Rural electrification:The role of the public sector and collective action on electricity access for the poor

Authors:Teodoro Sanchez,teo.sanchez@practicalaction.org,Energy Technology Advisor,Practical Action

Tomas TozickaEnergy Projects DirectorEDUCON

February 2013

European CommissionExternal CooperationProgrammes

ENERGYFORALL2030

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 2

1. The context of rural electrification worldwide

2. Key recommendations

3. Financing electricity access within the context of energy access for all

4. Lessons from the past worldwide on financing energy access

CONTENTS

DisclaimerThis document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Practical Action and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

O B Č A N S K É S D R U Ž E N Í – N G O

5. Conclusions

6. Acronyms and References

4.1. Countries with early electrification 4.1.1. Rural electrification in the USA 4.1.2. Rural electrification in Germany 4.1.3. Electrification of the emergent Czechoslovak republic4.2. Recent strategies of electrification in emerging economies 4.2.1. Brazil 4.2.2. China 4.2.3. Ghana

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

3 —

THE CONTEXT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION WORLDWIDE

1.0

Developed countries enjoy wealth and economic prosperity partly because of their unrestricted access to electricity, while most developing countries are struggling to increase access for their populations. At the end of 2011 over 1.3 billion people had no access electricity, 95% of these live in sub-Saharan Africa or South-East Asia, and 84% of them live in rural areas[3].

The number of people without access to electricity in the Less Developed Countries (LDC) has changed little over the last four decades. In 1970 it totalled 1.59 billion[4] and remained nearly constant during the following three decades, with small variations up and down. By the early 2000s the number of people without electricity stood at 1.6 billion. A reduction of the total number of people without electricity, of around 300 million, during the last decade has been mainly due to large investment by the emerging economies of China, India, Brazil and South Africa in energy access in rural areas, particularly access to electricity. Progress in LDC has been minimal or decreasing. In Sub-Saharan Africa for example, those with electricity have decreased by 39 million from 2005[5] to 2009[6].

Two overarching factors contribute to energy poverty and particularly to rural electrification. The first is economic poverty. Electricity generally requires large upfront financial investment to secure regular supply. The poor simply cannot afford to pay. The second is a lack of political will among policy and decision makers at international, national and local levels, to recognise energy access as a priority.

Energy access for the poor reached its highest level of prominence on the political agenda in 2012, when the UN declared 2012 “The year of Sustainable Energy for All” and adopted a target for Universal Energy Access by 2030. The European Community, World Bank and most Bilateral Aid Agencies have endorsed this UN target and we can now consider that the political will issue has been overcome. However, on the economic side, the amount of money required for universal energy access is huge, and the economic situation of the poor in LDC has not changed. Therefore financing energy access and particularly electricity access remains an immense challenge.

This paper argues that the role of the public sector is critical for rural electrification, not only as a facilitator but also as crucial investor of at least the initial capital costs of electricity supply facilities.

Access to electricity is essential for human life. Increasing electricity availability contributes to improved social development and faster economic growth. Access to energy has a direct impact on health, education, life expectancy, child mortality and contributes to income generation and employment[1] [2].

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 4

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS2.0

Governments should assume greater responsibility for financing energy access for the poor and particularly for rural electrification. Blending funds from international aid and private sector and filling the funding gap with resources from the national treasury.

Governments should develop and implement pro-poor policies and strategies, prioritising investment in rural and isolated areas where the electricity supply agents are absent and the unit cost of energy production (kWh) is higher than that in urban areas.

Governments should provide appropriate regulations regarding ownership (co-operatives, community, private), operation (concessions, micro-concessions) and tariffs aiming at sustainable and affordable electricity access. There are some specific issues related to policy and regulations which are common to most LDC and require quick action, among them are concessions, environmental impact assessment requirements and land ownership attract new financial resources, which can contribute to energy access, such as funds from the Climate Change Financial Mechanisms (CCFM). Simplifying the rules and regulations to access those funds and improving the investment environment in developing countries by addressing security and corruption could enable this to happen. A levy of 5% on the CCFM directed towards energy access for the poor would contribute greatly to reducing the energy funding gap. For example 5% of year 2011 would amount to about US$ 7 billion[7].

ODA funds designated for energy access should have clear objectives and should target the poor and isolated. During the past two decades aid funds with energy access objectives have been scarce; most cooperation agencies fund energy access through environment or climate change programmes and, as a result, funds have been mainly spent on renewable energies, which does not always equate to energy access or electricity access.

Government, in partnership with the financial sector, should create new products considering different market segments (peri-urban, rural, rural isolated, productive activities). These financial products should take into consideration the size of energy generation systems according the services required (lighting, household energy, productive uses, etc.).

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

5 —

Governments should put effort into building the capacity of co-operatives and micro small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs) at local and regional level to provide post installation services and products. Governments should also invest in energy literacy. People with a good understanding of energy basics will access services to fit their needs and their capacity and willingness to pay. This will contribute to the sustainability of energy access projects.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS2.0

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 6

FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ENERGY ACCESS FOR ALL

3.0

Actual investment in energy access is much smaller. In 2009 total investment in energy access was only US$9 billion. Concerning future investments, the IEA estimates that under “the new policy scenario”, the expected investment on electricity access in the coming years amounts to US $13 billion per year combining all financial resources (aid, public funds, and private investment), which equates to about a quarter of the amount required[8]. This leaves a funding gap of US$35 billion per year between 2010 and 2030.

The unit cost (US$/kWh) of electricity supply (from grid or off-grid), is generally higher for people dispersed over small isolated villages and farms than it is for people living in urban and peri-urban areas, whatever technical solution is chosen[9], if all the basic needs are to be met for all the users.

Poverty in rural areas is high; the Rural Poverty Report 2011 shows that 71% of people living on less than US$ 1.25 a day are rural[10]. Rural poverty remains high and is particularly tenacious in South East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa[11]. Additionally rural people confront isolation, lack of basic service infrastructure and lack of access to markets for their products; hence their access to cash is limited and their ability to invest in energy infrastructure for their own supply is minimal.

From the above information we can conclude that: The poor and especially the rural poor cannot make the capital investment to meet their electricity needs; the magnitude of the financial gap for energy access for the poor is immense; and that no clear solution to fill such a gap has appeared so far. Two important questions arise unsurprisingly: Where the funds will come from? And to what extent will private investments be able and willing to contribute to fill that gap, especially when it comes to the initial investment?

The vision of international leaders is that the private sector will play a key role in financing electricity access for the poor; this vision has been inspired by the success of a number of private initiatives of the past two decades, broadly in two categories:

(i) Commercialisation of tiny solar photovoltaic home systems (PV SHS)[12] which cope with very small energy requirements such as lighting and mobile charging, and to a limited extent TV.

Financing electricity access for the poor is a major challenge, and even more so for the poor in LDC. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that about US$48 billion per year from 2010 throughout 2030 (nearly US$ 1 trillion) is needed to meet the UN target, of which 90% is for electricity access.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

7 —

FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ENERGY ACCESS FOR ALL

3.0

(ii) Implementation a handful of small energy generation schemes of mostly grid connected electricity by private enterprises (generally to feed a nearby grid). The latter category has been done by taking opportunities where the generation schemes are nearly commercial, hence require small quantities of subsidies to be financially viable.

According to literature the energy consumption of poor families in developing countries varies from 250kWh to 600 kWh per year[13][14], none of the above two categories of successful market driven “private investment” approaches has delivered such a small electricity requirement. The first has provided for tiny needs amounting less 10kWh per year (a 10Wp PV system generates approximately 10kWh per year); the second in most cases has been mostly to feed electricity to the grid, which does not necessarily serve the poor especially the rural poor. Therefore this vision does not take into consideration the minimum energy needs of the poor, and ignores the issue of equity and justice, which can only be achieved if “basic energy needs are covered” (lighting, household needs, community services, and electricity for productive uses).

History shows that rural electrification in developed countries happened following government interventions with policies and strategies and with significant public funding contributions (see the cases of USA, Germany and Czech Republic in section 4). In emerging economics, rural electrification has made great progress in the last two decades thanks to great political will at the highest level and substantial public funding (see the cases of China and Brazil below). Similarly in LDC, wherever substantial progress in rural electrification has happened, it has only been because the government has funded it, as happened in Nepal or Ghana (see section 4).

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 8

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.1

4.1 Countries with early electrification

4.1.1 Rural electrification in the USA

In the USA despite widespread electricity in cities, by the 1920s electricity was not delivered by private power companies to rural areas because of the general belief that the infrastructure costs could not be recouped. In 1934, less than 11% of US farms had electricity, while in Germany and France the same year, nearly 90% was electrified.

The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was created by executive order as an independent federal bureau in 1935, authorized by the United States Congress in the 1936 Rural Electrification Act, as one of the New Deal agencies created under President Franklin Roosevelt. REA administered loan programmes for electrification and telephone services in rural areas. It provided twenty-five-year loans at 3% interest rate to construct power lines in rural areas. The collective action of farmers created large number of cooperatives. Between 1935 and 1940 (the first 5 years after REA’s establishment), the number of farms using electricity more than doubled, although it was still 25% of all the farms in US.

Private electric utilities argued that the government had no right to compete with or regulate private enterprise. Despite this many of these utilities refused to extend their lines to rural areas, claiming lack of profitability. Private power companies set rural rates four times as high as city rates. In fact the REA was not direct government competition to private enterprise. Instead, REA made loans available to local electrification companies and cooperatives, which operated lines and distributed electricity.

Cooperatives were a new type of borrower - and soon those new associations of farmers became the principal borrowers of Government funds for the construction and operation of rural electricity distribution systems. Of the total amount lent by December 31, 1939, over 92% had been borrowed by cooperative associations.

By 1942, nearly 50% of US farms had electricity. By the early 1970s about 98% of all farms in the United States had electricity. Today Rural Electric Cooperatives serve in75% of the USA territory, serving an estimated 42 million people in 47 states and 18 million businesses, homes, schools,

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

9 —

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.1

churches, and farms in 2500 counties. They own and maintain 2.5 million miles (42% of the nation’s distribution lines), employ over 70,000 people and pay over $1.4 Billion in state and local taxes[15].

4.1.2 Rural electrification in Germany

In 1910 all German towns and cities were connected to electricity, but only 10% of households were electrified. Electrification was an important political issue. Electricity was viewed by some politicians as light for the rich, since light used by working people was provided by gas[16], also used for public lighting, because of its simpler installation and accessibility. Gas was first used for public lighting in the village of Burg near Dresden at 1828.

At 1895 the Elektrobank was founded in Zürich by the electro industry and banks to finance bigger projects in Germany, Switzerland, Austria and other countries. Investment from this bank was used for the building of big projects such as the hydro power plant in Rheinfelden in 1898 with twenty turbines. Such electrification was aimed mainly at industry and bigger towns.

At federal government level there was no clear strategy. So federation states, communes and some enterprises created joint companies (majority owned by the government) to construct new power plants, high voltage transmission lines and to distribute electricity to towns and cities. But most of the smaller towns, villages and farms stayed out of this distribution. Because of that the cooperatives and local communal enterprises were created to start electrification of rural areas[17].

The role of co-operatives and communal activities was fundamental in Germany. The Cooperative movement had grown in strength since the 1850s when the first cooperative banks were established to support local farmers against big agribusiness backed by big private banks. The Cooperative solution was good but there were two problems: lack of investment money and low interest in electrification among farmers.

Nevertheless the electricity cooperative movement was growing - thanks to the educational activity and the small and medium size credits from cooperative and communal retail banks, at the end of 1920s there were 6.000 electricity co-operatives and almost 50% of the country was electrified. This was the peak of co-operative electrification. Later without access to adequate

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 10

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.1

credits for larger production the capacity the cooperatives slowly lost their position.

Large companies like RWE needed to sell the capacity of their larger and larger power plants and after the significant success in rural electrification by collective action it became easier to connect villages and farms through the existing power grids.

4.1.3 Electrification of the emergent Czechoslovak Republic

In the emerging Czechoslovakia which separated from Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1918, there were many problems involved in building the new independent state such as building new quarters for state institutions and repatriation of Czech experts and officials from Austria.

In 1918 electricity was available mainly in the bigger cities. Overall 34% of the population had access to electricity, but only 11% of municipalities were electrified. Public lighting was still based on gas in many towns. Electricity arrived first in industrial towns. Subventions for rural electrification already existed in the Austrian Empire from 1909 and funding was available for local power plant and grid. But the milestone of Czechoslovak rural electrification came in 1919 when a law called “About state support at the start of systematic electrification” was sanctioned. It defined basic electricity norms and established 25 electrification companies obliged to operate for public benefit. These, mostly municipal associations and co-operatives, had state privileges but also had the obligation to provide electricity connection for everyone that asked for it. When the company could prove that the connection was non-profitable it was entitled to ask for public funding support.

Co-operatives played a large role in Czechoslovak rural electrification. Thanks to their popularity, electrification of urban and rural areas took place nearly simultaneously in different parts of the country[18]. At the beginning of the electrification of Czechoslovakia growing demand was not from industry and cities, but from agriculture which began an era of mechanisation due to the shortage of workforce[19]. The acceleration of the electrification process boosted Czechoslovak industry which then invested in more grid extension. By 1930 the country was 70% electrified and Czechoslovakia was the country with the highest electrification coverage in the world[20]. In 1955 Czechoslovakia reached officially 100% coverage of electrification.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

11 —

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.2

4.2 Recent strategies of electrification in emerging economies

4.2.1 Brazil[21]

The 1988 constitution recognised electricity as an essential public service demonstrating strong political will at the highest level. The federal government of Brazil assumed full responsibility for electricity access, and committed to funding the necessary investment. By 2009 Brazil reached overall electrification coverage of 97.8%, though this is 99.5% in urban areas and 88% in rural areas.

There are two large federal government -led rural electrification programmes – PRODEEM (Programa de Desenvolvimento Energético de Estados e de Municípios, or Energy Development Programme of States and Municipalities) and “Luz paraTodos” (LpT - Light for All). These were established in 1994 and 2000 respectively. However, neither of the two programmes had clear targets for universal access in rural areas and both programmes have been primarily based on grid extension.

Small scale standalone Renewable Energy Schemes were little used at the beginning of LpT. Even by end of 2006, only around 3,100 solar home systems (SHS) had been installed under LpT, despite the initial plan that a total of 130,000 systems should be installed in 17,500 localities. It was believed that decentralised renewable electrification options, either SHS or mini-grids, would play more relevant role in future in remote and isolated villages, particularly in the Amazon region.

In Brazil, funding resources were to be divided among the various actors, with the federal government taking the largest share (71.5% of investments covered by the federal government’s power sector funds, 13% by the states and 15.5% by the concessionaires).

Initially LpT total costs were estimated at US$ 4.16 billion but after six years, the estimated LpT costs increased by 67% over the original sum projected. In Brazil there is well-developed system for management and control of the financial flow.

Cooperation between different stakeholders within the electrification process played an important role. To date, 26 Brazilian states have State Management

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 12

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.2

Committees, which are composed of members of the federal government, the state government, the concessionaires and rural electrification co-operatives, regulatory agencies, mayors and civil society. These committees meet regularly to assess requests and prioritise work. The involvement of civil society has been a key to the electrification process; it improved the planning and implementation process and participated in decisions about ownership. There are now 154 electric power cooperatives with 6.045 employees and 715.800 members[22].

Electricity for the rural poor is promoted essentially through lower tariffs for low-consumption categories. The idea is that low consumption correlates with low income. However such a correlation between electric consumption and income is low.

Some problems of universal electricity access remain to be solved in Brazil - strains are caused by the tariff systems; some concessionaires are in financial difficulties; finding technological and organisational solutions for the Amazon region; ensuring long-term sustainability of the programme once funds have run out. But in spite of all these problems Brazil is one of the most electrified countries in Latin America.

4.2.2 China[23]

The tremendous success of China’s electrification especially in rural regions is based on several factors and unique tools used. The third largest and the most populous country in the world has almost half of its population living in rural areas. According the IEA China achieved electrification coverage of 99.4% in 2009, reaching 99% in some rural areas and 100% in urban areas.

Over the last fifty years there have been many changes in the management of rural electrification, moving from the pyramid structure used in the past to a more horizontal one. The development of China’s rural electrification can be divided into three main stages. During the first stage (1949-1977), rural communities were the main investors in rural electrification; during the second stage (1978-1997) the central, provincial and local governments all played fundamental roles as investors; and during the third stage (since 1998) the central government has been the main investor.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

13 —

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.2

The main source for rural electrification has been grid extension. But many of these lines are now old overloaded resulting is big losses.

According to the regulation contained in “Views on Accelerating the Reform of the Rural Power System and Enhancing the Rural Power Management”, the central government has primarily increased investment for rural power, grid construction and transformation through loans from the Agricultural Bank of China. Special loans for rural electrification existed from 1987, mainly for renewable energy sources. By 1996, the loan amounted to approximately US$17 million and the interest on the enterprises’ loan was subsidised by 50%. Nowadays the decentralised and small scale renewable resources are mostly financed by central government.

The level of social and economic development in each of the eleven provinces determined the level of funding granted by central government. In Tibet, for example, central government covered 100% of the cost incurred by electrification efforts, whereas in Qinghai only 80% and in Sichuan only 50% of the costs were covered.

In 1996, with the introduction of the Electric Power Law, the State began to implement preferential policies for rural electrification, giving major support for ethnic minority settlements, remote areas and poverty stricken areas. The aim of the “Brightness Programme” was to supply electricity to approximately 23 million people living in remote rural areas by means of decentralised energy systems based on small scale renewable energy resources such as hydropower, solar and wind by 2010. The goal was to provide 100 watts of capacity per person. In addition, central government promoted the development of water resources in rural areas, building small and medium-sized hydropower stations to boost rural electrification.

Because the last 11.5 million people without electricity are difficult to reach through grid extension, the government plants to deploy these services to 10 million people by the end of 2020 through small decentralised power systems. The State encourages and supports the use of solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, biomass and other energy sources so as to increase the power supply in rural areas.

Generally it is possible to say, that the greatest success of electrification of rural areas in China was the decentralised structure based on the communal

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 14

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.2

companies with Central financial support. A practical example is the construction of decentralised power systems mainly based on the small hydropower. Other key factors for success were government support with capital investments, favourable policies for taxation and pricing, flexible methods for raising project funds, and the protection of self-supply regions. Corruption in local District power companies is now avoided by high engagement of employees in management and control systems.

4.2.3 Ghana

Ghana is nowadays the country with the largest percentage of people with access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa after South Africa. In 1989 the government of Ghana planned ambitious targets for electrification of the country. It planned to electrify all communities with population above 500 inhabitants and to achieve universal access by the year 2020.

The objective of the National Electrification Scheme (NES) was to stimulate economic activities at the rural level through productive use of electricity, reduce rural to urban migration and improve the social livelihoods of rural people - women and children in particular. The status of electrification at that time stood at 15%. Thanks the NES it increased to 43% by 2000, 64% by 2008 and 72% by 2010[24].

The Self Help Electrification Program (SHEP), initiated in 1990, was created with the expressed intent of fostering the NES master plan. The SHEP functions by providing low voltage grid connection and in-house wiring for a small fee, provided that the community purchases the distribution poles and is located less than 20km from the nearest grid.

Ghana’s power sector is a vertically integrated, state monopoly governed by the Ministry of Energy, which is responsible for policy development and coordination of the power sector. The several institutions involved are: 1) the Volta River Authority (VRA), responsible for generation, transmission, and construction of the transmission system. The VRA dominates generation as well as controls transmission and distribution activities; 2) the Electricity Corporation of Ghana is responsible for the distribution of electricity in Southern Ghana, where 80% of the country’s electricity consumption exists; 3) the Northern Electricity Department is responsible for distribution of electricity in the sparsely populated regions of Northern Ghana, and 4) the

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

15 —

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS

4.2

State Enterprise Commission acts as a regulatory body.

Electricity is subsidised and tariff rates are low. Critics see this as uneconomical and slowing the development of energy sector[25]. Non-residential (commercial /industrial) customers do not qualify for most government and donor initiatives. MSMEs also have difficulties in accessing land, which is a pre-condition to being connected to the grid. Those difficulties constrain the activities of MSMEs and end up with many people not having access to electricity, even when the grid is available in the area. Many MSMEs presently have to rely on informal/illegal electricity connections from neighbours[26].

The main problem for the electrification in Ghana is maintenance of the grid and developing new generating capacity because of a lack of finance. Funding comes from different sources: internal sources are consolidated funds (government budget), a levy on electricity consumers (NES levy), contributions from electricity utility agencies, local government sources (district assemblies & MP’s common fund), communities and local content (industrial players such as pole and cable manufacturers). External sources are: grants from different donors, export credits and concessionary loans from multilateral and bilateral agencies, suppliers’ credit (Guarantee Exim bank).Many successful decentralised of-grid projects were built with the financial support of foreign donors.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 16

CONCLUSIONS5.0

Collective action

Collective action played a very important role in the electrification in most developed countries, from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the USA, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association was the key player in reaching rural isolated people and it still provides electricity to a large proportion of North American citizens. Collective action also played a role in Germany, the Czech Republic and other developed countries. Cooperatives were also successful in rural electrification in some emerging countries such as Philippines or Brazil.

Political will and public funds

More recently, in emerging economies and LDCs, direct action of governments, with strong political will and significant investment of public funds has been the most successful model, as is the case in China, Brazil and Ghana. In other countries where there have been significant achievements, the role of government has been crucial (examples of these are South Africa, Nepal, India and others).

Partnership and inclusiveness

Partnership and inclusiveness is a key characteristic of a successful electrification programme in both the emerging economies and in LDC. Strong participation of local authorities in the implementation and running of the energy schemes once installed is vital. Participation of local leaders and the users themselves is also important, with feedback regarding their electricity needs and a contribution towards implementation – either in cash or in kind. Implementation in a more consultative way, talking to others stakeholders and particularly to the private sector and more generally to service providers is also important.

Electricity pricing

Finding the right pricing is critical. On the one hand high costs of electricity can jeopardise electricity access for the poor, on the other hand setting prices too low prices endangers the sustainability of the electricity supply. The use of subsides to reduce the cost of electricity has been a regular practice “in order to ensure electricity access for the poor”, however there are several impact studies showing that in most cases subsidies do not reach the poor[27]. The

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

17 —

CONCLUSIONS5.0

experience of the authors shows that it is possible to establish tariffs that cover satisfactorily the cost of operation, maintenance and future replacement of schemes. To achieve this, the unit cost for the poorest of the poor may not be the lowest, instead of providing the lowest tariff, sound education on making the most of electricity and using it efficiently is an excellent alternative[28].

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

— 18

ACRONYMS

CCFM Climate change financial mechanisms

ECG Electricity Corporation of Ghana

IEA International Energy Agency

LDC Less developed countries

LpT Luz paraTodos (Light for all)

MSME Micro, small and medium sized enterprise

NES National Electrification Scheme

REA Rural electrification Administration

SHEP Self-help electrification programme

SHS Solar home systems

VRA Volta River Authority

6.0

REFERENCES07.

[1] Seng Leung and Peter Meisen; How electricity consumption affects social and economic development by comparing low, medium and high human development countries; GENI 2005. On-line: http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/issues/global/qualityoflife/HDI-vs-Electricity-Consumption-2005-07-18.pdf

[2] Independent evaluation group, The Welfare impact of rural electrification: A Reassessment of Costs and Benefits. World Bank 2008. On-line: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTRURELECT/Resources/full_doc.pdf

[3] Energy Access for all, Financing energy access for the poor, especial energy excerpt of the World Energy Outlook. IEA 2011. On-line: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/weo2011_en-ergy_for_all.pdf

[4] Gerald Foley; Photovoltaic Applications in rural areas of the Developing world, World Bank; Technical paper 34; Washington, 1995; See Page (39). On-line: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rW6-1Ic0VGEC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=world+electrification+1970&source=bl&ots=JwnBy0UKeS&sig=kN1DtIkiN27v6tuB8cTcw-yZP3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eRaBULbpGouR0QWl8ICQBA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=world%20electrification%201970&f=false

[5] The World Energy Outlook; IEA 2006. On-line: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weoweb-site/2008-1994/WEO2006.pdf

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

19 —

REFERENCES7.0

[6] See 3

[7] Hui K, Sanchez T,; Carbon financing mechanisms as source of funding for energy access for the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa; Practical Action; UK, 2012

[8] See 3

[9] In small isolated villages, grid electrification is higher because of the higher investment on infrastructure and higher operation costs; off-grid because is higher because a number of factors (economics of scale, more components, more technical assistance, etc.). For example, reports show that grid connect PV elec-tricity varies from 0.2 to 0.6 US$/kWh, while PV small house system (SHS) range from 1 to 3 US$/kWh. Although recent reports argue that the cost of solar PV has been reduced substantially, the fact is that that cost reduction of PV cells has a small impact on the final cost of the unit energy of SHS, because technical assistance and capacity building for operation along with the necessary accessories such as batteries, con-trollers, support structures and others take a larger share of the cost of the SHS.

[10] Rural Poverty Report, Overview; IFAD 2011. On-line: http://www.ifad.org/rpr2011/report/e/overview.pdf

[11] The World Bank, World Development Report 2008; On-line: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHA-SIAEXT/Resources/223546-1171488994713/3455847-1192738003272/Brief_AgPovRedctn_web.pdf

[12] These systems range from 3Wp to 50Wp, but more frequently below 10Wp which are good to provide light-ing 2 or 3 hours a day and mobile charging; systems of 40W to 50Wp provide lighting and mobile charging and 2 to 4 hours TV and other tiny applications.

[13] Sanchez Teo; The Hidden Energy Crisis, How Policies are Failing the World’s Poor; Practical Action Publishing; UK, 2010

[14] Goldemberg, J. Johanson, T; Reddy, and Williams, A.; A Global Clean Cooking Initiative, Energy for Sustainable Development, UK 2004; 3(3): 5-12

[15] Bill Midcap; Rural energy for America program. On-line: http://files.eesi.org/midcap_071911.pdf

[16] Manfred Maruda; Bürger- Kraft-Werke, RLS Analysen. P. 7

[17] Constanze Nönnig; Die llekommunalerElektrizitätsversorgungsunternehmenimZentrumeinerkooperative-nAufgabenerledigungzwischenStaat und PrivatwirtschaftimBereich der örtlichenElektrizitätsversorgung; TechnischeUniversität Chemnitz, 2012. Online: http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/docu-ments/8220/Dissertation_Constanze_Noennig.pdf

[18] Němcová, P., Elektrickádružstva v proměnáchdružstevníchprincipů: analýzanaplňováníprincipuudržitelnéhorozvojekomunit, 2008, Masaryk University. On-line: https://is.muni.cz/th/178689/fss_b/TEXT_PRACE.pdf

[19] ČEZ, Significant dates in history of Czech electro-energy sector, http://www.cez.cz/cs/vyzkum-a-vzdelava-ni/pro-zajemce-o-informace/historie-a-soucasnost/vyznamna-data.html

[20] Douglas F. Barnes-Editor; Meeting the Challenge of Rural Electrification in Developing Nations: The Expe-rience of Successful Programs; ESMAP; March 2005

[21] Text is based on: Alexandra Niez; COMPARATIVE STUDY ON RURAL ELECTRIFICATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES; International Energy Agency; 2010; pages 19-34

[22] OCB Brazilian Cooperative Organization; Online: http://www.brasilcooperativo.coop.br/GERENCIADOR/ba/arquivos/apresentacao_ocb_ingles_2010.pdf

[23] Text is based on: Alexandra Niez; COMPARATIVE STUDY ON RURAL ELECTRIFICATION POLICIES IN EMERGING ECONOMIES; International Energy Agency; 2010; pages 35nn and Douglas F. Barnes, Ed.; Meeting the Challenge of Rural Electrification in Developing Nations; ESMAP; 2005

[24] ACCESS TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY IN GHANA; AREA Conference at the Rockefeller Bellagio Centre, Italy; 2012. On-line: http://www.area-net.org/fileadmin/user_upload/AREA/AREA_downloads/AREA_Conference_12/presentatios/Session_4/Access_to_Sustainable_Energy_in_Ghana.pdf

[25] Peter Bailey, Oracha Chotimongkol, Shinji Isono; Demand Analysis and Optimization of Renewable Energy; University of Michigan; 2007

[26] https://energypedia.info/index.php/Ghana_Country_Situation

[27] Governmental expert Oscar Kalumiana shows clearly in his empirical study Energy Services for the Urban Poor in Zambia (2004) the flat subsidies supports more the non-poor households as the poor ones. The losses are covered by public deficit and there is no enough financial resources for investment to the electri-fication. He recommends lower tariffs for the rural poor, low credits for cooking devices and to carry out a charcoal stove efficiency improvement programme as well as awareness of charcoal consumers.

[28] Sanchez Teodoro, Electricity Services in Remote Rural Communities, The Small Enterprise Model, 2006; Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd., UK 2006.

European CommissionExternal CooperationProgrammes