annurev-environ-051112-111930

EG37CH05-Brass ARI 17 September 2012 10:12

Power for Development:A Review of DistributedGeneration Projects in theDeveloping WorldJennifer N. Brass,1 Sanya Carley,1

Lauren M. MacLean,2 and Elizabeth Baldwin11School of Public & Environmental Affairs and 2Department of Political Science,Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405; email: [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012. 37:10736

First published online as a Review in Advance onAugust 28, 2012

The Annual Review of Environment and Resourcesis online at environ.annualreviews.org

This articles doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-051112-111930

Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1543-5938/12/1121-0107$20.00

Keywords

energy policy, electrication, renewable energy, collaborativegovernance, DG, developing countries

Abstract

The paradigm for providing affordable electricity for the worldspoorpower for developmenthas begun to change. Historically,centralized governments built large consolidated power plants anddistribution and transmission lines with the ultimate goal of providingelectricity to all of their citizens. It has become increasingly common inrecent decades, however, for donors, nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), rms, and communities to collaborate with governmentsto develop small-scale localized energy systems known as distributedgeneration (DG) either as complements or alternatives to centralizedoperations. DG programs have been implemented around the worldbut with a mixed record of success. Based on an analysis of theexisting case study literature, we examine DG program goals and out-comes, identifying major factors that affect these outcomes, includingappropriately chosen technology, adequate nancing and paymentarrangements, ongoing end users involvement, and supportive nationalpolicies. We highlight the importance of institutions for collaborativegovernance in the pursuit of these factors.

107

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION:OPPORTUNITIES ANDCHALLENGES OFDISTRIBUTEDGENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

METHODOLOGICALAPPROACH FOR ANALYSISOF CASE STUDYLITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

OVERVIEW OF DESCRIPTIVEDATA AND RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . 111Critiques of the Existing Case

Study Literature: Issues withResearch Design and AuthorPerspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

OBJECTIVES ANDOUTCOMES OFDISTRIBUTEDGENERATIONPROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Short-Term Access to

Distributed GenerationTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Long-Term Access toDistributed GenerationTechnology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Short-Term DevelopmentOutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Long-Term DevelopmentOutcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

COMMON FACTORS THATSHAPE DISTRIBUTEDGENERATIONOUTCOMES ON THEGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Appropriate Choice of

Distributed GenerationTechnology and TechnicalPerformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Adequate Financing andPayment Arrangements toManage DistributedGeneration Costs . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Assistance with Financing InitialCapital Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appropriate PaymentArrangements to MeetOngoing Costs ofDistributed GenerationSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Ongoing Involvement of EndUsers and Communities . . . . 124

Supportive GovernmentPolicies and Regulations . . . . 125

Effective Institutions forCollaborative Governance . . 127

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . 129Policy Implications for Future

Distributed GenerationProjects and Programs . . . . . . 131

Implications for FutureResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

INTRODUCTION:OPPORTUNITIES ANDCHALLENGES OF DISTRIBUTEDGENERATION

The paradigm for how to provide affordableelectricity for the worlds poorpower fordevelopmenthas changed over the past twodecades. Historically, highly centralized (and

often authoritarian) governments built large-scale hydroelectric dams and power plants,as well as lengthy distribution and transmis-sion lines, with the ultimate goal of providingelectricity to all of a nations citizens. Today,however, a wide range of actors quietly con-tests this centralized and top-down approach toelectrication. Donors, nongovernmental or-ganizations (NGOs), private-sector rms, and

108 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


communities are collaborating with govern-ments to develop small-scale localized energygeneration systems known as distributed gen-eration (DG). For example, a household mayinstall a set of solar photovoltaic (PV) panelsto provide lighting or a community may usea microhydropowered mill to grind residentsgrain and thus add value to crops. DG is an in-creasingly common alternative or complementto large-scale grid electrication because of itspromise to enhance local decision making, fa-cilitate energy access for the poor, and protectthe environment.

DG systems can range from microgener-ation units of as little as one kW up to threeMW systems (1, 2). Two or more DG units canbe pieced together into a microgrid connectedby low-voltage distribution lines (3). The smallscale and localized placement of these DGapplications allow communities or householdsto tailor energy supply to local demand and em-ploy systems thatmatch their power use, or loadprole, over time in a way that centralized op-tions cannot (4). Electricity loss is minimized,and the signicant costs of grid extension areavoided. Several recent studies have foundthat decentralized electrication can be morecost-effective than grid extension, even forcommunities only 5.4 km from the grid (57).

A variety of energy technologies can powerDG systems, including diesel, distillate oil,natural gas, geothermal, wind, biomass, micro-hydroelectric, solar, or a hybrid combinationof these sources. Our analysis considers bothrenewable and nonrenewable DG resources,although we nd that scholars devote far moreattention to renewable forms of DG. Althoughdiesel generation historically has been commonin areas where grid access is nonexistent orunreliable (8), its drawbacks include noise,emissions, high fuel costs, and inconsistent fuelavailability (9, 10). Renewable forms of DG areincreasingly popular in developing countries,in part, because they avoid many of these prob-lems. Compared to diesel, renewable DG emitsless local air pollution and carbon dioxide.This latter benet is increasingly important todonors; large development institutions like the

World Bank andUnitedNations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) are major funders ofrenewable DG.

DG systems have signicant potential toserve communities without access to the gridcurrently over 20% of the worlds population(11). Many of these communities have fewprospects for grid access because it is simplynot cost-effective for central governments orprivate utilities to serve less-populated, poorcommunities where residents electricity needsare relatively minimal (12). Access is even lesslikely in remote areas, where the costs of gridextension are prohibitive (10, 1315), regard-less of whether the energy provider is publicor private (16, 17). DG offers a way to meetthese users basic needs without incurring thesignicant nancial investment needed for gridinfrastructure extension.

Since the 1970s, many DG projects havebeen implemented to serve different communi-ties around the world. For example, GrameenShakti, a private company connected to theGrameen Bank NGO, installed over a halfmillion solar home systems in Bangladesh asof 2010, nearly 40% of them in 2010 alone(18). State governments in Brazil, likewise,have implemented large-scale DG programsas part of the national governments Lightfor All campaign. Case studies evaluatingthese and other DG projects and programs,however, show signicant variation in DGproject outcomes. Some of these projects andprograms demonstrate that DG systems canprovide poor communities with long-term,sustainable access to electricity (19, 20). Othershave left behind a wake of inoperable systemsin the years after initial installation (21, 22).

Even though some implementers havedocumented lessons learned from past projects(23), there has been little scholarly exami-nation of what constitutes success or failure.Clarifying the DG project goals and outcomesis not merely an academic exercise; it is neededto support a growing DG program evaluationliterature that assesses impacts. Also absent isa scholarly synthesis of the factors that leadto success in particular circumstances. Such

www.annualreviews.org Distributed Generation 109

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


synthesis is necessary because DG projectsoccur in divergent social, cultural, political, andeconomic settings. Thus, despite the growingglobal interest in DG technologies, we lack asystematic understanding of whyDGprogramsare implemented, how they should be assessed,and what factors lead to successful programs.Individual case studies of DG projects contain awealth of knowledge onprecisely these subjects,yet few scholars have attempted to synthesizethis information in a comprehensive manner.

This review provides such a synthesis. Weuse quasi-meta-analysis to examine the existingcase study literature of DG programs in thedeveloping world. This review proceeds asfollows: We (a) present our methodologicalapproach, (b) present a descriptive overview ofthe case study literature, (c) track and comparethe outcomes of interest in the DG case studiesdiscussed, and (d ) examine the primary causalfactors associated with these outcomes to gen-erate hypotheses for future research and policyanalysis. In the conclusion, we summarize ourndings and discuss the implications for policymakers and for future research.

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHFOR ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDYLITERATURE

Our analysis is based on 60 randomly selectedcase studies of DG projects that have been im-plemented in developing countries, publishedin English between January 1995 and Septem-ber 2011, the time of research. We used a widevariety of search terms, including power, elec-tricity (and variants), generation, distributed,decentralized, renewable, diesel, global South,developing countries, rural, urban, NGO,private sector, business, and collaboration. Wecombined these search terms in a systematicmanner, drawing rst from a primary list ofterms and then adding secondary and tertiaryterms aswemoved through iterations of search-ing.We also used the bibliographies of selectedarticles to nd additional DG references.

We chose 1995 as the cutoff publicationdate because anecdotal evidence suggested that

most scholarly research on DG in the 1980sand 1990s focused on the technical feasibilityof DG systems, whereas scholars began toexamine the social, economic, and politicalcontexts that affect DG outcomes beginning inthe late 1990s. By this cutoff year, we capturedas much of this social science literature aspossible. We excluded gray literature producedby government agencies, intergovernmentalorganizations, donors, NGOs, and think tanksand instead relied on literature that has beenvetted through the peer-review process. Ourconcern was that reports written by programimplementers might systematically neglect tostudy project failure or might analyze theirexperiences on the ground less objectively thanan unafliated writer.

We selected research articles that in-corporated some social science componentand did not focus exclusively on engineeringor technology assessments. Unless it alsoincluded a review of an existing DG program,we dismissed feasibility studies, cost-benetanalyses, and prospective studies that usednancial or technical feasibility modelingsoftware, such as HOMER or RETScreen, toestimate results because we were interested inthe on-the-ground implementation experienceof programs.

This search process generated 605 articlespertaining to DG. Of these, we identied 107as case studies, dened as articles that wereprimarily based on the empirical experienceof actual DG installations. We then randomlyselected 60 of the 107 case studies to read andanalyze. These 60 articles were drawn from20 journals representing social and naturalsciences and energy and development foci. The60 case studies are reasonably representative ofthe larger sample of 107 in terms of geographiclocation and type of DG technology, althoughslightly skewed with more cases from Asia andfewer cases from Africa. Our sample, however,may include some bias as our searches wererestricted to articles in English.

To enhance coder reliability, we assignedeach article to be closely read by both a facultyprincipal investigator and a student research

110 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


assistant. We then systematically analyzed eacharticle, focusing on the types of DG technologyused; the geographic location of the project; thetime period of program implementation; thetime period in which research was conducted;the research design of the article includingresearch questions, data collection, and analyticmethods; the energy and developmental out-comes measured; and the political, economic,social, ecological, and technological factorsthat affected the outcomes. The entire researchteam of seven scholars met frequently duringthe analysis of the case study articles to ensurethat the coding scheme was comprehensive,appropriate, and consistently applied.

OVERVIEW OF DESCRIPTIVEDATA AND RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

The 60 case study articles in our sample revealthat DG is implemented and studied in manycountries and in every region of the world. Thedistribution of case studies, however, suggeststhat empirical analysis of DG experiences ismore common in certain countries and regionsthan others. For example, although our sam-ple includes cases from ve continents, half ofour case studies are from Asia (see Figure 1).This might reect more DG activity on theground in Asia, or it may simply show morescholarly interest in the region. Figure 2 iden-ties the countrieswith three ormore case stud-ies in the sample. Notably, over half of theAsian case studies are from India. The relativesize and density of Indias population obviously

Africa22%

Asia50%

Middle East5%

Latin America20%

Other3%

Figure 1Regional distribution of case studies used for thisreview.

inuences the level of DG activity; however, atleast some of these case studies may have beenmotivated by the need to review and evalu-ate government programs and may have beenfacilitated by the level of high-quality universi-ties and research centers in the country.

Just over half of our sample countries areclassied as medium human developmentcountries (52%), according to the UnitedNations Development Programmes HumanDevelopment Index (HDI). This category, thesecond lowest of four classications, includesSouth Africa, India, Thailand, and El Salvadoramong other countries. As with the geographicdistribution of the case studies, the distributionof case studies by HDI may be skewed byIndias inclusion as a medium-HDI country.That said, DG projects do not always take placein a countrys typical socioeconomic context.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16Sri LankaArgentina

South AfricaKenya

IndonesiaThailand

NepalBangladesh

BrazilIndia

Figure 2Frequency of the case studies, used for this review, on key countries.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Solarphotovoltaic

Diesel Hybridsystems

Microhydro Biogas Biomass Wind

Figure 3Percent of case studies focused on various types of distributed generation technology. The total is greaterthan 100% because some cases discuss more than one type of technology.

In low-HDI countries (28% of sample), thecase studies suggest that households with DGsystems tend to have higher incomes and moreeducation than other residents (24). Similarly,in high-HDI countries (20%of sample),NGOsmay choose to implement DG projects inparticularly remote or poor communities (25).

As presented in Figure 3, the case studyarticles in our sample also span a wide range ofDG technologies, including solar PV, micro-and picohydro, diesel generators, wind, biogas,biomass, and hybrid systems. Solar PV units arethe most common form of DG in our sample(78% of cases) and include solar lanterns, solarhome systems, and large PV generators thatsupply multiple households.

These cases describe programs or projectsthat began between 1970 and 2009. The casessuggest that DG projectsor at least scholarlyanalysishave increased signicantly since aturning point in the 1990s. Of the 60 cases, 3began in the 1970s, 6 in the 1980s, 19 in the1990s, and 15 in the 2000s. However, 17 casestudies provide no information on when theproject began. At the year of publication, 37 ofthese projects were ongoing, 8 had denitivelyended, and information for the remaining 15was undisclosed.

Critiques of the Existing Case StudyLiterature: Issues with ResearchDesign and Author Perspective

Although the cases use a wide variety ofresearch approaches, we discovered severalcommon research design and methodologyweaknesses. These weaknesses are not uniqueto case studies on DG. In fact, prominentdonor organizations have bemoaned thewidespread lack of rigorous studies that assessthe impacts of development projects (26, 27).These organizations identify several reasonswhy this evaluation gap persists and recom-mend rigorousmethodological approaches thatare well-suited to the logistical, ethical, andpolitical challenges of development projects(28). Unless these methodologies are widelyadopted, however, project planners will havelittle understanding about which developmentinterventions are most successful, whetherinterventions achieve the desired impacts, andthe conditions that contribute to project suc-cess (27). Our sample of case studies illustratesthis problemthe studies present a wealth ofinformation, but their overall methodologicalweaknesses limit our ability to make denitiveanalytic inferences or draw conclusions aboutthe factors that cause DG success or failure.

112 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


The rst weakness we identied is that asubstantial number of the articles lack some ofthe fundamental elements of empirical socialscience research, such as a clearly articulatedquestion and hypothesis, properly identiedresearch design, transparent methodology,or a systematic approach to causal inference.Thus, a signicant number of the articles donot present a discernible research question(2937), and several others allude to eldworkbut provide no information about the methodsused to gather data (19, 32, 34, 35, 3840).

Second, many case studies have weakresearch designs, which makes it difcult toattribute outcomes solely to the DG project.For example, few studies include a controlgroup of nonusers as a basis for measuring theimpact of DG systems on end users. Similarly,most articles report only posttreatment datafrom end users. Less than one-third of thestudies also report pretreatment data, andmany of these studies use potentially unreliablesources, such as respondent recall or publiclyavailable information. With some noteworthyexceptions (4143), the prevalence of post-treatment research designs with no comparisongroup means that most case studies do notreliably measure the actual changes in peopleslives resulting from DG access.

Third, the majority of survey analyses in oursample rely on the head of the household asthe primary respondent. These surveys neglecttwo potentially important types of information:(a) a female perspective because women gener-ally are not considered the head of the house-hold, and (b) other DG market participantsperspectives because DG projects often involvea wide range of actors. Noteworthy exceptionsinclude the Komatsu survey (41), which speci-cally focuses on womens experiences with solarlanterns, and Acker & Kammen (44), who in-terviewed a Kenyan solar company to get theirperspective on the solar PV market, as well asresidential owners of solar PV systems.

Fourth, the disciplinary background of theauthors is often indiscernible. It is evidentfrom the names of authors home departments,however, that the majority of scholars work

within mechanical or electrical engineering.The remaining disciplines represented in thesample include the natural sciences, politicalscience, public policy, and economics. A keynding from our analysis is that social sciencedisciplines are heavily underrepresented inthis group of randomly sampled case studies,despite our deliberate selection of articles witha social science component.

Finally, the research team coded for possiblepersonal afliation with the projects, using theinformation provided in the authors contactinformation, descriptions of their roles or af-liations in the body of the article, and explicitmention in the acknowledgments section.Any direct sign of afliation was considered apotential source of institutional bias or conictof interest. A surprisingly high percentage ofarticles, approximately 55% of the sample, tinto this category of potential conict of inter-est. This high incidence raises questions aboutauthor objectivity. Although we lack sufcientdata to test whether authors with a conict ofinterest were systematicallymore likely to claimDG project success, we nd that some of thearticles with possible bias made claims aboutDG project success that were unsubstantiatedby the empirical evidence they present (33, 45).While the peer review process increases thelikelihood of objectivity relative to literaturethat is not subject to external independentreview, the potential sources of conict ofinterest remain but are often less transparent.Gray literature authors are often more explicitabout their afliations and potential biases,and indeed, they often write with an expresspurpose to advocate for a particular outcome.

OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMESOF DISTRIBUTED GENERATIONPROGRAMS

One of our initial research goals was to exam-ine the motivations of donors, implementers,and other actors involved in DG programs.By examining these objectives, we hoped todeepen our understanding of how project im-plementers dened and measured successful


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


outcomes. It was surprisingly difcult, however,to identify the actors objectives, analyze vari-ation in their denitions of success, and assesswhether DG projects had been successful.

Many case studies simply do not identifyprogram objectives. As a result, our researchteam members had a high level of intercodervariability in the interpretation of projectobjectives. Some studies, for example, exploreaspects of DG, such as users preferred types ofDGsystem,which are not directly related to theobjectives or outcomes of the underlying DGproject (43, 46). Other studies assess patternsof end-user interactions with DG technologies,such as users ability to maintain systems, orchanges in end users electricity usage overtime (43, 47). Still others document pilottechnologies or innovative methods of dissem-inating DG technologies but do not addressproject objectives or outcomes (30, 40, 4850).Finally, some studies do not focus on singleDGprojects but instead survey multiple users orimplementers about their experiences (51, 52).

Even where studies claim to examineprogram objectives, it is difcult to inferthe implementing actors actual expectationsand motivations. Some studies, for example,introduce a diverse range of potential DG out-comes, but only evaluate one or two in depth.They often choose easy-to-measure metrics,such as increased study time for children whogain electric light, which may not represent thefull range of project objectives. Other studiesprovide insufcient information to distinguishbetween project objectives and an authorsparticular interests. For example, one study of asolar lantern project in India measures the pro-grams impacts on low-caste women (42). It isnot clear, however, whether these women werespecically targeted by the program or were aresearch interest of the authors. Finally, studiesrarely systematically assess whether or not theproject achieved the highlighted objectives.

The lack of explicit attention to objectivesmay reect the fact that many projects havemultiple objectives, particularly those inwhich multiple actors, such as governmentagencies, donors, NGOs, businesses, and local

communities, participate in planning, funding,or implementation. These different actors maynaturally have diverse goals and motivations.For example, in the same project, an interna-tional funder may be interested in reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, a governmentagency might be interested in meeting nationalelectrication goals, and an NGO might beinterested in improving local health and edu-cation outcomes. Indeed, several case studiesimply that funders objectives differ from endusers objectives, particularly regarding envi-ronmental impacts of DG (44, 53). Objectives,moreover, can change over the course of aprogram, especially if it lasts for many years.

Owing to the opacity of DG project objec-tives, we abandoned the notion of dening orassessing project success and instead focused onexamining the range of actual DG outcomes.Most case studies include observations ormeasurements of project outcomes, and severalprovide rigorous evidence from surveys, inter-views, and other eldwork. To gain analyticleverage over the wide range of project out-comes, we developed the typology presentedin Table 1. The typology has two dimensions:(a) whether project outcomes are short orlong term and (b) whether these outcomesrelate to technology access or to developmentbenets. Here, we dene development benetsbroadly to include economic development andimprovements in the quality of life, educationalachievement, health, or environmental condi-tions. Below, we examine the extent to whichthe case studies focus on these broad categoriesof outcomes and identify the way that theseoutcomes are conceptualized and measured inthe case studies. We then address the factorsthat affect these outcomes.

Short-Term Access to DistributedGeneration Technology

Initial access to DG technology is a necessaryprecursor to all other DG outcomes. Accord-ingly, most case studies in our sample discussor measure short-term technical outcomes insome way. The notion of access is conceived

114 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 1 Conceptual typology of outcomes and prevalence in distributed generation case studies

Short term Long termFocus on technology High prevalence in the case study literature:

Number of units installedPercentage of households using technologyInitial comparisons of costs of technology

Medium prevalence in the case study literature:Funding stream over timeUser perception of costs based on long-termexperience

Number of units still operationalNumber of missing unitsProject replicability

Focus on development High prevalence in the case study literature:Household savings on energyNew commercial activitiesIncreased study hours

Low prevalence in the case study literature:Environmental impactsEducational effectsHealth outcomesSocial/cultural changesPolitical consequences

generally as a dichotomous variable: eitherhouseholds or communities adopted the DGtechnology, or they did not. Studies often mea-sure access to electricity as the number of unitsinstalled (31, 42, 45, 47, 54, 55) or as the num-ber of users or percentage of a population thatadopted the technology (37, 44, 5660). Thesemetrics may appeal to program evaluators be-cause they are quantiable in discrete intervalsand can be assessed within months after a DGproject began implementation. Studies of large-scale projects implemented by national gov-ernments or international organizations alsotend to focus on short-term access (45, 54, 55).However, measures of short-term access pro-vide limited information about actual projectoutcomes, and many studies subsequentlyanalyze other outcomes in greater depth.

Cases often explore short-term accessthrough the lens of the end users decision toadopt DG (e.g., 57) by surveying end usersabout the costs and benets of PV systems.Some measure the up-front costs of PV sys-tems, an issue that is particularly relevant whereusers have little access to credit (e.g., 24).Others compare the average energy expenses ofDG users and nonusers. Here, results suggestthat energy savings is variable and context spe-cic. In two case studies, survey evidence showsthat solar PV users have lower household en-ergy expenses than nonusers who rely primar-ily on kerosene (41, 42). Other studies reach

different conclusions, for example, nding thatPV users pay more for lighting, but alsoenjoy the benets of convenience and betterlight quality (61).

A few articles focus on the more nuanceddimensions of the sufciency or quality of ac-cess to electricity. For example, Agoramoorthy& Hsu (42) show that, in 70% of the villages inthe DG project area, grid access provides insuf-cient power in the hours before dawn and afterdusk. Several other studies nd that DG usersincrease electricity consumption over time, sothat systems that were initially sufcient maybecome insufcient in subsequent years (e.g.,43). Others question whether the amount ofvoltage generated by DG projectsor by thegriductuates (60, 62). Toomuch uctuationin voltage makes a system unreliable and dif-cult to use.

Long-Term Access to DistributedGeneration Technology

Not all DG projects continue to provide elec-tricity access over time. Whereas most casestudies assess project outcomes less than veyears after installation, a small number of casestudies revisit projects after a more extendedperiod of operation to assess the systemstechnical performance (15, 22, 34, 44, 63).

These studies show that the long-term tech-nical sustainability varies considerably between


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


DG projects. For example, an Indonesian casestudy found that, nine years after installation,virtually all of the solar home systems inan Indonesian village were in good workingcondition (20). In contrast, the case study inves-tigating one of the longest-running projects, aPV project begun in Thailand in the late 1980s,is also one of the most pessimistic in its tone;Green (22) reveals that 60% of the projectssolar home systems were no longer operationalafter ten or more years of use, leading herto pejoratively term the projects systems aswhite elephants in the articles title.

The most frequent measure of long-termtechnical sustainability is a simple eld assess-ment of whether DG systems are operational(20, 22, 44). However, PV systems in particularmay be functional but operate below capacityowing to problems with batteries or other sys-tem components. Accordingly, several surveysassess long-term access in more nuanced ways,such as checking a systems technical compli-ance against the project specications (64) orsurveying long-time users about their personalsatisfaction with systems (24, 44).

Some articles also discuss nontechnicalaspects of long-term DG access. Severalarticles document innovative pilot hybriddiesel-biomass and -biogas projects in remoteIndian villages, which operated successfully forover ten years with few outages (e.g., 65). Afollow-up article, however, shows that someprojects have been discontinued, not due totechnical failure, but rather owing to problemswith the nancial viability of these systems oncegrid access became available (66). Similarly,Zerrif (67) questions the long-term nancialsustainability of the business model for utility-run DG projects in Brazil, which mandatesuniversal access to electricity at low pricesfor rural users, requiring utilities to operateat a loss and ultimately requiring signicantsubsidies from the Brazilian government.

Short-Term Development Outcomes

Although almost every study discusses develop-ment outcomes in some way, very few measure

or systematically evaluate development out-comes. In some cases, development benets aredescribed briey and in overly general terms,suggesting that the author simply assumes thesebenets will materialize once DG systems areinstalled (29, 34, 45, 57, 65, 68). For exam-ple, Claus (29, p. 22) claims that DG resultedin health advantages, for women and childrenin particular and income-generating activitieswere initiated as a result of the project.

A minority of case studies provides empir-ical evidence about the range of short-termbenets from DG projects. Roughly ten casestudies survey or interview users about theirexperiences with DG systems and consistentlynd that users perceive improvements in theirquality of life due to DG. Survey evidenceshows that DG users have more access to tele-vision, radio, and cell phones, and enjoy moreopportunities for entertainment and socializing(69, 70).

Educational impacts are frequently studied,usually conceptualized as the increase in studytime afforded by better quality and durationof light. Although many case studies vaguelycite an increased opportunity to study in theevenings (22, 32, 44, 57, 58, 63), the survey nd-ings from a handful of studies reinforce eachother, suggesting that children in householdswith DG systems study between 1.26 hours to2.25 hours more per day compared to house-holds without electricity access (41, 42, 61). Asmall number of studies also provide evidencethat DG helps villages attract, retain, and sup-port better teachers. For example, Alazraki &Haselip (56) nd that 63%of teachers can teachmore effectivelywith the ability to use new toolsin the classroom, such as television and radio.Teachers can also use DG lighting to preparefor the next days classes and hold more parent-teacher conferences. Banerji &Baruah (32) ndgreater access to educational resources for bothchildren and adults.

The case studies provide evidence that DGhas short-term impacts on women. Surveyresults show that DG access extends womensmorning and evening working hours (61).Other studies observe that DG can reduce

116 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


women and girls workloads; for example, whenDG use displaces fuelwood use or provideselectricity for water pumps, women and girlsdo not need to gather fuelwood or haul water(63, 69). These benets, however, generally re-quire DG systems that do more than merelypower lights.

DG use might also improve short-termhealth outcomes, particularly for women. Forexample, in one case study, 21% of respondentson an island in West Bengal, India, report thattheir family members suffered from eye prob-lems that could have been avoided by usingelectric power (61). In addition, other DG casestudy authors hypothesize that reducing indoorair pollution could also reduce the incidence ofrespiratory illness and the risk of burns and in-jury fromkerosene res, particularly forwomen(55, 57).

Even though many case studies claim thatDG creates new economic opportunities, theempirical evidence is mixed. Several studiesshow that DG allows shopkeepers and womento extend their evening working hours, but fewassess whether this actually increases economicgains (41, 61). For example, Chakrabarti &Chakrabarti (61) nd that 46% of respondentsreported a longer period of time available fortrade and business but do not explore whetherthis boosts sales volume or incomes. A hand-ful of studies observe that community-basedbiogas plants or microhydroplants add value toagricultural production by providing power forirrigation, our milling, and coffee hulling (35,65) but donot assess any resulting changes in in-come. Several studies refer to new jobs createdby the DG projects themselves (29, 71), fromthe possibility of selling certied emissions re-ductions to industrialized nations (72) or froman increase in tourism and the subsequent de-mand for handicrafts (32, 62), but these claimsare not backed by evidence. Only Kirubi et al.(73) systematically measure economic gains,showing that access to DG microgrid electric-ity resulted in substantial productivity and grossrevenue gains for small enterprises in Kenya.

Meanwhile, several authors dispute the linkbetween DG provision and new economic

opportunities, particularly with solar PVprojects (22, 56, 60, 74). For example, Green(22) nds that businesses using solar PV cannotstay open later when the energy produced is in-sufcient to power necessary equipment, suchas sewing machines at night. Similarly, Hajatet al. (47) suggest that new economic opportu-nities are constrainedby the limitedor intermit-tent nature of solar PV, which may not provideenough power to run refrigeration units.

The studies rarely explore the questionof whether DG differentially affects users bysocioeconomic class. Several studies nd thatDG users frequently have higher incomes thanaverage residents (42, 44). Two studies providesurvey evidence, however, that low-incomepeople experience the benets of DG indifferent ways than higher-income people.Agoramoorthy & Hsu (42) survey end usersof solar lanterns and nd that users belowthe poverty line experience smaller increasesin study time compared to users above thepoverty line. Bhandari & Jana (46) nd thatlow-income households generally prefer solarminigrid systems to solar home systems, in partbecause, although theminigrid systems provideless electricity to individual homes, they alsoimpose fewer costs on end users. Preliminaryevidence from other case studies suggeststhat low-income users may receive greaterbenets from community-wide systems thatprovide access to all users, regardless of income(66).

Long-Term Development Outcomes

Manycase studiesmention thepotential forDGto improve long-term development outcomes,such as environmentally sustainable use ofnatural resources; improved levels of healthand education; and social, cultural, or politicaldevelopment. Even though these potentialbenets from DG are often mentioned in casestudy introductions, very few of the case studiesexplicitly measure or explore these benetsin greater depth. This dearth of long-termdevelopment evaluations is likely caused, atleast in part, by the practical challenge of


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


evaluating lasting impacts of a specic projector program. Researchers who want to deter-mine the causal impacts of a program must paycareful attention to research design and sampleselection, and they need to assess the outcomesof interest both before and after the program isimplemented, with an understanding of a coun-terfactual. Limited resources might reducesome researchers ability to undertake this kindof long-term causal assessment of outcomes.Nonetheless, our case study selection processwas designed to identify not only small-scalecase studies, but also large-scale reviews ofDG efforts across both time and space, and wefound few articles that provided meaningfulevidence or discussion about the long-termbenets of DG. The lack of assessment ofenduring development outcomes shows thatthis is an important gap that remains to belled in the DG literature.

Most case studies refer to the environmentalbenets of DG, as one would expect given thatmuch of the enthusiasm from scholars, policymakers, and politicians for DG stems from therenewable technologies that emit little or nocarbon dioxide. Indeed, some of the largestDG donors, such as the Global EnvironmentalFacility, are specically interested in fundingprojects that promote environmentally sus-tainable pathways for economic development.Despite the focus of DG donors, surprisinglyfew studies provide evidence about the actualenvironmental impacts of DG projects. Thismaybe becausemost case studies are toonarrowin scope, both geographically and temporally,to accurately measure long-term environ-mental impacts, particularly regarding globalenvironmental problems like climate change(75, 76).

Local environmental impacts receiveslightly more attention, with a tendency tofocus on local air quality (31, 63, 65). However,only one case study systematically measures thelocal environmental impact of DG projects,by comparing local emissions of pollutantsfrom an aging diesel DG system with a newhybrid solar-diesel system (70). A handful of

studies estimate the household cost savingsfrom avoided kerosene use but do not attemptto assess any corresponding environmentalbenet, whether local or global (42).

A small number of case studies identify re-duced deforestation as a DG project objective,albeit with little evidence showing reduced de-forestation rates (65, 77). Moreover, some casestudies suggest that the electricity produced byDG is rarely used for cooking, does not offsetthe use of wood for preparing food, and thusis unlikely to reduce deforestation signicantly(44).

Given donor interest in environmentalsustainability, it is surprising that so few casestudies in our sample seek to measure envi-ronmental effects of DG. Some case studies,however, explicitly state that DG projects are,and should be, motivated primarily by devel-opment concerns rather than environmentalbenets. For example, two case studies fromAfrica conclude that the environmental benetsfrom DG in Africa are too minimal to providethe sole justication for DG projects and tech-nologies (44, 78). Likewise, a survey of PVusersin Kenya nds that only 3% report interest inthe environmental benets of DG (44). Thesendings echo a broader concern that poor na-tions with low historic greenhouse gas emissionlevels should be allowed to focus on economicdevelopment, without simultaneously seekingemission reductions (79).

Other long-termdevelopment outcomes aresimilarly understudied. Many case studies mea-sure short-term impacts on education, yet onlyone study evaluates long-term changes in theseoutcomes, nding that student enrollment andcompletion rates increased after the installationof the DG system (69). That study, however,relies on participants perceptions of changesin educational outcomes over time, withoutcontrolling for other factors that might havecontributed to the change. An increase innighttime study hours may result in longer-term educational outcomes, such as primaryand secondary school enrollment, retention,and completion rates, but the case studies lack

118 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


adequate information to prove a causal connec-tion between DG and long-term educationaloutcomes.

Health outcomes receive even less attentionthan education, despite ubiquitous referencesto them in the case study introductions.Even though survey respondents often reportdecreases in burns and respiratory illness,only one case study attempts to measure thelong-term health effects from DG, againrelying on end users perceptions of changes intheir health over time (69). A number of casestudy authors do, however, hypothesize aboutlong-term health effects. Some authors offerthat outdoor lighting could improve security,particularly for women and the elderly, andreduce petty theft and violent crime (44, 57,58). Others discuss the potential for electric-powered water pumps to enhance watersanitation and reduce bacterial illness (35, 58,63), possibly contributing to lower infant andunder ve-year-old mortality rates. Authorsalso posit that DG could provide uninterruptedpower to health care clinics and hospitals (32,58, 61), enabling the refrigeration of vaccinesand operation of surgical equipment, whichhas the potential to boost vaccination rates andlower maternal mortality rates. None of theseclaims are systematically measured, however;hence, these long-term health effects remainunsubstantiated.

Another long-term development outcomeof DG highlighted in the case studies involveslong-term social and cultural change. Severalcase studies describe a spillover effect toneighbors and others in the community fromthe increased availability of entertainment inwell-lit community centers or on the radio andtelevision in peoples homes. In most cases,the consequences are considered positive,for example, raising peoples self-esteem,strengthening social networks, and energizingthe celebration of community traditions andfestivals (32, 55, 56, 60). Only two studies notea negative effect on childrens attention (41) orthe vitality of traditional activities and culturalidentities (48). Several of these changes have

distinct implications for gender relations. Elec-tricity in community centers provides womenwith a safe place to congregate, facilitatingtheir economic independence and empoweringthem with greater social support (32).

Finally, the consequences for politics arelong-term development outcomes that arealmost never mentioned. Two case studiesrather obliquely suggest that more televisionand radio might increase peoples knowledgeabout current events (44, 57). Such enhancedcivic education might invigorate politicalparticipation and lead citizens to hold theirpoliticians accountable. Likewise, the preva-lence of community- or group-based solutionsmight increase civil society levels, which areassociated with greater democracy.

Expanded communication and governanceactivity at the local level might further increasecitizen empowerment. For example, numerousDG projects involve local ownership andcapacity building. In several case studies, anNGO worked with local communities to installa community-wide system in which a sharedDG plant provides energy either to commonpublic facilities or to all households in thevillage (32, 54, 59). Often, the local communityeventually assumes responsibility for the DGfacilities, providing new opportunities for localcitizens to self-govern and to plan the futurecourse of economic development in theircommunity. In other cases, DG projects aredesigned to attract local entrepreneurs, whowill eventually create businesses providingand maintaining DG systems (43, 80). Thispotential for citizen empowerment might alsolead to greater demands for accountabilityfrom donors, corporations, NGOs, and state,regional, and national governments. Few of thecase studies provide any long-term assessmentof whether these systems actually build localcapacity, and in at least one case, governanceresponsibility is later assumed by a govern-ment agency (66). None of these long-termoutcomes for citizenship have been explored asof yet but certainly merit investigation in thefuture.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


COMMON FACTORS THATSHAPE DISTRIBUTEDGENERATION OUTCOMESON THE GROUND

Just as the case studies describe a variety ofprogram outcomes, they also explicitly identifya wide range of factors that inuence theseoutcomes. We examine these causal factorsto identify patterns associated with particularDG outcomes. A handful of themes emerge onthe necessary components for success, whichinclude the following:

Appropriately chosen technology to teach context;

Adequate nancing and payment ar-rangements at both the program level andthe individual energy system level;

Ongoing involvement of end users inDGproject planning, installation, monitor-ing, regulation, and maintenance;

Supportive government policies andregulations related to program develop-ment and implementation; and,

Effective institutions for collaborativegovernance.

The above themes emerge repeatedly acrossthe case study articles, yet there are differentpatterns in the way that these themes operate,depending upon the technology implementedand contextual factors, such as geographic re-gion or ranking on the UN HDI. For exam-ple, a DG project using solar home systemscould require more end-user participation inmaintenance than a community biogas system.Similarly, micronance or payment arrange-ments may be most important in low-HDIcountries, where most potential end users haveno access to formal credit institutions. On thebasis of these patterns, we develop several hy-potheses, described at the end of each themeexplanation, about the factors that are asso-ciated with successful DG project outcomesunder different contexts.

Systematic empirical testing of thesehypotheses, using appropriate rigorous andcomparative methods, would provide valuableinformation to a range of actors seeking to

improve DG projects, programs, and policies.Below, we discuss the ways that these vethemes are identied in the cases, and we gen-erate hypotheses for future empirical testing.

Appropriate Choice of DistributedGeneration Technology andTechnical Performance

Poor technical performance ofDG systems fre-quently poses a challenge to successful projects.Unreliable, inadequate, or difcult to use sys-tems may also undermine long-term projectsuccess. Technologies that are perceived as un-reliable or inadequate are unlikely to be adoptedby end users (46), and when DG systems per-form poorly, existing users may become dis-satised and refuse to pay agreed-upon tariffs(22, 25).

The case studies suggest that the likelihoodof poor performance is reduced when projectplanners appropriately select DG technologiesthat match the natural and social characteristicsof the community. Natural resource endow-ment is important for technological choice andperformance, particularly when energy is de-rived from renewable sources that are sourcedon site. For example, a sunny climate withhigh solar incidence is a prerequisite for so-lar PV DG. Obstructions and shading can re-duce optimal performance (22), and weatherpatterns can hinder the reliability of the sys-tems. For example, solar panels are not veryproductive during rainy seasons, and hydrosys-tems may not work at all during droughts (20,60). Some DG projects address these resourceand weather constraints by using hybrid sys-tems,where two technologies complement eachother to satisfy the full and uctuating load(32, 59). Several authors highlight the need togather detailed information about local condi-tions to choose the best-matched technology(20, 57).

The way that end users interact with DGtechnologies is also important.Unlike grid elec-tricity, which in principle comes in an un-wavering supply, energy from DG is limitedin quantity and often intermittent, and users

120 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


must adjust their consumption accordingly (37).Several authors focus on the interaction be-tween energy supply and demand with solarPV systems, which often operate by chargingbatteries. For example, although smaller bat-teries may be sufcient to provide lighting,larger batteries potentially could provide light-ing, income-generating activities, and powerTVs and radios (22). Authors nd that whenbatteries are not big enough for the load de-mand, they frequently operate at full load shed(i.e., where the battery is in overuse), whichshortens battery life (47). While these studiesexplain that users must limit their electricityconsumption, studies of users actual consump-tion also show that households tend to increasetheir demand over time, until total energy de-manded matches or exceeds total supply (37,43). A small number of cases, however, suggestthat community-scale DG projects are mostcost-effective when used at or near full capacity(e.g., 62).

The case study articles also highlight con-sumers need for convenient DG access. Thendings of dos Santos&Zilles (25) demonstratethat inconvenient DG technology can lead towidespread dissatisfaction by end users and theeventual failure of the DG program. In thiscase study in the state of Alagoas, Brazil, userswere required to carry heavy 25-kg batteries torecharging stations multiple times per week. Itis not clear whether end users were involved inthis technology choice, but as the program wasimplemented, users became unwilling to payfor the inconvenient technology.

In light of these technical constraints,projects should be designed to meet reason-able demands of citizens and communities forelectric power. Some case studies suggest thatproject developers should consider whether theDG system is large enough to meet currentneeds, as well as whether the system can bescaled up to meet rising demand over time(37, 48). Others suggest that, at the very least,project implementers should ensure that endusers understand performance limitations ofDG systems, so that users can tailor theirusage accordingly.

The above analysis suggests three testablehypotheses. First, projects thatmeaningfully in-volve end users in choosing DG technologiesare more likely to achieve long-term technicalsuccess than other projects. Second, projectsthat account for natural resource endowmentin the selection and design of the DG systemwill achieve greater technical success with theunit.Third, community-wide systems or hybridsystems that providemore consistent electricitymay be more successful at achieving economicdevelopment outcomes.

Adequate Financing and PaymentArrangements to Manage DistributedGeneration Costs

The case study articles reveal the importance ofadequate nancing and payment arrangementsto manage the costs of implementing DGprograms. Purely prospective feasibility studiesthat compare estimated costs were excludedfrom the case studies selected, but several casestudies in our sample compare the actual costsof grid electrication, diesel generation, andrenewable energy DG. Grid electrication isoften (though not always) less expensive perkilowatt hour owing to economies of scale (81,82). Experience over time, however, suggeststhat grid extension is unlikely to becomeavailable to the worlds isolated, rural poor inthe near future. Diesel generators typically costtwo to three times more per kilowatt hour thangrid electricity and are susceptible to uctuat-ing fuel costs. In comparison, renewable DGsystems are often cost competitive with dieselper kilowatt hour but pose higher up-frontcosts to end users (42, 61). Thus, one of themajor challenges of DG projects is helping endusers overcome this initial cost hurdle.

Assistance with Financing InitialCapital Costs

Over 75% of our sample cases discuss as-sistance with initial capital costs. Authorsmention loan mechanisms most frequently, butdonations of equipment and labor, as well as


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


subsidies for DG, are also discussed. Financialassistance comes from a wide range of actors.Governments provide some form of capitalcost assistance in over half of the cases. NGOsplay a nancial role in about 20% of the cases,usually as micronanciers, and about 20% ofarticles describe either donor or private-sectornancing. These sources are not mutuallyexclusive; multisource funding is common. In aproject inMorocco, for example, an NGO paidfor capital costs, and the community end usersnanced the installation costs (59). Many casestudies do not clearly explain where fundingcomes from, however, or whether assistance isin the form of donations or loans. Nonetheless,we draw some basic conclusions about capitalassistance below.

Loans and donor funds are the mostcommon way to nance the capital costs ofDG projects and thus enable local governmentagencies or NGOs to initiate DG programs.Large donors, such as the World Bank orbilateral foreign aid agencies, often makefunds for subsidized loans available to DGproject implementers, which are usually NGOsor government agencies (55, 68). Europeandonor countries sometimes provide funding,although the case studies often do not clarifywhether such funds are interest-free donationsor loans. Private banks sometimes provide DGprogram funding (55, 80), but these loans areless common and sometimes difcult to obtain,particularly for small or local actors. InRwanda,for example, implementing microbusinessesfailed to obtain loans until a multilateraldevelopment bank partially guaranteed them(80). NGOs also sometimes directly fund DGsystems or provide in-kind assistance withinstallation and training (35, 41, 42, 55, 57).

Developing country governments also assistDG project implementers with capital fund-ing. For example, in Brazil, India, Thailand,and South Africa, the government directly sub-sidized the capital costs of DG systems (22,54, 56, 57, 83). National governments some-times provide loans to local NGOs or to util-ity companies that implement programs, par-ticularly in medium- or high-HDI countries.

Governments also connect program imple-menters with nanciers (43) or administerdonor loans (55, 68).

Financing schemes for end users are also im-portant to disseminate DG systems widely andto ensure that community members with lim-ited incomes have access to DG systems. Gov-ernments, NGOs, and private energy compa-nies frequently offer micronance loan pack-ages or repayment options to end users (e.g.,33). Without some of these lending mecha-nisms and subsidies, PV systems would likelyremain in the hands of relatively wealthy indi-viduals (68). Thus, nancing schemes should bedesigned carefully; they must match end usersability to pay, and payment methods must bereasonably convenient.Where nance arrange-ments do not suit end users needs, projectsmayounder because of low uptake (57) or low ratesof payment (21). Additional problemsmay arisewhen the entity implementing the programdoes not share the donors social objectives. Inone case study, for example, the governmentagency administering DG loans systematicallyexcluded certain users from receiving funds, de-spite donors wishes to target these users (55).

Becausemany case studies donot includede-tailed information about lending mechanisms,it is difcult to predict the patterns that are re-lated to success or failure. Nonetheless, severalhypotheses emerge that deserve further empir-ical testing. First, access to micronance/creditimproves user uptake rates, especially in low-HDI countries and poor communities withless-developed credit institutions. Second, theactor that administers credit programs, e.g., agovernment agency, local NGO, or interna-tional donor, may be associated with signicantdifferences in either short-term rates of dissem-ination or long-term rates of technical success.

Appropriate Payment Arrangementsto Meet Ongoing Costs of DistributedGeneration Systems

Although initial capital costs are the biggestDG project expense, other costs includeongoing administrative, programmanagement,

122 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and system maintenance costs. In our sample,however, less than half of the authors explic-itly discuss postinstallation program funding.Broader program funding often comes fromnational government ministries responsible forelectrication programs, usually in combina-tion with funds from a bilateral partner (7,47) or a multilateral donor agency, such asthe Global Environmental Facility, the WorldBank, or the UNDP (9, 36, 56, 68, 72). Authorsalso discuss NGOs and the private-sector pro-grammatic funding (7, 35, 36, 38, 45, 48, 55).

In most projects, end users pay for their on-going costs and/or a portion of capital coststhrough fees and usage tariffs. In projects withlimited donor funding, end users ability to payfor ongoing costs is crucial to program suc-cess. Despite early concerns that remote andpoor communities would be unable to pay forDG systems (55), the consensus in the litera-ture now is that the poor are willing to pay.Indeed, in some cases, they pay many timesmore than their less-remote compatriots (70)or than they pay for nonelectric energy sources(29). For similar reasons, end users sometimesprefer the higher up-front costs of renewableDG systems if it will save money in the longrun (61, 84). In other cases, end users arewilling to pay but prefer at access fees toper kilowatt hour tariffs because at access feesfacilitate budget planning, which is especiallyimportant for the very poor (31, 63, 65, 80). Intwo studies, however, demand for community-based DG electricity decreased considerablywhen the community switched from a at-feefor (unlimited) access to a fee-for-use system(9, 58). While fee-for-use systems more ef-fectively align consumers demand with theirwillingness to pay, the introduction of metersmeasuring actual usage in these communitiesmeant that some households had been consum-ing more electricity than they could affordthus the decrease in total demand.

Nonetheless, there are many projects inwhich end users are unable or unwilling to pay.When end users believe that their communitywill soon be connected to the national grid, pay-ment rates may decrease (59). Customers are

unwilling to pay when costs are simply too highfor local incomes (54, 59) and when project im-plementers fail to adequately maintain systems(21, 22). The case studies also reveal importanttrade-offs between the short- and long-term feestructures and short- and long-term DG suc-cess. Low prices might facilitate the initial up-take decision (24, 44), especially by the poor,but if low fees translate into poor installationquality or lack of maintenance, users willing-ness to pay diminishes (21, 22, 25). If many endusers refuse or are unable to pay, the projectcannot collect enough revenue to maintain andcontinue the system, and the DG systems mayeventually fall into disrepair and disuse.

End users willingness to pay also dependsupon the ability of the DG system to meetparticular local needs, which vary both acrossand within communities. Relatively poor in-dividuals and communities tend to prefer thatprograms install minigrids or community-levelprograms, whereas wealthier individuals tendto implement single-family solar home systems(29, 32, 41, 46). On the one hand, minigridsallow the very poor to spread the installationcosts among several users. Solar home systems,on the other hand, are relatively easy to tailor toperceived load demand at the time of purchase,making them cost-effective for those who canafford them.

The above discussion about payment ar-rangements leads us to at least two hypothesesfor future testing. First, projects with multiplepayment options are likely to have signicantlygreater DG dissemination. Second, we buildon our earlier hypothesis that end-user involve-ment in selection of technology is associatedwith long-term technical success. Here, weadd that these end users are more likely tobe satised with DG performance and to payconsistently when they are involved in programdecision making, which, in turn, ensures fund-ing for the ongoing maintenance that is crucialto long-term technical success. In the followingsection, we analyze the need for the ongoinginvolvement of end users, not only in nancialarrangements, but also at each stage of DGprojects.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ongoing Involvement of End Usersand Communities

The rst two themes, on the appropriate choiceof technology and the development of suit-able nancial assistance and fee structures, bothdemonstrate the critical need to involve endusers in DG systems. End-user involvement isfrequently cited as an important factor for suc-cess, and, conversely, failure to involve localcommunities and end users is frequently asso-ciated with problems in the case studies. Eventhough most studies emphasize end-user in-volvement in particular phases of the project,often the planning or maintenance stages, asmall minority of studies identify the need toinvolve end users in all stages of DG projectimplementation (85).

Preproject planning. In any DG project,some actor(s) must propose an idea and beginplanningwhen, where, and how technologywillbe used. Sometimes, government agencies con-duct feasibility assessments (7, 84) and selectsuitable sites to test niche or emerging tech-nologies (63, 65). In other cases, particularlywhere governments may have fewer resourcesto devote to these activities, donors conduct theassessments and high-level planning (45, 55, 57,60). Regardless of who initiates planning, thecase studies demonstrate that community andend-user involvement is vital in the very ear-liest stages. Several studies discuss the impor-tance of community input in the preinstallationphases when technology is selected and nanceschemes are developed. Although only a smallnumber of DG projects engaged users in thisway, several studies suggest that this type of in-volvement would have avoided later dissatisfac-tion with DG systems (19, 21, 48, 54, 59, 86).

Dissemination and diffusion of distributedgeneration. Beyond the planning stage, sev-eral studies report an important role for localcommunity members in disseminating infor-mation about DG projects. This is particularlyimportant in top-down approaches to DG inwhich international or national actors seek to

disseminate DG systems to end users, and theproject depends upon these end users choosingto adopt the systems. In this phase, end-userinvolvement operates in two ways. First,community members buy in to the program.Without a meaningful role in the project, po-tential usersmay see it as belonging tooutsiders,and community acceptance of projects may below (34). Second, community members are animportant source of information for individualsconsidering using a DG system; many projectsuse a local NGO, community leader, or otherorganization to provide information aboutDG technologies to end users. Where DGprograms fail to reach as many homes as hoped,studies suggest that greater use of communitysocial networks could have boosted awarenessand increased dissemination of programs (54).

Installation. Community members are alsooften involved in DG installations, whichrequire technical competence. Unlike provi-sion of capital costs, however, installation andimplementation are likely to be done by localactorsgovernment electricity companies orother technology-oriented agencies, privatecompanies, NGOs, or local community mem-bers who have been trained in DG installation.The case studies suggest that communitymembers are often involved in installation forpilot programs or small projects that receivelittle government or donor support (31, 32,48). NGOs in particular often work closelywith end-user communities (36, 57, 63, 65),though they are occasionally critiqued for be-ing unsuccessful at it (34), and provide trainingat the local level (35, 44, 57, 62). In some cases,however, NGOs or government agencies cre-ate private enterprises to install and maintainDG systems, particularly in places where localbusinesses do not already ll this role (43).

Local ability to provide ongoing monitor-ing, maintenance, and repair. The mostfrequently mentioned roles for end users andthe community are in the routine maintenanceand repair of DG systems. DG technolo-gies, like most power plants and consumer

124 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


appliances, usually require some maintenanceand repair during their functional life (22, 29,60, 62). Particular technologies have specicmaintenance requirements: Diesel generatorsrequire regular replacement of lters and belts,whereas regular maintenance of PV systemsnecessitates deeper knowledge of the way asystem works. To maximize performance,users must stay within system limits, clean thesystem, replace components, and keep batteriesfrom discharging (47). Over the long term, it isimportant to designate specic actors or organi-zations for the oversight of routine monitoring,maintenance, and repair services of the DGunits (29, 62), and local capacity is frequentlyconsidered important to success (43, 52).

There is some evidence to suggest that whenusers purchase and install their own systems,they aremore successful atmaintenance (24). Inmany cases, local people are trained in mainte-nance of DG systems, particularly where com-munity systems are shared (32, 65). Whereprivate rms are actively involved in promot-ing DG, these enterprises also frequently pro-vide training for skilled technicians and elec-tricians (19, 44), businessmen (80), and endusers on how to use and maintain the sys-tems (57). In several cases without preexist-ing DG entrepreneurs, these projects trainnew entrepreneurs to develop these skills. Thesuccess of such projects, however, is limitedwhere demand for DG systems is low or wherethe project does not create adequate paymentmechanisms (68). This local maintenance maywork in conjunction with maintenance pro-vided by an NGO or private businesses (19).The preexisting availability of locally trainedtechnicians may also be important because sev-eral case studies suggest that failure rates of PVsystems are higher in areas where there is littleor no local competence inPVmaintenance (45).

Maintenance can pose a dilemma, however,for DG program implementers. Where thereare few DG users in the region, it may be dif-cult to pay for outside professionalmaintenanceor for adequate training (57, 59). There are alsopotential problems with exclusionary training,particularly when women, who may be more

likely to rely on the systems, are not trained intheir maintenance and use (22). Furthermore,DG success may be limited by the availabilityand quality of replacement parts, particularlyin areas where there is little commercial infras-tructure forDG (60).Where there is little or nolocal capability for maintenance by end users,DG equipment failure may go uncorrected andfall into disuse (22).

We hypothesize that end-user involvementis important at all stages of DG project imple-mentation and that projects that meaningfullyinvolve end users in more stages will experiencegreater long-term technical success. We alsohypothesize that existing networks of trainedDG mechanics are associated with long-termsuccess.

Supportive Government Policiesand Regulations

Although the case study literature rarely elu-cidates the impacts of government policy onDG outcomes, a subset of studies, many ofwhich focus on Brazil or India, reveals that pub-lic policy can have a signicant effect. Thesestudies connect national policies that prioritizerural electrication with DG activities. Braziland India mandated universal access to elec-tricity in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Eventhough it appears unlikely that either countrywill meet their 100% electricity access goalswithin the time frames established by nationalpolicies, these efforts have prompted a signi-cant amount of DG activity on the ground (15,46).Notably, bothof these countries have a sub-stantial institutional infrastructure in place todeliver DG services. In Brazil, utilities have theexclusive right to supply energy services withinestablished territories, and many of these utili-ties have experimented with DG and minigridprojects since the 1990s (7, 15). In the state ofMinas Gerais, for example, the central utilityprovided electricity access to 200,000 homesin the four years after the universalization lawwas passed, including 2,500 solar home sys-tems (7). In India, NGOs have long suppliedcommunities with government-subsidized DGsystems (42, 54, 61). In the Indian state ofWest


Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Bengal, 40,000 homes receive electricity fromeither solar home systems or minigrids (46).Supportive government policies also includedemonstration projects and other public aware-ness programs (38, 45). Several case studies alsoemphasize that, where national governments donot prioritize electrication, NGOs can be par-ticularly important in getting electricity provi-sion on the agenda (60) or in taking the leadon rural electrication programs as governmentsupport has waned (71).

A governments promotional policies alonedo not guarantee the success of DG pro-grams, however, particularly where the infra-structure to maintain DG systems is not inplace. Thailand, for example, has a nationalpolicy that helped provide solar electricity toover 50,000 households. But the governmentalprograms did not provide adequate localmaintenance for the systems, and equipmentfailures have rendered half of these systemsunusable (22).

Brazil and Indias policies are too new forreliable assessments about their long-term sus-tainability. Brazils energy access law includesseveral provisions that prospectively addressthe problem of equipment failure. DG sys-tems must meet national performance stan-dards that include training programs for utilityinstallers, and utilities are tasked with provid-ing maintenance and given the exclusive rightto charge households for their electricity use(7). At the same time, the Brazilian govern-ment has a long-standing policy of ensuringthat low-income customers pay low electricitytariffs. Even though utility companies are al-lowed to cross subsidize by overcharging urbanand wealthier users, they still consistently losemoney, making the long-term sustainability ofthe program questionable (15).

For countries that lack the capacity to imple-ment national electrication programs, simplechanges in regulatory policy may help supportDG. The adoption of technical standards forDG equipment can ensure a minimum levelof quality for each DG system (7); this canenable private entrepreneurs, individual buy-ers, and NGOs to move forward with DG

projects. Governments can also adopt feed-intariffs, which allow small-scale generators tosell electricity to the grid under an agreed priceper kilowatt hour. The per kilowatt hour priceof the feed-in tariff can increase the numberof entrepreneurs and investors willing to enterthe DG market. Feed-in tariffs are a relativelynew policy instrument in developing countriesand are mentioned only in case studies after2008. Rwanda, for example, lacks an energy lawand has limited regulatory infrastructure, butproject implementers were able to successfullynegotiate a feed-in tariff that now attracts pri-vate investment in microhydropower (80). InMalaysia, a feed-in tariff is a central componentof the countrys new DG initiative, but analysissuggests that the tariff is set too low to mean-ingfully increase investor interest (72). Absenceof a feed-in tariff is sometimes cited as a barrierto distributed models of electrication (71).

Government policies can have deleteriouseffects as well, such as when import tariffs makethe purchase of DG systems too costly (34,44), when subsidies for fossil fuels deter in-vestment in renewable power sources (39, 72),when governments fail to guarantee land rightsnecessary for DG projects (65), and when par-ticular government agencies are systematicallydisinclined toward rural energy development(55). Occasionally, individuals in governmentlobby againstDGprograms out of fear that theywould personally lose nancially, as occurredin one case study with Indian grid engineers(31). Finally, macroeconomic policies can havean effect on DG outcomes. Even though mostof the world enjoys decreasing DG costs re-sulting from technological improvements overtime, countries experiencing depreciating cur-rencies may nd DG costs increasing (44).

This review of government policy suggeststhat the policies most closely associated withDG project success may vary considerably bycountries HDI status. Here, we hypothesizethat policies, such as universal access mandates,will result in more DG in countries with highlycapable administrative states. Feed-in tariffsand removal of import tariffs, however, mayhave a greater impact on DG in countries with

126 Brass et al.

Ann

u. R

ev. E

nviro

n. R

esou

rc. 2

012.

37:1

07-1

36. D

ownl

oade

d fro

m w

ww

.annu

alre

view

s.org

A

cces

s pro

vide

d by

Uni

vers

idad

de

Los A

ndes

- Co

lom

bia

on 0

4/07

/15.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


low-HDI status because these policies requirefewer enforcementmechanisms and direct gov-ernment oversight. Instead, these policies en-courage private-sector actors to implement andinvest in DG. In addition, there may be impor-tant differences owing to the breadth and depthof a countrys experience with DG. Thus, wehypothesize that where DG is implemented bygovernment agencies, long-term technical suc-cess is highly correlated with the extent of thatagencys prior experience with DG projects.Additional empirical evidence on the connec-tion between national policy andDG outcomesis needed, particularly focusing on the contextsunder which different policies might be mostsupportive of DG projects.

Effective Institutions forCollaborative Governance

Our analysis of the case study experiencesuggests that effective institutions for collab-orative governance are a critical factor for thelong-term operation of DG systems. Drawingon Ansell & Gash (87), we dene collaborativegovernance as a collective decision-makingprocess whereby public-sector agencies engageand deliberate with a variety of nonstate actors,including NGOs, private-sector rms, interestgroups, community members, and individuals,to formulate, implement, manage, and regulatepublic policies, services, and programs. Invirtually every case study, some combinationof actors work together to implement DGprograms with varying degrees of success. Weconclude that each of the earlier themesappropriate choice of technology, nancing,end-user involvement, and supportive govern-ment policyis facilitated by effective collabo-rative governance. We also conclude that DGproject planners would benet from greater ex-amination of the lessons offered from previousscholarship on collaborative governance.

Collaborative governance should not beconfused with collaborative project manage-ment. Disparate actors can work together toimplement a particular project, but these effortsbecome collaborative governance when the

goals of the teamwork transcend the parametersof a particular project. Collaborative gover-nance is iterative and ongoing, and it spans thegeographic and political space of specic locali-ties. In the context of DG, collaborative gover-nance seeks not just to implement a particularproject today but also to ensure sustained accessto and availability of electricity. This often ne-cessitates more fundamental and encompassingdecisions about the formal and informal rulesof deliberation and decision making.

Less than half of the 60 articles explic-itly mention collaborative or partnership ar-rangements between the actors in DG systems.Nearly all of the cases mention the involvementof several different types of actorsone evenmentions 18 different actorsbut very few an-alyze the organizational dynamics in detail, andmost limit their focus to the project manage-ment dimension of the collaboration, identify-ing the entities that contribute funds, expertise,or equipment to the project.

Most relevant for our purposes, scholars ofcollaborative governance theorize that speciccharacteristics are associated with successfulcollaboration. Empirical studies in a rangeof policy sectors also provide evidence of theconditions under which collaborations arelikely to succeed, as well as possible actionsthat can be taken to increase the chances ofsuccess under various circumstances (87).

Our case study analysis suggests that DGprojects a

annurev-environ-051112-111930

Documents

Transcript of annurev-environ-051112-111930