Rural electrification:

The role of the public

sector and collective
action on electricity
access for the poor

ENERGY
FOR
ALL
2030
Authors:
Teodoro Sanchez,
teo.sanchez@practicalaction.org,
Energy Technology Advisor,
Practical Action
Tomas Tozicka
Energy Projects Director
EDUCON
February 2013

European Commission
External Cooperation
Programmes

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

CONTENTS
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
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 republic
4.2. Recent strategies of electrification in
emerging economies

4.2.1. Brazil

4.2.2. China

4.2.3. Ghana
5. Conclusions
6. Acronyms and References

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

OBANSK SDRUEN NGO

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

1.0

THE CONTEXT OF RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

WORLDWIDE

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].

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.
3

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

2.0

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

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, microconcessions) 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 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

2.0

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

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.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

3.0

FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS WITHIN THE

CONTEXT OF ENERGY ACCESS FOR ALL

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.

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.

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

3.0

FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS WITHIN THE

CONTEXT OF ENERGY ACCESS FOR ALL
(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 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.1

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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 REAs
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 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.1

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
churches, and farms in 2500 counties. They own and maintain 2.5 million
miles (42% of the nations 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 Zrich 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
9

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.1

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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 nonprofitable 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.

10

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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 Energtico de Estados e de
Municpios, 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 governments 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
11

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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 Chinas 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 Chinas 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.

12

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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 mediumsized 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
13

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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.
Ghanas 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 countrys 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

14

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

4.2

LESSONS FROM THE PAST WORLDWIDE

REGARDING FINANCING ELECTRICITY ACCESS
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]. Nonresidential (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 & MPs 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.

15

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

5.0

CONCLUSIONS

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
16

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

5.0

CONCLUSIONS

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].

17

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

6.0

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

07.

18

SHS

Solar home systems

VRA

Volta River Authority

REFERENCES

[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_energy_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=kN1DtIkiN2
7v6tuB8cTcw-yZP3w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eRaBULbpGouR0QWl8ICQBA&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBw#v=onepa
ge&q=world%20electrification%201970&f=false

[5]

The World Energy Outlook; IEA 2006. On-line: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/WEO2006.pdf

ENERGY FOR ALL 2030

EU FUNDING FOR ENERGY ACCESS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

7.0

REFERENCES

[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 electricity 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, controllers, 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/SOUTHASIAEXT/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 lighting 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 Worlds 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; Brger- Kraft-Werke, RLS Analysen. P. 7

[17]

Constanze Nnnig; Die llekommunalerElektrizittsversorgungsunternehmenimZentrumeinerkooperativenAufgabenerledigungzwischenStaat und PrivatwirtschaftimBereich der rtlichenElektrizittsversorgung;

TechnischeUniversitt Chemnitz, 2012. Online: http://www.qucosa.de/fileadmin/data/qucosa/documents/8220/Dissertation_Constanze_Noennig.pdf

[18]

Nmcov, P., Elektrickdrustva v promnchdrustevnchprincip: analzanaplovnprincipuudriteln

horozvojekomunit, 2008, Masaryk University. On-line: https://is.muni.cz/th/178689/fss_b/TEXT_PRACE.
pdf

[19]

EZ, Significant dates in history of Czech electro-energy sector, http://www.cez.cz/cs/vyzkum-a-vzdelavani/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 Experience 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 electrification. 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.

19

European Commission
External Cooperation
Programmes