energy governance case study #12
Upload: lee-kuan-yew-school-of-public-policy-national-university-of-singapore
Post on 15-Mar-2016
224 views
DESCRIPTION
Towards Household Energy Security: The Village Energy Security Program in IndiaTRANSCRIPT
2
Biogas plant in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra
3Contents
Executi ve summary 4
Introducti on 5
The energy situati on in rural India 5
Research methods 7
Background and descripti on 8
Benefi ts 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
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 gasifi-
ers, 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 man-
aging 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 agricul-
tural 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 suc-
cess, and provide seven important lessons for policymak-
ers 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 technolo-
gies can compete with fossil fuel systems. Second, some
renewable energy technologies, such as biomass sys-
tems, 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 cohesive-
ness, and energy demand when they structure demo-
cratic and decentralized energy programs. Fourth, policy-
makers 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 main-
tenance. 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
5
India is an overwhelmingly rural country—approxi-
mately 70% of the total population lives in rural areas.
For this reason, India’s economic and social develop-
ment 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 eco-
nomic 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 govern-
ment’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 com-
mercial 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 lique-
fied 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 stakehold-
ers. 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 mod-
ern fuels—can facilitate economic and social develop-
ment 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 unavail-
able 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.
6
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. Low-
income groups appear to use electricity mostly for light-
ing, 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 popu-
lation still does not have access to these fuels. In 2007-
08, the National Sample Survey Organization (“NSSO”)
conducted a Household Consumer Expenditure Survey
and found that more than three quarters of rural house-
holds 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 house-
holds and 90% of scheduled tribe households use fire-
wood and chips. Furthermore, about 61 million rural
households use kerosene for lighting.2 However, due to
a lack of adequate transportation infrastructure, kero-
sene 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 objec-
tive 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.
Figure 2: Cooking energy use in rural householdsSource: National Sample Survey Organisation, 2007-08
7
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 stakehold-
ers, 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 proj-
ect. 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 anal-
yse 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 activi-
ties the team undertook.
Figure 3: A focus group discussion in the village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh
8
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 ven-
tilated 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 techno-
logically matured and could not be effectively serviced.
Furthermore, because these programs were mostly
“target driven” rather than “demand driven,” com-
munities 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 gener-
ally unsuccessful.
With Urjagram and IREP examples in the background,
the Ministry created the VESP—a rural energy pro-
gram that utilizes locally available renewable energy
resources to address the total energy needs for cook-
ing, 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.
Figure 4: Community meeting in the village of Jawahar, Maharashtra
9
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 com-
munity’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 opera-
tional program.
As demonstrated in our analysis below, the success of
the VESP program largely has depended on (1) appropri-
ate institutional mechanisms (2) reliable technologies
that suit local requirements (3) successful demonstra-
tion 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 renew-
able energy sources such as biomass is key to enhancing
power supply in rural areas and to extending electrifica-
tion 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 pro-
grams 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 decen-
tralized 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 require-
ments, including cooking, lighting and productive
uses; and
4. establish a dedicated tree plantation and manage-
ment 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 pro-
ductive 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 build-
ing to effectively manage the project.
The MNRE envisioned that the VESP, by delivering com-
prehensive energy services to rural villages, would facili-
tate 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
10
resources, (2) sustaining economic development, and (3)
preventing environmental degradation.
Technologies
In one form or another, biomass is available in substan-
tial quantities in the rural areas, so the VESP primarily
focused on implementing energy production systems
based on either biomass gasifiers and/or straight veg-
etable 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 dis-
cusses 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 con-
sists 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 oper-
ation and management (O&M). The VEC acts as custo-
dian 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 off-
grid systems are free of licensing obligations and regu-
latory 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 bio-
mass fuel—either on a rotation basis from the project
beneficiaries or by purchasing it from the biomass col-
lection 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 contribu-
tions—to sustain the project’s operation and manage-
ment. Thereafter, a VEC deposits monthly user charges
in this account. The Fund is managed by a VEC with two
Figure 5: Biomass gasifier in the village of Dicholi, Maharashtra
11
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
Figure 6: Biofuel engine in Jawahar village, Maharashtra
Table 1: Summary of transactions between key entities in the VESP model
Source: TERI 2009
Serial number
Entities Offers To Expects
in return Instrument
1 Beneficiaries Fuel VEC Payment for fuel supply –
2 VEC Electricity Beneficiaries Payment for electricity Negotiated tariff
3 Beneficiaries Payment VEC Reliable Electricity Connection agreement
4 OEM AMC VEC Payment AMC agreement
12
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 assess-
ment 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).
Notwithstanding these challenges, the VESP did achieve
a collection of institutional, technological, and financial
benefits summarized by this section of the report.
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 main-
tenance. Selected PIAs pursued innovative strategies to
build the technical capacity and competency of the opera-
tors, enabling them to run the system continuously and
thereby improve overall system performance. This also
helped to build confidence among communities, facilitat-
ing a willingness to pay for regular and reliable electricity.
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.
Figure 7: The Village Energy Committee Model of the VESPSource: TERI 2009
13
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 pre-
installation, 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 on-
call 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 com-
missioning 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 imple-
mented 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 gov-
ernment 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 usu-
ally 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
Table 2: Status of VESP projects surveyedSource: TERI 2009
RegionNumber of
projects Number of comissioned
projectsNo. 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
14
area and to pay for the electricity consumed. The agree-
ment also specifies actions for breach of the agreed
terms and conditions.
Technological performance
Considering their remoteness and various other inher-
ent technical and institutional problems, we found
project run-time to be satisfactory in many projects that
the NGOs managed, which indicates that the technolo-
gies disseminated under the program were robust (Palit
2011). Runtime was as high as 70% in some well-per-
forming 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 Science-
Bangalore, and Ankur Scientific Energy Technologies-
Baroda 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 function-
ality 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 proj-
ect 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 ben-
eficiaries 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
Figure 8: Maintenance procedures for a gasifier written on the wall of the gasifier shed in the state of Orissa
15
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 light-
ing 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 propor-
tional 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 manage-
ment 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 plant-
ing, 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 multi-
stakeholder 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 main-
tenance (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 sur-
rounding 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 pro-
vided by the Forest Department from lops and tops. In
Figure 9: Village map grid on the wall of the gasifier shed in the Village of Kumedhin, Madhya Pradesh
16
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 aver-
age 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 socio-
economic 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 com-
paratively better where villagers have greater income
opportunities—either existing income generation activi-
ties (e.g. a flour mill) or activities introduced after elec-
trification 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 (repre-
sentation in VEC) helped in developing the required syn-
ergy between village development funds and VESP fund-
ing 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 capac-
ity 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 sys-
tems are Rs 5.60/kWh and Rs 4.29/kWh respectively at a
CUF of 33 percent (Palit et. al 2011).
Figure 10: Energy plantations in the state of Orissa
17
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 chal-
lenge, 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 haul-
ers. 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.
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 pow-
ered 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 electric-
ity to domestic and commercial consumers to meet the
expenses for sustainable operation.
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 pro-
moted 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.
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 honey-
processing unit, which contributes to the financial viabil-
ity 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 effective-
ness of the VESP.
Institutional performance
Many of the projects faced sustainability challenges.
This is mainly because of less concentrated electric-
ity demand in villages, low economic activity (implying
lower electricity demand), lower consumer ability to
pay (in the absence of cash income opportunities), dif-
ficulty in operation and maintenance, limited technical
knowledge of VECs, and, most importantly, weak fuel
supply chain linkages. Any combination of the above fac-
tors 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.
Further, a lack of clarity about the roles and responsi-
bilities 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 man-
age decentralized projects effectively, especially where
projects are executed by the Forest Department with
the thinking that VESP projects will be similar to other
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 gen-
eration over the course of several months (Palit 2011).
While there may be non-technical reasons for this varia-
tion (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 opera-
tional 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 after-
sales service.
During field visits and interactions with PIAs and the
community, the team also found great demand for irri-
gation pump sets (~ 5 to 10 HP Capacity), indicating that
village demands could not be met by the installed low-
capacity 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 pro-
ductive 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 mainte-
nance, 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 contrib-
utes to substantial net downtime.
Water tanks to supply clean water for cooling and clean-
ing of the gas are improperly built in almost all the proj-
ects. 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 operat-
ing the system.
In many SVO systems, oil is directly fed to the engine
without passing through a filter. This can lead to long-
term 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 bio-
mass 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 col-
lected from forests yield better prices in the local mar-
ket 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
19
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-pay-
ment, 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 produc-
tion 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 cook-
ing 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 develop-
ment 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 technolo-
gies and systems. A policy framework and clear vision for
all stakeholders was lacking for the VESP, yet is neces-
sary for large scale implementation. Additionally, short-
term 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 over-
come 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
20
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 sup-
pliers reported outsourcing the majority of the equip-
ment 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 out-
sourced. 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 regard-
ing the benefits of electricity helps ensure community
investment. “Ownership” of the project is necessi-
tated by extensive IEC (Information, Education, and
Communication) activities about how access to elec-
tricity 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 envi-
ronment, 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 suffi-
cient strength of local governance and a social cohesive-
ness in the village. However, the institutional arrange-
ments 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
Figure 11: A more sustainable VESP model
Source: TERI 2009
21
appropriate institutional structure, stakeholder consul-
tation 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 pan-
chayats. 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 com-
mercial 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 commu-
nal 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.
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 cook-
stoves 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 thermo-
chemical reactions. A biomass gasifier system usually
consists of a biomass preparation unit, a biomass gasifier
reactor, gas cooling and cleaning system, internal com-
bustion engine suitable for operation with producer gas
as main fuel, electric generator, and electricity distribu-
tion 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 pro-
cesses - 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 oxi-
dation 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
23
generation mainly in the capacity range of 10 HP systems.
The fuel for the engines are based on collection of natu-
rally 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.
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.
Biogas technology
Biogas is a clean fuel produced through anaerobic diges-
tion of a variety of organic wastes: animal, agricultural,
domestic, and industrial. Anaerobic digestion comprises
three steps.
• Decomposition (hydrolysis) of plant or animal matter
to break down complex organic materials into simple
organic substances
• Conversion of decomposed matter into organic acids
• 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 par-
ticles. 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 cal-
orific 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 concen-
tration, 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
24
Banerjee, R., 2006, Comparison of options for distrib-
uted 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 genera-
tion: 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 pro-
ceedings 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.
25
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 opera-
tors of the energy production systems implemented under
VESP and biomass gasifier system suppliers, who freely
shared information as well as their views and insights dur-
ing 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 assis-
tance 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 08-92777-
000-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 electri-
fication 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, contrib-
uted around 50 technical papers in peer-reviewed jour-
nals, 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 infrastruc-
ture, 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 vari-
ous aspects of energy and climate change, and he has pre-
sented research at more than 70 international conferences
and symposia in the past few years. He is a frequent con-
tributor to Energy Policy, Energy & Environment, Electricity
Journal, Energy, and Energy for Sustainable Development.
Christopher Cooper is an expert in
national and international energy secu-
rity 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 des-
ert solar energy for the Asia Research Institute. He has also
written extensively on policies to incentivize distributed
26
generation of small-scale renewable energy units. Under
a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, Chris evalu-
ated 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 analy-
sis of renewable portfolio standards was instrumental dur-
ing 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 com-
munications 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 low-
income 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 regu-
lations 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 sur-
rounding conventional and nuclear
energy generation. She helped coor-
dinate 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, uncover-
ing 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 ecologi-
cal implications of energy production
on local communities. In 2010, he orga-
nized 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.
27Energy Governance Case Studies Series
1. Lighti ng Laos: The governance implicati ons of the Laos rural electrifi cati on program
2. Gers just want to have fun: Evaluati ng 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. Sett ling the score: The implicati ons of the Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy (SCORE) in Malaysia
5. What went wrong? Examining the Teacher’s Solar Lighti ng Project in Papua New Guinea
6. Summoning the sun: Evaluati ng China’s Renewable Energy Development Project (REDP)
7. Rural energy development on the “Roof of the World”: Lessons from microhydro village electrifi cati on in Nepal
8. The radiance of Soura Shakti : Installing two million solar home systems in Bangladesh
9. Untapped potenti al: The diffi culti es of the Small Renewable Energy Power (SREP) Programme in Malaysia
10. Harvesti ng 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
Distributi on grid from the biomass gasifi er, village Orissa
The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy is an autonomous,
professional graduate school of the Nati onal University of
Singapore. Its mission is to help educate and train the next
generati on of Asian policymakers and leaders, with the objec-
ti ve of raising the standards of governance throughout the
region, improving the lives of its people and, in so doing, con-
tribute to the transformati on of Asia. For more details on the
LKY School, please visit www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg
Strategic partners