Post on 31-Dec-2015
Why Electrification?
Capacity to benefit(Income, skills, knowledge)
Purpose of Electrification
Poverty alleviation QOL
Economicdevelopment
Logical Framework
Project planning and implementation
Operation and use process
Enablement of change - particularly of poor people
Input
Output
Outcome
Impact
% Households Electrified
Country Urban RuralBotswana 26 2Lesotho 14 4Malawi 11 <1Mozambique 17 <1Namibia 26 5South Africa 80 46Swaziland 42 2Tanzania 13 1Zambia 18 1Zimbabwe 65 <1
Annual Household Connections
01000
20003000
40005000
60007000
800019
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
RuralUrban
‘000s
Evaluation of NEP
• Municipal and Eskom projects.
• Construction met needs.
• Most significant constraint is voltage drop.
• Design standards vary widely and changed during the programme.
• Some designs may be unduly conservative, and in other projects the performance may be inadequate.
Lessons
• Prepayment meters: high failure rates of new technology.
• Capital cost reductions in real terms.
• Some communities objected to 20 A limited supply (at 230 V), but experience indicates this standard is appropriate for low consumption.
Proposed New Tariff
• Access alone does not alleviate poverty.
• Tariff subsidy needed to help the very poor.
• Research into a Basic Electricity Support Tariff.
Research Approach
• Poverty, technical, health, environment, social, financial, economic, institutional
• Literature study and model analysis• Discussions with utilities, suppliers• Data from Load Research Project• Community studies• Focus group meetings• Pilot sites – Eskom and municipalities
Brief overview of report
• Ch 1 - Context: Government commitment to support basic services. Linkage from inputs to impacts.
• Ch 2: Defining poverty. Contribution by electricity to poverty alleviation. Parallels with Free Basic Water. Free?
• Ch 3: Basic electricity tariffs. Criteria for subsidy schemes. International practice. Size of subsidy. Broad-based, targeted or self-targeted.
Brief overview of report (contd.)
• Ch 4 - Technical: Prepayment meters can support two-block tariff. Electrification. Consumption and demand models. Demand growth.
• Ch 5 - Health and Environment: Notable safety and health impact needs electricity to be used for cooking/heating. Marginal GHG impact.
Brief overview of report (contd.)
• Ch 6 - Social: Potential impact significant. Inequity cf non-electrified. Communication and training. Debt issue.
• Ch 7 - Finance and Economics: Cost. Sources of funds: fiscus, plus earmarked tax if broad-based. Flexibility requires “not free”.
• Ch 8 - Institutional: EDI structure not a constraint. Local or national choice. Timetable.
Key research findings
• Difficult to define poverty consistently and identify individual poor households.
• Basic requirement: 35 - 60 kWh/month, unconstrained demand <8A.
• Significant health and safety benefits, and social impact.
• Constrained by lack of appliances and understanding.
• High awareness of inequity: free energy for ‘haves’, not available for ‘have-nots’.
Key research findings (contd.)
• Choice: Broad-based - high coverage or Targeted - less leakage of benefits.• Subsidised but not free: avoid
entitlement, social value in purchasing, regulate demand at month start, flexible for fiscal management. But not a poverty trap.
• Technically feasible to implement.• Affected by plans for EDI restructuring.
Key research findings (contd.)
• Access to electricity requires electrification and appliance programmes.
• Energy tariff is already a subsidy/not cost-reflective.
• Small economic impact, needs balance with other priorities.
• National or local choice affects tariff structure, institutional responsibilities, EDI restructuring, costs to implement.
Main issues
• Purpose - alleviation and links to credit management.
• National or local choice.• Equity with non-electrified households.• Tariff structure - broad-based or targeted,
first block free or cheap.• Appliances, cooking and solar.• Information and communications.• Monitoring and evaluation.
Five alternatives
• Support tariff only to households identified administratively as poor.
• Broad based to all connected households.
• Self-targeted 8 or 10 A max current limit.
• Self-targeted 20 A max current limit.
• 1A: an alternative to Solar Homes.
Recommendations
• Poverty alleviation must meet needs for lighting, media access and cooking.
• Self-targeted 8 or 10 A max current limit.• An alternative to Solar PV.• Measure impact on customer behaviour,
environment, health and quality of life.• Poverty alleviation needs multi-institution
approach beyond BEST.• Electrification must continue. • National price.
Recommendations
• Not free, but heavily subsidised.
• 50 kWh for R5 (incl VAT) in 2002. Equivalent to ~35 kWh free.
• Self-targeted with current limit: lower coverage but less leakage; cost R350m from fiscus; new default for electrification programme; debt management possible.
Some implications
• Full picture needs to consider solar PV and 1A options for electrification.
• Servicing standards?
• What impact on valuation of assets/liabilities into the future?
A
BC
Totalcost/m
Consumption [kWh/month]