Abstract
The history of distributed rural electrification efforts makes it possible to develop a structured study in order to understand the factors important for both success and failure. In order to do so, it is necessary to be specific regarding the characteristics of the distributed electrification model believed to be important in determining outcomes, the outcomes to be measured and the other factors that can be influential. This chapter outlines the methods used in this study, the hypotheses developed to explain outcomes, and how the particular case studies were chosen.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an excellent review of methods for social science research and the power of case study approaches see King et al. (1994).
- 2.
- 3.
It should be noted that in some cases, supply may actually exceed community demand, at least in the short term. This could happen if a generating unit is sized too large due to a miscalculation of the populations’ willingness or ability to pay or if the unit is sized to meet some productive application during certain hours of the day and then is oversized for the load of the local population when used for community and residential purposes.
- 4.
Five years is chosen because this is slightly longer than the replacement time for a number of components on some of the key technologies (e.g. batteries for solar home systems) and it is reasonably expected that most technologies would have to undergo some sort of repair or parts replacement. The Very Low score is included with a 2 year cutoff to account for the fact that historically, some projects have had very fast failure rates (failing even before the expected lifetime of the shortest-lived replaceable component).
- 5.
Through preferential policies and a different business model, the coops were able to supply electricity in areas that traditional utilities considered unprofitable. In general, coops in the United States own little generation themselves and are wholesale customers of the larger investor-owned utilities.
- 6.
This will be true as long as the tariffs can exceed the operating costs of the unit, which will depend upon the customers’ willingness and ability to pay.
- 7.
High costs could also act to limit consumption by some customers rather than completely eliminate access. This is reflected in the cash PV markets where PV cell sizes are often very small and users buy additional modules as their incomes allow.
- 8.
It is possible to have a population that is remote from major urban centers and centralized power grids but is, at the same time, relatively closely spaced.
- 9.
This study looks at both “regulatory governance” and “regulatory substance” in determining whether the regulatory system is favorable, neutral or unfavorable towards distributed electrification models (Reiche et al. 2006).
- 10.
It is important to recall that this study is of the performance of business models for distributed rural electrification. Therefore, limiting the universe of cases to those countries that have experience with distributed rural electrification does not raise concerns regarding case selection bias or of selecting cases based on values of the dependent variable. If, instead, this was a study of the presence of distributed rural electrification, then this would obviously be a concern.
- 11.
This is the reason that there are no African countries included among the final list of countries. While there have been some successes (e.g. PV in Kenya), generally speaking the experience has been much more limited and does not provide the basis for making conclusions. However, some of the conclusions of this study could be applied to future efforts in Africa.
References
Acker RH, Kammen DM (1996) The quiet (energy) revolution: analysing the dissemination of photovoltaic power systems in Kenya. Energy Policy 24(1):81–111
Allderdice A, Rogers JH (2000) Renewable energy for microenterprise. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, pp 1–70
Banerjee R (2006) Comparison of options for distributed generation in India. Energy Policy 34:101–111
Barnes DF, Floor WM (1996) Rural energy in developing countries: a challenge for economic development. Annu Rev Energy Env 21:497–530
Barnett A (1990) The diffusion of energy technology in the rural areas of developing countries: a synthesis of recent experience. World Dev 18(4):539–553
Beato P (2000) Cross subsidies in public services: some issues. In: Sustainable development department technical paper series. IFM-122. Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, p 25
Bird R (1994) Decentralizing infrastructure: for good or ill? WP 1258. The World Bank, Washington, DC, p 34
Biswas WK, Diesendorf M et al (2004) Can photovoltaic technologies help attain sustainable rural development in Bangladesh? Energy Policy 32:1199–1207
Byrne J, Shen B et al (1997) The economics of sustainable energy for rural development: a study of renewable energy in rural China. Energy Policy 26(1):44–54
Cabraal RA, Barnes DF et al (2005) Productive uses of energy for rural development. Ann Rev Env Resour 30:117–144
Elbers C, Lanjouw PF et al (2004) On the unequal inequality of poor communities. World Bank Econ Rev 18(3):401–421
Elias RJ, Victor DG (2005) Energy transitions in developing countries: a review of concepts and literature. PESD Working Papers. #40. Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, p 38
ESMAP (2000) Mini-grid design manual. 21364 (ESMAP Technical Paper 007). Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme, Washington, DC
ESMAP (2001). Best practice manual: promoting decentralized electrification investment. ERM248. Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme.
Estache A (ed) (1995) Decentralizing infrastructure: advantages and limitations. World Bank Discussion Papers. The World Bank, Washington, DC
Etcheverry J (2003) Renewable energy for productive uses: strategies to enhance environmental protection and the quality of rural life.. Department of Geography and Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, p 49
Fishbein RE (2003) Survey of productive uses of electricity in rural areas. Africa Energy Unit, World Bank, Washington, DC, pp 1–50
Foley G (1992) Rural electrification: the institutional dimension. Utilities Policy 2(4):283–289
Goldemberg J, Rovere LL et al (2004) Expanding access to electricity in Brazil. Energy Sustain Dev VIII(4):86–94
Gunaratne L (2002) Rural energy services best practices. Nexant Sari/Energy for United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, p 77
Howells M, Victor DG et al (2006) Beyond free electricity: the costs of electric cooking in poor households and a market-friendly alternative. Energy Policy 34(17):3351–3358
Jütting J (2003) Institutions and development: a critical review. Working Paper No. 210. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Development Centre, Paris, p 45
King G, Keohane RO et al (1994) Designing social inquiry: scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Ku J, Lew D et al (2003) Sending electricity to townships: China’s large-scale renewables programme brings power to a million people. Renewable Energy World, pp 56–67.
Litvack J, Ahmad J et al (1998) Rethinking decentralization in developing countries. Sector Studies Series 21491. World Bank, p 52.
Martinot E, Chaurey A et al (2002) Renewable energy markets in developing countries. Annu Rev Energy Env 27:309–348
Meadows K, Riley C et al (2003) A literature review into the linkages between modern energy and micro-enterprise. ED03493. AEA Technology plc for the UK Department for International Development, Oxfordshire, p 33.
Nieuwenhout FDJ, van Dijk A et al (2001) Experience with solar home systems in developing countries: a review. Prog Photovoltaics Res Appl 9:455–474
Pachauri S, Spreng D (2004) Energy use and energy access in relation to poverty. Economic and Political Weekly, pp 271–278.
Ramani KV, Heijndermans E (2003) Energy, poverty and gender: a synthesis. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, DC
Reiche K, Tenenbaum B et al (2006) Promoting electrification: regulatory principles and a model law. Energy and Mining Sector Board Discussion Paper No. 18. Energy and Mining Sector Board, World Bank, Washington, DC, p 49
Scheutzlich T, Klinghammer W et al (2000) Financing of solar home systems in developing countries: the role of financing in the dissemination process. Eschborn, Environmental Management, Water, Energy, Transport Division, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, p 52
Shin R (2001) Strategies for economic development under decentralization: a transformation of the political economy. Int J Public Adm 24(10):1083–1102
Tong J (2004) Small hydro power: China’s practice. China WaterPower Press, Beijing
Tongia R (2003) The political economy of indian power sector reforms. PESD Working Papers. PESD Working Paper #4 (Revised). Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, p 76
van Campen B, Guidi D et al (2000) Solar photovoltaics for sustainable agriculture and rural development. #2. Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, Rome, pp 1–76
Zerriffi H, Dowlatabadi H et al (2007) Incorporating stress in electric power systems reliability models. Energy policy 35:61–75
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zerriffi, H. (2011). Research Design. In: Rural Electrification. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9594-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9594-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9593-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9594-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)