Difference between revisions of "National Approaches to Electrification – Finance"

From energypedia
***** (***** | *****)
m
***** (***** | *****)
m
Line 80: Line 80:
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(49, 49, 152);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" |  
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" |  
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Other forms of Finance</span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
+
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Other Forms of Finance</span><span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
  
 
<br/>
 
<br/>
Line 159: Line 159:
  
 
| style="width: 618px;" |  
 
| style="width: 618px;" |  
'''<span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span>A regime under which the price or tariff at which each&nbsp; provider can sell electricity (or standalone systems) is separately agreed with the regulator.</span></span>'''
+
'''<span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span></span></span><span><span>Finance from charges paid by users for electricity or purchase of &nbsp;standalone systems, and finance made available to users to pay these charges</span></span><span><span></span></span>'''
  
An individual price/tariff arrangement may:
+
Users may pay a fee for connection to the main electricity grid or a mini-grid, for membership of the local customer group for a mini-grid, or purchase of a stand-alone system, flat monthly charges, and/or charges for electricity used. These charges serve to fund the costs of provision of electricity access, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and costs of extending electricity access. Public subsidies and grants may be used to cover some of the cost and make electricity more affordable to users, but to the extent that private finance has been used to establish the means of energy access or the energy access business, payments from users will be needed to repay the private investment and pay any interest on loans or return on capital. &nbsp;Where users are required to pay charges up-front this can create a major barrier to access to electricity (even if the user could afford the cost if spread over time).&nbsp; If users would otherwise be unable to access bank loans or micro-finance to cover these upfront costs, loans may be provided as part of an intervention programme.&nbsp; Another solution is for the service provider (e.g. the national utility or mini-grid company) to source this funding, either by providing loans themselves, or by structuring their charges to reduce upfront payments. In the case of standalone system providers this may be achieved through pay-as-you-go arrangements where users pay for systems over months or years rather than up-front. For suppliers to reduce up-front charges it will usually be necessary for them to secure additional finance themselves, but this should have a lower cost than individual users borrowing. When planning to provide electricity to target customers, it is thus essential for the supplier to consider how the costs can be both afforded and financed by users.&nbsp;
 
 
*Address purchase costs for standalone systems or connection charges and charges for electricity used or flat monthly changes<br/>
 
*Encompass a set of prices or tariffs for different classes of user (eg household, commercial and industrial) or for different levels of provision (eg size of solar home system)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/>
 
*Relate to electricity from one or more technologies and/or standalone systems as long as these are all provided by a single entity<br/>
 
*Cover a single unit within the provider’s operation (eg a single mini-grid) or the entirety of the provider’s operation<br/>
 
*Be based (most usually) on the provider’s average or incremental costs, net of any grant or subsidy (cost-recovery tariffs) or on estimates of the avoided cost of grid extension to the area, or some other basis
 
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 184: Line 178:
  
 
| style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
 
| style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
It is in principle possible to set individual prices/tariffs for different areas within a grid system. This could have the advantage of incentivizing the grid company to extend into more remote areas where costs are higher, but is often politically unacceptable and a uniform price/tariff structure is therefore most often used. Grid connected mini-grids and distribution systems rely on the sale of electricity to the grid, and import of electricity from the grid and its sale to users, as well as sale of own-generated electricity to users. Clarity on how each of these tariffs is set and regulated is vital. Tariffs for import of electricity from and export to the grid will usually be on a uniform price/tariff basis. Tariffs for users of grid- connected mini-grids as well as isolated mini-grids are usually set individually for each mini-grid or distribution area (or mini-grid company) to reflect their specific costs and any subsidies or grants they may have received. For larger, particularly grid-connected, systems, these factors may be overcome by political considerations and attempts to achieve equal treatment of users considerations (but cost-reflective grants or subsidies, or cross-subsidies, will then be needed to maintain economic sustainability). At the other end of the scale it may be concluded that the costs and bureaucracy of agreeing individual tariff levels for single small mini-grids may be unjustified. It is most usual to leave tariffs for mini-grids below a certain size unregulated (on the basis that they do not create an effective monopoly and so purchase decisions can be left to users), though use of a<br/>uniform price/tariff is also an option.
+
Grid and mini-grid electricity access has generally been paid for by users through a combination of connection charges, monthly charges and electricity usage charges. Those providers who are able to remove up-front connection fees, recovering investment through ongoing energy charges, have generally seen substantially higher connection rates. Standalone systems have usually in<br/>the past been purchased, with the user bearing the entire cost (other than fuel and maintenance costs) upfront. Increasingly standalone system providers are looking to pay-as-you-go and similar arrangements whereby the user pays for the system over time, or for electricity used, bringing standalone system access more in line with grid and mini-grid access.
 
 
Prices for standalone systems are also generally unregulated, though where public funding is used to support provision of standalone systems, it may (as with the [[NAE Case Study: Bangladesh, IDCOL Solar Home Systems|NAE Case Study of the Bangladesh IDCOL programme]]) be regarded as appropriate to regulate prices. If the move towards pay-as-you-go, with users paying for electricity as they do from grid or mini-grids, while suppliers retain ownership of the capital equipment, continues or accelerates, regulation of electricity prices may become more relevant. If they are regulated it’s more likely to be on a uniform than an individual basis (since standalone system businesses are not usually tied to a location and so differences in costs are likely to be linked to their technology offer, efficiency of operation, or financing structure rather than any fundamental factors outside the businesses control).
 
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 194: Line 186:
  
 
| style="width: 616px;" |  
 
| style="width: 616px;" |  
An individual regulated price/tariff structure may be used with a public delivery model where multiple public entities are involved in electricity provision. It is in the context of a private or a public-private delivery model, particularly,&nbsp; that individual regulated prices or tariffs are most likely to be needed, since this offers the private sector element both clarity and the opportunity to recover costs.
+
Any delivery model, whether public, private or a PPP partnership will ultimately rely on user payments to cover ongoing costs and fund expansion. Under a public model, part of the funding may come from central public funds, making access more affordable to users, and under a PPP model the same can be achieved through grants and subsidies. The issue of enabling users to finance any up-front costs will remain regardless of the delivery model.
  
 
|-
 
|-
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
+
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" rowspan="2" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(154, 103, 0);" |  
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(154, 103, 0);" |  
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Legual Basis</span><br/>
+
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Legual Basis</span>
  
<br/>
+
| style="width: 616px;" rowspan="2" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
 +
There is clearly a direct link between user finance and price/tariff regulation arrangements, with the charges to be paid by users being set through any regulatory framework.&nbsp;<br/>
  
| style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
+
|-
<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">Individual prices or tariffs may be established through either concessions or a licensing system. Without some form of licensing it is impractical to regulate individual prices or tariffs.</span><br/>
+
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(205, 52, 0);" |  
 +
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Price/Tariff Regulation</span>
  
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span><br/>
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" |  
 
| style="width: 117px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);" |  
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">Finance</span><br/>
+
<span style="color:#FFFFFF;"><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-size: 13.6px; background-color: rgb(32, 56, 100);">Other Forms of Finance</span></span><br/>
  
 
<br/>
 
<br/>
  
 
| style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
 
| style="width: 616px;" | <span style="color:#FFFFFF;"></span>
An individually regulated price/tariff regime will give those considering investing long term private capital confidence, reducing risk while protecting users. Whether this attracts finance will depend critically on whether the prices/tariffs set enable them to make adequate return on investment. A clear and transparent framework which allows potential investors to understand how prices/tariffs will be set and estimate levels likely to be acceptable to regulators will be key. (For smaller-scale, shorter-term investments, individual price/ tariff regulation may be regarded as a burden rather a protection). Any framework must factor in grants or subsidies received by the electricity business, so that their effect is to reduce prices/tariffs and make electricity more affordable to users. This also serves to ensure proper use of&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">public funding and so where grants and subsidies are made available, prices/tariffs are more likely to be regulated. (Any cross-</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">subsidies should also be incorporated into price/tariff calculations, but these are unlikely to be used alongside individually&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">regulated tariffs). Tax exemptions and guarantees, will be reflected through their impacts on equipment, finance and other&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">costs. The levels at which prices/tariffs are set will obviously directly affect finance derived from users through these charges&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">and the need for users to be able to access finance, or pay-as-you-go arrangement to cover any up-front element.&nbsp;</span>
+
'''''Private/Market Finance''''' – sufficient user finance is a critical factor for any private sector investor to determine whether there is a sustainable market for electricity consumption.&nbsp; The affordability of up-front costs and/or monthly payments will determine whether the supply of electricity to any potential customer(s) is a viable business opportunity.&nbsp; For low-income communities, the supplier may rely upon public sector support to ensure that households can afford the necessary services.&nbsp; The private finance sector may also be a source of finance for users to cover upfront charges. However, it is in the longer-term interests of the supplier to introduce a level of electricity, together with an appropriate financing mechanism, that the consumer can pay for directly without dependence on external resources.<br/>
 +
 
 +
'''''Grants/Subsidies''''' – Supply of electricity to some groups of the population will require funding in addition to payments that can be made directly by individual users.&nbsp; Non-commercial funding that does not require any repayment (grants) can be made available from government, or international donors, either to electricity providers to reduce charges or directly to users, and so reduce upfront costs. In a similar way, public sector payments to offset some of the ongoing costs associated with electricity supply (subsidies) can be introduced to increase affordability for users and reduce prices/tariffs charged by providers.<span style="font-size: 13.6px;"></span>
 +
 
 +
'''''Cross-subsidies''''' – Another option is for electricity provision to some users to be subsidized from charges paid by other (higher income) users, rather than from general public funds.&nbsp; Cross-subsidization can occur within a single electricity provider’s business (with some degree of cross-subsidization being inherent in any multi-user system) or arrangements for cross-subsidy can be established between electricity businesses. This approach can be effective provided that the balance in numbers between the groups of users is such that electricity can be made affordable for the subsidized group while remaining acceptably priced for those providing the cross-subsidy.&nbsp;
 +
 
 +
'''''Tax exemptions''''' – Provide an indirect means of subsidizing electricity costs and so making charges more affordable for users and reducing their need to access finance.
 +
 
 +
'''''Guarantees''''' – One means of enabling users to access finance is for government or other donor, such as an international development bank, to provide guarantees to micro-finance providers and other potential lenders to encourage them to offer loans to those wishing to access electricity.&nbsp;&nbsp;
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 224: Line 226:
  
 
| style="width: 616px;" |  
 
| style="width: 616px;" |  
Establishing individual price/tariff regulation will require regulatory reform and capacity building or technical assistance may be needed if the key actors lack the capacity to undertake this reform.&nbsp; Other non-financial interventions, such as policy and target setting, establishment of quality and technical standards, awareness raising and demand promotion amongst users and service providers, provision of market information and training (capacity building) for businesses and workers, may be beneficial but are not specifically related to a uniform price/tariff structure. National energy planning will be key to establishing the optimum mix of technologies to meet electrification needs across the country and should feed in to design of the price/tariff regulation system.
+
Capacity building and technical assistance to electricity providers and regulators may be needed to support design of price/tariff structures and finance arrangements which will increase affordability of electricity access to users. Awareness raising and capacity&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 13.6px;">building to finance providers may also assist them to enter this market and design financial products which lower the&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">barrier of upfront costs to electricity access. Demand promotion is key in enabling users to increase productive use of&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">electricity and allowing providers to reduce per kWh charges and thus making it more affordable to users. User finance&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">may itself be an element in demand promotion programmes, enabling users to access the finance to buy equipment&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size: 13.6px;">and develop businesses based on electricity use.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>
  
 
|}
 
|}
Line 236: Line 238:
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" | <br/>
 
| style="width: 10px; background-color: rgb(243, 178, 131);" | <br/>
 
|  
 
|  
The main advantage of an individual price/tariff regulation system is that it can reflect genuine underlying differences in the costs of provision under different circumstances and so enable economically sustainable electricity provision and attract private finance and businesses, while also protecting users from over-charging, particularly in a monopoly or quasi-monopoly situation, and ensuring that public financial support is properly used and benefits users by increasing affordability (rather than boosting private profits beyond those needed to attract capital).
+
Charges paid by users provide the ultimate source of funding for electricity access. Only if users are able to pay for electricity access, at least in the medium to long-term will it be economically sustainable and cease to be a burden on public and donor funds.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
  
One disadvantage is that, if not well designed and rigorously applied by an expert and knowledgeable regulator, it may fail to incentivize energy businesses to work efficiently and control costs. Another is that, calculation and agreement of prices or tariffs for multiple providers on an individual basis is costly and resource intensive. This may be ameliorated by establishing a standard framework for price/tariff calculation, but some cost will remain. When deciding on an individual price/tariff calculation arrangement, consideration should therefore be given to materiality and the balance of costs and benefits.<br/>
+
Providing finance to users has the great advantage of addressing affordability at its source –making additional resources available directly to people in remote areas without the risk of loss to intermediaries.&nbsp; User finance can often be the catalyst required to bring electricity supplies to low-income customers, thereby stimulating demand for increased supply and so helping to develop a sustainable market.
  
A greater issue is that, relative to a uniform price/tariff system, it discriminates between users, allowing those who can be supplied with electricity at lower cost (particularly in urban areas and within reach of the grid system) to access electricity at a lower price and to benefit from the cross-subsidies inherent in a grid system, while requiring those in more remote areas to pay the full cost of their access. While grants and subsidies may partially off-set these differences they are unlikely to eliminate them entirely. Not only is this inequitable, but it constrains those receiving more expensive forms of electricity from using it economically, improving their livelihoods and increasing demand to levels at which electricity would become cheaper. It thus acts as a constraint on economic development in higher cost areas and holds people back from moving up the energy access ladder. As a result an individual price/tariff regulatory system may lead to “tariff envy”, as those who initially welcomed modern electricity as providing them with better energy at lower cost than traditional sources, see neighbouring communities receiving it at still lower cost – and hence to political pressures to move away from individual towards uniform prices/tariffs. Thought should therefore be given when setting up an individual price/tariff regulation system to the future, how the system may need to be amended as the national electricity access context changes, and how this can be achieved on a basis which maintains both users acceptability and investor confidence.<br/>
+
However, electricity access provision is a long term enterprise and if user-finance is made available on conditions which do not meet user’s needs or for only a short period, then the impact may rather be to undermine any nascent local market that may have been developing.&nbsp; If user finance is provided without a clear exit strategy and then withdrawn, there is a danger of market disruption and potentially collapse, so long term planning of any user finance is required from the outset. Careful targeting of user finance is essential to ensure a positive impact. User finance is a critical element in electricity provision, both as a source of funding and an area of need, but one which is often disregarded.
  
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 17:56, 25 June 2018

NAE Overview Page
TechnologyTechnology: Grid ExtensionTechnology: Grid-Connected Mini-Grid/Distribution SystemTechnology: Isolated Mini-GridTechnology: Standalone SystemsDelivery ModelDelivery Model: PublicDelivery Model: Private (Non-Government)Delivery Model: Public-Private PartnershipLegal BasisLegal Basis: ConcessionLegal Basis: LicenseLegal Basis / Price/Tariff Regulation: UnregulatedPrice/Tariff RegulationPrice/Tariff Regulation: UniformPrice/Tariff Regulation: IndividualFinanceFinance: PrivateFinance : UserFinance: Grants & SubsidiesFinance: Cross-SubsidiesFinance: Tax ExemptionsFinance: GuaranteesNon-Financial InterventionsNon-Financial Interventions: Direct Energy Access ProvisionNon-Financial Interventions: Institutional RestructuringNon-Financial Interventions: Regulatory ReformNon-Financial Interventions: Policy & Target SettingNon-Financial Interventions: Quality & Technical StandardsNon-Financial Interventions: Technical AssistanceNon-Financial Interventions: Capacity Building & Awareness RaisingNon-Financial Interventions: Market InformationNon-Financial Interventions: Demand PromotionNon-Financial Interventions: Technology Development & AdoptionNon-Financial Interventions: National Energy PlanningNational Approaches to Electrification – Finance Page.png]]



Finance: Forms of funding used to finance electricity access




Private Finance

Definition:

Finance provided by investors or lenders in the expectation of financial returns (profit).  

Private finance will be input on commercial terms, meaning that the investor or lender will expect to receive returns that exceed the original investment or loan and at a level that reflects the risks involved. Factors considered by financiers may include risks to implementation, delivery and technology performance, risks of cost escalation, market/demand and credit/payment risks, regulatory and macro-economic risks and external risks such as policy framework and weather. Any financier will require clear information on forecast revenues and potential risks before providing funding.  It may be difficult for new electricity businesses working in new markets, and for users without a formal credit-record, to give commercial funders the confidence they require. Finance for electrification may come in the form of equity investment, or capital asset or working capital loans, and may be provided to a business as a whole, to a specific project or to end-users.

Equity - Any equity investment implies partial business ownership, with the investor taking the risk of losing their investment if the electricity venture fails, but also expecting to receive bonus returns if forecast targets are exceeded. Early stage investment in new businesses often relies on finance from entrepreneurial individuals, angel investors or venture capitalists who are willing to take large risks but expect to receive high returns on their investment if it’s successful.

Loans - capital asset loans are used, generally in later stages of business development and on specific projects, to leverage equity investment enabling businesses to scale up and expand their assets. Capital lenders expect repayment of loans over fixed periods and with pre-agreed (fixed or variable) interest rates, so that if profits fall short of forecasts payments are reduced only once equity capital has been exhausted, but if forecasts are exceeded lenders receive no additional benefit.

Working capital- alongside capital investment, most businesses require working capital to bridge the gap between expenditure and receipt of revenues. Working capital is particularly needed by, for instance, solar product businesses, where there may be three months or more between purchase/ import of the product by the business and sale to the end-user.

Sources of finance - Often both international and local finance is required to support electrification – particularly where capital equipment or products are imported. The scale of funding needed for electrification may require international finance, and international financiers may have greater familiarity with, and hence be more comfortable with, some of the issues associated with the energy sector, particularly if their funding is channelled through an international company. However, local private funders will be more familiar with the national context and be more confident in resolving, and hence charge less premium for, risks associated with it. Exchange rate, and hence macro-economic, risks will always be an issue for private financiers where any of the electrification costs are in foreign currency. This issue will be greater where international funding is used to cover more than just import costs, and international funders will be very reluctant to provide finance if repatriation of funds is constrained. 


Internactions wiht other NAE Categories:


Technology


Most national grid systems are constructed using public funds, though private finance can be introduced through privatisation of existing assets, inviting private generators to feed into the national grid, or establishment of distribution/grid-connected mini-grid concessions.  For instance, the introduction of feed-in tariffs (e.g. in Tanzania) has provided the basis for private investment in generation. Mini-grids are more frequently, though by no means always, financed by the private sector since the smaller investment and shorter payback period can reduce the risks and provides a more manageable business opportunity. Stand-alone systems offer even greater opportunities for market-based finance since the relatively short period between purchase and sale to the user means that that only business establishment and a small amount of equipment capital investment is at risk.


Delivery Models


Application of market-based finance, by definition, requires private sector ownership or a public-private partnership (PPP).  PPPs are often an effective way to attract private finance since the public-sector element can offer funding and offset the risk associated with financing of electrification. Any private or PPP financing will require a business model with clear investment requirements and projections of income that provide expected return on investment over an acceptable timeframe, and with acceptable levels of risk and uncertainty. 


Legual Basis


Any private finance provider will consider the legal basis of electrification in terms of the risk profile it presents to them. The lower the risk and the greater certainty, the more likelihood that private finance will be available and at a lower cost. The most fundamental requirement for any private investment in fixed assets is clarity around the legality of operating and selling electricity. This may be provided explicitly through a concession or license, or through a general exclusion of certain types of electricity provision (e.g. mini-grids below a certain size) from the need to be licensed. Without this basic regulatory clarity, and so with the risk that future introduction of regulation may undermine their business and restrict their levels of income, it will be extremely difficult to attract private finance for electrification.


Price/Tariff Regulation


Is a critical factor for private investment in electrification, with inadequate or inappropriate price/tariff regulation often cited as the key barrier to such finance. Whatever form of price/tariff regulation is used the critical requirement is that it is clear and transparent, as without this, private financiers will see a significant risk of political pressure reducing prices or tariffs to the point below which they fail to cover investment costs.


Other Forms of Finance


In many cases some other form(s) of public finance such as grants, subsidies, concessionary loans, tax exemptions or guarantees (to reduce investment risks) will be needed alongside private finance to overcome the lack of user spending power and the high costs of early market development.

User Finance – Charges paid by users provide the means to repay electricity providers’ loans and equity investments and pay interest and return on capital. Where upfront charges are imposed on users, they may in turn seek to borrow to cover these charges and then repay the loan over time.  Alternatively the electricity provider may seek additional finance in order to reduce up-front charges and so minimize barriers to users accessing their services.


Non-Financial Interventions


Most support activities to assist national electrification will reduce the perceived financial risk and so help to attract private sector investment and sustainable market development.  Providing policies and targets, standards and technical assistance for new electrification initiatives will all increase the private financier’s certainty regarding the likely outcomes and so reduce the risk of investment.  Market information, capacity building and customer engagement through promotional activity will all have a similar positive effect.


Advantages and Disadvantages


If private finance is attracted, it can support rapid electrification at a large scale, and can free up public funding to be used for other things. If market conditions are such as to attract purely private finance, this indicates that the electrification process will be self-sustaining without dependence upon external grants or subsidies from the government or donor organisations.  Where customers are able to pay for electricity at a level that allows the supply to be maintained under market conditions, there is no concern over the withdrawal of public funding that may then prevent continued access to electricity. Experience also indicates that involvement of private finance can drive innovation and efficiencies in electrification as in other sectors.

Private finance, however, requires clear evidence that revenues will provide returns on investment, and this may be an insurmountable barrier, particularly for forms of electrification such as grid and mini-grid systems which have high upfront capital costs that will be recovered over long periods (perhaps 20 years). Even where macro-economic conditions are stable, regulatory frameworks and prices/tariffs transparent, and users able to afford electricity, financiers may be reluctant to provide support in the absence of established companies with a track record of performance. Much time and effort may be expended in the attempt to attract sufficient private finance without the required results. Furthermore, private finance is usually more expensive than general government borrowing and this will particularly be the case for programmes that are seen by the financiers as carrying significant levels of risk.


Further Informaiton and Guidance



Relevante Case Studies:



User Finance

Definition:

Finance from charges paid by users for electricity or purchase of  standalone systems, and finance made available to users to pay these charges

Users may pay a fee for connection to the main electricity grid or a mini-grid, for membership of the local customer group for a mini-grid, or purchase of a stand-alone system, flat monthly charges, and/or charges for electricity used. These charges serve to fund the costs of provision of electricity access, ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and costs of extending electricity access. Public subsidies and grants may be used to cover some of the cost and make electricity more affordable to users, but to the extent that private finance has been used to establish the means of energy access or the energy access business, payments from users will be needed to repay the private investment and pay any interest on loans or return on capital.  Where users are required to pay charges up-front this can create a major barrier to access to electricity (even if the user could afford the cost if spread over time).  If users would otherwise be unable to access bank loans or micro-finance to cover these upfront costs, loans may be provided as part of an intervention programme.  Another solution is for the service provider (e.g. the national utility or mini-grid company) to source this funding, either by providing loans themselves, or by structuring their charges to reduce upfront payments. In the case of standalone system providers this may be achieved through pay-as-you-go arrangements where users pay for systems over months or years rather than up-front. For suppliers to reduce up-front charges it will usually be necessary for them to secure additional finance themselves, but this should have a lower cost than individual users borrowing. When planning to provide electricity to target customers, it is thus essential for the supplier to consider how the costs can be both afforded and financed by users. 


Internactions wiht other NAE Categories:


Technology


Grid and mini-grid electricity access has generally been paid for by users through a combination of connection charges, monthly charges and electricity usage charges. Those providers who are able to remove up-front connection fees, recovering investment through ongoing energy charges, have generally seen substantially higher connection rates. Standalone systems have usually in
the past been purchased, with the user bearing the entire cost (other than fuel and maintenance costs) upfront. Increasingly standalone system providers are looking to pay-as-you-go and similar arrangements whereby the user pays for the system over time, or for electricity used, bringing standalone system access more in line with grid and mini-grid access.


Delivery Model

Any delivery model, whether public, private or a PPP partnership will ultimately rely on user payments to cover ongoing costs and fund expansion. Under a public model, part of the funding may come from central public funds, making access more affordable to users, and under a PPP model the same can be achieved through grants and subsidies. The issue of enabling users to finance any up-front costs will remain regardless of the delivery model.


Legual Basis

There is clearly a direct link between user finance and price/tariff regulation arrangements, with the charges to be paid by users being set through any regulatory framework. 

Price/Tariff Regulation


Other Forms of Finance


Private/Market Finance – sufficient user finance is a critical factor for any private sector investor to determine whether there is a sustainable market for electricity consumption.  The affordability of up-front costs and/or monthly payments will determine whether the supply of electricity to any potential customer(s) is a viable business opportunity.  For low-income communities, the supplier may rely upon public sector support to ensure that households can afford the necessary services.  The private finance sector may also be a source of finance for users to cover upfront charges. However, it is in the longer-term interests of the supplier to introduce a level of electricity, together with an appropriate financing mechanism, that the consumer can pay for directly without dependence on external resources.

Grants/Subsidies – Supply of electricity to some groups of the population will require funding in addition to payments that can be made directly by individual users.  Non-commercial funding that does not require any repayment (grants) can be made available from government, or international donors, either to electricity providers to reduce charges or directly to users, and so reduce upfront costs. In a similar way, public sector payments to offset some of the ongoing costs associated with electricity supply (subsidies) can be introduced to increase affordability for users and reduce prices/tariffs charged by providers.

Cross-subsidies – Another option is for electricity provision to some users to be subsidized from charges paid by other (higher income) users, rather than from general public funds.  Cross-subsidization can occur within a single electricity provider’s business (with some degree of cross-subsidization being inherent in any multi-user system) or arrangements for cross-subsidy can be established between electricity businesses. This approach can be effective provided that the balance in numbers between the groups of users is such that electricity can be made affordable for the subsidized group while remaining acceptably priced for those providing the cross-subsidy. 

Tax exemptions – Provide an indirect means of subsidizing electricity costs and so making charges more affordable for users and reducing their need to access finance.

Guarantees – One means of enabling users to access finance is for government or other donor, such as an international development bank, to provide guarantees to micro-finance providers and other potential lenders to encourage them to offer loans to those wishing to access electricity.  


Non-Financial Interventions


Capacity building and technical assistance to electricity providers and regulators may be needed to support design of price/tariff structures and finance arrangements which will increase affordability of electricity access to users. Awareness raising and capacity building to finance providers may also assist them to enter this market and design financial products which lower the barrier of upfront costs to electricity access. Demand promotion is key in enabling users to increase productive use of electricity and allowing providers to reduce per kWh charges and thus making it more affordable to users. User finance may itself be an element in demand promotion programmes, enabling users to access the finance to buy equipment and develop businesses based on electricity use.  


Advantages and Disadvantages


Charges paid by users provide the ultimate source of funding for electricity access. Only if users are able to pay for electricity access, at least in the medium to long-term will it be economically sustainable and cease to be a burden on public and donor funds.   

Providing finance to users has the great advantage of addressing affordability at its source –making additional resources available directly to people in remote areas without the risk of loss to intermediaries.  User finance can often be the catalyst required to bring electricity supplies to low-income customers, thereby stimulating demand for increased supply and so helping to develop a sustainable market.

However, electricity access provision is a long term enterprise and if user-finance is made available on conditions which do not meet user’s needs or for only a short period, then the impact may rather be to undermine any nascent local market that may have been developing.  If user finance is provided without a clear exit strategy and then withdrawn, there is a danger of market disruption and potentially collapse, so long term planning of any user finance is required from the outset. Careful targeting of user finance is essential to ensure a positive impact. User finance is a critical element in electricity provision, both as a source of funding and an area of need, but one which is often disregarded.


Further Informaiton and Guidance



Relevante Case Studies:



Unregulated

For more information on this topic please see the 'Unregulated' Sub-Section on the NAE Legal Basis Page.

References

Authors

Authors: Mary Willcox, Dean Cooper

Acknowledgements

The Review was prepared by Mary Willcox and Dean Cooper of Practical Action Consulting working with Hadley Taylor, Silvia Cabriolu-Poddu and Christina Stuart of the EU Energy Initiative Partnership Dialogue Facility (EUEIPDF) and Michael Koeberlein and Caspar Priesemann of the Energising Development Programme (EnDev). It is based on a literature review, stakeholder consultations. The categorization framework in the review tool is based on the EUEI/PDF / Practical Action publication "Building Energy Access Markets - A Value Chain Analysis of Key Energy Market Systems".

A wider range of stakeholders were consulted during its preparation and we would particularly like to thank the following for their valuable contributions and insights: - Jeff Felten, AfDB - Marcus Wiemann and other members, ARE - Guilherme Collares Pereira, EdP - David Otieno Ochieng, EUEI-PDF - Silvia Luisa Escudero Santos Ascarza, EUEI-PDF - Nico Peterschmidt, Inensus - John Tkacik, REEEP - Khorommbi Bongwe, South Africa: Department of Energy - Rashid Ali Abdallah, African Union Commission - Nicola Bugatti, ECREEE - Getahun Moges Kifle, Ethiopian Energy Authority - Mario Merchan Andres, EUEI-PDF - Tatjana Walter-Breidenstein, EUEI-PDF - Rebecca Symington, Mlinda Foundation - Marcel Raats, RVO.NL - Nico Tyabji, Sunfunder -



NAE Overview Page

Any feedback would be very welcome. If you have any comments or enquires please contact: mary.willcox@practicalaction.org.ukbenjamin.attigah@euei-pdf.org, or caspar.priesemann@giz.de.

Download the Tool as a Power Point: https://energypedia.info/images/a/aa/National_Approaches_to_Electrification_-_Review_of_Options.pptx


►Go to Top