions, arising in part from the intervention in the traditionally economic
literature of disciplines such as law and political science, and the problem of
scope, which remains ambiguous because of the difficulty of separating out reg-
ulation from the normal range of state activities.
According to the OECD (1997), regulation refers to the diverse set of instru-
ments by which governments set requirements on enterprises and citizens. Reg-
ulation includes laws, formal and informal orders and rules issued by all levels of
government, and rules issued by non-governmental or self-regulatory bodies,
which enjoy delegated regulatory power: ‘Constitutions, parliamentary laws,
subordinate legislation, decrees, orders, norms, licenses, plans, codes, and even
some forms of administrative guidance can all be considered as regulation’ (OECD
Council document, quoted in Black, 2002:9). In this approach, regulation is
straightforwardly based on rules which may give strict directives, or be broadly
enabling in ways which permit further negotiation; rules may also be framed in
ways which concede discretion over their detailed application. Any enquiry into
rulemaking must establish what are the institutions of rule-making, who are the
rule-makers, how rules are implemented, and by whom, and the forms that com-
pliance and accountability take (Ogus 2002).
Another simple yet broad definition (Hood et al. 1999) takes regulation to be
‘the use of public authority to set and apply rules and standards’ (ibid: 3). The
authors, however, make a distinction between the regulation of business (private,
non-state activities) and regulation inside government (within and between gov-
ernment agencies, and between different levels of national government). They
essentially regard the principles of regulation to be the same in either the public or
the private sectors, or indeed in any combination of these sectors as represented,
for example, by public–private partnerships, or contracting arrangements, or sit-
uations where there may be some form of regulation common to both sectors (e.g.
medical professional self-regulation).
These simple definitions seem to lead to a straightforward set of research or
analytical questions, but in relation to the governance and policy processes even of
developed countries they are questions to which we frequently do not have clear
answers. The problem here is that there are different approaches to the notion of
what constitutes regulation. As Ogus (2002) makes clear, much of the literature
provides a formal and legalistic definition which focuses on the construction and
application of rules, while for many economists, regulation is primarily the means
by which private firms are constrained from anti-competitive behaviour. Corre-
sponding to the legalistic approach is the traditional view of government as a
command and control regime operating in a precisely defined public interest, while
the second view leads to a focus on the way in which regulation creates the
conditions for efficient markets. The definition offered by a leading analyst of
European regulation of ‘sustained and focused control exercised by a public
agency, on the basis of a legislative mandate, over activities that are generally
regarded as desirable to society’ (Majone 1996, p. 9) appears to take in both
meanings, but is still too narrow since regulation is often derived from sources
256 M. Minogue
other than a legislative instrument, and because the definition still leaves a
question mark about who makes formulations of what is regarded as desirable for
society, i.e. the public interest. Since ‘regulation is seen both as a form of public
policy and as a means of constituting markets’ (Wilks 1996, p. 536), we need an
approach which on the one hand captures the multi-layered nature of institu-
tionalised regulation, and on the other leads us into an exploration of the way in
which ‘the dark world of politics sullies the purity of markets’ (McGregor et al.
2000, p. 2). Even the narrower approach concedes that ‘because regulation
redistributes resources and rents, politicians often use it to secure political gains
rather than correct market failures’ (Guasch and Hahn 1999, p. 137).
Black (2002) attempts to bring together these contrasting approaches, and notes a
range of meanings given to regulation, starting with ‘the core understanding that
many have ’of control-and-command regulation, seen as ‘regulation by the state
through the use of legal rules backed by (often) criminal sanctions’ (Black 2002, p. 2).
The well-known failures of this model are rehearsed: instrument failure, information
and knowledge failure, implementation failure, motivation failure, and capture fail-
ure. Black is concerned to counterpoint this model with one of ‘decentred regulation’,
dependent on notions of ‘complexity, fragmentation, interdependencies, ungovern-
ability, and the rejection of a clear distinction between public and private’
(Black 2002). Regulation is a complex interactive process which is ‘co-produced’.
All actors have needs and capacities and ‘solutions’ emerge from a mutually
dependent relationship. This complexity is further affected by changes in the public–
private set of relationships so that ‘Governance, and regulation, is seen by some to be
the outcome of the interaction of networks…which operate in the absence of formal
governmental or legal sanction.’ (ibid:6).
We may conclude from this review of definitions that there are alternative and
therefore contested definitions of regulation. We are free to choose between these,
but our choices are likely to be determined by disciplinary settings and prefer-
ences, rather than by some neutral process of agreeing on one ‘best’ definition.
Economists will mainly choose a narrow definition which reduces the complexities
to be handled and focuses almost exclusively on economic agents and economic
outcomes. Moreover, the focus will be overwhelmingly on economic policy issues
rather than social policy issues, though it is by no means easy to maintain such a
clear distinction. On the other hand political and social scientists interested in
regulation can be expected to prefer the broader, more inclusive definition. At the
policy level, the analysis of specific sectoral regulation, to be complete, requires
consideration of the processes involved. Essentially, these are standard processes
of public policy, which involve examination not only of policy design and deci-
sions, but of implementation; while studies of implementation require consider-
ation not only of impact, but of results and outcomes. Invariably, such studies
demonstrate an implementation gap or deficit together with a range of unintended
consequences which produce outcomes at variance with those expected or inten-
ded. In a textbook policy system an evaluative procedure would close these gaps
and adjust policy objectives to learned experience; but in real policy systems this
10 Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid Electrification 257
1. The extent to which decisions are delegated to an independent agent rather than
taken by the political principal
2. The nature of the structure of governance itself, in particular in determining the
agent’s degree of independence from the political process
3. The rules that specify the procedural framework e.g. reason giving require-
ments, consultative processes
4. The scope for political principals to overrule agency decisions
5. The relative autonomy of financial resources
6. The extent of ex post monitoring, e.g. legislative oversight, judicial review,
citizen’s complaints procedure
What is striking here is the way Majone moves between the narrower con-
ception of regulatory instruments and procedures, and the broader conception of
politics in ways which underwrite the usefulness of the label ‘regulatory gover-
nance’. This means looking behind the institutional façade to grasp the ‘real world’
of public action. The orthodox model, with its emphasis on legal rules, formal
structures of organisation, rational policy choice, and the assumed implementation
of formal policies, has serious limitations, for it oversimplifies the complex pro-
cesses from which policy debates and decisions emerge; and neglects the political
discourse of rule-making and rule-application, notably the interplay of ideas,
interests, and resources, and the ways in which these interactions determine out-
comes. It therefore fails to explain either policy and organisational failures, or
policy innovations and successes, and obscures both the significance of relations of
power and influence, and the extent to which public policies and their results are
determined by conflicts and bargains between conflicting stakeholders, whether
internal or external to public bureaucracies.
This survey of the scope of regulatory governance indicates how far the debate
on regulation has moved on from the rather straightforward post-privatisation
debate to a more complex discussion of what has come to be labelled ‘the regu-
latory state’, but this too readily implies a replacement of other types of state, such
as the ‘traditional’ state, or the ‘welfare state’, or the ‘enabling state’. These are all
crude labels, and in reality we are likely to find elements of each, and of the
regulatory state, present in any particular national state we choose to examine.
Perhaps this is why the notion of ‘regulatory space’ has been deployed. Drawn
from the prior notion of ‘policy space’ in public policy studies, ‘regulatory space’
offers a canvas onto which we can paint a variety of occupants and their relational
configuration; their provenance as state, non-state or hybrid actors matters less
than their activities, transactions, motivations, and power or influence. Central to
this approach to regulatory governance is work which focuses on institutions.
A major contribution here is by Douglass North (1999, 1991, 1990). North
defines institutions as ‘the humanly devised constraints that structure political,
economic and social interaction’ (North 1991, p. 97). Institutions include both
informal constraints and formal rules and evolve incrementally, connect the past
with the present and the future, and provide the incentive structure of an economy.
In this analysis individuals shape institutions and vice versa. This approach links to
10 Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid Electrification 259
ideas of policy space, of the path dependence of specific political economies, and
of policy reversal or lock-in. North’s work has informed a number of contributions
to regulatory governance. Resonating North’s concepts of new institutionalism
Levy and Spiller (1996) argue that policy-makers’ choices on regulatory gover-
nance and regulatory incentive structures are determined by a country’s specific
institutional endowment which has five elements
1. Formal legislative and executive institutions and mechanisms
2. Formal judicial and legal institutions and mechanisms
3. Custom and other informal but broadly accepted norms that may restrain the
actions of individuals or institutions
4. The character of contending social interests within a society and the balance
between them, and
5. The country’s administrative capabilities
Stern and Cubbin argue that ‘there is very strong agreement between the var-
ious authors as to what good governance entails: they all emphasise clarity of
assignment of functions, regulatory autonomy, accountability, and transparency’
(Stern and Cubbin 2005, p. 7). As Levy and Spiller (1996, 1994) emphasise,
regulatory designs, practices and outcomes are a function of institutional endow-
ments and realities and these may vary from country to country. Stirton and Lodge
see the regulatory process as ‘characterised by an interplay of interdependent (state
and societal) organisation interests with varying degrees of power and resources
each of which is competing for influence over outcomes. In short, regulatory space
is characterised by social relations among actors’ (Stirton and Lodge 2002, p. 13).
They combine the notion of the ‘embeddedness’ of institutions drawn from
Granovetter (1985) with the concept of regulatory space and the idea of trust to
argue that the way in which social relations within regulatory space are structured
‘affects the institutional capability of regulatory agencies, potentially providing
further, societal, protection against the dysfunctional regulatory outcomes of
capture or administrative expropriation (Stirton and Lodge 2002, p. 14).
among the regulated such that they will voluntarily comply, and depends upon the
creation of a constant dialogue between regulators and regulated.’ (Moran 2002,
p. 6). Braithwaite argues that we have moved to ‘a world where private powers
pose many more threats to liberty than public power’ and that accordingly we need
to escape from traditional forms of political accountability, since these ‘cause
regulated actors to work defensively to avoid blame, instead of for achieving
valued outcomes’ (Braithwaite 1999, p. 91). But this approach appears to beg
two questions. First, who decides what the appropriate norms should be, or
which values should inform what outcomes? If these norms and values are
pre-determined, then they will have to be imposed, which will invite strategies of
avoidance; if they depend upon dialogue, they will represent a negotiated bargain,
and opportunities for capture. As Moran admits, ‘non-formal modes of regulation
are themselves subject to the same sort of destructive influences as afflict formal
modes’ and both ‘are undermined by the creativity of strategic actors searching for
advantage’ (Moran 2002, p. 7).
What is missing from most accounts of regulation is understanding of the
cultural elements that are essential to explanations of social behaviour, whether in
general, in national systems, in organisations, or in particular groups; and of
interactions and transactions between these various entities. This explanatory
mode is well understood in social science, but is often neglected by the economists
and lawyers who dominate the regulation literature. Baldwin and Black (2007)
seek to redress this neglect in proposing the idea of ‘really responsive’ regulation.
They centre their argument on the significance of social mechanisms and insti-
tutions which inspired Ayres and Braithwaite’s (1992) concept of responsive
regulation in which they condemned as sterile the futile dispute between ‘deter-
rence’ and ‘compliance’ models of regulatory enforcement and searched for a
balance between these two systems. The crucial question for Ayres and Brai-
thwaite was ‘when to punish, when to persuade?’. Their prescription was a
responsive approach in which regulators enforce initially by compliance strategies
but are ready to move on to more punitive deterrent responses if needed. They
suggested the need for a regulatory agency to operate an ‘enforcement pyramid’
ranging from persuasion to penalties, and escalating in response to regulatory
failures. Baldwin and Black (2007) argue that this approach is persuasive where
there is a clear binary relationship between regulators and regulated, but that in the
more complex situations to be found in most regulatory systems, it may be too
inflexible. In practice, they suggest, ‘regulatory objectives are not always clear and
legal powers may be limited. Enforcement functions are often distributed across
numbers of regulators who struggle to coordinate their activities. Further, it is
often extremely hard to measure the success or failure of regulation’ (Baldwin and
Black 2007, p. 1). They regard existing models of regulatory enforcement as
unhelpful to regulatory policymakers: ‘neither responsive regulation nor the target-
analytic approach, or even risk-based regulation, say a great deal about how a
regulator should deal with resource constraints, conflicting institutional pressures,
unclear objectives, changes in the regulatory environment…’(ibid:3)
10 Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid Electrification 261
The literature surveyed so far is based on theories, models and practices drawn
principally from developed economies. This chapter now considers applications to
developing economies.
The overall thrust of this comparative analysis of regulation has been to emphasise
that regulatory governance is much more than a technically narrow field in which
specific regulators pursue their legal jurisdictions, and focus primarily on questions
of pricing and investment. Public services, whether electricity or any other, are
designed and delivered in the context of a state which will have developmental
social objectives as well as more traditional functions. Inevitably in a develop-
mental state there will also be a major policy focus on social justice, conceived in
part as the necessity to provide for the access of the poorer sections of society to
basic goods and services. In this respect, regulators may also be given wider social
objectives to meet by ensuring access to and affordability of the services they
regulate: food, water, health and energy provision are the most clear-cut cases.
What the findings on regulation and regulatory governance tell us is that reg-
ulators will operate in an unavoidably political arena, and that both bureaucratic
and political factors will affect the ways in which regulators can carry out their
tasks. Some weaknesses in regulatory systems will be found to be a question of
10 Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid Electrification 265
Economic initiatives such as off-grid rural electrification are in effect new inter-
ventions in an existing local economy. But the objects of such interventions are not
only economic actors and agents; they are also participants in a set of local social,
administrative and political relationships. This provides, at the social level, an
opportunity to build or adapt local community organisations in ways which ensure
the sustainability of economic initiatives, and which crucially will go beyond
setting standards and gathering information, to modify existing economic and
social behaviour (Hood 1998), and so achieve effective change in the pursuit of
real economic and social improvements. Such forms of organisation may have
both managerial and regulatory capability.
A further institutional element to be considered is provided by the operation in
most rural areas of a wide range of potential institutions of regulatory governance,
including local government bodies, decentralised agencies of central government,
specialised development agencies, and even non-state ‘third sector’ organisations.
All may have regulatory potential, or already be carrying out regulatory responsi-
bilities in relation to communities that are the target of rural off-grid electrification
initiatives. It is therefore important to take account of the existing network of
governance institutions when designing new regulatory capacity, with the
268 M. Minogue
possibility that existing institutions may have the potential to take on new respon-
sibilities, privileging ‘adaptive’ rather than wholly innovative solutions.
Also of some interest is the support for community-centred management both
of the provision and regulation of rural electricity. This is by no means a novel
approach as indicated by Foley’s advocacy nearly two decades ago of the merits of
attention to institutional design which considered such alternatives as separate
rural electrification agencies, rural electrification cooperatives, and local com-
munity management (Foley 1992). But a problem here that needs further exami-
nation is the opportunities such an approach might engender for regulatory
(indeed, political) capture. What seems clear is the need for such institutional
design to be informed by some form of institutional mapping prior to decisions on
how off-grid electricity is to be provided, managed, and regulated. In effect, this
would entail a detailed analysis of all existing governance institutions in the target
‘regulatory space’, likely to be a village or other cluster of local communities. This
process of mapping would clarify how many institutions in this space already
possessed regulatory capabilities, whether there were likely to be any conflicts of
regulatory jurisdiction, and whether regulatory and socially developmental criteria
might be combined in one community-based agency. This mapping procedure
could also help to determine appropriate processes of consultation with existing
agencies, including political authorities such as local councils and representative
bodies; this approach should help to avoid overlapping jurisdictions and dupli-
cation of resources, while also ensuring that decisions about rural electrification
would take account of social needs as well as economic requirements.
10.9 Conclusions
The literature surveyed above suggests that the following elements of evidence-
based regulatory design should be incorporated into a model for regulatory gov-
ernance of off- grid rural electrification
1. A delineation of the ‘regulatory space’ for any specific supply proposal
2. Which means a process of institutional mapping inside that regulatory space
3. This to include identification of all public, private, or non-government bodies
involved
4. And the designation of all ‘stakeholders’ in the supply and regulation system
5. Which should also incorporate political and social interests, insofar as these can
be identified
This approach will provide the evidence on which regulatory design and reg-
ulatory choices can be based in specific local cases. But reliance on ‘stakeholders’
can be a two-edged weapon. Stakeholder analysis may usefully identify a range of
groups that will have an interest in off-grid electricity provision; but such groups
may resist or capture the intervention and its benefits. Indian-based research has
shown that politically powerful rural interests have often captured and neutralised
10 Regulatory Governance of Off-Grid Electrification 269
References
Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the regulation debate.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baldwin, R., Black, J. (2007) Really responsive regulation LSE law, society and economy
working papers 15/2007. Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political
Science.
Black, J. (2002). Critical reflections on regulation discussion paper no 4, centre for analysis of
risk and regulation. London: LSE.
Braithwaite, J. (2006). Responsive regulation and developing economies. World Development,
34(5), 884–898.
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Accountability and governance under the new regulatory state. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 58(1), 90–97.
Cook, P., & Minogue, M. (2003). Regulating for development, insights 49 id21. University of
Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.
Dubash, N. K., & Narasimha Rao, D. (2007). The practice and politics of regulation regulatory
governance in indian electricity. Macmillan India: National Institute of Public Finance and
Policy.
Foley, G. (1992). Rural electrification in the developing world. Energy Policy, 20, 145–152.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Guasch, J. L., & Hahn, R. W. (1999). The costs and benefits of regulation: implications for
developing countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 14(1), 137–158.
Hansher, L., & Moran, M. (1989). Capitalism, culture and regulation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Harrison, G. (2001). Post-conditionality politics and administrative reform: reflections on the case
of Uganda and Tanzania. Development and Change, 32, 657–679.
Harriss-White, B., & White, G. (1996). Corruption, liberalisation and democracy. IDS Bulletin,
27(2), 1–5.
Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hood, C. (1976). The limits of administration. London: John Wiley.
Hood, C., & Scott, J. (2000). Regulating government in a ‘managerial ‘age: Towards a cross-
national perspective, discussion paper no 1. Centre for analysis of risk and regulation,
London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hood, C., James, O., Jones, G., Travers, T. (1999). Regulation inside government: Waste-
watchers, quality police, and sleaze-busters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knight-John, M. (2007). Regulatory impact assessment: A tool for improved regulatory
governance in Sri Lanka. In Kirkpatrick & Parker (Eds.), (pp. 190–200).
270 M. Minogue
Levy, B., & Spiller, P. (1996). Regulation, institutions and commitment: Comparative studies of
telecommunications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levy, B., & Spiller, P. (1994). The institutional foundations of regulatory commitment: a
comparative analysis of telecommunications regulation journal of law. Economics and
Organisation, 10(2), 201–246.
Majone, G. (1999). The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics,
22(1), 1–24.
Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state; causes and consequences of the
changes in modes of governance. Journal of Public Policy, 17(2), 139–167.
Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
McGregor, L., Prosser, T., & Villiers, C. (Eds.). (2000). Regulation and markets beyond 2000.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Minogue, M. (2001). Governance-based analysis of regulation working paper no 3, Centre on
Regulation and Competition, Manchester: University of Manchester.
Minogue, M., & Carino, L. (Eds.). (2006). Regulatory governance in developing countries.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Mitlin, D. (2004). Beyond second best: the whys, hows and wherefores of water subsidies. Paper
to CRC International Conference, Cape Town, September 2004.
Moran, M. (2002). Understanding the British regulatory state. British Journal of Political
Science, 32, 391–413.
North, D. (1999). Understanding the process of economic change occasional paper no 106.
London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
North, D. (1991). Institutions Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. USA:
Cambridge University Press.
OECD (1997). Regulatory impact analysis: Best practices in OECD countries Paris, Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Ogus, A. (2004). Corruption and regulatory structures. Law and Policy, 26, 329–346.
Ogus, A. (2002). Regulatory institutions and structures. Annals of Public and Cooperative
Economics, 73(4), 627–648.
Ramamurti, R. (1999). Why haven’t developing countries privatised deeper and faster? World
Development, 27(1), 137–155.
Reiche, K., Tenenbaum, B., Torres, C. (2006). Electrification and regulation: principles and a
model law. World Bank Energy & Mining Sector Board Discussion Paper No 18 Washington
DC: World Bank.
Smith, T. B. (2003). Privatising electric power in Malaysia and Thailand: politics and
infrastructure development policy. Public Administration and Development, 23(3), 211–296.
Stern, J., & Cubbin, J. (2005). Regulatory effectiveness: The impact of regulation and regulatory
governance arrangements on electricity industry outcomes. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No 3536, Washington DC: World Bank.
Stirton, M., & Lodge, M. (2002). Embedding regulatory autonomy :The reform of jamaican
telecommunications regulation 1998-2001. Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation,
Discussion Paper No 5, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Therkildsen, O. (2000). Public sector reform in a poor aid-dependent country: Tanzania. Public
Administration and Development, 20, 61–70.
Wilks, S. (1996). Regulatory compliance and capitalist diversity in Europe. Journal of European
Public Policy, 3, 536–559.
World Bank. (1995). Bureaucrats in Business: The Economics and Politics of Government
Ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 11
Regulatory Issues Related to Off-Grid
Electricity Access
11.1 Introduction
Various chapters of the book have considered the challenges relating to enhancing
electricity access in developing countries. One issue that has received limited
attention is the regulatory arrangements for governing off-grid electrification or
decentralized electrification. Yet, in order to enhance electrification through off-
grid access systems, a properly defined business environment is an essential
requirement, particularly when private participation is aimed at. As discussed in
Chap. 10, the regulatory arrangement has to be compatible with the existing
institutional arrangements. Similarly, the regulatory arrangement is likely to vary
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, Institute of Energy and Sustainable
Development, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhesb@dmu.ac.uk; subhes_bhattacharyya@yahoo.com
S. Dow
Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee,
Dundee, UK
e-mail: s.r.dow@dundee.ac.uk
1
Alternative classifications are also possible but this simple categorisation captures the essential
elements of decentralised electricity supply.
11 Regulatory Issues Related to Off-Grid Electricity Access 273
Yes
No Yes
Yes
No
No
Fig. 11.1 Decentralised electricity supply decision tree. Source ESMAP (2001)
Fig. 11.2 Typical distribution and retail supply activities of an electricity supplier. Source:
Bhattacharyya and Srivastava 2009
Individual solutions delivered through product sales do not share any features of a
natural monopoly (due to non-involvement of any distribution or transmission
networks) and therefore, the basic need for economic regulation does not arise.
The responsibility for grid-based electricity distribution remains with the distri-
bution utility but the product delivery mechanism provides a short-term relief until
formal supply arrives. As the product delivery mode does not fall under the
licensed (or regulated) activity, this mode of supply does not come under the
purview of the electricity regulator. This is however not to suggest that no
276 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Dow
It is evident from the above that the need for regulatory supervision is not same for
two types of delivery channels and for different types of delivery organisations. In
the service mode of delivery the regulatory supervision will depend on the own-
ership of the delivery system. For example, if a distribution franchisee model is
chosen the supervision need will perhaps be more extensive whereas in a co-
operative model or a community managed delivery system the threat of consumer
exploitation may be limited. In general, the regulatory supervision covers the
following aspects:
(a) Regulated business activities: The service provider is allowed to carry out
specific tasks under the permission granted to it. In the off-grid electrification
case, it would involve generation of electricity and supply using appropriate
infrastructure. The sale of electricity is normally restricted to final users and
re-selling is not normally allowed. This would normally require a clear
demarcation of the area of activity and a mechanism for avoiding overlaps
with the incumbent utility’s service area. Absence of clarity in this respect
enhances business uncertainties.
(b) Activities requiring prior regulatory approval: The service provider is nor-
mally subjected conditions requiring it to seek prior approval for a number of
activities or transactions. These include sale of the business, engaging agents,
or transactions with affiliates, etc.
(c) Conditions of supply: Normally a condition of non-discriminatory supply to
eligible consumers is imposed to ensure that all consumers meeting the supply
criteria are connected. Similarly, any anti-competitive practices or practices
leading to market abuse are also not permitted. The regulatory arrangement
may provide specific conditions for connection and disconnection.
278 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Dow
(d) Tariff related provisions: These constitute the most important element of the
regulatory supervision. The cost of electricity supply using an off-grid system
depends on the technology used, energy resources utilised, size of the system,
demand pattern, infrastructure used, service quality and the cost of regulatory
compliance. As the cost of supply tends to be high, full cost recovery may lead
to limited access (due to limited affordability of consumers) while a limited
cost recovery either requires a well-defined subsidy scheme or leads to a
unviable business proposition, thereby increasing the potential for under-
achievement or failure of the system. The tariff issue can be the most con-
tentious issue for the private sector involvement in the business while the
challenge is somewhat mitigated in the co-operative or community-based
service options.
(e) Consumer protection: Protecting the vulnerable consumers constitutes one of
the main purposes of regulation. This can cover protection from abusive tariffs,
poor supply quality, and other customer grievances (related to billing, con-
nection, disconnection, deposits, technical faults, etc.).
(f) Reporting requirements: All regulated entities are required to provide certain
information to the regulator to indicate the level of activity, quality of service,
or for reporting incidents, disputes or grievances. A systematic flow of infor-
mation allows the regulator to decide whether to intervene or not and whether
any regulatory change is required.
The regulatory requirements for alternative delivery options are indicated in
Table 11.1.
Evidently, regulation of the business activity will not be an easy process and
would require significant amounts of training and capacity building both at the
regulatory level and the service provider level.
Any decision to regulate the off-grid electricity service delivery would face a
number of issues and challenges due to its specific character. Some such chal-
lenges are considered below.
The most important challenge for any off-grid electrification is the threat of grid
extension. Any grid extension soon after the installation of an off-grid system
amounts to a loss of business opportunity and the risk of non-recovery of the costs.
Therefore, a close co-ordination between the distribution utility and the off-grid
service provider is essential. Aggressive grid expansion after launching off-grid
Table 11.1 Regulatory check for alternative delivery options
11
Regulatory conditions/requirements Franchisee model Co-operative model ESCOs State utility or community
based
Electricity sale only for final Satisfied, as there is no Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
consumption intermediate
transaction
Generation of electricity Required as approved Required as approved activity Required as approved Required as approved
activity activity activity
Assignment of transfer of assets/ Required as a condition Normally does not apply but may be Required as a Normally does not apply.
business permission without required in case of merger or condition
prior approval acquisition
Engaging affiliates or subsidiaries Condition required May arise May arise Normally does not arise
Providing loans/guarantee on May arise and a suitable May arise and a suitable condition is May arise and a May arise and a suitable
obligations condition is required required suitable condition condition is required
is required
Undue preference Suitable condition Unlikely to arise Suitable condition Could arise and suitable
required required condition required
Separate accounts for businesses Required if franchisee Required if different businesses are Required if different Required if different
operates different undertaken businesses are businesses are
businesses undertaken undertaken
Regulatory Issues Related to Off-Grid Electricity Access
Major incident reporting Required as a condition Required as a condition Required as a May per part of the overall
condition utility reporting scheme
Seeking permission for disposing of Required as a condition Required as a condition Required as a May be part of the utility’s
or relinquishing assets or control condition overall regulatory
obligation
Demand forecasting Franchisee Co-operative’s responsibility ESCO responsibility Utility responsibility
responsibility
Consumer protection Franchisee Co-operative responsibility ESCO responsibility Utility responsibility
responsibility
System planning Franchisee Co-operative responsibility ESCO responsibility Utility responsibility
responsibility
279
Tariff regulation Required to avoid Not essential—no profit motive Required to avoid Could be part of overall
exploitation exploitation utility regulation
280 S. C. Bhattacharyya and S. Dow
services has been a common observation in many countries around the world. This
problem arises because of unclear demarcation of the area of coverage of two
entities. Generally, the overlapping area of coverage of the distribution utility and
the off-grid service provider causes this problem. If the rural areas where the
incumbent utility has failed to provide access are excluded from its area of service,
and one or more off-grid service providers are granted exclusive rights for a fixed
period, the business uncertainty can be mitigated. However, as this often requires
an amendment to the existing supplier’s area of coverage, it may not be easy and
cannot be done without the consent of the incumbent.
A related issue arises when the grid eventually comes to off-grid areas. The
assets used for off-grid supply can become stranded or obsolete and in some cases,
the grid system may represent a duplication of the network, which does not rep-
resent a cost-effective solution or an efficient use of resources. If only temporary
networks are used for off-grid services, which can be dismantled and re-deployed
in other areas, the cost implication can be limited. However, this option may not be
appropriate from health and safety perspectives. The other option is to ensure grid
connectivity of off-grid generating systems and high quality of distribution net-
works. This has cost implications and can reduce financial viability of the systems.
The off-grid supply need not necessarily aim for the same quality of standards as is
used for the grid-based supply. Generally, the off-grid service often aims to pro-
vide quality power for a limited period of time. Depending on the system used, the
duration of supply and technical standards can be quite different from a grid-based
supply and it often makes sense to prescribe different standards for the grid and
off-grid services. Similarly, one of the issues faced by most off-grid systems is to
maintain reliable supply in the future as the demand increases. This requires load
forecasting, system planning and demand management activities, absence of which
may deteriorate the quality of supply in the future.
Health and safety issues tend to receive less priority in a cost-conscious busi-
ness environment. Compromises in technical standards and use of low quality
materials are often attempted to reduce initial costs. However, this can increase
accident risks and can make the activity unsafe. Technical quality and safety
standards have to be carefully considered as part of the regulatory requirements.
Traditional tariff issues as well as new issues arise in the off-grid services. Traditional
tariff-related issues include the case for cross-subsidies depending on the demand or
usage pattern, compatibility of tariffs with grid-based supply, and the need for and
11 Regulatory Issues Related to Off-Grid Electricity Access 281
financing of subsidies for such services. If the grid-based supply benefits from
subsidies and cross-subsidies, the geographical disadvantage should not further
discriminate rural consumers from getting such advantages. However, funding such
subsidies initially and in the long run can be more challenging. Similarly, if the grid-
based supply is much cheaper compared to off-grid supply, the demand for price
parity, particularly for areas not far away from the grid-based supply, cannot be easily
overlooked. Similarly, the tariff may vary depending on cost of off-grid supply of
electricity generating and supply technologies used. Price parity in such cases
between different off-grid service areas can emerge as a regulatory issue.
The problem is further aggravated by the non-distinctive electricity tariffs
between urban and rural areas in most countries. Although there is a strong case
for distinctive rural and urban electricity tariffs (see Bhattacharyya 2005), its
implementation is not easy and this makes comparison with off-grid electricity
tariffs more difficult. The regulatory challenge in respect of tariffs is to decide
whether to intervene in the tariff matter or not, and how best the tariff can be
regulated in this case without imposing too much regulatory burden on the service
provider while ensuring that consumers are not unduly charged for the services
they receive. The light-handed regulatory approach used in the developed world is
often prescribed as the best solution (e.g., Reiche et al. 2006) but there is limited
experience of successful implementation of such schemes in the developing
countries and hardly any experience in the off-grid electrification area. Therefore,
the challenge here cannot be underestimated.
As the service providers may rely on paper-based systems and the data
retrieval/communication systems may not be modern, the regulatory management
can be challenging. In addition, there can be large numbers of such off-grid sys-
tems, which may make timely regulation and decision-making a problem if
extensive regulation is used. There would be a significant need for capacity
building in this area.
11.6 Conclusions
This chapter has provided a brief overview of the regulatory dimension involved
with off-grid electrification. The chapter suggests that the product delivery mode
of operations do not require a formal regulatory supervision in the traditional
utility regulation sense but the service mode of delivery using local networks
requires some form of regulation. Off-grid electrification however faces significant
regulatory challenges due to the newness of its development and poor regulatory
capacity of many developing countries. Simple, standardized regulatory approa-
ches may prove to be effective in a co-operative or community-based delivery
arrangement while somewhat formal regulation may be required for privately-
owned services. In any case, capacity building will be essential to manage the
regulatory activities for this emerging business.
11 Regulatory Issues Related to Off-Grid Electricity Access 283
References
Bhattacharyya, S. C., & Srivastava, L. (2009). Emerging regulatory challenges facing the Indian
rural electrification programme. Energy Policy, 37(1), 68–79.
Bhattacharyya, S. C. (2005). Rural electricity tariffs: case of India. International Journal of
Regulation and Governance, 5(2), 93–122.
ESMAP, (2001). Best practice manual: Promoting decentralized electrification investment, World
Bank, Washington D.C.
Reiche, K., Tenenbaum, B., & de Mastle, C.T. (2006). Electrification and regulation: Principles
and a model law, Paper 18, energy and mining sector board discussion paper, World Bank,
Washington DC.
World Bank, (2008). Designing sustainable off-grid rural electrification projects: Principles and
practices, The World Bank, Washington, D.C. (see http://siteresources.worldbank.org/
EXTENERGY2/Resources/OffgridGuidelines.pdf).
Chapter 12
Summary and Conclusions
Abstract This chapter provides a final synthesis of the outcome of the book and
presents the concluding remarks. The slow progress of electricity access and the
developmental consequences of lack of access to electricity clearly highlight the
need for sustaining concerted global efforts to ensure a better future. The different
chapters of this book captured the efforts and experiences in electrification with an
emphasis on off-grid electrification systems. The main message that comes out from
these experiences is that sporadic efforts are not sufficient to improve the situation
and that a strong state initiative in terms proper planning, program design, financial
support and institutional arrangements is essential for any successful outcome.
Although the grid extension remains the preferred mode of delivery of electricity
access, in reality grid is unlikely to reach many areas in the near future where
decentralized off-grid solutions will play an important role. Despite tremendous
technological improvements and availability of alternative options, the focus of off-
grid solutions has remained restricted to sale of simple products that cater to a
limited range of individual needs, with a limited attention going towards local grid-
based services for productive and household needs. Thus a step change in the
delivery of decentralised solutions is required to create a better niche for these
options. This also requires a proper integration of local resources in hybrid tech-
nology combinations to ensure adequate, reliable and affordable supply. However,
the financial, regulatory and governance challenges remain strong and often under-
estimated. Mobilising financial resources for enhanced electricity access and
S. C. Bhattacharyya (&)
Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development, De Montfort University,
Leicester, UK
e-mail: subhesb@dmu.ac.uk
D. Palit
The Energy and Resources Institute, IHC Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi, 110003, India
e-mail: debajitp@teri.res.in
12.1 Introduction
More than 1.3 billion people in the world lacked access to basic electricity services
in 2009, that in turn had significant socio-economic implications. The global
challenge of enhancing electricity access to billions of population requires sus-
tained new efforts in many developing countries around the world. Forecasts by
international organizations suggest that continuation of present efforts will not
ensure universal electricity access by 2030, and that new policies and programmes
would have to be undertaken, to achieve the social objective of universal
electrification.
A lot of experience exists in this area of electrification that can serve as
valuable guide for any future efforts. Countries around the world have been pur-
suing electrification programmes with the support of national governments and the
international community. The successful and not-so-successful cases provide rich
lessons for others to follow. Simultaneously, the technological options have
multiplied, thereby offering a suite of decentralized solutions that can supplement,
if not compete, with the traditional grid extension mode of electrification. Further,
new business models have been experimented with, leading to a multiplicity of
organizational arrangements for the delivery of electricity services that comple-
ment the traditional monopoly utility model. Yet, the issues of financing electricity
access provisions and ensuring appropriate governance to fast-tracking the
developments remain.
Various chapters of this book have focused on these dimensions by reviewing
the relevant literature to present the state of the present knowledge on the subject
and identify the lessons for countries who are aiming at new electricity access
initiatives to enhance electrification rates in rural areas. This concluding chapter
synthesizes the essential findings and outlines further research agendas.
Three parts of the book focused on three distinct areas. Part 1 provided the
background information covering the status of electricity access, the link between
electrification and economic development and the technological options for off-
grid electrification. Part 2 presented the rural electrification experience from
12 Summary and Conclusions 287
around the world, with specific emphasis on South Asia, China, South East Asia,
South America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The contrasting developments in terms of
approaches, organizational and delivery arrangements and emphasis, and the
diversity in outcomes provide rich lessons for others to follow. Part 3 covered
business-related issues focusing on the participatory business arrangements,
financing issues, governance and regulatory issues. Thus the book goes beyond the
traditional focus on the technological dimension of the problem and adopts a
multi-dimensional approach to electrification in general and decentralized, off-grid
electrification in particular. Below we synthesize our major findings and lessons
from various chapters.
Three chapters of this part set the background of the book. Chapter 1 highlights
that the electricity access problem is predominantly a rural problem and is pres-
ently concentrated in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Lack of access to
electricity inhibits economic development by denying the rural population the
required opportunity to develop their human capital and by restraining economic
activities. The prospect of significant population growth in these regions coupled
with poor economic conditions of many countries does not portray a bright future
unless dramatic changes in policies and efforts take place quite soon. Limited
prospects of grid-based electrification in most of these areas, poor and unreliable
supply from the grid where it has reached, and the emergence of decentralised
technological options provide a window of opportunity for off-grid solutions but a
multi-dimensional perspective will be required to reap the potential benefits
offered by these alternatives.
Chapter 2 focuses on the role and relation of rural infrastructure to economic
growth and development. It suggests that the benefits of past rural electrification
initiatives both in terms of electricity access and subsidies did not reach the poor
and the understanding of the issues hindering the provision of universal electricity
access is incomplete. Although it has been suggested that the resolution of the
problem hinges on three simple elements, namely imposing a service obligation on
the service providers, reducing the connection costs and increasing the range of
suppliers, the poor performance so far suggests the practical difficulties in
achieving them. Over-emphasis on cost recovery and the reliance on the private
sector in the past did not always help. The recognition of capital subsidies for
infrastructure development and emphasis on the recovery of operating and
maintenance costs surely offers a more practical alternative. The chapter also
suggests that any electrification initiative has to be supported by the provision of
complimentary infrastructure services, including provision of educational services
and productive uses of energy and an effective implementing agency that involves
local communities, local skills and local resources.
288 S. C Bhattacharyya and D. Palit
Chapter 3 provides a broad review of off-grid technologies that are available for
rural electricity supply. The chapter covers micro-hydro technology, biomass
gasification, bio-methanation, solar photo-voltaic systems, small wind systems as
well as biodiesel. The chapter presents the technology, resource availability,
economics, and advantages/disadvantages of each option. It concludes by com-
paring the strengths and weaknesses of alternative options using a multi-criteria
technology selection framework. The chapter suggests that although individual
technologies are at different stages of the maturity level, it is often difficult, if not
impossible, for a single renewable electricity generation technology to meet the
diverse needs and provide reliable electricity in a cost effective manner. This calls
for a two-pronged approach involving additional applied research to enhance
diffusion of these technologies on hand and to develop cost reduction strategies
using innovative pricing, financing as well as improving efficiency level and
increasing local content in technology designs. It also suggests that smart mini-
grids and hybrid technology options can be considered as interim solutions to
enhance electricity access.
This part thus highlights the need for more articulated initiatives for rural
electrification that can offer effective solutions to the electricity access problem
recognizing the links with economic development, appreciating the technological
options and ensuring the critical success elements.
The second part provides a global review of rural electrification experiences and
highlights the lessons for others. Chapter 4 reviews the electrification experience
of four South Asian countries, namely India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.
Each country has approached electrification differently and has recorded varying
degrees of success. Sri Lanka’s outstanding performance in the region can be
attributed to its target-based approach for connecting rural households and micro
financing schemes to facilitate electricity uptake. India and Bangladesh on the
other hand have achieved much lower household connection levels due to earlier
focus on village level electrification (as opposed to household connectivity). Nepal
has performed quite poorly due to its hilly terrain, poverty and ineffective
arrangements for delivery of electricity access.
All the countries have provided significant amounts of subsidies for both grid-
based and off-grid electrification. The success in electrification has been directly
related to the government’s commitment in promoting the electricity access
agenda through proper policy formulation, financial support and enforcement of
technical and operational standards. The reliance on community-centric delivery
models, particularly where productive use of electricity was considered, has also
promoted success due to equity, transparency in decision making and strong
commitment of the society. Countries have experimented with alternative tech-
nologies including off-grid options, and Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka have
12 Summary and Conclusions 289
sale/delivery mode that only caters to basic electricity needs for lighting and
entertainment. Inadequate linkage with rural development initiatives and
dependence on subsidized operation reduce the long-term viability of such
options. Clearly, the region needs to intensify its efforts if universal electrifi-
cation targets have to be reached within a reasonable time-frame but financing
such investments and developing the necessary organizational, technical and
governance arrangements remain major challenges.
Chapter 7 covers two generally successful regions in terms of electrification,
namely South East Asia and South America. Four countries each from South East
Asia (namely Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam) and South
America (namely Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Peru) are reviewed in this chapter.
Each country in this case has adopted its own approach of electrification and thus
provides support to successful local solutions. However, in all cases, the success
depended on strong government policy and financial support. Most of these
countries have also relied on a top-down approach but in a number of cases the
private sector played an important role, particularly in South America. However,
limited integration with rural development and heavy reliance on subsidies make
the electrification efforts vulnerable.
These experiences show that successful cases have ensured electricity access
through a strong emphasis on service provision, strong financial support to ensure
affordable supply and a strong organizational/governance arrangement. However,
the sustainability issue of such efforts has received limited attention and a
re-emergence of energy poverty issue can occur if financial support cannot be
sustained.
Four chapters of this part cover different business-related issues, namely business
models, financing, governance and regulatory issues. Chapter 8 examines alter-
native business models with a particular emphasis on participatory approaches
prevalent in South Asia. A number of alternative business models have been used
in practice, including co-operatives, fee-for-service or ESCO companies, com-
munity-managed initiatives, franchisees and private sector companies to extend
both grid connected and off-grid electrification. However, there is no ‘one-size-
fits-all’ solution or best option and a choice has to be made depending on the
resource availability, load profile, consumers’ willingness to pay, financial
viability of the project and local institutions. The early participation of local
communities ensures local buy-in into a project and can enhance its sustainability.
Similarly, affordable supply is a highly relevant factor and unless this is ensured, a
project is unlikely to succeed.
12 Summary and Conclusions 291
We have identified a number of areas for further research, some of which are
already indicated in various chapters. One area that emerges from the review of
various experiences is the limited understanding of off-grid projects themselves,
although many initiatives were undertaken so far. A compilation of such case
studies and their systematic analysis using an appropriate framework can be a rich
source of information and understanding. As part of our research project, we have
initiated such an exercise for India which will be expanded to cover other South
Asian examples. The results from this exercise will be reported in the future.
A related issue that has surfaced from this study is the clear preference for grid
extension both at the policy level as well as at the user level. Off-grid options are
being promoted only as a temporary solution or as a pre-electrification relief. This
preference issue is greatly influenced by the predominance of product-based,
small-scale individual off-grid solutions that can only cater to limited electricity
needs of the society. Further investigation is thus required to understand the
barriers to be overcome in delivering affordable, reliable, and desirable off-grid
service options that can compare well, if not outperform, grid-based supply.
A second area requiring further attention is the development of a multi-
dimensional and multi-level analytical framework that can be applied to analyse
off-grid interventions. The purpose is to integrate the economic, technical, social
and environmental dimensions in the intervention design and assessment. While
the academic works have paid greater attention to the techno-economics of elec-
trification interventions, they are not sufficient to ensure viable and acceptable
outcomes. A number of options exist here both at the theoretical and operational
levels. In theoretical terms, the extension of existing optimization frameworks to
include social and governance dimensions could be considered. It is also possible
to take a fresh look and avoid carrying the old baggage that served other purposes
in the past. In operational terms, practice-oriented tools are required to assist users
on the ground take thoughtful decisions. These tools can take different forms—
starting from simple worksheet based options to more demanding tools relying on
optimization, decision support systems and possibly system dynamics. This
development is essential for future capacity building needs of emerging and fast
developing off-grid initiatives.
A third area that has received relatively limited attention so far is the regulation
and governance of off-grid electrification initiatives. Although we have covered this
dimension in two chapters, there is need for a more in-depth analysis and research to
ensure conditions for successful implementation and sustenance of the off-grid and
electrification initiatives. The diversity of technologies, participatory models and
governance arrangements provides scope for case studies, standardized solutions
and even integration with other developments such as the climate change initiatives.
There is also need for greater capacity development initiatives in this area.
While it is observed from this research that correlation exists between the per
capita GDP and household electrification, it was highlighted in Chap. 2 that the
12 Summary and Conclusions 293
causality and the direction of influence is not well established. Similarly, the
causal relationship between electrification and the human development index has
not been adequately explored. This necessitates further research to identify whe-
ther higher economic level contributes to higher electricity connection level or
higher level of rural electrification contributes to improved rural economy. Sim-
ilarly, the ways of integrating rural development agenda and rural electrification
require further analysis.
Finally, we would also like to bring an issue related to the future of off-grid
electrification itself given the bias towards grid expansion mentioned above. As
governments extend the grid to all corners, there will be nothing called off-grid in
the future, excepting physically inaccessible areas. If and when this happens, the
traditional off-grid systems will lose relevance to a great extent. While the off-grid
service and off-grid systems will still be relevant for physically inaccessible areas,
a new role has to be found for them in the grid connected areas, perhaps taking
advantage of the growing demand for reliable and better quality supply. The
renewable energy resources often used in off-grid service delivery can thereby
complement the central grid supply, and enhance supply security and sustain-
ability. Clearly, the long-term sustainability issue through a better integration and
articulation of choices, options and complementarity for better electricity services
to the population requires further investigation.
Index
A C
Access to electricity, 3–8 Capacity building, 278, 282
CDM, 235, 238–241, 243
China
B cultural revolution, 109, 110
Bangladesh, 76–81, 85–91, 93–95, 97, 100, economic reform, 108, 116
101 great leap forward, 109, 110
IDCOL, 87–92, 99 open door economic policy, 110
PBS, 81, 100, 101 TVE, 111, 122, 127
REB, 81, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96 Clean cooking, 3–5, 7
Biodiesel, 41, 66–69 Collective solutions, 273
Biogas, 46, 51–56, 58 Colombia
Biomass, 41, 46–56 NIZ, 177, 178
biomethanation, 41, 52, 55, 56 Community based schemes, 30
gasification, 41, 46–51, 69 Comparative advantage, 16
Biomethanation Consumer protection, 278, 279
deenbandhu model, 53 Cross subsidisation, 29
digesters, 53, 54, 56, 58
GGC model, 53
KVIC model, 53 D
Botswana Decentralized, 9, 39–42, 46, 68, 70, 71
RECS, 139 Development, 13–15, 18–21, 23, 25, 28, 32, 33
Brazil direct channels, 15
LpT, 174–176 indirect channels, 16
Business models, 187–190, 218, 222
AMC, 211
cash sales, 189 E
ESCO, 189, 190, 203, 204, 206, 219 Economic growth, 13–18, 22, 23
fee-for-service, 189, 203, 205, 206 bi-variate and multi-variate models, 18
HPS, 213, 214, 220, 221 causality, 17–19
IDCOL, 216, 217 livelihood, 23, 24
leasing, 189 livelihood approach, 24
REEs, 216 pollution, 18, 28, 31
SELCO, 214, 215, 221 poverty reduction, 13, 20–24, 27
E (cont.) M
private investment, 17 MFI, 97
under investment, 17 MHP. See Micro hydro, 42–46
Electrification, 157–160, 164–182
diesel, 160, 163, 166, 170, 174–179
grid extension, 157, 160, 162, 170, 171, N
173–175, 178–180, 182 Nepal
mini-grids, 163, 180 NEA, 82
mini-hydro, 160
off-grid157, 161–166, 168, 170–172,
174, 176, 179, 180, 182 O
SHS, 162–164, 166, 167, Off-grid, 8–11, 39, 40, 46, 47, 56, 57,
174–176, 179 61, 62, 64, 65, 70
solar PV, 160, 161, 163, 175, 178 gasifiers, 84–86, 94
Electrification rate, 4 LED, 83, 84, 87, 100
Energy access micro grid, 84, 100
electricity, 5, 6 micro hydro, 42
Entitlement, 22 SHS, 81, 83–90, 92, 93, 95, 99
F P
Funding, 227, 228, 232–234 Participatory models, 188, 202, 222
asset-based lending, 245 CBO, 193, 194
barriers, 235, 240–244, 249, 250 cooperatives, 190–195, 197, 198, 207, 212
CIF, 235, 239, 246 distribution franchisee, 202, 221
FDI, 231–233, 238 ECS, 208
GFCF, 231, 241 franchisee, 199–202
micro-finance, 228, 240, 242, 244, PPP model, 201–212
246–249 VEC, 209, 211, 290
non-recourse financing, 245 Philippines
ODF, 231, 233 AMORE, 168
EC, 166
NEA, 165, 167, 169
G QTP, 169
Gasification SEP, 166, 167
gasifier, 48–50 SPUG, 160
GEF, 239, 246 PoA, 99
Ghana
NES, 134, 135
R
Regulation
H rules and standards, 255
HDI, 6–8 Regulatory arrangement, 271, 272, 276, 277
effectiveness, 272
exemption, 275, 276
I monopoly, 275, 276
India prior approval, 277, 279
RGGVY, 77, 80, 92, 95 standardized regulatory approach, 276
Individual solutions, 273, 275 Regulatory governance, 253, 254, 257–259,
Indonesia 262, 264, 265, 267, 288
KUD, 162 accountability, 253, 259–263
PLN, 159, 160, 164 institutional endowment, 259, 269
Investment, 228–234, 236–238, 240, intervention, 253–255, 257, 261, 265, 268
241, 243, 246, 247, 249, 250 regulation, 253–261, 264–269
Index 297
S
SCS. See Battery charging station
Senegal
ASER, 140