2006年-世界发展银行全球_Asmara_Power_Distribution_and_Rural_Electrification_Project___Pre-electrification_Survey_Analysis_24页_1mb

Asmara Power Distribution and Rural Electrification Project Summary

Core Content

The Asmara Power Distribution and Rural Electrification Project aimed to evaluate the potential impacts of electrification in four project areas (Keren, Barentu, Dekemhare, and Adi Keih) by conducting a pre-electrification survey in 2005. The survey covered 18 villages and 398 households, with the goal of setting a baseline for monitoring and evaluation. The report, prepared by Kyran O'Sullivan and Kevin Fitzgerald, provides insights into current energy use, household expenditures, and the potential benefits of grid electricity.

Main Findings

• Energy Expenditure Comparison: Households in the project area spend on average 76 Nakfa/month (US$ 5/mo) on lighting (kerosene, candles, batteries), which is comparable to their spending on dry cell batteries. These expenditures serve as a proxy for their willingness and ability to pay for grid electricity.

• Affordability of Grid Electricity: Even the poorest households appear to be able to afford grid electricity at the national tariff. For example, the average expenditure of 76 Nakfa/month on lighting could cover 33 kWh/month, which is sufficient for basic lighting needs at a cost of 37 Nakfa/month (US$ 2.40).

• Lighting Substitution Potential: Electrification could significantly increase lighting levels. For instance, households that currently use kerosene and candles could see a 20-fold increase in lighting levels with grid electricity. This would reduce lighting fuel and battery expenditures by more than half (from US$ 5 to US$ 2).

• Productive Uses of Energy: Households using gasoline or diesel generators and irrigation pump sets spend a large portion of their income on these activities. These costs are often rivaling or exceeding other household expenditures, and electrification could substantially reduce these costs.

• Survey Methodology and Recommendations: The survey was stratified by income group, but it was noted that the sample frame was purposive, potentially leading to biased results. To improve project evaluation in the second round, the report recommends including a control group from outside the project area. Additionally, it suggests expanding the survey to include more data on housing type, water supply, sanitation, health, education, biomass fuel use, land cultivation, and distances to key services.

Key Information

• Exchange Rate (June 2005): 1 USD = 15.375 Nakfa
• Project Timeline:
  • Survey Conducted: July to September 2005
  • Electrification Period: 2006–2007
  • Project Closure: Late 2008 or early 2009
• Project Cost: Approximately $11.5 million
• Population: Around 4,200 households and 22,500 people in the 59 targeted villages
• Income Levels:
  • Higher Income: Average annual per capita income of Nakfa 4,432 (US$ 288)
  • Medium Income: Average annual per capita income of Nakfa 2,315 (US$ 151)
  • Lower Income: Average annual per capita income of Nakfa 1,054 (US$ 69)
• Energy Use Patterns:
  • Kerosene and Candles: Used for lighting, with hurricane lamps being the most common and efficient.
  • Dry Cell Batteries: Widely used, especially for radios and flashlights, with 76 Nakfa/month spent on batteries by lower income households.
  • Electricity Users: Only 26 households currently use electricity, with average monthly bills of 47.5 Nakfa (US$ 3.10), and electricity usage limited to less than 15 kWh/month.
• Tariff Rates:
  • National Tariff: 6 Nakfa/month (standing charge) + 2.15 Nakfa/kWh
  • Existing Systems: Some municipal and private systems charge higher rates (e.g., 2.75 Nakfa/kWh in Akrur and Korbaris), which may be unsustainable.

Survey Recommendations

• Second Round Survey Options:
  • Default Option: Resurvey original households after electrification.
  • Preferred Option: Include both original and a comparison group from outside the project area.
  • Alternative Option: Survey newly drawn households if the original sample does not represent the population.
• Survey Enhancements:
  • Add sections on housing type, water and sanitation, health, education, biomass fuel use, land cultivation, and distances to services.
  • Use ex-post data to evaluate the actual impact of electrification.

Conclusion

The survey highlights that electrification could offer significant benefits, especially in terms of lighting quality and cost savings, and that households across income levels are generally capable of affording grid electricity. However, the methodology needs improvement to ensure accurate evaluation, particularly through the inclusion of a control group and more comprehensive data collection. The findings suggest that grid electrification may not only improve quality of life but also reduce the financial burden on households for alternative energy sources.