7. Beyond Charity: Universal Service and a Vision for Distributed Electrification

Often the access statistic seems to be limited to official connections through licensed or legally recognized entities. This ignores independent electrification efforts and systems that are not within the official institutional structure.

This is true of both grid-based and distributed electrification efforts when directed by centralized universal service goals.

This is simply an extension of policies to provide grid connections for free to rural customers when a policy of low prices is in places.

It is difficult to get data on access to electricity through all sources. Most reports cite the 15% getting grid electricity by licensed distributors and then note that there are mini-grids and battery charging operations. One estimate (for 2001) shows 55% of rural households have battery-based electricity and another 9% of rural households get electricity from generators or a grid. However, more recent surveys of small electricity entrepreneurs conducted by SME Cambodia indicates that this may be a serious underestimate, and that in fact the coverage by the grid, mini-grids and battery systems may indeed approach 100%. This would square more fully with the fact that nearly 50% of total households (and 40% of rural households own a television set (Government of Cambodia 2004).

The situation is complicated by the fact that qualification for the low tariff is based not on income but on consumption. Low consuming households are assumed to be also low-income households. There are no corrections made for various factors that could skew the correlation between consumption and income (such as household size).

This has been a common occurrence as the grid system reaches areas previously served by local small hydropower utilities. The massive expansion of the grid in the late nineties resulted in many distribution systems being absorbed into the large grid network.

This is not to say that meeting other welfare enhancement goals (e.g. improved education and health) are not important. However, the linkages between electrification and income generating productive activities are often much cleaner and clearer than the linkages to those other welfare measurements.

Calculations by Robert Socolow of Princeton University based upon 50 W/capita at the current global mix of electricity generation and 35 kg propane per capita.

In this case, cost reductions could also come simply from increased economies of scale due to increased production.

The debate about the relative benefits and costs of decentralization and the conditions for ­successful decentralization, which covers a much wider space than just the issues related to infrastructure provision, is ongoing and beyond the scope of this paper (Shin 2001).

It should be noted that much of the early work on decentralization that developed the understanding­ of these advantages were based on industrial country contexts where local institutions are stronger and regulative mechanisms such as elections (“voice”) and movement to other jurisdictions (“exit”) are much easier (Litvack et al. 1998).

Bird does note that even if these conditions are satisfied, projects may not be successful due to the possible lack of administrative or technical capacity at the local level.