2
Biogas plant in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra
Contents Executive summary 4 Introduction 5 The energy situation in rural India 5 Research methods 7 Background and description 8 Benefits from the VESP 12 Challenges facing the VESP 17 Conclusions and lessons learned 19 Appendix: Technologies of the VESP 22 References 24 Acknowledgements 25 About the authors 25
3
4
It is essential to improve the energy security of India’s rural population to achieve sustained economic growth on an equitable basis. Approximately 404 million people in India lived without electricity in 2009. Additionally, the country’s rural population remains plagued by limited access to commercial fuels. To address these chronic issues of energy access, the Indian Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) launched the Village Energy Security Program (VESP) in 2004. Planners structured the program so that a village energy committee (VEC) ran a decentralized village program involving biomass gasifiers, Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) systems, biogas plants, and improved cookstoves to produce electricity and thermal energy to meet the total energy requirements of rural communities. The VEC acted as a custodian for each system and was responsible for its management and operation. At the end of January 2011, a total of 79 VESP projects were sanctioned in nine states and 61 of these projects were fully commissioned. The aim of the VESP was to meet the energy requirements of rural villages using local renewable energy sources. The MNRE conceived of the VESP to not only provide rural electricity, but to create a sustainable system for “village energization” using decentralized institutions, local managing stakeholders, and dedicated feedstock plantation management. The MNRE envisaged that the VESP would provide energy services to reduce poverty, enhance
health, reduce drudgery, improve education, raise agricultural productivity, create employment, generate income, and reduce migration. Figure 1 shows one household that benefitted from the VESP in Madhya Pradesh. However, VESP projects have had varying levels of success, and provide seven important lessons for policymakers launching rural energy programs. First, political will at the provincial and national level is essential to create a level playing field so that renewable energy technologies can compete with fossil fuel systems. Second, some renewable energy technologies, such as biomass systems, require clusters to take advantage of economies of scale and to establish a responsive after-sales service infrastructure. Third, to ensure program effectiveness, policymakers must consider community factors such as the strength of local governance, community cohesiveness, and energy demand when they structure democratic and decentralized energy programs. Fourth, policymakers must facilitate stakeholder information-sharing, decision-making, and accountability to clearly define roles and responsibilities. Fifth, planners must fund the projects, instead of viewing them as a gift, to ensure that capacity is built and utilized. Sixth, programs must organically grow and rarely outsource service and maintenance. Finally, community awareness and information about projects is essential so that the collective benefits of electricity access are apparent to households.
Figure 1: Lighting in a beneficiary household, Village Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh
India is an overwhelmingly rural country—approximately 70% of the total population lives in rural areas. For this reason, India’s economic and social development is inherently linked to growth in the rural sector. In order to contribute to India’s overall development, the rural sector must have access to modern electricity and fuel sources. Sustainable supplies of modern energy are critical to alleviating poverty, enhancing public health, improving education, and generally facilitating economic and societal growth. Energizing rural India is thus crucial to promoting the country’s broader economic and social development. However, India faces an enormous rural electrification challenge. It has the largest rural population in the world and, as of 2009, 404 million Indians were living without electricity (IEA 2010). Despite the government’s efforts to improve rural electricity infrastructure for more than a half century, household electrification levels and electricity availability in India are still far below the world average.1 To achieve energy security in the 21st century, India must adapt, intensify, and ultimately become more effective in improving rural access to electricity. Furthermore, rural Indians lack access to modern commercial fuels for activities such as cooking and heating. A majority of rural households depend on traditional biomass to meet their thermal energy requirements. Even where rural communities have access to liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”), cost is a significant barrier. Because people can gather fuel wood at no cost, they are typically unwilling to purchase LPG. Providing the rural sector with access to modern, commercial fuels is also critical to India’s energy security. This report presents a detailed analysis of the Village Energy Security Program (“VESP”), a project dedicated to increasing energy access for India’s rural population, and expanding the breadth of energy security. It begins by providing an in-depth view into the energy dilemma in rural India and the need for modern energy services. Second, it addresses the qualitative and quantitative
research methods employed to compile data on VESP’s performance and gauge the needs of local stakeholders. Third, it explores VESP’s project objectives, such as facilitating rural energy intervention through distributed energy solutions. Fourth, it examines the technologies harnessed for the VESP pilot program, and the service delivery model implemented. Finally, it critiques the challenges and best practices of VESP and reviews the project’s structure, technological performance, financial strategy and feedback from stakeholders. We find that programs like the VESP that address these ‘total energy needs’—electrification and access to modern fuels—can facilitate economic and social development in village communities throughout India, but only if they are designed and implemented properly. In this case, while the MNRE designed the VESP in a very novel and innovative way, many of the test projects took a long time to implement, and once implemented, less than half of the total test projects were functional.
The pace of electrification in rural India has been somewhat sporadic. Though most rural villages—about 93%—have electricity access, the electrification rate among actual households is much lower—about 60%. Even where electricity access is available, the quality of supply remains poor because power is often unavailable during the evening hours when people need it the most. Only seven out of 28 states have achieved 100% village electrification, and five of these states have smaller geographic sizes, making electrification easier. Some of the larger states—including Assam, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—have lagged behind in terms of their rural electrification efforts. Though Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have “officially” achieved complete village electrification, a recent field study of The Energy and Resources Institute (“TERI”) indicates that many hamlets and forest fringe villages do not have access to any form of electricity (Palit and Chaurey 2011). There is generally a geographic and income-based divide in terms of electricity access. Urban areas or
1. Low household electrification rates may reflect the fact that, historically, the government has measured electrification levels as a percentage of electrified villages with grid extensions at any point within the revenue boundary of a village, irrespective of whether any individual household is being connected or not. In fact, some researchers argue that electrification as a part of the green revolution in agriculture was the main driver for rural electrification (Bhattacharyya, 2006; Krishnaswamy, 2010). However, the Government of India adopted a new definition of village electrification in 2004, and many villages that were previously considered electrified fell by definition into the un-electrified category.
5
6
Figure 2: Cooking energy use in rural households Source: National Sample Survey Organisation, 2007-08
upper-income households consume more electricity than do rural areas or lower-income households. (Pachauri S, 2007). Even among urban and rural households with comparable incomes, the former consume more electricity. Generally, however, electricity consumption per capita increases with higher levels of income. Lowincome groups appear to use electricity mostly for lighting, whereas elevated electricity consumption among upper-income groups can be attributed to appliance and productive use. There is, likewise, a divide between urban and rural areas in terms of access to commercial fuels. Though commercial fuels constitute about two-thirds of total primary energy consumption throughout all of India, the inverse is true in rural areas, where much of the population still does not have access to these fuels. In 200708, the National Sample Survey Organization (“NSSO”) conducted a Household Consumer Expenditure Survey and found that more than three quarters of rural households use firewood and chips as their primary cooking fuel (see Figure 2). The proportion of households using
firewood and chips is highest among the bottom of pyramid population: 84% of agricultural labor households and 90% of scheduled tribe households use firewood and chips. Furthermore, about 61 million rural households use kerosene for lighting.2 However, due to a lack of adequate transportation infrastructure, kerosene is less available in the hilly and remote areas of the country. The government has taken steps to address many of these issues. In 2001, it created the Rural Electricity Supply Technology (“REST”) mission with the objective of obtaining “power for all by 2012.” In April 2005, it continued this effort by launching the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana (“RGGVY”), a large-scale program designed to accelerate rural electrification and provide electricity access to all Indian households. Under RGGVY, the government subsidizes grid extension to all but the most remote areas, which are too expensive to connect. The MNRE is to electrify remote off-grid areas with locally available renewable energy sources. Since 2001, the MNRE has been implementing the Remote
2. This data is from the 64th Round of National Sample Survey by the Government of India.
Village Electrification (“RVE”) program to meet these objectives. In 2004, the MNRE launched the test phase of the VESP to meet each village’s complete energy requirements using locally available renewable energy sources (MNRE 2004).
This report provides a performance assessment of VESP projects, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the program so far. The information and qualitative analysis in this report mainly comes from a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. These interviews and discussions involved a number of stakeholders at the federal, provincial, and grassroots level who were associated with the VESP across various project sites (TERI 2009). The TERI team obtained input from a broad spectrum of key stakeholders, including those representing the government, the Project Implementation Agency (PIA), civil society, and local communities. Furthermore, the team also included input from respondents from Village Energy Committee members and system operators to understand the
operational and technical issues surrounding each project. Such input is critical to determining the success of any decentralized energy project. The study covered a total of 50 sanctioned VESP test projects spread across seven states (TERI 2009).” The projects were either commissioned or were at various stages of implementation at the time of assessment. Of these, the TERI team made field visits to 16 project sites between September 2008 and June 2009 and gathered secondary information from PIAs at other sites. The team used a combination of tools to collect and analyse information on specific themes, including (1) how well the technology performed, (2) how effective local institutions were in governing individual projects, and (3) the financial performance and costs associated with the project. Researchers used a purposive sampling strategy to select respondents that could represent perspectives from government, the private sector, civil society, and the communities themselves. Finally, the team collected secondary information on technology performance through a study of the monitoring data and meeting records (if any) available within VECs and PIAs. Figures 3 and 4 show some of the research activities the team undertook.
Figure 3: A focus group discussion in the village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh
7
8
Figure 4: Community meeting in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra
Households in rural India generally need energy for three purposes: cooking, lighting, and productive uses such as micro-enterprises. Currently, in rural India, the typical fuels that households use to serve these purposes are, from an energy security perspective, either inadequate or unavailable. In terms of cooking, rural households depend almost entirely on burning biomass in inefficient earthen stoves, metal stoves, or open pits in poorly ventilated kitchens. These inefficient stoves demand a great deal of fuel wood, and they also emit a great deal of indoor air pollutants —which is a significant health risk, especially for women and children who are mostly in the home. Kerosene and paraffin are common fuels for lighting, especially in remote villages that have limited access—or lack access altogether—to electricity. The lack of reliable electricity access also constrains productive enterprises in rural areas. The government previously has implemented rural electrification programs to address these issues. The government designed projects in the 1980s—including
the Urjagram (Energizing Village) and Integrate Rural Energy Program (IREP)—to foster energy self-reliance among Indian villages by deploying various renewable energy technologies (RETs). However, the Urjagram and IREP projects utilized RETs that had not technologically matured and could not be effectively serviced. Furthermore, because these programs were mostly “target driven” rather than “demand driven,” communities were not as involved during the planning and design stages. Therefore, the Urjagram and IREP were constrained by novel technologies and suffered from a lack of community involvement, and they were generally unsuccessful. With Urjagram and IREP examples in the background, the Ministry created the VESP—a rural energy program that utilizes locally available renewable energy resources to address the total energy needs for cooking, electricity, and motive power in the remote villages. Unlike other energy schemes implemented in rural India, the VESP embraces a “holistic” approach that aims to achieve “village energization.” (TERI 2009). It is designed to meet rural areas’ comprehensive energy needs in an economically efficient and environmentally sound manner.
The MNRE launched the test phase of VESP during April 2004. Through the VESP, the MNRE provided a VEC with a one-time grant (up to 90% of the total project cost) to install energy systems capable of meeting the community’s energy demand. The community also provides an equity contribution of cash, labor, or land. The focus has been on finding ways for villages—particularly those located in remote rural areas that are unlikely to be provided grid electricity in the near future—to achieve energy security based on locally available renewable energy sources. The projects were designed to (1) test certain methods and propositions, (2) learn from them, and (3) apply lessons to implement the larger operational program. As demonstrated in our analysis below, the success of the VESP program largely has depended on (1) appropriate institutional mechanisms (2) reliable technologies that suit local requirements (3) successful demonstration projects (4) sound management practices, (5) community awareness programs, (6) the availability of local technical expertise for implementation and service support, and (7) financial subsidies to cover the higher up-front cost of RETs. While the MNRE has discontinued the VESP and has not approved any new projects since 2009, several researchers and policy think tanks have argued that decentralized generation using locally available renewable energy sources such as biomass is key to enhancing power supply in rural areas and to extending electrification to remote areas in India (Palit and Chaurey, 2011; Banerjee, 2006; Ghosh et al., 2006; Buragohain et al, 2010). Thus, we felt that it was important to study the VESP and to extrapolate experiences and lessons from the program that might be used to design similar programs in the future. Objectives As mentioned above, the Ministry designed the VESP as a project that would go beyond rural electrification to achieve “village energization.” Therefore, the project took a more systematic approach to energy security than its predecessors by focusing on providing clean cooking technologies (such as improved cookstoves and biogas), using energy for productive purposes (e.g., job creation), and sustaining energy systems. Its primary objectives were to: 1. create appropriate institutional mechanisms that could facilitate rural energy interventions at a decentralized level;
2. strengthen the capacities of different stakeholders (communities, local institutions, etc.) to manage the local resources in a sustainable manner; 3. meet the village’s comprehensive energy requirements, including cooking, lighting and productive uses; and 4. establish a dedicated tree plantation and management system as a feedstock for the village’s energy production system. To achieve these objectives, the VESP had several components: • An energy production system that utilized RETs such as biomass gasifiers, biogas systems, or other hybrid systems to generate electricity for domestic and productive use; • The promotion of systems that provided energy for cooking through community and/or domestic biogas plants fueled by animal or leafy waste and through energy efficient cookstoves such as gasifier, turbo, or fixed cement concrete stoves; • An energy plantation scheme that would provide a sustainable fuel supply, either in the form of biomass or oilseeds for biofuel; • The development of participatory Village Energy Plans (VEPs); • Stakeholder training and education; • Local community mobilization and institution building to effectively manage the project. The MNRE envisioned that the VESP, by delivering comprehensive energy services to rural villages, would facilitate broader social and economic development in the rural sector. The MNRE believed that the program would help reduce poverty, improve public health, reduce drudgery (particularly for rural women), raise agricultural productivity, create employment, generate incomes, and reduce migration. The cornerstone of the VESP test phase rested on two pillars—community ownership and use of locally available resources. Local communities would plan, implement, and sustain their program with support from external institutions known as the PIA. The VESP represents an innovative and pragmatic approach to solving an emerging trilemma of (1) maintaining energy
9
10
Figure 5: Biomass gasifier in the village of Dicholi, Maharashtra
resources, (2) sustaining economic development, and (3) preventing environmental degradation. Technologies In one form or another, biomass is available in substantial quantities in the rural areas, so the VESP primarily focused on implementing energy production systems based on either biomass gasifiers and/or straight vegetable oil (“SVO”). In addition, the VESP also provided biogas plants and improved cookstoves for a village’s thermal energy (i.e. cooking) needs. The Appendix discusses these technologies in greater detail, Figures 5 and 6 depict two systems already installed in villages. Service delivery model The VESP followed a service delivery model whereby the PIA, with representatives from the villagers and the local governance body (the gram panchayat), formed a Village Energy Committee (VEC). The VEC usually consists of 9 to 13 members. Women represent 50% of the committee, and there is an elected Panchayat member from the village who serves in an ex-officio capacity. The PIA sets up the energy production systems through the original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) and
hands over the hardware to the VEC for day-to-day operation and management (O&M). The VEC acts as custodian of the energy production system and is responsible for O&M. The electricity generated from the energy production systems is distributed to the community through a local mini-grid. Because standalone and offgrid systems are free of licensing obligations and regulatory oversight, the VEC sets the tariff in consultation with PIA, such that the tariff will cover fuel and O&M costs. The VEC is also responsible for procuring the biomass fuel—either on a rotation basis from the project beneficiaries or by purchasing it from the biomass collection agents. Additionally, the VEC creates an energy plantation in the village’s forestland or community land to ensure that the system has a sustainable supply of biomass. The VEC collects energy charges from users to meet the operational expenses of the projects, and the VEC manages all project accounts. Furthermore, under select provisions of the State Panchayati Raj Act, a VEC creates a Village Energy Fund—which is initially funded by beneficiary contributions—to sustain the project’s operation and management. Thereafter, a VEC deposits monthly user charges in this account. The Fund is managed by a VEC with two
11
Figure 6: Biofuel engine in Jawahar village, Maharashtra
Serial number
Entities
Offers
Expects in return
To
Instrument
1
Beneficiaries
Fuel
VEC
Payment for fuel supply
–
2
VEC
Electricity
Beneficiaries
Payment for electricity
Negotiated tariff
3
Beneficiaries
Payment
VEC
Reliable Electricity
4
OEM
AMC
VEC
Payment
Connection agreement AMC agreement
Table 1: Summary of transactions between key entities in the VESP model Source: TERI 2009
signatories nominated by the committee. One of the signatories is the ex-officio Gram Panchayat member and the other signatory is the President or Secretary of the VEC. In short, a VEC is responsible for producing the power, distributing the electricity, managing project revenues, and resolving disputes in the event of supply disruptions, a schematic summarized by Figure 7. The summary of the transaction between the various key stakeholders under the VEC service delivery model is presented in Table 1.
Results The VESP has been moderately successful so far. As of January 30, 2011, the Ministry reports that a total of 79 VESP test projects have been sanctioned in 9 states of the country (MNRE, 2011). These test projects covered un-electrified, remote villages and/or hamlets not likely to be electrified through conventional grid extension in the immediate future. Of these, 61 projects have been actually constructed or commissioned in 8 states, while the others are at various stages of implementation, or
12
Figure 7: The Village Energy Committee Model of the VESP Source: TERI 2009
have not been commissioned. In all, around 700 kW of electricity generation equipment has been installed. Nearly 90% of the energy production systems from these projects are based on biomass gasification technology, whereas the remaining ten percent are based on SVO engines (The World Bank, 2011). TERI’s analysis demonstrates that the VESP, while certainly not a complete failure, has suffered from setbacks. At the same time, VESP has also provided some sound lessons which policymakers can consider while designing future biomass energy based decentralized projects. Our assessment indicated that 42% of the 50 surveyed projects were fully or partially operational, while the rest were either non-functional (26%) or had not even been commissioned (32%) at the time of assessment (shown in Table 2).
Institutional performance We found that the VESP projects emerged as a vehicle to motivate the community—especially the youth—to attempt to develop their skills. Local youth enhanced their training to operate the install energy production systems in almost all surveyed test projects. In some projects, the diesel engine mechanics, operating in the neighborhood town, also enhanced his or her skills and entered into an annual maintenance contract (AMC) with the VEC and PIA to provide the technical support for post-installation maintenance. Selected PIAs pursued innovative strategies to build the technical capacity and competency of the operators, enabling them to run the system continuously and thereby improve overall system performance. This also helped to build confidence among communities, facilitating a willingness to pay for regular and reliable electricity.
Notwithstanding these challenges, the VESP did achieve a collection of institutional, technological, and financial benefits summarized by this section of the report.
NGOs were better able to mobilize and lead test projects than governmental entities, largely because the NGOs coordinated closely with the VEC. Another reason that NGOs were more successful at mobilizing community support may be that NGO-run projects benefited from the NGOs long-term association with the villages, prior to initiation of VESP.
Region
Number of projects
Number of comissioned projects
No. of functional subprojects
Assam
14
–
–
Chhattisgarh
6
6
3
Gujarat
2
2
–
Madhya Pradesh
10
9
4
Maharashtra
5
5
5
Orissa
9
9
7
West Bengal
4
3
2
Total
50
34
21
Table 2: Status of VESP projects surveyed Source: TERI 2009
NGOs were effective in building the technical capacity and competency of system operators, which improved system performance. For instance, TERI implemented projects in Jambupanu and Dawania village in Madhya Pradesh and conducted month-long training sessions during preinstallation, during installation and commissioning, and post-installation =. TERI also entered into an AMC with a local diesel engine mechanic in both of these villages who provides the necessary support to the operators on an oncall basis. This ensured that the system was operational for more than 20 days per month on average. In the villages of Chhattisgarh, the VESP involved a local gasifier manufacturer to place trained technicians in the villages for a period of three months from the commissioning date to support local operators. The trained technicians provide hands-on support by staying in the village for 30 days during the first month, two weeks during the second month and a week during the third month. Figure 8 illustrates some of the maintenance practices engendered by the VESP. Additionally, NGO implemented community projects were better mobilized than those implemented by state governments. For example, in Mankidiatala and Champapadar (villages of the state of Orissa) the local Forest Department involved a local NGO known as the Tribal Reconstruction and Inform Backward Edification (TRIBE) to encourage community mobilization. Because of the regular visits of TRIBE’s personnel, we observed that the VEC organized regular meetings, properly recorded the content of these meetings in a log book,
and engaged in regular energy meter reading. These communities were also better mobilized than many other villages where VESP projects were being implemented by state governments. In West Bengal, Karrudoba, villages have implemented projects on a deposit contract on behalf of the Forest Department. Initially, the VEC presumed that the government would undertake all operational and project management. However, when the Ministry appointed a Regional Consultant (RC), the RC’s local partner made a series of visits to the village and explained that the VESP had to be a sustainable operation owned by the VEC. Thereafter, the VEC started taking an active interest in the project and the operators also became motivated to run the system on regular basis. The VEC’s awareness of the project’s sustainable purpose created the desired impact and it started to organize meetings regularly, with minutes and operational data documented according to the VESP monitoring and evaluation framework. In terms of agreement between a VEC and electricity consumers, for example, Mahishakeda is a village in Dhenkenal district of Orissa, where the READ Foundation has implemented a VESP test project. A unique feature of the project is that the agreement entered between the VEC and the consumers mimicked the connection agreement that Electricity Distribution Companies usually enter into with their consumers. The agreement specifies that the VEC is the authority for producing and distributing electricity; the consumer’s role is to provide biomass through collection from the nearby-forested
13
14
Figure 8: Maintenance procedures for a gasifier written on the wall of the gasifier shed in the state of Orissa
area and to pay for the electricity consumed. The agreement also specifies actions for breach of the agreed terms and conditions. Technological performance Considering their remoteness and various other inherent technical and institutional problems, we found project run-time to be satisfactory in many projects that the NGOs managed, which indicates that the technologies disseminated under the program were robust (Palit 2011). Runtime was as high as 70% in some well-performing projects for a particular duration. Further, VESP also provided a good platform for various technology designers and manufacturers to test new technologies. For example, TERI-New Delhi, Indian Institute of ScienceBangalore, and Ankur Scientific Energy TechnologiesBaroda had an extensive opportunity to field test the small capacity gasifier systems that they designed, which allowed them to further customize their technologies for rural markets. The team observed mixed results regarding the functionality of biogas technology. Whereas in Mokhyachapara and Karrudoba villages, we observed that both biogas and electricity generation systems were running satisfactorily,
in Kumhedin and Ghungahta in Madhya Pradesh and Mokyachapara in Maharashtra, the majority of the biogas plants were working, but the electricity generation system operated irregularly. In Assam, where gasifier systems still had to be commissioned even three years after the project had been sanctioned, the installed biogas plants were nevertheless in use, saving tons of fuelwood which would otherwise have been used for cooking. Some villages also found innovative uses for the biogas technology. In Mokyachapara village in Maharashtra, the community operated six floating drum biogas plants (with six cubic meters of capacity each) on a communal basis. Each of the biogas plants has been designed to supply cooking fuel to five to six households. The beneficiaries are successfully using biogas as a clean cooking option. Further, de-oiled cakes obtained as by-product from the oil expeller are also used as feed material for the biogas plant and are mixed along with cow dung to obtain higher gas yield. In Kumhedin village in Madhya Pradesh, 14 domestic-sized biogas plants (each two cubic meters of capacity) are in operation. Each biogas plant serves one family, and cow dung is used as the feed material. In addition to using biogas as a cleaner cooking option, the beneficiaries also use the sludge as manure
15
Figure 9: Village map grid on the wall of the gasifier shed in the Village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh
for growing vegetables. The vegetables are then sold in the nearby block town to earn additional income. In Amabahar village in Chhattisgarh, a mantle-based lighting point has also been connected to each of the biogas plants and beneficiaries enjoy lighting from biogas. Plantations & fuel supply management We observed that the success of a plantation is proportional to the level of community involvement, which again demonstrates that community involvement is essential to the success of any decentralized project. In Mankadiatala and Champapadar villages in Orissa, where the Forest Department is implementing projects, scientific species selection and plantation management practices resulted in survival rates of about 50 to 60%. The community has planted Simaruba, Bakain, Eucalyptus, Mahaneem and Acacia species (see Figure 10), which grow well in the region. The community was fully involved in pit digging, nursery raising, sapling planting, and weeding, and the Forestry Department planted 1,400 to 1,500 plants per hectare as a block plantation with the community’s assistance. In Mokhyachapara, true to the spirit of VESP’s multistakeholder approach, the PIA and Pragati Pratishthan
approached local plantation experts from the region to get their guidance for forming an energy plantation. Initially, the farmers from the village were motivated to plant jatropha and, through meeting and discussing the issue, creating awareness about the plants benefit. Proper plantation methods and post-plantation maintenance (such as weeding, gap filling etc.) ensured that about 80% of the plants were in healthy condition. For example, during the assessment, we found that the plantation had attained a height of about three to four feet. In most of the test projects, biomass fuel supply is based on each household bringing in a certain quantity of biomass from the community forests and contributing to the power plant every week. During the field visits, we observed that the fuel supply is well streamlined in villages such as Dicholi, Karrodoba, Bhalupani and Mahishakeda. In Dicholi and Bhalupani, each household contributes about 30 to 40 kg of fuelwood on a monthly basis. This is collected from the fallen wood found in surrounding forest areas and within the existing plantations of the village. Electricity payments are also linked with biomass contribution, with non-contributing households required to pay amounts equivalent to what they pay for biomass fuel. In Karrudoba, the fuel supply is mainly provided by the Forest Department from lops and tops. In
16
Figure 10: Energy plantations in the state of Orissa
addition, villagers also contribute biomass from ‘kitchen surplus’ (i.e. savings achieved because of the use of improved cookstoves). Financial performance Consumers’ willingness to pay (Rs/month/household) for electricity ranged from Rs 30 to Rs 133 (with an average of Rs 82). However, the actual tariff that consumers paid for four hours of daily supply ranged from Rs 30 and Rs 60 per month per household, depending on the socioeconomic conditions of the village (Palit, 2011). This payment is usually equivalent to kerosene’s replacement cost. Communities generally pay the set tariff wherever the systems are in regular operation (around 20 days or more in a month), with about 50-70% paying their tariffs on time. We found that revenue management was comparatively better where villagers have greater income opportunities—either existing income generation activities (e.g. a flour mill) or activities introduced after electrification under VESP (such as honey extraction and sal leaf stitching. Convergence with development programs We also found that the potential for income generation activities exists in almost all the test projects. The only
reason that these activities have not been exploited is because of the absence of proper guidance from the VEC. The active involvement of a gram panchayat (representation in VEC) helped in developing the required synergy between village development funds and VESP funding for the project capital expenses as well as towards O&M. For instance, projects at Dicholi, Bhalupani and Karrudoba villages saw a use of funds from the local panchayat, state government and local forest offices respectively, either as a capital contribution towards the project or for establishing income generation activities. For example, the local panchayat contributed towards the completion of power distribution lines in Dicholi, while the forest department in Karrudoba installed an open well for water supply to the gasifier plant. Our financial analysis indicates that the MDP (Minimum Desired Price of Electricity) for a 10-kWe biomass gasifier system ‘without any subsidy’ is Rs 16.26/kWh at a capacity utilization factor (CUF) of 33 percent. Considering a capital subsidy of 90 percent (available under VESP, RVE and DDG projects) and 10 percent contribution by the community or PIA, the MDP for 10-kWe and 25 kWe systems are Rs 5.60/kWh and Rs 4.29/kWh respectively at a CUF of 33 percent (Palit et. al 2011).
However, based on the field assessment of the VESP test projects, we found that most of the BGPP have been operating at a CUF of only 7 percent. The real challenge, therefore, is to set a domestic tariff consistent with the willingness to pay (i.e. somewhere around Rs 40-80 per household per month). The financial analysis for a typical VESP project indicates that introduction of productive load along with variable tariff of about Rs 10/kWh for productive load and Rs 50 – Rs 60 for domestic load (at a collection efficiency of at least 70%) will make the VESP projects financially sustainable (Palit et al., 2011). Currently, villagers are dependent on diesel for running productive loads such as an atta chakki or rice haulers. For example, a five to ten horsepower atta chakki in a village consumes about one to 1.5 liters diesel per hour, the minimum cost of which is about Rs 40/ liter in remote villages. Thus, a atta chakki costs about Rs 40 –Rs 60 per hour to fuel. In contrast, an electricity operated atta chakki will consume about 3.75 kWh/hour and a ten horsepower system will consume about 7.5 kWh/hour. At a tariff of Rs 10/kWh and Rs 7.50/kWh, the expected expense per hour comes to about Rs 37.5(for 5 HP) and Rs 56(for 10 HP) respectively, implying a savings of Rs 2-4 for the atta chakki entrepreneur.
The donapatta systems are operated by self-help groups, and promoted by Sambandh. These commercial units produce cup-plates from saal leaves and operate for about four hours in the evening for 10-15 days a month. The Women’s Federation pays Rs 60 per day for the electricity tariff when the donapatta unit is operational. The connection of this donapatta unit with the gasifier system ensures the financial sustainability of the VESP subproject, providing a net income of about Rs 57 per month. Without the revenue from this unit, therefore, the VEC would incur a loss of about Rs 500 every month. In addition, the Women’s Federation makes payments of Rs300 per month for about four to five months a year for using electricity from the power plant for the honeyprocessing unit, which contributes to the financial viability of the project.
While we observed many of the best practises noted above, at the same time, many more projects experienced a number of challenges that compromised the effectiveness of the VESP. Institutional performance
Usually 10 HP systems are used for grinding cereals in villages. An 8 kW load for eight hours of operation (four hours domestic and four hours commercial) is an ideal configuration for financial sustainability. Therefore, replacing a diesel-powered atta chakki with one powered with electricity is a clear win-win scenario for all stakeholders: consumers, who pay tariffs based on their affordability; the atta chakki owner, who saves about Rs 2 to Rs 4 per hour of operation; and the VEC, which can generate sufficient income through sale of electricity to domestic and commercial consumers to meet the expenses for sustainable operation.
Many of the projects faced sustainability challenges. This is mainly because of less concentrated electricity demand in villages, low economic activity (implying lower electricity demand), lower consumer ability to pay (in the absence of cash income opportunities), difficulty in operation and maintenance, limited technical knowledge of VECs, and, most importantly, weak fuel supply chain linkages. Any combination of the above factors leads to very low capacity utilization factor (CUF)— between 7-10% in some villages, leading to a higher unit cost of energy production in those locations.
One case study is most illustrative. Bhalupani is a small tribal village in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa. Sambandh, an NGO, implemented a VESP test project in the village with 44 households. Income generation activities promoted under a watershed project were integrated with the VESP. Accordingly, eight donapatta machines having a total load of 2 kW were provided in connection with the gasifier power plant. In addition, a honey-processing unit (6 kW) powered by the gasifier plant managed by Women Federation of the Balupani Gram Panchayat was also set up in the village, with support from Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Government of Orissa.
Further, a lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities among the different stakeholders (PIAs, State Renewable Energy Development Agencies, and VECs) contributed to project delays and weaker performance. The lack of group activity in many villages created an absence of project ownership, especially where the VECs seldom meet to review the project and discuss ways to strengthen project performance. In many areas, the VECs are also not adequately trained and empowered to manage decentralized projects effectively, especially where projects are executed by the Forest Department with the thinking that VESP projects will be similar to other
17
18
government projects. While the VESP guidelines require at least 50% female members at the VEC, we found that women’s participation was almost absent or minimal in most of the test projects. Additionally, inordinate delays in installation and commissioning of the electricity generating systems were found to severely impact the mobilization of beneficiary communities. In Assam and West Bengal, for example, the majority of projects that the Forest Department oversaw between 2005 and 2006 took more than four years to commission. Technological performance Performance analysis of some of the better run projects such as Karudoba (West Bengal), Bhalupani (Orissa) and Jambupani (Madhya Pradesh) indicates that there is wide variation in operational days and electricity generation over the course of several months (Palit 2011). While there may be non-technical reasons for this variation (such as community disagreement or fuel supply issues), technological issues contributed as well. Indeed, management was found to be one of the most critical determinants of poor project performance. However, technical reasons for system non-operation have more to do with poor technical knowledge by the operators than with the technology per se. Problems of operational knowledge need to be overcome to increase the operational efficiency of VESP projects at the grass root level. Inadequate post-installation maintenance networks (for example, the limited number of spare parts suppliers) contributed to a long lead times for fault rectification. Inadequate rural maintenance networks also tended to increase after-sales service costs and thereby threaten operational viability. Because of the remoteness of many projects, many VECs found it difficult not only to attract suppliers but also to establish reliable local aftersales service. During field visits and interactions with PIAs and the community, the team also found great demand for irrigation pump sets (~ 5 to 10 HP Capacity), indicating that village demands could not be met by the installed lowcapacity systems in use currently. On the other hand, in extremely remote areas, existing capacity was found to be under-utilized. We found this underutilization largely was the result of domestic loads consuming only about one-third of installed capacity in the absence of any productive load. Challenges with technology utilization included: DC motors used in the cooling and cleaning train of many of the gasifier systems require frequent maintenance.
Safety paper filters are missing on many units. These paper filters can help lower dust intake, reduce maintenance, and increase the engine life of gasifier units. Battery charger systems in some of the subprojects did not work properly. The battery was discharged after 15-18 hours of operation and does not get recharged during system operation. Consequently, the battery has to be taken to the nearest town for recharging as the gasifier system remains non-operational, which contributes to substantial net downtime. Water tanks to supply clean water for cooling and cleaning of the gas are improperly built in almost all the projects. Most units have only one chamber in the water tank instead of two as called for in the design. Consequently, dirty water containing tar is re-circulated for cleaning gas. This results in inadequate cleaning of the gas, higher engine maintenance and increased difficulty in operating the system. In many SVO systems, oil is directly fed to the engine without passing through a filter. This can lead to longterm engine damage and reduce the operational life of the system. Plantations & fuel supply management Furthermore, supply of biomass is a key constraint for uptime—not because it is not available, but because of erratic supply. The fuel supply chains were unorganized; with each villager required to contribute a share of the total biomass without any monetary benefit, disinterest among villagers after the initial month was common. Many of the beneficiaries are reluctant to collect biomass from the forests because of the irregular operation of the systems. Further, biomass being perceived as free for the taking, there is limited motivation to collect the fuel. In case of SVO-based projects, the oilseeds collected from forests yield better prices in the local market as compared to their use for electricity generation. Indeed, selling oilseeds is a livelihood for many tribal villagers, who are more inclined to sell the oil seeds for cash income than to contribute them to the VESP. Financial performance In most of the test projects, revenue management was virtually absent. Because systems were down much of the time, communities were reluctant to pay for service. Poor revenue flow diminished interest in maintaining system operations, creating a vicious cycle. Operator costs (varying between Rs 500 to Rs 1500 per month) also became significant since low lighting load and the
absence of productive load diminished demand. Normal maintenance costs added to total expenditures, often overwhelming revenues that user payments generated. Because the VECs do not levy any penalty for non-payment, they had no reason to keep any revenue-related records tracking project income and expenses. Convergence with development programs Inadequate capacity building and support to the VEC and system operators is another key factor affecting the project uptime and management in many of the subprojects. While the operators of the energy production system in the test projects seem to be trained on operation of the system, they are not very competent to deal with maintenance aspects, especially of the engine system. The adequacy assessment of the subprojects reflects that the focus of both the PIA and beneficiaries in almost all the subprojects is on electrification and not on the biogas, improved cookstoves, energy plantation systems, or other technologies implemented under the VESP. In a majority of the subprojects, improved cookstoves and biogas plants are either non-functional or not being given adequate importance, even though these technologies are critical to the VESP concept. Communities are not inclined to use biogas and improved cookstoves because (a) they are used to cooking on wood and are reluctant to change their cooking practices, (b) dung availability is low, because cattle are not stall-fed in most of the projects, and (c) plenty of fuelwood is available at zero cash outlay. The project experience also suggests that beneficiaries needed more training on how to maintain the stoves and biogas plants to ensure their sustained use.
Planners conceived of the VESP as a holistic way of energy delivery based on the premise that biomass based technologies are reliable, operations can be viable, and local communities can plan and manage projects with support from PIAs. The main strength of the VESP lies in its goal of “providing total energy security to achieve sustainable development” to remote areas through utilization of locally available renewable bio-energy resources and the empowerment of local communities. Locally sourced bio-energy provides a closed loop for energy generation, producing energy for a community in a self-sufficient way. This creates financial opportunities,
increases economic development, and provides a sense of ownership for local communities. Despite its approach, VESP could not achieve its desired goals due to a mesh of discrete failures and unintentional weaknesses. Some of these setbacks include competition with other state sponsored rural electrification projects, lack of clarity between various stakeholders, and after sales service issues. Despite the drawbacks, VESP has potential for a wide range of opportunities. Some opportunities include creating a profitable rural biomass market, developing improved trade relations with nearby markets, and providing abundant renewable energy for rural areas, which brings improved economic, environmental, and health opportunities with it. We present six main conclusions for energy development practitioners and policymakers based on the VESP experience. First, political will at the provincial and national levels is key to project success. Political will is necessary to create a level playing ground for renewable energy technologies and systems. A policy framework and clear vision for all stakeholders was lacking for the VESP, yet is necessary for large scale implementation. Additionally, shortterm competition from subsidized conventional energy sources and prevailing matured modern technologies are a major barrier for popularizing emerging biomass energy technologies considered to have limitations and cumbersome to use. These fears were sometimes overcome by evolving user-friendly products and creating supplier and after sale service mechanisms. Second, some renewable energy technologies require clusters, or certain economies of scale, to work properly. One cannot promote biogas or gasifier systems the same as solar home systems or improved cookstoves, and in the particular case of the VESP, its community-scale ambitions did not always match the realities of local fuel supply. Depending on the proximity of the habitations, the merit of setting up a local mini-grid and a central power plant of higher capacity could be beneficial over smaller capacity systems. Third, energy users—in this case villagers and VECs— need to be trained on how to use, service, and maintain the VESP systems. Most suppliers showed reluctance to develop the post installation service network because of a low volume of activity, despite the fact that they had an interest in participating in programs such as
19
20
Figure 11: A more sustainable VESP model Source: TERI 2009
VESP. That is, though the suppliers were interested in providing technological support, villagers were not interested in using it enough to convince the supplier to develop a post-installation service network. Many suppliers reported outsourcing the majority of the equipment repairs beyond the local population. However, suppliers and manufacturers need to work with the community to develop local knowledge and skills to maintain the VESP systems. After-sales service and maintenance must be locally provided and rarely outsourced. Additionally, maintenance expenses were not internalized in the VESP budget which led to burgeoning differences in the overheads required to keep systems effectively functioning. Fourth, community awareness and information regarding the benefits of electricity helps ensure community investment. “Ownership” of the project is necessitated by extensive IEC (Information, Education, and Communication) activities about how access to electricity can greatly improve the quality of life for the
community and its people. Outreach should describe how electricity can stimulate micro-enterprises, increase local entertainment, prevent the destruction of the environment, enhance health, and help build ‘social capital’ by increasing the educational opportunities for children. This creates a direct benefit for households and micro enterprises while showing the community the collective benefits of access to electricity. Fifth, the community based service model of the VESP, while democratic and decentralized, presents its own challenges. VESP projects were implemented on the premise that the community (through the VEC) or the local panchayat own the project and assume overall responsibility for management and operations. This model is suitable for remote areas where there is sufficient strength of local governance and a social cohesiveness in the village. However, the institutional arrangements for a remote tribal village may be different from that of a less remote village having relatively higher power demand. Therefore, in order to determine the
appropriate institutional structure, stakeholder consultation is instrumental. In the case of the VESP, there was a greater need to have regular consultation meetings among all stakeholders including the MNRE, state governments, VECs, and panchayats. Provincial level facilitation would have helped in brainstorming solutions to various technical as well as financial problems. A more effective VESP structure is shown in Figure 11. Such a structure would perhaps have promoted income generation thereby increasing purchasing capacity and reducing migration. Sixth, VESP projects should have focused more on commercial viability, producing a revenue stream for the community where the project is located. The community should view projects as a potential source of income and not a gift. This mindset creates a sense of communal ownership that works to maintain the success of the project. This can be achieved either by maintaining an efficient fuel collection system or by exploring additional revenue options through an increase in tariffs. Moreover, communities need incentives to increase or maximize electricity loads. Without considering the above lessons learned, future project implementation will leave rural energy policy stumbling towards its goal of “Power for All� by the end of 2012.
21
22
As biomass is found in substantial quantity in rural areas in various forms, the primary energy production system implemented under the VESP has been either biomass gasifier systems and or SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil) based systems. In addition, biogas plants and improved cookstoves were also implemented for thermal (i.e. cooking) energy needs of beneficial communities. Below are the technologies imlemented under the Program. Biomass gasification based power generation Biomass gasification is the process of converting solid biomass fuel into combustible gaseous fuel (called producer gas) through a sequence of complex thermochemical reactions. A biomass gasifier system usually consists of a biomass preparation unit, a biomass gasifier reactor, gas cooling and cleaning system, internal combustion engine suitable for operation with producer gas as main fuel, electric generator, and electricity distribution system. A biomass preparation unit is used to cut the collected biomass to proper size suitable for feeding into the biomass gasifier. In a typical downdraft gasifier the biomass is fed from the top. It passes through the gasifier and undergoes the following sequence of processes - drying, pyrolysis, oxidation and reduction, in a limited supply of air to produce a combustible mixture of carbon monoxide (18% - 22%), hydrogen (15%–20%), and methane (1%–3%); carbon dioxide (9%–12%) and nitrogen (45%–55%); and tar and ash (Parikh, 1984;
Kohli and Ravi, 2003). The gas formed is passed through a cooling and cleaning sub-system that usually consists of a cyclone for particulate removal and a scrubber for cooling and cleaning the gas. The ash, formed from oxidation reactions, moves through the reduction zone and gets removed from the ash disposal system consisting of the grate and ash collection system. Figure 12 presents the schematic diagram of a biomass gasifier based power generation system. The electricity generated is distributed to the consumers through a local low tension mini-grid system. The MNRE considered various capacities of the biomass gasifier system under the program, depending on the size of the community, to standardize the technology packages. For example, a 10kWe system was designed for a community size of 50-100 households (hh), while a 25kWe system was designed for a community of more than 250 hhs. Since a 20 kWe gasifier design was not commercially available at that time, the MNRE allowed use of 2x10kWe systems for a community size between100 -200 hhs. Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) SVO, also referred to as neat vegetable oils, or pure plant oil, is derived from either edible or edible seeds, and can be directly used in diesel engines. SVO engines are a clean, effective and economical option. The VESP test phase consisted of installation of SVO engines for power
Figure 12: Biomass gasifier system
generation mainly in the capacity range of 10 HP systems. The fuel for the engines are based on collection of naturally occurring non-edible oilseeds from the forests near a project, or harvested from energy plantations undertaken as part of VESP. The sequence of operations employed for the production of SVOs as shown in Figure 13.
domestic, and industrial. Anaerobic digestion comprises three steps.
Various technologies are used for oil extraction. Mechanical oil extraction is the most common technology in use for extracting non-edible oils. The typical recovery efficiency of good expellers is 80-85% of oil content in the seed. Mechanical crushing is preferred for smaller plants because it requires a smaller investment. Typically plants that process less than 100,000 kg/day (100 TPD) use mechanical crushing and plants that process more than 300,000 kg/day (300 TPD) use solvent extraction. The main problems by using vegetable oil as engine fuel are associated with its high viscosity and high flash point. The high viscosity interferes with the fuel-injection process in the engine, leading to poor atomization of fuel and inefficient combustion. An oil carrying pipeline is wound around engine exhaust pipe to preheat the oil before supplying it to the injector. This is done simply to increase the oil temperature and reduce the viscosity. The engine operation can also be made smooth and long lasting by using two-tank SVO systems (Chaturvedi et al., 2006). In India, many diesel engine suppliers modify and supply engines to run on SVO for decentralized power generation. Low speed engine (600-1000 RPM) engines are more suitable with fewer maintenance problems compared to normal 1500 RPM diesel engine.
• Conversion of decomposed matter into organic acids
Biogas technology Biogas is a clean fuel produced through anaerobic digestion of a variety of organic wastes: animal, agricultural,
• Decomposition (hydrolysis) of plant or animal matter to break down complex organic materials into simple organic substances
• Conversion of acids into methane gas Biogas consists of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other gases such as hydrogen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen sulfide. The gas mixture is saturated with water vapor and may contain dust particles. The relative percentages of these gases depend on the quality of feed material and the process conditions. The percentage of methane in the gas determines its calorific value, as the other constituents do not contribute to the energy content. The methane content of biogas is appreciably high, at 55-60% with calorific value of the order of 4500-5500 kcal/Nm3. The process temperature affects the rate of digestion, and so it should be maintained in the mesophilic range (30–40°C) with an optimum of 35°C. The rate of biogas production also depends on factors such as the carbon to nitrogen ratio, hydraulic retention time, solid concentration, and types of feedstock. The biogas is burnt in gas stoves for thermal energy. A tailor-made spark ignition engine can operate on 100% gas or can be operated on dual fuel mode to replace up to 75% of liquid fuel (diesel/ bio oil). The gas requirement for power generation with dual-fuel engine is 0.6 m3 / kWh and with 100% biogas engine the gas requirement is 0.75m3 / kWh.
Figure 13: Production process for SVO
23
24
Banerjee, R., 2006, Comparison of options for distributed generation, Energy Policy, 34, 101–11. Bhattacharyya, SC, 2006. Energy access problem of the poor in India: Is rural electrification a remedy? Energy Policy. 34, 3387-3397. Buragohain, B., P. Mahanta, and V. S. Moholkar, 2010, Biomass gasification for decentralized power generation: The Indian perspective, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 73–92. Chaturvedi. O., Mande, S. and Palit. D. 2006. Biofuel promotion in Northeastern region of India. 22nd National Convention of Mechanical Engineers on Energy Technologies-Strategies for Optimal Utilization of Natural Resources, September 9 – 10; The Institution of Engineers (India), Guwahati Ghosh, D., Sagar, A., and Kishore, V.V.N. 2006. Scaling up biomass gasifier use: an application-specific approach. Energy Policy 34, 1566–1582. IEA, 2010, World Energy Outlook 2010, International Energy Agency, Paris. Krishnaswamy, S., 2010. Shifting of Goal Posts – Rural Electrification in India: A progress Report. Vasudha Foundation, New Delhi. Kohli, and Ravi. 2003. Biomass gasification for rural electrification: prospects and challenges. Solar Energy Society of India, 83-101. MNRE, 2004, Test Projects on Village Energy Security; Guidelines for Planning, Implementation and Funding of the Test Projects; Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Government of India, New Delhi MNRE, 2011, Annual Report 2010-11, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India, New Delhi Pachauri S 2007. Global development and energy inequality options; http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/ INF/OPT/Winter07/opt-07wint.pdf; Last accessed on November 20, 2011 Palit D. 2011. Performance assessment of biomass
gasifier based power generation systems implemented under village energy security program in India; In proceedings of the International Conference Advances in Energy Research; December 9-11, 2011; Mumbai: Indian Institute of Bombay. Palit D, R. Malhotra and A. Kumar, 2011, Sustainable model for financial viability of decentralized biomass gasifier based power projects, Energy Policy, 39, 4893–4901. Palit, D and Chaurey, A. 2011. Off-grid rural electrification experiences from South Asia: Status and best practices. Energy for Sustainable Development, doi:10.1016/j. esd.2011.07.004 Parikh, P. 1984. State of the Art Report on Gasification of Biomass, Report submitted to Department of Nonconventional Energy Sources. Delhi: Government of India. TERI, 2009, Impact & Adequacy Assessment Report, National Contract for Economics & Financing, Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks and Policy & Institutional Issues, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi. The World Bank, 2011, India: Biomass for Sustainable Development: Lessons for Decentralized Energy Delivery, The World Bank, India Country Management Unit, New Delhi.
This paper draws, in part, on a research study carried out under the project titled “National Contract for Economics & Financing, Monitoring & Evaluation Frameworks and Policy & Institutional Issues�, with support from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India and The World Bank. The authors would like to thank the MNRE officials, the State Renewable Energy Development Agency officials, members from various PIAs and VECs and operators of the energy production systems implemented under VESP and biomass gasifier system suppliers, who freely shared information as well as their views and insights during the course of interviews with them. Special thanks to Dr. Akanksha Chaurey, Director, Decentralised Electricity Solutions Division, TERI for her valuable inputs during the study and also former TERI colleagues, Dr. Sanjay Mande and Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, who contributed during the field survey of VESP projects. The authors are appreciative to the Centre on Asia and Globalisation and the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy for some of the financial assistance needed to conduct the research interviews, field research, and travel for this project. The authors are also extremely grateful to the National University of Singapore for Faculty Start-up Grant 09-273 as well as the MacArthur Foundation for Asia Security Initiative Grant 08-92777000-GSS, which have supported elements of the work reported here. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, or MacArthur Foundation. Also, the views of the author(s) expressed in this study do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Mr Debajit Palit works in the field of distributed generation, rural electrification policy and regulation, clean energy access, solar photovoltaics and biomass gasification. Currently, working as Fellow at the Decentralized Electricity Division, he is associated with TERI for the last 14 years. He has handled around 25 projects as Team Leader dealing with various aspects such as technology
adaptation, resource assessment & energy planning; project implementation; policy and regulatory studies; monitoring and impact assessment and capacity building. Mr Palit has a wide national and international experience, working in projects for various UN, multilateral, bilateral organisations and national governments, spread across India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines and Thailand in Asia and Ethiopia, Kenya, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Uganda in Africa. He has authored a book on rural electricity distribution franchisees, contributed around 50 technical papers in peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings and edited books and has participated in more than 30 national and international conferences and workshops. He represented TERI in the Sub-group on Distribution including village and household electrification of the 11th Five Year Plan - Working Group on Power, 2006 and contributed during the development of guidelines for the decentralized distributed generation program under the National Rural Electrification Program of the Government of India. He is also in the Solar Lighting Working Group under the Energy for All Partnership of Asian Development Bank. Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is currently a Visiting Associate Professor at Vermont Law School, where he manages the Energy Security and Justice Program at their Institute for Energy & the Environment. His research interests include the barriers to alternative sources of energy supply such as renewable electricity generators and distributed generation, the politics of large-scale energy infrastructure, designing public policy to improve energy security and access to electricity, and building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate change in least developed Asian countries. He is the author or editor of eight books and more than 140 peer reviewed academic articles on various aspects of energy and climate change, and he has presented research at more than 70 international conferences and symposia in the past few years. He is a frequent contributor to Energy Policy, Energy & Environment, Electricity Journal, Energy, and Energy for Sustainable Development. Christopher Cooper is an expert in national and international energy security policy, transmission expansion and community organizing. He has analyzed the energy security implications of megaprojects in emerging economies, including performing an in-depth case study of large desert solar energy for the Asia Research Institute. He has also written extensively on policies to incentivize distributed
25
26
generation of small-scale renewable energy units. Under a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, Chris evaluated the implementation of smart grid pilot programs on low-income and underserved communities in the U.S. As Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC), he provided strategic guidance to federal and state policymakers and nonprofit organizations on innovative infrastructure investments designed to advance energy security while increasing sustainability. His extensive analysis of renewable portfolio standards was instrumental during the 2007 Congressional effort to adopt a national RPS. With official United Nation’s observer status, Chris served as spokesperson for the global nuclear weapons abolition movement during the 2005 U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty renewal conference. He also directed external communications for the United States’ largest public interest group devoted to sustainable city and regional planning. Chris holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Wake Forest University and earned a Master of Arts degree (cum laude) from the University of Miami. Shannon Clarke specializes in the impact of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs on lowincome and rural communities. At the University of North Florida, she researched the socio-economic impact of solar photovoltaic electrification on rural villages in Uttar Pradesh, India. She has analyzed the consequences of Energy Efficiency Block Grants for the National Association of Counties, where she was also instrumental in authoring a guide to financing and developing landfill gas-to-energy projects for U.S. counties. She has also worked as a law clerk in the District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings researching and analyzing state and federal regulations and drafting final orders on public benefits, housing and shelter. Shannon holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology from the University of North Florida. Meredith Crafton specializes in international social justice issues surrounding conventional and nuclear energy generation. She helped coordinate the Government Accountability Project’s Russia Program, organizing a conference on energy policy and whistleblower rights in St. Petersburg, Russia. She has researched and reported on site worker exposure and contractor malfeasance at the Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant, uncovering information used in a 60 Minutes expose’. For VLS’s Environment and Natural Resources Law Clinic, Meredith provided research on Montana’s coal mining law and policy
that was critical to a motion in federal district court. In 2003, she also performed field research on conservation, militarization and revolution in Chiapas, Mexico. Meredith has a Bachelor of Arts degree in sustainability studies from Hampshire College. Jay Eidsness specializes in the ecological implications of energy production on local communities. In 2010, he organized volunteers and local leaders to establish urban community gardens in Peru. He has also analyzed the effects of riparian health on native flora under a project funded by the United States Forest Service. As a Student Certified Attorney for Central Minnesota Legal Services, he has argued motions on housing and consumer protection for underserved families in Minnesota. Jay earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in communication and biology from St. John’s University. Katie Johnson has an expertise in renewable energy markets and the effects of energy production on resource availability. For the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Katie authored a report for the Ohio General Assembly recommending policies for stimulating the states renewable energy market. She has worked with Dr. Allen Prindle analyzing the relationship between population growth and water well usage and evaluated how Ohio’s energy regulations affect the state’s water quality. She has studied in France at the Universite de Toulouse Il-Le Mirail and in the Netherlands at the University of Maastricht. Katie graduated summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from Otterbein University. David Zoppo specializes in the energy justice and sustainability implications of multinational corporations. For the ABB Group, North America’s leading power and automation technology company, David evaluated internal company safety regulations, reviewed the sustainability of the company’s supply chain management procedures and drafted recommendations to improve its compliance with state regulations. He has worked in refugee camps in South Africa and teamed with the AIDS Law Project to advocate for the civil and economic rights of people displaced during a series of xenophobic attacks there in 2008. David holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Distribution grid from the biomass gasifier, village Orissa
Energy Governance Case Studies Series 1. Lighting Laos: The governance implications of the Laos rural electrification program 2. Gers just want to have fun: Evaluating the renewable energy and rural electricity access project (REAP) in Mongolia 3. Living up to energy governance benchmarks: The Xeketam hydropower project in Laos 4. Settling the score: The implications of the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) in Malaysia 5. What went wrong? Examining the Teacher’s Solar Lighting Project in Papua New Guinea 6. Summoning the sun: Evaluating China’s Renewable Energy Development Project (REDP) 7. Rural energy development on the “Roof of the World”: Lessons from microhydro village electrification in Nepal 8. The radiance of Soura Shakti: Installing two million solar home systems in Bangladesh 9. Untapped potential: The difficulties of the Small Renewable Energy Power (SREP) Programme in Malaysia 10. Harvesting the elements: The achievements of Sri Lanka’s Energy Services Delivery Project 11. Commercializing solar energy: Lessons from the Indonesia Solar Home Systems Project 12. Towards household energy security: The Village Energy Security Program in India
27
Strategic partners
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is an autonomous, professional graduate school of the National University of Singapore. Its mission is to help educate and train the next generation of Asian policymakers and leaders, with the objective of raising the standards of governance throughout the region, improving the lives of its people and, in so doing, contribute to the transformation of Asia. For more details on the LKY School, please visit www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg